---
title: "City of God · De civitate Dei"
author: "Augustine"
translator: "Marcus Dods"
languages: [la, en]
shelf: "Church Fathers"
url: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/
cite: "Augustine, tr. Marcus Dods, City of God · De civitate Dei. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/"
---

# City of God · De civitate Dei

*Augustine, tr. Marcus Dods*

“Two loves have made two cities.” Augustine’s Latin, in Hoffmann’s critical text, beside Dods’s English, chapter by chapter.

> Latin: Augustine, De civitate Dei, ed. Emanuel Hoffmann, CSEL 40 (Vienna: Tempsky, 1899–1900), as encoded by the Open Greek and Latin project, University of Leipzig (stoa0040.stoa003.opp-lat3, CC BY-SA 4.0); apparatus omitted.

> English: Marcus Dods, The City of God (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first series, vol. 2, 1887).

> Chapters are matched one to one except where the two editions divide them differently; within a chapter the Latin sentences are shared out over the English paragraphs by position.

## Contents

1. [Augustin censures the pagans, who attributed the calamities of the world, and especially the recent sack of Rome by the Goths, to the Christian religion, and its prohibition of the worship of the gods.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/1.md)
2. [That It is Quite Contrary to the Usage of War, that the Victors Should Spare the Vanquished for the Sake of Their Gods.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/2.md)
3. [That the Romans Did Not Show Their Usual Sagacity When They Trusted that They Would Be Benefited by the Gods Who Had Been Unable to Defend Troy.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/3.md)
4. [Of the Asylum of Juno in Troy, Which Saved No One from the Greeks; And of the Churches of the Apostles, Which Protected from the Barbarians All Who Fled to Them.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/4.md)
5. [Of the Advantages and Disadvantages Which Often Indiscriminately Accrue to Good and Wicked Men.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/5.md)
6. [Of the Captivity of the Saints, and that Divine Consolation Never Failed Them Therein.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/6.md)
7. [Of Lucretia, Who Put an End to Her Life Because of the Outrage Done Her.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/7.md)
8. [That in that Virtue in Which Regulus Excels Cato, Christians are Pre-Eminently Distinguished.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/8.md)
9. [Of the Establishment of Scenic Entertainments.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/9.md)
10. [That the Worshippers of the Gods Never Received from Them Any Healthy Moral Precepts, and that in Celebrating Their Worship All Sorts of Impurities Were Practiced.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/10.md)
11. [That the Romans, by Refusing to the Poets the Same License in Respect of Men Which They Allowed Them in the Case of the Gods, Showed a More Delicate Sensitiveness Regarding Themselves than Regarding the Gods.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/11.md)
12. [Of the Corruption Which Had Grown Upon the Roman Republic Before Christ Abolished the Worship of the Gods.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/12.md)
13. [Of the Deeds of Sylla, in Which the Demons Boasted that He Had Their Help.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/13.md)
14. [The external calamities of Rome.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/14.md)
15. [Of the Destruction of Ilium by Fimbria, a Lieutenant of Marius.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/15.md)
16. [By What Right or Agreement The Romans Obtained Their First Wives.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/16.md)
17. [Of the First Roman Consuls, the One of Whom 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.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/17.md)
18. [Of the Destruction of the Saguntines, Who Received No Help from the Roman Gods, Though Perishing on Account of Their Fidelity to Rome.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/18.md)
19. [Of the Victory of Sylla, the Avenger of the Cruelties of Marius.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/19.md)
20. [How Like Kingdoms Without Justice are to Robberies.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/20.md)
21. [Concerning the Many Gods Whom the Pagan Doctors Defend as Being One and the Same Jove.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/21.md)
22. [With What Reason They Who Think Felicity and Fortune Goddesses Have Distinguished Them.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/22.md)
23. [Of the Scenic Plays, the Celebration of Which the Gods Have Exacted from Their Worshippers.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/23.md)
24. [Concerning the Kingdom of the Jews, Which Was Founded by the One and True God, and Preserved by Him as Long as They Remained in the True Religion.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/24.md)
25. [Concerning the Choosing of a Day for Marriage, or for Planting, or Sowing.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/25.md)
26. [Concerning Those Who Call by the Name of Fate, Not the Position of the Stars, But the Connection of Causes Which Depends on the Will of God.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/26.md)
27. [Concerning the Foreknowledge of God and the Free Will of Man, in Opposition to the Definition of Cicero.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/27.md)
28. [By What Virtues the Ancient Romans Merited that the True God, Although They Did Not Worship Him, Should Enlarge Their Empire.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/28.md)
29. [Concerning the Love of Praise, Which, Though It is a Vice, is Reckoned a Virtue, Because by It Greater Vice is Restrained.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/29.md)
30. [How Far Christians Ought to Be from Boasting, If They Have Done Anything for the Love of the Eternal Country, When the Romans Did Such Great Things for Human Glory and a Terrestrial City.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/30.md)
31. [The Durations and Issues of War Depend on the Will of God.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/31.md)
32. [What We are to Believe that Varro Thought Concerning the Gods of the Nations, Whose Various Kinds and Sacred Rites He Has Shown to Be Such that He Would Have Acted More Reverently Towards Them Had He Been Altogether Silent Concerning Them.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/32.md)
33. [Concerning the Likeness and Agreement of the Fabulous and Civil Theologies.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/33.md)
34. [That When Once the Vanity of the Gods of the Nations Has Been Exposed, It Cannot Be Doubted that They are Unable to Bestow Eternal Life on Any One, When They Cannot Afford Help Even with Respect to the Things Of this Temporal Life.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/34.md)
35. [Concerning the Opinion of Varro, that God is the Soul of the World, Which Nevertheless, in Its Various Parts, Has Many Souls Whose Nature is Divine.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/35.md)
36. [Concerning the Surnames of Jupiter, Which are Referred Not to Many Gods, But to One and the Same God.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/36.md)
37. [Concerning Apollo and Diana, and the Other Select Gods Whom They Would Have to Be Parts of the World.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/37.md)
38. [Concerning the Earth, Which Varro Affirms to Be a Goddess, Because that Soul of the World Which He Thinks to Be God Pervades Also This Lowest Part of His Body, and Imparts to It a Divine Force.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/38.md)
39. [That All Things Which the Physical Theologists Have Referred to the World and Its Parts, They Ought to Have Referred to the One True God.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/39.md)
40. [That the Question of Natural Theology is to Be Discussed with Those Philosophers Who Sought a More Excellent Wisdom.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/40.md)
41. [Concerning that Philosophy Which Has Come Nearest to the Christian Faith.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/41.md)
42. [What Apuleius the Platonist Thought Concerning the Manners and Actions of Demons.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/42.md)
43. [That We Must, Notwithstanding the Opinion of Apuleius, Reject the Worship of Demons.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/43.md)
44. [The Point at Which the Discussion Has Arrived, and What Remains to Be Handled.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/44.md)
45. [Whether the Intercession of the Demons Can Secure for Men the Friendship of the Celestial Gods.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/45.md)
46. [Whether It is Reasonable in the Platonists to Determine that the Celestial Gods Decline Contact with Earthly Things and Intercourse with Men, Who Therefore Require the Intercession of the Demons.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/46.md)
47. [That the Name of Gods is Falsely Given to the Gods of the Gentiles, Though Scripture Applies It Both to the Holy Angels and Just Men.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/47.md)
48. [Of the True and Perfect Sacrifice.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/48.md)
49. [That the One God is to Be Worshipped Not Only for the Sake of Eternal Blessings, But Also in Connection with Temporal Prosperity, Because All Things are Regulated by His Providence.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/49.md)
50. [Of the Power Delegated to Demons for the Trial and Glorification of the Saints, Who Conquer Not by Propitiating the Spirits of the Air, But by Abiding in God.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/50.md)
51. [How It is that Porphyry Has Been So Blind as Not to Recognize the True Wisdom—Christ.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/51.md)
52. [Augustin 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.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/52.md)
53. [What We are to Understand of God’s Resting on the Seventh Day, After the Six Days’ Work.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/53.md)
54. [Of the Ranks and Differences of the Creatures, Estimated by Their Utility, or According to the Natural Gradations of Being.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/54.md)
55. [Of the Divine Trinity, and the Indications of Its Presence Scattered Everywhere Among Its Works.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/55.md)
56. [Of the Opinion that the Angels Were Created Before the World.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/56.md)
57. [That in All Natures, of Every Kind and Rank, God is Glorified.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/57.md)
58. [How These Persons are to Be Answered, Who Find Fault with the Creation of Man on the Score of Its Recent Date.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/58.md)
59. [Of the Impiety of Those Who Assert that the Souls Which Enjoy True and Perfect Blessedness, Must Yet Again and Again in These Periodic Revolutions Return to Labor and Misery.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/59.md)
60. [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 Honored and Rewarded, and that Which Was to Be Condemned and Punished.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/60.md)
61. [Of the Death Which the Unbaptized Suffer for the Confession of Christ.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/61.md)
62. [That Adam in His Sin Forsook God Ere God Forsook Him, and that His Falling Away From God Was the First Death of the Soul.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/62.md)
63. [That the Bodies of the Saints Shall After the Resurrection Be Spiritual, and Yet Flesh Shall Not Be Changed into Spirit.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/63.md)
64. [Of Carnal Life, Which is to Be Understood Not Only of Living in Bodily Indulgence, But Also of Living in the Vices of the Inner Man.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/64.md)
65. [That the Sin is Caused Not by the Flesh, But by the Soul, and that the Corruption Contracted from Sin is Not Sin But Sin’s Punishment.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/65.md)
66. [That the Opinion of the Platonists Regarding the Nature of Body and Soul is Not So Censurable as that of the Manichæans, But that Even It is Objectionable, Because It Ascribes the Origin of Vices to the Nature of The Flesh.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/66.md)
67. [Of the Perturbations of the Soul Which Appear as Right Affections in the Life of the Righteous.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/67.md)
68. [Of the Justice of the Punishment with Which Our First Parents Were Visited for Their Disobedience.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/68.md)
69. [Whether Generation Should Have Taken Place Even in Paradise Had Man Not Sinned, or Whether There Should Have Been Any Contention There Between Chastity and Lust.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/69.md)
70. [Of the Two Lines of the Human Race Which from First to Last Divide It.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/70.md)
71. [What Cain’s Reason Was for Building a City So Early in the History of the Human Race.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/71.md)
72. [That the Years in Those Ancient Times Were of the Same Length as Our Own.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/72.md)
73. [How It is that Cain’s Line Terminates in the Eighth Generation, While Noah, Though Descended from the Same Father, Adam, is Found to Be the Tenth from Him.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/73.md)
74. [That the Ark Which Noah Was Ordered to Make Figures In Every Respect Christ and the Church.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/74.md)
75. [Of the Generations of the Three Sons of Noah](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/75.md)
76. [Whether We are to Believe in the Antipodes.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/76.md)
77. [Of the Order and Nature of the Promises of God Which Were Made to Abraham.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/77.md)
78. [Of the Meaning of the Sacrifice Abraham Was Commanded to Offer When He Supplicated to Be Taught About Those Things He Had Believed.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/78.md)
79. [Of Isaac, Who Was Born According to the Promise, Whose Name Was Given on Account of the Laughter of Both Parents.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/79.md)
80. [Of Jacob’s Mission to Mesopotamia to Get a Wife, and of the Vision Which He Saw in a Dream by the Way, and of His Getting Four Women When He Sought One Wife.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/80.md)
81. [Of the Prophetic Age.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/81.md)
82. [Of Those Things Which a Man of God Spake by the Spirit to Eli the Priest, Signifying that the Priesthood Which Had Been Appointed According to Aaron Was to Be Taken Away.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/82.md)
83. [How Different the Acts in the Kingdom of the Earthly Jerusalem are from Those Which God Had Promised, So that the Truth of the Promise Should Be Understood to Pertain to the Glory of the Other King and Kingdom.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/83.md)
84. [Of the 3d, 41st, 15th, and 68th Psalms, in Which the Death and Resurrection of the Lord are Prophesied.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/84.md)
85. [Of Those Things Down to the Times of the Saviour Which Have Been Discussed in the Seventeen Books.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/85.md)
86. [When the City of Athens Was Founded, and What Reason Varro Assigns for Its Name.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/86.md)
87. [Of the Fall of the Kingdom of Argos, When Picus the Son of Saturn First Received His Father’s Kingdom of Laurentum.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/87.md)
88. [Of the Succession of the Line of Kings Among the Israelites After the Times of the Judges.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/88.md)
89. [Of the Erythræan Sibyl, Who is Known to Have Sung Many Things About Christ More Plainly Than the Other Sibyls.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/89.md)
90. [That the Seven Sages Flourished in the Reign of Romulus, When the Ten Tribes Which Were Called Israel Were Led into Captivity by the Chaldeans, and Romulus, When Dead, Had Divine Honors Conferred on Him.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/90.md)
91. [Of the Predictions Concerning the Salvation of the World in Christ, in Obadiah, Nahum, and Habakkuk.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/91.md)
92. [That Prophetic Records are Found Which are More Ancient Than Any Fountain of the Gentile Philosophy.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/92.md)
93. [That the Jews Ceased to Have Prophets After the Rebuilding of the Temple, and from that Time Until the Birth of Christ Were Afflicted with Continual Adversity, to Prove that the Building of Another Temple Had Been Promised by Prophetic Voices.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/93.md)
94. [Whether We Should Believe What Some Think, That, as the Ten Persecutions Which are Past Have Been Fulfilled, There Remains No Other Beyond the Eleventh, Which Must Happen in the Very Time of Antichrist.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/94.md)
95. [What the Christians Believe Regarding the Supreme Good and Evil, in Opposition to the Philosophers, Who Have Maintained that the Supreme Good is in Themselves.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/95.md)
96. [Of the Happiness of the Eternal Peace, Which Constitutes the End or True Perfection of the Saints.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/96.md)
97. [How Different the Uncertainty of the New Academy is from the Certainty of the Christian Faith.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/97.md)
98. [That Where There is No True Religion There are No True Virtues.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/98.md)
99. [That Proofs of the Last Judgment Will Be Adduced, First from the New Testament, and Then from the Old.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/99.md)
100. [What the Reign of the Saints with Christ for a Thousand Years Is, and How It Differs from the Eternal Kingdom.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/100.md)
101. [Of the New Heaven and the New Earth.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/101.md)
102. [What is Meant by the Good Going Out to See the Punishment of the Wicked.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/102.md)
103. [That the Law of Moses Must Be Spiritually Understood to Preclude the Damnable Murmurs of a Carnal Interpretation.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/103.md)
104. [Whether Bodily Suffering Necessarily Terminates in the Destruction of the Flesh.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/104.md)
105. [That All Marvels are Not of Nature’s Production, But that Some are Due to Human Ingenuity and Others to Diabolic Contrivance.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/105.md)
106. [Of Hell, and the Nature of Eternal Punishments.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/106.md)
107. [Against the Opinion of Those Who Think that the Punishments of the Wicked After Death are Purgatorial.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/107.md)
108. [That Everything Which the Grace of God Does in the Way of Rescuing Us from the Inveterate Evils in Which We are Sunk, Pertains to the Future World, in Which All Things are Made New.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/108.md)
109. [Against Those Who are of Opinion that the Punishment Neither of the Devil Nor of Wicked Men Shall Be Eternal.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/109.md)
110. [Against the Belief of Those Who Think that the Sins Which Have Been Accompanied with Almsgiving Will Do Them No Harm.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/110.md)
111. [Against the Wise Men of the World, Who Fancy that the Earthly Bodies of Men Cannot Be Transferred to a Heavenly Habitation.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/111.md)
112. [Of Miracles Which Were Wrought that the World Might Believe in Christ, and Which Have Not Ceased Since the World Believed.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/112.md)
113. [That All the Miracles Which are Done by Means of the Martyrs in the Name of Christ Testify to that Faith Which the Martyrs Had in Christ.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/113.md)
114. [What is Meant by the Conforming of the Saints to the Image of The Son of God.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/114.md)
115. [Of the Miseries and Ills to Which the Human Race is Justly Exposed Through the First Sin, and from Which None Can Be Delivered Save by Christ’s Grace.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/115.md)
116. [What Plato or Labeo, or Even Varro, Might Have Contributed to the True Faith of the Resurrection, If They Had Adopted One Another’s Opinions into One Scheme.](https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/116.md)

## 1. Augustin censures the pagans, who attributed the calamities of the world, and especially the recent sack of Rome by the Goths, to the Christian religion, and its prohibition of the worship of the gods.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/1/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/1/#p-N

[¶0] The City of God.

> Latin: De civitate Dei

[¶1] Book I.

> Latin: Liber I

[¶2] Argument—Augustin censures the pagans, who attributed the calamities of the world, and especially the recent sack of Rome by the Goths, to the Christian religion, and its prohibition of the worship of the gods. He speaks of the blessings and ills of life, which then, as always, happened to good and bad men alike. Finally, he rebukes the shamelessness of those who cast up to the Christians that their women had been violated by the soldiers.

### Preface, Explaining His Design in Undertaking This Work.

[¶4] The glorious city of God is my theme in this work, which you, my dearest son Marcellinus, suggested, and which is due to you by my promise. I have undertaken its defence against those who prefer their own gods to the Founder of this city,—a city surpassingly glorious, whether we view it as it still lives by faith in this fleeting course of time, and sojourns as a stranger in the midst of the ungodly, or as it shall dwell in the fixed stability of its eternal seat, which it now with patience waits for, expecting until “righteousness shall return unto judgment,” and it obtain, by virtue of its excellence, final victory and perfect peace. A great work this, and an arduous; but God is my helper. For I am aware what ability is requisite to persuade the proud how great is the virtue of humility, which raises us, not by a quite human arrogance, but by a divine grace, above all earthly dignities that totter on this shifting scene. For the King and Founder of this city of which we speak, has in Scripture uttered to His people a dictum of the divine law in these words: “God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.” But this, which is God’s prerogative, the inflated ambition of a proud spirit also affects, and dearly loves that this be numbered among its attributes, to

> Latin: Gloriosissimam ciuitatem Dei siue in hoc temporum cursu, cum inter inpios peregrinatur ex fide uiuens, siue in illa stabilitate sedis aeternae, quam nunc expectat per patientiam, quoadusque iustitia conuertatur in iudicium, deinceps adeptura per excellentiam uictoria ultima et pace perfecta, hoc opere ad te instituto et mea [ad te] promissione debito defendere aduersus eos, qui conditori eius deos suos praeferunt, fili carissime Marcelline, suscepi, magnum opus et arduum, sed Deus adiutor noster est. Nam scio quibus uiribus opus sit. ut persuadeatur superbis quanta sit uirtus humilitatis, qua fit ut omnia terrena cacumina temporali mobilitate nutantia non humano usurpata fastu, sed diuina gratia donata celsitudo transcendat. Rex enim et conditor ciuitatis huius, de qua loqui instituimus, in scriptura populi sui sententiam diuinae legis aperuit, qua dictum est: Deus superbis resistit, humilibus autem dat gratiam. Hoc uero, quod Dei est, superbae quoque animae spiritus inflatus adfectat amatque sibi in laudibus dici: Parcere subiectis et debellare superbos.

[¶5] “Show pity to the humbled soul,

[¶6] And crush the sons of pride.”

[¶7] And therefore, as the plan of this work we have undertaken requires, and as occasion offers, we must speak also of the earthly city, which, though it be mistress of the nations, is itself ruled by its lust of rule.

> Latin: Unde etiam de terrena ciuitate, quae cum dominari adpetit, etsi populi seruiant, ipsa ei dominandi libido dominatur, non est praetereundum silentio quidquid dicere suscepti huius operis ratio postulat et facultas datur.

### Of the Adversaries of the Name of Christ, Whom the Barbarians for Christ’s Sake Spared When They Stormed the City.

[¶9] Chapter 1.—Of the Adversaries of the Name of Christ, Whom the Barbarians for Christ’s Sake Spared When They Stormed the City.

> Latin: Caput I. De aduersariis nominis Christi, quibus in uastatione Urbis propter Christum barbari pepercerunt.

[¶10] For to this earthly city belong the enemies against whom I 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 its Redeemer for His signal benefits, as to forget that they would now be unable to utter a single word to its prejudice, had they not found in its sacred places, as they fled from the enemy’s steel, that life in which they now boast themselves. Are not those very Romans, who were spared by the barbarians through their respect for Christ, become enemies to the name of Christ? The reliquaries of the martyrs and the churches of the apostles bear witness to this; for in the sack of the city they were open sanctuary for all who fled to them, whether Christian or Pagan. To their very threshold the blood-thirsty enemy raged; there his murderous fury owned a limit. Thither did such of the enemy as had any pity convey those to whom they had given quarter, lest any less mercifully disposed might fall upon them. And, indeed, when even those murderers who everywhere else showed themselves pitiless came to those spots where that was forbidden which the license of war permitted in every other place, their furious rage for slaughter was bridled, and their eagerness to take prisoners was quenched. Thus escaped multitudes who now reproach the Christian religion, and impute to Christ the ills that have befallen their city; but the preservation of their own life—a boon which they owe to the respect entertained for Christ by the barbarians—they attribute not to our Christ, but to their own good luck. They ought rather, had they any right perceptions, to attribute the severities and hardships inflicted by their enemies, to that divine providence which is wont to reform the depraved manners of men by chastisement, and which exercises with similar afflictions the righteous and praiseworthy,—either translating them, when they have passed through the trial, to a better world, or detaining them still on earth for ulterior purposes. And they ought to attribute it to the spirit of these Christian times, that, contrary to the custom of war, these bloodthirsty barbarians spared them, and spared them for Christ’s sake, whether this mercy was actually shown in promiscuous places, or in those places specially dedicated to Christ’s name, and of which the very largest were selected as sanctuaries, that full scope might thus be given to the expansive compassion which desired that a large multitude might find shelter there. Therefore ought they to give God thanks, and with sincere confession flee for refuge to His name, that so they may escape the punishment of eternal fire—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 not have 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 the risk of being punished in everlasting darkness, they perversely oppose that name under which they fraudulently protected themselves for the sake of enjoying the light of this brief life.

> Latin: Ex hac namque existunt inimici, aduersus quos defendenda est Dei ciuitas, quorum tamen multi correcto inpietatis errore ciues in ea fiunt satis idonei; multi uero in eam tantis exardescunt ignibus odiorum tamque manifestis beneficiis redemtoris eius ingrati sunt, ut hodie contra eam linguas non mouerent, nisi ferrum hostile fugientes in sacratis eius locis uitam, de qua superbiunt, inuenirent. An non etiam illi Romani Christi nomini infesti sunt, quibus propter Christum barbari pepercerunt? Testantur hoc martyrum loca et basilicae apostolorum, quae in illa uastatione Urbis ad se confugientes suos alienosque receperunt. Huc usque cruentus saeuiebat inimicus, ibi accipiebat limitem trucidatoris furor, illo ducebantur a miserantibus hostibus, quibus etiam extra ipsa loca pepercerant, ne in eos incurrerent, qui similem misericordiam non habebant. Qui tamen etiam ipsi alibi truces adque hostili more saeuientes posteaquam ad loca illa ueniebant, ubi fuerat interdictum quod alibi belli iure licuisset, tota feriendi refrenabatur inmanitas et captiuandi cupiditas frangebatur. Sic euaserunt multi, qui nunc Christianis temporibus detrahunt et mala, quae illa ciuitas pertulit, Christo inputant; bona uero, quae in eos ut uiuerent propter Christi honorem facta sunt. non inputant Christo nostro sed fato suo, cum potius deberent, si quid recti saperent, illa, quae ab hostibus aspera et dura perpessi sunt, illi prouidentiae diuinae tribuere, quae solet corruptos hominum mores bellis emendare adque conterere itemque uitam mortalium iustam adque laudabilem talibus adflictionibus exercere probatamque uel in meliora transferre uel in his adhuc terris propter usus alios detinere: illud uero, quod eis uel ubicumque propter Christi nomen uel in locis Christi nomini dicatissimis et amplissimis ac pro largiore misericordia ad capacitatem multitudinis electis praeter bellorum morem truculenti barbari pepercerunt, hoc tribuere temporibus Christianis, hinc Deo agere gratias, hinc ad eius nomen ueraciter currere, ut effugiant poenas ignis aeterni, quod nomen multi eorum mendaciter usurparunt, ut effugerent poenas praesentis exitii. Nam quos uides petulanter et procaciter insultare seruis Christi, sunt in eis plurimi, qui illum interitum clademque non euasissent, nisi seruos Christi se esse finxissent. Et nunc ingrata superbia adque inpiissima insania eius nomini resistunt corde peruerso, ut sempiternis tenebris puniantur, ad quod nomen ore uel subdolo confugerunt, ut temporali luce fruerentur.

## 2. That It is Quite Contrary to the Usage of War, that the Victors Should Spare the Vanquished for the Sake of Their Gods.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/2/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/2/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 2.—That It is Quite Contrary to the Usage of War, that the Victors Should Spare the Vanquished for the Sake of Their Gods.

> Latin: Caput II. Quod nulla umquam bella ita gesta sint, ut uictores propter deos eorum, quos uicerunt, parcerent uictis.

[¶1] There are histories of numberless wars, both before the building of Rome and since its rise and the extension of its dominion; let these be read, and let one instance be cited in which, when a city had been taken by foreigners, the victors spared those who were found to have fled for sanctuary to the temples of their gods; or one instance in which a barbarian general gave orders that none should be put to the sword who had been found in this or that temple. Did not Æneas see

> Latin: Tot bella gesta conscripta sunt uel ante conditam Romam uel ab eius exortu et imperio: legant et proferant sic ab alienigenis aliquam captam esse ciuitatem, ut hostes, qui ceperant, parcerent eis, quos ad deorum suorum templa confugisse compererant, aut aliquem ducem barbarorum praecepisse, ut inrupto oppido nullus feriretur, qui in illo uel illo templo fuisset inuentus.

[¶2] “Dying Priam at the shrine,

> Latin: Nonne uidit Aeneas Priamum per aras Sanguine foedantem quos ipse sacrauerat ignes?

[¶3] Staining the hearth he made divine?”

[¶4] Did not Diomede and Ulysses

[¶5] “Drag with red hands, the sentry slain,

[¶6] Her fateful image from your fane,

> Latin: Nonne Diomedes et Ulixes caesis summae custodibus arcis Corripuere sacram effigiem manibusque cruentis Virgineas ausi diuae contingere uittas?

[¶7] Her chaste locks touch, and stain with gore

[¶8] The virgin coronal she wore?”

[¶9] Neither is that true which follows, that

> Latin: Nec tamen quod sequitur uerum est: Ex illo fluere ac retro sublabsa referri Spes Danaum.

[¶10] “Thenceforth the tide of fortune changed,

[¶11] And Greece grew weak.”

[¶12] For after this they conquered and destroyed Troy with fire and sword; after this they beheaded Priam as he fled to the altars. Neither did Troy perish because it lost Minerva. For what had Minerva herself first lost, that she should perish? Her guards perhaps? No doubt; just her guards. For as soon as they were slain, she could be stolen. It was not, in fact, the men who were preserved by the image, but the image by the men. How, then, was she invoked to defend the city and the citizens, she who could not defend her own defenders?

> Latin: Postea quippe uicerunt, postea Troiam ferro ignibusque dele. uerunt, postea confugientem ad aram Priamum obtruncauerunt. Nec ideo Troia periit, quia Mineruam perdidit. Quid enim prius ipsa Minerua perdiderat, ut periret? an forte custodes suos? Hoc sane uerum est; illis quippe interemtis potuit auferri. Neque enim homines a simulacro, sed simulacrum ab hominibus seruabatur. Quo modo ergo colebatur, ut patriam custodiret et ciues, quae suos non ualuit custodire custodes?

## 3. That the Romans Did Not Show Their Usual Sagacity When They Trusted that They Would Be Benefited by the Gods Who Had Been Unable to Defend Troy.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/3/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/3/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 3.—That the Romans Did Not Show Their Usual Sagacity When They Trusted that They Would Be Benefited by the Gods Who Had Been Unable to Defend Troy.

> Latin: Caput III. Quam inprudenter Romani deos penates, qui Troiam custodire non potuerant, sibi crediderint profuturos.

[¶1] And these be the gods to whose protecting care the Romans were delighted to entrust their city! O too, too piteous mistake! And they are enraged at us when we speak thus about their gods, though, so far from being enraged at their own writers, they part with money to learn what they say; and, indeed, the very teachers of these authors are reckoned worthy of a salary from the public purse, and of other honors. There is Virgil, who is read by boys, in order that this great poet, this most famous and approved of all poets, may impregnate their virgin minds, and may not readily be forgotten by them, according to that saying of Horace,

> Latin: Ecce qualibus dis Urbem Romani seruandam se commisisse gaudebant!s o nimium miserabilem errorem! Et nobis suscensent, cum de dis eorum talia dicimus; nec suscensent auctoribus suis, quos ut ediscerent mercedem dederunt doctoresque ipsos insuper et salario publico et honoribus dignissimos habuerunt.

[¶2] “The fresh cask long keeps its first tang.”

> Latin: Nempe aput Vergilium, quem propterea paruuli legunt, ut uidelicet poeta magnus omniumque praeclarissimus adque optimus teneris ebibitus animis non facile obliuione possit aboleri, secundum illud Horatii: Quo semel est inbuta recens sernabit odorem Testa diu - aput hunc ergo Vergilium nempe Iuno inducitur infesta Troianis Aeolo uentorum regi aduersus eos inritando dicere: Gens inimica mihi Tyrrhenum nauigat aequor Ilium in Italiam portans uictosque penates.

[¶3] Well, in this Virgil, I say, Juno is introduced as hostile to the Trojans, and stirring up Æolus, the king of the winds, against them in the words,

[¶4] “A race I hate now ploughs the sea,

[¶5] Transporting Troy to Italy,

[¶6] And home-gods conquered”…

[¶7] And ought prudent men to have entrusted the defence of Rome to these conquered gods? But it will be said, this was only the saying of Juno, who, like an angry woman, did not know what she was saying. What, then, says Æneas himself,—Æneas who is so often designated “pious?” Does he not say,

> Latin: Itane istis penatibus uictis Romam, ne uinceretur. prudentes commendare debuerunt? Sed haec Iuno dicebat uelut irata mulier, quid loqueretur ignorans.

[¶8] “Lo! Panthus, ’scaped from death by flight,

[¶9] Priest of Apollo on the height,

[¶10] His conquered gods with trembling hands

> Latin: Quid Aeneas ipse, pius totiens appellatus, nonne ita narrat: Panthus Othryades, arcis Phoebique sacerdos, Sacra manu uictosque deos paruumque nepotem Ipse trahit cursuque amens ad limina tendit?

[¶11] He bears, and shelter swift demands?”

[¶12] Is it not clear that the gods (whom he does not scruple to call “conquered”) were rather entrusted to Æneas than he to them, when it is said to him,

[¶13] “The gods of her domestic shrines

> Latin: Nonne deos ipsos, quos uictos non dubitat dicere, sibi potius quam se illis perhibet commendatos, cum ei dicitur: Sacra suosqne tibi commendat Troia penates?

[¶14] Your country to your care consigns?”

[¶15] If, then, Virgil says that the gods were such as these, and were conquered, and that when conquered they could not escape except under the protection of a man, what a madness is it to suppose that Rome had been wisely entrusted to these guardians, and could not have been taken unless it had lost them! Indeed, to worship conquered gods as protectors and champions, what is this but to worship, not good divinities, but evil omens? Would it not be wiser to believe, not that Rome would never have fallen into so great a calamity had not they first perished, but rather that they would have perished long since had not Rome preserved them as long as she could? For who does not see, when he thinks of it, what a foolish assumption it is that they could not be vanquished under vanquished defenders, and that they only perished because they had lost their guardian gods, when, indeed, the only cause of their perishing was that they chose for their protectors 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 another and more fitting place. Meanwhile I will briefly, and to the best of my ability, explain what I meant to say about these ungrateful men who blasphemously impute to Christ the calamities which they deservedly suffer in consequence of their own wicked ways, while that which is for Christ’s sake spared them in spite of their wickedness they do not even take the trouble to notice; and in their mad and blasphemous insolence, they use against His name those very lips wherewith they falsely claimed that same name that their lives might be spared. In the places consecrated to Christ, where for His sake no enemy would injure them, they restrained their tongues that they might be safe and protected; but no sooner do they emerge from these sanctuaries, than they unbridle these tongues to hurl against Him curses full of hate.

> Latin: Si igitur Vergilius tales deos et uictos dicit et, ut uel uicti quoquo modo euaderent, homini commendatos: quae dementia est existimare his tutoribus Romam sapienter fuisse commissam et nisi eos amisisset non potuisse uastari? Immo uero uictos deos tamquam praesides ac defensores colere, quid est aliud quam tenere non numina bona, sed nomina mala? Quanto enim sapientius creditur, non Romam ad istam cladem non fuisse uenturam, nisi prius illi periissent, sed illos potius olim fuisse perituros, nisi eos quantum potuisset Roma seruasset! Nam quis non, cum aduerterit, uideat quanta sit uanitate praesumtum non posse uinci sub defensoribus uictis et ideo periisse, quia custodes perdidit deos, cum uel sola esse potuerit causa pereundi custodes habere uoluisse perituros? Non itaque, cum de dis uictis illa conscriberentur adque canerentur, poetas libebat mentiri, sed cordatos homines cogebat ueritas confiteri. Verum ista opportunius alio loco diligenter copioseque tractanda sunt: nunc, quod institueram de ingratis hominibus dicere, parumper expediam ut possum, qui ea mala, quae pro suorum morum peruersitate merito patiuntur, blasphemantes Christo inputant; quod autem illis etiam talibus propter Christum parcitur, nec dignantur adtendere et eas linguas aduersus eius nomen dementia sacrilegae peruersitatis exercent, quibus linguis usurpauerunt mendaciter ipsum nomen, ut uiuerent, uel quas linguas in locis ei sacratis metuendo presserunt, ut illic tuti adque muniti, ubi propter eum inlaesi ab hostibus fuerunt, inde in eum maledictis hostilibus prosilirent.

## 4. Of the Asylum of Juno in Troy, Which Saved No One from the Greeks; And of the Churches of the Apostles, Which Protected from the Barbarians All Who Fled to Them.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/4/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/4/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 4.—Of the Asylum of Juno in Troy, Which Saved No One from the Greeks; And of the Churches of the Apostles, Which Protected from the Barbarians All Who Fled to Them.

> Latin: Caput IV. De asylo Iunonis in Troia, quod neminem liberauit a Graecis, et basilicis apostolorum, quae omnes ad se confugientes a barbaris defenderunt.

[¶1] Troy itself, the mother of the Roman people, was not able, as I have said, to protect its own citizens in the sacred places of their gods from the fire and sword of the Greeks, though the Greeks worshipped the same gods. Not only so, but

[¶2] “Phoenix and Ulysses fell

> Latin: Ipsa, ut dixi, Troia, mater populi Romani, sacratis locis deorum suorum munire non potuit ciues suos ab ignibus ferroque Graecorum, eosdem ipsos deos colentium; quin etiam Iunonis asylo Custodes lecti, Phoenix et dirus Ulixes, Praedam adseruabant; huc undique Troia gaza Incensis erepta adytis mensaeque deorum Crateresque auro solidi captiuaque uestis Congeritur.

[¶3] In the void courts by Juno’s cell

[¶4] Were set the spoils to keep;

[¶5] Snatched from the burning shrines away,

[¶6] There Ilium’s mighty treasure lay,

[¶7] Rich altars, bowls of massy gold,

[¶8] And captive raiment, rudely rolled

[¶9] In one promiscuous heap;

[¶10] While boys and matrons, wild with fear,

[¶11] In long array were standing near.”

> Latin: Pueri et pauidae longo ordine matres Stant circum.

[¶12] In other words, the place consecrated to so great a goddess was chosen, not that from it none might be led out a captive, but that in it all the captives might be immured. Compare now this “asylum”—the asylum not of an ordinary god, not of one of the rank and file of gods, but of Jove’s own sister and wife, the queen of all the gods—with the churches built in memory of the apostles. Into it were collected the spoils rescued from the blazing temples and snatched from the gods, not that they might be restored to the vanquished, but divided among the victors; while into these was carried back, with the most religious observance and respect, everything which belonged to them, even though found elsewhere. There liberty was lost; here preserved. There bondage was strict; here strictly 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, that they might be at liberty. In fine, the gentle Greeks appropriated that temple of Juno to the purposes of their own avarice and pride; while these churches of Christ were chosen even by the savage barbarians as the fit scenes for humility and mercy. But perhaps, after all, the Greeks did in that victory of theirs spare the temples of those gods whom they worshipped in common with the Trojans, and did not dare to put to the sword or make captive the wretched and vanquished Trojans who fled thither; and perhaps Virgil, in the manner of poets, has depicted what never really happened? But there is no question that he depicted the usual custom of an enemy when sacking a city.

> Latin: Electus est uidelicet locus tantae deae sacratus, non unde captiuos non liceret educere, sed ubi captiuos liberet includere. Conpara nunc asylum illud non cuiuslibet dei gregalis uel de turba plebis, sed Iouis ipsius sororis et coniugis et reginae omnium deorum cum memoriis nostrorum apostolorum. Illuc incensis templis et dis erepta spolia portabantur, non donanda uictis, sed diuidenda uictoribus; huc autem et quod alibi ad ea loca pertinere conpertum est cum honore et obsequio religiosissimo reportatum est. Ibi amissa, hic seruata libertas; ibi clausa, hic interdicta captiuitas; ibi possidendi a dominantibus hostibus premebantur, huc liberandi a miserantibus ducebantur: postremo illud Iunonis templum sibi elegerat auaritia et superbia leuium Graeculorum, istas Christi basilicas misericordia et humilitas etiam inmanium barbarorum. Nisi forte Graeci quidem in illa sua uictoria templis deorum communium pepercerunt adque illo confugientes miseros uictosque Troianos ferire uel captiuare non ausi sunt, sed Vergilius poetarum more illa mentitus est. Immo uero morem hostium ciuitates euertentium ille descripsit.

### Cæsar’s Statement Regarding the Universal Custom of an Enemy When Sacking a City.

[¶14] Chapter 5.—Cæsar’s Statement Regarding the Universal Custom of an Enemy When Sacking a City.

> Latin: Caput V. De generali consuetudine hostium uictas ciuitates euertentium quid Cato senserit.

[¶15] Even Cæsar himself gives us positive testimony regarding this custom; for, in his deliverance in the senate about the conspirators, he says (as Sallust, a historian of distinguished veracity, writes) “that virgins and boys are violated, children torn from the embrace of their parents, matrons subjected to whatever should be the pleasure of the conquerors, temples and houses plundered, slaughter and burning rife; in fine, all things filled with arms, corpses, blood, and wailing.” If he had not mentioned temples here, we might suppose that enemies 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 of their fatherland.

> Latin: Quem morem etiam Cato, sicut scribit Sallustius, nobilitatae ueritatis historicus, sententia sua, quam de coniuratis in senatu habuit, conmemorare non praetermittit: ‘rapi uirgines pueros, diuelli liberos a parentum conplexu, matres familiarum pati quae uictoribus conlibuisset, fana adque domos spoliari, caedem incendia fieri: postremo armis cadaueribus cruore adque luctu omnia conpleri’. Hic si fana tacuisset, deorum sedibus solere hostes parcere putaremus. Et haec non ab alienigenis hostibus, sed a Catilina et sociis eius, nobilissimis senatoribus et Romanis ciuibus, Romana templa metuebant. Sed hi uidelicet perditi et patriae parricidae.

### That Not Even the Romans, When They Took Cities, Spared the Conquered in Their Temples.

[¶17] Chapter 6.—That Not Even the Romans, When They Took Cities, Spared the Conquered in Their Temples.

> Latin: Caput VI. Quod ne Romani quidem ita ullas ceperint ciuitates, ut in templis earum parcerent uictis.

[¶18] Why, then, need our argument take note of the many nations who have waged wars with one another, and have nowhere 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 has been “to spare the vanquished and subdue the proud,” and that they preferred “rather to forgive than to revenge an injury;” and among so many and great cities which they have stormed, taken, and overthrown for the extension of their dominion, let us be told what temples they were accustomed to exempt, so that whoever took refuge in them was free. Or have they really done this, and has the fact been suppressed by the historians of these events? Is it to be believed, that men who sought out with the greatest eagerness points they could praise, would omit those which, in their own estimation, are the most signal proofs of piety? Marcus Marcellus, a distinguished Roman, who took Syracuse, a most splendidly adorned city, is reported to have bewailed its coming ruin, and to have shed his own tears over it before he spilt its blood. He took steps also to preserve the chastity even of his enemy. For before he gave orders for the storming of the city, he issued an edict forbidding the violation of any free person. Yet the city was sacked according to the custom of war; nor do we anywhere read, that even by so chaste and gentle a commander orders were given that no one should be injured who had fled to this or that temple. And this certainly would by no means have been omitted, when neither his weeping nor his edict preservative of chastity could be passed in silence. Fabius, the conqueror of the city of Tarentum, is praised for abstaining from making booty of the images. For when his secretary proposed the question to him, what he wished done with the statues of the gods, which had been taken in large numbers, he veiled his moderation under a joke. For he asked of what sort they were; and when they reported to him that there were not only many large images, but some of them armed, “Oh,” says he, “let us leave with the Tarentines their angry gods.” Seeing, then, that the writers of Roman history could not pass in silence, neither the weeping 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, for the honor of any of their enemy’s gods, they had shown this particular form of leniency, that in any temple slaughter or captivity was prohibited?

> Latin: Quid ergo per multas gentes, quae inter se bella gesserunt et nusquam uictis in deorum suorum sedibus pepercerunt, noster sermo discurrat? Romanos ipsos uideamus, ipsos, inquam, recolamus respiciamusque Romanos, de quorum praecipua laude dictum est: ‘Parcere subiectis et debellare superbos, et quod accepta iniuria ignoscere quam persequi malebant: quando tot tantasque urbes, ut late dominarentur, expugnatas captasque euerterunt, legatur nobis quae templa excipere solebant, ut ad ea quisquis confugisset liberaretur. An illi faciebant et scriptores earundem rerum gestarum ista reticebant? Ita uero, qui ea quae laudarent maxime requirebant, ista praeclarissima secundum ipsos pietatis indicia praeterirent? Egregius Romani nominis Marcus Marcellus. qui Syracusas urbem ornatissimam cepit, refertur eam prius fleuisse ruituram et ante eius sanguinem suas illi lacrimas effudisse. Gessit et curam pudicitiae etiam in hoste seruandae. Nam priusquam oppidum uictor iussisset inuadi, constituit edicto, ne quis corpus liberum uiolaret. Euersa est tamen ciuitas more bellorum, nec uspiam legitur ab imperatore tam casto adque clementi fuisse praeceptum, ut quisquis ad illud uel illud templum fugisset haberetur inlaesus. Quod utique nullo modo praeteriretur, quando nec eius fletus nec quod edixerat pro pudicitia minime uiolanda potuit taceri. Fabius, Tarentinae urbis euersor, a simulacrorum depraedatione se abstinuisse. laudatur. Nam cum ei scriba suggessisset quid de signis deorum, quae multa capta fuerant, fieri iuberet, continentiam suam etiam iocando condiuit. Quaesiuit enim cuius modi essent, et cum ei non solum multa grandia, uerum etiam renuntiarentur armata, ⟨relinquamus⟩, inquit <Tarentinis deos […] Cum igitur nec illius fletum nec huius risum, nec illius c:Rtam misericordiam nec huius facetam continentiam Romanarum rerum gestarum scriptores tacere potuerint: quando praetermitteretur. si aliquibus hominibus in honorem cuiuspiam deorum suorum sic pepercissent, ut in quoquam templo caedem uel captiuitatem fieri prohiberent?

### That the Cruelties Which Occurred in the Sack of Rome Were in Accordance with the Custom of War, Whereas the Acts of Clemency Resulted from the Influence of Christ’s Name.

[¶20] Chapter 7.—That the Cruelties Which Occurred in the Sack of Rome Were in Accordance with the Custom of War, Whereas the Acts of Clemency Resulted from the Influence of Christ’s Name.

> Latin: Caput VII. Quod in euersione Urbis, quae aspere gesta sunt. de consuetudine acciderint belli; quae uero clementer, de potentia prouenerint nominis Christi.

[¶21] All the spoiling, then, which Rome was exposed to in the recent calamity—all the slaughter, plundering, burning, and misery—was the result of the custom of war. But what was novel, was that savage barbarians showed themselves in so gentle a guise, that the largest churches were chosen and set apart for the purpose of being filled with the people to whom quarter was given, and that in them none were slain, from them none forcibly dragged; that into them many were led by their relenting enemies to be set at liberty, and that from them none were led into slavery by merciless foes. Whoever does 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 one from praising it, is mad. Far be it from any prudent man to impute this clemency to the barbarians. Their fierce and bloody minds were awed, and bridled, and marvellously tempered by Him who so long before said by His prophet, “I will visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquities with stripes; nevertheless my loving-kindness will I not utterly take from them.”

> Latin: Quidquid ergo uastationis trucidationis depraedationis concremationis adflictionis in ista recentissima Romana clade commissum est, fecit hoc consuetudo bellorum; quod autem nouo more factum est, quod inusitata rerum facie inmanitas barbara tam mitis apparuit, ut amplissimae basilicae inplendae populo cui parceretur eligerentur et decernerentur, ubi nemo feriretur, unde nemo raperetur, quo liberandi multi a miserantibus hostibus ducerentur, unde captiuandi ulli nec a crudelibus hostibus abducerentur: hoc Christi nomini, hoc Christiano tempori tribuendum quisquis non uidet, caecus, quisquis uidet nec laudat, ingratus, quisquis laudanti reluctatur, insanus est. Absit, ut prudens quisquam hoc feritati inputet barbarorum. Truculentissimas et saeuissimas mentes ille terruit, ille frenauit. e mirabiliter temperauit, qui per prophetam tanto ante dixit: isitabo in uirga iniquitates eorum et in flagellis peccata eorum; misericordiam autem meam non dispergam ab eis.

## 5. Of the Advantages and Disadvantages Which Often Indiscriminately Accrue to Good and Wicked Men.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/5/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/5/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 8.—Of the Advantages and Disadvantages Which Often Indiscriminately Accrue to Good and Wicked Men.

> Latin: Caput VIII. De commodis adque incommodis, quae bonis ac malis plerumque communia sunt.

[¶1] Will some one say, Why, then, was this divine compassion extended even to the ungodly and ungrateful? Why, but because it was the mercy of Him who daily “maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” For though some of these men, taking thought of this, repent of their wickedness and reform, some, as the apostle says, “despising the riches of His goodness and long-suffering, after their hardness and impenitent heart, treasure up unto themselves wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds:” nevertheless does the patience of God still invite the wicked to repentance, even as the scourge of God educates the good to patience. And so, too, does the mercy of God embrace the good that it may cherish them, as the severity of God arrests the wicked to punish them. To the divine providence it has seemed good to prepare in the world to come for the righteous good things, which the unrighteous shall not enjoy; and for the wicked evil things, by which the good shall not be tormented. But as for the good things of this life, and its ills, God has willed that these should be common to both; that we might not too eagerly covet the things which wicked men are seen equally to enjoy, nor shrink with an unseemly fear from the ills which even good men often suffer.

> Latin: Dicet aliquis: ‘Quur ergo ista diuina misericordia etiam ad inpios ingratosque peruenit?’ Quur putamus, nisi quia eam ille praebuit, qui cottidie facit oriri solem suum super bonos et malos et pluit super iustos et iniustos? Quamuis enim quidam eorum ista cogitantes paenitendo ab inpietate se corrigant, quidam uero, sicut apostolus dicit, diuitias bonitatis et longanimitatis Dei contemnentes secundum duritiam cordis sui et cor inpaenitens thesaurizent sibi iram in die irae et reuelationis iusti iudicii Dei, qui reddet unicuique secundum opera eius: tamen patientia Dei ad paenitentiam inuitat malos, sicut flagellum Dei ad patientiam erudit bonos; itemque misericordia Dei fouendos amplectitur bonos, sicut seueritas Dei puniendos corripit malos. Placuit quippe diuinae prouidentiae praeparare in posterum bona iustis, quibus non fruentur iniusti, et mala inpiis, quibus non excruciabuntur boni; ista uero temporalia bona et mala utrisque uoluit esse communia, ut nec bona cupidius adpetantur, quae mali quoque habere cernuntur; nec mala turpiter euitentur, quibus et boni plerumque adficiuntur.

[¶2] There is, too, a very great difference in the purpose served both by those events which we call adverse and those called prosperous. For the good man is neither uplifted with the good things of time, nor broken by its ills; but the wicked man, because he is corrupted by this world’s happiness, feels himself punished by its unhappiness. Yet often, even in the present distribution of temporal things, does God plainly evince His own interference. For if every sin were now visited with manifest punishment, nothing would seem to be reserved for the final judgment; on the other hand, if no sin received now a plainly divine punishment, it would be concluded that there is no divine providence at all. And so of the good things of this life: if God did not by a very visible liberality confer these on some of those persons who ask for them, we should say that these good things were not at His disposal; and if He gave them to all who sought them, we should suppose that such were the only rewards of His service; and such a service would make us not godly, but greedy rather, and covetous. Wherefore, though good and bad men suffer alike, we must not 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 an unlikeness in the sufferers; and though exposed to the same anguish, virtue and vice are not the same thing. For as the same fire causes gold to glow brightly, and chaff to smoke; and under the same flail the straw is beaten small, while the grain is cleansed; and as the lees are not mixed with the oil, though squeezed out of the vat by the same pressure, so the same violence of affliction proves, purges, clarifies the good, but damns, ruins, exterminates the wicked. And thus it is that in the same affliction the wicked detest God and blaspheme, while the good pray and praise. So material a difference does it make, not what ills are suffered, but what kind of man suffers them. For, stirred up with the same movement, mud exhales a horrible stench, and ointment emits a fragrant odor.

> Latin: Interest autem plurimum, qualis sit usus uel earum rerum, quae prosperae, uel earum, quae dicuntur aduersae. Nam bonus temporalibus nec bonis extollitur nec malis frangitur; malus autem ideo huiusce modi infelicitate punitur, quia felicitate corrumpitur. Ostendit tamen Deus saepe etiam in his distribuendis euidentius operationem suam. Nam si nunc omne peccatum manifesta plecteret poena, nihil ultimo iudicio seruari; putaretur; rursus si nullum nunc peccatum puniret aperta diuinitas, nulla esse diuina prouidentia crederetur. Similiter in rebus secundis, si non eas Deus quibusdam petentibus euidentissima largitate concederet, non ad eum ista pertinere diceremus; itemque si omnibus eas petentibus daret, non nisi propter talia praemia seruiendum illi esse arbitraremur, nec pios nos faceret talis seruitus, sed potius cupidos et auaros. Haec cum ita sint, quicumque boni et mali pariter adflicti sunt, non ideo ipsi distincti non sunt, quia distinctum non est quod utrique perpessi sunt. Manet enim dissimilitudo passorum etiam in similitudine passionum, et licet sub eodem tormento non est idem uirtus et uitium. Nam sicut sub uno igne aurum rutilat palea fumat, et sub eadem tribula stipulae comminuuntur frumenta purgantur, nec ideo cum oleo amurca confunditur, quia eodem praeli pondere exprimitur: ita una eademque uis inruens bonos probat purificat eliquat, malos damnat uastat exterminat. Unde in eadem adflictione mali Deum detestantur adque blasphemant, boni autem precantur et laudant. Tantum interest, non qualia, sed qualis quisque patiatur. Nam pari motu exagitatum et exhalat horribiliter caenum et suauiter fragrat unguentum.

### Of the Reasons for Administering Correction to Bad and Good Together.

[¶4] Chapter 9.—Of the Reasons for Administering Correction to Bad and Good Together.

> Latin: Caput IX. De causis correptionum, propter quas et boni et mali pariter flagellantur.

[¶5] What, then, have the Christians suffered in that calamitous period, which would not profit every one who duly and faithfully considered the following circumstances? First of all, they must humbly consider those very sins which have provoked God to fill the world with such terrible disasters; for although they be far from the excesses of wicked, immoral, and ungodly men, yet they do not judge themselves so clean removed from all faults as to be too good to suffer for these even temporal ills. For every man, however laudably he lives, yet yields in some points to 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 so much the more frequently as the sins seem of less account. But not to mention this, where can we readily find a man who holds in fit and just estimation those persons on account of whose revolting pride, luxury, and avarice, and cursed iniquities and impiety, God now smites the earth as His predictions threatened? Where is the man who lives with them in the style in which it becomes us to live with them? For often we wickedly blind ourselves to the occasions of teaching and admonishing them, sometimes even of reprimanding and chiding them, either because we shrink from the labor or are ashamed 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 covetous disposition desires to obtain, or our weakness shrinks from losing. So that, although the conduct of wicked men is distasteful to the good, and therefore they do not fall with them into 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 are justly scourged with the wicked in this world, though in eternity they quite escape punishment. Justly, when God afflicts them in common with the wicked, do they find this life bitter, through love of whose sweetness they declined to be bitter to these sinners.

> Latin: Quid igitur in illa rerum uastitate Christiani passi sunt, quod non eis magis fideliter ista considerantibus ad prouectum ualeret? Primum quod ipsa peccata, quibus Deus indignatus inpleuit tantis calamitatibus mundum, humiliter cogitantes, quamuis longe absint a facinerosis flagitiosis adque inpiis. tamen non usque adeo se a delictis deputant alienos, ut nec temporalia pro eis mala perpeti se iudicent dignos. Excepto enim quod unusquisque quamlibet laudabiliter uiuens cedit in quibusdam carnali concupiscentiae, etsi non ad facinorum inmanitatem et gurgitem flagitiorum adque inpietatis abominationem, ad aliqua tamen peccata uel rara uel tanto crebriora, quanto minora — hoc ergo excepto quis tandem facile reperitur, qui eosdem ipsos, propter quorum horrendam superbiam luxuriamque et auaritiam adque execrabiles iniquitates et inpietates Deus, sicut minando praedixit, conterit terras, sic habeat, ut habendi sunt? sic cum eis uiuat, ut cum talibus est uiuendum? Plerumque enim ab eis docendis ac monendis, aliquando etiam obiurgandis et corripiendis male dissimulatur, uel cum laboris piget, uel cum os eorum uerecundamur offendere, uel cum inimicitias deuitamus, ne inpediant et noceant in istis temporalibus rebus, siue quas adipisci adhuc adpetit nostra cupiditas, siue quas amittere formidat infirmitas, ita ut, quamuis bonis malorum uita displiceat et ideo cum eis non incidant in illam damnationem, quae post hanc uitam talibus praeparatur, tamen, quia propterea peccatis eorum damnabilibus parcunt, dum eos in suis licet leuibus et ueniabilibus, metuunt, iure cum eis temporaliter flagellantur, quamuis in aeternum minime puniantur, iure istam uitam, quando diuinitus adfliguntur cum eis, amaram sentiunt, cuius amando dulcedinem peccantibus eis amari esse noluerunt.

[¶6] If any one forbears to reprove and find fault with those who are doing wrong, because he seeks a more seasonable opportunity, or because he fears they may be made worse by his rebuke, or that other weak persons may be disheartened from endeavoring to lead a good and pious life, and may be driven from the faith; this man’s omission seems to be occasioned not by covetousness, but by a charitable consideration. But what is blame-worthy is, that they who themselves revolt from the conduct of the wicked, and live in quite another fashion, yet spare those faults in other men which they ought to reprehend and wean them from; and spare them because they fear to give offence, lest they should injure their interests in those things which good men may innocently and legitimately use,—though they use them more greedily than becomes persons who are strangers in this world, and profess the hope of a heavenly country. For not only the weaker brethren who enjoy married life, and have children (or desire to have them), and own houses and establishments, whom the apostle addresses in the churches, warning and instructing them how they should live, both the wives with their husbands, and the husbands 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 weaker brethren gladly obtain and grudgingly lose many earthly and temporal things on account of which they dare not offend men whose polluted and wicked life greatly displeases them; but those also who live at a higher level, who are not entangled in the meshes of married life, but use meagre food and raiment, do often take thought of their own safety and good name, and abstain from finding fault with the wicked, because they fear their wiles and violence. And although they do not fear them to such an extent as to be drawn to the commission of like iniquities, nay, not by any threats or violence soever; yet those very deeds which they refuse to share in the commission of, they often decline to find fault with (when possibly they might) by finding fault prevent their commission. They abstain from 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 name are needful, that they may be able to influence those who need their instruction, but rather because they weakly relish the flattery and respect of men, and fear the judgments of the people, and the pain or death of the body; that is to say, their non-intervention is the result of selfishness, and not of love.

> Latin: Nam si propterea quisque obiurgandis et corripiendis male agentibus parcit, quia opportunius tempus inquirit uel eisdem ipsis metuit, ne deteriores ex hoc efficiantur, uel ad bonam uitam et piam erudiendos inpediant alios infirmos et premant adque auertant a fide: non uidetur esse cupiditatis occasio, sed consilium caritatis. Illud est culpabile, quod hi, qui dissimiliter uiuunt et a malorum factis abhorrent, parcunt tamen peccatis alienis, quae dedocere aut obiurgare deberent, dum eorum offensiones cauent, ne sibi noceant in his rebus, quibus licite boni adque innocenter utuntur, sed cupidius, quam oportebat eos, qui in hoc mundo peregrinantur et spem supernae patriae prae se gerunt. Non solum quippe infirmiores, uitam ducentes coniugalem, filios habentes uel habere quaerentes, domos ac familias possidentes, (quos apostolus in ecclesiis adloquitur docens et monens quem ad modum uiuere debeant et uxores (cum maritis et mariti cum uxoribus, et filii cum parentibus et parentes cum filiis, et serui cum dominis et domini cum seruis) multa temporalia, multa terrena libenter adipiscuntur et moleste amittunt, propter quae non audent offendere homines, quorum sibi uita contaminatissima et consceleratissima displicet; uerum etiam hi, qui superiorem uitae gradum tenent nec coniugalibus uinculis inretiti sunt et uictu. paruo ac tegimento utuntur, plerumque, suae famae ac saluti dum insidias adque impetus malorum timent, ab eorum reprehensione sese abstinent, et quamuis non in tantum eos metuant, ut ad similia perpetranda quibuslibet eorum terroribus adque inprobitatibus cedant, ea ipsa tamen, quae cum eis non perpetrant, nolunt plerumque corripere, cum fortasse possint aliquos corripiendo corrigere, ne, si non potuerint, sua salus ac fama in periculum exitiumque perueniat, nec ea consideratione, qua suam famam ac salutem uident esse necessariam utilitati erudiendorum hominum, sed ea potius infirmitate, qua delectat lingua blandiens et humanus dies et reformidatur uulgi iudicium et carnis excruciatio uel pereratio, hoc est propter quaedam cupiditatis uincula, non propter officia caritatis.

[¶7] Accordingly this seems to me to be one principal reason why the good are chastised along with the wicked, when God is pleased to visit with temporal punishments the profligate manners of a community. They are punished together, not because they have spent an equally corrupt life, but because the good as well as the wicked, though not equally with them, love this present life; while they ought to hold it cheap, that the wicked, being admonished and reformed by their example, might lay hold of life eternal. And if they will not be the companions of the good in seeking life everlasting, they should be loved as enemies, and be dealt with patiently. For so long as they live, it remains uncertain whether they may not come to a better mind. These selfish persons have more cause to fear than those to whom it was said through the prophet, “He is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.” For watchmen or overseers of the people are appointed in churches, that they may unsparingly rebuke sin. Nor is that man guiltless of the sin we speak of, who, though he be not a watchman, yet sees in the conduct of those with whom the relationships of this life bring him into contact, many things that should be blamed, and yet overlooks them, fearing to give offence, and lose such worldly blessings as may legitimately be desired, but which he too eagerly grasps. Then, lastly, there is another reason why the good are afflicted with temporal calamities—the reason which Job’s case exemplifies: that the human spirit may be proved, and that it may be manifested with what fortitude of pious trust, and with how unmercenary a love, it cleaves to God.

> Latin: Non mihi itaque uidetur haec parua esse causa, quare cum malis flagellentur et boni, quando Deo placet perditos mores etiam temporalium poenarum adflictione punire. Flagellantur -enim simul, non quia simul agunt malam uitam, sed quia simul amant temporalem uitam, non quidem aequaliter, sed tamen simul, quam boni contemnere deberent, ut illi correpti adque correcti consequerentur aeternam, ad quam consequendam si nollent esse socii, ferrentur et diligerentur inimici, quia donec uiuunt semper incertum est utrum uoluntatem sint in melius mutaturi. Qua in re non utique parem, sed longe grauiorem habent causam, quibus per prophetam dicitur: Ille e quidem in suo peccato morietur, sanguinem autem eius de manu speculatoris requiram. Ad hoc enim speculatores, hoc est populorum praepositi, constituti sunt in ecclesiis, ut non parcant obiurgando peccata. Nec ideo tamen ab huius modi culpa penitus alienus est, qui, licet praepositus non sit, in eis tamen, quibus uitae huius necessitate coniungitur, multa monenda uel arguenda nouit et neglegit, deuitans eorum offensiones propter illa quibus in hac uita non indebitis utitur, sed plus quam debuit delectatur. Deinde habent aliam causam boni, quare temporalibus adfligantur malis, qualem habuit Iob: ut sibi ipse humanus animus sit probatus et cognitus, quanta uirtute pietatis gratis Deum diligat.

### That the Saints Lose Nothing in Losing Temporal Goods.

[¶9] Chapter 10.—That the Saints Lose Nothing in Losing Temporal Goods.

> Latin: Caput X. Quod sanctis in amissione rerum temporalium nihil pereat.

[¶10] These are the considerations which one must keep in view, that he may answer the question whether any evil happens to the faithful and godly which cannot be turned to profit. Or shall we say that the question is needless, and that the apostle is vaporing when he says, “We know that all things work together for good to them that love God?”

> Latin: Quibus recte consideratis adque perspectis adtende utrum aliquid mali acciderit fidelibus et piis, quod eis non in bonum uerteretur, nisi forte putandum est apostolicam illam uacare sententiam, ubi ait: Scimus quia diligentibus Deum omnia cooperatur in bonum.

[¶11] They lost all they had. Their faith? Their godliness? The possessions of the hidden man of the heart, which in the sight of God are of great price? Did they lose these? For these are the wealth of Christians, to whom the wealthy apostle said, “Godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment, let us be therewith content. But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil; which, while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”

> Latin: Amiserunt omnia quae habebant Numquid fidem? numquid pietatem? numquid interioris hominis bona, qui est ante Deum diues? Hae sunt opes Christianorum, quibus opulentus dicebat apostolus: Est autem quaestus magnus pietas cum sufficientia. Nihil enim intulimus in hunc mundum, sed nec auferre aliquid possumus. Habentes autem uictum et tegumentum his contenti sumus. Nam qui uolunt diu ites fieri, incidunt in tentationem et laqueum et desideria multa stulta et noxia, quae mergunt homines in interitum et perditionem. Radix enim est omnium malorum auaritia, quam quidam adpetentes a fide pererrauerunt et inseruerunt se doloribus multis.

[¶12] They, then, who lost their worldly all in the sack of Rome, if they owned their possessions as they had been taught by the apostle, who himself was poor without, but rich within,—that is to say, if they used the world as not using it,—could say in the words of Job, heavily tried, but not overcome: “Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; as it pleased the Lord, so has it come to pass: blessed be the name of the Lord.” Like a good servant, Job counted the will of his Lord his great possession, by obedience to which his soul was enriched; nor did it grieve him to lose, while yet living, those goods which he must shortly leave at his death. But as to those feebler spirits who, though they cannot be said to prefer earthly possessions to Christ, do yet cleave to them with a somewhat immoderate attachment, they have discovered by the pain of losing these things how much they were sinning in loving them. For their grief is of their own 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 these verbal admonitions should receive the teaching of experience. For when the apostle says, “They that will be rich fall into temptation,” and so on, what he blames in riches is not the possession of them, but the desire of them. For elsewhere he says, “Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.” They who were making such a use of their property have been consoled for light losses by great gains, and have had more pleasure in those possessions which they have securely laid past, by freely giving them away, than grief in those which they entirely lost by an anxious and selfish hoarding of them. For nothing could perish on earth save what they would be ashamed to carry away from earth. Our Lord’s injunction runs, “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” And they who have listened to this injunction have proved in the time of tribulation how well they were advised in not despising this most trustworthy teacher, and most faithful and mighty guardian of their treasure. For if many were glad that their treasure was stored in places which the enemy chanced not to light upon, how much better founded was the joy of those who, by the counsel of their God, had fled 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, though abundantly rich in holiness, when the barbarians sacked Nola, and took him prisoner, used silently to pray, as he afterwards told me, “O Lord, let me not be troubled for gold and silver, for where all my treasure is Thou knowest.” For all his treasure was where he had been taught to hide and store it by Him who had also foretold that these calamities would happen in the world. Consequently those persons who obeyed their Lord when He warned them where and how to lay up treasure, did not lose even their earthly possessions in the invasion of the barbarians; while those who are now repenting that they did not obey Him have learnt the right use of earthly goods, if not by the wisdom which would have prevented their loss, at least by the experience which follows it.

> Latin: Quibus ergo terrenae diuitiae in illa uastatione perierunt, si eas sic habebant, quem ad modum ab isto foris paupere, intus diuite audierant, id est, si mundo utebantur tamquam non utentes, potuerunt dicere, quod ille grauiter tentatus et minime superatus: Nudus exiui de utero matris meae, nudus reuertar in terram. Dominus dedit, Dominus abstulit, sicut Domino placuit, ita factum est; sit nomen Domini benedictum; ut bonus seruus magnas facultates haberet ipsam sui Domini uoluntatem, cui pedisequus mente ditesceret, nec contristaretur eis rebus uiuens relictus, quas cito fuerat moriens relicturus. Illi autem infirmiores, qui terrenis his bonis, quamuis ea non praeponerent Christo, aliquantula tamen cupiditate cohaerebant, quantum haec amando peccauerint, perdendo senserunt. Tantum quippe doluerunt, quantum se doloribus inseruerant, sicut apostolum dixisse supra commemoraui. Oportebat enim ut eis adderetur etiam experimentorum disciplina, a quibus tam diu fuerat neglecta uerborum. Nam cum dixit apostolus: Qui uolunt diuites fieri, incidunt in tentationem et cetera, profecto in diuitiis cupiditatem reprehendit, non facultatem, quoniam praecepit alibi dicens: Praecipe diuitibus huius mundi non superbe sapere neque sperare in incerto diuitiarum, sed in Deo uiuo, qui praestat nobis omnia abundanter ad fruendum; bene faciant, diuites sint in operibus bonis, facile tribuant, communicent, thesaurizent sibi fundamentum bonum in futurum, ut adprehendant ueram uitam. Haec qui de suis diuitiis faciebant, magnis sunt lucris leuia damna solati plusque laetati ex his, quae facile tribuendo tutius seruauerunt, quam contristati ex his, quae timide retinendo facilius amiserunt. Hoc enim potuit in terra perire, quod piguit inde transferre. Nam qui receperunt consilium Domini sui dicentis: Nolite uobis condere thesauros in terra, ubi tinea et rubigo exterminant et ubi fures effodiunt et furantur; sed thesaurizate uobis thesaurum in caelo, quo fur non accedit neque tinea corrumpit; ubi enim est thesaurus tuus, illic erit et cor tuum, tribulationis tempore probauerunt quam recte sapuerint non contemnendo ueracissimum praeceptorem et thesauri sui fidelissimum inuictissimumque custodem. Nam si multi gauisi sunt ibi se habuisse diuitias suas, quo contigit ut hostis non accederet: quanto certius et securius gaudere potuerunt, qui monitu Dei sui illuc migrauerunt, quo accedere omnino non posset! Unde Paulinus noster, Nolensis episcopus, ex opulentissimo diuite uoluntate pauperrimus et copiosissime sanctus, quando et ipsam Nolam barbari uastauerunt, cum ab eis teneretur, sic in corde suo, ut ab eo postea cognouimus, precabatur: Domine, non excrucier propter aurum et argentum; ubi enim sint omnia mea, tu scis.’ Ibi enim habebat omnia sua, ubi eum condere et thesaurizare ille monstrauerat, qui haec mala mundo uentura praedixerat. Ac per hoc qui Domino suo monenti oboedierant, ubi et quo modo thesaurizare deberent, nec ipsas terrenas diuitias barbaris incursantibus amiserunt.

[¶13] But some good and Christian men have been put to the torture, that they might be forced to deliver up their goods to the enemy. They could indeed neither deliver nor lose that good 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 should have been reminded that, if they suffered so severely for the sake of money, they should endure all torment, if need be, for Christ’s sake; that they might be taught to love Him rather who enriches with eternal felicity all who suffer for Him, and not silver and gold, for which it was pitiable to suffer, whether they 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. So that possibly the torture which taught them that they should set their affections on a possession they could not lose, was more useful than those possessions which, without any useful fruit at all, disquieted and tormented their anxious owners. But then we are reminded that some were tortured who had no wealth to surrender, but who were not believed when they said so. These too, however, had perhaps some craving for wealth, 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 such excruciating pains. And even if they were destitute of any hidden stores of gold and silver, because they were living in hopes of a better life,—I know not indeed if any such person 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 was scarcely to be expected that the barbarians should believe him, yet no confessor of a holy poverty could be tortured without receiving a heavenly reward.

> Latin: Quos autem non oboedisse paenituit. quid de talibus rebus faciendum esset, si non praecedente sapientia, certe consequente experientia didicerunt. At enim quidam boni etiam Christiani tormentis excruciati sunt, ut bona sua hostibus proderent. Illi uero nec prodere nec perdere potuerunt bonum, quo ipsi boni erant. Si autem torqueri quam mammona iniquitatis prodere maluerunt, boni non erant. Admonendi autem fuerant, qui tanta patiebantur pro auro, quanta essent sustinenda pro Christo, ut eum potius diligere discerent, qui pro se passos aeterna felicitate ditaret, non aurum et argentum, pro quo pati miserrimum fuit, seu mentiendo occultaretur, seu uerum dicendo proderetur. Namque inter tormenta nemo Christum contitendo amisit, nemo anrum nisi negando seruauit. Quocirca utiliora erant fortasse tormenta, quae bonum incorruptibile amandum docebant, quam illa bona, quae sine ullo utili fructu dominos sui amore torquebant. Sed quidam etiam non habentes quod proderent, dum non creduntur, torti sunt. Et hi forte habere cupiebant nec sancta uoluntate pauperes erant; quibus demonstrandum fuit non facultates, sed ipsas cupiditates talibus dignas esse cruciatibus. Si uero uitae melioris proposito reconditum aurum argentumque non habebant, nescio quidem utrum cuiquam talium acciderit, ut dum habere creditur torqueretur: uerum tamen etiamsi accidit, profecto, qui inter illa tormenta paupertatem sanctam confitebatur, Christum confitebatur. Quapropter etsi non meruit ab hostibus credi, non potuit tamen sanctae paupertatis confessor sine caelesti mercede torqueri.

[¶14] Again, they say that the long famine laid many a Christian low. But this, too, the faithful turned to good uses by a pious endurance of it. For those whom famine killed outright it rescued from the ills of this life, as a kindly disease would have done; and those who were only hunger-bitten were taught to live more sparingly, and inured to longer fasts.

> Latin: Multos, inquiunt, etiam Christianos fames diuturna uastauit. Hoc quoque in usus suos boni fideles pie tolerando uerterunt. Quos enim fames necauit, malis uitae huius, sicut corporis morbus, eripuit: quos autem non necauit, docuit parcius uiuere, docuit productius ieiunare.

### Of the End of This Life, Whether It is Material that It Be Long Delayed.

[¶16] Chapter 11.—Of the End of This Life, Whether It is Material that It Be Long Delayed.

> Latin: Caput XI. De fine temporalis uitae siue longioris siue breuioris.

[¶17] But, it is added, many Christians were slaughtered, and were put to death in a hideous variety of cruel ways. Well, if this be hard to bear, it is assuredly the common lot of all who are born into this life. Of this at least I am certain, that no one has ever died who was not destined to die some time. Now the end of life puts the longest life on a par with the shortest. For of two things which have alike ceased to be, the one is not better, the other worse—the one greater, the other less. And of what consequence is it what kind of death puts an end to life, since he who has died once is not forced to go through the same ordeal a second time? And as in the daily casualties of life every man is, as it were, threatened with numberless deaths, so long as it remains uncertain which of them is his fate, I would ask whether it is not better to suffer one and die, than to live in fear of all? I am not unaware of the poor-spirited fear which prompts us to choose rather to live long in fear of so many deaths, than to die once and so escape them all; but the weak and cowardly shrinking of the flesh is one thing, and the well-considered and reasonable persuasion of the soul quite another. That death is not to be judged an evil which is the end of a good life; for death becomes evil only by the retribution which follows it. They, then, who are destined to die, need not be careful to inquire what death they are to die, but into what place death will usher them. And since Christians are well aware that the death of the godly pauper whose sores the dogs licked was far better than of the wicked rich man who lay in purple and fine linen, what harm could these terrific deaths do to the dead who had lived well?

> Latin: Sed enim multi etiam Christiani interfecti sunt, multi multarum mortium foeda uarietate consumti. Hoc si aegre ferendum est, omnibus, qui in hanc uitam procreati sunt, utique commune est. Hoc scio, neminem fuisse mortuum, qui non fuerat aliquando moriturus. Finis autem uitae tam longam quam breuem uitam hoc idem facit. Neque enim aliud melius et aliud deterius, aut aliud maius et aliud breuius est, quod iam pariter non est. Quid autem interest, quo mortis genere uita ista finiatur, quando ille, cui finitur, iterum mori non cogitur? Cum autem unicuique mortalium sub cottidianis uitae huius casibus innumerabiles mortes quodam modo comminentur, quamdiu incertum est quaenam earum uentura sit, quaero utrum satius sit unam perpeti moriendo an omnes timere uiuendo. Nec ignoro quam citius eligatur diu uiuere sub timore tot mortium quam semel moriendo nullam deinceps formidare. Sed aliud est quod carnis sensus infirmiter pauidus refugit, aliud quod mentis ratio diligenter enucleata conuincit. Mala mors putanda non est, quam bona uita praecesserit. Neque enim facit malam mortem, nisi quod sequitur mortem. Non itaque multum curandum est eis, qui necessario morituri sunt, quid accidat ut moriantur, sed moriendo quo ire cogantur. Cum igitur Christiani nouerint longe meliorem fuisse religiosi pauperis mortem inter lingentium canum linguas quam inpii diuitis in purpura et bysso, horrenda illa genera mortium quid mortuis obfuerunt, qui bene uixerunt?

### Of the Burial of the Dead:  that the Denial of It to Christians Does Them No Injury.

[¶19] Chapter 12.—Of the Burial of the Dead: that the Denial of It to Christians Does Them No Injury.

> Latin: Caput XII. De sepultura humanorum corporum, quae Christianis etiamsi fuerit negata nil adimit.

[¶20] Further still, we are reminded that in such a carnage as then occurred, the bodies could not even be buried. But godly confidence is not appalled by so ill-omened a circumstance; for the faithful bear in mind that assurance has been given that not a hair of their head shall perish, and that, therefore, though they even be devoured by beasts, their blessed resurrection will not hereby be hindered. The Truth would nowise have said, “Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul,” if anything whatever that an enemy could do to the body of the slain could be detrimental to the future life. Or will some one perhaps take so absurd a position as to contend that those who kill the body are 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 them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do;” 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,” because the deathblow is felt, the body still having sensation; but after that, they have no more that they can do, for in the slain body there is no sensation. And so there are indeed many bodies of Christians lying unburied; but no one has separated them from heaven, nor from that earth which is all filled with the presence of Him who knows whence He will raise again what He created. It is said, indeed, in the Psalm: “The dead bodies of Thy servants have they given to be meat unto the fowls of the heaven, the flesh of Thy saints unto the beasts of the earth. Their blood have they shed like water round about Jerusalem; and there was none to bury them.” But this was said rather to exhibit the cruelty of those who did these things, than the misery of those who suffered them. To the eyes of men this appears a harsh and doleful lot, yet “precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.” Wherefore all these last offices and ceremonies that concern the dead, the careful funeral arrangements, and the equipment of the tomb, and the pomp of obsequies, are rather the solace of the living than the comfort of the dead. If a costly burial does any good to a wicked man, a squalid burial, or none at all, may harm the godly. His crowd of domestics furnished the purple-clad Dives with a funeral gorgeous in the eye of man; but in the sight of God that was a more sumptuous funeral which the ulcerous pauper received at the hands of the angels, who did not carry him out to a marble tomb, but bore him aloft to Abraham’s bosom.

> Latin: At enim in tanta strage cadauerum nec sepeliri potuerunt. Neque istud pia fides nimium reformidat, tenens praedictum nec absumentes bestias resurrecturis corporibus obfuturas, quorum capillus capitis non peribit. Nullo modo diceret ueritas: Nolite timere eos, qui corpus occidunt, animam autem non possunt occidere, si quicquam obesset futurae uitae, quidquid inimici de corporibus occisorum facere uoluissent. Nisi forte quispiam sic absurdus est, ut contendat eos, qui corpus occidunt, non debere timeri ante mortem, ne corpus occidant, et timeri debere post mortem, ne corpus occisum sepeliri non sinant. Falsum est ergo quod ait [Christus]: Qui corpus occidunt, et postea non habent quid faciant, si habent tanta, quae de cadaueribus faciant. Absit, ut falsum sit quod ueritas dixit. Dictum est enim aliquid eos facere cum occidunt, quia in corpore sensus est occidendo; postea uero nihil habere quod faciant, quia nullus sensus est in corpore occiso. Multa itaque corpora Christianorum terra non texit, sed nullum eorum quisquam a caelo et terra separauit, quam totam inplet praesentia sui, qui nouit unde resuscitet quod creauit. Dicitur quidem in psalmo: Posuerunt mortalia seruorum tuorum escas uolatilibus caeli, carnes sanctorum tuorum bestiis terrae; effuderunt sanguinem eorum sicut aquam in circuitu Hierusalem, et non erat qui sepeliret, sed magis ad exaggerandam crudelitatem eorum, qui ista fecerunt, non ad eorum infelicitatem, qui ista perpessi sunt. Quamuis enim haec in conspectu hominum dura et dira uideantur, sed pretiosa in conspectu Domini mors sanctorum eius. Proinde ista omnia, [id est] curatio funeris, conditio sepulturae, pompa exsequiarum, magis sunt uiuorum solacia quam subsidia mortuorum. Si aliquid prodest inpio sepultura pretiosa, oberit pio. uilis aut nulla. Praeclaras exequias in conspectu hominum exhibuit purpurato illi diuiti turba famulorum, sed multo clariores in conspectu Domini ulceroso illi pauperi ministerium praebuit angelorum, qui eum non extulerunt in marmoreum tumulum, sed in Abrahae gremium sustulerunt.

[¶21] The men against whom I have undertaken to defend the city of God laugh at all this. But even their own philosophers have despised a careful burial; and often whole armies have fought and fallen for their earthly country without caring to inquire whether they would be left exposed on the field of battle, or become the food of wild beasts. Of this noble disregard of sepulture poetry has well said: “He who has no tomb has the sky for his vault.” How much less ought they to insult over the unburied bodies of Christians, to whom it has been promised that the flesh itself shall be restored, and the body formed anew, all the members of it being gathered not only from the earth, but from the most secret recesses of any other of the elements in which the dead bodies of men have lain hid!

> Latin: Rident haec illi, contra quos defendendam suscepimus ciuitatem Dei. Verum tamen sepulturae curam etiam eorum philosophi contemserunt. Et saepe uniuersi exercitus, dum pro terrena patria morerentur, ubi postea iacerent uel quibus bestiis esca fierent, non curarunt, licuitque de hac re poetis plausibiliter dicere: Caelo tegitur, qui non habet urnam. Quanto minus debent de corporibus insepultis insultare Christianis, quibus et ipsius carnis membrorumque omnium reformatio non solum ex terra, uerum etiam ex aliorum elementorum secretissimo sinu, quo dilapsa cadauera recesserunt, in temporis puncto reddenda et redintegranda promittitur.

### Reasons for Burying the Bodies of the Saints.

[¶23] Chapter 13.—Reasons for Burying the Bodies of the Saints.

> Latin: Caput XIII. Quae sit ratio sanctorum corpora sepeliendi.

[¶24] Nevertheless the bodies of the dead are not on this account to be despised and left unburied; least of all the bodies of the righteous and faithful, which have been used by the Holy Spirit 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 they bore him, with how much more reason ought we to care for the bodies of those we love, which they wore far more closely and intimately than any clothing! For the body is not an extraneous ornament or aid, but a part of man’s very nature. And therefore to the righteous of ancient times the last offices were piously rendered, and sepulchres provided for them, and obsequies celebrated; and they themselves, while yet alive, gave commandment to their sons about the burial, and, on occasion, even about the removal of their bodies to some favorite place. And Tobit, according to the angel’s testimony, is commended, and is said to have pleased God by burying the dead. Our Lord Himself, too, though He was to rise again the third day, applauds, and commends to our applause, the good work of the religious woman who poured precious ointment over His limbs, and did it against His burial. And the Gospel speaks with commendation of those who were careful to take down His body from the cross, and wrap it lovingly in costly cerements, and see to its burial. These instances certainly do not prove that corpses have any feeling; but they show that God’s providence extends even to the bodies of the dead, and that such pious offices are pleasing to Him, as cherishing faith in the resurrection. And we may also draw from them this wholesome lesson, that if God does not forget even any kind office which loving care pays to the unconscious dead, much more does He reward the charity we exercise towards the living. Other things, indeed, which the holy patriarchs said of the burial and removal of their bodies, they meant to be taken in a prophetic sense; but of these we need not here speak at large, what we have already said being sufficient. But if the want of those things which are necessary for the support of the living, as food and clothing, though painful and trying, does not break down the fortitude and virtuous endurance of good men, nor eradicate piety from their souls, but rather renders it more fruitful, how much less can the absence of the funeral, and of the other customary attentions paid to the dead, render those wretched who are already reposing in the hidden abodes of the blessed! Consequently, though in the sack of Rome and of other towns the dead bodies of the Christians were deprived of these last offices, this is neither the fault of the living, for they could not render them; nor an infliction to the dead, for they cannot feel the loss.

> Latin: Nec ideo tamen contemnenda et abicienda sunt corpora defunctorum maximeque iustorum adque fidelium, quibus tamquam organis et uasis ad omnia bona opera sancte usus est Spiritus. Si enim paterna uestis et anulus, ac si quid huius modi, tanto carius est posteris, quanto erga parentes maior adfectus: nullo modo ipsa spernenda sunt corpora, quae utique multo familiarius adque coniunctius quam quaelibet indumenta. gestamus. Haec enim non ad ornamentum uel adiutorium, quod adhibetur extrinsecus, sed ad ipsam naturam hominis pertinent. Unde et antiquorum iustorum funera officiosa pietate curata sunt et exsequiae celebratae et sepultura prouisa, ipsique cum uiuerent de sepeliendis uel etiam transferendis suis corporibus filiis mandauerunt, et Tobias sepeliendo mortuos Deum promeruisse teste angelo commendatur. Ipse quoque Dominus die tertio resurrecturus religiosae mulieris bonum opus praedicat praedicandumque commendat, quod unguentum pretiosum super membra eius effuderit adque hoc ad eum sepeliendum fecerit. Et laudabiliter commemorantur in euangelio qui corpus eius de cruce acceptum diligenter adque honorifice tegendum sepeliendumque curarunt. Verum istae auctoritates non hoc admonent, quod insit ullus cadaueribus sensus, sed ad Dei prouidentiam, cui placent etiam talia pietatis officia, corpora quoque mortuorum pertinere significant propter fidem resurrectionis adstruendam. Ubi et illud salubriter discitur, quanta possit esse remuneratio pro elemosynis, quas uiuentibus et sentientibus exhibemus, si neque hoc aput Deum perit, quod exanimis hominum membris officii diligentiaeque persoluitur. Sunt quidem et alia, quae sancti patriarchae de corporibus suis uel condendis uel transferendis prophetico spiritu dicta intellegi uoluerunt; non autem hic locus est, ut ea pertractemus, cum sufficiant ista, quae diximus. Sed si ea, quae sustentandis uiuentibus sunt necessaria, sicut -uictus et amictus, quamuis cum graui adflictione desint, non frangunt in bonis perferendi tolerandique uirtutem nec eradicant ex animo pietatem, sed exercitatam faciunt fecundiorem: quanto magis, cum desunt ea, quae curandis funeribus condendisque corporibus defunctorum adhiberi solent, non efficiunt miseros in occultis piorum sedibus iam quietos! Ac per hoc quando ista cadaueribus Christianorum in illa magnae urbis uel etiam aliorum oppidorum uastatione defuerunt, nec uiuorum culpa est, qui non potuerunt ista praebere, nec poena mortuorum, qui non possunt ista sentire.

## 6. Of the Captivity of the Saints, and that Divine Consolation Never Failed Them Therein.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/6/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/6/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 14.—Of the Captivity of the Saints, and that Divine Consolation Never Failed Them Therein.

> Latin: Caput XIV. De captiuitate sanctorum, quibus numquam diuina solacia defuerunt.

[¶1] But, say they, many Christians were even led away captive. This indeed were a most pitiable fate, if they could be led 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 a captive; so were other prophets: and God, the comforter, did not fail them. And in like manner He has not failed His own people in the power of a nation which, though barbarous, is yet human,—He who did not abandon the prophet in the belly 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 was thrown overboard, was received on a dolphin’s back and carried to land. But that story of ours about the prophet Jonah is far more incredible,—more incredible because more marvellous, and more marvellous because a greater exhibition of power.

> Latin: Sed multi, inquiunt, Christiani etiam captiui ducti sunt. Hoc sane miserrimum est, si aliquo duci potuerunt, ubi Deum suum non inuenerunt. Sunt in scripturis sanctis huius etiam cladis magna solacia. Fuerunt in captiuitate tres pueri, fuit Daniel, fuerunt alii prophetae; nec Deus defuit consolator. Sic ergo non deseruit fideles suos sub dominatione gentis, licet barbarae, tamen humanae, qui prophetam non deseruit nec in uisceribus beluae. Haec quoque illi, cum quibus agimus, malunt inridere quam credere, qui tamen [in] suis litteris credunt Arionem Methymnaeum, nobilissimum citharistam, cum esset deiectus e naui, exceptum delphini dorso et ad terras esse peruectum. Verum illud nostrum de Iona propheta incredibilius est. Plane incredibilius quia mirabilius, et mirabilius quia potentius.

### Of Regulus, in Whom We Have an Example of the Voluntary Endurance of Captivity for the Sake of Religion; Which Yet Did Not Profit Him, Though He Was a Worshipper of the Gods.

[¶3] Chapter 15.—Of Regulus, in Whom We Have an Example of the Voluntary Endurance of Captivity for the Sake of Religion; Which Yet Did Not Profit Him, Though He Was a Worshipper of the Gods.

> Latin: Caput XV. De Regulo, in quo captiuitatis ob religionem etiam sponte tolerandae extat exemplum, quod tamen illi deos colenti prodesse non potuit.

[¶4] But among their own famous men they have a very noble example of the voluntary endurance of captivity in obedience to a religious scruple. Marcus Attilius Regulus, a Roman general, was a prisoner in the hands of the Carthaginians. But they, being more anxious to exchange their prisoners with the Romans than to keep them, sent Regulus as a special envoy with their own embassadors 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 he believed it was not for the advantage of the Roman republic to make an exchange of prisoners. After he had thus exerted his influence, the Romans did not compel him to return to the enemy; 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 narrow box, in which he was compelled to stand, and in which finely sharpened nails were fixed all round about him, so that he could not lean upon any part of it without intense pain; and so they killed him by depriving him of sleep. With justice, indeed, do they applaud the virtue which rose superior to so frightful a fate. However, the gods he swore by were those who 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 this behalf, that they might confer happiness in this life, either willed or permitted these punishments to be inflicted on one who kept his oath to them, what more cruel punishment could 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 own land nor go elsewhere, but without hesitation returned to his bitterest enemies. If he thought that this course would be advantageous with respect to this present life, he was certainly much deceived, for it brought his life to a frightful termination. By his own example, in fact, he taught that the gods do not secure the temporal happiness of their worshippers; since he himself, who was devoted to their worship, as both conquered in battle and taken prisoner, and then, because he refused to act in violation of the oath he had sworn by them, was tortured and put to death by a new, and hitherto unheard of, and all too horrible kind of punishment. And on the supposition that the worshippers of the gods are rewarded by felicity in the life to come, why, then, do they calumniate the influence of Christianity? why do they assert that this disaster has overtaken the city because it has ceased to worship its gods, since, worship them as assiduously as it may, it may yet be as unfortunate as Regulus was? Or will some one carry so wonderful a blindness to the extent of wildly attempting, in the face of the evident truth, to contend that though one man might be unfortunate, though a worshipper of the 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 composed of individuals.

> Latin: Habent tamen isti de captiuitate religionis causa etiam sponte toleranda et in suis praeclaris uiris nobilissimum exemplum. M. Regulus, imperator populi Romani, captiuus aput Carthaginienses fuit. Qui cum sibi mallent a Romanis suos reddi quam eorum tenere captiuos, ad hoc inpetrandum etiam istum praecipue Regulum cum legatis suis Romam miserunt, prius iuratione constrictum, si quod uolebant minime peregisset, rediturum esse Carthaginem. Perrexit ille adque in senatu contraria persuasit, quoniam non arbitrabatur utile esse Romanae rei publicae mutare captiuos. Nec post hanc persuasionem a suis ad hostes redire conpulsus est, sed quia iurauerat, id sponte conpleuit. At illi eum excogitatis adque horrendis cruciatibus necauerunt. Inclusum quippe angusto ligno, ubi stare cogeretur, clauisque acutissimis undique confixo, ut se in nullam eius partem sine poenis atrocissimis inclinaret, etiam uigilando peremerunt. Merito certe laudant uirtutem tam magna infelicitate maiorem. Et per deos ille iurauerat, quorum cultu prohibito has generi humano clades isti opinantur infligi. Qui ergo propterea colebantur, ut istam uitam prosperam redderent, si uerum iuranti has inrogari poenas seu uoluerunt seu permiserunt, quid periuro grauius irati facere potuerunt? Sed quur non ratiocinationem meam potius ad utrumque concludam? Deos certe ille sic coluit, ut propter iuris iurandi fidem nec maneret in patria, nec inde quolibet ire, sed ad suos acerrimos inimicos redire minime dubitaret. Hoc si huic uitae utile existimabat, cuius tam horrendum exitum meruit, procul dubio fallebatur. Suo quippe docuit exemplo nihil deos ad istam temporalem felicitatem suis prodesse cultoribus, quando quidem ille eorum deditus cultui et uictus et captiuus abductus et, quia noluit aliter quam per eos iurauerat facere, nouo ac prius inaudito nimiumque hon’ibili supplicii genere cruciatus extinctus est. Si autem deorum cultus post hanc uitam uelut mercedem reddit felicitatem, quur calumniantur temporibus Christianis, ideo dicentes Urbi accidisse illam calamitatem, quia deos suos colere destitit, cum potuerit etiam illos diligentissime colens tam infelix fieri, quam ille Regulus fuit? Nisi forte contra clarissimam ueritatem tanta quisquam dementia mirae caecitatis obnititur, ut contendere audeat uniuersam ciuitatem deos colentem infelicem esse non posse, unum uero hominem posse, quod uidelicet potentia deorum suorum multos potius sit idonea conseruare quam singulos, cum multitudo constet ex singulis. Si autem dicunt M.

[¶5] But if they say that M. Regulus, even while a prisoner and enduring these bodily torments, might yet enjoy the blessedness of a virtuous soul, then let them recognize that true virtue by which a city also may be blessed. For the blessedness of a community and of an individual flow from the same source; for a community is nothing else than a harmonious collection of individuals. So that I am not concerned meantime to discuss what kind of virtue Regulus possessed; enough, that by his very noble example they are forced to own that the gods are to be worshipped not for the sake of bodily comforts or external advantages; for he preferred to lose all such things rather than offend the gods by whom he had sworn. But what can we make of men who glory in having such a citizen, but dread having a city like him? If they do not dread this, then let them acknowledge that some such calamity as befell Regulus may also befall a community, though they be worshipping their gods as diligently as he; and let them no longer throw the blame of their misfortunes on Christianity. But as our present concern is with those Christians who were taken prisoners, let those who take occasion from this calamity to revile our most wholesome religion in a fashion not less imprudent than impudent, consider this and hold their peace; for if it was no reproach to their gods that a most punctilious worshipper of theirs should, for the sake of keeping his oath to them, be deprived of his native land without hope of finding another, and fall into the hands of his enemies, and be put to death by a long-drawn and exquisite torture, much less ought the Christian name to be charged with the captivity of those who believe in its power, since they, in confident expectation of a heavenly country, know that they are pilgrims even in their own homes.

> Latin: Regulum etiam in illa captiuitate illisque cruciatibus corporis animi uirtute beatum esse potuisse, uirtus potius uera quaeratur, qua beata esse possit et ciuitas. Neque enim aliunde beata ciuitas, aliunde homo, cum aliud ciuitas non sit quam concors hominum multitudo. Quam ob rem nondum interim disputo, qualis in Regulo uirtus fuerit: sufficit nunc, quod isto nobilissimo exemplo coguntur fateri non propter corporis bona uel earum rerum, quae extrinsecus homini accidunt, colendos deos, quando quidem ille carere his omnibus maluit quam deos per quos iurauit offendere. Sed quid faciamus hominibus, qui gloriantur se talem habuisse ciuem, qualem timent habere ciuitatem? Quod si non timent, tale ergo aliquid, quale accidit Regulo, etiam ciuitati tam diligenter quam ille deos colenti accidere potuisse fateantur et Christianis temporibus non calumnientur. Verum quia de illis Christianis orta quaestio est, qui etiam captiuati sunt, hoc intueantur et taceant, qui saluberrimae religioni hinc inpudenter adque inprudenter inludunt, quia, si dis eorum probro non fuit, quod adtentissimus cultor illorum, dum eis iuris iurandi fidem seruaret, patria caruit, cum aliam non haberet, captiuusque aput hostes per longam mortem supplicio nouae crudelitatis occisus est, multo minus nomen criminandum est Christianum in captiuitate sacratorum suorum, qui supernam patriam ueraci fide expectantes etiam in suis sedibus peregrinos se esse nouerunt.

### Of the Violation of the Consecrated and Other Christian Virgins, to Which They Were Subjected in Captivity and to Which Their Own Will Gave No Consent; And Whether This Contaminated Their Souls.

[¶7] Chapter 16.—Of the Violation of the Consecrated and Other Christian Virgins, to Which They Were Subjected in Captivity and to Which Their Own Will Gave No Consent; And Whether This Contaminated Their Souls.

> Latin: Caput XVI. An stupris, quae etiam sacrarum forte uirginum est passa captiuitas, contaminari potuerit uirtus animi sine uoluntatis adsensu.

[¶8] But they fancy they bring a conclusive charge against Christianity, when they aggravate the horror of captivity by adding that not only wives and unmarried maidens, but even consecrated virgins, were violated. But truly, with respect to this, it is not Christian faith, nor piety, nor even the virtue of chastity, which is hemmed into any difficulty; the only difficulty is so to treat the subject as to satisfy at once modesty and reason. And in discussing it we shall not be so careful 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 good has its throne in the soul, and thence rules the members of the body, which becomes holy in virtue of the holiness of the will; and that while the will remains firm and unshaken, nothing that another person does with the body, or upon the body, is any fault of the person who suffers it, so long as he cannot escape it without sin. But as not only pain may be inflicted, but lust gratified on the body of another, whenever anything of this latter kind takes place, shame invades even a thoroughly pure spirit from which modesty has not departed,—shame, lest that act which could not be suffered without some sensual pleasure, should be believed to have been committed also with some assent of the will.

> Latin: Magnum sane crimen se putant obicere Christianis, cum eorum exaggerantes captiuitatem addunt etiam stupra commissa, non solum in aliena matrimonia uirginesque nupturas, sed etiam in quasdam sanctimoniales. Hic uero non fides, non pietas, non ipsa uirtus, quae castitas dicitur, sed nostra potius disputatio inter pudorem adque rationem quibusdam coartatur angustiis. Nec tantum hic curamus alienis responsionem reddere, quantum ipsis nostris consolationem. Sit igitur in primis positum adque firmatum uirtutem, qua recte uiuitur, ab animi sede membris corporis imperare sanctumque corpus usu fieri sanctae uoluntatis, qua inconcussa ac stabili permanente, quidquid alius de corpore uel in corpore fecerit, quod sine peccato proprio non ualeat euitari, praeter culpam esse patientis. Sed quia non solum quod ad dolorem, uerum etiam quod ad libidinem pertinet, in corpore alieno perpetrari potest: quidquid tale factum fuerit, etsi retentam constantissimo animo pudici. tiam non excutit, tamen pudorem incutit, ne credatur factum cum mentis etiam uoluntate, quod fieri fortasse sine carnis aliqua uoluptate non potuit.

### Of Suicide Committed Through Fear of Punishment or Dishonor.

[¶10] Chapter 17.—Of Suicide Committed Through Fear of Punishment or Dishonor.

> Latin: Caput XVII. De morte uoluntaria ob metum poenae siue dede cori s.

[¶11] And consequently, even if some of these virgins killed themselves to avoid such disgrace, who that has any human feeling would refuse to forgive them? And as for those who would not put an end to their lives, lest they might seem to escape the crime of another by a sin of their own, he who lays this to their charge as a great wickedness is himself not guiltless of the fault of folly. For if it is not lawful to take the law into our own hands, and slay even a guilty person, whose death no public sentence has warranted, then certainly he who kills himself is a homicide, and so much the guiltier of his own death, as he was more innocent of that offence for which he doomed himself to die. Do we justly execrate the deed of Judas, and does truth itself pronounce that by hanging himself he rather aggravated than expiated the guilt of that most iniquitous betrayal, since, by despairing of God’s mercy in his sorrow that wrought death, he left to himself no place for a healing penitence? How much more ought he to abstain from laying violent hands on himself who has done nothing worthy of such a punishment! For Judas, when he killed himself, killed a wicked man; but he passed from this life chargeable not only with the death of Christ, but with his own: for though he killed himself on account of his crime, his killing himself was another crime. Why, then, should a man who has done no ill do ill to himself, and by killing himself kill the innocent to escape another’s guilty act, and perpetrate upon himself a sin of his own, that the sin of another may not be perpetrated on him?

> Latin: Ac per hoc et quae se occiderunt, ne quidquam huius modi paterentur, quis humanus adfectus eis nolit ignosci ( et quae se occidere noluerunt, ne suo facinore alienum flagitium deuitarent, quisquis [eis] hoc crimini dederit, ipse crimen insipientiae non cauebit. Nam utique si non licet priuata potestate hominem occidere uel nocentem, cuius occidendi licentiam lex nulla concedit, profecto etiam qui se ipsum occidit homicida est, et tanto fit nocentior cum se occiderit, quanto innocentior in ea causa fuit, qua se occidendum putauit. Nam si Iudae factum merito detestamur eumque ueritas iudicat, cum se laqueo suspendit, sceleratae illius traditionis auxisse potius quam expiasse commissum, quoniam Dei misericordiam desperando exitiabiliter paenitens nullum sibi salubris paenitentiae locum reliquit: quanto magis a sua nece se abstinere debet, qui tali supplicio quod in se puniat non habet. Iudas enim cum se occidit, sceleratum hominem occidit, et tamen non solum Christi., uerum etiam suae mortis reus finiuit hanc uitam, quia licet propter suum scelus alio suo scelere occisus est. Quur autem homo, qui mali nihil fecit, sibi malefaciat et se ipsum interficiendo hominem interficiat innocentem, ne alium patiatur nocentem, adque in se perpetret peccatum proprium, ne in eo perpetretur alienum?

### Of the Violence Which May Be Done to the Body by Another’s Lust, While the Mind Remains Inviolate.

[¶13] Chapter 18.—Of the Violence Which May Be Done to the Body by Another’s Lust, While the Mind Remains Inviolate.

> Latin: Caput XVIII. De aliena uiolentaque libidine, quam in oppresso corpore mens inuita perpetitur.

[¶14] But is there a fear that even another’s lust may pollute the violated? It will not pollute, if it be another’s: if it pollute, 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 ills than consent to evil; and since no one, however magnanimous and pure, has always the disposal of his own body, but can control only the consent and refusal of his will, what sane man can suppose that, if his body be seized and forcibly made use of to satisfy the lust of another, he thereby loses his purity? For if purity can be thus destroyed, then assuredly purity is no virtue of the soul; nor can it be numbered among those good things by which the life is made good, but among the good things of the body, in the same category as strength, beauty, sound and unbroken health, and, in short, all such good things as may be diminished without at all diminishing the goodness and rectitude of our life. But if purity be nothing better than these, why should the body be perilled that it may be preserved? If, on the other hand, it belongs to the soul, then not even when the body is violated is it lost. Nay more, the virtue of holy continence, when it resists the uncleanness of carnal lust, sanctifies even the body, and therefore when this continence remains unsubdued, even the sanctity of the body is preserved, because the will to use it holily remains, and, so far as lies in the body itself, the power also.

> Latin: At enim, De uel aliena polluat libido, metuitur. Non polluet, si aliena erit; si autem polluet, aliena non erit. Sed cum pudicitia uirtus sit animi comitemque habeat fortitudinem, qua potius quaelibet mala tolerare quam malo consentire decernit, nullus autem magnanimus et pudicus in potestate habeat, quid de sua carne fiat, sed tantum quid adnuat mente uel renuat: quis eadem sana mente putauerit perdere se pudicitiam, si forte in adprehensa et oppressa carne sua exerceatur et expleatur libido non sua? Si enim hoc modo pudicitia perit, profecto pudicitia uirtus animi non erit, nec pertinebit ad ea bona, quibus bene uiuitur, sed in bonis corporis numerabitur, qualia sunt uires pulchritudo saneualetudo, ac si quid huius modi est; quae bona, etiamsi minuantur, bonam iustamque uitam omnino non minuunt. Quod si tale aliquid est pudicitia, ut quid pro illa, ne amittatur, etiam periculo corporis laboratur? Si autem animi bonum est, etiam obpresso corpore non amittitur. Quin etiam sanctae continentiae bonum cum inmunditiae carnalium concupiscentiarum non cedit, et ipsum corpus sanctificatur, et ideo, cum eis non cedere inconcussa intentione persistit, nec de ipso corpore perit sanctitas, quia eo sancte utendi perseuerat uoluntas et, quantum est in ipso, etiam facultas.

[¶15] 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 to and wound them, and the surgeons who administer relief often perform operations that sicken the spectator. A midwife, suppose, has (whether maliciously or accidentally, or through unskillfulness) destroyed the virginity of some girl, while endeavoring to ascertain it: I suppose no one is so foolish as to believe that, by this destruction of the integrity of one organ, 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’s lust makes no impression on this bodily sanctity, which is preserved intact by one’s own persistent continence. Suppose a virgin violates the oath she has sworn to God, and goes to meet her seducer with the intention of yielding to him, shall we say that as she goes she is possessed even of bodily sanctity, when already she has lost and destroyed that sanctity of soul which sanctifies the body? Far be it from us to so misapply words. Let us rather draw this conclusion, that while the sanctity of the soul remains even when the body is violated, the sanctity of the body is not lost; and that, in like manner, the sanctity of the body is lost when the sanctity of the soul is violated, though the body itself remains intact. And therefore a woman who has been violated by the sin of another, and without any consent of her own, has no cause to put herself to death; much less has she cause to commit suicide in order to avoid such violation, for in that case she commits certain homicide to prevent a crime which is uncertain as yet, and not her own.

> Latin: Neque enim eo corpus sanctum est, quod eius membra sunt integra, aut eo, quod nullo contrectantur adtactu, cum possint diuersis casibus etiam uulnerata uim perpeti, et medici aliquando saluti opitulantes haec ibi faciant, quae horret aspectus. Obstetrix uirginis cuiusdam integritatem manu uelut explorans siue maleuolentia siue inscitia siue casu, dum inspicit, perdidit. Non opinor quemquam tam stulte sapere, ut huic perisse aliquid existimet etiam de ipsius corporis sanctitate, quamuis membri illius integritate iam perdita. Quocirca proposito animi permanente, per quod etiam corpus sanctificari meruit, nec ipsi corpori aufert sanctitatem uiolentia libidinis alienae, quam seruat perseuerantia continentiae suae. An uero si aliqua femina mente corrupta uiolatoque proposito, quod Deo uouerat, pergat uitianda ad deceptorem suum, ad hoc eam pergentem sanctam uel corpore dicimus, ea sanctitate animi, per quam corpus sanctificabatur, amissa adque destructa? Absit hic error et hinc potius admoneamur ita non amitti corporis sanctitatem manente animi sanctitate etiam corpore obpresso, sicut amittitur et corporis sanctitas uiolata animi sanctitate etiam corpore intacto. Quam ob rem non habet quod in se morte spontanea puniat femina sine ulla sua consensione uiolenter obpressa et alieno conpressa peccato; quanto minus antequam hoc fiat! ne admittatur homicidium certum, cum ipsum flagitium, quamuis alienum, adhuc pendet incertum.

## 7. Of Lucretia, Who Put an End to Her Life Because of the Outrage Done Her.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/7/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/7/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 19.—Of Lucretia, Who Put an End to Her Life Because of the Outrage Done Her.

> Latin: Caput XIX. De Lucretia, quae se ob inlatum sibi stuprum peremit.

[¶1] This, then, is our position, and it seems sufficiently lucid. We maintain that when a woman is violated while her soul admits no consent to the iniquity, but remains inviolably chaste, the sin is not hers, but his who violates her. But do they against whom we have to defend not only the souls, but the sacred bodies too of these outraged Christian captives,—do they, perhaps, dare to dispute our position? But all know how loudly they extol the purity of Lucretia, that noble matron of ancient Rome. When King Tarquin’s son had violated her body, she made known the wickedness of this young profligate to her husband Collatinus, and to Brutus her kinsman, men of high rank and full of courage, and bound them by an oath to avenge it. Then, heart-sick, and unable to bear the shame, she put an end to her life. What shall we call her? An adulteress, or chaste? There is no question which she was. Not more happily than truly did a declaimer say of this sad occurrence: “Here was a marvel: there were two, and only one committed adultery.” Most forcibly and truly spoken. For this declaimer, seeing in the union of the two bodies the foul lust of the one, and the chaste will of the other, and giving heed not to the contact of the bodily members, but to the wide diversity of their souls, says: “There were two, but the adultery was committed only by one.”

> Latin: An forte huic perspicuae rationi, qua dicimus corpore obpresso nequaquam proposito castitatis ulla in malum consensione mutato illius tantum esse flagitium, qui obprimens concubuerit, non illius, quae obpressa concumbenti nulla uoluntate consenserit, contradicere audebunt hi, contra quos feminarum Christianarum in captiuitate obpressarum non tantum mentes, uerum etiam corpora sancta defendimus? Lucretiam certe, matronam nobilem ueteremque Romanam, pudicitiae magnis efferunt laudibus. Huius corpore cum uiolenter obpresso Tarquinii regis filius libidinose potitus esset, illa scelus inprobissimi iuuenis marito Collatino et propinquo Bruto, uiris clarissimis et fortissimis, indicauit eosque ad uindictam constrinxit. Deinde foedi in se commissi aegra adque inpatiens se peremit. Quid dicemus? Adultera haec an casta iudicanda est? Quis in hac controuersia laborandum putauerit? Egregie quidam ex hoc ueraciterque declamans ait: ‘Mirabile dictu, duo fuerunt et adulterium unus admisit.’ Splendide adque uerissime.

[¶2] But how is it, that she who was no partner to the crime bears the heavier punishment of the two? For the adulterer was only banished along with his father; she suffered the extreme penalty. If that was not impurity by which she was unwillingly ravished, then this is not justice by which she, being chaste, is punished. To you I appeal, ye laws and judges of Rome. Even after the perpetration of great enormities, you do not suffer the criminal to be slain untried. If, then, one were to bring to your bar this case, and were to prove to you that a woman not only untried, but chaste and innocent, had been killed, would you not visit the murderer with punishment proportionably severe? This crime was committed by Lucretia; that Lucretia so celebrated and lauded slew the innocent, chaste, outraged Lucretia. Pronounce sentence. But if you cannot, because there does not appear any one whom you can punish, why do you extol with such unmeasured laudation her who slew an innocent and chaste woman? Assuredly you will find it impossible to defend her before the judges of the realms below, if they be such as your poets are fond of representing them; for she is among those

> Latin: Intuens enim in duorum corporum commixtione unius inquinatissimam cupiditatem, alterius castissimam uoluntatem, et non quid coniunctione membrorum, sed quid animorum diuersitate ageretur adtendens: (Duo., inquit, fuerunt, et adulterium unus admisit.’ Sed quid est hoc, quod in eam grauius uindicatur, quae adulterium non admisit? Nam ille patria cum patre pulsus est. haec summo est mactata supplicio. Si non est illa inpudicitia qua inuita obprimitur, non est haec iustitia qua casta punitur. Vos appello, leges iudicesque Romani. Nempe post perpetrata facinora nec quemquam scelestum indemnatum inpune uoluistis occidi. Si ergo ad uestrum iudicium quisquam deferret hoc crimen uobisque probaretur non solum indemnatam, uerum etiam castam et innocentem interfectam esse mulierem, nonne eum, qui id fecisset, seueritate congrua plecteretis? Hoc fecit illa Lucretia; illa, illa sic praedicata Lucretia innocentem, castam, uim perpessam Lucretiam insuper interemit. Proferte sententiam.

[¶3] “Who guiltless sent themselves to doom,

> Latin: Quod si propterea non potestis, quia non adstat quam punire possitis, quur interfectricem innocentis et castae tanta praedicatione laudatis?

[¶4] And all for loathing of the day,

[¶5] In madness threw their lives away.”

[¶6] And if she with the others wishes to return,

[¶7] “Fate bars the way: around their keep

[¶8] The slow unlovely waters creep,

[¶9] And bind with ninefold chain.”

[¶10] Or perhaps she is not there, because she slew herself conscious of guilt, not of innocence? She herself alone knows her reason; but what if she was betrayed by the pleasure of 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? Even though this were the case, she ought still to have held her hand from suicide, if she could with her false gods have accomplished a fruitful repentance. However, if such were the state of the case, and if it were false that there were two, but one only committed adultery; if the truth were that both were involved in it, one by open assault, the other by secret consent, then she did not kill an innocent woman; and therefore her erudite defenders may maintain that she is not among that class of the dwellers below “who guiltless sent themselves to doom.” But this case of Lucretia is in such a dilemma, that if you extenuate the homicide, you confirm the adultery: if you acquit her of adultery, you make the charge of homicide heavier; and there is no way out of the dilemma, when one asks, If she was adulterous, why praise her? if chaste, why slay her?

> Latin: Quam certe aput infernos iudices etiam tales, quales poetarum uestrorum carminibus cantitantur, nulla ratione defenditis, constitutam inter illos scilicet,. qui sibi letum Insontes peperere manu lucemque perosi Proiecere animas; cui ad superna redire cupienti Fas obstat, tristisque palus inamabilis undae Adligat. An forte ideo ibi non est, quia non insontem, sed male sibi consciam se peremit? Quid si enim (quod ipsa tantummodo nosse poterat) quamuis iuueni uiolenter inruenti etiam sua libidine inlecta consensit idque in se puniens ita doluit, ut morte putaret expiandum? Quamquam ne sic quidem se occidere debuit, si fructuosam posset aput deos falsos agere paenitentiam. Verum tamen si forte ita est falsumque est illud, quod duo fuerunt et adulterium unus admisit, sed potius ambo adulterium commiserunt, unus manifesta inuasione, altera latente consensione, non se occidit insontem, et ideo potest a litteratis eius defensoribus dici non esse aput inferos inter illos, <qui sibi letum insontes peperere manu.’ Sed ita haec causa ex utroque latere coartatur, ut, si extenuatur homicidium, adulterium confirmetur; si purgatur adulterium, homicidium cumuletur; nec omnino inuenitur exitus, ubi dicitur: Si adulterata, quur laudata; si pudica, quur occisa?

[¶11] Nevertheless, for our purpose of refuting those who are unable to comprehend what true sanctity is, and who therefore insult over our outraged Christian women, it is enough that in the instance of this noble Roman matron it was said in her praise, “There were two, but the adultery was the crime of only one.” For Lucretia was confidently believed to be superior to the contamination of any consenting thought to the adultery. And accordingly, since she killed herself for being subjected to an outrage in which she had no guilty part, it is obvious that this act of hers was prompted not by the love of purity, but by the overwhelming burden of her shame. She was ashamed that so foul a crime had been perpetrated upon her, though without her abetting; and this matron, with the Roman love of glory in her veins, was seized with a proud dread that, if she continued to live, it would be supposed she willingly did not resent the wrong that had been done her. She could not exhibit to men her conscience but she judged that her self-inflicted punishment would testify her state of mind; and she burned with shame at the thought that her patient endurance of the foul affront that another had done her, should be construed into complicity with him. Not such was the decision of the Christian women who suffered as she did, and yet survive. They declined to avenge upon themselves the guilt of others, and so add crimes of their own to those crimes in which they had no share. For this they would have done had their shame driven them to homicide, as the lust of their enemies had driven them to adultery. Within their own souls, in the witness of their own conscience, they enjoy the glory of chastity. In the sight of God, too, they are esteemed pure, and this contents them; they ask no more: it suffices them to have opportunity of doing good, and they decline to evade the distress of human suspicion, lest they thereby deviate from the divine law.

> Latin: Nobis tamen hoc tam nobili feminae huius exemplo ad istos refutandos, qui Christianis feminis in captiuitate conpressis alieni ab omni cogitatione sanctitatis insultant, sufficit quod in praeclaris eius laudibus dictum est: Duo fuerunt et adulterium unus admisit.’ Talis enim ab eis Lucretia magis credita est, quae se nullo adulterino potuerit maculare consensu. Quod ergo se ipsam, quoniam adulterum pertulit, etiam non adultera occidit, non est pudicitiae caritas, sed pudoris infirmitas. Puduit enim eam turpitudinis alienae in se commissae etiamsi non secum, et Romana mulier, laudis auida nimium, uerita est ne putaretur, quod uiolenter est passa cum uiueret, libenter passa si uiueret. Unde ad oculos hominum testem. mentis suae illam poenam adhibendam putauit, quibus conscientiam demonstrare non potuit. Sociam quippe facti se credi erubuit, si, quod alius in ea fecerat turpiter, ferret ipsa patienter. Non hoc fecerunt feminae Christianae, quae passae similia uiuunt tamen nec in se ultae sunt crimen alienum, ne aliorum sceleribus adderent sua, si, quoniam hostes in eis concupiscendo stupra commiserant, illae in se ipsis homicidia erubescendo committerent. Habent quippe intus gloriam castitatis, testimonium conscientiae; habent autem coram oculis Dei sui nec requirunt amplius, ubi quid recte faciant non habent amplius, ne deuient ab auctoritate legis diuinae, cum male deuitant offensionem suspicionis humanae.

### That Christians Have No Authority for Committing Suicide in Any Circumstances Whatever.

[¶13] Chapter 20.—That Christians Have No Authority for Committing Suicide in Any Circumstances Whatever.

> Latin: Caput XX. Nullam esse auctoritatem, quae Christianis in qualibet causa ius uoluntariae necis tribuat.

[¶14] It is not without significance, that in no passage of the holy canonical books there can be found either divine precept or permission to take away our own life, whether for the sake of 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 especially by the omission of the words “thy neighbor,” which are inserted when false witness is forbidden: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” Nor yet should any one on this account suppose he has not broken this commandment if he has borne false witness only against himself. For the love of our neighbor is regulated by the love of ourselves, as it is written, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” If, then, he who makes false statements about himself is not less guilty of bearing false witness than if he had made them to the injury of his neighbor; although in the commandment prohibiting false witness only his neighbor is mentioned, and persons taking no pains to understand it might suppose that a man was allowed to be a false witness to his own hurt; how much greater reason have we to understand that a man may not kill himself, since in the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” there is no limitation added nor any exception made in favor of any one, and least of all in favor of him on whom the command is laid! And so some attempt to extend this command even to beasts and cattle, as if it forbade us to take life from any creature. But if so, why not extend it also to the plants, and all that is rooted in and nourished by the earth? For though this class of creatures have no sensation, yet they also are said to live, and consequently they can die; and therefore, if violence be done them, can be killed. So, too, the apostle, when speaking of the seeds of such things as these, says, “That which thou sowest is not quickened except it die;” and in the Psalm it is said, “He killed their vines with hail.” Must we therefore reckon it a breaking of this commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” to pull a flower? Are we thus 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 animals that fly, swim, walk, or creep, since they are dissociated from us by their want of reason, and are therefore by the just appointment of the Creator subjected to us to kill or keep alive for our own uses; if so, then it remains that we understand that commandment simply of man. The commandment is, “Thou shall not kill man;” therefore neither another nor yourself, for he who kills himself still kills nothing else than man.

> Latin: Neque enim frustra in sanctis canonicis libris nusquam nobis diuinitus praeceptum permissumue reperiri potest, ut uel ipsius adipiscendae inmortalitatis uel ullius cauendi carendiue mali causa nobismet ipsis necem inferamus. Nam et prohibitos nos esse intellegendum est, ubi lex ait: Non occides, praesertim quia non addidit: ‘proximum tuum’, sicut falsum testimonium cum uetaret: Falsum, inquit, testimonium non dices aduersus proximum tuum. Nec ideo tamen si aduersus se ipsum quisquam falsum testimonium dixerit, ab hoc crimine se putauerit alienum, quoniam regulam diligendi proximum a semet ipso dilector accepit, quando quidem scriptum est: Diliges pro x i mum tuum tamquam te ipsum. Porro si falsi testimonii non minus reus est qui de se ipso falsum fatetur, quam si aduersus proximum hoc faceret, cum in eo praecepto, quo falsum testimonium prohibetur, aduersus proximum prohibeatur possitque non recte intellegentibus uideri non esse prohibitum, ut aduersus se ipsum quisque falsus testis adsistat: quanto magis intellegendum est non licere homini se ipsum occidere, cum in eo, quod scriptum est: Non occides, nihilo deinde addito, nullus, nec ipse utique cui praecipitur, intellegatur exceptus! Unde quidam hoc praeceptum etiam in bestias ac pecora conantur extendere, ut ex hoc nullum etiam illorum liceat occidere. Quur ergo non et herbas et quicquid humo radicitus alitur ac figitur? Nam et hoc genus rerum, quamuis non sentiat, dicitur uiuere ac per hoc potest et mori, proinde etiam, cum uis adhibetur, occidi. Unde et apostolus, cum de huius modi seminibus loqueretur: Tu, inquit, quod seminas non uiuificatur, nisi moriatur; et in psalmo scriptum est: Occidit uites eorum in grandine. Num igitur ob hoc, cum audimus: Non occides, uirgultum uellere nefas ducimus et Manichaeorum errori insanissime adquiescimus? His igitur deliramentis remotis cum legimus: Non occides, si propterea non accipimus hoc dictum de frutectis esse, quia nullus eis sensus est, nec de inrationabilibus animantibus, uolatilibus natatilibus, ambulatilibus reptilibus, quia nulla nobis ratione sociantur, quam non eis datum est nobiscum habere communem (unde iustissima ordinatione creatoris et uita et mors eorum nostris usibus subditur): restat ut de homine intellegamus, quod dictum est: Non occides, nec alterum ergo nec te. Neque enim qui se occidit aliud quam hominem occidit.

### Of the Cases in Which We May Put Men to Death Without Incurring the Guilt of Murder.

[¶16] Chapter 21.—Of the Cases in Which We May Put Men to Death Without Incurring the Guilt of Murder.

> Latin: Caput XXI. De interfectionibus hominum, quae ab homicidii crimine excipiuntur.

[¶17] However, there are some exceptions made by the divine authority to its own law, that men may not be put to death. These exceptions are of two kinds, being justified either by a general law, or by a special commission granted for a time to some individual. And in this latter case, he to whom authority is delegated, and who is but the sword in the hand of him who uses it, is not himself responsible for the death he deals. And, accordingly, they who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” Abraham indeed was not merely deemed guiltless of cruelty, but was even applauded for his piety, because he was ready to slay his son in obedience to God, not to his own passion. And it is reasonably enough made a question, whether we are to esteem it to have been in compliance with a command of God that Jephthah killed his daughter, because she met him when he had vowed that he would sacrifice to God whatever first met him as he returned victorious from battle. Samson, too, who drew down the house on himself and his foes together, is justified only on 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 justified either by a just law that applies generally, or by a special intimation from God Himself, the fountain of all justice, whoever kills a man, either himself or another, is implicated in the guilt of murder.

> Latin: Quasdam uero exceptiones eadem ipsa diuina fecit auctoritas, ut non liceat hominem occidi. Sed his exceptis, quos Deus occidi iubet siue data lege siue ad personam pro tempore expressa iussione, (non autem ipse occidit, qui ministerium debet iubenti, sicut adminiculum gladius utenti; et ideo nequa.. quam contra hoc praeceptum fecerunt, quo dictum est: Non occides, qui Deo auctore bella gesserunt aut personam gerentes publicae potestatis secundum eius leges, hoc est iustissimae rationis imperium, sceleratos morte punierunt; et Abraham non solum non est culpatus crudelitatis crimine, uerum etiam laudatus est nomine pietatis, quod uoluit filium nequaquam scelerate, sed oboedienter occidere; et merito quaeritur utrum pro iussu Dei sit habendum, quod Iephte filiam, quae patri occurrit, occidit, cum id se uouisset immolaturum Deo, quod ei redeunti de proelio uictori primitus occurrisset; nec Samson aliter excusatur, quod se ipsum cum hostibus ruina domus obpressit, nisi quia spiritus latenter hoc iusserat, qui per illum miracula faciebat) — his igitur exceptis, quos uel lex iusta generaliter uel ipse fons iustitiae Deus specialiter occidi iubet, quisquis hominem uel se ipsum uel quemlibet occiderit, homicidii crimine innectitur.

### That Suicide Can Never Be Prompted by Magnanimity.

[¶19] Chapter 22.—That Suicide Can Never Be Prompted by Magnanimity.

> Latin: Caput XXII. An umquam possit mors uoluntaria ad magnitudinem animi pertinere.

[¶20] But they who have laid violent hands on themselves are perhaps to be admired for their greatness of soul, though they cannot be applauded for the soundness of their judgment. However, if you look at the matter more closely, you will scarcely call it greatness of soul, which prompts a man to kill himself rather than bear up against some hardships of fortune, or sins in which he is not implicated. Is it not rather proof of a feeble mind, to be unable to bear either the pains of bodily servitude or the foolish opinion of the vulgar? And is not that to be pronounced the greater mind, which rather faces than flees the ills of life, and which, in comparison of the light and purity of conscience, holds in small esteem the judgment of men, and specially of the vulgar, which is frequently involved in a mist of error? And, therefore, if suicide is to be esteemed a magnanimous act, none can take higher rank for magnanimity than that Cleombrotus, who (as the story goes), when he had read Plato’s book in which he treats of the immortality of the soul, threw himself from a wall, and so passed 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 lived down; there was, in short, no motive but only magnanimity urging him to seek death, and break away from the sweet detention of this life. And yet that this was a magnanimous rather than a justifiable action, Plato himself, whom he had read, would have told him; for he would certainly have been forward to commit, or at least to recommend suicide, had not the same bright intellect which saw that the soul was immortal, discerned also that to seek immortality by suicide was to be prohibited rather than encouraged.

> Latin: Et quicumque hoc in se ipsis perpetrauerunt, animi magnitudine fortasse mirandi, non sapientiae sanitate laudandi sunt. Quamquam si rationem diligentius consulas, ne ipsa quidem animi magnitudo recte nominabitur, ubi quisque non ualendo tolerare uel quaeque aspera uel aliena peccata se ipse interemerit. Magis enim mens infirma deprehenditur, quae ferre non potest uel duram sui corporis seruitutem uel stultam uulgi opinionem, maiorque animus merito dicendus est, qui uitam aerumnosam magis potest ferre quam fugere et humanum iudicium maximeque uulgare, quod plerumque caligine erroris inuoluitur, prae conscientiae luce ac puritate contemnere. Quam ob rem si magno animo fieri putandum est, cum sibi homo ingerit mortem, ille potius Theobrotus in hac animi magnitudine reperitur, quem ferunt lecto Platonis libro, ubi de inmortalitate animae disputauit, se praecipitem dedisse de muro adque ita ex hac uita emigrasse ad eam, quam credidit esse meliorem. Nihil enim urguebat aut calamitatis aut criminis seu uerum seu falsum, quod non ualendo ferre se auferret; sed ad capessendam mortem adque huius uitae suauia uincla rumpenda sola adfuit animi magnitudo. Quod tamen magne potius factum esse quam bene testis ei esse potuit Plato ipse quem legerat, qui profecto id praecipue potissimumque fecisset uel etiam praecepisset, nisi ea mente, qua inmortalitatem animae uidit, nequaquam faciendum, quin etiam prohibendum esse iudicasset.

[¶21] Again, it is said many have killed themselves to prevent an enemy doing so. But we are not inquiring whether it has been done, but whether it ought to have been done. Sound judgment is to be preferred even to examples, and indeed examples harmonize with the voice of reason; but not all examples, but those only which are distinguished by their piety, and are proportionately worthy of imitation. For suicide we cannot cite the example of patriarchs, prophets, or apostles; though our Lord Jesus Christ, when He admonished them to flee from city to city if they were persecuted, might very well have taken that occasion to advise them to lay violent hands on themselves, and so escape their persecutors. But seeing He did not do this, nor proposed this mode of departing this life, though He were addressing His own friends for whom He had promised to prepare everlasting mansions, it is obvious that such examples as are produced from the “nations that forget God,” give no warrant of imitation to the worshippers of the one true God.

> Latin: At enim multi se interemerunt, ne in manus hostium peruenirent. Non modo quaerimus utrum sit factum, sed utrum fuerit faciendum. Sana quippe ratio etiam exemplis anteponenda est, cui quidem et exempla concordant, sed illa, quae tanto digniora sunt imitatione, quanto excellentiora pietate. Non fecerunt patriarchae, non prophetae, non apostoli, quia et ipse Dominus Christus, quando eos, si persecutionem paterentur, fugere admonuit de ciuitate in ciuitatem, potuit admonere ut sibi manus inferrent, ne in manus persequentium peruenirent. Porro si hoc ille non iussit aut monuit, ut eo modo sui ex hac uita emigrarent, quibus migrantibus mansiones aeternas praeparaturum esse se promisit, quaelibet exempla proponant gentes, quae ignorant Deum, manifestum est hoc non licere colentibus unum uerum Deum.

### What We are to Think of the Example of Cato, Who Slew Himself Because Unable to Endure Cæsar’s Victory.

[¶23] Chapter 23.—What We are to Think of the Example of Cato, Who Slew Himself Because Unable to Endure Cæsar’s Victory.

> Latin: Caput XXIII. Quale exemplum sit Catonis, qui se uictoriam Caesaris non ferens interemit.

[¶24] Besides Lucretia, of whom enough has already been said, our advocates of suicide have some difficulty in finding any other prescriptive example, unless it be that of Cato, who killed himself at Utica. His example is appealed to, not because he was the only man who did so, but because he was so esteemed as a learned and excellent man, that it could plausibly be maintained that what he did was and is a good thing to do. But of this action of his, what can I say but that his own friends, enlightened men as he, prudently dissuaded him, and therefore judged his act to be that of a feeble rather than a strong spirit, and dictated not by honorable feeling forestalling shame, but by weakness shrinking from hardships? Indeed, Cato condemns himself by the advice he gave to his dearly loved son. For if it was a disgrace to live under Cæsar’s rule, why did the father urge the son to this disgrace, by encouraging him to trust absolutely to Cæsar’s generosity? Why did he not persuade him to die along with himself? If Torquatus was applauded for putting his 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 spare himself? Was it more disgraceful to be a victor contrary to orders, than to submit to a victor contrary to the received ideas of honor? Cato, then, cannot have deemed it to be shameful to live under Cæsar’s rule; for had he done so, the father’s sword would have delivered his son from this disgrace. The truth is, that his son, whom he both hoped and desired would be spared by Cæsar, was not more loved by him than Cæsar was envied the glory of pardoning him (as indeed Cæsar himself is reported to have said); or if envy is too strong a word, let us say he was ashamed that this glory should be his.

> Latin: Sed tamen etiam illi praeter Lucretiam, de qua supra [satis] quod uidebatur diximus, non facile reperiunt de cuius auctoritate praescribant, nisi illum Catonem, qui se Uticae occidit; non quia solus id fecit, sed quia uir doctus et probus habebatur, ut merito putetur etiam recte fieri potuisse uel posse quod fecit. De cuius facto quid potissimum dicam, nisi quod amici eius etiam docti quidam uiri, qui hoc fieri prudentius dissuadebant, inbecillioris quam fortioris animi facinus esse censuerunt, quo demonstraretur non honestas turpia praecauens, sed infirmitas aduersa non sustinens? Hoc et ipse Cato in suo carissimo filio iudicauit. Nam si turpe erat sub uictoria Caesaris uiuere, quur auctor huius turpitudinis filio fuit, quem de Caesaris benignitate omnia sperare praecepit? Quur non et illum secum coegit ad mortem? Nam si eum filium, qui contra imperium in hostem pugnauerat, etiam uictorem laudabiliter Torquatus occidit, quur uictus uicto filio pepercit Cato, qui non pepercit sibi? An turpius erat contra imperium esse uictorem, quam contra decus ferre uictorem? Nullo modo igitur Cato turpe esse iudicauit sub uictore Caesare uiuere; alioquin ab hac turpitudine paterno ferro filium liberaret. Quid [est] ergo, nisi quod filium quantum amauit, cui parci a Caesare et sperauit et uoluit, tantum gloriae ipsius Caesaris, ne ab illo etiam sibi parceretur, ut ipse Caesar dixisse fertur, inuidit — [aut] ut aliquid nos mitius dicamus, erubuit?

## 8. That in that Virtue in Which Regulus Excels Cato, Christians are Pre-Eminently Distinguished.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/8/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/8/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 24.—That in that Virtue in Which Regulus Excels Cato, Christians are Pre-Eminently Distinguished.

> Latin: Caput XXIV. Quod in ea uirtute, qua Regulus Catone praestantior fuit, multo magis emineant Christiani.

[¶1] Our opponents are offended at our preferring to Cato the saintly Job, who endured dreadful evils in his body rather than deliver himself from all torment by self-inflicted death; or other saints, of whom it is recorded in our authoritative and trustworthy books that they bore captivity and the oppression of their enemies rather than commit suicide. But their own books authorize us to prefer to Marcus Cato, Marcus Regulus. For Cato had never conquered Cæsar; and when conquered by him, disdained to submit himself to him, and that 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 for the Roman republic a victory which no citizen could bewail, and which the enemy himself was constrained to admire; yet afterwards, when he in his turn was defeated by them, he preferred to be their captive rather than to put himself beyond their reach by suicide. Patient under the domination of the Carthaginians, and constant in his love of the Romans, he neither deprived the one of his conquered body, nor the other of his unconquered spirit. Neither was it love of life that prevented him from killing himself. This was plainly enough indicated by his unhesitatingly returning, on account of his promise and oath, to the same enemies whom he had more grievously provoked by his words in the senate than even by his arms in battle. Having such a contempt of life, and preferring to end it by whatever torments excited enemies might contrive, rather than terminate it by his own hand, he could not more distinctly have declared how great a crime he judged suicide to be. Among all their famous and remarkable citizens, the Romans have no better man to boast of than this, who was neither corrupted by prosperity, for he remained a very poor man after winning such victories; nor broken by adversity, for he returned intrepidly to the most miserable end. But if the bravest and most renowned heroes, who had but an earthly country to defend, and who, though they had but false gods, yet rendered them a true worship, and carefully kept their oath to them; if these men, who by the custom and right of war put conquered enemies to the sword, yet shrank from putting an end to their own lives even when conquered by their enemies; if, though they had no fear at all of death, they would yet rather suffer slavery than commit suicide, how much rather must Christians, the worshippers of the true God, the aspirants to a heavenly citizenship, shrink from this act, if in God’s providence they have been for a season delivered into the hands of their enemies to prove or to correct them! And certainly, Christians subjected to this humiliating condition will not be deserted by the Most High, who for their sakes humbled Himself. Neither should they forget that they are bound by no laws of war, nor military orders, to put even a conquered enemy to the sword; and if a man may not put to death the enemy who has sinned, or may yet sin against him, who is so infatuated as to maintain that he may kill himself because an enemy has sinned, or is going to sin, against him?

> Latin: Nolunt autem isti, contra quos agimus, ut sanctum uirum lob, qui tam horrenda mala in sua carne perpeti maluit quam inlata sibi morte omnibus carere cruciatibus, uel alios sanctos ex litteris nostris summa auctoritate celsissimis fideque dignissimis, qui captiuitatem dominationemque hostium ferre quam sibi necem inferre maluerunt, Catoni praeferamus; sed ex litteris eorum eundem illum M. Catoni Regulum praeferam. Cato enim numquam Caesarem uicerat, cui uictus dedignatus est subici et, ne subiceretur, a se ipso elegit occidi: Regulus autem Poenos iam uicerat imperioque Romano Romanus imperator non ex ciuibus dolendam, sed ex hostibus laudandam uictoriam reportauerat; ab eis tamen postea uictus maluit eos ferre seruiendo quam eis se auferre moriendo. Proinde seruauit et sub Carthaginiensium dominatione patientiam et in Romanorum dilectione constantiam, nec uictum auferens corpus ab hostibus nec inuictum animum a ciuibus. Nec quod se occidere noluit, uitae huius amore fecit. Hoc probauit, cum causa promissi iurisque iurandi ad eosdem hostes, quos grauius in senatu uerbis quam bello armis offenderat, sine ulla dubitatione remeauit. Tantus itaque uitae huius contemtor, cum saeuientibus hostibus per quaslibet poenas eam finire quam se ipse perimere maluit, magnum scelus esse, si se homo interimat, procul dubio iudicauit. Inter omnes suos laudabiles et uirtutis insignibus inlustres uiros non proferunt Romani meliorem, quem neque felicitas corruperit, nam in tanta uictoria mansit pauperrimus, nec infelicitas fregerit, nam ad tanta exitia reuertit intrepidus. Porro si fortissimi et praeclarissimi uiri terrenae patriae defensores deorumque licet falsorum, non tamen fallaces cultores, sed ueracissimi etiam iuratores, qui hostes uictos more ac iure belli ferire potuerunt, hi ab hostibus uicti se ipsos ferire noluerunt et, cum mortem minime formidarent, uictores tamen dominos ferre quam eam sibi inferre maluerunt: quanto magis Christiani, uerum Deum colentes et supernae patriae suspirantes, ab hoc facinore temperabunt, si eos diuina dispositio uel probandos uel emendandos ad tempus hostibus subiugauerit, quos in illa humilitate non deserit, qui propter eos tam humiliter altissimus uenit, praesertim quos nullius militaris potestatis uel talis militiae iura constringunt ipsum hostem ferire superatum. Quis ergo tam malus error obrepit, ut homo se occidat, uel quia in eum peccauit, uel ne in eum peccet inimicus, cum uel peccatorem uel peccaturum ipsum occidere non audeat inimicum?

### That We Should Not Endeavor By Sin to Obviate Sin.

[¶3] Chapter 25.—That We Should Not Endeavor By Sin to Obviate Sin.

> Latin: Caput XXV. Quod peccatum non per peccatum debeat declinari.

[¶4] But, we are told, there is ground to fear that, when the body is subjected to the enemy’s lust, the insidious pleasure of sense may entice the soul to consent to the sin, and steps must be taken to prevent so disastrous a result. And is not suicide the proper mode of preventing not only the enemy’s sin, but the sin of the Christian so allured? Now, in the first 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 is such a fool as to say, Let us sin now, that we may obviate a possible 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, and we can at best but make a choice of sins, is not a future and uncertain adultery preferable to a present and certain murder? Is it not better to commit a wickedness which penitence may heal, than a crime which leaves no place for healing contrition? I say this for the sake of those men or women who fear they may be enticed into consenting to their violator’s lust, and think they should lay violent hands on themselves, and so prevent, not another’s sin, but their own. But far be it from the mind of a Christian confiding in God, and resting in the hope of His aid; far be it, I say, from such a mind to yield a shameful consent to pleasures of the flesh, howsoever presented. And if that lustful disobedience, which still dwells in our mortal members, follows its own law irrespective of our will, surely its motions in the body of one who rebels against them are as blameless as its motions in the body of one who sleeps.

> Latin: At enim timendum est et cauendum, ne libidini subditum corpus inlecebrosissima uoluptate animum adliciat consentire peccato. Proinde, inquiunt, non iam propter alienum, sed propter suum peccatum, antequam hoc quisque committat, se debet occidere. Nullo modo quidem hoc faciet animus, ut consentiat libidini carnis suae aliena libidine concitatae, qui Deo potius eiusque sapientiae quam corpori eiusque concupiscentiae subiectus est. Verum tamen si detestabile facinus et damnabile scelus est etiam se ipsum hominem occidere, sicut ueritas manifesta proclamat, quis ita desipiat ut dicat: ‘lam nunc perpetremus homicidium, ne postea forte incidamus in adulterium’? Nonne si tantum dominatur iniquitas, ut non innocentia, sed peccata potius eligantur, satius est incertum de futuro adulterium quam certum de praesenti homicidium? Nonne satius est flagitium committere, quod paenitendo sanetur, quam tale facinus, ubi locus salubris paenitentiae non relinquitur? Haec dixi propter eos uel eas, quae non alieni, sed proprii peccati deuitandi causa, ne sub alterius libidine etiam excitatae suae forte consentiant, uim sibi, qua moriantur, inferendam putant. Ceterum absit a mente Christiana, quae Deo suo fidit in eoque spe posita eius adiutorio nititur, absit, inquam, ut mens talis quibuslibet carnis uoluptatibus ad consensum turpitudinis cedat. Quod si illa concupiscentialis inoboedientia, quae adhuc in membris moribundis habitat, praeter nostrae uoluntatis legem quasi lege sua mouetur, quanto magis absque culpa est in corpore non consentientis, si absque culpa est in corpore dormientis!

### That in Certain Peculiar Cases the Examples of the Saints are Not to Be Followed.

[¶6] Chapter 26.—That in Certain Peculiar Cases the Examples of the Saints are Not to Be Followed.

> Latin: Caput XXVI. De his, quae fieri non licent, cum a sanctis facta noscuntur, qua ratione facta credenda sint.

[¶7] But, they say, in the time of persecution some holy women escaped those who menaced them with outrage, by casting themselves into rivers which they knew would drown them; and having died in this manner, they are venerated in the church catholic as martyrs. Of such persons I do not presume to speak rashly. I cannot tell whether there may not have been vouchsafed to the church some divine authority, proved by trustworthy evidences, for so honoring their memory: it may be that it is so. It may be they were not deceived by human judgment, but prompted by divine wisdom, to their act of self-destruction. We know that this was the case with Samson. And when God enjoins any act, and intimates by 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 his son 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 accused of murder by any law of his state; nay, if he has not slain him, it is then he is accused of treason to the state, and of despising the law. But if he has been acting on his own authority, and at his own impulse, he has in this case incurred the crime of shedding human blood. And thus he is punished for doing without orders the very thing he is punished for neglecting to do when he has been ordered. If the commands of a general make so great a difference, shall the commands of God make none? He, then, who knows it is unlawful to kill himself, may nevertheless do so if he is ordered by Him whose commands we may not neglect. Only let him be very sure that the divine command has been signified. As for us, we can become privy to the secrets of conscience only in so far as these are disclosed to us, and so far only do we judge: “No one knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him.” But this we affirm, this we maintain, this we every way pronounce to be right, that no man ought to inflict on himself voluntary death, for this is to escape the ills of time by plunging into those of eternity; that no man ought to do so on account of another man’s sins, for this were to escape a guilt which could not pollute him, by incurring great guilt of his own; that no man ought to do so on account of his own past sins, for he has all the more need of this life that these sins may be healed by repentance; that no man should put an end to this life to obtain that better life we look for after death, for those who die by their own hand have no better life after death.

> Latin: Sed quaedam, inquiunt, sanctae feminae tempore persecutionis, ut insectatores suae pudicitiae deuitarent, in rapturum adque necaturum se fluuium proiecerunt eoque modo defunctae sunt earumque martyria in catholica ecclesia ueneratione celeberrima frequentantur. De his nihil temere audeo iudicare. Utrum enim ecclesiae aliquibus fide dignis testificationibus, ut earum memoriam sic honoret, diuina persuaserit auctoritas, nescio; et fieri potest ut ita sit. Quid si enim hoc fecerunt, non humanitus deceptae, sed diuinitus iussae, nec errantes, sed oboedientes? sicut de Samsone aliud nobis fas non est credere. Cum autem Deus iubet seque iubere sine ullis am. bagibus intimat, quis oboedientiam in crimen uocet? quis obsequium pietatis accuset? Sed non ideo sine scelere facit, quisquis Deo filium immolare decreuerit, quia hoc Abraham etiam laudabiliter fecit. Nam et miles cum oboediens potestati, sub qualibet legitime constitutus est, hominem occidit, nulla. ciuitatis suae lege reus est homicidii, immo, nisi fecerit, reus est imperii deserti adque contemti; quod si sua sponte adque auctoritate fecisset, crimen effusi humani sanguinis incidisset. Itaque unde punitur si fecit iniussus. inde punietur nisi fecerit iussus. Quod si ita est iubente imperatore, quanto magis iubente creatore! Qui ergo audit non licere se occidere, faciat, si iussit cuius non licet iussa contemnere; tantummodo uideat utrum diuina iussio nullo nutet incerto. Nos per aurem conscientiam conuenimus, occultorum nobis iudicium non usurpamus. Nemo scit quid agatur in homine nisi spiritus hominis, qui in ipso est. Hoc dicimus, hoc adserimus, hoc modis omnibus adprobamus, neminem spontaneam mortem sibi inferre debere uelut fugiendo molestias temporales, ne incidat in perpetuas; neminem propter aliena peccata, ne hoc ipse incipiat habere grauissimum proprium, quem non polluebat alienum; neminem propter sua peccata praeterita, propter quae magis hac uita opus est, ut possint paenitendo sanari; neminem uelut desiderio uitae melioris, quae post mortem speratur, quia reos suae mortis melior post mortem uita non suscipit.

### Whether Voluntary Death Should Be Sought in Order to Avoid Sin.

[¶9] Chapter 27.—Whether Voluntary Death Should Be Sought in Order to Avoid Sin.

> Latin: Caput XXVII. An propter declinationem peccati mors spontanea adpetenda sit.

[¶10] There remains one reason for suicide which I mentioned before, and which is thought a sound one,—namely, to prevent one’s falling into sin either through the blandishments of pleasure or the violence of pain. If this reason were a good one, then we should be impelled to exhort men at once to destroy themselves, as soon as they have been washed in the laver of regeneration, and have received the forgiveness of all sin. Then is the time to escape all future sin, when all past sin is blotted out. And if this escape be lawfully secured by suicide, why not then specially? Why does any baptized person hold his hand from taking his own life? Why does any person who is freed from the hazards of this life again expose himself to them, when he has power so easily to rid himself of them all, and when it is written, “He who loveth danger shall fall into it?” Why does he love, or at least face, so many serious dangers, by remaining in this life from which he may legitimately depart? But is any one so blinded and twisted in his moral nature, and so far astray from the truth, as to think that, though a man ought to make away with himself for fear of being led into sin by the oppression of one man, his master, he ought yet to live, and so expose himself to the hourly temptations of this world, both to all those evils which the oppression of one master involves, and to numberless other miseries in which this life inevitably implicates us? What reason, then, is there for our consuming time in those exhortations by which we seek to animate the baptized, either to virginal chastity, or vidual continence, or matrimonial fidelity, when we have so much more simple and compendious a method of deliverance from sin, by persuading those who are fresh from baptism to put an end to their lives, and so pass to their Lord pure and well-conditioned? If any one thinks that such persuasion should be attempted, I say not he is foolish, but mad. With what face, then, can he say to any man, “Kill yourself, lest to your small sins you add 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 that you are washed from all your sins, lest you fall again into similar or even aggravated sins, while you live in a world which has such power to allure by its unclean pleasures, to torment by its horrible cruelties, to overcome by its errors and terrors?” It is wicked to say this; it is therefore wicked to kill oneself. For if there could be any just cause of suicide, this were so. And since not even this is so, there is none.

> Latin: Restat una causa, de qua dicere coeperam, qua utile putatur ut se quisque interficiat, scilicet ne in peccatum inruat uel blandiente uoluptate uel dolore saeuiente. Quam causam si uoluerimus admittere, eo usque progressa perueniet, ut hortandi sint homines tunc se potius interimere, cum lauacro sanctae regenerationis abluti uniuersorum remissionem acceperint peccatorum. Tunc enim tempus est cauendi omnia futura peccata, cum sunt omnia deleta praeterita. Quod si morte spontanea recte fit, quur non tunc potissimum fit? Quur baptizatus sibi quisque parcit? Quur liberatum caput tot rursus uitae huius periculis inserit, cum sit facillimae potestatis inlata sibi nece omnia deuitare scriptumque sit: Qui amat periculum, incidet in illud? Quur ergo amantur tot et tanta pericula uel certe, etiamsi non amantur, suscipiuntur, cum manet in hac uita, cui abscedere licitum est? An uero tam insulsa peruersitas cor euertit et a consideratione ueritatis auertit, ut, si se quisque interimere debet, ne unius captiuantis dominatu conruat in peccatum, uiuendum sibi existimet, ut ipsum perferat mundum per omnes horas tentationibus plenum, et talibus, qualis sub uno domino formidatur, et innumerabilibus ceteris, sine quibus haec uita non ducitur? Quid igitur causae est, quur in eis exhortationibus tempora consumamus. quibus baptizatos adloquendo studemus accendere siue ad uirginalem integritatem siue ad continentiam uidualem siue ad ipsam tori coniugalis fidem, cum habeamus meliora et ab omnibus peccandi periculis remota conpendia, ut, quibuscumque post remissionem recentissimam peccatorum adripiendam mortem sibique ingerendam persuadere potuerimus, eos ad Dominum saniores purioresque mittamus? Porro si, quisquis hoc adgrediendum et suadendum putat, non dico desipit, sed insanit: qua tandem fronte homini dicit: <Interfice te, ne paruis tuis peccatis adicias grauius, dum uiuis sub domino barbaris moribus inpudico’, qui non potest nisi sceleratissime dicere: ‘Interfice te peccatis tuis omnibus absolutis, ne rursus talia uel etiam peiora committas, dum nimis in mundo tot inpuris uoluptatibus inlecebroso, tot nefandis crudelitatibus furioso, tot erroribus et terroribus inimico’? Hoc quia nefas est dicere, nefas est profecto se occidere. Nam si hoc sponte faciendi ulla causa iusta esse posset, procul dubio iustior quam ista non esset. Quia uero nec ista est, ergo nulla est.

### By What Judgment of God the Enemy Was Permitted to Indulge His Lust on the Bodies of Continent Christians.

[¶12] Chapter 28.—By What Judgment of God the Enemy Was Permitted to Indulge His Lust on the Bodies of Continent Christians.

> Latin: Caput XXVIII. Quo iudicio Dei in corpora continentium libido hostilis peccare permissa sit.

[¶13] Let not your life, then, be a burden to you, ye faithful servants of Christ, though your chastity was made the sport of your enemies. You have a grand and true consolation, if you maintain a good conscience, and know that you did not consent to the sins of those who were permitted to commit sinful outrage upon you. And if you should ask why this permission was granted, indeed it is a deep providence of the Creator and Governor of the world; and “unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out.” Nevertheless, faithfully interrogate your own souls, whether ye have not been unduly puffed up by your integrity, and continence, and chastity; and whether ye have not been so desirous of the human praise that is accorded to these virtues, that ye have envied some who possessed them. I, for my part, do not know your hearts, and therefore I make no accusation; I do not even hear what your hearts answer when you question them. And yet, if they answer that it is as I have supposed it might be, do not marvel that you have lost that by which you can win men’s praise, and retain that which cannot be exhibited to men. If you did not consent to sin, it was because God added His aid to His grace that it might not be lost, and because shame before men succeeded to human glory that it might not be loved. But in both respects even the faint-hearted among you have a consolation, approved by the one experience, chastened by the other; justified by the one, corrected by the other. As to those whose hearts, when interrogated, reply that they have never been proud of the virtue of virginity, widowhood, or matrimonial chastity, but, condescending to those of low estate, rejoiced with trembling in these gifts of God, and that they have never envied any one the like excellences of sanctity and purity, but rose superior to human applause, which is wont to be abundant in proportion to the rarity of the virtue applauded, and rather desired that their own number be increased, than that by the smallness of their numbers each of them should be conspicuous;—even such faithful women, I say, must not complain that permission was given to the barbarians so grossly to outrage them; nor must they allow themselves to believe that God overlooked their character when He permitted acts which no one with impunity commits. For some most flagrant and wicked desires are allowed free play at present by the secret judgment of God, and are reserved to the public and final judgment. Moreover, it is possible that those Christian women, who are unconscious of any undue pride on account of their virtuous chastity, whereby they sinlessly suffered the violence of their captors, had yet some lurking infirmity which might have betrayed them into a proud and contemptuous bearing, had they not been subjected to the humiliation that befell them in the taking of the city. As, therefore, some men were removed by death, that no wickedness might change their disposition, so these women were outraged lest prosperity should corrupt their modesty. Neither those women then, who were already puffed up by the circumstance that they were still virgins, nor those who might have been so puffed up had they not been exposed to the violence of the enemy, lost their chastity, but rather gained humility; the former were saved from pride already cherished, the latter from pride that would shortly have grown upon them.

> Latin: Non itaque uobis, o fideles Christi, sit taedio uita uestra, si ludibrio fuit hostibus castitas uestra. Habetis magnam ueramque consolationem, si fidam conscientiam retinetis non uos consensisse peccatis eorum, qui in uos peccare permissi sunt. Quod si forte, quur permissi sint, quaeritis, alta quidem est prouidentia creatoris mundi adque rectoris, et inscrutabilia sunt iudicia eius et inuestigabiles uiae eius; uerum tamen interrogate fideliter animas uestras, ne forte de isto integritatis et continentiae uel pudicitiae bono uos inflatius extulistis et humanis laudibus delectatae in hoc etiam aliquibus inuidistis. Non accuso quod nescio, nec audio quod uobis interrogata uestra corda respondent. Tamen si ita esse responderint, nolite admirari hoc uos amisisse, unde hominibus placere gestistis, illud uobis remansisse, quod ostendi hominibus non potest. Si peccantibus non consensistis, diuinae gratiae, ne amitteretur, diuinum accessit auxilium; humanae gloriae, ne amaretur, humanum successit obprobrium. In utroque consolamini, pusillanimes, illinc probatae hinc castigatae, illinc iustificatae hinc emendatae. Quarum uero corda interrogata respondent numquam se de bono uirginitatis uel uiduitatis uel coniugalis pudicitiae superbisse, sed humilibus consentiendo de dono Dei cum tremore exultasse, nec inuidisse cuiquam paris excellentiam sanctitatis et castitatis, sed humana laude postposita, quae tanto maior deferri solet, quanto est bonum rarius quod exigit laudem, optasse potius ut amplior earum numerus esset, quam ut ipsae in paucitate amplius eminerent: nec istae, quae tales sunt, si earum quoque aliquas barbarica libido conpressit, permissum hoc esse causentur, nec ideo Deum credant ista neglegere, quia permittit quod nemo inpune committit. Quaedam enim ueluti pondera malarum cupiditatum et per occultum praesens diuinum iudicium relaxantur et manifesto ultimo reseruantur. Fortassis autem istae, quae bene sibi sunt consciae non se ex isto castitatis bono cor inflatum extulisse, et tamen uim hostilem in carne perpessae sunt, habebant aliquid latentis infirmitatis, quae posset in superbiae fastum. si hanc humilitatem in uastatione illa euasissent, extolli. Sicut ergo quidam morte rapti sunt, ne malitia mutaret intellectum eorum, ita quiddam ab istis ui raptum est, ne prosperitas mutaret modestiam earum. Utrisque igitur, quae de carne sua, quod turpem nullius esset perpessa contactum, uel iam superbiebant uel superbire, si nec hostium uiolentia contrectata esset, forsitan poterant, non ablata est castitas, sed humilitas persuasa; illarum tumori succursum est inmanenti, istarum occursum est inminenti.

[¶14] We must further notice that some of those sufferers may have conceived that continence is a bodily good, and abides so long as the body is inviolate, and did not understand that the purity both of the body and the soul rests on the steadfastness of the will strengthened by God’s grace, and cannot be forcibly taken from an unwilling person. From this error they are probably now delivered. For when they reflect how conscientiously they served God, and when they settle again to the firm persuasion that He can in nowise desert those who so serve Him, and so invoke His aid and when they consider, what they cannot doubt, how pleasing to Him is chastity, they are shut up to the conclusion that He could never have permitted these disasters to befall His saints, if by them that saintliness could be destroyed which He Himself had bestowed upon them, and delights to see in them.

> Latin: Quamquam et illud non sit tacendum, quod quibusdam, quae ista perpessae sunt, potuit uideri continentiae bonum in bonis corporalibus deputandum et tunc manere, si nullius libidine corpus adtrectaretur; non esse autem positum in solo adiuto diuinitus robore uoluntatis, ut sit sanctum et corpus et spiritus; nec tale bonum esse, quod inuito animo non possit auferri: qui error eis fortasse sublatus est. Cum enim cogitant. qua conscientia Deo seruierint, et fide inconcussa non de illo sentiunt, quod ita sibi seruientes eumque inuocantes deserere ullo modo potuerit, quantumque illi castitas placeat dubitare non possunt, uident esse consequens nequaquam illum fuisse permissurum, ut haec acciderent sanctis suis, si eo modo perire posset sanctitas, quam contulit eis et diligit in eis.

### What the Servants of Christ Should Say in Reply to the Unbelievers Who Cast in Their Teeth that Christ Did Not Rescue Them from the Fury of Their Enemies.

[¶16] Chapter 29.—What the Servants of Christ Should Say in Reply to the Unbelievers Who Cast in Their Teeth that Christ Did Not Rescue Them from the Fury of Their Enemies.

> Latin: Caput XXIX. Quid familia Christi l’espondere debeat infidelibus, cum exprobrant, quod eam a furore hostium non liberauerit Christus.

[¶17] The whole family of God, most high and most true, has therefore a consolation of its own,—a consolation which cannot deceive, and which has in it a surer hope than the tottering and falling affairs of earth can afford. They will not refuse the discipline of this temporal life, in which they are schooled for life eternal; nor will they lament their experience of it, for the good things of earth they use as pilgrims who are not detained by them, and its ills either prove or improve them. As for those who insult over them in their trials, and when ills befall them say, “Where is thy God?” we may ask them where their gods are when they suffer the very calamities for the sake of avoiding which they worship their gods, or maintain they ought to be worshipped; for the family of Christ is furnished with its reply: our God is everywhere present, wholly everywhere; not confined to any place. He can be present unperceived, and be absent without moving; when He exposes us to adversities, it is either to prove our perfections or correct our imperfections; and in return for our patient endurance of the sufferings of time, He reserves for us an everlasting reward. But who are you, that we should deign to speak with you even about your own gods, much less about our God, who is “to be feared above all gods? For all the gods of the nations are idols; but the Lord made the heavens.”

> Latin: Habet itaque omnis familia summi et ueri Dei consolationem suam, non fallacem nec in spe rerum nutantium uel labentium constitutam, uitamque etiam ipsam temporalem minime paenitendam, in qua eruditur ad aeternam, bonisque terrenis tamquam peregrina utitur nec capitur, malis autem aut probatur aut emendatur. Illi uero, qui probitati eius insultant eique dicunt, cum forte in aliqua temporalia mala deuenerit: Ubi est Deus tuus? ipsi dicant, ubi sint di eorum, cum talia patiuntur, pro quibus euitandis eos uel colunt uel colendos esse contendunt. Nam ista respondet: Dens meus ubique praesens, ubique totus, nusquam inclusus, qui possit adesse secretus, abesse non motus; ille cum me aduersis rebus exagitat, aut merita examinat aut peccata castigat mercedemque mihi aeternam pro toleratis pie malis temporalibus seruat; uos autem qui estis, cum quibus loqui dignum sit saltem de dis uestris, quanto minus de Deo meo, qui terribilis est super omnes deos, quoniam di gentium daemonia, Dominus autem caelos fecit.

### That Those Who Complain of Christianity Really Desire to Live Without Restraint in Shameful Luxury.

[¶19] Chapter 30.—That Those Who Complain of Christianity Really Desire to Live Without Restraint in Shameful Luxury.

> Latin: Caput XXX. Quam pudendis prosperitatibus afluere uelint, qui de Christianis temporibus conqueruntur.

[¶20] If the famous Scipio Nasica were now alive, who was once your pontiff, and was unanimously chosen by the senate, when, in the panic created by the Punic war, they sought for the best citizen to entertain the Phrygian goddess, he would curb this shamelessness of yours, though you would perhaps scarcely 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 license unrestrained, and to lead an abandoned and profligate life without the interruption of any uneasiness or disaster? For certainly your desire for peace, and prosperity, and plenty is not prompted by any purpose of using these blessings honestly, that is to say, with moderation, sobriety, temperance, and piety; for your purpose rather is to run riot in an endless variety of sottish pleasures, and thus to generate from your prosperity a moral pestilence which will prove a thousandfold more disastrous than the fiercest enemies. It was such a calamity as this that Scipio, your chief pontiff, your best man 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 feared security, that enemy of weak minds, and he perceived that a wholesome fear would be a fit guardian for the citizens. And he was not mistaken; the event proved how wisely he had spoken. For when Carthage was destroyed, and the Roman republic delivered from its great cause of anxiety, a crowd of disastrous evils forthwith resulted from the prosperous condition of things. First concord was weakened, and destroyed by fierce and bloody seditions; then followed, by a concatenation of baleful causes, civil wars, which brought in their train such massacres, such bloodshed, such lawless and cruel proscription and plunder, that those Romans who, in the days of their virtue, had expected injury only at the hands of their enemies, now that their virtue was lost, suffered greater cruelties at the hands of their fellow-citizens. The lust of rule, which with other vices existed among the Romans in more unmitigated intensity than among any other people, after it had taken possession of the more powerful few, subdued under its yoke the rest, worn and wearied.

> Latin: Si Nasica ille Scipio uester quondam pontifex uiueret, quem sub terrore belli Punici in suscipiendis Phrygiis sacris, cum uir optimus quaereretur, uniuersus senatus elegit, cuius os fortasse non auderetis aspicere, ipse uos ab hac inpudentia cohiberet. Quur enim adflicti rebus aduersis de temporibus querimini Christianis, nisi quia uestram luxuriam cupitis habere securam et perditissimis moribus remota omni molestiarum asperitate diffluere? Neque enim propterea cupitis habere pacem et omni genere copiarum abundare, ut his bonis honeste utamini, hoc est modeste sobrie, temperanter pie, sed ut infinita uarietas uoluptatum insanis effusionibus exquiratur, secundisque rebus ea mala oriantur in moribus, quae saeuientibus peiora sunt hostibus. At ille Scipio pontifex maximus uester, ille iudicio totius senatus uir optimus, istam uobis metuens calamitatem nolebat aemulam tunc imperii Romani Carthaginem dil’ui et decernenti ut dirueretur contradicebat Catoni, timens infirmis animis hostem securitatem, et tamquam pupillis ciuibus idoneum tutorem necessarium uidens esse terrorem. Nec eum sententia fefellit: re ipsa probatum est quam uerum diceret. Deleta quippe Carthagine magno scilicet terrore Romanae rei publicae depulso et extincto tanta de rebus prosperis orta mala continuo subsecuta sunt, ut corrupta diruptaque concordia prius saeuis cruentisque seditionibus, deinde mox malarum conexione causarum bellis etiam ciuilibus tantae strages ederentur, tantus sanguis effunderetur, tanta cupiditate proscriptionum ac rapinarum ferueret inmanitas, ut Romani illi, qui uita integriore mala metuebant ab hostibus, perdita integritate uitae crudeliora paterentur a ciuibus; eaque ipsa libido dominandi, quae inter alia uitia generis humani meracior inerat uniuerso populo Romano, postea quam in paucis potentioribus uicit, obtritos fatigatosque ceteros etiam iugo seruitutis obpressit.

### By What Steps the Passion for Governing Increased Among the Romans.

[¶22] Chapter 31.—By What Steps the Passion for Governing Increased Among the Romans.

> Latin: Caput XXXI. Quibus uitiorum gradibus aucta sit in Romanis cupido regnandi.

[¶23] For at what stage would that passion rest when once it has lodged in a proud spirit, until by a succession of advances it has reached even the throne. And to obtain such advances nothing avails but unscrupulous ambition. But unscrupulous ambition has nothing to work upon, save in a nation corrupted by avarice and luxury. Moreover, a people becomes avaricious and luxurious by prosperity; and it was this which that very prudent man Nasica was endeavouring to avoid when he opposed the destruction of the greatest, strongest, wealthiest city of Rome’s enemy. He thought that thus fear would act as a curb on lust, and that lust being curbed would not run riot in luxury, and that luxury being prevented avarice would be at an end; and that these vices being banished, virtue would flourish and increase the great profit of the state; and liberty, the fit companion of virtue, would abide unfettered. For similar reasons, and animated by the same considerate patriotism, that same chief pontiff of yours—I still refer to him who was adjudged Rome’s best man without one dissentient voice—threw cold water on the proposal of the senate to build a circle of seats round the theatre, and in a very weighty speech warned them against allowing the luxurious manners of Greece to sap the Roman manliness, and persuaded them not to yield to the enervating and emasculating influence of foreign licentiousness. So authoritative and forcible were his words, that the senate was moved to prohibit the use even of those benches which hitherto had been customarily brought to the theatre for the temporary use of the citizens. How eagerly would such a man as this have banished from Rome the scenic exhibitions themselves, had he dared to oppose the authority of those whom he supposed to be gods! For he did not know that they were malicious devils; or if he did, he supposed they should rather be propitiated than despised. For there had not yet been revealed to the Gentiles the heavenly doctrine which should purify their hearts by faith, and transform their natural disposition by humble godliness, and turn them from the service of proud devils to seek the things that are in heaven, or even above the heavens.

> Latin: Nam quando illa quiesceret in superbissimis mentibus, donec continuatis honoribus ad potestatem regiam peruenil’et? Honorum porro continuandorum facultas non esset, nisi ambitio praeualeret. Minime autem praeualeret ambitio, nisi in populo auaritia luxuriaque corrupto. Auarus uero luxuriosusque populus secundis rebus effectus est, quas Nasica ille prouidentissime cauendas esse censebat, quando ciuitatem hostium maximam fortissimam opulentissimam nolebat auferri, ut timore libido premeretur, libido pressa non luxuriaretur luxuriaque cohibita nec auaritia grassaretur; quibus uitiis obseratis ciuitati utilis uirtus floreret et cresceret eique uirtuti libertas congrua permaneret. Hinc etiam erat et ex hac prouidentissima patriae caritate ueniebat, quod idem ipse uester pontifex maximus, a senatu illius temporis (quod saepe dicendum est) electus sine ulla sententiarum discrepantia uir optimus, caueam theatri senatum construere molientem ab hac dispositione et cupiditate conpescuit persuasitque oratione grauissima, ne Graecam luxuriam uirilibus patriae moribus paterentur obrepere et ad uirtutem labefactandam eneruandamque Romanam peregrinae consentire nequitiae, tantumque auctoritate ualuit, ut uerbis eius commota senatoria prouidentia etiam subsellia, quibus ad horam congestis in ludorum spectaculo iam uti ciuitas coeperat, deinceps prohiberet adponi. Quanto studio iste ab urbe Roma ludos ipsos scaenicos abstulisset, si auctoritati eorum, quos deos putabat, resistere auderet, quos esse noxios daemones non intellegebat aut, si intellegebat, placandos etiam ipse potius quam contemnendos existimabat. Nondum enim fuerat declarata gentibus superna doctrina, quae fide cor mundans ad caelestia uel supercaelestia capessenda humili pietate humanum mutaret adfectum et a dominatu superborum daemonum liberaret.

## 9. Of the Establishment of Scenic Entertainments.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/9/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/9/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 32.—Of the Establishment of Scenic Entertainments.

> Latin: Caput XXXII. De scaenicorum institutione ludorum.

[¶1] Know then, ye who are ignorant of this, and ye who feign ignorance be reminded, while you murmur against Him who has freed you from such rulers, that the scenic games, exhibitions of shameless folly and license, were established at Rome, not by men’s vicious cravings, but by the appointment of your gods. Much more pardonably might you have rendered divine honors to Scipio than to such gods as these. The gods were not so moral as their pontiff. But give me now your attention, if your mind, inebriated by its deep potations of error, can take in any sober truth. The gods enjoined that games be exhibited in their honor to stay a physical pestilence; their pontiff prohibited the theatre from being constructed, to prevent a moral pestilence. If, then, there remains in you sufficient mental enlightenment to prefer the soul to the body, choose whom you will worship. Besides, though the pestilence was stayed, this was not because the voluptuous madness of stage-plays had taken possession of a warlike people hitherto accustomed only to the games of the circus; but these astute and wicked spirits, foreseeing that in due course the pestilence would shortly cease, took occasion to infect, not the bodies, but the morals of their worshippers, with a far more serious disease. And in this pestilence these gods find great enjoyment, because it benighted the minds of men with so gross a darkness and dishonored them with so foul a deformity, that even quite recently (will posterity be able to credit it?) some of those who fled from the sack of Rome and found refuge in Carthage, were so infected with this disease, that day after day they seemed to contend with one another who should most madly run after the actors in the theatres.

> Latin: Verum tamen scitote, qui ista nescitis et qui uos scire dissimulatis, aduertite, qui aduersus liberatorem a talibus dominis murmuratis: ludi scaenici, spectacula turpitudinum et licentia uanitatum, non hominum uitiis, sed deorum uestrorum iussis Romae instituti sunt. Tolerabilius diuinos honores deferretis illi Scipioni quam deos huius modi coleretis. Neque enim erant illi di suo pontifice meliores. Ecce adtendite, si mens tam diu potatis erroribus ebria uos aliquid sanum cogitare permittit! Di propter sedandam corporum pestilentiam ludos sibi scaenicos exhiberi iubebant; pontifex autem propter animorum cauendam pestilentiam ipsam scaenam constitui prohibebat. Si aliqua luce mentis animum corpori praeponitis, eligite quem colatis! Neque enim et illa corporum pestilentia ideo conquieuit, quia populo bellicoso et solis antea ludis circensibus adsueto ludorum scaenicorum delicata subintrauit insania; sed astutia spirituum nefandorum praeuidens illam pestilentiam iam fine debito cessaturam aliam longe grauiorem, qua plurimum gaudet, ex hac occasione non corporibus, sed moribus curauit inmittere, quae animos miserorum tantis obcaecauit tenebris, tanta foedauit deformitate, ut etiam modo (quod incredibile forsitan erit, si a nostris posteris audietur) Romana urbe uastata, quos pestilentia ista possedit adque inde fugientes Carthaginem peruenire potuerunt, in theatris cottidie certatim pro histrionibus insanirent.

### That the Overthrow of Rome Has Not Corrected the Vices of the Romans.

[¶3] Chapter 33.—That the Overthrow of Rome Has Not Corrected the Vices of the Romans.

> Latin: Caput XXXIII. De uitiis Romanorum, quos patriae non correxit euersio.

[¶4] Oh infatuated men, what is this blindness, or rather madness, which possesses you? How is it that while, as we hear, even the eastern nations are bewailing your ruin, and while powerful states in the most remote parts of the earth are mourning your fall as a public calamity, ye yourselves should be crowding to the theatres, should be pouring into them and filling them; and, in short, be playing a madder part now than ever before? This was the foul plague-spot, this the wreck of virtue and honor that Scipio sought to preserve you from when he prohibited the construction of theatres; this was his reason for desiring that you might still have an enemy to fear, seeing as he did how easily prosperity would corrupt and destroy you. He did not consider that republic flourishing whose walls stand, but whose morals are in ruins. But the seductions of evil-minded devils had more influence with you than the precautions of prudent men. Hence the injuries you do, you will not permit to be imputed to you: but the injuries you suffer, you impute to Christianity. Depraved by good fortune, and not chastened by adversity, what you desire in the restoration of a peaceful and secure state, is not the tranquillity of the commonwealth, but the impunity of your own vicious luxury. Scipio wished you to be hard pressed by an enemy, that you might not abandon yourselves to luxurious manners; but so abandoned are you, that not even when crushed by the enemy is your luxury repressed. You have missed the profit of your calamity; you have been made most wretched, and have remained most profligate.

> Latin: O mentes amentes! quis est hic tantus non error, sed furor, ut exitium uestrum, sicut audiuimus, plangentibus orientalibus populis et maximis ciuitatibus in remotissimis terris publicum luctum maeroremque ducentibus uos theatra quaereretis intraretis inpleretis, et multo insaniora quam fuerant antea faceretis? Hanc animorum labem ac pestem, hanc probitatis et honestatis euersionem uobis Scipio ille metuebat, quando construi theatra prohibebat, quando rebus prosperis uos facile corrumpi adque euerti posse cernebat, quando uos securos esse ab hostili terrore nolebat. Neque enim censebat ille felicem esse rem publicam stantibus moenibus, ruentibus moribus. Sed in uobis plus ualuit quod daemones inpii seduxerunt, quam quod homines prouidi praecauerunt. Hinc est quod mala, quae facitis, uobis inputari non uultis, mala uero, quae patimini, Christianis temporibus inputatis. Neque enim in uestra securitate pacatam rem publicam, sed luxuriam quaeritis inpunitam. qui deprauati rebus prosperis nec corrigi potuistis aduersis. V Volebat uos ille Scipio terreri ab hoste, ne in luxuriam flueretis: nec contriti ab hoste luxuriam repressistis, perdidistis utilitatem calamitatis, et miserrimi facti estis et pessimi permansistis.

### Of God’s Clemency in Moderating the Ruin of the City.

[¶6] Chapter 34.—Of God’s Clemency in Moderating the Ruin of the City.

> Latin: Caput XXXIV. De clementia Dei, quae Urbis excidium temperauit.

[¶7] And that you are yet alive is due to God, who spares you that you may be admonished to repent and reform your lives. It is He who has permitted you, ungrateful as you are, to escape the sword of the enemy, by calling yourselves His servants, or by finding asylum in the sacred places of the martyrs.

> Latin: Et tamen quod uiuitis Dei est, qui uobis parcendo admonet, ut corrigamini paenitendo; qui uobis etiam ingratis praestitit, ut uel sub nomine seruorum eius uel in locis martyrum eius hostiles manus euaderetis.

[¶8] It is said that Romulus and Remus, in order to increase the population of the city they founded, opened a sanctuary in which every man might find asylum and absolution of all crime,—a remarkable foreshadowing of what has recently occurred in honor of Christ. The destroyers of Rome followed the example of its founders. But it was not greatly to their credit that the latter, for the sake of increasing the number of their citizens, did that which the former have done, lest the number of their enemies should be diminished.

> Latin: Romulus et Remus asylum constituisse perhibentur, quo quisquis confugeret ab omni noxa liber esset, augere quaerentes creandae multitudinem ciuitatis. Mirandum in honorem Christi processit exemplum. Hoc constituerunt euersores Urbis, quod constituerant antea conditores. Quid autem magnum, si hoc fecerunt illi, ut ciuium suorum numerus subpleretur, quod fecerunt isti, ut suorum hostium numerositas seruaretur?

### Of the Sons of the Church Who are Hidden Among the Wicked, and of False Christians Within the Church.

[¶10] Chapter 35.—Of the Sons of the Church Who are Hidden Among the Wicked, and of False Christians Within the Church.

> Latin: Caput XXXV. De latentibus inter inpios ecclesiae filiis et de falsis intra ecclesiam Christianis.

[¶11] Let these and similar answers (if any fuller and fitter answers can be found) be given to their enemies by the redeemed family of the Lord Christ, and by the pilgrim city of King Christ. But let this city bear in mind, that among her enemies lie hid those who are destined to be fellow-citizens, that she may not think it a fruitless labor to bear what they inflict as enemies until they become confessors of the faith. So, too, as long as she is a stranger in the world, the city of God has in her communion, and bound to her by the sacraments, some who shall not eternally dwell in the lot of the saints. Of these, some are not now recognized; others declare themselves, and do not hesitate to make common cause with our enemies in murmuring against God, whose sacramental badge they wear. These men you may to-day see thronging the churches with us, to-morrow crowding the theatres with the godless. But we have the less reason to despair of the reclamation even of such persons, if among our most declared enemies there are now some, unknown to themselves, who are destined to become our friends. In truth, these two cities are entangled together in this world, and intermixed until the last judgment effects their separation. I now proceed to speak, as God shall help me, of the rise, progress, and end of these two cities; and what I write, I write for the glory of the city of God, that, being placed in comparison with the other, it may shine with a brighter lustre.

> Latin: Haec et talia, si qua uberius et commodius potuerit, respondeat inimicis suis redemta familia domini Christi et peregrina ciuitas regis Christi. Meminerit sane in ipsis inimicis latere ciues futuros, ne infructuosum uel aput ipsos putet, quod, donec perueniat ad confessos, portat infensos; sicut ex illorum numero etiam Dei ciuitas habet secum, quamdiu peregrinatur in mundo, conexos communione sacramentorum, nec secum futuros in aeterna sorte sanctorum, qui partim in occulto, partim in aperto sunt, qui etiam cum ipsis inimicis aduersus Deum, cuius sacramentum gerunt, murmurare non dubitant, modo cum illis theatra, modo ecclesias nobiscum replentes. De correctione autem quorundam etiam talium multo minus est desperandum, si aput apertissimos aduersarios praedestinati amici latitant, adhuc ignoti etiam sibi. Perplexae quippe sunt istae duae ciuitates in hoc saeculo inuicemque permixtae, donec ultimo iudicio dirimantur; de quarum exortu et procursu et debitis finibus quod dicendum arbitror, quantum diuinitus adiuuabor, expediam propter gloriam ciuitatis Dei, quae alienis a contrario comparatis clarius eminebit.

### What Subjects are to Be Handled in the Following Discourse.

[¶13] Chapter 36.—What Subjects are to Be Handled in the Following Discourse.

> Latin: Caput XXXVI. De quibus causis sequenti disputatione sit disserendum.

[¶14] But I have still some things to say in confutation of those who refer the disasters of the Roman republic to our religion, because it prohibits the offering of sacrifices to the gods. For this 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 disasters they would doubtless have attributed to us, if at that time our religion had shed its light upon them, and had prohibited their sacrifices. I must then go on to show what social well-being the true God, in whose hand are all kingdoms, vouchsafed to grant to them that their empire might increase. I must show why He did so, and how their false gods, instead of at all aiding them, greatly injured them by guile and deceit. And, lastly, I must meet those who, when on this point convinced and confuted by irrefragable proofs, endeavor to maintain that they worship the gods, not hoping for the present advantages of this life, but for those which are to be enjoyed after death. And this, if I am not mistaken, will be the most difficult part of my task, and will be worthy of the loftiest argument; for we must then enter the lists with the philosophers, not the mere common herd of philosophers, but the most renowned, who in many points agree 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 us on other points, we must not shrink from the task of exposing their errors, that, having refuted the gainsaying of the wicked with such ability as God may vouchsafe, we may assert the city of God, and true piety, and the worship of God, to which alone 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.

> Latin: Sed adhuc mihi quaedam dicenda sunt aduersus eos, qui Romanae rei publicae clades in religionem nostram referunt, qua dis suis sacrificare prohibentur. Commemoranda sunt enim quae et quanta occurrere potuerint uel satis esse uidebuntur mala, quae illa ciuitas pertulit uel ad eius imperium prouinciae pertinentes, antequam eorum sacrificia prohibita fuissent; quae omnia procul dubio nobis tribuerent, si iam uel illis clareret nostra religio, uel ita eos a sacris sacrilegis prohiberet. Deinde monstrandum est, quos eorum mores et quam ob causam Deus uerus ad augendum imperium adiuuare dignatus est, in cuius potestate sunt regna omnia, quamque nihil eos adiuuerint hi, quos deos putant, et potius quantum decipiendo et fallendo nocuerint. Postremo aduersus eos dicetur, qui manifestissimis documentis confutati adque conuicti conantur adserere non propter uitae praesentis utilitatem, sed propter eam, quae post mortem futura est, colendos deos. Quae, nisi fallor, quaestio multo erit operosior et subtiliore disputatione dignior, ut et contra philosophos in ea disseratur, non quoslibet, sed qui aput illos excellentissima gloria clari sunt et nobiscum multa sentiunt, et de animae inmortali tate et quod Deus uerus mundum condiderit et de prouidentia eius, qua uniuersum quod condidit regit. Sed quoniam et ipsi in illis, quae contra nos sentiunt, refellendi sunt, deesse huic officio non debemus, ut refutatis inpiis contradictionibus pro uiribus, quas Deus impertiet, adseramus ciuitatem Dei ueramque pietatem et Dei cultum, in quo uno ueraciter sempiterna beatitudo promittitur. Hic itaque modus sit huius uoluminis, ut deinceps disposita ab alio sumamus exordio.

### Of the Limits Which Must Be Put to the Necessity of Replying to an Adversary.

[¶16] Chapter 1.—Of the Limits Which Must Be Put to the Necessity of Replying to an Adversary.

> Latin: Caput I. De modo, qui necessitati disputationis adhibendus est.

[¶17] If the feeble mind of man did not presume to resist the clear evidence of truth, but yielded its infirmity to wholesome doctrines, as to a health-giving medicine, until it obtained from God, by its faith and piety, the grace needed to heal it, they who have just ideas, and express them in suitable language, would need to use no long discourse to refute the errors of empty conjecture. But this mental infirmity is now more prevalent and hurtful than ever, to such an extent that even after the truth has been as fully demonstrated as man can prove 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 before them, 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 more fully on those points which are already clear, that we may, as it were, present them not to the eye, but even to the touch, so that they may be felt even by those who close their eyes against them. And yet to what end shall we ever bring our discussions, or what bounds can be set to our discourse, if we proceed on the principle that we must always reply to those who reply to us? For those who are either unable to understand our arguments, or are so hardened by the habit of contradiction, that though they understand they cannot yield to them, 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 chose to disregard our arguments, and so often as they could by any means contradict our statements, you see how endless, and fruitless, and painful a task we should be undertaking. And therefore 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 charity put, if at least you intend always to require a reply to every exception which you hear taken to what you read in it; for so you would become like those silly women of whom the apostle says that they are “always learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

> Latin: Si rationi perspicuae ueritatis infirmus humanae consuetudinis sensus non auderet obsistere, sed doctrinae salubri languorem suum tamquam medicinae subderet, donec diuino adiutorio fide pietatis inpetrante sanaretur, non multo sermone opus esset ad conuincendum quemlibet uanae opinationis errorem his, qui recte sentiunt et sensa uerbis sufficientibus explicant. Nunc uero quoniam ille est maior et taetrior insipientium morbus animorum, quo inrationabiles motus suos, etiam post rationem plene redditam, quanta homini ab homine debetur, siue nimia caecitate, qua nec aperta cernuntur, siue obstinatissima peruicacia, qua et ea quae cernuntur non feruntur, tamquam ipsam rationem ueritatemque defendunt, fit necessitas copiosius dicendi plerumque res claras, uelut eas non spectantibus intuendas, sed quodam modo tangendas palpantibus et coniuentibus offeramus. Et tamen quis disceptandi finis erit et loquendi modus, si respondendum esse respondentibus semper existimemus? Nam qui uel non possunt intellegere quod dicitur, uel tam duri sunt aduersitate mentis, ut, etiamsi intellexerint, non oboediant, respondent, ut scriptum est, et loquuntur iniquitatem adque infatigabiliter uani sunt. Quorum dicta contraria si totiens uelimus refellere, quotiens obnixa fronte statuerint non cogitare quid dicant, dum quocumque modo nostris disputationibus contradicant, quam sit infinitum et aerumnosum et infructuosum uides. Quam ob rem, nec te ipsum, [mi] fili Marcelline, nec alios, quibus hic labor noster in Christi caritate utiliter ac liberaliter seruit, tales meorum scriptorum uelim iudices, qui responsionem semper desiderent. cum his quae leguntur audierint aliquid contradici, ne fiant similes earum muliercularum, quas commemorat apostolus semper discentes et numquam ad ueritatis scientiam peruenientes.,

### Recapitulation of the Contents of the First Book.

[¶19] Chapter 2.—Recapitulation of the Contents of the First Book.

> Latin: Caput II. De his, quae primo uolumine expedita sunt.

[¶20] In the foregoing book, having begun to speak of the city of God, to which I have resolved, Heaven helping me, to consecrate the whole of this work, it was my first endeavor to reply to those who attribute the wars by which the world is being devastated, and especially the recent sack of Rome by the barbarians, to the religion of Christ, which prohibits the offering of abominable sacrifices to devils. I have shown that they ought rather to attribute it to Christ, that for His name’s sake the barbarians, in contravention of all custom and law of war, threw open as sanctuaries the largest churches, and in many instances showed such reverence to Christ, that not only His genuine servants, but even those who in their terror feigned themselves to be so, were exempted from all those hardships which by the custom of war may lawfully be inflicted. Then out of this there arose the question, why wicked and ungrateful men were permitted to share in these benefits; and why, too, the hardships and calamities of war were inflicted on the godly as well as on the ungodly. And in giving a suitably full answer to this large question, I occupied some considerable space, partly that I might relieve the anxieties which disturb many when they observe that the blessings of God, and the common and daily human casualties, fall to the lot of bad men and good without distinction; but mainly that I might minister some consolation to those holy and chaste women who were outraged by the enemy, in such a way as to shock their modesty, though not to sully their purity, and that I might preserve them from being ashamed of life, though they have no guilt to be ashamed of. And then I briefly spoke against those who with a most shameless wantonness insult over those poor Christians who were subjected to those calamities, and especially over those broken-hearted and humiliated, though chaste and holy women; these fellows themselves being most depraved and unmanly profligates, quite degenerate from the genuine Romans, whose famous deeds are abundantly recorded in history, and everywhere celebrated, but who have found in their descendants the greatest enemies of their glory. In truth, Rome, which was founded and increased by the labors of these ancient heroes, was more shamefully ruined by their descendants, while its walls were still standing, than it is now by the razing of them. For in this ruin there fell stones and timbers; but in the ruin those profligates effected, there fell, not the mural, but the moral bulwarks and ornaments of the city, and their hearts burned with passions more destructive than the flames which consumed their houses. Thus I brought my first book to a close. And now I go on to speak of those calamities which that city itself, or its subject provinces, have suffered since its foundation; all of which they would equally have attributed to the Christian religion, if at that early period the doctrine of the gospel against their false and deceiving gods had been as largely and freely proclaimed as now.

> Latin: Superiore itaque libro, cum de ciuitate Dei dicere instituissem, unde hoc uniuersum opus illo adiuuante in manus sumtum est, occurrit mihi resistendum esse primitus eis, qui haec bella, quibus mundus iste conteritur, maximeque Romanae urbis recentem a barbaris uastationem Christianae religioni tribuunt, qua prohibentur nefandis sacrificiis seruire daemonibus, cum potius hoc tribuere deberent Christo, quod propter eius nomen contra institutum moremque bellorum eis, quo confugerent, religiosa et amplissima loca barbari libera praebuerunt, adque in multis famulatum deditum Christo non solum uerum, sed etiam timore confictum sic honorauerunt, ut, quod in eos belli iure fieri licuisset, inlicitum sibi esse iudicarent. Inde incidit quaestio, quur haec diuina beneficia et ad inpios ingratosque peruenerint, et quur itidem illa dura, quae hostiliter facta sunt, pios cum inpiis pariter adflixerint? Quam quaestionem per multa diffusam (in omnibus enim cottidianis uel Dei muneribus uel hominum cladibus, quorum utraque bene ac male uiuentibus permixte adque indiscrete saepe accidunt, solet multos mouere) ut pro suscepti operis necessitate dissoluerem, aliquantum inmoratus sum maxime ad consolandas sanctas feminas et pie castas, in quibus ab hoste aliquid perpetratum est, quod intulit uerecundiae dolorem, etsi non abstulit pudicitiae firmitatem, ne paeniteat eas uitae, quas non est unde possit paenitere nequitiae. Deinde pauca dixi in eos, qui Christianos aduersis illis rebus adfectos et praecipue pudorem humiliatarum feminarum quamuis castarum adque sanctarum proteruitate inpudentissima exagitant, cum sint nequissimi et inreuerentissimi, longe ab eis ipsis Romanis degeneres, quorum praeclara multa laudantur et litterarum memoria celebrantur, immo illorum gloriae uehementer aduersi. Romam quippe partam ueterum auctamque laboribus foediorem stantem fecerant quam ruentem, quando quidem in ruina eius lapides et ligna, in istorum autem uita omnia non murorum, sed morum munimenta adque ornamenta ceciderunt, cum funestioribus eorum corda cupiditatibus quam ignibus tecta illius urbis arderent. Quibus dictis primum terminaui librum. Deinceps itaque dicere institui, quae mala ciuitas illa perpessa sit ab origine sua siue aput se ipsam siue in prouinciis sibi iam subditis, quae omnia Christianae religioni tribuerent, si iam tunc euangelica doctrina aduersus falsos et fallaces eorum deos testificatione liberrima personaret.

### That We Need Only to Read History in Order to See What Calamities the Romans Suffered Before the Religion of Christ Began to Compete with the Worship of the Gods.

[¶22] Chapter 3.—That We Need Only to Read History in Order to See What Calamities the Romans Suffered Before the Religion of Christ Began to Compete with the Worship of the Gods.

> Latin: Caput III. De adsumenda historia, qua ostendatur, quae mala acciderint Romanis, cum deos colerent, antequam religio Christiana obcresceret.

[¶23] But remember that, in recounting these things, I have still to address myself to ignorant men; so ignorant, indeed, as to give birth to the common saying, “Drought and Christianity go hand in hand.” There are indeed some among them who are 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, they feign ignorance of these events, and do what they can to make the vulgar believe that those disasters, which in certain places and at certain times uniformly befall mankind, are the result of Christianity, which is being everywhere diffused, and is possessed of a renown and brilliancy which quite eclipse their own gods. Let them then, along with us, call to mind with what various and repeated disasters the prosperity of Rome was blighted, before ever Christ had come in the flesh, and before His name had been blazoned among the nations with that glory which they vainly grudge. Let them, if they can, defend their gods in this article, since they maintain that they worship them in order to be preserved from these disasters, which they now impute to us if they suffer in the least degree. For why did these gods permit the disasters I am to speak of to fall on their worshippers before the preaching of Christ’s name offended them, and put an end to their sacrifices?

> Latin: Memento autem me ista commemorantem adhuc contra inperitos agere, ex quorum inperitia illud quoque ortum est uulgare prouerbium: Pluuia defit, causa Christiani sunt. Nam qui eorum studiis liberalibus instituti amant historiam, facillime ista nouerunt; sed ut nobis ineruditorum turbas infestissimas reddant, se nosse dissimulant adque hoc aput uulgus confirmare nituntur, clades, quibus per certa interualla locorum et temporum genus humanum oportet adfligi, causa accidere nominis Christiani, quod contra deos suos ingenti fama et praeclarissima celebritate per cuncta diffunditur. Recolant ergo nobiscum, antequam Christus uenisset in carne, antequam eius nomen ea, cui frustra inuident, gloria populis innotesceret, quibus calamitatibus res Romanae multipliciter uarieque contritae sint, et in his defendant, si possunt, deos suos, si propterea coluntur, ne ista mala patiantur cultores eorum; quorum si quid nunc passi fuerint, nobis inputanda esse contendunt. Quur enim ea, quae dicturus sum, permiserunt accidere cultoribus suis, antequam eos declaratum Christi nomen offenderet eorumque sacrificia prohiberet?

## 10. That the Worshippers of the Gods Never Received from Them Any Healthy Moral Precepts, and that in Celebrating Their Worship All Sorts of Impurities Were Practiced.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/10/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/10/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 4.—That the Worshippers of the Gods Never Received from Them Any Healthy Moral Precepts, and that in Celebrating Their Worship All Sorts of Impurities Were Practiced.

> Latin: Caput IV. Quod cultores deorum nulla umquam a dis suis praecepta probitatis acceperint et in sacris eorum turpia quaeque celebrauerint.

[¶1] First of all, we would ask why their gods took no steps to improve the morals of their worshippers. That the true God should neglect those who did not seek His help, that was but justice; but why did those gods, from whose worship ungrateful men are now complaining that they are prohibited, issue no laws which might have guided their devotees to a virtuous life? Surely it was but just, that such care as men showed to the worship of the gods, the gods on their part should have to the conduct of men. But, it is replied, it is by his own will a man goes astray. Who denies it? But none the less was it incumbent on these gods, who were men’s guardians, to publish in plain terms the laws of a good life, and not to conceal them from their worshippers. It was their part to send prophets to reach and convict such as broke these laws, and publicly to proclaim the punishments which await evil-doers, and the rewards which may be looked for by those that do well. Did ever the walls of any of their temples echo to any such warning voice? I myself, when I was a young man, used sometimes to go to the sacrilegious entertainments and spectacles; I saw the priests raving in religious excitement, and heard the choristers; I took pleasure in the shameful games which were celebrated in honor of gods and goddesses, of the virgin Cœlestis, and Berecynthia, the mother of all the gods. And on the holy day consecrated to her purification, there were sung before her couch productions so obscene and filthy for the ear—I do not say of the mother of the gods, but of 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 natural reverence for parents is a bond which the most abandoned cannot ignore. And, accordingly, the lewd actions and filthy words with which these players honored the mother of the gods, in presence of a vast assemblage and audience of both sexes, they could not for very shame have rehearsed at home in presence of their own mothers. And the crowds that were gathered from all quarters by curiosity, offended modesty must, I should suppose, have scattered in the confusion of shame. If these are sacred rites, what is sacrilege? If this is purification, what is pollution? This festivity was called the Tables, as if a banquet were being given at which unclean devils might find suitable refreshment. For it is not difficult to see what kind of spirits they must be who are delighted with such obscenities, unless, indeed, a man be blinded by these evil spirits passing themselves off under the name of gods, and either disbelieves in their existence, or leads such a life as prompts him rather to propitiate and fear them than the true God.

> Latin: Primo ipsos mores ne pessimos haberent, quare di eorum curare noluerunt? Deus enim uerus eos, a quibus non colebatur, merito neglexit; di autem illi, a quorum cultu se prohiberi homines ingratissimi conqueruntur, cultores suos ad bene uiuendum quare nullis legibus adiuuerunt? Utique dignum erat, ut, quo modo isti illorum sacra, ita illi istorum facta curarent. Sed respondetur, quod uoluntate propria quisque malus est. Quis hoc negauerit? Verum tamen pertinebat ad consultores deos uitae bonae praecepta non occultare populis cultoribus suis, sed clara praedicatione praebere, per uates etiam conuenire adque arguere peccantes, palam minari poenas male agentibus. praemia recte uiuentibus polliceri. Quid umquam tale in deorum illorum templis prompta et eminenti uoce concrepuit? Veniebamus etiam nos aliquando adulescentes ad spectacula ludibriaque sacrilegiorum, spectabamus arrepticios, audiebamus synphoniacos, ludis turpissimis, qui dis deabusque exhibebantur, oblectabamur, Caelesti uirgini et Berecynthiae matri omnium, ante cuius lecticam die sollemni lauationis eius talia per publicum cantitabantur a nequissimis scaenicis, qualia, non dico matrem deorum, sed matrem qualiumcumque senatorum uel quorumlibet honestorum uirorum, immo uero qualia nec matrem ipsorum scaenicorum deceret audire. Habet enim quiddam erga parentes humana uerecundia, quod nec ipsa nequitia possit auferre. Illam proinde turpitudinem obscenorum dictorum adque factorum scaenicos ipsos domi suae proludendi causa coram matribus suis agere puderet, quam per publicum agebant coram deum matre spectante adque audiente utriusque sexus frequentissima multitudine. Quae si inlecta curiositate adesse potuit circumfusa, saltem offensa castitate debuit abire confusa. Quae sunt sacrilegia, si illa sunt sacra? aut quae inquinatio, si illa lauatio? Et haec fercula appellabantur, quasi celebraretur conuiuium, quo uelut suis epulis inmunda daemonia pascerentur. Quis enim non sentiat cuius modi spiritus talibus obscenitatibus delectentur, nisi uel nesciens, utrum omnino sint ulli inmundi spiritus deorum nomine decipientes, uel talem agens uitam, in qua istos potius quam Deum uerum et optet propitios et formidet iratos?

### Of the Obscenities Practiced in Honor of the Mother of the Gods.

[¶3] Chapter 5.—Of the Obscenities Practiced in Honor of the Mother of the Gods.

> Latin: Caput V. De obscenitatibus, quibus mater deum a cultoribus suis honorabatur.

[¶4] In this matter I would prefer to have as my assessors in judgment, not those men who rather take pleasure in these infamous customs than take pains to put an end to them, but that same Scipio Nasica who was chosen by the senate as the citizen most worthy to receive in his hands the image of that demon Cybele, and convey it into the city. He would tell us whether he would be proud to see his own mother so highly esteemed by the state as to have divine honors adjudged to her; as the Greeks and Romans and other nations have decreed divine honors to men who had been of material service to them, and have believed that their mortal benefactors were thus made immortal, and enrolled among the gods. Surely he would desire that his mother should enjoy such felicity were it possible. But if we proceeded to ask him whether, among the honors paid to her, he would wish such shameful rites as these to be celebrated, would he not at once 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, that he used his influence as a Roman senator to prevent the building of a theatre in that city dedicated to the manly virtues, would wish his mother to be propitiated as a goddess with words which would have brought the blush to her cheek when a Roman matron? Could he possibly believe that the modesty of an estimable woman would be so transformed by her promotion to divinity, that she would suffer herself to be invoked and celebrated in terms so gross and immodest, that if she had heard the like while alive upon earth, and had listened without stopping her ears and hurrying from the spot, her relatives, her husband, and her children would have blushed for her? Therefore, the mother of the gods being such a character as the most profligate man would be ashamed to have for his mother, and meaning to enthral the minds of the Romans, demanded for her service their best citizen, not to ripen him still more in virtue by her helpful counsel, but to entangle him by her deceit, like her of whom it is written, “The adulteress will hunt for the precious soul.” Her intent was to puff up this high- souled man by an apparently divine testimony to his excellence, in order that he might rely upon his own eminence in virtue, and make no further efforts after true piety and religion, without which natural genius, however brilliant, vapors into pride and comes to nothing. For what but a guileful purpose could that goddess demand the best man seeing that in her own sacred festivals she requires such obscenities as the best men would be covered with shame to hear at their own tables?

> Latin: Nequaquam istos, qui flagitiosissimae consuetudinis uitiis oblectari magis quam obluctari student, sed illum ipsum Nasicam Scipionem, qui uir optimus a senatu electus est, cuius manibus eiusdem daemonis simulacrum susceptum est in Urbemque peruectum, habere de hac re iudicem uellem. Diceret nobis, utrum matrem suam tam optime de re publica uellet mereri, ut ei diuini honores decernerentur; sicut et Graecos et Romanos aliasque gentes constat quibusdam decreuisse mortalibus, quorum erga se beneficia magnipenderant, eosque inmortales factos adque in deorum numerum receptos esse crediderant. Profecto ille tantam felicitatem suae matri. si fieri posset, optaret. Porro si ab illo deinde quaereremus. utrum inter eius diuinos honores uellet illa turpia celebrari: nonne se malle clamaret, ut sua mater sine ullo sensu mortua iaceret, quam ad hoc dea uiueret, ut illa libenter audiret? Absit, ut senator populi Romani ea mente praeditus, qua theatrum aedificari in urbe fortium uirorum prohibuit, sic uellet coli matrem suam, ut talibus dea sacris propitiaretur, qualibus matrona uerbis offenderetur. Nec ullo modo crederet uerecundiam laudabilis feminae ita in contrarium diuinitate mutari, ut honoribus eam talibus aduocarent cultores sui, qualibus conuiciis in quempiam iaculatis, cum inter homines uiueret, nisi aures clauderet seseque subtraheret, erubescerent pro illa et propinqui et maritus et liberi. Proinde talis mater deum, qualem habere matrem puderet quemlibet etiam pessimum uirum, Romanas occupatura mentes quaesiuit optimum uirum, non quem monendo et adiuuando faceret, sed quem fallendo deciperet, ei similis de qua scriptum est: Mulier autem uirorum pretiosas animas captat, ut ille magnae indolis animus hoc uelut diuino testimonio sublimatus et uere se optimum existimans ueram pietatem religionemque non quaereret, sine qua omne quamuis laudabile ingenium superbia uanescit et decidit. Quo modo igitur nisi insidiose quaereret dea illa optimum uirum, cum talia quaerat in suis sacris, qualia uiri optimi abhorrent suis adhibere conuiuiis?

### That the Gods of the Pagans Never Inculcated Holiness of Life.

[¶6] Chapter 6.—That the Gods of the Pagans Never Inculcated Holiness of Life.

> Latin: Caput VI. Deos paganorum numquam bene uiuendi sanxisse doctrinam.

[¶7] This is the reason why those divinities quite neglected the lives and morals of the cities and nations who worshipped them, and threw no dreadful prohibition in their way to hinder them from becoming utterly corrupt, and to preserve them from those terrible and detestable evils which visit not harvests and vintages, not house and possessions, not the body which is subject to the soul, but the soul itself, the spirit that rules the whole man. If there was any such prohibition, let it be produced, let it be proved. They will tell us that purity and probity were inculcated upon those who were initiated in the mysteries of religion, and that secret incitements to virtue were whispered in the ear of the élite; but this is an idle boast. Let them show or name to us the places which were at any time consecrated to assemblages in which, instead of the obscene songs and licentious acting of players, instead of the celebration of those most filthy and shameless Fugalia (well called Fugalia, since they banish modesty and right feeling), the people were commanded in the name of the gods to restrain avarice, bridle impurity, and conquer ambition; where, in short, they might learn in that school which Persius vehemently lashes them to, when he says: “Be taught, ye abandoned creatures, and ascertain the causes of things; what we are, and for what end we are born; what is the law of our success in life; and by what art we may turn the goal without making shipwreck; what limit we should put to our wealth, what we may lawfully desire, and what uses filthy lucre serves; how much we should bestow upon our country and our family; learn, in short, what God meant thee to be, and what place He has ordered you to fill.” Let them name to us the places where such instructions were wont to be communicated from the gods, and where the people who worshipped them were accustomed to resort to hear them, as we can point to our churches built for this purpose in every land where the Christian religion is received.

> Latin: Hinc est quod de uita et moribus ciuitatum adque populorum a quibus colebantur illa numina non curarunt, ut tam horrendis eos et detestabilibus malis non in agro et uitibus, non in domo adque pecunia, non denique in ipso corpore, quod menti subditur, sed in ipsa mente, in ipso rectore carnis animo, eos inpleri ac pessimos fieri sine ulla sua terribili prohibitione permitterent. Aut si prohibebant, hoc ostendatur potius, hoc probetur. Nec nobis nescio quos susurros paucissimorum auribus anhelatos et arcana uelut religione traditos iactent, quibus uitae probitas castitasque discatur; sed demonstrentur uel commemorentur loca talibus aliquando conuenticulis consecrata, non ubi ludi agerentur obscenis uocibus et motibus histrionum, nec ubi Fugalia celebrantur effusa omni licentia turpitudinum (et uere Fugalia, sed pudoris et honestatis); sed ubi populi audirent quid di praeciperent de cohibenda auaritia, ambitione frangenda, luxuria refrenanda, ubi discerent miseri, quod discendum Persius increpat dicens: Discite, o miseri, et causas cognoscite rerum, Quid sumus et quidnam uicturi gignimur, ordo Quis datus aut metae qua mollis flexus et unde, Quis modus argenti, quid fas optare, quid asper Utile nummus habet, patriae carisque propinquis Quantum largiri deceat, quem te Deus esse Iussit et humana qua parte locatus es in re. Dicatur in quibus locis haec docentium deorum solebant praecepta recitari et a cultoribus eorum populis frequenter audiri, sicut nos ostendimus ad hoc ecclesias institutas, quaqua uersum religio Christiana diffunditur.

### That the Suggestions of Philosophers are Precluded from Having Any Moral Effect, Because They Have Not the Authority Which Belongs to Divine Instruction, and Because Man’s Natural Bias to Evil Induces Him Rather to Follow the Examples of the Gods Than to Obey the Precepts of Men.

[¶9] Chapter 7.—That the Suggestions of Philosophers are Precluded from Having Any Moral Effect, Because They Have Not the Authority Which Belongs to Divine Instruction, and Because Man’s Natural Bias to Evil Induces Him Rather to Follow the Examples of the Gods Than to Obey the Precepts of Men.

> Latin: Caput VII. Inutilia esse inuenta philosophica sine auctoritate diuina, ubi quemque ad uitia pronum magis mouet quid di fecerint, quam quid homines disputarint.

[¶10] But will they perhaps remind us of the schools of the philosophers, and their disputations? In the first place, these belong not to Rome, but to Greece; and even if we yield to them that they are now Roman, because Greece itself has become 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 speculative ability, made efforts to discover the hidden laws of nature, and the 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 they were betrayed by human infirmity, and fell into mistakes. And this was ordered by divine providence, that their pride might be restrained, and that by their example it might be pointed out that it is humility which has access to the highest regions. But of this we shall have more to say, if the Lord God of truth permit, in its own place. However, if the philosophers have made any discoveries which are sufficient to guide men to virtue and blessedness, would it not have been greater justice to vote divine honors to them? Were it not more accordant with every virtuous sentiment to read Plato’s writings in a “Temple of Plato,” than to be present in the temples of devils to witness the priests of Cybele mutilating themselves, the effeminate being consecrated, the raving fanatics cutting themselves, and whatever other cruel or shameful, or shamefully cruel or cruelly shameful, ceremony is enjoined by the ritual of such gods as these? Were it not a more suitable education, and more likely to prompt the youth to virtue, if they heard public recitals of the laws of the gods, instead of the vain laudation of the customs and laws of their ancestors? Certainly all the worshippers of the Roman gods, when once they are possessed by what Persius calls “the burning poison of lust,” prefer to witness the deeds of Jupiter rather than to hear what Plato taught or Cato censured. Hence the young profligate in Terence, when he sees on the wall a fresco representing the fabled descent of Jupiter into the lap of Danaë in the form of a golden shower, accepts this as authoritative precedent for his own licentiousness, and boasts that he is an imitator of God. “And what God?” he says. “He who with His thunder shakes the loftiest temples. And was I, a poor creature compared to Him, to make bones of it? No; I did it, and with all my heart.”

> Latin: An forte nobis philosophorum scholas disputationesque memorabunt? Primo haec non Romana, sed Graeca sunt; aut si propterea iam Romana, quia et Graecia facta est Romana prouincia, non deorum praecepta sunt, sed hominum inuenta, qui utcumque conati sunt ingeniis acutissimis praediti ratiocinando uestigare, quid in rerum natura latitaret, quid in moribus adpetendum esset adque fugiendum, quid in ipsis ratiocinandi regulis certa conexione traheretur, aut quid non esset consequens uel etiam repugnaret. Et quidam eorum quaedam magna, quantum diuinitus adiuti sunt, inuenerunt; quantum autem humanitus inpediti sunt, errauerunt, maxime cum eorum superbiae iuste prouidentia diuina resisteret, ut uiam pietatis ab humilitate in superna surgentem etiam istorum conparatione monstraret; unde postea nobis erit in Dei ueri Domini uoluntate disquirendi ac disserendi locus. Verum tamen si philosophi aliquid inuenerunt, quod agendae bonae uitae beataeque adipiscendae satis esse possit: quanto iustius talibus diuini honores decernerentur! Quanto melius et honestius in Platonis templo libri eius legerentur, quam in templis daemonum Galli absciderentur, molles consecrarentur, insani secarentur, et quidquid aliud uel crudele uel turpe, uel turpiter crudele uel crudeliter turpe in sacris talium deorum celebrari solet! Quanto satius erat ad erudiendam iustitia iuuentutem publice recitari leges deorum quam laudari inaniter leges adque instituta maiorum! Omnes enim cultores talium deorum, mox ut eos libido perpulerit feruenti, ut ait Persius, tincta ueneno, magis intuentur quid Iuppiter fecerit, quam quid docuerit Plato uel censuerit Cato. Hinc aput Terentium flagitiosus adulescens spectat tabulam quandam pictam in pariete, ubi inerat pictura haec, Iouem Quo pacto Danaae misisse aiunt quondam in gremium imbrem aureum, adque ab hac tanta auctoritate adhibet patrocinium turpitudini suae, cum in ea se iactat imitari deum. At quem deum! inquit; qui templa caeli summo sonitu concutit. Ego homuncio id non facerem? Ego uero illud feci ac libens.

### That the Theatrical Exhibitions Publishing the Shameful Actions of the Gods, Propitiated Rather Than Offended Them.

[¶12] Chapter 8.—That the Theatrical Exhibitions Publishing the Shameful Actions of the Gods, Propitiated Rather Than Offended Them.

> Latin: Caput VIII. De ludis scaenicis, in quibus di non offenduntur editione suarum turpitudinum, sed placantur.

[¶13] But, some one will interpose, these are the fables of poets, not the deliverances of the gods themselves. Well, I have no mind to arbitrate between the lewdness of theatrical entertainments and of mystic rites; only this I say, and history bears 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 the ignorant devotion of the Romans, but that the gods themselves gave the most urgent commands to this effect, and indeed extorted from the Romans these solemnities and celebrations in their honor. I touched on this in the preceding book, and mentioned that dramatic entertainments were first inaugurated at Rome on occasion of a pestilence, and by authority of the pontiff. And what man is there who is not more likely to adopt, for the regulation of his own life, the examples that are represented in plays which have a divine sanction, rather than the precepts written and promulgated with no more than human authority? If the poets gave a false representation of Jove in describing him as adulterous, then it were to be expected that the chaste gods should in anger avenge so wicked a fiction, in place of encouraging the games which circulated it. Of these plays, the most inoffensive are comedies and tragedies, that is to say, the dramas which poets write for the 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 which boys are obliged by their seniors to read and learn as a part of what is called a liberal and gentlemanly education.

> Latin: At enim non traduntur ista sacris deorum, sed fabulis poetarum. Nolo dicere illa mystica quam ista theatrica esse turpiora; hoc dico, quod negantes conuincit historia, eosdem illos ludos, in quibus regnant figmenta poetarum, non per inperitum obsequium sacris deorum suorum intulisse Romanos, sed ipsos deos, ut sibi sollemniter ederentur et honori suo consecrarentur, acerbe imperando et quodam modo extorquendo fecisse; quod in primo libro breui commemoratione perstrinxi. Nam ingrauescente pestilentia ludi scaenici auctoritate pontificum Romae primitus instituti sunt. Quis igitur in agenda uita non ea sibi potius sectanda arbitretur, quae actitantur ludis auctoritate diuina institutis, quam ea, quae scriptitantur legibus humano consilio promulgatis? Adulterum Iouem si poetae fallaciter prodiderunt, di utique casti, quia tantum nefas per humanos ludos confictum est, non quia neglectum, irasci ac uindicare debuerunt. Et haec sunt scaenicorum tolerabiliora ludorum, comoediae scilicet et tragoediae, hoc est fabulae poetarum agendae in spectaculis multa rerum turpitudine, sed nulla saltem, sicut alia multa, uerborum obscenitate conpositae; quas etiam inter studia, quae honesta ac liberalia uocantur, pueri legere et discere coguntur a senibus.

### That the Poetical License Which the Greeks, in Obedience to Their Gods, Allowed, Was Restrained by the Ancient Romans.

[¶15] Chapter 9.—That the Poetical License Which the Greeks, in Obedience to Their Gods, Allowed, Was Restrained by the Ancient Romans.

> Latin: Caput IX. Quid Romani ueteres de cohibenda poetica licentia senserint, quam Graeci deorum secuti iudicium liberam esse uoluerunt.

[¶16] The opinion of the ancient Romans on this matter is attested by Cicero in his work De Republica, in which Scipio, one of the interlocutors, says, “The lewdness of comedy could never have been suffered by audiences, unless the customs of society had previously sanctioned the same lewdness.” And in the earlier days the Greeks preserved a certain reasonableness in their license, and made it a law, that whatever comedy wished to say of any one, it must say it of him by name. And so in the same work of Cicero’s, Scipio says, “Whom has it not aspersed? Nay, whom has it not worried? Whom has it spared? Allow that it may assail demagogues and factions, men injurious to the commonwealth—a Cleon, a Cleophon, a Hyperbolus. That is tolerable, though it had been more seemly for the public censor to brand such men, than for a poet to lampoon them; but to blacken the fame of Pericles with scurrilous verse, after he had with the utmost dignity presided over their state alike in war and in peace, was as unworthy of a poet, as if our own Plautus or Nævius were to bring Publius and Cneius Scipio on the comic stage, or as if Cæcilius were to caricature Cato.” And then a little after he goes on: “Though our Twelve Tables attached the penalty of death only to a very few offences, yet among these few this was one: if any man should have sung a pasquinade, or have composed a satire calculated to bring infamy or disgrace on another person. Wisely decreed. For it is by the decisions of magistrates, and by a well-informed justice, that our lives ought to be judged, and not by the flighty fancies of poets; neither ought we to be exposed to hear calumnies, save where we have the liberty of replying, and defending ourselves before an adequate tribunal.” This much I have judged it advisable to quote from the fourth book of Cicero’s De Republica; and I have made the quotation word for word, with the exception of some words omitted, and some slightly transposed, for the sake of giving the sense more readily. And certainly the extract is pertinent to the matter I am endeavoring to explain. Cicero makes some further remarks, and concludes the passage by showing that the ancient Romans did not permit any living man to be either praised or blamed on the stage. But the Greeks, as I said, though not so moral, were more logical in allowing this license which the Romans forbade; for they saw that their gods approved and enjoyed the scurrilous language of low comedy when directed not only against men, but even against themselves; and this, whether the infamous actions imputed to them were the fictions of poets, or were their actual iniquities commemorated and acted in the theatres. And would that the spectators had judged them worthy only of laughter, and not of imitation! Manifestly it had been a stretch of pride to spare the good name of the leading men and the common citizens, when the very deities did not grudge that their own reputation should be blemished.

> Latin: Quid hinc autem senserint Romani ueteres, Cicero testatur in libris, quos de re publica scripsit, ubi Scipio disputans ait: ‘Numquam comoediae, nisi consuetudo uitae pateretur, probare sua theatris flagitia potuissent’. Et Graeci quidem antiquiores uitiosae suae opinionis quandam conuenientiam seruarunt, aput quos fuit etiam lege concessum, ut quod uellet comoedia, de quo uellet, nominatim diceret. Itaque, sicut in eisdem libris loquitur Africanus, quem illa non adtigit, uel potius quem non uexauit? cui pepercit? Esto, populares homines inprobos, in re publica seditiosos, Cleonem, Cleophontem, Hyperbolum laesit. Patiamur, inquit, etsi eius modi ciues a censore melius est quam a poeta notari. Sed Periclen, cum iam suae ciuitati maxima auctoritate plurimos annos domi et belli praefuisset, uiolari uersibus et eos agi in scaena non plus decuit, quam si Plautus, inquit, noster uoluisset aut Naeuius Publio et Gn. Scipioni aut Caecilius Marco Catoni maledicere.’ Dein paulo post: ‘Nostrae, inquit, contra duodecim tabulae cum perpaucas res capite sanxissent, in his hanc quoque sanciendam putauerunt, si quis occentauisset siue carmen condidisset, quod infamiam faceret flagitiumue alteri. Praeclare. Iudiciis enim magistratuum, disceptationibus legitimis propositam uitam, non poetarum ingeniis habere debemus, nec probrum audire nisi ea lege, ut respondere liceat et iudicio defendere.’ Haec ex Ciceronis quarto de re publica libro ad uerbum excerpenda arbitratus sum, nonnullis propter faciliorem intellectum uel praetermissis uel paululum commutatis. Multum enim ad rem pertinet, quam molior explicare, si potero. Dicit deinde alia et sic concludit hunc locum, ut ostendat ueteribus displicuisse Romanis uel laudari quemquam in scaena uiuum hominem uel uituperari. Sed, ut dixi, hoc Graeci quamquam inuerecundius, tamen conuenientius licere uoluerunt, cum uiderent dis suis accepta et grata esse obprobria non tantum hominum, uerum et ipsorum deorum in scaenicis fabulis, siue a poetis essent illa conficta, siue flagitia eorum uera commemorarentur et agerentur in theatris adque ab eorum cultoribus utinam solo risu, ac non etiam imitatione digna uiderentur. Nimis enim superbum fuit famae parcere principum ciuitatis et ciuium, ubi suae famae parci numina noluerunt.

### That the Devils, in Suffering Either False or True Crimes to Be Laid to Their Charge, Meant to Do Men a Mischief.

[¶18] Chapter 10.—That the Devils, in Suffering Either False or True Crimes to Be Laid to Their Charge, Meant to Do Men a Mischief.

> Latin: Caput X. Qua nocendi arte daemones uelint uel falsa de se crimina uel uera narrari.

[¶19] It is alleged, in excuse of this practice, that the stories told of the gods are not true, but false, and mere inventions, but this only makes matters worse, if we form our estimate by the morality our religion teaches; and if we consider the malice of the devils, what more wily and astute artifice could they practise upon men? When a slander is uttered against a 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 are the objects of so wicked and outrageous an injustice? But the devils, whom these men repute gods, are content that even iniquities they are guiltless of should be ascribed to them, so long as they may entangle men’s minds in the meshes of these opinions, and draw them on along with themselves to their predestinated punishment: whether such things were actually committed by the men whom these devils, delighting in human infatuation, cause to be worshipped as gods, and in whose 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 wicked spirits gladly allowed them to be attributed to higher beings, that there might seem to be conveyed from heaven itself a sufficient sanction for the perpetration of shameful wickedness. The Greeks, therefore, seeing the character of the gods they served, thought that the poets should certainly not refrain from showing up human vices on the stage, either because they desired to be like their gods in this, or because they were afraid that, if they required for themselves a more unblemished reputation than they asserted for the gods, they might provoke them to anger.

> Latin: Nam quod adfertur pro defensione, non illa uera in deos dici, sed falsa adque conficta, id ipsum est scelestius, si pietatem consulas religionis; si autem malitiam daemonum cogites, quid astutius ad decipiendum adque callidius? Cum enim probrum iacitur in principem patriae bonum adque utilem, nonne tanto est indignius, quanto a ueritate remotius et a uita illius alienius? Quae igitur supplicia sufficiunt, cum deo fit ista tam nefaria, tam insignis iniuria? Sed maligni spiritus, quos isti deos putant, etiam flagitia, quae non admiserunt, de se dici uolunt, dum tamen humanas mentes his opinionibus uelut retibus induant et ad praedestinatum supplicium secum trahant, siue homines ista commiserint, quos deos haberi gaudent, qui humanis erroribus gaudent, pro quibus se etiam colendos mille nocendi fallendique artibus interponunt; siue etiam non ullorum hominum illa crimina uera sint, quae tamen de numinibus fingi libenter accipiunt fallacissimi spiritus, ut ad scelesta ac turpia perpetranda uelut ab ipso caelo traduci in terras satis idonea uideatur auctoritas. Cum igitur Graeci talium numinum seruos se esse sentirent, inter tot et tanta eorum theatrica obprobria parcendum sibi a poetis nullo modo putauerunt, uel dis suis etiam sic consimilari adpetentes, uel metuentes, ne honestiorem famam ipsi requirendo et eis se hoc modo praeferendo illos ad iracundiam prouocarent.

### That the Greeks Admitted Players to Offices of State, on the Ground that Men Who Pleased the Gods Should Not Be Contemptuously Treated by Their Fellows.

[¶21] Chapter 11.—That the Greeks Admitted Players to Offices of State, on the Ground that Men Who Pleased the Gods Should Not Be Contemptuously Treated by Their Fellows.

> Latin: Caput XI. De scaenicis aput Graecos in rei publicae administrationem receptis, eo quod placatores deorum iniuste ab hominibus spernerentur.

[¶22] It was a part of this same reasonableness of the Greeks which induced them to bestow upon the actors of these same plays no inconsiderable civic honors. In the above-mentioned book of the De Republica, it is mentioned that Aeschines, a very eloquent Athenian, who had been a tragic actor in his youth, became a statesman, and that the Athenians again and again 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 chief actors in the scenic entertainments which they saw to be so pleasing to the gods. No doubt this was immoral of the Greeks, but there can be as little doubt they acted in conformity with the character of their gods; for how could they have presumed to protect the conduct of the citizens from being cut to pieces by the tongues of poets and players, who were allowed, and even enjoined by the gods, to tear their divine reputation to tatters? And how could they hold in contempt the men who acted in the theatres those dramas which, as they had ascertained, gave pleasure to the gods whom they worshipped? Nay, how could they but grant to them the highest civic honors? On what plea could they honor the priests who offered for them acceptable sacrifices to the gods, if they branded with infamy the actors who in behalf of the people gave to the gods that pleasure or honour which they demanded, and which, according to the account of the priests, they were angry at not receiving. Labeo, whose learning makes him an authority on such points, is of opinion that the distinction between good and evil deities should find expression in a difference of worship; that the evil should be propitiated by bloody sacrifices and doleful rites, but the good with a joyful and pleasant observance, as, e.g. (as he says himself), with plays, festivals, and banquets. All this we shall, with God’s help, hereafter discuss. At present, and speaking to the subject on hand, whether all kinds of offerings are made indiscriminately to all the gods, as if all were good (and it is an unseemly thing to conceive that there are evil gods; but these gods of the pagans are all evil, because they are not gods, but evil spirits), or whether, as Labeo thinks, a distinction is made between the offerings presented to the different gods the Greeks are equally justified in honoring alike the priests by whom the sacrifices are offered, and the players by whom the dramas are acted, that they may not be open to the charge of doing an injury to all their gods, if the plays are pleasing to all of them, or (which were still worse) to their good gods, if the plays are relished only by them.

> Latin: Ad hanc conuenientiam pertinet, quod etiam scaenicos actores earundem fabularum non paruo ciuitatis honore dignos existimarunt, si quidem, quod in eo quoque de re publica libro commemoratur, Aeschines Atheniensis, uir eloquentissimus, cum adulescens tragoedias actitauisset, rem publicam capessiuit et Aristodemum, tragicum item actorem, maximis de rebus pacis ac belli legatum ad Philippum Athenienses saepe miserunt. Non enim consentaneum putabatur, cum easdem artes eosdemque scaenicos ludos etiam dis suis acceptos uiderent, illos, per quos agerentur, infamium loco ac numero deputare. Haec Graeci turpiter quidem, sed sane dis suis omnino congruenter, qui nec uitam ciuium lacerandam linguis poetarum et histrionum subtrahere ausi sunt, a quibus cernebant deorum uitam eisdem ipsis dis uolentibus et libentibus carpi, et ipsos homines, per quos ista in theatris agebantur, quae numinibus quibus subditi erant grata esse cognouerant, non solum minime spernendos in ciuitate, uerum etiam maxime honorandos putarunt. Quid enim causae reperire possent, quur sacerdotes honorarent, quia per eos uictimas dis acceptabiles offerebant, et scaenicos probrosos haberent, per quos illam uoluptatem siue honorem dis exhiberi petentibus et, nisi fieret, irascentibus eorum admonitione didicerant? cum praesertim Labeo, quem huiusce modi rerum peritissimum praedicant, numina bona a numinibus malis ista etiam cultus diuersitate % distinguat, ut malos deos propitiari caedibus et tristibus supplicationibus adserat, bonos autem obsequiis laetis adque iucundis, qualia sunt, ut ipse ait, ludi conuiuia lectisternia. Quod totum quale sit, postea, si Deus iuuerit, diligentius disseremus. Nunc ad rem praesentem quod adtinet, siue omnibus omnia tamquam bonis permixte tribuantur (neque enim esse decet deos malos, cum potius isti, quia inmundi sunt spiritus, omnes sint mali), siue certa discretione, sicut Labeoni uisum est, illis illa, istis ista distribuantur obsequia, conpetentissime Graeci utrosque honori ducunt, et sacerdotes, per quos uictimae ministrantur, et scaenicos, per quos ludi exhibentur, ne uel omnibus dis suis, si et ludi omnibus grati sunt, uel, quod est indignius, his, quos bonos putant, si ludi ab eis solis amantur, facere conuincantur iniuriam.

## 11. That the Romans, by Refusing to the Poets the Same License in Respect of Men Which They Allowed Them in the Case of the Gods, Showed a More Delicate Sensitiveness Regarding Themselves than Regarding the Gods.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/11/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/11/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 12.—That the Romans, by Refusing to the Poets the Same License in Respect of Men Which They Allowed Them in the Case of the Gods, Showed a More Delicate Sensitiveness Regarding Themselves than Regarding the Gods.

> Latin: Caput XII. Quod Romani auferendo libertatem poetis in homines, quam dederunt in deos, melius de se quam de dis suis senserint.

[¶1] The Romans, however, as Scipio boasts in that same discussion, declined having their conduct and good name subjected to the assaults and slanders of the poets, and went so far as to make it a capital crime if any one should dare to compose such verses. This was a very honorable course to pursue, so far as they themselves were concerned, but in respect of the gods it was proud and irreligious: for they knew that the gods not only tolerated, but relished, being lashed by the injurious expressions of the poets, and yet they themselves would not suffer this same handling; and what their ritual prescribed as acceptable to the gods, their law prohibited as injurious to themselves. How then, Scipio, do you praise the Romans for refusing this license to the poets, so that no citizen could be calumniated, while you know that the gods were not included under this protection? Do you count your senate-house worthy of so much higher a regard than the Capitol? Is the one city of Rome more valuable in your eyes than the whole heaven of gods, that you prohibit your poets from uttering any injurious words against a citizen, though they may with impunity cast what imputations they please upon the gods, without the interference of senator, censor, prince, or pontiff? It was, forsooth, intolerable that Plautus or Nævus should attack Publius and Cneius Scipio, insufferable that Cæcilius should lampoon Cato; but quite proper that your Terence should encourage youthful lust by the wicked example of supreme Jove.

> Latin: At Romani, sicut in illa de re publica disputatione Scipio gloriatur, probris et iniuriis poetarum subiectam uitam famamque habere noluerunt, capite etiam sancientes, tale carmen condere si quis auderet. Quod erga se quidem satis honeste constituerunt, sed erga deos suos superbe et inreligiose; quos cum scirent non solum patienter, uerum etiam libenter poetarum probris maledictisque lacerari, se potius quam illos huiusce modi iniuriis indignos esse duxerunt seque ab eis etiam lege munierunt, illorum autem ista etiam sacris sollemnitatibus miscuerunt. Itane tandem, Scipio, laudas hanc poetis Romanis negatam esse licentiam, ut cuiquam obprobrium infligerent Romanorum, cum uideas eos nulli deorum pepercisse uestrorum? Itane pluris tibi habenda est existimatio curiae uestrae quam Capitolii, immo Romae unius quam caeli totius, ut linguam maledicam in ciues tuos exercere poetae etiam lege prohiberentur, et in deos tuos securi tanta conuicia nullo senatore nullo censore, nullo principe nullo pontifice prohibente iacularentur? Indignum uidelicet fuit, ut Plautus aut Naeuius [Publio et] Gn. Scipioni aut Caecilius M. Catoni malediceret, et dignum fuit, ut Terentius uester flagitio Iouis optimi maximi adulescentium nequitiam concitaret?

### That the Romans Should Have Understood that Gods Who Desired to Be Worshipped in Licentious Entertainments Were Unworthy of Divine Honor.

[¶3] Chapter 13.—That the Romans Should Have Understood that Gods Who Desired to Be Worshipped in Licentious Entertainments Were Unworthy of Divine Honor.

> Latin: Caput XIII. Debuisse intellegere Romanos, quod di eorum, qui se turpibus ludis coli expetebant, indigni essent honore diuino.

[¶4] But Scipio, were he alive, would possibly reply: “How could we attach a penalty to that which the gods themselves have consecrated? For the theatrical entertainments in which such things are said, and acted, and performed, were introduced into Roman society by the gods, who ordered that they should be dedicated and exhibited in their honor.” But was not this, then, the plainest proof that they were no true gods, nor in any respect worthy of receiving divine honours from the republic? Suppose they had required that in their honor the citizens of Rome should be held up to ridicule, every Roman would have resented the hateful proposal. How then, I would ask, can they be esteemed worthy of worship, when they propose that their own crimes be used as material for celebrating their praises? Does not this artifice expose them, and prove that they are detestable devils? Thus the Romans, though they were superstitious enough to serve as gods those who made no secret of their desire to be worshipped in licentious plays, yet had sufficient regard to their hereditary dignity and virtue, to prompt them to refuse to players any such rewards as the Greeks accorded them. On this point we have this testimony of Scipio, recorded in Cicero: “They [the Romans] considered comedy and all theatrical performances as disgraceful, and therefore not only debarred players from offices and honors open to ordinary citizens, but also decreed that their names should be branded by the censor, and erased from the roll of their tribe.” An excellent decree, and another testimony to the sagacity of Rome; but I could wish their prudence had been more thorough-going and consistent. For when I hear that if any Roman citizen chose the stage as his profession, he not only closed to himself every laudable career, but even became an outcast from his own tribe, I cannot but exclaim: This is the true Roman spirit, this is worthy of a state jealous of its reputation. But then some one interrupts my rapture, by inquiring with what consistency players are debarred from all honors, while plays are counted among the honors due to the gods? For a long while the virtue of Rome was uncontaminated by theatrical exhibitions; and if they had been adopted for the sake of gratifying the taste of the citizens, they would have been introduced hand in hand with the relaxation of manners. But the fact is, that it was the gods who demanded that they should be exhibited to gratify them. With what justice, then, is the player excommunicated by whom God is worshipped? On what pretext can you at once adore him who exacts, and brand him who acts these plays? This, then, is the controversy in which the Greeks and Romans are engaged. The Greeks think they justly honor players, because they worship the gods who demand plays; the Romans, on the other hand, do not suffer an actor to disgrace by his name his own plebeian tribe, far less the senatorial order. And the whole of this discussion may be summed up in the following syllogism. The Greeks give us the major premise: If such gods are to be worshipped, then certainly such men may be honored. The Romans add the minor: But such men must by no means be honoured. The Christians draw the conclusion: Therefore such gods must by no means be worshipped.

> Latin: Sed responderet mihi fortasse, si uiueret: Quo modo nos ista inpunita esse nollemus, quae ipsi di sacra esse uoluerunt, cum ludos scaenicos, ubi talia celebrantur dictitantur actitantur, et Romanis moribus inuexerunt et suis honoribus dicari exhiberique iusserunt? Quur non ergo hinc magis ipsi intellecti sunt non esse di ueri nec omnino digni, quibus diuinos honores deferret illa res publica? Quos enim coli minime deceret minimeque oporteret, si ludos expeterent agendos conuiciis Romanorum, quo modo quaeso colendi putati sunt, quo modo non detestandi spiritus intellecti, qui cupiditate fallendi inter suos honores sua celebrari crimina poposcerunt? Itemque Romani, quamuis iam superstitione noxia premerentur, ut illos deos colerent, quos uidebant sibi uoluisse scaenicas turpitudines consecrari, suae tamen dignitatis memores ac pudoris actores talium fabularum nequaquam honorauerunt more Graecorum, sed, sicut aput Ciceronem idem Scipio loquitur, ‘cum artem ludicram scaenamque totam in probro ducerent, genus id hominum non modo honore ciuium reliquorum carere, sed etiam tribu moueri notatione censoria uoluerunt.’ Praeclara sane et Romanis laudibus adnumeranda prudentia; sed uellem se ipsa sequeretur, se imitaretur. Ecce enim recte, quisquis ciuium Romanorum esse scaenicus elegisset, non solum ei nullus ad honorem dabatur locus, uerum etiam censoris nota tribum tenere propriam minime sinebatur.s o animum ciuitatis laudis auidum germaneque Romanum! Sed respondeatur mihi: qua consentanea ratione homines scaenici ab omni honore pelluntur, et ludi scaenici deorum honoribus admiscentur? Illas theatricas artes diu uirtus Romana non nouerat, quae si ad oblectamentum uoluptatis humanae quaererentur, uitio morum inreperent humanorum. Di eas sibi exhiberi petierunt: quo modo ergo abicitur scaenicus, per quem colitur Deus? et theatricae illius turpitudinis qua fronte notatur actor, si adoratur exactor? In hac controuersia Graeci Romanique concertent. Graeci putant recte se honorare homines scaenicos, quia colunt ludorum scaenicorum flagitatores deos; Romani uero hominibus scaenicis nec plebeiam tribum, quanto minus senatoriam curiam dehonestari sinunt. In hac disceptatione huiusce modi ratiocinatio summam quaestionis absoluit. Proponunt Graeci: Si di tales colendi sunt, profecto etiam tales homines honorandi. Adsumunt Romani: Sed nullo modo tales homines honorandi sunt. Concludunt Christiani: Nullo modo igitur di tales colendi sunt.

### That Plato, Who Excluded Poets from a Well-Ordered City, Was Better Than These Gods Who Desire to Be Honoured by Theatrical Plays.

[¶6] Chapter 14.—That Plato, Who Excluded Poets from a Well-Ordered City, Was Better Than These Gods Who Desire to Be Honoured by Theatrical Plays.

> Latin: Caput XIV. Meliorem fuisse Platonem, qui poetis locum in bene morata urbe non dederit, quam hos deos, qui se ludis scaenicis uoluerint honorari.

[¶7] We have still to inquire why the poets who write the plays, and who by the law of the twelve tables are prohibited from injuring the good name of the citizens, are reckoned more estimable than the actors, though they so shamefully asperse the character of the gods? Is it right that the actors of these poetical and God-dishonoring effusions be branded, while their authors are honored? Must we not here award the palm to a Greek, Plato, who, in framing his ideal republic, conceived that poets should be banished from the city as enemies of the state? He could not brook that the gods be brought into disrepute, nor that the minds of the citizens be depraved and besotted, by the fictions of the poets. Compare now human nature as you see it in Plato, expelling poets from the city that the citizens be uninjured, with the divine nature as you see it in these gods exacting plays in their own honor. Plato strove, though unsuccessfully, to persuade the light-minded and lascivious Greeks to abstain from so much as writing such plays; the gods used their authority to extort the acting of the same from the dignified and sober-minded Romans. And not content with having them acted, they had them dedicated to themselves, consecrated to themselves, solemnly celebrated in their own honor. To which, then, would it be more becoming in a state to decree divine honors,—to Plato, who prohibited these wicked and licentious plays, or to the demons who delighted in blinding men to the truth of what Plato unsuccessfully sought to inculcate?

> Latin: Deinde quaerimus, ipsi poetae talium fabularum conpositores, qui duodecim tabularum lege prohibentur famam laedere ciuium, tam probrosa in deos conuicia iaculantes quur non ut scaenici habeantur inhonesti. Qua ratione rectum est, ut poeticorum figmentorum et ignominiosorum deorum infamentur actores, honorentur auctores? An forte Graeco Platoni potius palma danda est, qui cum ratione formaret, qualis esse ciuitas debeat, tamquam aduersarios ueritatis poetas censuit urbe pellendos? Iste uero et deorum iniurias indigne tulit et fucari corrumpique figmentis animos ciuium noluit. Confer nunc Platonis humanitatem a ciuibus decipiendis poetas urbe pellentem cum deorum diuinitate honori suo ludos scaenicos expetente. Ille, ne talia uel scriberentur, etsi non persuasit disputando, tamen suasit leuitati lasciuiaeque Graecorum; isti, ut talia etiam agerentur, iubendo extorserunt grauitati et modestiae Romanorum. Nec tantum haec agi uoluerunt, sed sibi dicari, sibi sacrari, sibi sollemniter exhiberi. Cui tandem honestius diuinos honores decerneret ciuitas? utrum Platoni haec turpia et nefanda prohibenti, an daemonibus hac hominum deceptione gaudentibus, quibus ille uera persuadere non potuit?

[¶8] This philosopher, Plato, has been elevated by Labeo to the rank of a demigod, and set thus upon a level with such as Hercules and Romulus. Labeo ranks demigods higher than heroes, but both he counts among the deities. But I have no doubt that he thinks this man whom he reckons a demigod worthy of greater respect not only than the heroes, but also than the gods themselves. The laws of the Romans and the speculations of Plato have this resemblance, that the latter pronounce a wholesale condemnation of poetical fictions, while the former restrain the license of satire, at least so far as men are the objects of it. Plato will not suffer poets even to dwell in his city: the laws of Rome prohibit actors from being enrolled as citizens; and if they had not feared to offend the gods who had asked the services of the players, they would in all likelihood have banished them altogether. It is obvious, therefore, that the Romans could not receive, nor reasonably expect to receive, laws for the regulation of their conduct from their gods, since the laws they themselves enacted far surpassed and put to shame the morality of the gods. The gods demand stageplays in their own honor; the Romans exclude the players from all civic honors; the former commanded that they should be celebrated by the scenic representation of their own disgrace; the latter commanded that no poet should dare to blemish the reputation of any citizen. But that demigod Plato resisted the lust of such gods as these, and showed the Romans what their genius had left incomplete; for he absolutely excluded poets from his ideal state, whether they composed fictions with no regard to truth, or set the worst possible examples before wretched men under the guise of divine actions. We for our part, indeed, reckon Plato neither a god nor a demigod; we would not even compare him to any of God’s holy angels; nor to the truth-speaking prophets, nor to any of the apostles or martyrs of Christ, nay, not to any faithful Christian man. The reason of this opinion of ours we will, God prospering us, render in its own place. Nevertheless, since they wish him to be considered a demigod, we think he certainly is more entitled to that rank, and is every way superior, if not to Hercules and Romulus (though no historian could ever narrate nor any poet sing of him that he had killed his brother, or committed any crime), yet certainly to Priapus, or a Cynocephalus, or the Fever,—divinities whom the Romans have partly received from foreigners, and partly consecrated by home-grown rites. How, then, could gods such as these be expected to promulgate good and wholesome laws, either for the prevention of moral and social evils, or for their eradication where they had already sprung up?—gods who used their influence even to sow and cherish profligacy, by appointing that deeds truly or falsely ascribed to them should be published to the people by means of theatrical exhibitions, and by thus gratuitously fanning the flame of human lust with the breath of a seemingly divine approbation. In vain does Cicero, speaking of poets, exclaim against this state of things in these words: “When the plaudits and acclamation of the people, who sit as infallible judges, are won by the poets, what darkness benights the mind, what fears invade, what passions inflame it!”

> Latin: Hunc Platonem Labeo inter semideos commemorandum putauit, sicut Herculem, sicut Romulum. Semideos autem heroibus anteponit; sed utrosque inter numina conlocat. Verum tamen istum, quem appellat semideum, non heroibus tantum, sed etiam dis ipsis praeferendum esse non dubito. Propinquant autem Romanorum leges disputationibus Platonis, quando ille cuncta poetica figmenta condemnat, isti autem poetis adimunt saltem in homines maledicendi licentiam; ille poetas ab urbis ipsius habitatione, isti saltem actores poeticarum fabularum remouent a societate ciuitatis; et si contra deos ludorum scaenicorum expeditores aliquid auderent, forte undique remouerent. Nequaquam igitur leges ad instituendos bonos aut corrigendos malos mores a dis suis possent accipere seu sperare Romani, quos legibus suis uincunt adque conuincunt. Illi -enim honori suo deposcunt ludos scaenicos, isti ab honoribus omnibus repellunt homines scaenicos; illi celebrari sibi iubent figmentis poeticis obprobria deorum, isti ab obprobriis hominum deterrent inpudentiam poetarum. Semideus autem ille Plato et talium deorum libidini restitit, et ab indole Romanorum quid perficiendum esset ostendit, qui poetas ipsos uel pro arbitrio mentientes uel hominibus miseris quasi deorum facta pessima imitanda proponentes omnino in ciuitate bene instituta uiuere noluit. Nos quidem Platonem nec deum nec semideum perhibemus, nec ulli sancto angelo summi Dei nec ueridico prophetae nec apostolo alicui nec cuilibet Christi martyri nec cuiquam Christiano homini conparamus; cuius nostrae sententiae ratio Deo prosperante suo loco explicabitur. Sed eum tamen, quando quidem ipsi uolunt fuisse semideum, praeferendum esse censemus, si non Romulo et Herculi (quamuis istum nec fratrem occidisse, nec aliquod perpetrasse flagitium quisquam historicorum uel poetarum dixit aut finxit), certe uel Priapo uel alicui Cynocephalo, postremo uel Febri, quae Romani numina partim peregrina receperunt, partim sua propria sacrauerunt. Quo modo igitur tanta animi et morum mala bonis praeceptis et legibus uel inminentia prohiberent, uel insita extirpanda curarent di tales, qui etiam seminanda et augenda flagitia curauerunt, talia uel sua uel quasi sua facta per theatricas celebritates populis innotescere cupientes, ut tamquam auctoritate diuina sua sponte nequissima libido accenderetur humana, frustra hoc exclamante Cicerone, qui cum de poetis ageret: Ad quos cum accessit, inquit, clamor et adprobatio populi quasi cuiusdam magni et sapientis magistri, quas a illi obducunt tenebras, quos inuehunt metus, quas inflammant cupiditates!’

### That It Was Vanity, Not Reason, Which Created Some of the Roman Gods.

[¶10] Chapter 15.—That It Was Vanity, Not Reason, Which Created Some of the Roman Gods.

> Latin: Caput XV. Quod Romani quosdam sibi deos non ratione, sed adulatione instituerint.

[¶11] 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 eloquence to preserve men from the most dangerous spiritual calamities, has yet not been counted worthy even of a little shrine; but Romulus, 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 they allotted a flamen, that is to say, a priest of a class so highly esteemed in their religion (distinguished, too, by their conical mitres), 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 ardor of his fellow-citizens had given Romulus a seat among the gods, they gave him this new name Quirinus). And thus by this honor Romulus has been preferred to Neptune and Pluto, Jupiter’s brothers, and to Saturn himself, their father. They have assigned the same priesthood to serve him as to serve Jove; and in giving Mars (the reputed father of Romulus) the same honor, is this not rather for Romulus’ sake than to honor Mars?

> Latin: Quae autem illic eligendorum deorum etiam ipsorum falsorum ratio ac non potius adulatio est? quando istum Platonem, quem semideum uolunt, tantis disputationibus laborantem, ne animi malis, quae praecipue cauenda sunt, mores corrumperentur humani, nulla sacra aedicula dignum putarunt, et Romulum suum dis multis praetulerunt, quamuis et ipsum semideum potius quam deum uelut secretior eorum doctrina commendet. Nam etiam flaminem illi instituerunt, quod sacerdotii genus adeo - in Romanis sacris testante apice excelluit, ut tres solos flamines haberent tribus numinibus institutos, Dialem Ioui, Martialem Marti, Quirinalem Romulo. Nam beneuolentia ciuium uelut receptus in caelum Quirinus est postea nominatus. Ac per hoc et Neptuno et Plutoni, fratribus Iouis, et ipsi Saturno, patri eorum, isto Romulus honore praelatus est, ut pro magno sacerdotium, quod Ioui tribuerant, hoc etiam huic tribuerent, et Marti tamquam patri eius forsitan propter ipsum.

### That If the Gods Had Really Possessed Any Regard for Righteousness, the Romans Should Have Received Good Laws from Them, Instead of Having to Borrow Them from Other Nations.

[¶13] Chapter 16.—That If the Gods Had Really Possessed Any Regard for Righteousness, the Romans Should Have Received Good Laws from Them, Instead of Having to Borrow Them from Other Nations.

> Latin: Caput XVI. Quod, si dis ulla esset cura iustitiae, ab eis Romani accipere debuerint praecepta uiuendi potius quam leges ab aliis hominibus mutuari.

[¶14] Moreover, if the Romans had been able to receive a rule of life from their gods, they would not have borrowed Solon’s laws from the Athenians, as they did some years after Rome was founded; and yet they did not keep them as they received them, but endeavored to improve and amend them. Although Lycurgus pretended that he was authorized by Apollo to give laws to the Lacedemonians, the sensible Romans did not choose to believe this, and were not induced to borrow laws from Sparta. Numa Pompilius, who succeeded Romulus in the kingdom, is said to have framed some laws, which, however, were not sufficient for the regulation of civic affairs. Among these regulations were many pertaining to religious observances, and yet he is not reported to have received even these from the gods. With respect, then, to moral evils, evils of life and conduct,—evils which are so mighty, that, according to the wisest pagans, by them states are ruined while their cities stand uninjured,—their gods made not the smallest provision for preserving their worshippers from these evils, but, on the contrary, took special pains to increase them, as we have previously endeavored to prove.

> Latin: Si autem a dis suis Romani uiuendi leges accipere potuissent, non aliquot annos post Romam conditam ab Atheniensibus mutuarentur leges Solonis, quas tamen non ut acceperunt (tenuerunt>, sed meliores et emendatiores facere conati sunt, quamuis Lycurgus Lacedaemoniis leges ex Apollinis auctoritate se instituisse confinxerit, quod prudenter Romani credere noluerunt, propterea non inde acceperunt. Numa Pompilius, qui Romulo successit in regnum, quasdam leges, quae quidem regendae ciuitati nequaquam sufficerent, condidisse fertur, qui eis multa etiam sacra constituit; non tamen perhibetur easdem leges a numinibus accepisse. Mala igitur animi, mala uitae, mala morum, quae ita magna sunt, ut his doctissimi eorum uiri etiam stantibus urbibus res publicas perire confirment, di eorum, ne suis cultoribus acciderent, minime curarunt [immo uero ut augerentur, sicut supra disputatum est, omni modo curarunt].

### Of the Rape of the Sabine Women, and Other Iniquities Perpetrated in Rome’s Palmiest Days.

[¶16] Chapter 17.—Of the Rape of the Sabine Women, and Other Iniquities Perpetrated in Rome’s Palmiest Days.

> Latin: Caput XVII. De raptu Sabinarum aliisque iniquitatibus, quae in ciuitate Romana etiam laudatis uiguere temporibus.

[¶17] But possibly we are to find the reason for this neglect of the Romans by their gods, in the saying of Sallust, that “equity and virtue prevailed among the Romans not more by force 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 was fit, and without their parents’ consent, girls who were strangers and guests, and who had been decoyed and entrapped by the pretence of a spectacle! If the Sabines were wrong to deny their daughters when the Romans asked for them, was it not a greater wrong in the Romans to carry them off after that denial? The Romans might more justly have waged war against the neighboring nation for having refused their daughters in marriage when they first sought them, than for having demanded them back when they had stolen them. War should have been proclaimed at first; it was then that Mars should have helped his warlike son, that he might by force of arms avenge the injury done him by the refusal of marriage, and might also thus win the women he desired. There might have been some appearance of “right of war” in a victor carrying off, in virtue of this right, the virgins who had been without any show of right denied him; whereas there was no “right of peace” entitling him to carry off those who were not given to him, and to wage an unjust war with their justly enraged parents. One happy circumstance was indeed connected with this act of violence, viz., that though it was commemorated by the games of the circus, yet even this did not constitute it a precedent in the city or realm of Rome. If one would find fault with the results of this act, it must rather be on the ground that the Romans made Romulus a god in spite of his perpetrating this iniquity; for one cannot reproach them with making this deed any kind of precedent for the rape of women.

> Latin: An forte populo Romano propterea leges non sunt a numinibus constitutae, quia, sicut Sallustius ait, ‘ius bonumque aput eos non legibus magis quam natura ualebat’? Ex hoc iure ac bono credo raptas Sabinas. Quid enim iustius et melius quam filias alienas fraude spectaculi inductas non a parentibus accipi, sed ui, ut quisque poterat, auferri? Nam si inique facerent Sabini negare postulatas, quanto fuit iniquius rapere non datas? Iustius autem bellum cum ea gente geri potuit, quae filias suas ad matrimonium conregionalibus et confinalibus suis negasset petitas, quam cum ea, quae repetebat ablatas. Illud ergo potius fieret; ibi Mars filium suum pugnantem iuuaret, ut coniugiorum negatorum armis ulcisceretur iniuriam, et eo modo ad feminas, quas uoluerat, perueniret. Aliquo enim fortasse iure belli iniuste negatas iuste uictor auferret; nullo autem iure pacis non datas rapuit et iniustum bellum cum earum parentibus iuste suscensentibus gessit. Hoc sane utilius feliciusque successit, quod, etsi ad memoriam fraudis illius circensium spectaculum mansit, facinoris tamen in illa ciuitate et imperio non placuit exemplum, faciliusque Romani in hoc errauerunt, ut post illam iniquitatem deum sibi Romulum consecrarent, quam ut in feminis rapiendis factum eius imitandum lege ulla uel more permitterent. Ex hoc iure ac bono post expulsum cum liberis suis regem Tarquinium, cuius filius Lucretiam stupro uiolenter obpresserat.

[¶18] Again, I presume it was due to this natural equity and virtue, that after the expulsion of King Tarquin, whose son had violated Lucretia, Junius Brutus the consul forced Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, Lucretia’s husband and his own colleague, a good and innocent man, to resign his office and go into 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 the people, who had themselves raised to the consular office both Collatinus and Brutus. Another instance of this equity and virtue is found in their treatment of Marcus Camillus. This eminent man, after he had rapidly conquered the Veians, at that time the most formidable of Rome’s enemies, and who had maintained a ten years’ war, in which the Roman army had suffered the usual calamities attendant on bad generalship, after he had restored security to Rome, which had begun to tremble for its safety, and after he had taken the wealthiest city of the enemy, had charges brought against him by the malice of those that envied his success, and by the insolence of the tribunes of the people; and seeing that the city bore him no gratitude for preserving it, and that he would certainly be condemned, he went into exile, and even in his absence was fined 10,000 asses. Shortly after, however, his ungrateful country had again to seek his protection from the Gauls. But I cannot now mention all the shameful and iniquitous acts with which Rome was agitated, when the aristocracy attempted to subject the people, and the people resented their encroachments, and the advocates of either party were actuated rather by the love of victory than by any equitable or virtuous consideration.

> Latin: Iunius Brutus consul L. Tarquinium Conlatinum, maritum eiusdem Lucretiae, collegam suum, bonum adque innocentem uirum, propter nomen et propinquitatem Tarquiniorum coegit magistratu se abdicare nec uiuere in ciuitate permisit. Quod scelus fauente uel patiente populo fecit, a quo populo consulatum idem Conlatinus sicut etiam ipse Brutus acceperat. Ex hoc iure ac bono M. Camillus, illius temporis uir egregius, qui Veientes, grauissimos hostes populi Romani, post decennale bellum, quo Romanus exercitus totiens male pugnando grauiter adflictus est, iam ipsa Roma de salute dubitante adque trepidante facillime superauit eorumque urbem opulentissimam cepit, obtrectatorum inuidia uirtutis suae et insolentia tribunorum plebis reus factus est tamque ingratam sensit quam liberauerat ciuitatem, ut de sua damnatione certissimus in exilium sponte discederet et decem milia aeris absens etiam damnaretur, mox iterum a Gallis uindex patriae futurus ingratae. Multa commemorare iam piget foeda et iniusta, quibus agitabatur illa ciuitas, cum potentes plebem sibi subdere conarentur plebsque illis subdi recusaret, et utriusque partis defensores magis studiis agerent amore uincendi, quam aequum et bonum quidquam cogitarent.

### What the History of Sallust Reveals Regarding the Life of the Romans, Either When Straitened by Anxiety or Relaxed in Security.

[¶20] Chapter 18.—What the History of Sallust Reveals Regarding the Life of the Romans, Either When Straitened by Anxiety or Relaxed in Security.

> Latin: Caput XVIII. Quae de moribus Romanorum aut metu conpressis aut securitate resolutis Sallustii prodat historia.

[¶21] I will therefore pause, and adduce the testimony of Sallust himself, whose words in praise of the Romans (that “equity and virtue prevailed among them not more by force of laws than of nature”) have given occasion to this discussion. He was referring to that period immediately after the expulsion of the kings, in which the city became great in an incredibly short space of time. And yet this same writer acknowledges in the first book of his history, in the very exordium of his work, that even at that time, when a very brief interval had elapsed after the government had passed from kings to consuls, the more powerful men began to act unjustly, and occasioned the defection of the people from the patricians, and other disorders in the city. For after Sallust had stated that the Romans enjoyed greater harmony and a purer state of society between the second and third Punic wars than at any other time, and that the cause of this was not their love of good order, but their fear lest the peace they had with Carthage might be broken (this also, as we mentioned, Nasica contemplated 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 to say: “Yet, after the destruction of Carthage, discord, avarice, ambition, and the other vices which are commonly generated by 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 for what he said. “For,” he says, “the oppressive measures of the powerful, and the consequent secessions of the plebs from the patricians, and other civil dissensions, had existed from the first, and affairs were administered with equity and well-tempered justice for no longer a period than the short time after the expulsion of the kings, while the city was occupied with the serious Tuscan war and Tarquin’s vengeance.” You see how, even in that brief period after the expulsion of the kings, fear, he acknowledges, was the cause of the interval of equity and good order. They were afraid, in fact, of the war which Tarquin waged against them, after he had been driven from the throne and the city, and had allied himself with the Tuscans. But observe what he adds: “After that, the patricians treated the people as their slaves, ordering them to be scourged or beheaded just as the kings had done, driving them from their holdings, and harshly tyrannizing over those who had no property to lose. The people, overwhelmed by these oppressive measures, and most of all by exorbitant usury, and obliged to contribute both money and personal service to the constant wars, at length took arms and seceded to Mount Aventine and Mount Sacer, and thus obtained for themselves tribunes and protective laws. But it was only the second Punic war that put an end on both sides to discord and 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.”

> Latin: Itaque habebo modum et ipsum Sallustium testem potius adhibebo, qui cum in laude Romanorum dixisset, unde nobis iste sermo ortus est: ‘lus bonumque aput eos non legibus magis quam natura ualebat’, praedicans illud tempus, quo expulsis regibus incredibiliter ciuitas breui aetatis spatio plurimum creuit, idem tamen in primo historiae suae libro adque ipso eius exordio fatetur etiam tunc, cum ad consules a regibus esset translata res publica, post paruum interuallum iniurias ualidiorum et ob eas discessionem plebis a patribus aliasque in Urbe dissensiones fuisse. Nam cum optimis moribus et maxima concordia populum Romanum inter secundum et postremum bellum Carthaginiense commemorasset egisse causamque huius boni non amorem iustitiae, sed stante Carthagine metum pacis infidae fuisse dixisset (unde et Nasica ille ad reprimendam nequitiam seruandosque istos mores optimos, ut metu uitia cohiberentur, Carthaginem nolebat euerti): continuo subiecit idem Sallustius et ait: (At discordia et auaritia adque ambitio et cetera secundis rebus oriri sueta mala post Carthaginis excidium maxime aucta sunt’, ut intellegeremus etiam ante oriri solere et augeri: Unde subnectens quur hoc dixerit: Nam iniuriae, inquit, ualidiorum et ob eas discessio plebis a patribus aliaeque dissensiones domi fuere iam inde a principio, neque amplius quam regibus exactis, dum metus a Tarquinio et bellum graue cum Etruria positum est, aequo et modesto iure agitatum.’ Vides quem ad modum etiam illo breui tempore, ut regibus exactis, id est eiectis, aliquantum aequo et modesto iure ageretur, metum dixit fuisse causam, quoniam metuebatur bellum, quod rex Tarquinius regno adque Urbe pulsus Etruscis sociatus contra Romanos gerebat. Adtende itaque quid deinde contexat: ‘Dein, inquit, seruili imperio patres plebem exercere, de uita adque tergo regio more consulere, agro pellere et ceteris expertibus soli in imperio agere. Quibus saeuitiis et maxime faenore obpressa plebes cum adsiduis bellis tributum et militiam simul toleraret, armata montem sacrum adque Auentinum insedit, tumque tribunos plebis et alia iura sibi parauit. Discordiarum et certaminis utrimque finis fuit secundum Punicum bellum.) Cernis ex quo tempore, id est paruo interuallo post reges exactos, quales Romani fuerint, de quibus ait: (Ius bonumque aput eos non legibus magis quam natura ualebat.’ Porro si illa tempora talia reperiuntur, quibus pulcherrima adque optima fuisse praedicatur Romana res publica, quid iam de consequenti aetate dicendum aut cogitandum arbitramur, cum (paulatim mutata, ut eiusdem historici uerbis utar, ex pulcherrima adque optima pessima ac flagitiosissima facta est,’ post Carthaginis uidelicet, ut commemorauit, excidium?

[¶22] Now, if these were the days in which the Roman republic shows fairest and best, what are we to say or think of the succeeding age, when, to use the words of the same historian, “changing little by little from the fair and virtuous city it was, it became utterly wicked and dissolute?” This was, as he mentions, after the destruction of Carthage. Sallust’s brief sum and sketch of this period may be read in his own history, in which he shows how the profligate manners which were propagated by prosperity resulted at last even in civil wars. He says: “And from this time the primitive manners, instead of undergoing an insensible alteration as hitherto they had done, were swept away as by a torrent: the young men were so depraved by luxury and avarice, that it may justly be said that no father had a son who could either preserve his own patrimony, or keep his hands off other men’s.” Sallust adds a number of particulars about the vices of Sylla, and the debased condition of the republic in general; and other writers make similar observations, though in much less striking language.

> Latin: Quae tempora ipse Sallustius quem ad modum breuiter recolat et describat, in eius historia legi potest; quantis malis morum, quae secundis rebus exorta sunt, usque ad bella ciuilia demonstret esse peruentum. (Ex quo tempore, ut ait, maiorum mores non paulatim ut antea, sed torrentis modo praecipitati, adeo iuuentus luxu adque auaritia corrupta, ut merito dicatur genitos esse, qui neque ipsi habere possent res familiares neque alios pati.’ Dicit deinde plura Sallustius de Syllae uitiis ceteraque foeditate rei publicae, et alii scriptores in haec consentiunt, quamuis eloquio multum inpari.

[¶23] However, I suppose you now see, or at least any one who gives his attention has the means of seeing, in what a sink of iniquity that city was plunged before the advent of our heavenly King. For these things happened not only before Christ had begun to teach, but before He was even born of the Virgin. If, then, they dare not impute to their gods the grievous evils of those former times, more tolerable before the destruction of Carthage, but intolerable and dreadful after it, although it was the gods who by their malign craft instilled into the minds of men the conceptions from which such dreadful vices branched out on all sides, why do they impute these 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 those wicked and hurtful lusts of men, gradually withdraws His own 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 on the judgment of truth?

> Latin: Cernis tamen, ut opinor, et quisquis aduerterit, facillime perspicit, conluuie morum pessimorum quo illa ciuitas prolapsa fuerit ante nostri superni regis aduentum. Haec enim gesta sunt non solum antequam Christus in carne praesens docere coepisset, uerum etiam antequam de uirgine natus esset. Cum igitur tot et tanta mala temporum illorum uel tolerabiliora superius, uel post euersam Carthaginem intoleranda et horrenda dis suis inputare non audeant, opiniones humanis mentibus, unde talia uitia siluescerent, astutia maligna inserentibus: quur mala praesentia Christo inputant, qui doctrina saluberrima et falsos ac fallaces deos coli uetat et istas hominum noxias flagitiosasque cupiditates diuina auctoritate detestans adque condemnans his malis tabescenti ac labenti mundo ubique familiam suam sensim subtrahit, qua condat aeternam et non plausu uanitatis, sed iudicio ueritatis gloriosissimam ciuitatem?

## 12. Of the Corruption Which Had Grown Upon the Roman Republic Before Christ Abolished the Worship of the Gods.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/12/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/12/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 19.—Of the Corruption Which Had Grown Upon the Roman Republic Before Christ Abolished the Worship of the Gods.

> Latin: Caput XIX. De corruptione Romanae rei publicae, priusquam cultum deorum Christus auferret.

[¶1] Here, then, is this Roman republic, “which has changed little by little from the fair and virtuous city it was, and has become utterly wicked and dissolute.” It is not I who am the first to say this, but their own authors, from whom we learned it for a fee, and who wrote it long before the coming of Christ. You see how, before the coming of Christ, and after the destruction of Carthage, “the primitive manners, instead of undergoing insensible alteration, as hitherto they had done, were swept away as by a torrent; and how depraved by luxury and avarice the youth were.” Let them now, on their part, read to us any laws given by their gods to the Roman people, and directed against luxury and avarice. And would that they had only been silent on the subjects of chastity and modesty, and had not demanded from the people indecent and shameful practices, to which they lent a pernicious patronage by their so-called divinity. Let them read our commandments in the Prophets, Gospels, Acts of the Apostles or Epistles; let them peruse the large number of precepts against avarice and luxury which are everywhere read to the congregations that meet for this purpose, and which strike the ear, not with the uncertain sound of a philosophical discussion, but with the thunder of God’s own oracle pealing from the clouds. And yet they do not impute to their gods 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 affliction their pride and effeminacy have exposed them to in these latter days, they furiously impute to our religion. If the kings of the earth and all their subjects, if all princes and judges of the earth, if young men and maidens, old and young, every age, and both sexes; if they whom the Baptist addressed, the publicans and the soldiers, were all together to hearken to and observe the precepts of the Christian religion regarding a just and virtuous life, then should the republic adorn the whole earth with its own felicity, and attain in life everlasting to the pinnacle of kingly glory. But because this man listens and that man scoffs, and most are enamored of the blandishments of vice rather than the wholesome severity of virtue, the people of Christ, whatever be their condition—whether they be kings, princes, judges, soldiers, or provincials, rich or poor, bond or free, male or female—are enjoined to endure this earthly republic, wicked and dissolute as it is, that so they may by this endurance win for themselves an eminent place in that most holy and august assembly of angels and republic of heaven, in which the will of God is the law.

> Latin: Ecce Romana res publica (quod non ego primus dico, sed auctores eorum, unde haec mercede didicimus, tanto ante dixerunt ante Christi aduentum) ‘paulatim mutata ex pulcherrima adque optima pessima ac flagitiosissima facta est.’ Ecce ante Christi aduentum, post deletam Carthaginem ‘maiorum mores non paulatim, ut antea, sed torrentis modo praecipitati, adeo iuuentus luxu adque auaritia corrupta est. Legant nobis contra luxum et auaritiam praecepta deorum suorum populo Romano data; cui utinam tantum casta et modesta reticerent, ac non etiam ab illo probrosa et ignominiosa deposcerent, quibus per falsam diuinitatem perniciosam conciliarent auctoritatem. Legant nostra et per prophetas et per sanctum euangelium, et per apostolicos actus et per epistulas tam multa contra auaritiam adque luxuriam ubique populis ad hoc congregatis quam excellenter, quam diuine non tamquam ex philosophorum concertationibus strepere, sed tamquam ex oraculis et Dei nubibus intonare. Et tamen luxu adque auaritia saeuisque ac turpibus moribus ante aduentum Christi rem publicam pessimam ac flagitiosissimam factam non inputant dis suis; adflictionem uero eius, quamcumque isto tempore superbia deliciaeque eorum perpessae fuerint, religioni increpitant Christianae. Cuius praecepta de iustis probisque moribus si simul audirent adque curarent reges terrae et omnes populi, principes et omnes iudices terrae, iuuenes et uirgines, seniores cum iunioribus, aetas omnis capax et uterque sexus, et quos baptista Iohannes adloquitur, exactores ipsi adque milites: et terras uitae praesentis ornaret sua felicitate res publica, et uitae aeternae culmen beatissime regnatura conscenderet. Sed quia iste audit, ille contemnit, pluresque uitiis male blandientibus quam utili uirtutum asperitati sunt amiciores: tolerare Christi famuli iubentur, siue sint reges siue principes siue iudices, siue milites siue prouinciales, siue diuites siue pauperes, siue liberi siue serui, utriuslibet sexus, etiam pessimam, si ita necesse est, flagitiosissimamque rem publicam et in illa angelorum quadam sanctissima adque augustissima curia caelestique re publica, ubi Dei uoluntas lex est, clarissimum sibi locum etiam ista conparare tolerantia.

### Of the Kind of Happiness and Life Truly Delighted in by Those Who Inveigh Against the Christian Religion.

[¶3] Chapter 20.—Of the Kind of Happiness and Life Truly Delighted in by Those Who Inveigh Against the Christian Religion.

> Latin: Caput XX. Quali uelint felicitate gaudere et quibus moribus uiuere, qui tempora Christianae religionis incusant.

[¶4] But the worshippers and admirers of these gods delight in imitating 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 flourish and abound in resources; let it be glorious by its victories, or still better, secure in peace; and what matters it to us? This is our concern, that every man be able to increase his wealth so as to supply his daily prodigalities, and so that the powerful may subject the weak for their own purposes. Let the poor court the rich for a living, and that under their protection they may enjoy a sluggish tranquillity; and let the rich abuse the poor as their dependants, to minister to their pride. Let the people applaud not those who protect their interests, but those who provide them with pleasure. Let no severe duty be commanded, no impurity forbidden. Let kings estimate their prosperity, not by the righteousness, but by the servility of their subjects. Let the provinces stand loyal to the kings, not as moral guides, but as lords of their possessions and purveyors of their pleasures; not with a hearty reverence, but a crooked and servile fear. Let the laws take cognizance rather of the injury done to another man’s property, than of that done to one’s own person. If a man be a nuisance to his neighbor, or injure his property, family, or person, let him be actionable; but in his own affairs let everyone with impunity do what he will in company with his own family, and with those who willingly join him. Let there be a plentiful supply of public prostitutes for every one who wishes to use them, but specially for those who are too poor to keep one for their private use. Let there be erected houses of the largest and most ornate description: in these let there be provided the most sumptuous banquets, where every one who pleases may, by day or night, play, drink, vomit, dissipate. Let there be everywhere heard the rustling of dancers, the loud, immodest laughter of the theatre; let a succession of the most cruel and the most voluptuous pleasures maintain a perpetual excitement. If such happiness is distasteful to any, let him be branded as a public enemy; and if any attempt to modify or put an end to it let him be silenced, banished, put an end to. Let these be reckoned the true gods, who procure for the people this condition of things, and preserve it when once possessed. Let them be worshipped as they wish; let them demand whatever games they please, from or with their own worshippers; only let them secure that such felicity be not imperilled by foe, plague, or disaster of any kind. What sane man would compare a republic such as this, I will not say to the Roman empire, but to the palace of Sardanapalus, the ancient king who was so abandoned to pleasures, that he caused it to be inscribed on his tomb, that now that he was dead, he possessed only those things which he had swallowed and consumed by his appetites while alive? If these men had such a king as this, who, while self-indulgent, should lay no severe restraint on them, they would more enthusiastically consecrate to him a temple and a flamen than the ancient Romans did to Romulus.

> Latin: Verum tales cultores et dilectores deorum istorum, quorum etiam imitatores in sceleribus et flagitiis se esse laetantur, nullo modo curant pessimam ac flagitiosissimam non esse rem publicam. Tantum stet, inquiunt, tantum floreat copiis referta, uictoriis gloriosa, uel, quod est felicius, pace secura sit. Et quid ad nos? Immo id ad nos magis pertinet, si diuitias quisque augeat semper, quae cottidianis effusionibus subpetant, per quas sibi etiam infirmiores subdat quisque potentior. Obsequantur diuitibus pauperes causa saturitatis adque ut eorum patrociniis quieta inertia perfruantur, diuites pauperibus ad clientelas et ad ministerium sui fastus abutantur. Populi plaudant non consultoribus utilitatum suarum, sed largitoribus uoluptatum. Non dura iubeantur, non prohibeantur inpura. Reges non curent quam bonis, sed quam subditis regnent. Prouinciae regibus non tamquam rectoribus morum, sed tamquam rerum dominatoribus et deliciarum suarum prouisoribus seruiant, eosque non sinceriter honorent, sed [nequiter ac] seruiliter timeant. Quid alienae uineae potius quam quid suae uitae quisque noceat, legibus aduertatur. Nullus ducatur ad iudicem, nisi qui alienae rei domui saluti uel cuiquam inuito fuerit inportunus aut noxius; ceterum de suis uel cum suis uel cum quibusque nolentibus faciat quisque quod libet. Abundent publica scorta uel propter omnes, quibus frui placuerit, uel propter eos maxime, qui habere priuata non possunt. Exstruantur amplissimae adque ornatissimae domus, opipara conuiuia frequententur, ubi cuique libuerit et potuerit, diu noctuque ludatur bibatur, uomatur diffluatur. Saltationes undique concrepent, theatra inhonestae laetitiae uocibus adque omni genere siue crudelissimae siue turpissimae uoluptatis exaestuent. Ille sit publicus inimicus, cui haec felicitas displicet; quisquis eam mutare uel auferre tentauerit, eum libera multitudo auertat ab auribus, euertat a sedibus, auferat a uiuentibus. Illi habeantur di ueri, qui hanc adipiscendam populis procurauerint adeptamque seruauerint. Colantur ut uoluerint, ludos exposcant quales uoluerint, quos cum suis uel de suis possint habere cultoribus: tantum efficiant, ut tali felicitati nihil ab hoste, nihil a peste, nihil ab ulla clade timeatur. — Quis hanc rem publicam sanus, non dicam Romano imperio, sed domui Sardanapali conparauerit? qui quondam rex ita fuit uoluptatibus deditus, ut in sepulcro suo scribi fecerit ea sola se habere mortuum, quae libido eius, etiam cum uiueret, hauriendo consumserat. Quem regem si isti haberent sibi in talibus indulgentem nec in eis cuiquam ulla seueritate aduersantem, huic libentius quam Romani ueteres Romulo templum et flaminem consecrarent.

### Cicero’s Opinion of the Roman Republic.

[¶6] Chapter 21.—Cicero’s Opinion of the Roman Republic.

> Latin: Caput XXI. . Quae sententia fuerit Ciceronis de Romana re publica.

[¶7] But if our adversaries do not care how foully and disgracefully the Roman republic be stained by corrupt practices, so long only as it holds together and continues in being, and if they therefore pooh-pooh the testimony of Sallust to its “utterly wicked and profligate” condition, what will they make of Cicero’s statement, that even in his time it had become entirely extinct, and that there remained extant no Roman republic at all? He introduces Scipio (the Scipio who had destroyed Carthage) discussing the republic, at a time when already there were presentiments of its speedy ruin by that corruption which Sallust describes. In fact, at the time when 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, at the end of the second book, says: “As among the different sounds which proceed from lyres, flutes, and the human voice, there must be maintained a certain harmony which a cultivated ear cannot endure to hear disturbed or jarring, but which may be elicited in full and absolute concord by the modulation even of voices very unlike one another; so, where reason is allowed to modulate the diverse elements of the state, there is obtained a perfect concord from the upper, lower, and middle classes as from various sounds; and what musicians call harmony in singing, is concord in matters of state, which is the strictest bond and best security of any republic, and which by no ingenuity can be retained where justice has become extinct.” Then, when he had expatiated somewhat more fully, and had more copiously illustrated the benefits of its presence and the ruinous effects of its absence upon a state, Pilus, one of the company present at the discussion, struck in and demanded that the question should be more thoroughly sifted, and that the subject of justice should be freely discussed for the sake of ascertaining what truth there was in the maxim which was then becoming daily more current, that “the republic cannot be governed without injustice.” Scipio expressed his willingness to have this maxim discussed and sifted, and gave it as his opinion that it was baseless, and that no progress could be made in discussing the republic unless it was established, not only that this maxim, that “the republic cannot be governed without injustice,” was false, but also that the truth is, that it cannot be governed without the most absolute justice. And the discussion of this question, being deferred till the next day, is carried on in the third book with great animation. For Pilus himself undertook to defend the position that the republic cannot be governed without injustice, at the same time being at special pains to clear himself of any real participation in that opinion. He advocated with great keenness the cause of injustice against justice, and endeavored by plausible reasons and examples to demonstrate that the former is beneficial, the latter useless, to the republic. Then, at the request of the company, Lælius attempted to defend justice, and strained every nerve to prove that nothing is so hurtful to a state as injustice; and that without justice a republic can neither be governed, nor even continue to exist.

> Latin: Sed si contemnitur qui Romanam rem publicam pessimam ac flagitiosissimam dixit, nec curant isti quanta morum pessimorum ac flagitiosissimorum labe ac dedecore inpleatur, sed tantummodo ut consistat et maneat: audiant eam non, ut Sallustius narrat, pessimam ac flagitiosissimam factam, sed, sicut Cicero disputat, iam tunc prorsus perisse et nullam omnino remansisse rem publicam. Inducit enim Scipionem, eum ipsum qui Carthaginem extinxerat, de re publica disputantem, quando praesentiebatur ea corruptione, quam describit Sallustius, iam iamque peritura. Eo quippe tempore disputatur, quo iam unus Gracchorum occisus fuit, a quo scribit seditiones graues coepisse Sallustius. Nam mortis eius fit in eisdem libris commemoratio. Cum autem Scipio in secundi libri fine dixisset, ut in fidibus aut tibiis adque cantu ipso ac uocibus concentus est quidam tenendus ex distinctis sonis, quem inmutatum aut discrepantem aures eruditae ferre non possunt. isque concentus ex dissimillimarum uocum moderatione concors tamen efficitur et congruens: sic ex summis et infimis et mediis interiectis ordinibus, ut sonis, moderata ratione ciuitatem consensu dissimillimorum concinere, et quae harmonia a musicis dicitur in cantu, eam esse in ciuitate concordiam, artissimum adque optimum omni in re publica uinculum incolumitatis, eamque sine iustitia nullo pacto esse posse,’ ac deinde cum aliquanto latius et uberius disseruisset, quantum prodesset iustitia ciuitati quantumque obesset, si afuisset, suscepit deinde Philus, unus eorum qui disputationi aderant, et poposcit, ut haec ipsa quaestio diligentius tractaretur ac de iustitia plura dicerentur, propter illud, quod iam uulgo ferebatur rem publicam regi sine iniuria non posse. Hanc proinde quaestionem discutiendam et enodandam esse adsensus est Scipio responditque nihil esse, quod adhuc de re publica dictum putaret, quo possent longius progredi, nisi esset confirmatum non modo falsum esse illud, sine iniuria non posse, sed hoc uerissimum esse, sine summa iustitia rem publicam regi non posse. Cuius quaestionis explicatio cum in diem consequentem dilata esset, in tertio libro magna conflictione res acta est. Suscepit enim Philus ipse disputationem eorum, qui sentirent sine iniustitia geri non posse rem publicam, purgans praecipue, ne hoc ipse sentire crederetur, egitque sedulo pro iniustitia contra iustitiam, ut hanc esse utilem rei publicae, illam uero inutilem, ueri similibus rationibus et exemplis uelut conaretur ostendere. Tum Laelius rogantibus omnibus iustitiam defendere adgressus est adseruitque, quantum potuit, nihil tam inimicum quam iniustitiam ciuitati nec omnino nisi magna iustitia geri aut stare [posse] rem publicam., Qua quaestione, quantum satis uisum est, pertractata Scipio ad intermissa reuertitur recolitque suam adque commendat breuem rei publicae definitionem, qua dixerat eam esse rem populi.

[¶8] When this question has been handled to the satisfaction of the company, Scipio reverts to the original thread of discourse, and repeats with commendation his own brief definition of a republic, that it is the weal of the people. “The people” he defines as being not every assemblage or mob, but an assemblage associated by a common acknowledgment of law, and by a community of interests. Then he shows the use of definition in debate; and from these definitions of his own he gathers that a republic, or “weal of the people,” then exists only when it is well and justly governed, whether by a monarch, or an aristocracy, or by the whole people. But when the monarch is unjust, or, as the Greeks say, a tyrant; or the aristocrats are unjust, and form a faction; or the people themselves are unjust, and become, as Scipio for want of a better name calls them, themselves the tyrant, then the republic is not only blemished (as had been proved the day before), but by legitimate deduction from those definitions, it altogether ceases to be. For it could not be the people’s weal when a tyrant factiously lorded it over the state; neither would 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 of law, and by a community of interests.”

> Latin: Populum autem non omnem coetum multitudinis, sed coetum iuris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatum esse determinat. Docet deinde quanta sit in disputando definitionis utilitas, adque ex illis suis definitionibus colligit tunc esse rem publicam, id est rem populi, cum bene ac iuste geritur siue ab uno rege siue a paucis optimatibus siue ab uniuerso populo. Cum uero iniustus est rex, quem tyrannum more Graeco appellauit, aut iniusti optimates, quorum consensum dixit esse factionem, aut iniustus ipse populus, cui nomen usitatum non repperit, nisi ut etiam ipsum tyrannum uocaret: non iam uitiosam, sicut pridie fuerat disputatum, sed, sicut ratio ex illis definitionibus conexa docuisset, omnino nullam esse rem publicam, quoniam non esset res populi, cum tyrannus eam factioue capesseret, nec ipse populus iam populus esset, si esset iniustus, quoniam non esset multitudo iuris consensu et utilitatis communione sociata, sicut populus fuerat definitus.

[¶9] When, therefore, the Roman republic was such as Sallust described it, it was not “utterly wicked and profligate,” as he says, but had altogether ceased to exist, if we are to admit the reasoning of that debate maintained on the subject of the republic by its best representatives. Tully himself, too, speaking not in the person of Scipio or any one else, but uttering his own sentiments, uses the following language in the beginning of the fifth book, after quoting a line from the poet Ennius, in which he said, “Rome’s severe morality and her citizens are her safeguard.” “This verse,” says Cicero, “seems to me to have all the sententious truthfulness of an oracle. For neither would the citizens have availed without the morality of the community, nor would the morality of the commons without outstanding men have availed either to establish or so long to maintain in vigor so grand a republic with so wide and just an empire. Accordingly, before our day, the hereditary usages formed our foremost men, and they on their part retained the usages and institutions of their fathers. But our age, receiving the republic as a chef-d’oeuvre of another age which has already begun to grow old, has not merely neglected to restore the colors of the original, but has not even been at the pains to preserve so much as the general outline and most outstanding features. For what survives of 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 what shall I say? Morality has perished through poverty of great men; a poverty for which we must not only assign a reason, but for the guilt of which we must answer as criminals charged with a capital crime. For it is through our vices, and not by any mishap, that we retain only the name of a republic, and have long since lost the reality.”

> Latin: Quando ergo res publica Romana talis erat, qualem illam describit Sallustius, non iam pessima ac flagitiosissima, sicut ipse ait, sed omnino nulla erat secundum istam rationem, quam disputatio de re publica inter magnos eius tum principes habita patefecit. Sicut etiam ipse Tullius non Scipionis nec cuiusquam alterius, sed suo sermone loquens in principio quinti libri commemorato prius Ennii poetae uersu, quo dixerat:. Moribus antiquis res stat Romana uirisque, ‘quem quidem ille uersum, inquit, uel breuitate uel ueritate tamquam ex oraculo quodam mihi [ esse] effatus uidetur. Nam neque uiri, nisi ita morata ciuitas fuisset, neque mores. nisi hi uiri praefuissent, aut fundare aut tam diu tenere potuissent tantam et tam iuste longe lateque imperantem rem publicam. Itaque ante nostram memoriam et mos ipse patrius praestantes uiros adhibebat, et ueterem morem ac maiorum instituta retinebant excellentes uiri. Nostra uero aetas cum rem publicam sicut picturam accepisset egregiam, sed euanescentem uetustate, non modo eam coloribus isdem quibus fuerat renouare neglexit, sed ne id quidem curauit, ut formam saltem eius et extrema tamquam liniamenta seruaret. Quid enim manet ex antiquis moribus, quibus ille dixit rem stare Romanam, quos ita obliuione obsoletos uidemus, ut non modo non colantur, sed iam ignorentur? Nam de uiris quid dicam? Mores enim ipsi interierunt uirorum penuria, cuius tanti mali non modo reddenda ratio nobis, sed etiam tamquam reis capitis quodam modo dicenda causa est.

[¶10] This is the confession of Cicero, long indeed after the death of Africanus, whom he introduced as an interlocutor in his work 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, is there a man of our adversaries who would not have thought that they were to be imputed to the Christians? Why, then, did their gods not take steps then to prevent the decay and extinction of that republic, over the loss of which Cicero, long before Christ had come in the flesh, sings so lugubrious a dirge? Its admirers have need to inquire whether, even in the days of primitive men and morals, true justice flourished in it; or was it not perhaps even then, to use the casual expression of Cicero, rather a colored painting than the living reality? But, if God will, we shall consider this elsewhere. For I mean in its own place to show that—according to the definitions in which Cicero himself, using Scipio as his mouthpiece, briefly propounded what a republic is, and what a people is, and according to many testimonies, both of his own lips and of those who took part in that same debate—Rome never was a republic, because true justice had never a place in it. But accepting the more feasible definitions of a republic, I grant there was a republic of a certain kind, and certainly much better administered by the more ancient Romans than by their modern representatives. But the fact is, true justice has no existence save in that republic whose founder and ruler is Christ, if at least any choose to call this a republic; and indeed we cannot deny that it is the people’s weal. But if perchance this name, which has become familiar in other connections, be considered alien to our common parlance, we may at all events say that in this city is true justice; the city of which Holy Scripture says, “Glorious things are said of thee, O city of God.”

> Latin: Nostris enim uitiis, non casu aliquo, rem publicam uerbo retinemus, re ipsa uero iam pridem amisimus.’ Haec Cicero fatebatur, longe quidem post mortem Africani, quem in suis libris fecit de re publica disputare, adhuc tamen ante aduentum Christi; quae si diffamata et praeualescente religione Christiana sentirentur adque dicerentur, quis non istorum ea Christianis inputanda esse censeret? Quam ob rem quur non curarunt di eorum, ne tunc periret adque amitteretur illa res publica, quam Cicero longe, antequam Christus in carne uenisset, tam lugubriter deplorat amissam? Viderint laudatores eius etiam illis antiquis uiris et moribus qualis fuerit, utrum in ea uiguerit uera iustitia an forte nec tunc fuerit uiua moribus, sed picta coloribus; quod et ipse Cicero nesciens, cum eam praeferret, expressit. Sed alias, si Deus uoluerit, hoc uidebimus. Enitar enim suo loco, ut ostendam secundum definitiones ipsius Ciceronis, quibus quid sit res publica et quid sit populus loquente Scipione breuiter posuit (adtestantibus etiam multis siue ipsius siue eorum quos loqui fecit in eadem disputatione sententiis), numquam illam fuisse rem publicam, quia numquam in ea fuerit uera iustitia. Secundum probabiliores autem definitiones pro suo modo quodam res publica fuit, et melius ab antiquioribus Romanis quam a posterioribus administrata est; uera autem iustitia non est nisi in ea re publica, cuius conditor rectorque Christus est, si et ipsam rem publicam placet dicere, quoniam eam rem populi esse negare non possumus. Si autem hoc nomen, quod alibi aliterque uulgatum est, ab usu nostrae locutionis est forte remotius, in ea certe ciuitate est uera iustitia, de qua scriptura sancta dicit: Gloriosa dicta sunt de te, ciuitas Dei.

### That the Roman Gods Never Took Any Steps to Prevent the Republic from Being Ruined by Immorality.

[¶12] Chapter 22.—That the Roman Gods Never Took Any Steps to Prevent the Republic from Being Ruined by Immorality.

> Latin: Caput XXII. Quod dis Romanorum nulla umquam cura fuerit, ne malis moribus res publica deperiret.

[¶13] But what is relevant to the present question is this, that however admirable our adversaries say the republic was or is, it is certain that by the testimony of their own most learned 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, surely these guardian gods ought to have given precepts of morals and a rule of life to the people by whom they were worshipped in so many temples, with so great a variety of priests and sacrifices, with such numberless and diverse rites, so many festal solemnities, so many celebrations of magnificent games. But in all this the demons only looked after their own interest, and cared not at all how their worshippers lived, or rather were at pains to induce them to lead an abandoned life, so long as they paid these tributes to their honor, and regarded them with fear. If any one denies this, let him produce, let him point to, let him read the laws which the gods had given against sedition, and which the Gracchi transgressed when they threw everything into confusion; or those Marius, and Cinna, and Carbo broke when they involved their country in civil wars, most iniquitous and unjustifiable in their causes, cruelly conducted, and yet more cruelly terminated; or those which Sylla scorned, whose life, character, and deeds, as described by Sallust and other historians, are the abhorrence of all mankind. Who will deny that at that time the republic had become extinct?

> Latin: Sed quod pertinet ad praesentem quaestionem, quamlibet laudabilem dicant istam fuisse uel esse rem publicam, secundum eorum auctores doctissimos iam longe ante Christi aduentum pessima ac flagitiosissima facta erat; immo uero nulla erat adque omnino perierat perditissimis moribus. Ut ergo non periret, di custodes eius populo cultori suo dare praecipue uitae ac morum praecepta debuerunt, a quo tot templis, tot sacerdotibus et sacrificiorum generibus, tam multiplicibus uariisque sacris, tot festis sollemnitatibus, tot tantorumque ludorum celebritatibus colebantur; ubi nihil daemones nisi negotium suum egerunt, non curantes quem ad modum illi uiuerent, immo curantes ut etiam perdite uiuerent, dum tamen honori suo illa omnia metu subditi ministrarent. Aut si dederunt, proferatur ostendatur legatur, quas deorum leges illi ciuitati datas contemserint Gracchi, ut seditionibus cuncta turbarent, quas Marius et Cinna et Carbo, ut in bella etiam progrederentur ciuilia causis iniquissimis suscepta et crudeliter gesta crudeliusque finita, quas denique Sylla ipse, cuius uitam mores facta describente Sallustio aliisque scriptoribus historiae quis non exhorreat? quis illam rem publicam non tunc perisse fateatur?

[¶14] Possibly they will be bold enough to suggest in defence of the gods, that they abandoned the city on account of the profligacy of the citizens, according to the lines of Virgil:

> Latin: An forte propter huiusce modi ciuium mores Yergilianam illam sententiam, sicut solent, pro defensione deorum suorum obponere audebunt:.

[¶15] “Gone from each fane, each sacred shrine,

[¶16] Are those who made this realm divine.”

[¶17] But, firstly, if it be so, then they cannot complain against the Christian religion, as if it were that which gave offence to the gods and caused them to abandon Rome, since the Roman immorality had long ago driven from the altars of the city a cloud of little gods, like as many flies. And yet where was this host of divinities, when, long before the corruption of the primitive morality, Rome was taken and burnt by the Gauls? Perhaps they were present, but asleep? For at that time the whole city fell into the hands of the enemy, with the single exception of the Capitoline hill; and this too would have been taken, had not—the watchful geese aroused the sleeping gods! And this gave occasion to the festival of the goose, in which Rome sank nearly to the superstition of the Egyptians, who worship beasts and birds. But of these adventitious evils which are inflicted by hostile armies or by some disaster, and which attach rather to the body than the soul, I am not meanwhile disputing. At present I speak of the decay of morality, which at first almost imperceptibly lost its brilliant hue, but afterwards was wholly obliterated, was swept away as by a torrent, and involved the republic in such disastrous ruin, that though the houses and walls remained standing the leading writers do not scruple to say that the republic was destroyed. Now, the departure of the gods “from each fane, each sacred shrine,” and their abandonment of the city to destruction, was an act of justice, if their laws inculcating justice and a moral life had been held in contempt by that city. But what kind of gods were these, pray, who declined to live with a people who worshipped them, and whose corrupt life they had done nothing to reform?

> Latin: Discessere omnes adytis arisque relictis Di, quibus imperium hoc steterat? Primum si ita est, non habent quur querantur de religione Christiana, quod hac offensi eos di sui deseruerint, quoniam quidem maiores eorum iam pridem moribus suis ab Urbis altaribus tam multos ac minutos deos tamquam muscas abegerunt. Sed tamen haec numinum turba ubi erat, cum longe antequam mores corrumperentur antiqui a Gallis Roma capta et incensa est? An praesentes forte dormiebant? Tunc enim tota Urbe in hostium potestatem redacta collis solus Capitolinus remanserat, qui etiam ipse caperetur, nisi saltem anseres dis dormientibus uigilarent. Unde paene in superstitionem Aegyptiorum bestias auesque colentium Roma deciderat, cum anseri sollemnia celebrabant. Verum de his aduenticiis et corporis potius quam animi malis, quae uel ab hostibus uel alia clade accidunt, nondum interim disputo: nunc ago de labe morum, quibus primum paulatim decoloratis, deinde torrentis modo praecipitatis tanta quamuis integris tectis moenibusque facta est ruina rei publicae, ut magni auctores eorum eam tunc amissam non dubitent dicere. Recte autem abscesserant, ut amitteretur, omnes adytis arisque relictis di, si eorum de bona uita adque iustitia ciuitas praecepta contemserat. Nunc uero quales, quaeso, di fuerunt, si noluerunt cum populo cultore suo uiuere, quem male uiuentem non docuerant bene uiuere?

### That the Vicissitudes of This Life are Dependent Not on the Favor or Hostility of Demons, But on the Will of the True God.

[¶19] Chapter 23.—That the Vicissitudes of This Life are Dependent Not on the Favor or Hostility of Demons, But on the Will of the True God.

> Latin: Caput XXIII. Varietates rerum temporalium non ex fauore aut inpugnatione daemonum, sed ex ueri Dei pendere iudicio.

[¶20] But, further, is it not obvious that the gods have abetted the fulfilment of men’s desires, instead of authoritatively bridling them? For Marius, a low-born and self-made man, who ruthlessly provoked and conducted civil wars, was so effectually aided by them, that he was seven times consul, and died full of years in his seventh consulship, escaping the hands of Sylla, who immediately afterwards came into power. Why, then, did they not also aid him, so as to restrain him from so many enormities? For if it is said that the gods had no hand in his success, this is no trivial admission that a man can attain the dearly coveted felicity of this life even though his own gods be not propitious; that men can be loaded with the gifts of fortune as Marius was, can enjoy health, power, wealth, honours, dignity, length of days, though the gods be hostile 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. To concede this is to make a compendious confession that the gods are useless, and their worship superfluous. If the gods have taught the people rather what goes clean counter to the virtues of the soul, and that integrity of life which meets a reward after death; if even in respect of temporal and transitory blessings they neither hurt those whom they hate nor profit whom they love, why are they worshipped, why are they invoked with such eager homage? Why do men murmur in difficult and sad emergencies, as if the gods had retired in anger? and why, on their account, is the Christian religion injured by the most unworthy calumnies? If in temporal matters they have power 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 are the rather to be feared and worshipped, this is a mistake; for we do not read that Regulus worshipped them less assiduously than Marius. Neither is it apparent that a wicked life is to be chosen, on the ground that the gods are supposed to have favored Marius more than Regulus. For Metellus, the most highly esteemed of all the Romans, who had five sons in the consulship, was prosperous even in this life; and Catiline, the worst of men, reduced to poverty and defeated in the war his own guilt had aroused, lived and perished miserably. Real and secure felicity is the peculiar possession of those who worship that God by whom alone it can be conferred.

> Latin: Quid quod etiam uidentur eorum adfuisse cupiditatibus inplendis, et ostenduntur non praefuisse refrenandis, qui enim Marium nouum hominem et ignobilem, cruentissimum auctorem bellorum ciuilium adque gestorem, ut septiens consul fieret adiuuerunt adque ut in septimo suo consulatu moreretur senex nec in manus Syllae futuri mox uictoris inrueret. Si enim ad haec eum di eorum non iuuerunt, non parum est quod fatentur etiam non propitiis dis suis posse accidere homini istam temporalem, quam nimis diligunt, tantam felicitatem et posse homines, sicut fuit Marius, salute uiribus, opibus honoribus, dignitate longaeuitate cumulari et perfrui dis iratis; posse etiam homines, sicut fuit Regulus, captiuitate seruitute inopia, uigiliis doloribus excruciari et emori dis amicis. Quod si ita esse concedunt, conpendio nihil eos prodesse et coli superfluo confitentur. Nam si uirtutibus animi et probitati uitae, cuius praemia post mortem speranda sunt, magis contraria ut populus disceret institerunt; si nihil etiam in his transeuntibus et temporalibus bonis uel eis quos oderunt nocent, uel eis quos diligunt prosunt, ut quid coluntur, ut quid tanto studio colendi requiruntur? Quur laboriosis tristibusque temporibus, tamquam offensi abscesserint, murmuratur et propter eos Christiana religio conuiciis indignissimis laeditur? Si autem habent in his rebus uel beneficii uel maleficii potestatem, quur in eis adfuerunt pessimo uiro Mario, et optimo Regulo defuerunt? An ex hoc ipsi intelleguntur iniustissimi et pessimi? Quod si propterea magis timendi et colendi putantur, neque hoc putentur; neque enim minus eos inuenitur Regulus coluisse quam Marius. Nec ideo uita pessima eligenda uideatur, quia magis Mario quam Regulo di fauisse existimantur. Metellus enim Romanorum laudatissimus, qui habuit quinque filios consulares, etiam rerum temporalium felix fuit, et Catilina pessimus obpressus inopia et in bello sui sceleris prostratus infelix, et uerissima adque certissima felicitate praepollent boni Deum colentes, a quo solo conferri potest.

[¶21] It is thus apparent, that when the republic was being destroyed by profligate manners, its gods did nothing to hinder its destruction by the direction or correction of its manners, but rather accelerated its destruction by increasing the demoralization and corruption that already existed. They need not pretend that their goodness was shocked by the iniquity of the city, and that they withdrew in anger. For they were there, sure enough; they are detected, convicted: they were equally unable to break silence so as to guide others, and to keep silence so as to conceal themselves. I do not dwell on the fact that the inhabitants of Minturnæ took pity on Marius, and commended him to the goddess Marica in her grove, that she might give him success in all things, and that from the abyss of despair in which he then lay he forthwith returned unhurt to Rome, and entered the city the ruthless leader of a ruthless army; and they who wish to know how bloody was his victory, how unlike a citizen, and how much more relentlessly than any foreign foe he acted, let them read the histories. But this, as I said, I do not dwell upon; nor do I attribute the bloody bliss of Marius to, I know not what Minturnian goddess [Marica], but rather to the secret providence of God, that the mouths of our adversaries might be shut, and that they who are not led by passion, but by prudent consideration of events, might be delivered from error. And even if the demons have any power in these matters, they have only that power which the secret decree of the Almighty allots to them, in order that we may not set too great store by earthly prosperity, seeing it is oftentimes vouchsafed even to wicked men like Marius; and that we may not, on the other hand, regard it as an evil, since we see that many good and pious worshippers of the one true God are, in spite of the demons pre-eminently successful; and, finally, that we may not suppose that these unclean spirits are either to be propitiated or feared for the sake of earthly blessings or calamities: for as wicked men on earth cannot do all they would, so neither can these demons, but only in so far as they are permitted by the decree of Him whose judgments are fully comprehensible, justly reprehensible by none.

> Latin: Illa igitur res publica malis moribus cum periret, nihil di eorum pro dirigendis uel pro corrigendis egerunt moribus, ne periret; immo deprauandis et corrumpendis addiderunt moribus, ut periret. Nec se bonos fingant, quod uelut offensi ciuium iniquitate discesserint. Prorsus ibi erant; produntur, conuincuntur; nec subuenire praecipiendo nec latere tacendo potuerunt. Omitto quod Marius a miserantibus Minturnensibus Maricae deae in luco eius commendatus est, ut ei omnia prosperaret, et ex summa desperatione reuersus incolumis in Urbem duxit crudelem crudelis exercitum; ubi quam cruenta, quam inciuilis hostilique inmanior eius uictoria fuerit, eos qui scripserunt legant qui uolunt. Sed hoc, ut dixi, omitto, nec Maricae nescio cui tribuo Marii sanguineam felicitatem, sed occultae potius prouidentiae Dei ad istorum ora claudenda eosque ab errore liberandos, qui non studiis agunt, sed haec prudenter aduertunt, quia, etsi aliquid in his rebus daemones possunt, tantum possunt, quantum secreto omnipotentis arbitrio permittuntur, ne magnipendamus terrenam felicitatem, quae sicut Mario malis etiam plerumque conceditur, nec eam rursus quasi malam arbitremur, cum ea multos etiam pios ac bonos unius ueri Dei cultores inuitis daemonibus praepolluisse uideamus, nec eosdem inmundissimos spiritus uel propter haec ipsa bona malaue terrena propitiandos aut timendos existimemus, quia, sicut ipsi mali homines in ten’a, sic etiam illi non omnia quae uolunt facere possunt, nisi quantum illius ordinatione sinitur, cuius plene iudicia nemo conprehendit, iuste nemo reprehendit.

## 13. Of the Deeds of Sylla, in Which the Demons Boasted that He Had Their Help.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/13/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/13/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 24.—Of the Deeds of Sylla, in Which the Demons Boasted that He Had Their Help.

> Latin: Caput XXIV. De Syllanis actibus, quorum se daemones ostentauerint adiutores.

[¶1] It is certain that Sylla—whose rule was so cruel that, in comparison with it, the preceding state of things which he came to avenge was regretted—when first he advanced towards Rome to give battle to Marius, found the auspices so favourable when he sacrificed, that, according to Livy’s account, the augur Postumius expressed his willingness to lose his head if Sylla did not, with the help of the gods, accomplish what he designed. The gods, you see, had not departed from “every fane and sacred shrine,” since they were still predicting the issue of these affairs, and yet were taking no steps to correct Sylla himself. Their presages promised him great prosperity but 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 came to pass. And afterwards, when he was meditating a return to Rome for the purpose of avenging in the blood of the citizens injuries done to himself and his friends, a second message from Jupiter was delivered to him by a soldier of the sixth legion, to the effect that it was he who had predicted the victory over Mithridates, and that now he promised to give him power to recover the republic from his enemies, though with great bloodshed. Sylla at once inquired of the soldier what form had appeared to him; and, on his reply, recognized that it was the same as Jupiter had formerly employed to convey to him the assurance regarding the victory over Mithridates. How, then, can the gods be justified in this matter for the care they took to predict these shadowy successes, and for their negligence in correcting Sylla, and restraining him from stirring up a civil war so lamentable and atrocious, that it not merely disfigured, but extinguished, the republic? The truth is, as I have often said, and as Scripture informs us, and as the facts themselves sufficiently indicate, the demons are found to look after their own ends only, that they may be regarded and worshipped as gods, and that men may be induced to offer to them a worship which associates them with their crimes, and involves them in one common wickedness and judgment of God.

> Latin: Sylla certe ipse, cuius tempora talia fuerunt, ut superiora, quorum uindex esse uidebatur, illorum conparatione quaererentur, cum primum ad Urbem contra Marium castra mouisset, adeo laeta exta immolanti fuisse scribit Liuius, ut custodiri se Postumius haruspex uoluerit capitis supplicium subiturus, nisi ea, quae in animo Sylla haberet, dis iuuantibus inpleuisset. Ecce non discesserant adytis adquo aris relictis di, quando de rerum euentu praedicebant nihilque de ipsius Syllae correctione curabant. Promittebant praesagando felicitatem magnam nec malam cupiditatem minando frangebant. Deinde cum esset in Asia bellum Mithridaticum gerens, per Lucium Titium ei mandatum est a Ioue, quod esset Mithridatem superaturus, et factum est. Ac postea molienti redire in Urbem et suas amicorumque iniurias ciuili sanguine ulcisci, iterum mandatum est ab eodem Ioue per militem quendam legionis sextae, prius se de Mithridate praenuntiasse uictoriam, et tunc promittere daturum se potestatem, qua recuperaret ab inimicis rem publicam non sine multo sanguine. Tum percontatus Sylla, quae forma militi uisa fuerit, cum ille indicasset, eam recordatus est, quam prius ab illo audierat, qui de Mithridatica uictoria ab eodem mandata pertulerat. Quid hic responderi potest, quare di curauerint uelut felicia ista nuntiare, et nullus eorum curauerit Syllam monendo corrigere mala tanta facturum scelestis armis ciuilibus, qualia non foedarent, sed auferrent omnino rem publicam? Nempe intelleguntur daemones, sicut saepe dixi notumque nobis est in litteris sacris resque ipsae satis indicant, negotium suum agere, ut pro dis habeantur et colantur, ut ea illis exhibeantur, quibus hi qui exhibent sociati unam pessimam causam cum eis habeant in iudicio Dei.

[¶2] Afterwards, when Sylla had come to Tarentum, and had sacrificed there, he saw on the head of the victim’s liver the likeness of a golden crown. Thereupon the same soothsayer Postumius interpreted this to signify a signal victory, and ordered that he only should eat of the entrails. A little afterwards, the slave of a certain Lucius Pontius cried out, “I am Bellona’s messenger; the victory is yours, Sylla!” Then he added that the Capitol should be burned. As soon as he had uttered this prediction he left the camp, but returned the following day more excited than ever, and shouted, “The Capitol is fired!” And fired indeed it was. This it was easy for a demon both to foresee and quickly to announce. But observe, as relevant to our subject, what kind of gods they are under whom these men desire to live, who blaspheme the Saviour that delivers the wills of the faithful from the dominion of devils. The man cried out in prophetic rapture, “The victory is 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 in whom this spirit was speaking was far distant. But he never cried, “Forbear thy villanies, Sylla!”—the villanies which were committed at Rome by that victor to whom a golden crown on the calf’s liver had been shown as the divine evidence of his victory. If such signs as this were customarily sent by just gods, and not by wicked demons, then certainly the entrails he consulted should rather have given Sylla intimation of the cruel disasters that were to befall the city and himself. For that victory was not so conducive to his exaltation to power, as it was fatal to his ambition; for by it he became so insatiable in his desires, and was rendered so arrogant and reckless by prosperity, that he may be said rather to have inflicted a moral destruction on himself than corporal destruction on his enemies. But these truely woeful and deplorable calamities the gods gave him no previous hint of, neither by entrails, augury, dream, nor prediction. For they feared his amendment more than his defeat. Yea, they took good care that this glorious conqueror of his own fellow-citizens should be conquered and led captive by his own infamous vices, and should thus be the more submissive slave of the demons themselves.

> Latin: Deinde cum uenisset Tarentum Sylla adque ibi sacrificasset, uidit in capite uitulini iecoris similitudinem coronae aureae. Tunc Postumius haruspex ille respondit praeclaram significare uictoriam iussitque ut extis illis solus uesceretur. Postea paruo interuallo seruus cuiusdam Lucii Pontii uaticinando clamauit: <a Bellona nuntius uenio, uictoria tua est, Sylla). Deinde adiecit arsurum esse Capitolium. Hoc cum dixisset, continuo egressus e castris postero die concitatior reuersus est et Capitolium arsisse clamauit. Arserat autem re uera Capitolium. Quod quidem daemoni et praeuidere facile fuit et celerrime nuntiare. Illud sane intende, quod ad causam maxime pertinet, sub qualibus dis esse cupiant, qui blasphemant Saluatorem uoluntates fidelium a dominatu daemonum liberantem. Clamauit homo uaticinando: (uictoria tua est, Sylla’, adque ut id diuino spiritu clamare crederetur, nuntiauit etiam aliquid et prope futurum et mox factum, unde longe aberat per quem ille spiritus loquebatur; non tamen clamauit: ‘ab sceleribus parce, Sylla’, quae illic uictor tam horrenda commisit, cui corona aurea ipsius uictoriae inlustrissimum signum in uitulino iecore apparuit, qualia signa si di iusti dare solerent ac non daemones inpii, profecto illis extis nefaria potius adque ipsi Syllae grauiter noxia mala futura monstrarent. Neque enim eius dignitati tantum profuit illa uictoria, quantum nocuit cupiditati; qua factum est, ut inmoderatis inhians et secundis rebus elatus ac praecipitatus magis ipse periret in moribus, quam inimicos in corporibus perderet. Haec illi di uere tristia uereque lugenda non extis, non auguriis, non cuiusquam somnio uel uaticinio praenuntiabant. Magis enim timebant ne corrigeretur quam ne uinceretur. Immo satis agebant, ut uictor ciuium gloriosus uictus adque captiuus nefandis uitiis et per haec ipsis etiam daemonibus multo obstrictius subderetur.

### How Powerfully the Evil Spirits Incite Men to Wicked Actions, by Giving Them the Quasi-Divine Authority of Their Example.

[¶4] Chapter 25.—How Powerfully the Evil Spirits Incite Men to Wicked Actions, by Giving Them the Quasi-Divine Authority of Their Example.

> Latin: Caput XXV. Quantum maligni spiritus ad flagitia incitent homines, cum in committendis sceleribus quasi diuinam exempli sui interponunt auctoritatem.

[¶5] Now, who does not hereby comprehend,—unless he has preferred to imitate such gods rather than by divine grace to withdraw himself from their fellowship,—who does not see how eagerly these evil spirits strive by their example to lend, as it were, divine authority to crime? Is not this proved by the fact that they were seen in a wide plain in Campania rehearsing among themselves the battle which shortly after took place there with great bloodshed between the armies of Rome? For at first there were heard loud crashing noises, and afterwards many reported that they had seen for some days together two armies engaged. And when this battle ceased, they found the ground all indented with just such footprints of men and horses as a great conflict would leave. If, then, the deities were veritably fighting with one another, the civil wars of men are sufficiently justified; yet, by the way, let it be observed that such pugnacious gods must be very wicked or very wretched. If, however, it was but a sham-fight, what did they intend by this, but that the civil wars of the Romans should seem no wickedness, but an imitation of the gods? For already the civil wars had begun; and before this, some lamentable 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, recognized in the stripped corpse his own brother, and, with deep curses on civil wars, slew himself there and then on his brother’s body. To disguise the bitterness of such tragedies, and kindle increasing ardor in this monstrous warfare, these malign demons, who were reputed and worshipped as gods, fell upon this plan of revealing themselves in a state of civil war, that no compunction for fellow-citizens might cause the Romans to shrink from such battles, but that the human criminality might be justified by the divine example. By a like craft, too, did these evil spirits command that scenic entertainments, of which I have already spoken, should be instituted and dedicated to them. And in these entertainments the poetical compositions and actions of the drama ascribed such iniquities to the gods, that every one might safely imitate them, whether he believed the gods had actually done such things, or, not believing this, yet perceived that they most eagerly desired to be represented as having done them. And that no one might suppose, that in representing the gods as fighting with one another, the poets had slandered them, and imputed to them unworthy actions, the gods themselves, to complete the deception, confirmed the compositions of the poets by exhibiting their own battles to the eyes of men, not only through actions in the theatres, but in their own persons on the actual field.

> Latin: Illinc uero quis non intellegat, quis non uideat, nisi qui tales deos imitari magis elegit quam diuina gratia ab eorum societate separari, quantum moliantur maligni isti spiritus exemplo suo uelut diuinam auctoritatem praebere sceleribus? quod etiam in quadam Campaniae lata planitie, ubi non multo post ciuiles acies nefario proelio conflixerunt, ipsi inter se prius pugnare uisi sunt. Namque ibi auditi sunt primum ingentes fragores, moxque multi se uidisse nuntiarunt per aliquot dies duas acies proeliari. Quae pugna ubi destitit, uestigia quoque uelut hominum et equorum, quanta de illa conflictatione exprimi poterant, inuenerunt. Si ergo ueraciter inter se numina pugnauerunt, iam bella ciuilia excusantur humana; consideretur tamen quae sit talium deorum uel malitia uel miseria: si autem se pugnasse finxerunt, quid aliud egerunt, nisi ut sibi Romani bellando ciuiliter tamquam deorum exemplo nullum nefas admittere uiderentur? Iam enim coeperant bella ciuilia, et aliquot nefandorum proeliorum strages exsecranda praecesserat. Iam multos mouerat, quod miles quidam, dum occiso spolia detraheret, fratrem nudato cadauere agnouit ac detestatus bella ciuilia se ipsum ibi perimens fraterno corpori adiunxit. Ut ergo huius tanti mali minime taederet, sed armorum scelestorum magis magisque ardor incresceret, noxii daemones, quos illi deos putantes colendos et uenerandos arbitrabantur, inter se pugnantes hominibus apparere uoluerunt, ne imitari tales pugnas ciuica trepidaret adfectio, sed potius humanum scelus diuino excusaretur exemplo. Hac astutia maligni spiritus etiam ludos, unde multa iam dixi, scaenicos sibi dicari sacrarique iusserunt, ubi tanta deorum flagitia theatricis canticis adque fabularum actionibus celebrata et quisquis eos fecisse crederet et quisquis non crederet, sed tamen illos libentissime sibi talia exhiberi cerneret, securus imitaretur. Ne quis itaque existimaret in deos conuicia potius quam eis dignum aliquid scriptitasse, ubicumque illos inter se pugnasse poetae commemorarunt, ipsi ad decipiendos homines poetarum carmina firmauerunt, pugnas uidelicet suas non solum per scaenicos in theatro, uerum etiam per se ipsos in campo humanis oculis exhibentes.

[¶6] We have been forced to bring forward these facts, because their authors have not scrupled to say and to write that the Roman republic had already been ruined by the depraved moral habits of the citizens, and had ceased to exist before the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ. Now this ruin they do not impute to their own gods, though they impute to our Christ the evils of this life, which cannot ruin good men, be they alive or dead. And this they do, though our Christ has issued so many precepts inculcating virtue and restraining vice; while their own gods have done nothing whatever to preserve that republic that served them, and to restrain it from ruin by such precepts, but have rather hastened its destruction, by corrupting its morality through their pestilent example. No one, I fancy, will now be bold enough to say that the republic was then ruined because of the departure of the gods “from each fane, each sacred shrine,” as if they were the friends of virtue, and were offended by the vices of men. No, there are too many presages from entrails, auguries, soothsayings, whereby they boastingly proclaimed themselves prescient of future events and controllers of the fortune of war,—all which prove them to have been present. And had they been indeed absent the Romans would never in these civil wars have been so far transported by their own passions as they were by the instigations of these gods.

> Latin: Haec dicere conpulsi sumus, quoniam pessimis moribus ciuium Romanam rem publicam iam antea perditam fuisse nullamque remansisse ante aduentum Christi Iesu domini nostri auctores eorum dicere et scribere minime dubitarunt. Quam perditionem dis suis non inputant, qui mala transitoria, quibus boni, seu uiuant seu moriantur, perire non possunt, Christo nostro inputant: cum Christus noster tanta frequentet pro moribus optimis praecepta contra perditos mores; di uero ipsorum nullis talibus praeceptis egerint aliquid cum suo cultore populo pro illa re publica, ne periret; immo eosdem mores uelut suis exemplis auctoritate noxia corrumpendo egerunt potius, ut periret. Quam non ideo tunc perisse quisquam, ut arbitror, iam dicere audebit, quia ‘discessere omnes adytis arisque relictis di’, uelut amici uirtutibus, cum uitiis hominum offenderentur; quia tot signis extorum auguriorum uaticiniorum, quibus se tamquam praescios futurorum adiutoresque proeliorum iactare et commendare gestiebant, conuincuntur fuisse praesentes; qui si uere abscessissent, mitius Romani in bella ciuilia suis cupiditatibus quam illorum instigationibus exarsissent.

### That the Demons Gave in Secret Certain Obscure Instructions in Morals, While in Public Their Own Solemnities Inculcated All Wickedness.

[¶8] Chapter 26.—That the Demons Gave in Secret Certain Obscure Instructions in Morals, While in Public Their Own Solemnities Inculcated All Wickedness.

> Latin: Caput XXVI. De secretis daemonum monitis, quae pertinebant ad bonos mores, cum palam in sacris eorum omnis nequitia disceretur.

[¶9] Seeing that this is so,—seeing that the filthy and cruel deeds, the disgraceful and criminal actions of the gods, whether real or feigned, were at their own request published, and were consecrated, and dedicated in their honor as sacred and stated solemnities; seeing they vowed vengeance on those who refused to exhibit them to the eyes of all, that they might be proposed as deeds worthy of imitation, why is it that these same demons, who by taking pleasure in such obscenities, acknowledge themselves to be unclean spirits, and by delighting in their own villanies and iniquities, real or imaginary, and by requesting from the immodest, and extorting from the modest, the celebration of these licentious acts, proclaim themselves instigators to a criminal and lewd life;—why, I ask, are they represented as giving some good moral precepts to a few of their own elect, initiated in the secrecy of their shrines? If it be so, this very thing only serves further to demonstrate the malicious craft of these pestilent spirits. For so great is the influence of probity and chastity, that all men, or almost all men, are moved by the praise of these virtues; nor is any man so depraved by vice, but he hath some feeling of honor left in him. So that, unless the devil sometimes transformed himself, as Scripture says, into an angel of light, he could not compass his deceitful purpose. Accordingly, in public, a bold impurity fills the ear of the people with noisy clamor; in private, a feigned chastity speaks in scarce audible whispers to a few: an open stage is provided for shameful things, but on the praiseworthy the curtain falls: grace hides disgrace flaunts: a wicked deed draws an overflowing house, a virtuous speech finds 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 exhibited to encourage the vicious, who are countless.

> Latin: Quae cum ita sint, cum palam aperteque turpitudines crudelitatibus mixtae, obprobria numinum et crimina, siue prodita siue conficta, ipsis exposcentibus et nisi fieret irascentibus etiam certis et statis sollemnitatibus consecrata illis et dicata claruerint adque ad omnium oculos ut imitanda proponerentur, spectanda processerint: quid est, quod idem ipsi daemones, qui se huiusce modi uoluptatibus inmundos esse spiritus confitentur, qui suis flagitiis et facinoribus, siue indicatis siue simulatis, eorumque sibi celebratione petita ab inpudentibus, extorta a pudentibus auctores se uitae scelestae inmundaeque testantur, perhibentur tamen in adytis suis secretisque penetralibus dare quaedam bona praecepta de moribus quibusdam uelut electis sacratis suis? Quod si ita est, hoc ipso callidior aduertenda est et conuincenda malitia spirituum noxiorum. Tanta enim uis est probitatis et castitatis, ut omnis uel paene omnis eius laude moueatur humana natura, nec usque adeo sit turpitudine uitiosa, ut totum sensum honestatis amiserit. Proinde malignitas daemonum, nisi alicubi se, quem ad modum scriptum in nostris litteris nouimus, transfiguret in angelos lucis, non inplet negotium deceptionis. Foris itaque populis celeberrimo strepitu inpietas inpura circumsonat, et intus paucis castitas simulata uix sonat; praebentur propatula pudendis et secreta laudandis; decus latet et dedecus patet; quod malum geritur omnes conuocat spectatores, quod bonum dicitur uix aliquos inuenit auditores, tamquam honesta erubescenda sint et inhonesta glorianda. Sed ubi hoc nisi in daemonum templis? ubi nisi in fallaciae deuersoriis?

[¶10] Where and when those initiated in the mysteries of Cœlestis received any good instructions, we know not. What we do know is, that before her shrine, in which her image is set, and amidst a vast crowd gathering from all quarters, and standing closely packed together, we were intensely interested spectators of the games which were going on, and saw, as we pleased to turn the eye, on this side a grand display of harlots, on the other the virgin goddess; we saw this virgin worshipped with prayer and with obscene rites. There we saw no shame-faced mimes, no actress over-burdened with modesty; all that the obscene rites demanded was fully complied with. We were plainly shown what was pleasing to the virgin deity, and the matron who witnessed the spectacle returned home from the temple a wiser woman. Some, indeed, of the more prudent women turned their faces from the immodest movements of the players, and learned the art of wickedness by a furtive regard. For they were restrained, by the modest demeanor due to men, from looking boldly at the immodest gestures; but much more were they restrained from condemning with chaste heart the sacred rites of her whom they adored. And yet this licentiousness—which, if practised in one’s home, could only be done there in secret—was practised as a public lesson in the temple; and if any modesty remained in men, it was occupied in marvelling that wickedness which men could not unrestrainedly commit should be part of the religious teaching of the gods, and that to omit its exhibition should incur the anger of the gods. What spirit can that be, which by a hidden inspiration stirs men’s corruption, and goads them to adultery, and feeds on the full-fledged iniquity, unless it be the same that finds pleasure in such religious ceremonies, sets in the temples images of devils, and loves to see in play the images of vices; that whispers in secret some righteous sayings to deceive the few who are good, and scatters in public invitations to profligacy, to gain possession of the millions who are wicked?

> Latin: Illud enim fit, ut honestiores, qui pauci sunt, capiantur; hoc autem, ne plures, qui sunt turpissimi, corrigantur. Ubi et quando sacrati Caelestis audiebant castitatis praecepta, nescimus; ante ipsum tamen delubrum, ubi simulacrum illud locatum conspiciebamus, uniuersi undique confluentes et ubi quisque poterat stantes ludos qui agebantur intentissimi spectabamus, intuentes alternante conspectu hinc meretriciam pompam, illinc uirginem deam: illam suppliciter adorari, ante illam turpia celebrari; non ibi pudibundos mimos, nullam uerecundiorem scaenicam uidimus; cuncta obscenitatis inplebantur officia. Sciebatur uirginali numini quid placeret, et exhibebatur quod de templo domum matrona doctior reportaret. Nonnullae pudentiores auertebant faciem ab inpuris motibus scaenicorum et artem flagitii furtiua intentione discebant. Hominibus namque uerecundabantur, ne auderent inpudicos gestus ore libero cernere; sed multo minus audebant sacra eius, quam uenerabantur. casto corde damnare. Hoc tamen palam discendum praebebatur in templo, ad quod perpetrandum saltem secretum quaerebatur in domo, mirante nimium, si ullus ibi erat, pudore mortalium, quod humana flagitia non libere homines committerent, quae aput deos etiam religiose discerent iratos habituri, nisi etiam exhibere curarent. Quis enim alius spiritus occulto instinctu nequissimas agitans mentes et instat faciendis adulteriis et pascitur factis, nisi qui etiam sacris talibus oblectatur, constituens in templis simulacra daemonum, amans in ludis simulacra uitiorum, susurrans in occulto uerba iustitiae ad decipiendos etiam paucos bonos, frequentans in aperto inuitamenta nequitiae ad possidendos innumerabiles malos?

### That the Obscenities of Those Plays Which the Romans Consecrated in Order to Propitiate Their Gods, Contributed Largely to the Overthrow of Public Order.

[¶12] Chapter 27.—That the Obscenities of Those Plays Which the Romans Consecrated in Order to Propitiate Their Gods, Contributed Largely to the Overthrow of Public Order.

> Latin: Caput XXVII. Quanta euersione publicae disciplinae Romani dis suis placandis sacrauerint obscena ludorum.

[¶13] Cicero, a weighty man, and a philosopher in his way, when about to be made edile, wished the citizens to understand that, among the other duties of his magistracy, he must propitiate Flora by the celebration of games. And these games are reckoned devout in proportion to their lewdness. In another place, and when he was now consul, and the state in great peril, he says that games had been celebrated for ten days together, and that nothing had been omitted which could pacify the gods: as if it had not been more satisfactory to irritate the gods by temperance, than to pacify them by debauchery; and to provoke their hate by honest living, than soothe it by such unseemly grossness. For no matter how cruel was the ferocity of those men who were threatening the state, and on whose account the gods were being propitiated, it could not have been more hurtful than the alliance of gods who were won with the foulest vices. To avert the danger which threatened men’s bodies, the gods were conciliated in a fashion that drove virtue from their spirits; and the gods did not enrol themselves as defenders of the battlements against the besiegers, until they had first stormed and sacked the morality 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 Romans disabled from civic honors, erased from their tribe, recognized as polluted and made infamous;—this propitiation, I say, so foul, so detestable, and alien from every religious feeling, these fabulous and ensnaring accounts of the criminal actions of the gods, these scandalous actions which they either shamefully and wickedly committed, or more shamefully and wickedly feigned, all this the whole city learned in public both by the words and gestures of the actors. They saw that the gods delighted in the commission of these things, and therefore believed that they wished them not only to be exhibited to them, but to be imitated by themselves. But as for that good and honest instruction which they speak of, it was given in such secrecy, and to so few (if indeed given at all), that they seemed rather to fear it might be divulged, than that it might not be practised.

> Latin: Vir grauis et philosophaster Tullius aedilis futurus clamat in auribus ciuitatis, inter cetera sui magistratus officia sibi Floram matrem ludorum celebritate placandam; qui ludi tanto deuotius, quanto turpius celebrari solent. Dicit alio loco iam consul in extremis periculis ciuitatis, et ludos per decem dies factos, neque rem ullam quae ad placandos deos pertineret praetermissam; quasi non satius erat tales deos inritare temperantia quam placare luxuria, et eos honestate etiam ad inimicitias prouocare quam tanta deformitate lenire. Neque enim grauius fuerant quamlibet crudelissima inmanitate nocituri homines, propter quos placabantur, quam nocebant ipsi, cum uitiositate foedissima placarentur. Quando quidem ut auerteretur quod metuebatur ab hoste in corporibus, eo modo di conciliabantur, quo uirtus debellaretur in mentibus, qui non obponerentur defensores obpugnatoribus moenium, nisi prius fierent expugnatores morum bonorum. Hanc talium numinum placationem petulantissimam inpurissimam inpudentissimam nequissimam inmundissimam, cuius actores laudanda Romanae uirtutis indoles honore priuauit, tribu mouit, agnouit turpes, fecit infames, hanc, inquam, pudendam ueraeque religioni auersandam et detestandam talium numinum placationem, [has] fabulas in deos inlecebrosas adque criminosas, haec ignominiosa deorum uel scelerate turpiterque facta uel sceleratius turpiusque conficta oculis et auribus publicis ciuitas tota discebat, haec commissa numinibus placere cernebat, et ideo non solum illis exhibenda, sed sibi quoque imitanda credebat, non illud nescio quid uelut bonum et honestum, quod tam paucis et tam occulte dicebatur (si tamen dicebatur), ut magis ne innotesceret, quam ne non fieret, timeretur.

### That the Christian Religion is Health-Giving.

[¶15] Chapter 28.—That the Christian Religion is Health-Giving.

> Latin: Caput XXVIII. De Christianae religionis salubritate.

[¶16] They, then, are but abandoned and ungrateful wretches, in deep and fast bondage to that malign spirit, who complain and murmur that men are rescued by the name of Christ from the hellish thraldom of these unclean spirits, and from a participation in their punishment, and are brought out of the night of pestilential ungodliness into the light of most healthful piety. Only such men could murmur that the masses flock to the churches and their chaste acts of worship, where a seemly separation of the sexes is observed; where they learn how they may so spend this earthly life, as to merit a blessed eternity hereafter; 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 though some enter who scoff at such precepts, all their petulance is either quenched by a sudden change, or is restrained through fear or shame. For no filthy and wicked action is there set forth to be gazed at or to be imitated; but either the precepts of the true God are recommended, His miracles narrated, His gifts praised, or His benefits implored.

> Latin: Ab istarum inmundissimarum potestatum tartareo iugo et societate poenali erui per Christi nomen homines et in lucem saluberrimae pietatis ab illa perniciosissimae inpietatis nocte transferri queruntur et murmurant iniqui et ingrati et illo nefario spiritu altius obstrictiusque possessi, quia populi confluunt ad ecclesiam casta celebritate, honesta utriusque sexus discretione, ubi audiant quam bene hic ad tempus uiuere debeant, ut post hanc uitam beate semperque uiuere mereantur, ubi sancta scriptura iustitiaeque doctrina de superiore loco in conspectu omnium personante et qui faciunt audiant ad praemium, et qui non faciunt audiant ad iudicium. Quo etsi ueniunt quidam talium praeceptorum inrisores, omnis eorum petulantia aut repentina mutatione deponitur, aut timore uel pudore conprimitur. Nihil enim eis turpe ac flagitiosum spectandum imitandumque proponitur, ubi ueri Dei aut praecepta insinuantur aut miracula narrantur, aut dona laudantur aut beneficia postulantur.

### An Exhortation to the Romans to Renounce Paganism.

[¶18] Chapter 29.—An Exhortation to the Romans to Renounce Paganism.

> Latin: Caput XXIX. De abiciendo cultu deorum cohortatio ad Romanos.

[¶19] This, rather, is the religion worthy of your desires, O admirable Roman race,—the progeny of your Scævolas and Scipios, of Regulus, and of Fabricius. This rather covet, this distinguish from that foul vanity and crafty malice of the devils. If there is in your nature any eminent virtue, only by true piety is it purged and perfected, while by impiety it is wrecked and punished. Choose now what you will pursue, that your praise may be not in yourself, but in the true God, in whom is no error. For of popular glory you have had your share; but by the secret providence of God, the true religion was not offered to your choice. Awake, it is now day; as you have already awaked in the persons of some in whose perfect virtue and sufferings for the true faith we glory: for they, contending on all sides with hostile powers, and conquering them all by bravely dying, have purchased for us this country of ours with their blood; to which country we invite you, and exhort you to add yourselves to the number of the citizens of this city, which also has a sanctuary of its own in the true remission of sins. Do not listen to those degenerate sons of thine who slander Christ and Christians, and impute to them these disastrous times, though they desire times in which they may enjoy rather impunity for their wickedness than a peaceful life. Such has never been Rome’s ambition even in regard to her earthly country. Lay hold now on the celestial country, which is easily won, and in which you will reign truly and for ever. For there shall thou find no vestal fire, no Capitoline stone, but the one true God.

> Latin: Haec potius concupisce o indoles Romana laudabilis o progenies Regulorum Scaeuolarum Scipionum Fabriciorum; haec potius concupisce, haec ab illa turpissima uanitate et fallacissima daemonum malignitate discerne. Si quid in te laudabile naturaliter eminet, non nisi uera pietate purgatur adque perficitur, inpietate autem disperditur et punitur. Nunc iam elige quid sequaris, ut non in te, sed in Deo uero sine ullo errore lauderis. Tunc enim tibi gloria popularis adfuit, sed occulto diuinae prouidentiae iudicio uera religio quam eligeres defuit. Expergiscere, dies est, sicut experrecta es in quibusdam, de quorum uirtute perfecta et pro fide uera etiam passionibus gloriamur, qui usquequaque aduersus potestates inimicissimas confligentes easque fortiter moriendo uincentes sanguine nobis hanc patriam peperere suo. Ad quam patriam te inuitamus et exhortamur, ut eius adiciaris numero ciuium, cuius quodam modo asylum est uera remissio peccatorum. Non audias degeneres tuos Christo Christianisue detrahentes et accusantes uelut tempora mala, cum quaerant tempora, quibus non sit quieta uita, sed potius secura nequitia. Haec tibi numquam nec pro terrena patria placuerunt. Nunc iam caelestem arripe, pro qua minimum laborabis, et in ea ueraciter semperque regnabis.

[¶20] “No date, no goal will here ordain:

[¶21] But grant an endless, boundless reign.”

> Latin: Illic enim tibi non Vestalis focus, non lapis Capitolinus, sed Deus unus et uerus nec metas rerum nec tempora ponit, Imperium sine fine dabit.

[¶22] No longer, then, follow after false and deceitful gods; abjure them rather, and despise them, bursting forth into true liberty. Gods they are not, but malignant spirits, to whom your eternal happiness will be a sore punishment. Juno, from whom you deduce your origin according to the flesh, did not so bitterly grudge Rome’s citadels to the Trojans, as these devils whom yet ye repute gods, grudge an everlasting seat to the race of mankind. And thou thyself hast in no wavering voice passed judgment on them, when thou didst pacify them with games, and yet didst account as infamous the men by whom the plays were acted. Suffer us, then, to assert thy freedom against the unclean spirits who had imposed on thy neck the yoke of celebrating their own shame and filthiness. The actors of these divine crimes thou hast removed from offices of honor; supplicate the true God, that He may remove from thee those gods who delight in their crimes,—a most disgraceful thing if the crimes are really theirs, and a most malicious invention if the crimes are feigned. Well done, in that thou hast spontaneously banished from the number of your citizens all actors and players. Awake more fully: the majesty of God cannot be propitiated by that which defiles the dignity of man. How, then, can you believe that gods who take pleasure in such lewd 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 citizens even of the lowest grade? Incomparably more glorious than Rome, is that heavenly city in which for victory you have truth; for dignity, holiness; for peace, felicity; for life, eternity. Much less does it admit into its society such gods, if thou dost blush to admit into thine such men. Wherefore, if thou wouldst attain to the blessed city, shun the society of devils. They who are propitiated by deeds of shame, are unworthy of the worship of right-hearted men. Let these, then, be obliterated from your worship by the cleansing of the Christian religion, as those men were blotted from your citizenship by the censor’s mark.

> Latin: Noli deos falsos fallacesque requirere; abice potius adque contemne in ueram emicans libertatem. Non sunt di, maligni sunt spiritus, quibus aeterna tua felicitas poena est. Non tam Iuno Troianis, a quibus carnalem originem ducis, arces uidetur inuidisse Romanas, quam isti daemones, quos adhuc deos putas, omni generi hominum sedes inuident sempiternas. Et tu ipsa non parua ex parte de talibus spiritibus iudicasti, quando ludis eos placasti et per quos homines eosdem ludos fecisti, infames esse uoluisti. Patere adseri libertatem tuam aduersus inmundos spiritus, qui tuis ceruicibus inposuerant sacrandam sibi et celebrandam ignominiam suam. Actores criminum diuinorum remouisti ab honoribus tuis: supplica Deo uero, ut a te remoueat illos deos, qui delectantur criminibus suis, seu ueris, quod ignominiosissimum est, seu falsis. quod malitiosissimum. Bene, quod tua sponte histrionibus et scaenicis societatem ciuitatis patere noluisti; euigila plenius! Nullo modo his artibus placatur diuina maiestas, quibus humana dignitas inquinatur. Quo igitur pacto deos, qui talibus delectantur obsequiis, haberi putas in numero sanctarum caelestium potestatum, cum homines, per quos eadem aguntur obsequia, non putasti habendos in numero qualiumcumque ciuium Romanorum? Incomparabiliter superna est ciuitas clarior, ubi uictoria ueritas, ubi dignitas sanctitas, ubi pax felicitas, ubi uita aeternitas. Multo minus habet in sua societate tales deos, si tu in tua tales homines habere erubuisti. Proinde si ad beatam peruenire desideras ciuitatem, deuita daemonum societatem. Indigne ab honestis coluntur, qui per turpes placantur. Sic isti a tua pietate remoueantur purgatione Christiana, quo modo illi a tua dignitate remoti sunt notatione censoria.

[¶23] But, so far as regards carnal benefits, which are the only blessings the wicked desire to enjoy, and carnal miseries, which alone they shrink from enduring, we will show in the following book that the demons have not the power they are supposed to have; and although they had it, we ought rather on that account to despise these blessings, than for the sake of them to worship those gods, and by worshipping them to miss the attainment of these blessings they grudge us. But that they have not even this power which is ascribed to them by those who worship them for the sake of temporal advantages, this, I say, I will prove in the following book; so let us here close the present argument.

> Latin: De bonis autem carnalibus, quibus solis mali perfrui uolunt, et de malis carnalibus, quae sola perpeti nolunt, quod neque in his habeant quam putantur habere isti daemones potestatem (quamquam si haberent, deberemus potius etiam ista contemnere, quam propter ista illos colere et eos colendo ad illa, quae nobis inuident, peruenire non posse), — tamen nec in istis eos hoc ualere, quod hi putant, qui propter haec eos coli oportere contendunt, deinceps uidebimus, ut hic sit huius uoluminis modus.

## 14. The external calamities of Rome.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/14/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/14/#p-N

[¶0] Book III.

> Latin: Liber III

[¶1] Argument—As in the foregoing book Augustin has proved regarding moral and spiritual calamities, so in this book he proves regarding external and bodily disasters, that since the foundation of the city the Romans have been continually subject to them; and that even when the false gods were worshipped without a rival, before the advent of Christ, they afforded no relief from such calamities.

### Of the Ills Which Alone the Wicked Fear, and Which the World Continually Suffered, Even When the Gods Were Worshipped.

[¶3] Chapter 1.—Of the Ills Which Alone the Wicked Fear, and Which the World Continually Suffered, Even When the Gods Were Worshipped.

> Latin: Caput I. De aduersitatibus, quas solas mali metuunt et quas semper passus est mundus, cum deos coleret.

[¶4] Of moral and spiritual evils, which are above all others to be deprecated, I think enough has already been said to show that the false gods took no steps to prevent the people who worshipped them from being overwhelmed by such calamities, but rather aggravated the ruin. I see I must now speak of those evils which alone are dreaded by the heathen—famine, pestilence, war, pillage, captivity, massacre, and the like calamities, already enumerated in the first book. For evil men account those things alone evil which do not make men evil; neither do they blush to praise good things, and yet to remain evil among the good things they praise. It grieves them more to own a bad house than a bad life, as if it were man’s greatest good to have everything good but himself. But not even such evils as were alone dreaded by the heathen were warded off by their gods, even when they were most unrestrictedly worshipped. For in various times and places before the advent of our Redeemer, the human race was crushed 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 judgment of God counted worthy of divine grace? But that I may not be prolix, I will be silent regarding the heavy calamities that have been suffered by any other nations, and will speak only of what happened to Rome and the Roman empire, by which I mean Rome properly so called, and those lands which already, before the coming of Christ, had by alliance or conquest become, as it were, members of the body of the state.

> Latin: Iam satis dictum arbitror de morum malis et animorum, quae praecipue cauenda sunt, nihil deos falsos populo cultori suo, quo minus eorum malorum aggere premeretur, subuenire curasse, sed potius, ut maxime premeretur, egisse. Nunc de illis malis uideo dicendum, quae sola isti perpeti nolunt, qualia sunt fames morbus, bellum exspoliatio, captiuitas trucidatio, et si qua similia iam in primo libro commemorauimus. Haec enim sola mali deputant mala, quae non faciunt malos; nec erubescunt inter bona, quae laudant, ipsi mali esse qui laudant, magisque stomachantur, si uillam malam habeant, quam si uitam, quasi hoc sit hominis maximum bonum, habere bona omnia praeter se ipsum. Sed neque talia mala, quae isti sola formidant, di eorum, quando ab eis libere colebantur, ne illis acciderent obstiterunt. Cum enim uariis per diuersa temporibus ante aduentum Redemtoris nostri innumerabilibus nonnullisque etiam incredibilibus cladibus genus contereretur humanum, quos alios quam istos deos mundus colebat, excepto uno populo Hebraeo et quibusdam extra ipsum populum, ubicumque gratia diuina digni occultissimo adque iustissimo Dei iudicio fuerunt? Verum ne nimis longum faciam, tacebo aliarum usquequaque gentium mala grauissima: quod ad Romam pertinet Romanumque imperium tantum loquar, id est ad ipsam proprie ciuitatem et quaecumque illi terrarum uel societate coniunctae uel condicione subiectae sunt, quae sint perpessae ante aduentum Christi, cum iam ad eius quasi corpus rei publicae pertinerent.

### Whether the Gods, Whom the Greeks and Romans Worshipped in Common, Were Justified in Permitting the Destruction of Ilium.

[¶6] Chapter 2.—Whether the Gods, Whom the Greeks and Romans Worshipped in Common, Were Justified in Permitting the Destruction of Ilium.

> Latin: Caput II. An di, qui et a Romanis et a Graecis similiter colebantur, causas habuerint, quibus Ilium paterentur exscindi.

[¶7] First, then, why was Troy or Ilium, the cradle of the Roman people (for I must not overlook nor disguise what I touched upon in the first book), conquered, taken and destroyed by the Greeks, though it esteemed and worshipped the same gods as they? Priam, some answer, paid the penalty of the perjury of his father Laomedon. Then it is true that Laomedon hired Apollo and Neptune as his workmen. For the story goes that he promised them wages, and then broke his bargain. I wonder that famous diviner Apollo toiled at so huge a work, and never suspected Laomedon was going to cheat him of his pay. And Neptune too, his uncle, brother of Jupiter, king of the sea, it really was not seemly that he should be ignorant of what was to happen. For he is introduced by Homer (who lived and wrote before the building of Rome) as predicting something great of the posterity of Æneas, who in fact founded Rome. And as Homer says, Nep tune also rescued Æneas in a cloud from the wrath of Achilles, though (according to Virgil)

> Latin: Primum ipsa Troia uel Ilium, unde origo est populi Romani, (neque enim praetereundum aut dissimulandum est, quod et in primo libro adtigi) eosdem habens deos et colens quur a Graecis uictum, captum adque deletum est? Priamo, inquiunt, sunt reddita Laomedontea paterna periuria’. Ergo uerum est, quod Apollo adque Neptunus eidem Laomedonti mercennariis operibus seruierunt? Illis quippe promisisse mercedem falsumque iurasse perhibetur. Miror Apollinem nominatum diuinatorem in tanto opificio laborasse nescientem quod Laomedon fuerat promissa negaturus. Quamquam nec ipsum Neptunum, patruum eius, fratrem Iouis, regem maris, decuit ignarum esse futurorum. Nam hunc Homerus de stirpe Aeneae, a cuius posteris [condita] Roma est, cum ante illam urbem conditam idem poeta fuisse dicatur, inducit magnum aliquid diuinantem, quem etiam nube rapuit, ut dicit, ne ab Achille occideretur, cuperet cum uertere ab imo, quod aput Vergilium confitetur, Structa suis manibus periurae moenia Troiae.

[¶8] “All his will was to destroy

[¶9] His own creation, perjured Troy.”

[¶10] Gods, then, so great as Apollo and Neptune, in ignorance of the cheat that was to defraud them of their wages, built the walls of Troy for nothing but thanks and thankless people. There may be some doubt whether it is not a worse crime to believe 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 the Trojans, he introduces Apollo as their champion, though the story implies that both were offended by that fraud. If, therefore, they believe their fables, let them blush to worship such gods; if they discredit the fables, let no more be said of the “Trojan perjury;” or let them explain how the gods hated Trojan, but loved Roman perjury. For how did the conspiracy of Catiline, even in so large and corrupt a city, find so abundant a supply of men whose hands and tongues found them a living by perjury and civic broils? What else but perjury corrupted the judgments pronounced by so many of the senators? What else corrupted the people’s votes and decisions of all causes tried before them? For it seems that the ancient practice of taking oaths has been preserved even in the midst of the greatest corruption, not for the sake of restraining wickedness by religious fear, but to complete the tale of crimes by adding that of perjury.

> Latin: Nescientes igitur tanti di, Neptunus et Apollo, Laomedontem sibi negaturum esse mercedem, structores moenium Troianorum gratis et ingratis fuerunt. Videant ne grauius sit tales deos credere quam dis talibus peierare. Hoc enim nec ipse Homerus facile credidit, qui Neptunum quidem contra Troianos, Apollinem autem pro Troianis pugnantem facit, cum illo periurio ambos fabula narret offensos. Si igitur fabulis credunt, erubescant talia colere numina; si fabulis non credunt, non obtendant Troiana periuria, aut mirentur deos periuria punisse Troiana, amasse Romana. Unde enim coniuratio Catilinae in tanta tamque corrupta ciuitate habuit etiam eorum grandem copiam, quos manus adque lingua periurio aut sanguine ciuili alebat? Quid enim aliud totiens senatores corrupti in iudiciis, totiens populus in suffragiis uel in quibusque causis, quae aput eum contionibus agebantur, nisi etiam peierando peccabant? Namque corruptissimis moribus ad hoc mos iurandi seruabatur antiquus, non ut ab sceleribus metu religionis prohiberentur, sed ut periuria quoque sceleribus ceteris adderentur.

### That the Gods Could Not Be Offended by the Adultery of Paris, This Crime Being So Common Among Themselves.

[¶12] Chapter 3.—That the Gods Could Not Be Offended by the Adultery of Paris, This Crime Being So Common Among Themselves.

> Latin: Caput III. Non potuisse offendi deos Paridis adulterio, quod inter ipsos traditur frequentatum.

[¶13] There is no ground, then, for representing the gods (by whom, as they say, that empire stood, though they are proved to have been conquered by the Greeks) as being enraged at the Trojan perjury. Neither, as others again plead in their defence, was it indignation at the adultery of Paris that caused them to withdraw their protection from Troy. For their habit is to be instigators and instructors in vice, not its avengers. “The city of Rome,” says Sallust, “was first built and inhabited, as I have heard, by the Trojans, who, flying their country, under the conduct of Æneas, wandered about without making any settlement.” If, then, the gods were of opinion that the adultery of Paris should be punished, it was chiefly the Romans, or at least the Romans also, who should have suffered; for the adultery was brought about by Æneas’ mother. But how could they hate in Paris a crime which they made no objection to in their own sister Venus, who (not to mention any other instance) committed adultery with Anchises, and so became the mother of Æneas? Is it because in the one case Menelaus was aggrieved, while in the other Vulcan connived at the crime? For the gods, I fancy, are so little jealous of their wives, that they make no scruple of sharing them with men. But perhaps I may be suspected of turning the myths into ridicule, and not handling so weighty a subject with sufficient gravity. Well, then, let us say that Æneas is not the son of Venus. I am willing to admit it; but is Romulus any more the son of Mars? For why not the one as well as the other? Or is it lawful for gods to have intercourse with women, unlawful for men to have intercourse with goddesses? A hard, or rather an incredible condition, that what was allowed to Mars by the law of Venus, should not be allowed to Venus herself by her own law. However, both cases have the authority of Rome; for Cæsar in modern times believed no less that he was descended from Venus, than the ancient Romulus believed himself the son of Mars.

> Latin: Nulla itaque causa est, quare di, quibus, ut dicunt, steterat illud imperium, cum a Graecis praeualentibus probentur uicti, Troianis peierantibus fingantur irati. Nec adulterio Paridis, ut rursus a quibusdam defenduntur, ut Troiam desererent, suscensuerunt. Auctores enim doctoresque peccatorum esse adsolent, non ultores. ‘Urbem Romam, inquit Sallustius, sicuti ego accepi, condidere adque habuere initio Troiani, qui Aenea duce profugi sedibus incertis uagabantur’. Si ergo adulterium Paridis uindicandum numina censuerunt, aut magis in Romanis aut certe etiam in Romanis puniendum fuit, quia Aeneae mater hoc fecit. Sed quo modo in illo illud flagitium oderant, qui in sua socia Venere non oderant (ut alia omittam) quod cum Anchise commiserat, ex quo Aenean pepererat? An quia illud factum est indignante Menelao, illud autem concedente Vulcano? Di enim, credo, non zelant coniuges suas usque adeo, ut eas etiam cum hominibus dignentur habere communes. Inridere fabulas fortassis existimor nec grauiter agere tanti ponderis causam. Non ergo credamus, si placet, Aenean esse Veneris filium: ecce concedo, si nec Romulum Martis. Si autem illud, quur non et illud? An deos [fas est] hominibus feminis, mares autem homines deabus misceri nefas? Dura uel potius non credenda condicio, quod ex iure Veneris in concubitu Marti licuit, hoc in iure suo ipsi Veneri non licere. At utrumque firmatum est auctoritate Romana. Neque enim minus credidit recentior Caesar auiam Venerem quam patrem antiquior Romulus Martem.

### Of Varro’s Opinion, that It is Useful for Men to Feign Themselves the Offspring of the Gods.

[¶15] Chapter 4.—Of Varro’s Opinion, that It is Useful for Men to Feign Themselves the Offspring of the Gods.

> Latin: Caput IV. De sententia Varronis, qua utile esse dixit, ut se homines dis genitos mentiantur.

[¶16] Some one will say, But do you believe all this? Not I indeed. For even Varro, a very learned heathen, all but admits that these stories are false, though he does not boldly and confidently say so. But he maintains it is useful for states that brave men believe, though falsely, that they are descended from the gods; for that thus the human spirit, cherishing the belief of its divine descent, will both more boldly venture into great enterprises, and will carry them out more energetically, and will therefore by its very confidence secure more abundant success. You see how wide a field is opened to falsehood by this opinion of Varro’s, which I have expressed as well as I could in my own words; and how comprehensible it is, that many of the religions and sacred legends should be feigned in a community in which it was judged profitable for the citizens that lies should be told even about the gods themselves.

> Latin: Dixerit aliquis: Itane tu ista credis? Ego uero ista non credo. Nam et uir doctissimus eorum Varro falsa haec esse, quamuis non audacter neque fidenter, paene tamen fatetur. Sed utile ciuitatibus esse dicit, ut se uiri fortes, etiamsi falsum sit, dis genitos esse credant, ut eo modo animus humanus uelut diuinae stirpis fiduciam gerens res magnas adgrediendas praesumat audacius, agat uehementius et ob hoc inpleat ipsa securitate felicius. Quae Varronis sententia expressa, ut potui, meis uerbis cernis quam latum locum aperiat falsitati, ubi intellegamus plura iam sacra et quasi religiosa potuisse confingi, ubi putata sunt ciuibus etiam de ipsis dis prodesse mendacia.

### That It is Not Credible that the Gods Should Have Punished the Adultery of Paris, Seeing They Showed No Indignation at the Adultery of the Mother of Romulus.

[¶18] Chapter 5.—That It is Not Credible that the Gods Should Have Punished the Adultery of Paris, Seeing They Showed No Indignation at the Adultery of the Mother of Romulus.

> Latin: Caput V. Non probari quod di adulterium Paridis punierint, quod in Romuli matre non ulti sunt.

[¶19] But whether Venus could bear Æneas to a human father Anchises, or Mars beget Romulus of the daughter of Numitor, we leave as unsettled questions. For our own Scriptures suggest the very similar question, whether the fallen angels had sexual intercourse with the daughters of men, by which the earth was at that time filled with giants, that is, with enormously large and strong men. At present, then, I will limit my discussion to this dilemma: If that which their books relate about the mother of Æneas and the father of Romulus be true, how can the gods be displeased with men for adulteries which, when committed by themselves, excite no displeasure? If it is false, not even in this case can the gods be angry that men should really commit adulteries, which, even when falsely attributed to the gods, they delight in. Moreover, if the adultery of Mars be discredited, that Venus also may be freed from the imputation, then the mother of Romulus is left unshielded by the pretext of a divine seduction. For Sylvia was a vestal priestess, and the gods ought to avenge this sacrilege on the Romans with greater severity than Paris’ adultery on the Trojans. For even the Romans themselves in primitive times used to go so far as to bury alive any vestal who was detected in adultery, while women unconsecrated, though they were punished, were never punished with death for that crime; and thus they more earnestly vindicated the purity of shrines they esteemed divine, than of the human bed.

> Latin: Sed utrum potuerit Venus ex concubitu Anchisae Aenean parere uel Mars ex concubitu filiae Numitoris Romulum gignere, in medio relinquamus. Nam paene talis quaestio etiam de scripturis nostris oboritur, qua quaeritur, utrum praeuaricatores angeli cum filiabus hominum concubuerint, unde natis gigantibus, hoc est nimium grandibus ac fortibus uiris, tunc terra conpleta est. Proinde ad utrumque interim modo nostra disputatio referatur. Si enim uera sunt, quae aput illos de matre Aeneae et de patre Romuli lectitantur, quo modo possunt dis adulteria displicere hominum, quae in se ipsis concorditer ferunt? Si autem falsa sunt, ne sic quidem possunt irasci ueris adulteriis humanis, qui etiam falsis delectantur suis. Huc accedit, quoniam, si illud de Marte non creditur, ut hoc quoque de Venere non credatur, nullo diuini concubitus obtentu matris Romuli causa defenditur. Fuit autem sacerdos illa Vestalis, et ideo di magis in Romanos sacrilegum illud flagitium quam in Troianos Paridis adulterium uindicare debuerunt. Nam et ipsi Romani antiqui in stupro detectas Vestae sacerdotes uiuas etiam defodiebant, adulteras autem feminas, quamuis aliqua damnatione, nulla tamen morte plectebant: usque adeo grauius quae putabant adyta diuina quam humana cubilia uindicabant.

### That the Gods Exacted No Penalty for the Fratricidal Act of Romulus.

[¶21] Chapter 6.—That the Gods Exacted No Penalty for the Fratricidal Act of Romulus.

> Latin: Caput VI. De parricidio Romuli, quod di non uindicarunt.

[¶22] I add another instance: If the sins of men so greatly incensed those divinities, that they abandoned Troy to fire and sword to punish the crime of Paris, the murder of Romulus’ brother ought to have incensed them more against the Romans than the cajoling of a Greek husband moved them against the Trojans: fratricide in a newly-born city should have provoked them more than adultery in a city already flourishing. It makes no difference to the question we now discuss, whether Romulus ordered his brother to be slain, or slew him with his own hand; it is a crime which many shamelessly deny, many through shame doubt, many in grief disguise. And we shall not pause to examine and weigh the testimonies of historical writers on the subject. All agree that the brother of Romulus was slain, not by enemies, not by strangers. If it was Romulus who either commanded or perpetrated this crime; Romulus was more truly the head of the Romans than Paris of the Trojans; why then did he who carried off another man’s wife bring down the anger of the gods on the Trojans, while he who took his brother’s life obtained the guardianship of those same gods? If, on the other hand, that crime was not wrought either by the hand or will of Romulus, then the whole city is chargeable 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 the one was by villainy prevented from being a ruler. So far as I see, then, no evil can be ascribed to Troy which warranted the gods in abandoning it to destruction, nor any good to Rome which accounts for the gods visiting it with prosperity; unless the truth be, that they fled from Troy because they were vanquished, and betook themselves to Rome to practise their characteristic deceptions there. Nevertheless they kept a footing for themselves in Troy, that they might deceive future inhabitants who re-peopled these lands; while at Rome, by a wider exercise of their malignant arts, they exulted in more abundant honors.

> Latin: Aliud adicio, quia, si peccata hominum illis numinibus displicerent, ut offensi Paridis facto desertam Troiam ferro ignibusque donarent, magis eos contra Romanos moueret Romuli frater occisus quam contra Troianos Graecus maritus inlusus; magis inritaret parricidium nascentis quam regnantis adulterium ciuitatis. Nec ad causam, quam nunc agimus, interest, utrum hoc fieri Romulus iusserit aut Romulus fecerit, quod multi inpudentia negant, multi pudore dubitant, multi dolore dissimulant. Nec nos itaque in ea re diligentius requirenda per multorum scriptorum perpensa testimonia demoremur: Romuli fratrem palam constat occisum, non ab hostibus, ‘non ab alienis. Si aut perpetrauit aut imperauit hoc Romulus, magis ipse fuit Romanorum quam Paris Troianorum caput; quur igitur Troianis iram deorum prouocauit ille alienae coniugis raptor, et eorundem deorum tutelam Romanis inuitauit iste sui fratris extinctor? Si autem illud scelus a facto imperioque Romuli alienum est: quoniam debuit utique uindicari, tota hoc illa ciuitas fecit, quod tota contemsit, et non iam fratrem, sed patrem, quod est peius, occidit. Uterque enim fuit conditor, ubi alter scelere ablatus non permissus est esse regnator. Non est, ut arbitror, quod dicatur quid mali Troia meruerit, ut eam di desererent, quo posset extingui, et quid boni Roma, ut eam di inhabitarent, quo posset augeri; nisi quod uicti inde fugerunt et se ad istos, quos pariter deciperent, contulerunt; immo uero et illic manserunt ad eos more suo decipiendos, qui rursus easdem terras habitarent, et hic easdem artes fallaciae suae magis etiam exercendo maioribus honoribus gloriati sunt.

## 15. Of the Destruction of Ilium by Fimbria, a Lieutenant of Marius.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/15/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/15/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 7.—Of the Destruction of Ilium by Fimbria, a Lieutenant of Marius.

> Latin: Caput VII. De euersione Ilii, quod dux Marii Fimbria excidit.

[¶1] And surely we may ask what wrong poor Ilium had done, that, in the first heat of the civil wars of Rome, it should suffer at the hand of Fimbria, the veriest villain among Marius’ partisans, a more fierce and cruel destruction than the Grecian sack. For when the Greeks took it many escaped, and many who did not escape were suffered to live, though in captivity. But Fimbria from the first gave orders that not a life should be spared, and burnt up together the 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 damage done by the Grecian fire, all the gods by whose help the kingdom stood, “forsook each fane, each sacred shrine?”

> Latin: Certe enim ciuilibus iam bellis scatentibus quid miserum commiserat Ilium, ut a Fimbria, Marianarum partium homine pessimo, euerteretur, multo ferocius adque crudelius quam olim a Graecis? Nam tunc et multi inde fugerunt et multi captiuati saltem in seruitute uixerunt; porro autem Fimbria prius edictum proposuit, ne cui parceretur, adque urbem totam cunctosque in ea homines incendio concremauit. Hoc meruit Ilium non a Graecis quos sua inritauerat iniquitate, sed a Romanis quos sua calamitate propagauerat, dis illis communibus ad haec repellenda nihil iuuantibus seu, quod uerum est, nihil ualentibus. Numquid et tunc Abscessere omnes adytis arisque relictis Di, quibus illud oppidum steterat post antiquos Graecorum ignes ruinasque reparatum?

[¶2] But if so, I ask the reason; for in my judgment, the conduct of the gods was as much to be reprobated as that of the townsmen to be applauded. For these closed their gates against Fimbria, that they might preserve the city for Sylla, and were therefore burnt and consumed by the enraged general. Now, up to this time, Sylla’s cause was the more worthy of the two; for till now he used arms to restore the republic, and as yet his good intentions had met with no reverses. What better thing, then, could the Trojans have done? What more honorable, what more faithful to Rome, or more worthy of her relationship, than to preserve their city for the better part of the Romans, and to shut their gates against a parricide of his country? It is for the defenders of the gods to consider the ruin which this conduct brought on Troy. The gods deserted an adulterous people, and abandoned Troy to the fires of the Greeks, that out of her ashes a chaster Rome might arise. But why did they a second time abandon this same town, allied now to Rome, and not making war upon her noble daughter, but preserving a most steadfast and pious fidelity to Rome’s most justifiable faction? Why did they give her up to be destroyed, not by the Greek heroes, but by the basest of the Romans? Or, if the gods did not favor 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 of the fortunate, rather than helpers of the wretched? Troy was not destroyed, then, because the gods deserted it. For the demons, always watchful to deceive, did what they could. For, when all the statues were overthrown and burnt together with the town, Livy tells us that only the image of Minerva is said to have been found standing uninjured amidst the ruins of her temple; not that it might be said in their praise, “The gods who made this realm divine,” but that it might not be said in their defence, They are “gone from each fane, each sacred shrine:” for that marvel was permitted to them, not that they might be proved to be powerful, but that they might be convicted of being present.

> Latin: Si autem abscesserant, causam requiro, et oppidanorum quidem quanto inuenio meliorem, tanto deteriorem deorum. Illi enim contra Fimbriam portas clauserant, ut Syllae seruarent integram ciuitatem; hinc eos iratus incendit uel potius penitus extinxit. Adhuc autem meliorum partium ciuilium Sylla dux fuit, adhuc armis rem publicam recuperare moliebatur; horum bonorum initiorum nondum malos euentus habuit. Quid ergo melius ciues urbis illius facere potuerunt, quid honestius, quid fidelius, quid Romana parentela dignius quam meliori causae Romanorum ciuitatem seruare et contra parricidam Romanae rei publicae portas claudere? At hoc eis in quantum exitium uerterit, adtendant defensores deorum. Deseruerint di adulteros Iliumque flammis Graecorum reliquerint, ut ex eius cineribus Roma castior nasceretur: quur et postea deseruerunt eandem ciuitatem Romanis cognatam, non rebellantem aduersus Romam nobilem filiam, sed iustioribus eius partibus fidem constantissimam piissimamque seruantem, eamque delendam reliquerunt non Graecorum uiris fortibus, sed uiro spurcissimo Romanorum? Aut si displicebat dis causa partium Syllanarum, cui seruantes urbem miseri portas clauserant: quur eidem Syllae tanta bona promittebant et praenuntiabant? An et hic agnoscuntur adulatores felicium potius quam infelicium defensores? Non ergo Ilium etiam tunc, ab eis cum desereretur, euersum est. Nam daemones ad decipiendum semper uigilantissimi, quod potuerunt, fecerunt. Euersis quippe et incensis omnibus cum oppido simulacris solum Mineruae sub tanta ruina templi illius, ut scribit Liuius, integrum stetisse perhibetur, non ut [diceretur] Di patrii, quorum semper sub numine Troia est, ad eorum laudem, sed ne diceretur: Excessere omnes adytis arisque relictis Di, ad eorum defensionem. Illud enim posse permissi sunt, non unde probarentur potentes, sed unde praesentes conuincerentur.

### Whether Rome Ought to Have Been Entrusted to the Trojan Gods.

[¶4] Chapter 8.—Whether Rome Ought to Have Been Entrusted to the Trojan Gods.

> Latin: Caput VIII. An debuerit dis Iliacis Roma committi.

[¶5] Where, then, was the wisdom of entrusting Rome to the Trojan gods, who had demonstrated their weakness in the loss of Troy? Will some one say that, when Fimbria stormed 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 set on fire by the Gauls. But as they are very acute in hearing, and very swift in their movements, they came quickly at the cackling of the goose to defend at least the Capitol, though to defend the rest of the city they were too long in being warned.

> Latin: ,Dis itaque Iliacis post Troiae ipsius documentum qua tandem prudentia Roma custodienda commissa est? Dixerit quispiam iam eos Romae habitare solitos, quando expugnante Fimbria cecidit Ilium. Unde ergo stetit Mineruae simulacrum? Deinde, si aput Romam erant, quando Fimbria deleuit ilium, fortasse aput Ilium erant,. quando a Gallis ipsa Roma capta et incensa est; sed ut sunt auditu acutissimi motuque celerrimi, ad uocem anseris cito redierunt, ut saltem Capitolinum collem, qui remanserat, tuerentur; ceterum ad alia defendenda serius sunt redire commoniti.

### Whether It is Credible that the Peace During the Reign of Numa Was Brought About by the Gods.

[¶7] Chapter 9.—Whether It is Credible that the Peace During the Reign of Numa Was Brought About by the Gods.

> Latin: Caput IX. An illam pacem, quae sub Numae regno fuit, deos praestitisse credendum sit.

[¶8] It is also believed that it was by the help of the gods that the successor of Romulus, Numa Pompilius, enjoyed peace during his entire reign, and shut the gates of Janus, which are customarily kept open during war. And it is supposed he was thus requited for appointing many religious observances among the Romans. Certainly that king would have commanded our congratulations for so rare a leisure, had he been wise enough to spend it on wholesome pursuits, and, subduing a pernicious curiosity, had sought out the true God with true piety. But as it was, the gods were not the authors of his leisure; but possibly they would have deceived him less had they found him busier. For the more disengaged they found him, the more they themselves occupied his attention. Varro informs us of all his efforts, and of the arts he employed to associate these gods with himself and the city; and in its own place, if God will, I shall discuss these matters. Meanwhile, as we are speaking of the benefits conferred by the gods, I readily admit that peace is a great benefit; but it is a benefit of the true God, which, like the sun, the rain, and other supports of life, is frequently conferred on the ungrateful and wicked. But if this great boon was conferred on Rome 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 at their first institution than during their subsequent celebration? But they had no existence in Numa’s time, until he added them to the ritual; whereas afterwards they had already been celebrated and preserved, that benefit might arise from them. How, then, is it that those forty-three, or as others prefer it, thirty-nine years of Numa’s reign, were passed in unbroken peace, and yet that afterwards, when the worship was established, and the gods themselves, who were invoked by it, were the recognized guardians and pa trons of the city, we can with difficulty find during the whole period, from the building of the city to the reign of Augustus, one year—that, viz., which followed the close of the first Punic war—in which, for a marvel, the Romans were able to shut the gates of war?

> Latin: Hi etiam Numam Pompilium successorem Romuli adiuuisse creduntur, ut toto regni sui tempore pacem haberet et Iani portas, quae bellis patere adsolent, clauderet, eo merito scilicet, quia Romanis multa sacra constituit. Illi uero homini pro tanto otio gratulandum fuit, si modo id rebus salubribus scisset inpendere et perniciosissima curiositate neglecta Deum uerum uera pietate perquirere. Nunc autem non ei di contulerunt illud otium, sed eum minus fortasse decepissent, si otiosum minime repperissent. Quanto enim minus eum occupatum inuenerunt, tanto magis ipsi occupauerunt. Nam quid ille molitus sit et quibus artibus deos tales sibi uel illi ciuitati consociare potuerit, Varro prodit, quod, si Domino placuerit, suo diligentius disseretur loco. Modo autem quia de beneficiis eorum quaestio est: magnum beneficium est pax, sed Dei ueri beneficium est, plerumque etiam sicut sol, sicut pluuia uitaeque alia subsidia super ingratos et nequam. Sed si hoc tam magnum bonum di illi Romae uel Pompilio contulerunt, quur imperio Romano per ipsa tempora laudabilia id numquam postea praestiterunt? An utiliora erant sacra, cum instituerentur, quam cum instituta celebrarentur? Atqui tunc nondum erant, sed ut essent addebantur; postea uero iam erant, quae ut prodessent custodiebantur. Quid ergo est, quod illi quadraginta tres uel, ut alii uolunt, triginta et nouem anni in tam longa pace transacti sunt regnante Numa, et postea sacris institutis disque ipsis, qui eisdem sacris fuerant inuitati, iam praesidibus adque tutoribus uix post tam multos annos ab Urbe condita usque ad Augustum pro magno miraculo unus commemoratur annus post primum bellum Punicum, quo belli portas Romani claudere potuerunt?

### Whether It Was Desirable that The Roman Empire Should Be Increased by Such a Furious Succession of Wars, When It Might Have Been Quiet and Safe by Following in the Peaceful Ways of Numa.

[¶10] Chapter 10.—Whether It Was Desirable that The Roman Empire Should Be Increased by Such a Furious Succession of Wars, When It Might Have Been Quiet and Safe by Following in the Peaceful Ways of Numa.

> Latin: Caput X. An optandum fuerit, ut tanta bellorum rabie Romanum augeretur imperium, cum eo studio, quo sub Numa actum est, et quietum esse potuisset et tutum.

[¶11] Do they reply that the Roman empire could never have been so widely extended, nor so glorious, save by constant and unintermitting wars? A fit argument, truly! Why must a kingdom be distracted in order to be great? In this little world of man’s body, is it not better to have a moderate stature, and health with it, than to attain the huge dimensions of a giant by unnatural torments, and when you attain it to find no rest, but to be pained the more in proportion to the size of your members? What evil would have resulted, or rather what good would not have resulted, had those times continued which Sallust sketched, when he says, “At first the kings (for that was the first title of empire in the world) were divided in their sentiments: part cultivated the mind, others the body: at that time the life of men was led without coveteousness; every one was sufficiently satisfied with his own!” Was it requisite, then, for Rome’s prosperity, that the state of things which Virgil reprobates should succeed:

> Latin: An respondent, quod nisi adsiduis sibique continuo succedentibus bellis Romanum imperium tam longe lateque non posset augeri et tam grandi gloria diffamari? Idonea uero causa! Ut magnum esset imperium, quur esse deberet inquietum? Nonne in corporibus hominum satius est modicam staturam cum sanitate habere quam ad molem aliquam giganteam perpetuis adflictionibus peruenire, nec cum perueneris requiescere, sed quanto grandioribus membris, tanto maioribus agitari malis? Quid autem mali esset, ac non potius plurimum boni, si ea tempora perdurarent, quae perstrinxit Sallustius, ubi ait: ‘Igitur initio reges (nam in terris nomen imperii id primum fuit) diuersi pars ingenium, alii corpus exercebant; etiamtum uita hominum sine cupiditate agitabatur, sua cuique satis placebant’.

[¶12] “At length stole on a baser age

[¶13] And war’s indomitable rage,

> Latin: An ut tam multum augeretur imperium, debuit fieri quod Vergilius detestatur, dicens: Deterior donec paulatim et decolor aetas Et belli rabies et amor successit habendi?

[¶14] And greedy lust of gain?”

[¶15] But obviously the Romans have a plausible defence for undertaking and carrying on such disastrous wars,—to wit, that the pressure of their enemies forced them to resist, so that they were compelled to fight, not by any greed of human applause, 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 gave birth to envy. Accordingly, the neighboring kings and states took arms and assaulted them. A few allies lent assistance; the rest, struck with fear, kept aloof from dangers. But the Romans, watchful at home and in war, were active, made preparations, encouraged one another, marched to meet their enemies,—protected by arms their liberty, country, parents. Afterwards, when they had repelled the dangers by their bravery, they carried help to their allies and friends, and procured alliances more by conferring than by receiving favors.” This was to build up Rome’s greatness by honorable means. But, in Numa’s reign, I would know whether the long peace was maintained in spite of the incursions of wicked neighbors, or if these incursions were discontinued that the peace might be maintained? For if even then Rome was harassed by wars, and yet did not meet force with force, the same means she then used to quiet her enemies without conquering them in war, or terrifying them with the onset of battle, she might have used always, and have reigned in peace with the gates of Janus shut. And if this was not in her power, then Rome enjoyed peace not at the will of her gods, but at the will of her neighbors round about, and only so long as they cared to provoke her with no war, unless perhaps these pitiful gods will dare to sell to one man as their favor what lies not in their power to bestow, but in the will of another man. These demons, indeed, in so far as they are permitted, can terrify or incite the minds of wicked men by their own peculiar wickedness. But if they always had this power, and if no action were taken against their efforts by a more secret and higher power, they would be supreme to give peace or the victories of war, which almost always fall out through some human emotion, and frequently in opposition to the will of the gods, as is proved not only by lying legends, which scarcely hint or signify any grain of truth, but even by Roman history itself.

> Latin: Sed plane pro tantis bellis susceptis et gestis iusta defensio Romanorum est, quod inruentibus sibi inportune inimicis resistere cogebat non auiditas adipiscendae laudis humanae, sed necessitas tuendae salutis et libertatis. Ita sit plane. Nam postquam res eorum, sicut scribit ipse Sallustius, legibus moribus agris aucta satis prospera satisque pollens uidebatur, sicut pleraque mortalium habentur, inuidia ex opulentia orta est. Igitur reges populique finitimi bello tentare; pauci ex amicis auxilio esse, nam ceteri metu perculsi a periculis aberant. At Romani domi militiaeque intenti festinare parare, alius alium hortari, hostibus obuiam ire, libertatem patriam parentesque armis tegere. Post ubi pericula uirtute propulerant, sociis adque amicis auxilia portabant magisque dandis quam accipiendis beneficiis amicitias parabant). Decenter his artibus Roma creuit. Sed regnante Numa, ut tam longa pax esset, utrum inruebant inprobi belloque tentabant, an nihil eorum fiebat, ut posset pax illa persistere? Si enim bellis etiam tum Roma lacessebatur nec armis arma obuia ferebantur: quibus modis agebatur, ut nulla pugna superati, nullo Martio impetu territi sedarentur inimici, his modis semper ageretur et semper Roma clausis Iani portis pacata regnaret. Quod si in potestate non fuit, non ergo Roma pacem habuit, quamdiu di eorum, sed quamdiu homines finitimi circumquaque uoluerunt, qui eam nullo bello prouocauerunt; nisi forte di tales etiam id homini uendere audebunt, quod alius homo uoluit siue noluit. Interest quidem iam uitio proprio, malas mentes quatenus sinantur isti daemones uel terrere uel excitare; sed I si semper hoc possent nec aliud secretiore ac superiore potestate contra eorum conatum saepe aliter ageretur, semper in potestate haberent paces bellicasque uictorias, quae semper fere per humanorum animorum motus accidunt; quas tamen plerumque contra eorum fieri uoluntatem non solae fabulae multa mentientes et uix ueri aliquid uel indicantes uel significantes, sed etiam ipsa Romana confitetur historia.

### Of the Statue of Apollo at Cumæ, Whose Tears are Supposed to Have Portended Disaster to the Greeks, Whom the God Was Unable to Succor.

[¶17] Chapter 11.—Of the Statue of Apollo at Cumæ, Whose Tears are Supposed to Have Portended Disaster to the Greeks, Whom the God Was Unable to Succor.

> Latin: Caput XI. De simulacro Cumani Apollinis, cuius fletus crecreditus est cladem Graecorum, quibus opitulari non poterat, indicasse.

[¶18] And it is still this weakness of the gods which is confessed in the story of the Cuman Apollo, who is said to have wept for four days during the war with the Achæans and King Aristonicus. And when the augurs were alarmed at the portent, and had determined to cast the statue into the sea, the old men of Cumæ interposed, and related that a similar prodigy had occurred to the same image during the wars against Antiochus and against Perseus, and that by a decree of the senate, gifts had been presented to Apollo, because the event had proved favorable to the Romans. Then soothsayers were summoned who were supposed to have greater professional skill, and they pronounced that the weeping of Apollo’s image was propitious to the Romans, because Cumæ was a Greek colony, and that Apollo was bewailing (and thereby presaging) the grief and calamity that was about to light upon his own land of Greece, from which he had been brought. Shortly afterwards it was reported that King Aristonicus was defeated and made prisoner,—a defeat certainly opposed to the will of Apollo; and this he indicated by even shedding tears from his marble image. And this shows us that, though the verses of the poets are mythical, they are not altogether devoid of truth, but describe the manners of the demons in a sufficiently fit style. For in Virgil, Diana mourned for Camilla, and Hercules wept for Pallas doomed to die. This is perhaps the reason why Numa Pompilius, too, when, enjoying prolonged peace, but without knowing or inquiring from whom he received it, he began in his leisure to consider to what gods he should entrust the safe keeping and conduct of Rome, and not dreaming that the true, almighty, and most high God cares for earthly affairs, but recollecting only that the Trojan gods which Æneas had brought to Italy had been able to preserve neither the Trojan nor Lavinian kingdom rounded by Æneas himself, concluded that he must provide other gods as guardians of fugitives and helpers of the weak, and add them to those earlier divinities who had either come over to Rome with Romulus, or when Alba was destroyed.

> Latin: Neque enim aliunde Apollo ille Cumanus, cum aduersus Achiuos regemque Aristonicum bellaretur, quatriduo fleuisse nuntiatus est; quo prodigio haruspices territi cum id simulacrum in mare putauissent esse proiciendum, Cumani senes intercesserunt adque rettulerunt tale prodigium et Antiochi et Persis bello in eodem apparuisse figmento, et quia Romanis feliciter prouenisset, ex senatus consulto eidem Apollini suo dona missa esse testati sunt. Tunc uelut peritiores acciti haruspices responderunt simulacri Apollinis fletum ideo prosperum esse Romanis, quoniam Cumana colonia Graeca esset, suisque terris, unde accitus esset, id est ipsi Graeciae, luctum et cladem Apollinem significasse plorantem. Deinde mox regem Aristonicum uictum et captum esse nuntiatum est, quem uinci utique Apollo nolebat et dolebat et hoc sui lapidis etiam lacrimis indicabat. Unde non usquequaque incongrue quamuis fabulosis, tamen ueritati similibus mores daemonum describuntur carminibus poetarum. Nam Camillam Diana doluit aput Vergilium et Pallantem moriturum Hercules fleuit. Hinc fortassis et Numa Pompilius pace abundans, sed quo donante nesciens nec requirens, cum cogitaret otiosus, quibusnam dis tuendam Romanam salutem regnumque committeret, nec uerum illum adque omnipotentem summum Deum curare opinaretur ista terrena, adque recoleret Troianos deos, quos Aeneas aduexerat, neque Troianum neque Lauiniense ab ipso Aenea conditum regnum diu conseruare potuisse: alios prouidendos existimauit, quos illis prioribus, qui siue cum Romulo iam Romam transierant, siue quandoque Alba euersa fuerant transituri, uel tamquam fugitiuis custodes adhiberet uel tamquam inualidis adiutores.

### That the Romans Added a Vast Number of Gods to Those Introduced by Numa, and that Their Numbers Helped Them Not at All.

[¶20] Chapter 12.—That the Romans Added a Vast Number of Gods to Those Introduced by Numa, and that Their Numbers Helped Them Not at All.

> Latin: Caput XII. Quantos sibi deos Romani praeter constitutionem Numae adiecerint, quorum eos numerositas nihil iuuerit.

[¶21] But though Pompilius introduced so ample a ritual, yet did not Rome see fit to be content with it. For as yet Jupiter himself had not his chief temple,—it being King Tarquin who built the Capitol. And Æsculapius left Epidaurus for Rome, that in this foremost city he might have a finer field for the exercise of his great medical skill. The mother of the gods, too, came I know not whence from Pessinuns; it being unseemly that, while her son presided on the Capitoline hill, she herself should lie hid in obscurity. But if she is the mother of all the gods, she not only followed some of her children to Rome, but left others to follow her. I wonder, indeed, if she were the mother of Cynocephalus, who a long while afterwards came from Egypt. Whether also the goddess Fever was her offspring, is a matter for her grandson Æsculapius to decide. But of whatever breed she be, the foreign gods will not presume, I trust, to call a goddess base-born who is a Roman citizen. Who can number the deities to whom the guardianship of Rome was entrusted? Indigenous and imported, both of heaven, earth, hell, seas, fountains, rivers; and, as Varro says, gods certain and uncertain, male and female: 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, of which I can mention but a few. For by the great smoke of her altars she summoned to her protection, as by a beacon-fire, a host of gods, for whom she appointed and maintained temples, altars, sacrifices, priests, and thus offended the true and most high God, to whom alone all this ceremonial is lawfully due. And, indeed, she was more prosperous when she had fewer gods; but the greater she became, the more gods she thought she should have, as the larger ship needs to be manned by a larger crew. I suppose she despaired of the smaller 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 of Romulus’ brother!

> Latin: Nec his sacris tamen Roma dignata est esse contenta, quae tam multa illic Pompilius constituerat. Nam ipsius summum templum nondum habebat Iouis; rex quippe Tarquinius ibi Capitolium fabricauit; Aesculapius autem ab Epidauro ambiuit ad Romam, ut peritissimus medicus in urbe nobilissima artem gloriosius exerceret; Mater etiam deum nescio unde a Pessinunte. Indignum enim erat, ut, cum eius filius iam colli Capitolino praesideret, adhuc ipsa in loco ignobili latitaret. Quae tamen si omnium deorum mater est, non solum secuta est Romam quosdam filios suos, uerum et alios praecessit etiam secuturos. Miror sane, si ipsa peperit Cynocephalum, qui longe postea uenit ex Aegypto. Utrum etiam dea Febris ex illa nata sit, uiderit Aesculapius pronepos eius; sed undecumque nata sit, non, opinor, audebunt eam dicere ignobilem di peregrini deam ciuem Romanam. Sub hoc tot deorum praesidio (quos numerare quis potest, indigenas et alienigenas, caelites terrestres infernos, marinos fontanos fluuiales, et, ut Varro dicit, certos adque incertos, in omnibusque generibus deorum, sicut in animalibus, mares et feminas?) — sub hoc ergo tot deorum praesidio constituta Roma non tam magnis et horrendis cladibus, quales ex multis paucas commemorabo, agitari adfligique debuit. Nimis enim multos deos grandi fumo suo tamquam signo dato ad tuitionem congregauerat, quibus templa altaria, sacrificia sacerdotes instituendo adque praebendo summum uerum Deum, cui uni haec rite gesta debentur, offenderet. Et felicior quidem cum paucioribus uixit, sed quanto maior facta est, sicut nauis nautas, tanto plures adhibendos putauit; credo, desperans pauciores illos, sub quibus in conparationem peioris uitae melius uixerat, non sufficere ad opitulandum granditati suae. Primo enim sub ipsis regibus, excepto Numa Pompilio, de quo iam supra locutus sum, quantum malum discordiosi certaminis fuit, quod fratrem Romuli coegit occidi!

## 16. By What Right or Agreement The Romans Obtained Their First Wives.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/16/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/16/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 13.—By What Right or Agreement The Romans Obtained Their First Wives.

> Latin: Caput XIII. Quo iure, quo foedere Romani obtinuerint prima coniugia.

[¶1] How is it that neither Juno, who with her husband Jupiter even then cherished

[¶2] “Rome’s sons, the nation of the gown,”

[¶3] nor Venus herself, could assist the children of the loved Æneas to find wives by some right and equitable means? For the lack of this entailed upon the Romans the lamentable necessity of stealing their wives, and then waging war with their fathers-in-law; so that the wretched women, before they had recovered from the wrong done them by their husbands, were dowried with the blood of their fathers. “But the Romans conquered their neighbors.” Yes; but with what wounds on both sides, and with what sad slaughter of relatives and neighbors! The war of Cæsar and Pompey was the contest of only one father-in-law with one son-in-law; and before it began, the daughter of Cæsar, Pompey’s wife, was already dead. But with how keen and just an accent of grief does Lucan exclaim: “I sing that worse than civil war waged in the plains of Emathia, and in which the crime was justified by the victory!”

> Latin: Quo modo nec Iuno, quae cum Ioue suo iam fouebat Romanos rerum dominos gentemque togatam, nec Venus ipsa Aeneidas suos potuit adiuuare, ut bono et aequo more coniugia mererentur, cladesque tanta inruit huius inopiae, ut ea dolo raperent moxque conpellerentur pugnare cum soceris, ut miserae feminae nondum ex iniuria maritis conciliatae iam parentum sanguine dotarentur? At enim uicerunt in hac conflictione Romani uicinos suos. Quantis et quam multis utrimque uulneribus et funeribus tam propinquorum et confinium istae uictoriae constiterunt! Propter unum Caesarem socerum et unum generum eius Pompeium iam mortua Caesaris filia, uxore Pompei, quanto et quam iusto doloris instinctu Lucanus exclamat: Bella per Emathios plus quam ciuilia campos Iusque datum sceleri canimus.

[¶4] The Romans, then, conquered that they might, with hands stained in the blood of their fathers-in-law, wrench the miserable girls from their embrace,—girls who dared not weep for their slain parents, for fear of offending their victorious husbands; and while yet the battle was raging, stood with their prayers on their lips, and knew not for whom to utter them. Such nuptials were certainly prepared for the Roman people not by Venus, but Bellona; or possibly that infernal fury Alecto had more liberty to injure them now that Juno was aiding them, than when the prayers of that goddess had excited her against Æneas. Andromache in captivity was happier than these Roman brides. For though she was a slave, yet, after she had become the wife of Pyrrhus, no more Trojans fell by his hand; but the Romans slew in battle the very fathers of the brides they fondled. Andromache, the victor’s captive, could only mourn, not fear, the death of her people. The Sabine women, related to men still combatants, feared the death of their fathers when their husbands went out to battle, and mourned their death as they returned, while neither their grief nor their fear could be freely expressed. For the victories of their husbands, involving the destruction of fellow-townsmen, relatives, brothers, fathers, caused either pious agony or cruel exultation. Moreover, as the fortune of war is capricious, some of them lost their husbands by the sword of their parents, while others lost husband and father together in mutual destruction. For the Romans by no means escaped with impunity, but they were driven back within their walls, and defended themselves behind closed gates; and when the gates were opened by guile, and the enemy admitted into the town, the Forum itself was the field of a hateful and fierce engagement of fathers-in-law and sons-in-law. The ravishers were indeed quite defeated, and, flying on all sides to their houses, sullied with new shame their original shameful and lamentable triumph. It was at this juncture that Romulus, hoping no more from the valor of his citizens, prayed Jupiter that they might stand their ground; and from this occasion the god gained the name of Stator. But not even thus would the mischief have been finished, had not the ravished women themselves flashed out with dishevelled hair, and cast themselves before their parents, and thus disarmed their just rage, not with the arms of victory, but with the supplications of filial affection. Then Romulus, who could not brook his own brother as a colleague, was compelled to accept Titus Tatius, king of the Sabines, as his partner on the throne. But how long would he who misliked the fellowship of his own twin-brother endure a stranger? So, Tatius being slain, Romulus remained sole king, that he might be the greater god. See what rights of marriage these were that fomented unnatural wars. These were the Roman leagues of kindred, relationship, alliance, religion. This was the life of the city so abundantly protected by the gods. You see how many severe things might be said on this theme; but our purpose carries us past them, and requires our discourse for other matters.

> Latin: Vicerunt ergo Romani, ut strage socerorum manibus cruentis ab eorum filiabus amplexus miserabiles extorquerent, nec illae auderent flere patres occisos, ne offenderent uictores maritos, quae adhuc illis pugnantibus pro quibus facerent uota nesciebant. Talibus nuptiis populum Romanum non Venus, sed Bellona donauit; aut fortassis Allecto illa inferna furia iam eis fauente Iunone plus in illos habuit licentiae, quam cum eius precibus contra Aenean fuerat excitata. Andromacha felicius captiuata est, quam illa conubia Romana nupserunt. Licet seruiles, tamen post eius amplexus nullum Troianorum Pyrrhus occidit; Romani autem soceros interficiebant in proeliis, quorum iam filias amplexabantur in thalamis. Illa uictori subdita dolere tantum suorum mortem potuit, non timere; illae sociatae bellantibus parentum suorum mortes procedentibus uiris timebant, redeuntibus dolebant, nec timorem habentes liberum nec dolorem. Nam propter interitum ciuium propinquorum, fratrum parentum aut pie cruciabantur. aut crudeliter laetabantur uictoriis maritorum. Huc accedebat, quod, ut sunt alterna bellorum, aliquae parentum ferro amiserunt uiros, aliquae utrorumque ferro et parentes et uiros. Neque enim et aput Romanos parua fuerunt illa discrimina, si quidem ad obsidionem quoque peruentum est ciuitatis clausisque portis se tuebantur; quibus dolo apertis admissisque hostibus intra moenia in ipso foro scelerata et nimis atrox inter generos socerosque pugna commissa est, et raptores illi etiam superabantur et crebro fugientes inter domos suas grauius foedabant pristinas, quamuis et ipsas pudendas lugendasque uictorias. Hic tamen Romulus de suorum iam uirtute desperans Iouem orauit ut starent, adque ille hac occasione nomen Statoris inuenit; nec finis esset tanti mali, nisi raptae illae laceratis crinibus emicarent et prouolutae parentibus iram eorum iustissimam non armis uictricibus, sed supplici pietate sedarent. Deinde [Titum] Tatium regem Sabinorum socium regni Romulus ferre conpulsus est, germani consortis inpatiens: sed quando et istum diu toleraret, qui fratrem geminumque non pertulit? Unde et ipso interfecto, ut maior deus esset, regnum solus obtinuit. Quae sunt ista iura nuptiarum, quae inritamenta bellorum, quae foedera germanitatis adfinitatis, societatis diuinitatis? quae postremo sub tot dis tutoribus uita ciuitatis? Vides quanta hinc dici et quam multa possent, nisi quae supersunt nostra curaret intentio et sermo in alia festinaret.

### Of the Wickedness of the War Waged by the Romans Against the Albans, and of the Victories Won by the Lust of Power.

[¶6] Chapter 14.—Of the Wickedness of the War Waged by the Romans Against the Albans, and of the Victories Won by the Lust of Power.

> Latin: Caput XIV. De inpietate belli, quod Albanis Romani intulerunt, et de uictoria dominandi libidine adepta.

[¶7] But what happened after Numa’s reign, and under the other kings, when the Albans were provoked into war, with sad results not to themselves alone, but also to the Romans? The long peace of Numa had become tedious; and with what endless slaughter and detriment of both states did the Roman and Alban armies bring it to an end! For Alba, which had been founded by Ascanius, son of Æneas, and which was more properly the mother of Rome than Troy herself, was provoked to battle by Tullus Hostilius, king of Rome, and in the conflict both inflicted and received such damage, that at length both parties wearied of the struggle. It was then devised that the war should be decided by the combat of three twin-brothers from each army: from the Romans the three Horatii stood forward, from the Albans the three Curiatii. Two of the Horatii were overcome and disposed of by the Curiatii; but by the remaining Horatius the three Curiatii were slain. Thus Rome remained victorious, but with such a sacrifice that only one survivor returned to his home. Whose was the loss on both sides? Whose the grief, but of the offspring of Æneas, the descendants of Ascanius, the progeny of Venus, the grandsons of Jupiter? For this, too, was a “worse than civil” war, in which the belligerent states were mother and daughter. And to this combat of the three twin-brothers there was added another atrocious and horrible catastrophe. For as the two nations had formerly been friendly (being related and neighbors), the sister of the Horatii had been betrothed to one of the Curiatii; and she, when she saw her brother wearing the spoils of her betrothed, burst into tears, and was slain by her own brother in his anger. To me, this one girl seems to have been more humane than the whole Roman people. I cannot think her to blame for lamenting the man to whom already she had plighted her troth, or, as perhaps she was doing, for grieving that her brother should have slain him to whom he had promised his sister. For why do we praise the grief of Æneas (in Virgil) over the enemy cut down even by his own hand? Why did Marcellus shed tears over the city of Syracuse, when he recollected, just before he destroyed, its magnificence and meridian glory, and thought upon the common lot of all things? I demand, in the name of humanity, that if men are praised for tears shed over enemies conquered by themselves, a weak girl should not be counted criminal for bewailing her lover slaughtered by the hand of her brother. While, then, that maiden was weeping for the death of her betrothed inflicted by her brother’s hand, Rome was rejoicing that such devastation had been wrought on her mother state, and that she had purchased a victory with such an expenditure of the common blood of herself and the Albans.

> Latin: Quid deinde post Numam sub aliis regibus? Quanto malo non solum suo, sed etiam Romanorum in bellum Albani prouocati sunt, quia uidelicet pax Numae tam longa uiluerat! Quam crebrae strages Romani Albanique exercitus fuerunt et utriusque comminutio ciuitatis! Alba namque illa, quam filius Aeneae creauit Ascanius, Romae mater proprior ipsa quam Troia, a Tullo Hostilio rege prouocata conflixit, confligens autem et adflicta est et adfiixit, donec multorum taederet pari defectione certaminum. Tunc euentum belli de tergeminis hinc adque inde fratribus placuit experiri; a Romanis tres Horatii, ab Albanis autem tres Curiatii processerunt; a Curiatiis tribus Horatii duo, ab uno autem Horatio tres Curiatii superati et extincti sunt. Ita Roma extitit uictrix ea clade etiam in certamine extremo, ut de sex unus rediret domum. Cui damnum in utrisque, cui luctus, nisi Aeneae stirpi nisi Ascanii posteris, nisi proli Veneris nisi nepotibus Iouis? Nam et hoc plus quam ciuile bellum fuit, quando filia ciuitas cum ciuitate matre pugnauit. Accessit aliud huic tergeminorum pugnae ultimae atrox adque horrendum malum. Nam ut erant ambo populi prius amici (uicini quippe adque cognati), uni Curiatiorum desponsata fuerat Horatiorum soror; haec postea quam sponsi spolia in uictore fratre conspexit, ab eodem fratre, quoniam fleuit, occisa est. Humanior huius unius feminae quam uniuersi populi Romani mihi fuisse uidetur adfectus. Illa quem uirum iam fide media retinebat, aut forte etiam ipsum fratrem dolens, qui eum occiderat cui sororem promiserat, puto quod non culpabiliter fleuerit. Unde enim aput Vergilium pius Aeneas laudabiliter dolet hostem etiam sua peremtum manu? Unde Marcellus Syracusanam ciuitatem recolens eius paulo ante culmen et gloriam sub manus suas subito concidisse communem cogitans condicionem flendo miseratus est? Quaeso ab humano inpetremus adfectu, ut femina sponsum suum a fratre suo peremtum sine crimine fleuerit, si uiri hostes a se uictos etiam cum laude fleuerunt. Ergo sponso a fratre inlatam mortem quando femina illa flebat, tunc se contra matrem ciuitatem tanta strage bellasse et tanta hinc et inde cognati cruoris effusione uicisse Roma gaudebat. Quid mihi obtenditur nomen laudis nomenque uictoriae? Remotis obstaculis insanae opinionis facinora nuda cernantur, nuda pensentur, nuda iudicentur.

[¶8] Why allege to me the mere names and words of “glory” and “victory?” Tear off the disguise of wild delusion, and look at the naked deeds: weigh them naked, judge them naked. Let the charge be brought against Alba, as Troy was charged with adultery. There is no such charge, none like it found: the war was kindled only in order that there

> Latin: Causa dicatur Albae, sicut Troiae adulterium dicebatur. Nulla talis, nulla similis inuenitur; tantum ut resides moueret Tullus in arma uiros et iam desueta triumphis Agmina. Illo itaque uitio tantum scelus perpetratum est socialis belli adque cognati, quod uitium Sallustius magnum transeunter adtingit.

[¶9] “Might sound in languid ears the cry

[¶10] Of Tullus and of victory.”

[¶11] This vice of restless ambition was the sole motive to that social and parricidal war,—a vice which Sallust brands in passing; for when he has spoken with brief but hearty commendation of those primitive times in which life was spent without covetousness, and every one was sufficiently satisfied with what he had, he goes on: “But after Cyrus in Asia, and the Lacedemonians and Athenians in Greece, began to subdue cities and nations, and to account the lust of sovereignty a sufficient ground for war, and to reckon that the greatest glory consisted in the greatest empire;” and so on, as I need not now quote. This lust of sovereignty disturbs and consumes the human race with frightful ills. By this lust Rome was overcome when she triumphed over Alba, and praising her own crime, called it glory. For, as our Scriptures say, “the wicked boasteth of his heart’s desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the Lord abhorreth.” Away, then, with these deceitful masks, these deluding whitewashes, that things may be truthfully seen and scrutinized. Let no man tell me that this and the other was a “great” man, because he fought and conquered so and so. Gladiators fight and conquer, and this barbarism has its meed of praise; but I think it were better to take the consequences of any sloth, than to seek the glory won by such arms. And if two gladiators entered the arena to fight, one being father, the other his son, who would endure such a spectacle? who would not be revolted by it? How, then, could that be a glorious war which a daughter-state waged against its mother? Or did it constitute a difference, that the battlefield was not an arena, and that the wide plains were filled with the carcasses not of two gladiators, but of many of the flower of two nations; and that those contests were viewed not by the amphitheatre, but by the whole world, and furnished a profane spectacle both to those alive at the time, and to their posterity, so long as the fame of it is handed down?

> Latin: Cum enim laudans breuiter antiquiora commemorasset tempora, quando uita hominum sine cupiditate agitabatur et sua cuique satis placebant: (Postea uero, inquit, quam in Asia Cyrus, in Graecia Lacedaemonii et Athenienses coepere urbes adque nationes subigere, libidinem dominandi causam belli habere, maximam gloriam in maximo imperio putare’, et cetera quae ipse instituerat dicere. Mihi huc usque satis sit eius uerba posuisse. Libido ista dominandi magnis malis agitat et conterit humanum genus. Hac libidine Roma tunc uicta Albam se uicisse triumphabat et sui sceleris laudem gloriam nominabat, quoniam laudatur, inquit scriptura nostra, peccator in desideriis animae suae et qui iniqua gerit benedicitur. Fallacia igitur tegmina et deceptoriae dealbationes auferantur a rebus, ut sincero inspiciantur examine. Nemo mihi dicat: magnus ille adque ille, quia cum illo [et illo] pugnauit et uicit. Pugnant etiam gladiatores, uincunt etiam ipsi, habet praemia laudis et illa crudelitas; sed puto esse satius cuiuslibet inertiae poenas luere quam illorum armorum quaerere gloriam. Et tamen si in harenam procederent pugnaturi inter se gladiatores, quorum alter filius, alter esset pater, tale spectaculum quis ferret? quis non auferret? Quo modo ergo gloriosum alterius matris, alterius filiae ciuitatis inter se armorum potuit esse certamen? An ideo diuersum fuit, quod harena illa non fuit, et latiores campi non duorum gladiatorum, sed in duobus populis multorum funeribus inplebantur, nec amphitheatro cingebantur illa certamina, sed uniuerso orbe et tunc uiuis et posteris, quo usque ista fama porrigitur, inpium spectaculum praebebatur?

[¶12] Yet those gods, guardians of the Roman empire, and, as it were, theatric spectators of such contests as these, were not satisfied until the sister of the Horatii was added by her brother’s sword as a third victim from the Roman side, so that Rome herself, though she won the day, should have as many deaths to mourn. Afterwards, as a fruit of the victory, Alba was destroyed, though it was there the Trojan gods had formed a third asylum after Ilium had been sacked by the Greeks, and after they had left Lavinium, where Æneas had founded a kingdom in a land of banishment. But probably Alba was destroyed because from it too the gods had migrated, in their usual fashion, as Virgil says:

> Latin: Vim tamen patiebantur studii sui di illi praesides imperii Romani et talium certaminum tamquam theatrici spectatores, donec Horatiorum soror propter Curiatios tres peremtos etiam ipsa tertia ex altera parte fraterno ferro duobus fratribus adderetur, ne minus haberet mortium etiam Roma quae uicerat. Deinde ad fructum uictoriae Alba subuersa est, ubi post Ilium, quod Graeci euerterunt, et post Lauinium, ubi Aeneas regnum peregrinum adque fugitiuum constituerat, tertio loco habitauerant numina illa Troiana. Sed more suo etiam inde iam fortasse migrauerant, ideo deleta est.

[¶13] “Gone from each fane, each sacred shrine,

[¶14] Are those who made this realm divine.”

> Latin: Discesserant uidelicet omnes adytis arisque relictis di, quibus imperium illud steterat.

[¶15] Gone, indeed, and from now their third asylum, that Rome might seem all the wiser in committing herself to them after they had deserted three other cities. Alba, whose king Amulius had banished his brother, displeased them; Rome, whose king Romulus had slain his brother, pleased them. But before Alba was destroyed, its population, they say, was amalgamated with the inhabitants of Rome so that the two cities were one. Well, admitting it was so, yet the fact remains that the city of Ascanius, the third retreat of the Trojan gods, was destroyed by the daughter-city. Besides, to effect this pitiful conglomerate of the war’s leavings, much blood was spilt on both sides. And how shall I speak in detail of the same wars, so often renewed in subsequent reigns, though they seemed to have been finished by great victories; and of wars that time after time were brought to an end by great slaughters, and which yet time after time were renewed by the posterity of those who had made peace and struck treaties? 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 them reigned in peace.

> Latin: Discesserant sane ecce iam tertio, ut eis quarta Roma prouidentissime crederetur. Displicuerat enim et Alba, ubi Amulius expulso fratre, et Roma placuerat, ubi Romulus occiso fratre regnauerat. Sed antequam Alba dirueretur, transfusus est, inquiunt, populus eius in Romam, ut ex utraque una ciuitas fieret. Esto, ita factum sit; urbs tamen ilia, Ascanii regnum et tertium domicilium Troianorum deorum, ab urbe filia mater euersa est; ut autem belli reliquiae ex duobus populis unum facerent, miserabile coagulum multus ante fusus utriusque sanguis fuit. Quid iam singillatim dicam sub ceteris regibus totiens eadem bella renouata, quae uictoriis finita uidebantur, et tantis stragibus iterum iterumque confecta, iterum iterumque post foedus et pacem inter soceros et generos et eorum stirpem posterosque repetita? Non paruum indicium calamitatis huius fuit, quod portas belli nullus clausit illorum. Nullus ergo illorum sub tot dis praesidibus in pace regnauit.

### What Manner of Life and Death the Roman Kings Had.

[¶17] Chapter 15.—What Manner of Life and Death the Roman Kings Had.

> Latin: Caput XV. Qualis Romanorum regum uita adque exitus fuerit.

[¶18] And what was the end of the kings themselves? Of Romulus, a flattering legend tells us that he was assumed into heaven. But certain Roman historians relate that he was torn in pieces by the senate for his ferocity, and that a man, Julius Proculus, was suborned to give out that Romulus had appeared to him, and through him commanded the Roman people to worship him as a god; and that in this way the people, who were beginning to resent the action of the senate, were quieted and pacified. For an eclipse of the sun had also happened; and this was attributed to the divine power of Romulus by the ignorant multitude, who did not know that it 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 crime was indicated by this deprivation of the sun’s light; as, in truth, was the case when the Lord was crucified through the cruelty and impiety of the Jews. For it is sufficiently demonstrated that this latter obscuration of the sun did not occur by the natural laws of the heavenly bodies, because it was then the Jewish Passover, which is held only at full moon, whereas natural eclipses of the sun happen only at the last quarter 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 the De Republica, he says: “Such a reputation had he acquired, that when he suddenly disappeared during an eclipse of the sun, he was supposed to have been assumed into the number of the gods, which could be supposed of no mortal who had not the highest reputation for virtue.” By these words, “he suddenly disappeared,” we are to understand that he was mysteriously made away with by the violence either of the tempest or of a murderous assault. For their other writers speak not only of an eclipse, but of a sudden storm also, which certainly either afforded opportunity for the crime, or itself made an end of Romulus. And of Tullus Hostilius, who was the third king of Rome, and who was himself destroyed by lightning, Cicero in the same book says, that “he was not supposed to have been deified 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 it into contempt by gratuitously assigning it to all and sundry.” In one of his invectives, too, he says, in round terms, “The founder of this city, Romulus, we have raised to immortality and divinity by kindly celebrating his services;” implying that his deification was not real, but reputed, and called so by 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 covered the death of Romulus, which happened during an eclipse of the sun.” Here you see he does not at all shrink from speaking of his “death,” for Cicero was more of a reasoner than an eulogist.

> Latin: Ipsorum autem regum qui exitus fuerunt? De Romulo uiderit adulatio fabulosa, qua perhibetur receptus in caelum; uiderint quidam scriptores eorum, qui eum propter ferocitatem a senatu discerptum esse dixerunt subornatumque nescio quem Iulium Proculum, qui eum sibi apparuisse diceret eumque per se populo mandasse Romano, ut inter numina coleretur, eoque modo populum, qui contra senatum intumescere coeperat, repressum adque sedatum. Acciderat enim et solis defectio, quam certa ratione sui cursus effectam inperita nesciens multitudo meritis Romuli tribuebat. Quasi uero si luctus ille solis fuisset, non magis ideo credi deberet occisus ipsumque scelus auersione etiam diurni luminis indicatum; sicut re uera factum est, cum Dominus crucifixus est crudelitate adque inpietate Iudaeorum. Quam solis obscurationem non ex canonico sideruin cursu accidisse satis ostendit, quod tunc erat pascha Iudaeorum; nam plena luna sollemniter agitur, regularis autem solis defectio non nisi lunae fine contingit. Satis et Cicero illam inter deos Romuli receptionem putatam magis significat esse quam factam, quando et laudans eum in libris de re publica Scipionisque sermone: ‘Tantum est, inquit, consecutus, ut, cum subito sole obscurato non conparuisset, deorum in numero conlocatus putaretur, quam opinionem nemo umquam mortalis assequi potuit sine eximia uirtutis gloria’. (Quod autem dicit eum subito non conparuisse, profecto ibi intellegitur aut uiolentia tempestatis aut caedis facinorisque secretum; nam et alii scriptores eorum defectioni solis addunt etiam subitam tempestatem, quae profecto aut occasionem sceleri praebuit aut Romulum ipsa consumsit.) De Tullo quippe etiam Hostilio, qui tertius a Romulo rex fuit, quia et ipse fulmine absumtus est, dicit in eisdem libris idem Cicero, propterea et istum non creditum in deos receptum tali morte, quia fortasse quod erat in Romulo probatum, id est persuasum, Romani uulgare noluerunt, id est uile facere, si hoc et alteri facile tribueretur. Dicit etiam aperte in inuectiuis: <Illum, qui hanc urbem condidit, Romulum ad deos inmortales beniuolentia famaque sustulimus’, ut non uere factum, sed propter merita uirtutis eius beniuole iactatum diffamatumque monstraret. In Hortensio uero dialogo cum de solis canonicis defectionibus loqueretur: Ut easdem, inquit, tenebras efficiat, quas effecit interitu Romuli, qui obscuratione solis est factus’. Certe hic minime timuit hominis interitum dicere, quia disputator magis quam laudator fuit. Ceteri autem reges populi Romani, excepto Numa Pompilio et Anco Marcio, qui morbo interierunt, quam horrendos exitus habuerunt!

[¶19] The other kings of Rome, too, with the exception of Numa Pompilius and Ancus Marcius, who died natural deaths, what horrible ends they had! Tullus Hostilius, the conqueror and destroyer of Alba, was, as I said, himself and all his house consumed by lightning. Priscus Tarquinius was slain by his predecessor’s sons. Servius Tullius was foully murdered by his son-in-law Tarquinius Superbus, who succeeded him on the throne. Nor did so flagrant a parricide committed against Rome’s best king drive from their altars and shrines those gods who were said to have been moved by Paris’ adultery to treat poor Troy in this style, and abandon it to the fire and sword of the Greeks. Nay, the very Tarquin who had murdered, was allowed to succeed his father-in-law. And this infamous parricide, during the reign he had secured by murder, was allowed to triumph in many victorious wars, and to build the Capitol from their spoils; the gods meanwhile not departing, but abiding, and abetting, and suffering their king Jupiter to preside and reign over them in that very splendid Capitol, the work of a parricide. For he did not build the Capitol in the days of his innocence, and then suffer banishment for subsequent crimes; 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, it was not for his own but his son’s wickedness in the affair of Lucretia,—a crime perpetrated not only without his cognizance, but in his absence. For at that time he was besieging Ardea, and fighting Rome’s battles; and we cannot say what he would have done had he been aware of his son’s crime. Notwithstanding, though his opinion was neither inquired into nor ascertained, the people stripped him of royalty; and when he returned to Rome with his army, it was admitted, but he was excluded, abandoned by his troops, and the gates shut in his face. And yet, after he had appealed to the neighboring states, and tormented the Romans with calamitous but unsuccessful wars, and when he was deserted by the ally on whom he most depended, despairing of regaining the kingdom, he lived a retired and quiet life for fourteen years, as it is reported, in Tusculum, a Roman town, where he grew old in his wife’s company, and at last terminated his days in a much more desirable fashion than his father-in-law, who had perished by the hand of his son-in-law; his own daughter abetting, if report be true. And this Tarquin the Romans called, not the Cruel, nor the Infamous, but the Proud; their own pride perhaps resenting his tyrannical airs. So little did they make of his murdering their best king, his own father-in-law, that they elected him their own king. I wonder if it was not even more criminal in them to reward so bountifully so great a criminal. And yet there was no word of the gods abandoning the altars; unless, perhaps, some one will say in defence 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 them out by severe wars. Such was the life of the Romans under the kings during the much-praised epoch of the state which extends to the expulsion of Tarquinius Superbus in the 243d year, during which all those victories, which were bought with so much blood and such disasters, hardly pushed Rome’s dominion twenty miles from the city; a territory which would by no means bear comparison with that of any petty Gætulian state.

> Latin: Tullus, ut dixi, Hostilius, uictor et euersor Albae, cum tota domo sua fulmine concrematus est. Priscus Tarquinius per sui decessoris filios interemtus est. Seruius Tullius generi sui Tarquinii Superbi, qui ei successit in regnum, nefario scelere occisus est. Nec ‘discessere adytis arisque relictis di tanto in optimum illius populi regem parricidio perpetrato, quos dicunt, ut hoc miserae Troiae facerent eamque Graecis diruendam exurendamque relinquerent, adulterio Paridis fuisse commotos; sed insuper interfecto a se socero Tarquinius ipse successit. Hunc illi di nefarium parricidam soceri interfectione regnantem, insuper multis bellis uictoriisque gloriantem et de manubiis Capitolium fabricantem non abscedentes, sed praesentes manentesque uiderunt et regem suum louem in illo altissimo templo, hoc est in opere parricidae, sibi praesidere adque regnare perpessi sunt. Neque enim adhuc innocens Capitolium struxit et postea malis meritis Urbe pulsus est. sed ad ipsum regnum, in quo Capitolium fabricaret, inmanissimi sceleris perpetratione peruenit. Quod uero eum regno Romani postea depulerunt ac secluserunt moenibus ciuitatis, non ipsius de Lucretiae stupro, sed filii peccatum fuit illo non solum nesciente, sed etiam absente commissum. Ardeam ciuitatem tunc obpugnabat, pro populo Romano bellum gerebat: nescimus quid faceret, si ad eius notitiam flagitium filii deferretur; et tamen inexplorato iudicio eius et inexperto ei populus ademit imperium et recepto exercitu, a quo deseri iussus est, clausis deinde portis non siuit intrare redeuntem. At ille post bella grauissima, quibus eosdem Romanos concitatis finitimis adtriuit, postea quam desertus ab eis quorum fidebat auxilio regnum recipere non eualuit, in oppido Tusculo Romae uicino quattuordecim, ut fertur, annos priuatam uitam quietus habuit et cum uxore consenuit, optabiliore fortassis exitu quam socer eius, generi sui facinore nec ignorante filia, sicut perhibetur, extinctus. Nec tamen istum Tarquinium Romani crudelem aut sceleratum, sed superbum appellauerunt. fortasse regios eius fastus alia superbia non ferentes. Nam scelus occisi ab eo soceri optimi regis sui usque adeo contemserunt, ut eum regem suum facerent; ubi miror, si non scelere grauiore mercedem tantam tanto sceleri reddiderunt. Nec ‘discessere adytis arisque relictis di’. Nisi forte quispiam sic defendat istos deos, ut dicat eos ideo mansisse Romae. quo possint magis Romanos punire suppliciis quam beneficiis adiuuare, seducentes - eos uanis uictoriis et bellis grauissimis conterentes. Haec fuit Romanorum uita sub regibus laudabili tempore illius rei publicae usque ad expulsionem Tarquinii Superbi per ducentos ferme et quadraginta et tres annos, cum illae omnes uictoriae tam multo sanguine et tantis emtae calamitatibus uix illud imperium intra uiginti ab Urbe milia dilatauerint; quantum spatium absit ut saltem alicuius Getulae ciuitatis nunc territorio conparetur.

## 17. Of the First Roman Consuls, the One of Whom 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.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/17/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/17/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 16.—Of the First Roman Consuls, the One of Whom 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.

> Latin: Caput XVI. De primis aput Romanos consulibus, quorum alter alterum patria pepulit moxque ipse post atrocissima parricidia a uulnerato hoste uulneratus interiit.

[¶1] To this epoch let us add also that of which Sallust says, that it was ordered with justice and moderation, while the fear of Tarquin and of a war with Etruria was impending. For so long as the Etrurians aided the efforts of Tarquin to regain the throne, Rome was convulsed with distressing war. And therefore he says that the state was ordered with justice and moderation, 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, when the kingly power was abolished! They did not fulfill their term of office. For Junius Brutus deprived his colleague Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and banished him from the city; and shortly after he himself fell in battle, at once slaying and slain, having formerly put to death his own sons and his brothers-in-law, because he had discovered that they were conspiring to restore Tarquin. It is this deed that Virgil shudders to record, even while he seems to praise it; for when he says:

> Latin: Huic tempori adiciamus etiam tempus illud, quo usque dicit Sallustius aequo et modesto iure agitatum, dum metus a Tarquinio et bellum graue cum Etruria positum est. Quamdiu enim Etrusci Tarquinio in regnum redire conanti opitulati sunt, graui bello Roma concussa est. Ideo dicit aequo et modesto iure gestam rem publicam metu premente, non persuadente iustitia. In quo breuissimo tempore quam funestus ille annus fuit, quo primi consules creati sunt expulsa regia potestate! Annum quippe suum non conpleuerunt. Nam Iunius Brutus exhonoratum eiecit Urbe collegam Lucium Tarquinium Collatinum; deinde mox ipse in bello cecidit mutuis cum hoste uulneribus, occisis a se [ipso] primitus filiis suis et uxoris suae fratribus, quod eos pro restituendo Tarquinio coniurasse cognouerat. Quod factum Vergilius postea quam laudabiliter commemorauit, continuo clementer exhorruit.

[¶2] “And call his own rebellious seed

[¶3] For menaced liberty to bleed,”

> Latin: Cum enim dixisset: Natosque pater noua bella monentes Ad poenam pulchra pro libertate uocabit, mox deinde exclamauit et ait: Infelix, utcumque ferent ea facta minores.

[¶4] he immediately exclaims,

[¶5] “Unhappy father! howsoe’er

[¶6] The deed be judged by after days;”

[¶7] that is to say, let posterity judge the deed as they please, let them praise and extol the father who slew his sons, he is unhappy. And then he adds, as if to console so unhappy a man:

> Latin: Quomodolibet, inquit, ea facta posteri ferant, id est praeferant et extollant, qui filios occidit, infelix est.

[¶8] “His country’s love shall all o’erbear,

> Latin: Et tamquam ad consolandum infelicem subiungit: Vincit amor patriae laudumque inmensa cupido.

[¶9] And unextinguished thirst of praise.”

[¶10] In the tragic end of Brutus, who slew his own sons, and though he slew his enemy, Tarquin’s son, yet could not survive him, but was survived by Tarquin the elder, does not the 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 only the blood, but the name of Tarquin. To change his name, then, not his country, would have been his fit penalty: to abridge his name by this word, and be called simply L. Collatinus. But he was not com pelled to lose what he could lose without detriment, but was stripped of the honor of the first consulship, and was banished from the land he loved. Is this, then, the glory of Brutus—this injustice, alike detestable and profitless to the republic? Was it to this he was driven by “his country’s love, and unextinguished thirst of praise?”

> Latin: Nonne in hoc Bruto, qui et filios occidit et a se percusso hosti filio Tarquinii mutuo percussus superuiuere non potuit eique potius ipse Tarquinius. superuixit, Collatini collegae uidetur innocentia uindicata, qui bonus ciuis hoc Tarquinio pulso passus est, quod tyrannus ipse Tarquinius? Nam et idem Brutus consanguineus Tarquinii fuisse perhibetur; sed Collatinum uidelicet similitudo nominis pressit, quia etiam Tarquinius uocabatur. Mutare ergo nomen, non patriam cogeretur; postremo in eius nomine hoc uocabulum minus esset, L. Collatinus tantummodo uocaretur. Sed ideo non amisit quod sine ullo detrimento posset amittere, ut et honore primus consul et ciuitate bonus ciuis carere iuberetur. Etiamne ista est gloria, Iunii Bruti detestanda iniquitas et nihilo utilis rei publicae? Etiamne ad hanc perpetrandam ‘uicit amor patriae laudumque inmensa cupido ?

[¶11] When Tarquin the tyrant was expelled, L. Tarquinius Collatinus, the husband of Lucretia, was created consul along with Brutus. How justly the people acted, in looking more to the character than the name of a citizen! How unjustly Brutus acted, in depriving of honor and country his colleague in that new office, whom he might have deprived of his name, if it were so offensive to him! Such were the ills, such the disasters, which fell out when the government was “ordered with justice and moderation.” Lucretius, too, who succeeded Brutus, was carried off by disease before the end of that same year. 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 had five consuls. Such was the year in which the Roman republic inaugurated the new honor and office of the consulship.

> Latin: Iam expulso utique Tarquinio tyranno consul cum Bruto creatus est maritus Lucretiae L. Tarquinius Collatinus. Quam iuste populus mores in ciue, non nomen adtendit! Quam inpie Brutus collegam primae ac nouae illius potestatis, quem posset, si hoc offendebatur, nomine tantum priuare, et patria priuauit et honore! Haec mala facta sunt, haec aduersa acciderunt, quando in illa re publica ‘aequo et modesto iure agitatum est’. Lucretius quoque, qui in locum Bruti fuerat subrogatus, morbo, antequam idem annus terminaretur, absumtus est. Ita P. Valerius, qui successerat Collatino, et M. Horatius, qui pro defuncto Lucretio suffectus fuerat, annum illum funereum adque tartareum, qui consules quinque habuit, conpleuerunt, quo anno consulatus ipsius nouum honorem ac potestatem auspicata est Romana res publica.

### Of the Disasters Which Vexed the Roman Republic After the Inauguration of the Consulship, and of the Non-Intervention of the Gods of Rome.

[¶13] Chapter 17.—Of the Disasters Which Vexed the Roman Republic After the Inauguration of the Consulship, and of the Non-Intervention of the Gods of Rome.

> Latin: Caput XVII. Post initia consularis imperii quibus malis uexata fuerit Romana res publica, dis non opitulantibus, quos colebat.

[¶14] After this, when their fears were gradually diminished,—not because the wars ceased, but because they were not so furious,—that period in which things were “ordered with justice and moderation” drew to an end, and there followed that 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 had done, to drive them from their holdings, and to tyrannize over those who had no property to lose. The people, overwhelmed by these oppressive measures, and most of all by usury, and obliged to contribute both money and personal service to the constant wars, at length took arms and seceded to Mount Aventine and Mount Sacer, and thus secured for themselves tribunes and protective laws. But it was only the second Punic war that put an end on both sides to discord and strife.” But why should I spend time in writing such things, or make others spend it in reading them? Let the terse summary of Sallust suffice to intimate the misery of the republic 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 those victories they boast were not the substantial joys of the happy, but the empty comforts of wretched men, and seductive incitements to turbulent men to concoct disasters upon disasters. And let not the good and prudent Romans be angry at our saying this; and indeed we need neither deprecate nor denounce their anger, for we know they will harbor none. For we speak no more severely than their own authors, and much less elaborately and strikingly; yet they diligently read these authors, and compel their children to learn them. But they who are angry, what would they do to me were I to say what Sallust says? “Frequent mobs, seditions, and at last civil wars, became common, while a few leading men on whom the masses were dependent, affected supreme power under the seemly pretence of seeking the good of senate and people; citizens were judged good or bad without reference to their loyalty to the republic (for all were equally corrupt); but the wealthy and dangerously powerful were esteemed good citizens, because they maintained the existing state of things.” Now, if those historians judged that an honorable freedom of speech required that they should not be silent regarding the blemishes of their own state, which they have in many places loudly applauded in their ignorance of that other and true city in which citizenship is an everlasting dignity; what does it become us to do, whose liberty ought to be so much greater, as our hope in God is better and more assured, when they impute to our Christ the calamities of this age, in order that men of the less instructed and weaker sort may be alienated from that city in which alone eternal and blessed life can be enjoyed? Nor do we utter against their gods anything more horrible than their own authors do, whom they read and circulate. For, indeed, all that we have said we have derived from them, and there is much more to say of a worse kind which we are unable to say.

> Latin: ‘Tunc iam deminuto paululum metu, non quia bella conquieuerant, sed quia non tam graui pondere urgebant, finito scilicet tempore, quo aequo iure ac modesto agitatum est, secuta sunt quae idem Sallustius breuiter explicat: ‘Dein seruili imperio patres plebem exercere, de uita adque tergo regio more consulere, agro pellere et ceteris expertibus soli in imperio agere. Quibus saeuitiis et maxime faenore obpressa plebes, cum adsiduis bellis tributum et militiam simul toleraret, armata montem sacrum adque Auentinum insedit, tumque tribunos plebis et alia iura sibi parauit. Discordiarum et certaminis utrimque finis fuit secundum bellum Punicum,) Quid itaque ego tantas moras uel scribens patiar, uel lecturis adferam? Quam misera fuerit illa res publica, tam longa aetate per tot annos usque ad secundum bellum Punicum bellis forinsecus inquietare non desistentibus et intus discordiis seditionibusque ciuilibus, a Sallustio breuiter intimatum est. Proinde uictoriae illae non solida beatorum gaudia fuerunt, sed inania solacia miserorum et ad alia adque alia sterilia mala subeunda inlecebrosa incitamenta minime quietorum. Nec nobis, quia hoc dicimus, boni Romani prudentesque suscenseant: quamquam de hac re nec petendi sint nec monendi, quando eos minime suscensuros esse certissimum est. Neque enim grauius uel grauiora dicimus auctoribus eorum et stilo et otio multum inpares; quibus tamen ediscendis et ipsi elaborauerunt et filios suos elaborare conpellunt. Qui autem suscensent, quando me ferrent, si ego dicerem, quod Sallustius ait? Plurimae turbae, seditiones et ad postremum bella ciuilia orta sunt, dum pauci potentes, quorum in gratiam plerique concesserant, sub honesto patrum aut plebis nomine dominationes adfectabant; bonique et mali ciues appellati, non ob merita in rem publicam, omnibus pariter corruptis, sed uti quisque locupletissimus et iniuria ualidior, quia praesentia defendebat, pro bono ducebatur’. Porro si illi scriptores historiae ad honestam libertatem pertinere arbitrati sunt mala ciuitatis propriae non tacere, quam multis locis magno praeconio laudare conpulsi sunt, cum aliam ueriorem, quo ciues aeterni legendi sunt, non haberent: quid nos facere conuenit, quorum spes quanto in Deo melior et certior, tanto maior debet esse libertas, cum mala praesentia Christo nostro inputant, ut infirmiores imperitioresque mentes alienentur ab ea ciuitate, in qua sola iugiter feliciterque uiuendum est? Nec in deos eorum horribiliora nos dicimus, quam eorum identidem auctores, quos legunt et praedicant, quando quidem et ex ipsis quae diceremus accepimus, et nullo modo dicere uel talia uel cuncta sufficimus.

[¶15] Where, then, were those gods who are supposed to be justly worshipped for the slender and delusive prosperity of this world, when the Romans, who were seduced to their service by lying wiles, were harassed by such calamities? Where were they when Valerius the consul was killed while defending the Capitol, that had been fired by exiles and slaves? He was himself better able to defend the temple of Jupiter, than that crowd of divinities with their most high and mighty king, whose temple he came to the rescue of were able to defend him. 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 borrow laws, and was desolated by dreadful famine and pestilence? Where were they when the people, again distressed with famine, created for the first time a prefect of the market; and when Spurius Melius, who, as the famine increased, distributed corn to the famishing masses, was accused of aspiring to royalty, and at the instance of this same prefect, and on the authority of the superannuated dictator L. Quintius, was put to death by Quintus Servilius, master of the horse,—an event which occasioned a serious and dangerous riot? Where were they when that very severe pestilence visited Rome, on account of which the people, after long and wearisome and useless supplications of the helpless gods, conceived the idea of celebrating Lectisternia, which had never been done before; that is to say, they set couches in honor of the gods, which accounts for the name of this sacred rite, or rather sacrilege? Where were they when, during ten successive years of reverses, the Roman army suffered frequent and great losses among the Veians and would have been destroyed but for the succor of 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 when that memorable pestilence wrought such destruction, in which Furius Camillus too perished, who first defended the ungrateful republic from the Veians, and afterwards saved it from the Gauls? Nay, during this plague, they introduced a new pestilence of scenic entertainments, which spread its more fatal contagion, not to the bodies, but the morals of the Romans? Where were they when another frightful pestilence visited the city—I mean the poisonings imputed to an incredible number of noble Roman matrons, whose characters were infected with a disease more fatal than any plague? Or when both consuls at the head of the army were beset by the Samnites in the 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 struck the Roman camp and killed many? Or when Rome was driven, by the violence of another intolerable plague, to send to Epidaurus for Æsculapius as a god of medicine; since the frequent adulteries of Jupiter in his youth had not perhaps left this king of all who so long reigned in the Capitol, any leisure for the study of medicine? Or when, at one time, the Lucanians, Brutians, Samnites, Tuscans, and Senonian Gauls conspired against Rome, and first slew her ambassadors, then overthrew an army under the prætor, putting to the sword 13,000 men, besides the commander and seven tribunes? Or when the people, after the serious and long-continued disturbances at Rome, at last plundered the city and withdrew to Janiculus; a danger so grave, that Hortensius was created dictator,—an office which they had recourse to only in extreme emergencies; and he, having brought back the people, died while yet he retained his office,—an event without precedent in the case of any dictator, and which was a shame to those gods who had now Æsculapius among them?

> Latin: Ubi ergo erant illi di, qui propter exiguam fallacemque mundi huius felicitatem colendi existimantur, cum Romani, quibus se colendos mendacissima astutia uenditabant, tantis calamitatibus uexarentur? Ubi erant, quando Valerius consul ab exulibus et seruis inscensum Capitolium cum defensaret occisus est faciliusque ipse prodesse potuit aedi Iouis quam illi turba tot numinum cum suo maximo adque optimo rege, cuius templum liberauerat, subuenire? Ubi erant, quando densissimis fatigata ciuitas seditionum malis, cum legatos Athenas missos ad leges mutuandas paululum quieta opperiretur, graui fame pestilentiaque uastata est? Ubi erant, quando rursus populus, cum fame laboraret, praefectum annonae primum creauit, adque illa fame inualescente Spurius Maelius, quia esurienti multitudini frumenta largitus est, regni adfectati crimen incurrit et eiusdem praefecti instantia per dictatorem L. Quintium aetate decrepitum a Quinto Seruilio magistro equitum cum maximo et periculosissimo tumultu ciuitatis occisus est? Ubi erant, quando pestilentia maxima exorta dis inutilibus populus diu multumque fatigatus noua lectisternia, quod numquam antea fecerat, exhibenda arbitratus est? Lecti autem sternebantur in honorem deorum, unde hoc sacrum uel potius sacrilegium nomen accepit. Ubi erant, quando per decem continuos annos male pugnando crebras et magnas clades aput Veios exercitus Romanus acceperat, nisi per Furium Camillum tandem subueniretur, quem postea ciuitas ingrata damnauit? Ubi erant, quando Galli Romam ceperunt spoliauerunt, incenderunt caedibus inpleuerunt? Ubi erant, cum illa insignis pestilentia tam ingentem stragem dedit, qua et ille Furius Camillus extinctus est, qui rem publicam ingratam et a Veientibus ante defendit et de Gallis postea uindicauit? In hac pestilentia scaenicos ludos aliam nouam pestem non corporibus Romanorum, sed, quod est multo perniciosius, moribus intulerunt. Ubi erant, quando alia pestilentia grauis de uenenis matronarum exorta credita est, quarum supra fidem multarum adque nobilium mores deprehensi sunt omni pestilentia grauiores? uel quando in Caudinas furculas a Samnitibus obsessi ambo cum exercitu consules foedus cum eis foedum facere coacti sunt, ita ut equitibus Romanis sescentis obsidibus datis ceteri amissis armis aliisque spoliati priuatique tegminibus sub iugum hostium in uestimentis singulis mitterentur? uel quando graui pestilentia ceteris laborantibus multi etiam in exercitu icti fulmine perierunt? uel quando item alia intolerabili pestilentia Aesculapium ab Epidauro quasi medicum deum Roma aduocare adque adhibere conpulsa est, quoniam regem omnium Iouem, qui iam diu in Capitolio sedebat, multa stupra, quibus adulescens uacauerat, non permiserant fortasse discere medicinam P uel cum conspirantibus uno tempore hostibus Lucanis, Bruttiis, Samnitibus, Etruscis et Senonibus Gallis primo ab eis legati pel’emti sunt, deinde cum praetore obpressus exercitus septem tribunis cum illo pereuntibus et militum tredecim milibus? uel quando post longas et graues Romae seditiones, quibus ad ultimum plebs in Ianiculum hostili diremtione secesserat, huius mali tam dira calamitas erat, ut eius rei causa, quod in extremis periculis fieri solebat, dictator crearetur Hortensius, qui plebe reuocata in eodem magistratu exspirauit, quod nulli dictatori ante contigerat, et quod illis dis iam praesente Aesculapio grauius crimen fuit?

[¶16] At that time, indeed, so many wars were everywhere engaged in, that through scarcity of soldiers they enrolled for military service the proletarii, who received this name, because, being too poor to equip for military service, they had leisure to beget offspring. Pyrrhus, king of Greece, and at that time of widespread renown, was invited by the Tarentines to enlist himself against Rome. It was to him that Apollo, when consulted regarding the issue of his enterprise, uttered with some pleasantry so ambiguous an oracle, that whichever alternative happened, the god himself should be counted divine. For he so worded the oracle that whether Pyrrhus was conquered by the Romans, or the Romans by Pyrrhus, the soothsaying god would securely await the issue. And then what frightful massacres of both armies ensued! Yet Pyrrhus remained conqueror, and would have been able now to 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, a terrible disease broke out among the women. For the pregnant women died before delivery. And Æsculapius, I fancy, excused himself in this matter on the ground that he professed to be arch-physician, not midwife. Cattle, too, similarly perished; so that it was believed that the whole race of animals was destined to become extinct. Then what shall I say of that memorable winter in which the weather was so incredibly severe, that in the Forum frightfully deep snow lay for forty days together, and the Tiber was frozen? Had such things happened in our time, what accusations we should have heard from our enemies! And that other great pestilence, which raged so long and carried off so many; what shall I say of it? Spite of all the drugs of Æsculapius, it only grew worse in its second year, till at last recourse was had to the Sibylline books,—a kind of oracle which, as Cicero says in his De Divinatione, owes significance to its interpreters, who make doubtful conjectures as they can or as they wish. In this instance, the cause of the plague was said to be that so many temples had been used as private residences. And thus Æsculapius for the present escaped the charge of either ignominious negligence or want of skill. But why were so many allowed to occupy sacred tenements without interference, unless because supplication had long been addressed in vain to such a crowd of gods, and so by degrees the sacred places were deserted of worshippers, and being thus vacant, could without offence be put at least to some human uses? And the temples, which were at that time laboriously recognized and restored that the plague might be stayed, fell afterwards into disuse, and were again devoted to the same human uses. Had they not thus lapsed into obscurity, it could not have been pointed to as proof of Varro’s great erudition, that in his work on sacred places he cites so many that were unknown. Meanwhile, the restoration of the temples procured no cure of the plague, but only a fine excuse for the gods.

> Latin: Tum uero tam multa bella ubique crebruerunt, ut inopia militum proletarii illi, qui eo, quod proli gignendae uacabant, ob egestatem militare non ualentes hoc nomen acceperant, militiae conscriberentur. Accitus etiam a Tarentinis Pyrrhus, rex Graeciae, tunc ingenti gloria celebratus, Romanorum hostis effectus est. Cui sane de rerum futuro euentu consulenti satis urbane Apollo sic ambiguum oraculum edidit, ut, e duobus quidquid accidisset, ipse diuinus haberetur (ait enim: <Dico te, Pyrrhe, uincere posse Romanos’) adque ita, siue Pyrrhus a Romanis siue Romani a Pyrrho uincerentur, securus fatidicus utrumlibet expectaret euentum. Quae tunc et quam horrenda utriusque exercitus clades! In qua tamen superior Pyrrhus extitit, ut iam posset Apollinem pro suo intellectu praedicare diuinum, nisi proxime alio proelio Romani abscederent superiores. Adque in tanta strage bellorum etiam pestilentia grauis exorta est mulierum. Nam priusquam maturos partus ederent, grauidae moriebantur. Ubi se, credo, Aesculapius excusabat, quod archiatrum, non obstetricem profitebatur. Pecudes quoque similiter interibant, ita ut etiam defecturum genus animalium crederetur. Quid? hiems illa memorabilis tam incredibili inmanitate saeuiens, ut niuibus horrenda altitudine etiam in foro per dies quadraginta manentibus Tiberis quoque glacie, duraretur, si nostris temporibus accidisset, quae isti et quanta dixissent! Quid? illa itidem ingens pestilentia, quamdiu saeuiit, quam multos peremit! Quae cum in annum alium multo grauius tenderetur frustra praesente Aesculapio, aditum est ad libros Sibyllinos. In quo genere oraculorum, sicut Cicero in libris de diuinatione commemorat, magis interpretibus ut possunt seu uolunt dubia coniectantibus credi solet. Tunc ergo dictum est eam esse causam pestilentiae, quod plurimas aedes sacras multi occupatas priuatim tenerent: sic interim a magno inperitiae uel desidiae crimine Aesculapius liberatus est. Unde autem a multis aedes illae fuerant occupatae nemine prohibente. nisi quia tantae numinum turbae diu frustra fuerat supplicatum, adque ita paulatim loca deserebantur a cultoribus, ut tamquam uacua sine ullius offensione possent humanis saltem usibus uindicari? Namque tunc uelut ad sedandam pestilentiam diligenter repetita adque reparata nisi postea eodem modo neglecta adque usurpata latitarent, non utique magnae peritiae Varronis tribueretur, quod scribens de aedibus sacris tam multa ignorata commemorat. Sed tunc interim elegans non pestilentiae depulsio, sed deorum excusatio procurata est.

### The Disasters Suffered by the Romans in the Punic Wars, Which Were Not Mitigated by the Protection of the Gods.

[¶18] Chapter 18.—The Disasters Suffered by the Romans in the Punic Wars, Which Were Not Mitigated by the Protection of the Gods.

> Latin: Caput XVIII. Quantae clades Romanos sub bellis Punicis triuerint frustra deorum praesidiis expetitis.

[¶19] In the Punic wars, again, when victory hung so long in the balance between the two kingdoms, when two powerful nations were straining every nerve and using all their resources against one another, how many smaller kingdoms were crushed, how many large and flourishing cities were demolished, how many states were overwhelmed and ruined, how many districts and lands far and near were desolated! How often were the victors on either side vanquished! What multitudes of men, both of those actually in arms and of others, were destroyed! What huge navies, too, were crippled in engagements, or were sunk by every kind of marine disaster! Were we to attempt to recount or mention these calamities, we should become writers of history. At that period Rome was mightily perturbed, and resorted to vain and ludicrous expedients. On the authority of the Sibylline books, the secular games were re-appointed, which had been inaugurated a century before, but had faded into oblivion 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 dying men made all hell rejoice at its riches, and give itself up to sport: 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 and a rich banquet to the devils. But in the first Punic war there was no more disastrous event than the Roman defeat in which Regulus was taken. We made mention of him in the two former books as an incontestably great man, who had before conquered and subdued the Carthaginians, and who would have put an end to the first Punic war, had not an inordinate appetite for praise and glory prompted him to impose on the worn-out Carthagians harder conditions than they could bear. If the unlooked-for captivity and unseemly bondage 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.

> Latin: Iam uero Punicis bellis, cum inter utrumque imperium uictoria diu anceps adque incerta penderet populique duo praeualidi impetus in alterutrum fortissimos et opulentissimos agerent, quot minutiora regna contrita sunt! quae urbes amplae nobilesque deletae, quot adflictae, quot perditae ciuitates! Quam longe lateque tot regiones terraeque uastatae sunt! Quotiens uicti hinc adque inde uictores! Quid hominum consumtum est uel pugnantium militum uel ab armis uacantium populorum! Quanta uis nauium marinis etiam proeliis obpressa et diuersarum tempestatum uarietate submersa est! Si enarrare uel commemorare conemur, nihil aliud quam scriptores etiam nos erimus historiae. Tunc magno metu perturbata Romana ciuitas ad remedia uana et ridenda currebat. Instaurati sunt ex auctoritate librorum Sibyllinorum ludi saeculares, quorum celebritas inter centum annos fuerat instituta felicioribusque temporibus memoria neglegente perierat. Renouarunt etiam pontifices ludos sacros inferis et ipsos abolitos annis retrorsum melioribus. Nimirum ergo, quando renouati sunt, tanta copia morientium ditatos inferos etiam ludere delectabat, cum profecto miseri homines ipsa rabida bella et cruentas animositates funereasque hinc adque inde uictorias magnos agerent ludos daemonum et opimas epulas inferorum. Nihil sane miserabilius primo Punico bello accidit, quam quod ita Romani uicti sunt, ut etiam Regulus ille caperetur, cuius in primo et in altero libro fecimus mentionem, uir plane magnus et uictor antea domitorque Poenorum, qui etiam ipsum primum bellum Punicum confecisset, nisi auiditate nimia laudis et gloriae duriores condiciones, quam ferre possent, fessis Carthaginiensibus imperasset.

[¶20] Nor were there wanting at that time very heavy disasters within the city itself. For the Tiber was extraordinarily flooded, and destroyed almost all the lower parts of the city; some buildings being carried away by the violence of the torrent, while others were soaked to rottenness by the water that stood round them even after the flood was gone. This visitation was followed by a fire which was still more destructive, for it consumed some of the loftier buildings round the Forum, and spared not even its own proper temple, that of Vesta, in which virgins chosen for this honor, or rather for this punishment, had been employed in conferring, as it were, everlasting life on fire, by ceaselessly feeding it with fresh fuel. But at the time we speak of, the fire in the temple was not content with being kept alive: it raged. And when the virgins, scared by its vehemence, were unable to save those fatal images which had already brought destruction on three cities in which they had been received, Metellus the priest, forgetful of his own safety, rushed in and res cued the sacred things, though he was half roasted in doing so. For either the fire did not recognize even him, or else the goddess of fire was there,—a goddess who would not have fled from the fire supposing she had been there. But here you see how a man could 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 state of which they were the reputed guardians? Facts have shown that they were useless. These objections of ours would be idle if our adversaries maintained that their idols are consecrated rather as symbols of things eternal, than to secure the blessings of time; and that thus, though the symbols, like all material and visible things, might perish, no damage thereby resulted to the things for the sake of which they had been consecrated, while, as for the images themselves, they could be renewed again for the same purposes they had formerly served. But with lamentable blindness, they suppose that, through the intervention 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 among them this well-being and prosperity were blighted, they blush to change the opinion they are unable to defend.

> Latin: Illius uiri et captiuitas inopinatissima et seruitus indignissima, et iuratio fidelissima et mors crudelissima si deos illos non cogit erubescere, uerum est quod aerei sunt et non habent sanguinem. Nec mala illo tempore grauissima intra moenia defuerunt. Nam exundante nimis ultra morem fluuio Tiberino paene omnia urbis plana subuersa sunt, aliis impetu quasi torrentis inpulsis, aliis uelut stagno diuturno madefactis adque sublapsis. Istam deinde pestem ignis perniciosior subsecutus est. qui correptis circa forum quibusque celsioribus etiam templo Vestae suo familiarissimo non pepercit, ubi ei ueluti uitam perpetuam diligentissima substitutione lignorum non tam honoratae quam damnatae uirgines donare consuerant. Tunc uero illic ignis non tantum uiuebat, sed etiam saeuiebat. Cuius impetu exterritae uirgines sacra illa fatalia, quae iam tres, in quibus fuerant, presserant ciuitates, cum ab illo incendio liberare non possent, Metellus pontifex suae quodam modo salutis oblitus inruens ea semiustus abripuit. Neque enim uel ipsum ignis agnouit, aut uero erat ibi numen, quod non etiam, si fuisset, fugisset. Homo igitur potius sacris Vestae quam illa homini prodesse potuerunt. Si autem a se ipsis ignem non repellebant, ciuitatem, cuius salutem tueri putabantur, quid contra illas aquas flammasque poterant adiuuare? sicut etiam res ipsa nihil ea prorsus potuisse patefecit. Haec istis nequaquam obicerentur a nobis, si illa sacra dicerent non tuendis his bonis temporalibus instituta, sed significandis aeternis, et ideo, cum ea, quod corporalia uisibiliaque essent, perire contingeret, nihil his rebus minui, propter quas fuerant instituta, et posse ad eosdem usus denuo reparari. Nunc uero caecitate mirabili eis sacris, quae perire possent, fieri potuisse existimant, ut salus terrena et temporalis felicitas ciuitatis perire non posset. Proinde cum illis etiam manentibus sacris uel salutis contritio uel infelicitas inruisse monstratur, mutare sententiam, quam defendere nequeunt, erubescunt.

### Of the Calamity of the Second Punic War, Which Consumed the Strength of Both Parties.

[¶22] Chapter 19.—Of the Calamity of the Second Punic War, Which Consumed the Strength of Both Parties.

> Latin: Caput XIX. De adflictione belli Punici secundi, qua uires utriusque partis consumtae sunt.

[¶23] As to the second Punic war, it were tedious to recount the disasters it brought on both the nations engaged in so protracted and shifting a war, that (by the acknowledgment even of those writers who have made it their object not so much to narrate the wars as to eulogize the dominion of Rome) the people who remained victorious were less like conquerors than conquered. For, when Hannibal poured out of Spain over the Pyrenees, and overran Gaul, and burst through the Alps, and during his whole course gathered strength by plundering and subduing as he went, and inundated Italy like a torrent, how bloody 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 many were taken and subdued! What fearful battles there were, and how often did the defeat of the Romans shed lustre on the arms of Hannibal! And what shall I say of the wonderfully crushing defeat at Cannæ, where even Hannibal, cruel as he was, was yet sated with the blood of his bitterest enemies, and gave orders that they be spared? From this field of battle he sent to Carthage three bushels of gold rings, signifying that so much of the rank of Rome had that day fallen, that it was easier to give an idea of it by measure than by numbers and that the frightful slaughter of the common rank and file whose bodies 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 scarcity of soldiers after this, that the Romans impressed their criminals on the promise of impunity, and their slaves by the bribe of liberty, and out of these infamous classes did not so much recruit as create an army. But these slaves, or, to give them all their titles, these freed-men who were enlisted to do battle for the republic of Rome, lacked arms. And so they took arms from the temples, as if the Romans were saying to their gods: Lay down those arms you have held so long in vain, if by chance our slaves may be able to use to purpose what you, our gods, have been impotent to use. At that time, too, the public treasury was too low to pay the soldiers, and private resources were used for public purposes; and so generously did individuals contribute of their property, that, saving the gold ring and bulla which each wore, the pitiful mark of his rank, no senator, and much less any of the other orders and tribes, reserved any gold for his own use. But if in our day they were reduced to this poverty, who would be able to endure their reproaches, barely endurable as they are now, when more money is spent on actors for the sake of a superfluous gratification, than was then disbursed to the legions?

> Latin: Secundo autem Punico bello nimis longum est commemorare clades duorum populorum tam longe secum lateque pugnantium. ita ut his quoque fatentibus, qui non tam narrare bella Romana quam Romanorum imperium laudare instituerunt, similior uicto fuerit ille qui uicit. Hannibale quippe ab Hispania surgente et Pyrenaeis montibus superatis, Gallia transcursa Alpibusque disruptis, tam longo circuitu auctis uiribus cuncta uastando aut subigendo torrentis modo Italiae faucibus inruente quam cruenta proelia gesta sunt, quotiens Romani superati! quam multa ad hostem oppida defecerunt, quam multa capta et obpressa! quam dirae pugnae et totiens Hannibali Romana clade gloriosae! De Canr.ensi autem mirabiliter horrendo malo quid dicam, ubi Hannibal, cum esset crudelissimus, tamen tanta inimicorum atrocissimorum clade satiatus parci iussisse perhibetur? Unde tres modios anulorum aureorum Carthaginem misit, quo intellegerent tantam in illo proelio dignitatem cecidisse Romanam, ut facilius eam caperet mensura quam numerus, adque hinc strages turbae ceterae tanto utique numerosioris, quanto infimioris, quae sine anulis iacebat, conicienda potius quam nuntianda putaretur. Denique tanta militum inopia secuta est, ut Romani reos facinorum proposita inpunitate colligerent, seruitia libertate donarent adque illis pudendus non tam subpleretur quam institueretur exercitus. Seruis itaque, immo, ne faciamus iniuriam, iam libertis, pro Romana re publica pugnaturis arma defuerunt. Detracta sunt templis, tamquam Romani dis suis dicerent: Ponite quae tam diu inaniter habuistis, ne forte aliquid utile inde facere possint nostra mancipia, unde [uos] nostra numina facere non potuistis. Tunc etiam stipendiis sufficiendis cum defecisset aerarium, in usus publicos opes uenere priuatae, adeo unoquoque id quod habuit conferente, ut praeter singulos anulos singulasque bullas, miserabilia dignitatis insignia, nihil sibi auri senatus ipse, quanto magis ceteri ordines tribusque relinquerent. Quis ferret istos, si nostris temporibus ad hanc inopiam cogerentur. cum eos modo uix feramus, quando pro superflua uoluptate plura donantur histrionibus, quam tunc legionibus pro extrema salute conlata sunt?

## 18. Of the Destruction of the Saguntines, Who Received No Help from the Roman Gods, Though Perishing on Account of Their Fidelity to Rome.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/18/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/18/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 20.—Of the Destruction of the Saguntines, Who Received No Help from the Roman Gods, Though Perishing on Account of Their Fidelity to Rome.

> Latin: Caput XX. De exitu Saguntinorum, quibus propter Romanorum amicitiam pereuntibus di Romani auxilium non tulerunt.

[¶1] But among all the disasters of the second Punic war, there occurred none more lamentable, or calculated to excite deeper complaint, than the fate of the Saguntines. This city of Spain, eminently friendly to Rome, was destroyed by its fidelity to the Roman people. For when Hannibal had broken treaty with the Romans, he sought occasion for provoking them to war, and accordingly made a fierce assault upon Saguntum. When this was reported at Rome, ambassadors were sent to Hannibal, urging him to raise the siege; and when this remonstrance was neglected, they proceeded to Carthage, lodged complaint against the breaking of the treaty, and returned to Rome without accomplishing their object. Meanwhile the siege went on; and in the eighth or ninth month, this opulent but ill-fated city, dear as it was to its own state and to Rome, was taken, and subjected to treatment which one cannot read, much less narrate, without horror. And yet, because it bears directly on the matter in hand, I will briefly touch upon it. First, then, famine wasted the Saguntines, so that even human corpses were eaten by some: so at least it is recorded. Subsequently, when thoroughly worn out, that they might at least escape the ignominy of falling into the hands of Hannibal, they publicly erected 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 and gourmands, whose mouths water for fat sacrifices, and whose lips utter lying divinations,—could they not do anything in a case like this? Could they not interfere for the preservation of a city closely allied to the Roman people, or prevent it perishing for its fidelity to that alliance of which they themselves had been the mediators? Saguntum, faithfully keeping the treaty it had entered into before these gods, and to which it had firmly bound itself by an oath, was besieged, taken, and destroyed by a perjured person. If afterwards, when Hannibal was close to the walls of Rome, it was the gods who terrified him with lightning and tempest, and drove him to a distance, why, I ask, did they not thus interfere before? For I make bold to say, that this demonstration with the tempest would have been more honorably made in defence of the allies of Rome—who were in danger on account of their reluctance to break faith with the Romans, and had no resources of their own—than in defence of the Romans themselves, who were fighting in their own cause, and had abundant resources to oppose Hannibal. If, then, they had been the guardians of Roman prosperity and glory, they would have preserved that glory from the stain of this Saguntine disaster; and how silly it is to believe that Rome was preserved from destruction at the hands of Hannibal by the guardian care of those gods who were unable to rescue the city of Saguntum from perishing through its fidelity to the alliance of Rome. If the population of Saguntum had been Christian, and had suffered as it did for the Christian faith (though, of course, Christians would not have used fire and sword against their own persons), they would have suffered with that hope which springs from faith in Christ—the hope not of a brief temporal reward, but of unending and eternal bliss. What, then, will the advocates and apologists of these gods say in their defence, when charged with the blood of these Saguntines; for they are professedly worshipped and invoked for this very purpose of securing prosperity in this fleeting and transitory life? Can anything be said but what was alleged in the case of Regulus’ death? For though there is a difference between the two cases, the one being an individual, the other a whole community, yet the cause of destruction was in both cases the keeping of their plighted troth. For it was this which made Regulus willing to return to his enemies, and this which made the Saguntines unwilling to revolt to their enemies. Does, then, the keeping of faith provoke the gods to anger? Or is it possible that not only individuals, but even entire communities, perish while the gods are propitious to them? Let our adversaries choose which alternative they will. If, on the one hand, those gods are enraged at the keeping of faith, let them enlist perjured persons as their worshippers. If, on the other hand, men and states can suffer great and terrible calamities, and at last perish while favored by the gods, then does their worship not produce happiness as its fruit. Let those, therefore, who suppose that they have fallen into distress because their religious worship has been abolished, lay aside their anger; for it were quite possible that did the gods not only remain with them, but regard them with favor, they might yet be left to mourn an unhappy lot, or might, even like Regulus and the Saguntines, be horribly tormented, and at last perish miserably.

> Latin: Sed in his omnibus belli Punici secundi malis nihil miserabilius ac miserabili querella dignius quam exitium Saguntinorum fuit. Haec quippe Hispaniae ciuitas amicissima populi Romani, dum eidem populo fidem seruat, euersa est. Hinc enim Hannibal fracto foedere Romanorum causas quaesiuit, quibus eos inritaret ad bellum. Saguntum ferociter ergo obsidebat. Quod ubi Romae auditum est, missi legati ad Hannibalem, ut ab eius obsidione discederet. Contemti Carthaginem pergunt querimoniamque deponunt foederis rupti infectoque negotio Romam redeunt. Dum hae morae aguntur, misera illa ciuitas opulentissima, suae rei publicae Romanaeque carissima, octauo uel nono a Poenis mense deleta est. Cuius interitum legere, quanto magis scribere, horroris est. Breuiter tamen eum commemorabo; ad rem quippe quae agitur multum pertinet. Primo fame contabuit; nam etiam suorum cadaueribus a nonnullis pasta perhibetur. Deinde omnium fessa rerum, ne saltem captiua in manus Hannibalis perueniret, ingentem rogum publice struxit, in quem ardentem ferro etiam trucidatos omnes se suosque miserunt. Hic aliquid agerent di helluones adque nebulones, sacrificiorum adipibus inhiantes et fallacium diuinationum caligine decipientes; hic aliquid agerent, ciuitati populi Romani amicissimae subuenirent, fidei conseruatione pereuntem perire non sinerent. Ipsi utique medii praefuerunt, cum Romanae rei publicae interiecto foedere copulata est. Custodiens itaque [fideliter], quod ipsis praesidibus placito iunxerat, fide uinxerat, iuratione constrinxerat, a perfido obsessa obpressa consumta est. Si ipsi di tempestate adque fulminibus Hannibalem postea Romanis proximum moenibus terruerunt longeque miserunt: tunc primum tale aliquid facerent. Audeo quippe dicere honestius illos pro amicis Romanorum ideo periclitantibus, ne Romanis frangerent fidem, et nullam opem tunc habentibus quam pro ipsis Romanis, qui pro se pugnabant adque aduersus Hannibalem opulenti erant, potuisse tempestate saeuire. Si ergo tutores essent Romanae felicitatis et gloriae, tam graue ab ea crimen Saguntinae calamitatis auerterent; nunc uero quam stulte creditur, dis illis defensoribus Romam uictore Hannibale non perisse, qui Saguntinae urbi non potuerunt, ne pro eius periret amicitia, subuenire! Si Saguntinorum Christianus populus esset et huius modi aliquid pro fide euangelica pateretur, quamquam se ipse nec ferro nec ignibus corrupisset, sed tamen si pro fide euangelica excidium pateretur: ea spe pateretur, qua in Christum crediderat, non mercede breuissimi temporis, sed aeternitatis interminae. Pro istis autem dis, qui propterea coli perhibentur, propterea colendi requiruntur, ut harum labentium adque transeuntium rerum felicitas tuta sit, quid nobis defensores et excusatores eorum de Saguntinis pereuntibus respondebunt, nisi quod de illo Regulo extincto? Hoc quippe interest, quod ille unus homo, haec tota ciuitas; utriusque tamen interitus causa conseruatio fidei fuit. Propter hanc enim ad hostes et redire ille uoluit, et noluit ista transire. Conseruata ergo prouocat deorum iram fides? an possunt et dis propitiis perire non solum quique homines, uerum etiam integrae ciuitates? Utrum uolunt. eligant. Si enim fidei seruatae irascuntur illi di, quaerant perfidos, a quibus colantur; si autem etiam illis propitiis multis grauibusque cruciatibus adflicti interire homines ciuitatesque possunt, nullo fructu felicitatis huius coluntur. Desinant igitur suscensere, qui sacris deorum suorum perditis se infelices esse factos putant. Possent enim illis non solum manentibus, uerum etiam fauentibus non sicut modo de miseria murmurare, sed sicut tunc Regulus et Saguntini excruciati horribiliter etiam penitus interire.

### Of the Ingratitude of Rome to Scipio, Its Deliverer, and of Its Manners During the Period Which Sallust Describes as the Best.

[¶3] Chapter 21.—Of the Ingratitude of Rome to Scipio, Its Deliverer, and of Its Manners During the Period Which Sallust Describes as the Best.

> Latin: Caput XXI. Quam ingrata fuerit Romana ciuitas Scipioni liberatori suo et in quibus moribus egerit, quando eam Sallustius optimam fuisse describit.

[¶4] Omitting many things, that I may not exceed the limits of the work I have proposed to myself, I come to the epoch between the second and last Punic wars, during which, according to Sallust, the Romans lived with the greatest virtue and concord. Now, in this period of virtue and harmony, the great Scipio, the liberator of Rome and Italy, who had with surprising ability brought to a close the second Punic war—that horrible, destructive, dangerous contest—who had defeated Hannibal and subdued Carthage, and whose whole life is said to have been dedicated to the gods, and cherished in their temples,—this Scipio, after such a triumph, was obliged to yield to the accusations of his enemies, and to leave his country, which his valor had saved and liberated, to spend the remainder of his days in the town of Liternum, so indifferent to a recall from exile, that he is said to have given orders that not even his remains should lie in his ungrateful country. It was at that time also that the pro-consul Cn. Manlius, after subduing the Galatians, introduced into Rome the luxury of Asia, more destructive than all hostile armies. It was then that iron bedsteads and expensive carpets were first used; then, too, that female singers were admitted at banquets, and other licentious abominations were introduced. But at present I meant to speak, not of the evils men voluntarily practise, but of those they suffer in spite of themselves. So that the case of Scipio, who succumbed to his 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 those Roman gods whose temples he saved from Hannibal, and who are worshipped only for the sake of securing temporal happiness. But since Sallust, as we have seen, declares that the manners of Rome were never better than at that time, I therefore judged it right to mention the Asiatic luxury then introduced, that it might be seen that what he says is true, only when that period is compared with the others during which the morals were certainly worse, and the factions more violent. For at that time—I mean between the second and third Punic war—that notorious Lex Voconia was passed, which prohibited a man from making a woman, even an only daughter, his heir; than which law I am at a loss to conceive what could be more unjust. It is true that in the interval between these two Punic wars the misery of Rome was somewhat less. Abroad, indeed, their forces were consumed by wars, yet also consoled by victories; while at home there were not such disturbances as at other times. But when the last Punic war had terminated in the utter destruction of Rome’s rival, which quickly succumbed to the other Scipio, who thus earned for himself the surname of Africanus, then the Roman republic was overwhelmed with such a host of ills, which sprang from the corrupt manners induced by prosperity and security, that the sudden overthrow of Carthage is seen to have injured Rome more seriously than her long-continued hostility. During the whole 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 longer glorious, but full of broils and dangers, and which now was quite enervated and languishing,—and who submitted all things again to the will of a monarch, and infused as it were a new life into the sickly old age of the republic, and inaugurated a fresh régime;—during this whole period, I say, many military disasters were sustained on a variety of occasions, all of which I here pass by. There was specially the treaty of Numantia, blotted as it was with extreme disgrace; for the sacred chickens, they say, flew out of the coop, and thus augured disaster to Mancinus the consul; just as if, during all these years in which that little city of Numantia had withstood the besieging army of Rome, and had become a terror to the republic, the other generals had all marched against it under unfavorable auspices.

> Latin: Porro inter secundum et postremum bellum Carthaginiense, quando Sallustius optimis moribus et maxima concordia dixit egisse Romanos (multa enim praetereo suscepti operis modum cogitans), eodem ipso ergo tempore morum optimorum maximaeque concordiae Scipio ille Romae Italiaeque liberator eiusdemque belli Punici secundi tam horrendi, tam exitiosi, tam periculosi praeclarus mirabilisque confector, uictor Hannibalis domitor que Carthaginis, cuius ab adulescentia uita describitur dis dedita templisque nutrita, inimicorum accusationibus cessit carensque patria, quam sua uirtute saluam et liberam reddidit, in oppido Linternensi egit reliquam conpleuitque uitam, post insignem suum triumphum nullo illius urbis captus desiderio, ita ut iussisse perhibeatur, ne saltem mortuo in ingrata patria funus fieret. Deinde tunc primum per Gn. Manlium proconsulem de Gallograecis triumphantem Asiatica luxuria Romam omni hoste peior inrepsit. Tunc enim primum lecti aerati et pretiosa stragula uisa perhibentur; tunc inductae in conuiuia psaltriae et alia licentiosa nequitia. Sed nunc de his malis, quae intolerabiliter homines patiuntur, lion de his, quae libenter faciunt, dicere institui. Unde illud magis, quod de Scipione commemoraui, quod cedens inimicis extra patriam, quam liberauit, mortuus est, ad praesentem pertinet disputationem, quod ei Romana numina, a quorum templis auertit Hannibalem, non reddiderunt uicem, quae propter istam tantummodo coluntur felicitatem. Sed quia Sallustius eo tempore ibi dixit mores optimos fuisse, propterea hoc de Asiana luxuria commemorandum putaui, ut intellegatur etiam illud a Sallustio in conparationem aliorum temporum dictum, quibus temporibus peiores utique in grauissimis discordiis mores fuerunt. Nam tunc, id est inter secundum et postremum bellum Carthaginiense, lata est etiam lex illa Voconia, ne quis heredem feminam faceret, nec unicam filiam. Qua lege quid iniquius dici aut cogitari possit, ignoro. Verum tamen toto illo interuallo duorum bellorum Punicorum tolerabilior infelicitas fuit. Bellis tantummodo foris conterebatur exercitus, sed uictoriis consolabatur; domi autem nullae, sicut alias, discordiae saeuiebant. Sed ultimo bello Punico uno impetu alterius Scipionis, qui ob hoc etiam ipse Africani cognomen inuenit, aemula imperii Romani ab stirpe deleta est, ac deinde tantis malorum aggeribus obpressa Romana res publica, ut prosperitate ac securitate rerum, unde nimium corruptis moribus mala illa congesta sunt, plus nocuisse monstretur tam cito euersa, quam prius nocuerat tam diu aduersa Carthago. Hoc toto tempore usque ad Caesarem Augustum, qui uidetur non adhuc uel ipsorum opinione gloriosam, sed contentiosam et exitiosam et plane iam eneruem ac languidam libertatem omni modo extorsisse Romanis et ad regale arbitrium cuncta reuocasse et quasi morbida uetustate conlapsam ueluti instaurasse ac renouasse rem publicam; toto ergo isto tempore omitto ex aliis adque aliis causis etiam adque etiam bellicas clades et Numantinum foedus horrenda ignominia maculosum; uolauerant enim pulli de cauea et Mancino consuli, ut aiunt, augurium malum fecerant; quasi per tot annos, quibus illa exigua ciuitas Romanum circumsessa exercitum adflixerat ipsique Romanae rei publicae terrori esse iam coeperat, alii contra eam alio augurio processerunt.

### Of the Edict of Mithridates, Commanding that All Roman Citizens Found in Asia Should Be Slain.

[¶6] Chapter 22.—Of the Edict of Mithridates, Commanding that All Roman Citizens Found in Asia Should Be Slain.

> Latin: Caput XXII. De Mithridatis edicto, quo omnes ciues Romanos, qui intra Asiam inuenirentur, iussit occidi.

[¶7] These things, I say, I pass in silence; but I can by no means be silent regarding the order given by Mithridates, king of Asia, that on one day all Roman citizens residing anywhere in Asia (where great numbers of them were following their private business) should be put to death: and this order was executed. How miserable a spectacle was then presented, when each man was suddenly and treacherously murdered wherever he happened to be, in the field or on the road, in the town, in his own home, or in the street, in market or temple, in bed or at table! Think of the groans of the dying, the tears of the spectators, and even of the executioners themselves. For how cruel a necessity was it that compelled the hosts of these victims, not only to see these abominable butcheries 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 the business of war; and, shall I say, give and receive wounds, the slain being pierced in body, the slayer in spirit! Had all these murdered persons, then, despised auguries? Had they neither public nor household gods to consult when they left their homes and set out on that fatal journey? If they had not, our adversaries have no reason to complain of these Christian times in this particular, since long ago the Romans despised auguries as idle. If, on the other hand, they did consult 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.

> Latin: Sed haec, inquam, omitto, quamuis illud nequaquam tacuerim, quod Mithridates rex Asiae ubique in Asia peregrinantes ciues Romanos adque innumerabili copia suis negotiis intentos uno die occidi iussit; et factum est. Quam illa miserabilis rerum facies erat, subito quemque, ubicumque fuisset inuentus, in agro in uia in oppido, in domo in uico in foro, in templo in lecto in conuiuio inopinate adque inpie fuisse trucidatum! Quis gemitus morientium, quae lacrimae spectantium, fortasse etiam ferientium fuerunt! Quam dura necessitas hospitum non solum uidendi nefarias illas caedes domi suae, uerum etiam perpetrandi, ab illa blanda comitate humanitatis repente mutatis uultibus ad hostile negotium in pace peragendum, mutuis dicam omnino uulneribus, cum percussus in corpore et percussor in animo feriretur! Num et isti omnes auguria contemserant? Num deos et domesticos et publicos, cum de sedibus suis ad illam inremeabilem peregrinationem profecti sunt, quos consulerent, non habebant? Hoc si ita est, non habent quur isti in hac causa de nostris temporibus conquerantur; olim Romani haec uana contemnunt. Si autem consuluerunt, respondeatur, quid ista profuerunt, quando per humanas dumtaxat leges nemine prohibente licuerunt.

### Of the Internal Disasters Which Vexed the Roman Republic, and Followed a Portentous Madness Which Seized All the Domestic Animals.

[¶9] Chapter 23.—Of the Internal Disasters Which Vexed the Roman Republic, and Followed a Portentous Madness Which Seized All the Domestic Animals.

> Latin: Caput XXIII. De interioribus malis, quibus Romana res publica exagitata est, praecedente prodigio, quod in rabie omnium animalium, quae hominibus seruiunt, fuit.

[¶10] But let us now mention, as succinctly as possible, those disasters which were still more vexing, because nearer home; I mean those discords which are erroneously called civil, since they destroy civil interests. The seditions had now become urban wars, in which blood was freely shed, and in which parties raged against one another, not with wrangling and verbal contention, but with physical force and arms. What a sea of Roman blood was shed, what desolations and devastations were occasioned in Italy by wars social, wars servile, wars civil! Before the Latins began the social war against Rome, all the animals 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 stalls and wandered at large, and could not be closely approached either by strangers or their own masters without danger. If this was a portent, how serious a calamity must have been portended by a plague which, whether portent or no, was in itself a serious calamity! Had it happened in our day, the heathen would have been more rabid against us than their animals were against them.

> Latin: Sed iam illa mala breuiter, quantum possumus, commemoremus, quae quanto interiora, tanto miseriora exstiterunt: discordiae ciuiles uel potius inciuiles, nec iam seditiones, sed etiam ipsa bella urbana, ubi tantus sanguis effusus est, ubi partium studia non contionum dissensionibus uariisque uocibus in alterutrum, sed plane iam ferro armisque saeuiebant; bella socialia, bella seruilia, bella ciuilia quantum Romanum cruorem fuderunt, quantam Italiae uastationem desertionemque fecerunt! Namque antequam se aduersus Romam sociale Latium commoueret, cuncta animalia humanis usibus subdita, canes equi, asini boues, et quaeque alia pecora sub hominum dominio fuerunt, subito efferata et domesticae lenitatis oblita relictis tectis libera uagabantur et omnem non solum aliorum, uerum etiam dominorum auersabantur accessum, non sine exitio uel periculo audentis, si quis de proximo urgeret. Quanti mali signum fuit, si hoc signum fuit, quod tantum malum fuit, si etiam signum non fuit! Hoc si nostris temporibus accidisset, rabidiores istos quam sua illi animalia pateremur.

### Of the Civil Dissension Occasioned by the Sedition of the Gracchi.

[¶12] Chapter 24.—Of the Civil Dissension Occasioned by the Sedition of the Gracchi.

> Latin: Caput XXIV. De discordia ciuili, quam Gracchinae seditiones excitauerunt.

[¶13] The civil wars originated in the seditions which the Gracchi excited regarding the agrarian laws; for they were minded to divide among the people the lands which were wrongfully possessed by the nobility. But to reform an abuse of so long standing was an enterprise full of peril, or rather, as the event proved, of destruction. For what disasters accompanied the death of the older Gracchus! what slaughter ensued when, shortly after, the younger brother met the same fate! For noble and ignoble were indiscriminately massacred; and this not by legal authority and procedure, but by mobs and armed rioters. After the death of the younger Gracchus, the consul Lucius Opimius, who had given battle to him within the city, and had defeated and put to the sword both himself and his confederates, and had massacred many of the citizens, instituted a judicial examination of others, and is reported to have put to death as many as 3000 men. From this it may be gathered how many fell in the riotous encounters, when the result even of a judicial investigation was so bloody. The assassin of Gracchus himself sold his head to the consul for its weight in gold, such being the previous agreement. In this massacre, too, Marcus Fulvius, a man of consular rank, with all his children, was put to death.

> Latin: Initium autem ciuilium malorum fuit seditiones Gracchorum agrariis legibus excitatae. Volebant enim agros populo diuidere, quos nobilitas perperam possidebat. Sed iam uetustam iniquitatem audere conuellere periculosissimum, immo uero, ut res ipsa docuit, perniciosissimum fuit. Quae funera facta sunt, cum prior Gracchus occisus est! quae etiam, cum alius frater eius non longo interposito tempore! Neque enim legibus et ordine potestatum, sed turbis armorumque conflictibus nobiles ignobilesque necabantur. Post Gracchi alterius interfectionem L. Opimius consul, qui aduersus eum intra Urbem arma commouerat eoque cum sociis obpresso et extincto ingentem ciuium stragem fecerat, cum quaestionem haberet iam iudiciaria inquisitione ceteros persequens, tria milia hominum occidisse perhibetur. Ex quo intellegi potest, quantam multitudinem mortium habere potuerit turbidus conflictus armorum, quando tantam habuit iudiciorum uelut examinata cognitio. Percussor Gracchi ipsius caput, quantum graue erat, tanto auri pondere consuli uendidit; haec enim pactio caedem praecesserat. In qua etiam occisus est cum liberis hi. Fuluius consularis.

### Of the Temple of Concord, Which Was Erected by a Decree of the Senate on the Scene of These Seditions and Massacres.

[¶15] Chapter 25.—Of the Temple of Concord, Which Was Erected by a Decree of the Senate on the Scene of These Seditions and Massacres.

> Latin: Caput XXV. De aede Concordiae ex senatus consulto in loco seditionum et caedium condita.

[¶16] A pretty decree of the senate it was, truly, by which the temple of Concord was built on the spot where that disastrous rising had taken place, and where so many citizens of every rank had fallen. I suppose it was that the monument of the Gracchi’s punishment might strike the eye and affect the memory of the pleaders. But what was this but to deride the gods, by building a temple to that goddess who, had she been in the city, would not have suffered herself to be torn by such dissensions? Or was it that Concord was chargeable with that bloodshed because she had deserted the minds of the citizens, and was therefore incarcerated in that temple? For if they had any regard to consistency, why did they not rather erect on that site a temple of Discord? Or is there a reason for Concord being a goddess while Discord is none? Does the distinction of Labeo hold here, who would have made the one a good, the other an evil deity?—a distinction which seems to have been suggested to him by the mere fact of his observing at Rome a temple to Fever as well as one to Health. But, on the same ground, Discord as well as Concord ought to be deified. A hazardous venture the Romans made in provoking so wicked a goddess, and in forgetting that the destruction of Troy had been occasioned by her taking offence. For, being indignant that she was not invited with the other gods [to the nuptials of Peleus and Thetis], she created dissension among the three goddesses by sending in the golden apple, 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 thought her worthy of a temple among the other gods in their city, and therefore disturbed the state with such tumults, to how much fiercer passion would she be roused when she saw the temple of her adversary erected on the scene of that massacre, or, in other words, on the scene of her own handiwork! Those wise and learned men are enraged at our laughing at these follies; and yet, being worshippers of good and bad divinities alike, they cannot escape this dilemma about Concord and Discord: either they have neglected the worship of these goddesses, and preferred Fever and War, to whom there are shrines erected of great antiquity, or they have worshipped them, and after all Concord has abandoned them, and Discord has tempestuously hurled them into civil wars.

> Latin: Eleganti sane senatus consulto eo ipso loco, ubi funereus tumultus ille commissus est, ubi tot ciues ordinis cuiusque ceciderunt, aedes Concordiae facta est, ut Gracchorum poenae testis contionantium oculos feriret memoriamque conpungeret. Sed hoc quid aliud fuit quam inrisio deorum, illi deae templum construere, quae si esset in ciuitate, non tantis dissensionibus dilacerata conrueret? Nisi forte sceleris huius rea Concordia, quia deseruerat animos ciuium, meruit in illa aede tamquam in carcere includi. Quur enim, si rebus gestis congruere uoluerunt, non ibi potius aedem Discordiae fabricarunt? An ulla ratio redditur, quur Concordia dea sit, et Discordia dea non sit, ut secundum Labeonis distinctionem bona sit ista, illa uero mala? Nec ipse aliud secutus uidetur quam quod aduertit Romae etiam Febri, sicut Saluti, templum constitutum. Eo modo igitur non solum Concordiae, uerum etiam Discordiae constitui debuit. Periculose itaque Romani tam mala dea irata uiuere uoluerunt nec Troianum excidium recoluerunt originem ab eius offensione sumsisse. Ipsa quippe quia inter deos non fuerat inuitata, trium dearum litem aurei mali subpositione commenta est; unde rixa numinum et Venus uictrix, et rapta Helena et Troia deleta. Quapropter, si forte indignata, quod inter deos in Urbe nullum templum habere meruit, ideo iam turbabat tantis tumultibus ciuitatem, quanto atrocius potuit inritari, cum in loco illius caedis, hoc est in loco sui operis, aduersariae suae constitutam aedem uideret! Haec uana ridentibus nobis illi docti sapientesque stomachantur, et tamen numinum bonorum malorumque cultores de hac quaestione Concordiae Discordiaeque non exeunt, siue praetermiserint harum dearum cultum eisque Febrem Bellonamque praetulerint, quibus antiqua fana fecerunt, siue et istas coluerint, cum sic eos discedente Concordia Discordia saeuiens usque ad ciuilia bella perduxerit.

### Of the Various Kinds of Wars Which Followed the Building of the Temple of Concord.

[¶18] Chapter 26.—Of the Various Kinds of Wars Which Followed the Building of the Temple of Concord.

> Latin: Caput XXVI. De diuersis generibus belli, quae post conditam aedem Concordiae sunt secuta.

[¶19] But they supposed that, in erecting the temple of Concord within the view of the orators, as a memorial of the punishment and death of the Gracchi, they were raising an effectual obstacle to sedition. How much effect it had, is indicated by the still more deplorable wars that followed. For after this the orators endeavored not to avoid the example of the Gracchi, 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 the social wars by which Italy was grievously injured, and reduced to a piteously desolate and wasted condition. Then followed the servile war and the civil wars; and in them what battles were fought, and what blood was shed, so that almost all the peoples of 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 war was begun by a very few, certainly less than seventy gladiators, what numbers of fierce and cruel men attached themselves to these, how many of the Roman generals this band defeated, and how it laid waste many districts and cities. And that was not the only servile war: the province of Macedonia, and subsequently Sicily and the sea-coast, were also depopulated by bands of slaves. And who can adequately describe either the horrible atrocities which the pirates first committed, or the wars they afterwards maintained against Rome?

> Latin: Praeclarum uero seditionis obstaculum aedem Concordiae, testem caedis suppliciique Gracchorum, contionantibus obponendam putarunt. Quantum ex hoc profecerint, indicant secuta peiora. Laborarunt enim deinceps contionatores non exemplum deuitare Gracchorum, sed superare propositum, L. Saturninus tribunus plebis et G. Seruilius praetor et multo post M. Drusus, quorum omnium seditionibus caedes primo iam tunc grauissimae, deinde socialia bella exarserunt, quibus Italia uehementer adflicta et ad uastitatem mirabilem desertionemque perducta est. ‘Bellum deinde seruile successit et bella ciuilia. Quae proelia commissa sunt, quid sanguinis fusum, ut omnes fere Italae gentes, quibus Romanum maxime praepollebat imperium, tamquam saeua barbaries domarentur! Iam ex paucissimis, hoc est minus quam septuaginta, gladiatoribus quem ad modum bellum seruile contractum sit, ad quantum numerum et quam acrem ferocemque peruenerit, quos ille numerus imperatores populi Romani superauerit, quas et quo modo ciuitates regionesque uastauerit, uix qui historiam conscripserunt satis explicare potuerunt. Neque id solum fuit seruile bellum, sed et Macedoniam prouinciam prius seruitia depopulata sunt et deinde Siciliam oramque maritimam. Quanta etiam et quam horrenda commiserint primo latrocinia, deinde ualida bella piratarum, quis pro magnitudine rerum ualeat eloqui?

### Of the Civil War Between Marius and Sylla.

[¶21] Chapter 27.—Of the Civil War Between Marius and Sylla.

> Latin: Caput XXVII. De bello ciuili Mariano adque Syllano.

[¶22] But when Marius, stained with the blood of his fellow-citizens, whom the rage of party had sacrificed, was in his turn vanquished and driven from the city, it had scarcely time to breathe freely, when, to use the words of Cicero, “Cinna and Marius together returned and took possession of it. Then, indeed, the foremost men in the state were put to death, its lights quenched. Sylla afterwards avenged this cruel victory; but we need not say with what loss of life, and with what ruin to the republic.” For of this vengeance, which was more destructive than if the crimes which it punished had been committed with impunity, Lucan says: “The cure was excessive, and too closely resembled the disease. The guilty perished, but when none but the guilty survived: and then private hatred and anger, unbridled by law, were allowed free indulgence.” In that war between Marius and Sylla, besides those who fell in the field of battle, the city, too, was filled with corpses in its streets, squares, markets, theatres, and temples; so that it is not easy to reckon whether the victors slew more before or after victory, that they might be, or because they were, victors. As soon as Marius triumphed, and returned from exile, besides the butcheries everywhere perpetrated, the head of the consul Octavius was exposed on the rostrum; Cæsar and Fimbria were assassinated in their own houses; the two Crassi, father and son, were murdered in one another’s sight; Bebius and Numitorius were disembowelled by being dragged with hooks; Catulus escaped the hands of his enemies 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 answer by giving his hand, was at once cut down before his face.

> Latin: Cum uero Marius ciuili sanguine iam cruentus multis aduersarum sibi partium peremtis uictus Urbe profugisset, uix paululum respirante ciuitate, ut uerbis Tullianis utar, ‘superauit postea Cinna cum Mario. Tum uero clarissimis uiris interfectis lumina ciuitatis extincta sunt. Ultus est huius uictoriae crudelitatem postea Sylla, ne dici quidem opus est quanta deminutione ciuium et quanta calamitate rei publicae). De hac enim uindicta, quae perniciosior fuit, quam si scelera quae puniebantur inpunita relinquerentur, ait et Lucanus: Excessit medicina modum nimiumque secuta est, Qua morbi duxere manum. Periere nocentes; Sed cum iam soli possent superesse nocentes. Illo bello Mariano adque Syllano exceptis his, qui foris in acie ceciderunt, in ipsa quoque Urbe cadaueribus uici plateae fora, theatra templa conpleta sunt, ut difficile iudicaretur, quando uictores plus funerum ediderint, utrum prius ut uincerent, an postea quia uicissent; cum primum uictoria Mariana, quando de exilio se ipse restituit, exceptis passim quaqua uersum caedibus factis caput Octauii consulis poneretur in rostris, Caesares a Fimbria domibus trucidarentur suis, duo Crassi pater et filius in conspectu mutuo mactarentur, Baebius et Numitorius unco tracti sparsis uisceribus interirent, Catulus hausto ueneno se manibus inimicorum subtraheret, Merula flamen Dialis praecisis uenis Ioui etiam suo sanguine litaret. In ipsius autem Marii oculis continuo feriebantur, quibus salutantibus dexteram porrigere noluisset.

## 19. Of the Victory of Sylla, the Avenger of the Cruelties of Marius.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/19/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/19/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 28.—Of the Victory of Sylla, the Avenger of the Cruelties of Marius.

> Latin: Caput XXVIII. Qualis fuerit Syllana uictoria, uindex Marianae crudelitatis.

[¶1] Then followed the victory of Sylla, the so-called avenger of the 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 the war. To the former and still recent massacres of the elder Marius, the younger Marius and Carbo, who belonged to the same party, added greater atrocities. For when Sylla approached, and they despaired not only of victory, but of life itself, they made a promiscuous massacre of friends and foes. And, not satisfied with staining every corner of Rome with blood, they besieged the senate, and led forth the senators to death from the curia as from a prison. Mucius Scævola the pontiff was slain at the altar of Vesta, which he had clung to because no spot in Rome was more sacred than her temple; and his blood well-nigh extinguished the fire which was kept alive by the constant care of the virgins. Then Sylla entered the 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 rage of peace itself, even after the rage of war was extinct. Moreover, throughout the whole city every partisan of Sylla slew whom he pleased, so that the number of deaths went beyond computation, till it was suggested to Sylla that he should allow some to survive, that the victors might not be destitute of subjects. Then this furious and promiscuous licence to murder was checked, and much relief was expressed at the publication of the proscription list, containing though it did the death-warrant 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 the grief at the numbers slain so great as the joy that the rest were secure. But this very security, hard-hearted as it was, could not but bemoan the exquisite torture applied to some of those who had been doomed to die. For one was torn to pieces by the unarmed hands of the executioners; men treating a living man more savagely than wild beasts are used to tear an abandoned corpse. Another had his eyes dug out, and his limbs cut away bit by bit, and was forced to live a long while, or rather to die a long while, in such torture. Some celebrated cities were put up to auction, like farms; and one was collectively condemned to slaughter, just as an individual criminal would be condemned to death. These things were done in peace when the war was over, not that victory might be more speedily obtained, but that, after being obtained, it might not be thought lightly of. Peace vied with war in cruelty, and surpassed it: for while war overthrew armed hosts, peace slew the defenceless. War gave liberty to him who was attacked, to strike if he could; peace granted to the survivors not life, but an unresisting death.

> Latin: Syllana uero uictoria secuta, huius uidelicet uindex crudelitatis, post tantum sanguinem ciuium, quo fuso fuerat conparata, finito iam bello inimicitiis uiuentibus crudelius in pace grassata est. lam etiam post Marii maioris pristinas ac recentissimas caedes additae fuerant aliae grauiores a Mario iuuene adque Carbone earundem partium Marianarum, qui Sylla inminente non solum uictoriam, uerum etiam ipsam desperantes salutem cuncta suis aliis caedibus inpleuerunt. Nam praeter stragem late per diuersa diffusam obsesso etiam senatu de ipsa curia, tamquam de carcere, producebantur ad gladium. Mucius Scaeuola pontifex, quoniam nihil aput Romanos templo Vestae sanctius habebatur, aram ipsam amplexus occisus est, ignemque illum, qui perpetua uirginum cura semper ardebat, suo paene sanguine extinxit. Urbem deinde Sylla uictor intrauit, qui in uilla publica non iam bello, sed ipsa pace saeuiente septem milia deditorum (unde utique inermia) non pugnando, sed iubendo prostrauerat. In Urbe autem tota quem uellet Syllanus quisque feriebat, unde tot funera numerari omnino non poterant, donec Syllae suggereretur sinendos esse aliquos uiuere, ut essent quibus possent imperare qui uicerant. Tunc iam cohibita quae hac adque iliac passim furibunda ferebatur licentia iugulandi, tabula illa cum magna gratulatione proposita est, quae hominum ex utroque ordine splendido, equestri scilicet adque senatorio, occidendorum ac proscribendorum duo milia continebat. Contristabat numerus, sed consolabatur modus; nec quia tot cadebant tantum erat maeroris, quantum laetitiae quia ceteri non timebant. Sed in quibusdam eorum, qui mori iussi erant, etiam ipsa licet crudelis ceterorum securitas genera mortium exquisita congemuit. Quendam enim sine ferro laniantium manus diripuerunt, inmanius homines • hominem uiuum, quam bestiae solent discerpere cadauer abiectum. Alius oculis effossis et particulatim membris amputatis in tantis cruciatibus diu uiuere uel potius diu mori coactus est. Subhastatae sunt etiam, tamquam uillae, quaedam nobiles ciuitates; una uero, uelut unus reus duci iuberetur, sic tota iussa est trucidari. Haec facta sunt in pace post bellum, non ut acceleraretur obtinenda uictoria, sed ne contemneretur obtenta. Pax cum bello de crudelitate certauit et uicit. Illud enim prostrauit armatos, ista nudatos. Bellum erat, ut qui feriebatur, si posset, feriret; pax autem, non ut qui euaserat uiueret, sed ut moriens non repugnaret.

### A Comparison of the Disasters Which Rome Experienced During the Gothic and Gallic Invasions, with Those Occasioned by the Authors of the Civil Wars.

[¶3] Chapter 29.—A Comparison of the Disasters Which Rome Experienced During the Gothic and Gallic Invasions, with Those Occasioned by the Authors of the Civil Wars.

> Latin: Caput XXIX. De conparatione Gothicae inruptionis cum eis cladibus, quas Romani uel a Gallis uel a bellorum ciuilium auctoribus acceperunt.

[¶4] What fury of foreign nations, what barbarian ferocity, can compare with this victory of citizens over citizens? Which was more disastrous, more hideous, more bitter to Rome: the recent Gothic and the old Gallic invasion, or the cruelty displayed by Marius and Sylla and their partisans against men who were members of the same body as themselves? The Gauls, indeed, massacred all the senators they found in any part of the city except the Capitol, which alone was defended; but they at least sold life to those who were in the Capitol, though they might have starved them out if they could not have stormed it. The Goths, again, spared so many senators, that it is the more surprising that they killed any. But Sylla, while Marius was still living, established himself as conqueror in the Capitol, which the Gauls had not violated, and thence issued his death-warrants; and when Marius had escaped by flight, though destined to return more fierce and bloodthirsty than ever, Sylla issued from the Capitol even decrees of the senate for the slaughter and confiscation of the property of many citizens. Then, when Sylla left, what did the Marian faction hold sacred or spare, when they gave no quarter even to Mucius, a citizen, a senator, a pontiff, and though clasping in piteous embrace the very altar in which, they say, reside the destinies of Rome? And that final proscription list of Sylla’s, not to mention countless other massacres, despatched more senators than the Goths could even plunder.

> Latin: Quae rabies exterarum gentium, quae saeuitia barbarorum huic de ciuibus uictoriae ciuium conparari potest? Quid Roma funestius taetrius amariusque uidit, utrum olim Gallorum et paulo ante Gothorum inruptionem, an Marii et Syllae aliorumque in eorum partibus uirorum clarissimorum tamquam suorum luminum in sua membra ferocitatem? Galli quidem trucidauerunt senatum, quidquid eius in Urbe tota praeter arcem Capitolinam, quae sola utcumque defensa est, reperire potuerunt; sed in illo colle constitutis auro uitam saltem uendiderunt, quam etsi ferro rapere non possent, possent tamen obsidione consumere: Gothi uero tam multis senatoribus pepercerunt. ut magis mirum sit quod aliquos peremerunt. At uero Sylla uiuo adhuc Mario ipsum Capitolium, quod a Gallis tutum fuit, ad decernendas caedes uictor insedit, et cum fuga Marius elapsus esset ferocior cruentiorque rediturus,. iste in Capitolio per senatus etiam consultum multos uita rebusque priuauit : Marianis autem partibus Sylla absente quid sanctum cui parcerent fuit, quando Mucio ciui senatori pontifici aram ipsam, ubi erant ut aiunt fata Romana, miseris ambienti amplexibus non pepercerunt? Syllana porro tabula illa postrema, ut omittamus alias innumerabiles mortes, plures iugulauit senatores, quam Gothi uel spoliare potuerunt.

### Of the Connection of the Wars Which with Great Severity and Frequency Followed One Another Before the Advent of Christ.

[¶6] Chapter 30.—Of the Connection of the Wars Which with Great Severity and Frequency Followed One Another Before the Advent of Christ.

> Latin: Caput XXX. De conexione bellorum, quae aduentum Christi plurima et grauissima praecesserunt.

[¶7] With what effrontery, then, with what assurance, with what impudence, with what folly, or rather insanity, do they refuse to impute these disasters to their own gods, and impute the present 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, but absolutely ruinous to the republic, began long before the coming of Christ, and gave birth to one another; so that a concatenation of unjustifiable causes led from the wars of Marius and Sylla to those of Sertorius and Cataline, of whom the one was proscribed, the other brought up by Sylla; from this to the war of Lepidus and Catulus, of whom the one wished to rescind, the other to defend the acts of Sylla; from this to the war of Pompey and Cæsar, of whom Pompey had been a partisan of Sylla, whose power he equalled or even surpassed, while Cæsar condemned Pompey’s power because it was not his own, and yet exceeded it when Pompey was defeated and slain. From him the chain of civil wars extended to the second Cæsar, afterwards called Augustus, and in whose reign Christ was born. For even Augustus himself waged many civil wars; and in these wars many of the foremost men perished, among them that skilful manipulator of the republic, Cicero. Caius [Julius] Cæsar, when he had conquered Pompey, though he used his victory with clemency, and granted to men of the opposite faction both life and honors, was suspected of aiming at royalty, and was assassinated in the curia by a party of noble senators, who had conspired to defend the liberty of the republic. His power was then coveted by Antony, a man of very different character, polluted and debased by every kind of vice, who was strenuously resisted by Cicero on the same plea of defending the liberty of the republic. At this juncture that other Cæsar, the adopted son of Caius, and afterwards, as I said, known by the name of Augustus, had made his début as a young man of remarkable genius. This youthful Cæsar was favored by Cicero, in order that his influence might counteract that of Antony; for he hoped that Cæsar would overthrow and blast the power of Antony, and establish a free state,—so blind and unaware of the future was he: for that very young man, whose advancement and influence he was fostering, allowed Cicero to be killed as the seal of an alliance with Antony, and subjected to his own rule the very liberty of the republic in defence of which he had made so many orations.

> Latin: Qua igitur fronte quo corde, qua inpudentia qua insipientia uel potius amentia illa dis suis non inputant, et haec nostio inputant Christo? Crudelia bella ciuilia, omnibus bellis hostilibus, auctoribus etiam eorum fatentibus, amariora, quibus illa res publica nec adflicta, sed omnino perdita iudicata est, longe ante aduentum Christi exorta sunt, et sceleratarum concatenatione causarum a bello Mariano adque Syllano ad bella Sertorii et Catilinae (quorum a Sylla fuerat ille proscriptus, ille nutritus), inde ad Lepidi et Catuli bellum (quorum alter gesta Syllana rescindere, alter defendere cupiebat), inde ad Pompei et Caesaris (quorum Pompeius sectator Syllae fuerat eiusque potentiam uel aequauerat uel iam etiam superauerat; Caesar autem Pompei potentiam non ferebat, sed quia non habebat. quam tamen illo uicto interfectoque transcendit), hinc ad alium Caesarem, qui post Augustus appellatus est, peruenerunt, quo imperante natus est Christus. Nam et ipse Augustus cum multis gessit bella ciuilia, et in eis etiam multi clarissimi uiri perierunt, inter quos et Cicero, ille disertus artifex rei publicae regendae. Pompei quippe uictorem Gaium Caesarem, qui uictoriam ciuilem clementer exercuit suisque aduersariis uitam dignitatemque donauit, tamquam regni adpetitorem quorundam nobilium coniuratio senatorum uelut pro rei publicae libertate in ipsa curia trucidauit. Huius deinde potentiam multum moribus dispar uitiisque omnibus inquinatus adque corruptus adfectare uidebatur Antonius, cui uehementer pro eadem illa uelut patriae libertate Cicero resistebat. Tunc emerserat mirabilis indolis adulescens ille alius Caesar, illius Gai Caesaris filius adoptiuus, qui, ut dixi, postea est appellatus Augustus. Huic adulescenti Caesari, ut eius potentia contra Antonium nutriretur, Cicero fauebat, sperans eum depulsa et obpressa Antonii dominatione instauraturum rei publicae libertatem, usque adeo caecus adque inprouidus futurorum, ut ille ipse iuuenis, cuius dignitatem ac potestatem fouebat, et eundem Ciceronem occidendum Antonio quadam quasi concordiae pactione permitteret et ipsam libertatem rei publicae, pro qua multum ille clamauerat, dicioni propriae subiugaret.

### That It is Effrontery to Impute the Present Troubles to Christ and the Prohibition of Polytheistic Worship Since Even When the Gods Were Worshipped Such Calamities Befell the People.

[¶9] Chapter 31.—That It is Effrontery to Impute the Present Troubles to Christ and the Prohibition of Polytheistic Worship Since Even When the Gods Were Worshipped Such Calamities Befell the People.

> Latin: Caput XXXI. Quam inpudenter praesentia incommoda Christo inputent, qui deos colere non sinuntur, cum tantae clades eo tempore quo colebantur extiterint.

[¶10] Let those who have no gratitude to Christ for His great benefits, blame their own gods for these heavy disasters. For certainly when these occurred the altars of the gods were kept blazing, and there rose the mingled fragrance of “Sabæan incense and fresh garlands;” the priests were clothed with honor, the shrines were maintained in splendor; sacrifices, games, sacred ecstasies, were common in the temples; while the blood of the citizens was being so freely shed, not only in remote places, but among the very altars of the gods. Cicero did not choose to seek sanctuary in a temple, because Mucius had sought it there in vain. But they who most unpardonably calumniate this Christian era, are the very men who either themselves fled for asylum to the places specially dedicated to Christ, or were led there by the barbarians that they might be safe. In short, not to recapitulate the many instances I have cited, and not to add to their number others which it were tedious to enumerate, this one thing I am persuaded of, and this every impartial judgment will readily acknowledge, that if the human race had received Christianity before the Punic wars, and if the same desolating calamities which these wars brought upon Europe and Africa had followed the introduction of Christianity, there is no one of those who now accuse us who would not have attributed them to our religion. How intolerable would their accusations have been, at least so far as the Romans are concerned, if the Christian religion had been received and diffused prior to the invasion of the Gauls, or to the ruinous floods and fires which desolated Rome, or to those most calamitous of all events, the civil wars! And those other disasters, which were of so strange a nature that they were reckoned prodigies, had they happened since the Christian era, to whom but to the Christians would they have imputed these as crimes? I do not speak of those things which were rather surprising than hurtful,—oxen speaking, unborn infants articulating some words in their mothers’ wombs, serpents flying, hens and women being changed into the other sex; and other similar prodigies which, whether true or 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 rained stones—not hailstones, but real stones—this certainly was calculated to do serious damage. We have read in their books that the fires of Etna, pouring down from the top of the mountain to the neighboring shore, caused the sea to boil, so that rocks were burnt up, and the pitch of ships began to run,—a phenomenon incredibly surprising, but at the same time no less hurtful. By the same violent heat, they relate that on another occasion Sicily was filled with cinders, so that the houses of the city Catina were destroyed and buried under them,—a calamity which moved the Romans to pity them, and remit their tribute for that year. One may also read that Africa, which had by that time become a province of Rome, was visited by a prodigious multitude of locusts, which, after consuming the fruit and foliage of the trees, were driven into the sea in one vast and measureless cloud; so that when they were drowned and cast upon the shore the air was polluted, and so serious a pestilence produced that in the kingdom of Masinissa alone they say there perished 800,000 persons, besides a much greater number in the neighboring 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 the Christian religion by those who thus thoughtlessly accuse us, and whom we are compelled to answer? And yet to their own gods they attribute none of these things, though they worship them for the sake of escaping lesser calamities of the same kind, and do not reflect that they who formerly worshipped them were not preserved from these serious disasters.

> Latin: Deos suos accusent de tantis malis, qui Christo nostro ingrati sunt de tantis bonis. Certe quando illa mala fiebant, calebant arae numinum Sabaeo thure sertisque recentibus halabant, clarebant sacerdotia, fana renidebant, sacrificabatur ludebatur furebatur in templis, quando passim tantus ciuium sanguis a ciuibus non modo in ceteris locis, uerum etiam inter ipsa deorum altaria fundebatur. Non elegit templum, quo confugeret Tullius, quia frustra elegerat Mucius. Hi uero qui multo indignius insultant temporibus Christianis, aut ad loca Christo dicatissima confugerunt, aut illuc eos ut uiuerent etiam ipsi barbari deduxerunt. Illud scio et hoc mecum, quisquis sine studio partium iudicat; facillime agnoscit (ut omittam cetera quae multa commemoraui et alia multo plura quae commemorare longum putaui;: si humanum genus ante bella Punica Christianam reciperet disciplinam et consequeretur rerum tanta uastatio, quanta illis bellis Europam Africamque contriuit, nullus talium, quales nunc patimur, nisi Christianae religioni mala illa tribuisset. Multo autem minus eorum uoces tolerarentur, quantum adtinet ad Romanos, si Christianae religionis receptionem et diffamationem uel inruptio Gallorum uel Tiberini fluminis igniumque illa depopulatio uel, quod cuncta mala praecedit, bella illa ciuilia sequerentur. Mala etiam alia, quae usque adeo incredibiliter acciderunt, ut inter prodigia numerarentur, si Christianis temporibus accidissent, quibus ea nisi Christianis hominibus tamquam crimina obicerent? Omitto quippe illa, quae magis fuerunt mira quam noxia, boues locutos, infantes nondum natos de uteris matrum uerba quaedam clamasse, uolasse serpentes, feminas et gallinas [et homines] in masculinum sexum fuisse conuersas et cetera huius modi, quae in eorum libris non fabulosis, sed historicis, seu uera seu falsa sint, non inferunt hominibus perniciem, sed stuporem. Sed cum pluit terra, cum pluit creta, cum pluit lapidibus (non ut grando appellari solet hoc nomine, sed omnino lapidibus), haec profecto etiam grauiter laedere potuerunt. Legimus aput eos Aetnaeis ignibus ab ipso montis uertice usque ad litus proximum decurrentibus ita mare ferbuisse, ut rupes urerentur, ut pices nauium soluerentur. Hoc utique non leuiter noxium fuit, quamuis incredibiliter mirum. Eodem rursus aestu ignium tanta ui fauillae scripserunt obpletam esse Siciliam, ut Catinensis urbis tecta obruta et pressa dirueret; qua calamitate permoti misericorditer eiusdem anni tributum ei relaxauere Romani. Lucustarum etiam in Africa multitudinem prodigii similem fuisse, cum iam esset populi Romani prouincia, litteris mandauerunt; consumtis enim fructibus foliisque lignorum ingenti adque inaestimabili nube in mare dicunt esse deiectam; qua mortua redditaque litoribus adque hinc aere corrupto tantam ortam pestilentiam, ut in solo regno Masinissae octingenta hominum milia perisse referantur et multo amplius in terris litoribus proximis. Tunc Uticae ex triginta milibus iuniorum, quae ibi erant, decem milia remansisse confirmant. Talis itaque uanitas, qualem ferimus eique respondere conpellimur, quid horum non Christianae religioni tribueret, si temporibus Christianis uideret? Et tamen dis suis ista non tribuunt, quorum cultum ideo requirunt, ne ista uel minora patiantur, cum ea maiora pertulerint a quibus antea colebantur.

### That empire was given to Rome not by the gods, but by the One True God.

[¶12] Book IV.

> Latin: Liber IV

[¶13] Argument—In this book it is proved that the extent and long duration of the Roman empire is to be ascribed, not to Jove or the gods of the heathen, to whom individually scarce even single things and the very basest functions were believed to be entrusted, but to the one true God, the author of felicity, by whose power and judgment earthly kingdoms are founded and maintained.

### Of the Things Which Have Been Discussed in the First Book.

[¶15] Chapter 1.—Of the Things Which Have Been Discussed in the First Book.

> Latin: Caput I. De his, quae primo uolumine disputata sunt.

[¶16] Having begun to speak of the city of God, I have thought it necessary first of all to reply to its enemies, who, eagerly pursuing earthly joys and gaping after transitory things, 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 there is among them also an unlearned rabble, they are stirred up as 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 in other 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 have just cause for murmuring against us, it was necessary, from books in which their authors recorded and published the history of bygone times that it might be known, to demonstrate that it is far otherwise than they think; and at the same time 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 a pitch that they take delight in crimes which, whether real or only fictitious, are yet their own, which it has been their will to have celebrated in honor 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 furnished for imitating them that seems even divine. These things we have proved, not from our own conjectures, but partly from recent memory, because we ourselves have seen such things celebrated, and to such deities, partly from the writings of those who have left these things on record to posterity, not as if in reproach but as in honor of their own gods. Thus Varro, a most learned man among them, and of the weightiest authority, when he made separate books concerning things human and things divine, distributing some among the human, others among the divine, according to the special dignity of each, placed the scenic plays not at all among things human, but among things divine; though, certainly, if only there were good and honest men in the state, the scenic plays ought not to be allowed even among things human. And this he did not on his own authority, but because, being born and educated at Rome, he found them among the divine things. Now as we briefly stated in the end of the first book what we intended afterwards to discuss, and as we have disposed of a part of this in the next two books, we see what our readers will expect us now to take up.

> Latin: De ciuitate Dei dicere exorsus prius respondendum putaui eius inimicis, qui terrena gaudia consectantes rebusque fugacibus inhiantes, quidquid in eis triste misericordia potius admonentis Dei quam punientis seueritate patiuntur, religioni increpitant Christianae, quae una est salubris et uera religio. Et quoniam, cum sit in eis etiam uulgus indoctum, uelut doctorum auctoritate in odium nostrum grauius inritantur, existimantibus inperitis ea, quae suis temporibus insolite acciderint, per alia retro tempora accidere non solere, eorumque opinionem etiam his, qui eam falsam esse nouerunt, ut aduersum nos iusta murmura habere uideantur, suae scientiae dissimulatione firmantibus: de libris, quos auctores eorum ad cognoscendam praeteritorum temporum historiam memoriae mandauerunt, longe aliter esse quam putant demonstrandum fuit et simul docendum deos falsos, quos uel palam colebant uel occulte adhuc colunt, eos esse inmundissimos spiritus et malignissimos ac fallacissimos daemones, usque adeo, ut aut ueris aut fictis etiam, suis tamen criminibus delectentur, quae sibi celebrari per sua festa uoluerunt, ut a perpetrandis damnabilibus factis humana reuocari non possit infirmitas, dum ad haec imitanda uelut diuina praebetur auctoritas. Haec non ex nostra coniectura probauimus, sed partim ex recenti memoria, quia et ipsi uidimus talia ac talibus numinibus exhiberi, partim ex litteris eorum, qui non tamquam in contumeliam, sed tamquam in honorem deorum suorum ista conscripta posteris reliquerunt, ita ut uir doctissimus aput eos Varro et grauissimae auctoritatis, cum rerum humanarum adque diuinarum dispertitos faceret libros, alios humanis, alios diuinis pro sua cuiusque rei dignitate distribuens non saltem in rebus humanis, sed in rebus diuinis ludos scaenicos poneret, cum utique, si tantummodo boni et honesti homines in ciuitate essent, nec in rebus humanis ludi scaenici esse debuissent Quod profecto non auctoritate sua fecit, sed quoniam eos Romae natus et educatus in diuinis rebus inuenit. Et quoniam in fine primi libri, quae deinceps dicenda essent, breuiter posuimus et ex his quaedam in duobus consequentibus diximus, expectationi legentium quae restant reddenda cognoscimus.

### Of Those Things Which are Contained in Books Second and Third.

[¶18] Chapter 2.—Of Those Things Which are Contained in Books Second and Third.

> Latin: Caput II. De his, quae libro secundo et tertio continentur.

[¶19] We had promised, then, that we would say something against 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 deem sufficient, which that city, or the provinces belonging to its empire, 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 thus prohibited their sacrilegious rites. These things we have, as we think, fully disposed of in the second and third books, treating in the second of evils in morals, which alone or chiefly are to be accounted evils; and in the third, of those which only fools dread to undergo—namely, those of the body or of outward things—which for the most part the good also suffer. But those evils by which they themselves become evil, they take, I do not say patiently, but with pleasure. And how few evils have I related concerning that one city and its empire! 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 earthly things, from the elements of the world itself. Of such evils Apuleius speaks briefly in one passage of that book which he wrote, De Mundo, saying that all earthly things are subject to change, overthrow, and destruction. For, to use his own words, 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; those also which formerly had been continents, have been insulated by strange and new-come waves, and others, by the subsiding of the sea, have been made passable by the foot of man: by winds and storms cities have been overthrown; fires have flashed forth from the clouds, by which regions in the East being burnt up have perished; and on the western coasts the like destructions have been caused by the bursting forth of waters and floods. So, formerly, from the lofty craters of Etna, rivers of fire kindled by God have flowed like a torrent down the steeps. If I had wished to collect from history wherever I could, these and similar instances, where should I have finished what happened even in those times before the name of Christ had put down those of their idols, so vain and hurtful to true salvation? I promised that I should also point out which of their customs, and for what cause, the true God, in whose power all kingdoms are, had deigned to favor to the enlargement of their empire; and how those whom they think gods can have profited them nothing, but much rather hurt them by deceiving and beguiling them; so that it seems to me I must now speak of these things, and chiefly of the increase of the Roman empire. For I have already said not a little, especially in the second book, about the many evils introduced into their manners by the hurtful deceits of the demons whom they worshipped as gods. But throughout all the three books already completed, where it appeared suitable, we have set forth how much succor God, through the name of Christ, to whom the barbarians beyond the custom of war paid so much honor, has bestowed on the good and bad, according as it is written, “Who maketh His sun to rise on the good and the evil, and giveth rain to the just and the unjust.”

> Latin: Promiseramus ergo quaedam nos esse dicturos aduersus eos, qui Romanae rei publicae clades in religionem nostram referunt, et commemoraturos quaecumque et quantacumque occurrere potuissent uel satis esse uiderentur mala, quae illa ciuitas pertulit uel ad eius imperium prouinciae pertinentes, antequam eorum sacrificia prohibita fuissent; quae omnia procul dubio nobis tribuerent, si iam uel illis clareret nostra religio uel ita eos a sacris sacrilegis prohiberet. Haec in secundo et tertio libro satis, quantum existimo, absoluimus, in secundo agentes de malis morum, quae mala uel sola uel maxima deputanda sunt, in tertio autem de his malis, quae stulti sola perpeti exhorrent, corporis uidelicet externarumque rerum, quae plerumque patiuntur et boni; illa uero mala non dico patienter, sed libenter habent, quibus ipsi fiunt mali. Et quam pauca dixi de sola ipsa ciuitate adque eius imperio! nec inde omnia usque ad Caesarem Augustum. Quid, si commemorare uoluissem et exaggerare illa mala, quae non sibi inuicem homines faciunt, sicut sunt uastationes euersionesque bellantum, sed ex ipsius mundi elementis terrenis accidunt rebus, quae uno loco Apuleius breuiter stringit in eo libello quem de mundo scripsit, terrena omnia dicens mutationes, conuersiones et interitus habere? Namque inmodicis tremoribus terrarum, ut uerbis eius utar, dissiluisse humum et interceptas urbes cum populis dicit; abruptis etiam imbribus prolutas totas esse regiones; illas etiam, quae prius fuerant continentes, hospitibus adque aduenis fluctibus insulatas aliasque desidia maris pedestri accessu peruias factas; uentis ac procellis euersas esse ciuitates; incendia de nubibus emicasse, quibus Orientis regiones conflagratae perierunt, et in Occidentis plagis scaturrigines quasdam ac proluuiones easdem strages dedisse; sic ex Aetnae uerticibus quondam effusis crateribus diuino incendio per decliuia torrentis uice flammarum flumina cucurrisse. Si haec adque huius modi, quae habet historia, unde possem, colligere uoluissem, quando finissem, quae illis temporibus euenerunt, antequam Christi nomen ulla istorum uana et uerae saluti perniciosa conprimeret. Promiseram etiam me demonstraturum, quos eorum mores et quam ob causam Deus uerus ad augendum imperium adiuuare dignatus est, in cuius potestate sunt regna omnia, quamque nihil eos adiuuerint hi, quos deos putant, et potius quantum decipiendo et fallendo nocuerint: unde nunc uideo mihi esse dicendum, et magis de incrementis imperii Romani. Nam de noxia fallacia daemonum, quos uelut deos colebant, quantum malorum inuexerit moribus eorum, in secundo maxime libro non pauca iam dicta sunt. Per omnes autem absolutos tres libros, ubi opportunum uisum est, commendauimus, etiam in ipsis bellicis malis quantum solaciorum Deus per Christi nomen, cui tantum honoris barbari detulerunt praeter bellorum morem, bonis malisque contulerit, quo modo qui facit solem suum oriri super bonos et malos et pluit super iustos et iniustos.

### 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.

[¶21] Chapter 3.—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.

> Latin: Caput III. An latitudo imperii, quae non nisi bellis ad adquiritur, in bonis siue sapientium habenda sit siue felicium.

[¶22] Now, therefore, let us see how it is that they dare to ascribe the very great extent and duration of the Roman empire to those gods whom they contend that they worship honorably, even by the obsequies of vile games and the ministry of vile men: although I should like first to inquire for a little what reason, what prudence, there is in wishing to glory in the greatness and extent of the empire, when you cannot point out the happiness of men who are always rolling, with dark fear and cruel lust, in warlike slaughters and in blood, which, whether shed in civil or foreign war, is still human blood; so that their joy may be compared to glass in its fragile splendor, of which one is horribly afraid lest it should be suddenly broken in pieces. That this may be more easily discerned, let us not come to nought by being carried away with empty boasting, or blunt the edge of our attention by 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 it were the element of a city or kingdom, however far-spreading in its occupation of the earth. Of these two men let us suppose that one is poor, or rather of middling circumstances; the other very rich. But the rich man is anxious with fears, pining with discontent, burning with covetousness, never se cure, always uneasy, panting from the perpetual strife of his enemies, adding to his patrimony indeed by these miseries to an immense degree, and by these additions also heaping up most bitter cares. But that other man of moderate wealth is contented with a small and compact estate, most dear to his own family, enjoying the sweetest peace with his kindred neighbors and friends, in piety religious, benignant in mind, healthy in body, in life frugal, in manners chaste, in conscience secure. I know not whether any one can be such a fool, that he dare hesitate which to prefer. As, therefore, in the case of these two men, so in two families, in two nations, in two kingdoms, this test of tranquility holds good; and if we apply it vigilantly and without prejudice, we shall quite easily see where the mere show of happiness dwells, and where real felicity. Wherefore if the true God is worshipped, and if He is served with genuine rites and true virtue, it is advantageous that good men should long reign both far and wide. Nor is this advantageous so much to themselves, as to those over whom they reign. For, so far as concerns themselves, their piety and probity, which are great gifts of God, suffice to give them true felicity, enabling them to live well the life that now is, and afterwards to receive that which is eternal. In this world, therefore, the dominion of good men is profitable, not so much for themselves as for human affairs. But the dominion of bad men is hurtful chiefly to themselves who rule, for they destroy their own souls by greater license in wickedness; while those who are put under them in service are not hurt except by their own iniquity. For to the just all the evils imposed on them by unjust rulers are not the punishment of crime, but the test of virtue. Therefore the good man, although he is a slave, is free; but the bad man, even if he reigns, is a slave, and that not of one man, but, what is far more grievous, of as many masters as he has vices; of which vices when the divine Scripture treats, it says, “For of whom any man is overcome, to the same he is also the bond-slave.”

> Latin: Iam itaque uideamus, quale sit quod tantam latitudinem ac diuturnitatem imperii Romani illis dis audent tribuere, quos etiam per turpium ludorum obsequia et per turpium hominum ministeria se honeste coluisse contendunt. Quamquam uellem prius paululum inquirere, quae sit ratio, quae prudentia, cum hominum felicitatem non possis ostendere, semper in bellicis cladibus et in sanguine ciuili uel hostili, tamen humano cum tenebroso timore et cruenta cupiditate uersantium, ut uitrea laetitia conparetur fragiliter splendida, cui timeatur horribilius ne repente frangatur, de imperii latitudine ac magnitudine uelle gloriari. Hoc ut facilius diiudicetur, non uanescamus inani uentositate iactati adque obtundamus intentionis aciem altisonis uocabulis rerum, cum audimus populos regna prouincias; sed duos constituamus homines (nam singulus quisque homo, ut in sermone una littera, ita quasi elementum est ciuitatis et regni, quantalibet terrarum occupatione latissimi), quorum duorum hominum unum pauperem uel potius mediocrem, alium praediuitem cogitemus; sed diuitem timoribus anxium, maeroribus tabescentem, cupiditate flagrantem, numquam securum, semper inquietum, perpetuis inimicitiarum contentionibus anhelantem, augentem sane his miseriis patrimonium suum in inmensum modum adque illis augmentis curas quoque amarissimas aggerantem; mediocrem uero illum re familiari parua adque succincta sibi sufficientem, carissimum suis, cum cognatis uicinis amicis dulcissima pace gaudentem, pietate religiosum, benignum mente, sanum corpore, uita parcum, moribus castum, conscientia securum. Nescio utrum quisquam ita desipiat, ut audeat dubitare quem praeferat. Ut ergo in his duobus hominibus, ita in duabus familiis, ita in duobus populis, ita in duobus regnis regula sequitur aequitatis, qua uigilanter adhibita si nostra intentio corrigatur, facillime uidebimus ubi habitet uanitas et ubi felicitas. Quapropter si uerus Deus colatur eique sacris ueracibus et bonis moribus seruiatur, utile est ut boni longe lateque diu ‘regnent; neque hoc tam ipsis quam illis utile est, quibus regnant. Nam quantum ad ipsos pertinet, pietas et probitas eorum, quae magna Dei dona sunt, sufficit eis ad ueram felicitatem, qua et ista uita bene agatur et postea percipiatur aeterna. In hac ergo terra regnum bonorum non tam illis praestatur quam rebus humanis; malorum uero regnum magis regnantibus nocet, qui suos animos uastant scelerum maiore licentia; his autem, qui eis seruiendo subduntur, non nocet nisi propria iniquitas. Nam iustis quidquid malorum ab iniquis dominis inrogatur, non est poena criminis, sed uirtutis examen. Proinde bonus etiamsi seruiat, liber est; malus autem etiamsi regnet, seruus est, nec unius hominis, sed, quod est grauius, tot dominorum quot uitiorum. De quibus uitiis cum ageret scriptura diuina: A quo enim quis, inquit, deuictus est, huic et seruus addictus est.

## 20. How Like Kingdoms Without Justice are to Robberies.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/20/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/20/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 4.—How Like Kingdoms Without Justice are to Robberies.

> Latin: Caput IV. Quam similia sint latrociniis regna absque iustitia.

[¶1] Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, “What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor.”

> Latin: Remota itaque iustitia quid sunt regna nisi magna latrocinia? quia et latrocinia quid sunt nisi parua regna? Manus et ipsa hominum est, imperio principis regitur, pacto societatis adstringitur, placiti lege praeda diuiditur. Hoc malum si in tantum perditorum hominum accessibus crescit, ut et loca teneat sedes constituat, ciuitates occupet populos subiuget, euidentius regni nomen adsumit, quod ei iam in manifesto confert non demta cupiditas, sed addita inpunitas. Eleganter enim et ueraciter Alexandro illi Magno quidam conprehensus pirata respondit. Nam cum idem rex hominem interrogaret, quid ei uideretur, ut mare haberet infestum, ille libera contumacia: Quod tibi, inquit, ut orbem terrarum; sed quia id ego exiguo nauigio facio, latro uocor; quia tu magna classe, imperator.

### Of the Runaway Gladiators Whose Power Became Like that of Royal Dignity.

[¶3] Chapter 5.—Of the Runaway Gladiators Whose Power Became Like that of Royal Dignity.

> Latin: Caput V. De fugitiuis gladiatoribus, quorum potentia similis fuerit regiae dignitati.

[¶4] I shall not therefore stay to inquire what sort of men Romulus gathered together, seeing he deliberated much about them,—how, being assumed out of that life they led into the fellowship of his city, they might cease to think of the punishment they deserved, the fear of which had driven them to greater villainies; so that henceforth they might be made more peaceable members of society. But this I say, that the Roman empire, which by subduing many nations had already grown great and an object of universal dread, was itself greatly alarmed, and only with much difficulty avoided a disastrous overthrow, because a mere handful of gladiators in Campania, escaping from the games, had recruited a great army, appointed three generals, and most widely and cruelly devastated Italy. Let them say what god aided these men, so that from a small and contemptible band of robbers they attained to a kingdom, feared even by the Romans, who had such great forces and fortresses. Or will they deny that they were divinely aided because they did not last long? As if, indeed, the life of any man whatever lasted long. In that case, too, the gods aid no one to reign, since all individuals quickly die; nor is sovereign power to be reckoned a benefit, because in a little time in every man, and thus in all of them one by one, it vanishes like a vapor. For what does it matter to those who worshipped the gods under Romulus, and are long since dead, that after their death the Roman empire has grown so great, while they plead their causes before the powers beneath? Whether those causes are good or bad, it matters not to the question before us. And this is to be understood of all those who carry with them the heavy burden of their actions, having in the few days of their life swiftly and hurriedly passed over the stage of the imperial office, although the office itself has lasted through long spaces of time, being filled by a constant succession of dying men. If, however, even those benefits which last only for the shortest time are to be ascribed to the aid of the gods, these gladiators were not a little aided, who broke the bonds of their servile condition, fled, escaped, raised a great and most powerful army, obedient to the will and orders of their chiefs and much feared by the Roman majesty, and remaining unsubdued by several Roman generals, seized many places, 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 with the utmost difficulty, lived sublime and dominant. But let us come to greater matters.

> Latin: Proinde omitto quaerere quales Romulus congregauerit, quoniam multum eis consultum est, ut ex illa uita dato sibi consortio ciuitatis poenas debitas cogitare desisterent, quarum metus eos in maiora facinora propellebat, ut deinceps pacatiores essent rebus humanis. Hoc dico, quod ipsum Romanum imperium iam magnum multis gentibus subiugatis ceterisque terribile acerbe sensit, grauiter timuit, non paruo negotio deuitandae ingentis cladis obpressit, quando paucissimi gladiatores in Campania de ludo fugientes magnum exercitum conpararunt, tres duces habuerunt, Italiam latissime et crudelissime uastauerunt. Dicant, quis istos deus adiuuerit, ut ex paruo et contemtibili latrocinio peruenirent ad regnum tantis iam Romanis uiribus arcibusque metuendum. An quia non diu fuerunt, ideo diuinitus negabuntur adiuti? Quasi uero ipsa cuiuslibet hominis uita diuturna est. Isto ergo pacto neminem di adiuuant ad regnandum, quoniam singuli quique cito moriuntur, nec beneficium deputandum est, quod exiguo tempore in unoquoque homine ac per hoc singillatim utique in omnibus uice uaporis euanescit. Quid enim interest eorum, qui sub Romulo deos coluerunt et olim sunt mortui, quod post eorum mortem Romanum tantum creuit imperium, cum illi aput inferos causas suas agant? utrum bonas an malas, ad rem praesentem non pertinet. Hoc autem de omnibus intellegendum est, qui per ipsum imperium (quamuis decedentibus succedentibusque mortalibus in longa spatia protendatur) paucis diebus uitae suae cursim raptimque transierunt, actuum suorum sarcinas baiulantes. Sin uero etiam ipsa breuissimi temporis beneficia deorum adiutorio tribuenda sunt, non parum adiuti sunt illi gladiatores: seruilis condicionis uincla ruperunt, fugerunt, euaserunt, exercitum magnum et fortissimum collegerunt, oboedientes regum suorum consiliis et iussis multum Romanae celsitudini metuendi et aliquot Romanis imperatoribus insuperabiles multa ceperunt, potiti sunt uictoriis plurimis, usi uoluptatibus quibus uoluerunt, quod suggessit libido fecerunt, postremo donec uincerentur, quod difficillime factum est, sublimes regnantesque uixerunt. Sed ad maiora ueniamus.

### Concerning the Covetousness of Ninus, Who Was the First Who Made War on His Neighbors, that He Might Rule More Widely.

[¶6] Chapter 6.—Concerning the Covetousness of Ninus, Who Was the First Who Made War on His Neighbors, that He Might Rule More Widely.

> Latin: Caput VI. De cupiditate Nini regis, qui ut latius dominaretur primus intulit bella finitimis.

[¶7] Justinus, who wrote Greek or rather foreign history in Latin, and briefly, like Trogus Pompeius whom he followed, begins his work thus: “In the beginning of the affairs of peoples and nations the government was in the hands of kings, who were raised to the height of this majesty not by courting the people, but by the knowledge good men had of their moderation. The people were held bound by no laws; the decisions of the princes were instead of laws. It was the custom to guard rather than to extend the boundaries of the empire; and kingdoms were kept within the bounds of each ruler’s native land. Ninus king of the Assyrians first of all, through new lust of empire, changed the old and, as it were, ancestral custom of nations. He first made war on his neighbors, and wholly subdued as far as to the frontiers of Libya the nations as yet untrained to resist.” And a little after he says: “Ninus established by constant possession the greatness of the authority he had gained. Having mastered his nearest neighbors, he went on to others, strengthened by the accession of forces, and by making each fresh victory the instrument of that which followed, subdued the nations of the whole East.” Now, with whatever fidelity to fact either he or Trogus may in general have written—for that they sometimes told lies is shown by other more trustworthy writers—yet it is agreed among other authors, that the kingdom of the Assyrians was extended 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 years from the first year in which Ninus began to reign, until it was transferred to the Medes. But to make war on your neighbors, and thence to proceed to others, and through mere lust of dominion to crush and subdue people who do you no harm, what else is this to be called than great robbery?

> Latin: Iustinus, qui Graecam uel potius peregrinam Trogum Pompeium secutus non Latine tantum, sicut ille, uerum etiam breuiter scripsit historiam, opus librorum suorum sic incipit: ‘Principio rerum gentium nationumque imperium penes reges erat, quos ad fastigium huius maiestatis non ambitio popularis, sed spectata inter bonos moderatio prouehebat. Populi nullis legibus tenebantur [arbitria principum pro legibus erant]; fines imperii tueri magis quam proferre mos erat; intra suam cuique patriam regna finiebantur. Primus omnium Ninus rex Assyriorum ueterem et quasi auitum gentibus morem noua imperii cupiditate mutauit. Hic primus intulit bella finitimis et rudes adhuc ad resistendum populos ad terminos usque Libyae perdomuit.’ Et paulo post: ‘Ninus, inquit, magnitudinem quaesitae dominationis continua possessione firmauit. Domitis igitur proximis cum accessione uirium fortior ad alios transiret et proxima quaeque uictoria instrumentum sequentis esset, totius Orientis populos subegit’. Qualibet autem fide rerum uel iste uel Trogus scripserit (nam quaedam illos fuisse mentitos aliae fideliores litterae ostendunt), constat tamen et inter alios scriptores regnum Assyriorum a Nino rege fuisse longe lateque porrectum. Tam diu autem perseuerauit, ut Romanum nondum sit eius aetatis. Nam sicut scribunt, qui chronicam historiam persecuti sunt, mille ducentos et quadraginta annos ab anno primo, quo Ninus regnare coepit, permansit hoc regnum, donec transferretur ad Medos. Inferre autem bella finitimis et in cetera inde procedere ac populos sibi non molestos sola regni cupiditate conterere et subdere, quid aliud quam grande latrocinium nominandum est?

### Whether Earthly Kingdoms in Their Rise and Fall Have Been Either Aided or Deserted by the Help of the Gods.

[¶9] Chapter 7.—Whether Earthly Kingdoms in Their Rise and Fall Have Been Either Aided or Deserted by the Help of the Gods.

> Latin: Caput VII. An regna terrena inter profectus suos adque defectus deorum iuuentur uel deserantur auxilio.

[¶10] If this kingdom was so great and lasting without the aid of the gods, why is the ample territory and long duration of the Roman empire to be ascribed to the Roman gods? For whatever is the cause in it, the same is in the other also. But if they contend that the prosperity of the other also is to be attributed to the aid of the gods, I ask of which? For the other nations whom Ninus overcame, did not then worship other gods. Or if the Assyrians had gods of their own, who, so to speak, were more skillful workmen in the construction and preservation of the empire, whether are they dead, since they themselves have also lost the empire; or, having been defrauded of their pay, or promised a greater, have they chosen rather to go over to the Medes, and from them again to the Persians, because Cyrus invited them, and promised them something 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, has preserved its own empire, and at this day occupies no small territories in the East. If this is so, then either the gods are unfaithful, who desert their own and go over to their enemies, which Camillus, who was but a man, did not do, when, being victor and subduer of a most hostile state, although he had felt that Rome, for whom he had done so much, was ungrateful, yet afterwards, forgetting the injury and remembering his native land, he freed her again from the Gauls; or they are not so strong as gods ought to be, since they can be overcome by human skill or strength. Or if, when they carry on war among themselves, the gods are not overcome by men, but some gods who are peculiar to certain cities are perchance overcome by other gods, it follows that they have quarrels among themselves which they uphold, each for his own part. Therefore a city ought not to worship its own gods, but rather others who aid their own worshippers. Finally, whatever may have been the case as to this change of sides, or flight, or migration, or failure in battle on the part of the gods, the name of Christ had not yet been proclaimed in those parts of the earth when these kingdoms were lost and transferred through great destructions in war. For if, after more than twelve hundred years, when the kingdom was taken away from the Assyrians, the Christian religion had there already preached another eternal kingdom, and put a stop to the sacrilegious worship of false gods, what else would the foolish men of that nation have said, but that the kingdom which had been so long preserved, could be lost for no other cause than the desertion of their own religions and the reception of Christianity? In which foolish speech that might have been uttered, let those we speak of observe their own likeness, and blush, if there is any sense of shame in them, because they have uttered similar complaints; although the Roman empire is afflicted rather than changed,—a thing which has befallen it in other times also, before the name of Christ was heard, and it has been restored after such affliction,—a thing which even in these times is not to be despaired of. For who knows the will of God concerning this matter?

> Latin: Si nullo deorum adiutorio tam magnum hoc regnum et prolixum fuit, quare dis Romanis tribuitur Romanum regnum locis amplum temporibusque diuturnum? Quaecumque enim causa est illa, eadem est etiam ista. Si autem et illud deorum adiutorio tribuendum esse contendunt, quaero quorum. Non enim aliae gentes, quas Ninus domuit et subegit, alios tunc colebant deos. Aut si proprios habuerunt Assyrii, quasi peritiores fabros imperii construendi adque seruandi, numquidnam mortui sunt, quando et ipsi imperium perdiderunt, aut mercede non sibi reddita uel alia maiore promissa ad Medos transire maluerunt, adque inde rursus ad Persas Cyro inuitante et aliquid commodius pollicente? Quae gens non angustis Orientis finibus post Alexandri Macedonis regnum magnum locis, sed breuissimum tempore in suo regno adhuc usque perdurat. Hoc si ita est, aut infideles di sunt, qui suos deserunt et ad hostes transeunt (quod nec homo fecit Camillus, quando uictor et expugnator aduersissimae ciuitatis Romam, cui uicerat, sensit ingratam, quam tamen postea oblitus iniuriae, memor patriae, a Gallis iterum liberauit), aut non ita fortes sunt, ut deos esse fortes decet, qui possunt humanis uel consiliis uel uiribus uinci; aut si, cum inter se belligerant, non di ab hominibus, sed di ab aliis dis forte uincuntur, qui sunt quarumque proprii ciuitatum: habent ergo et ipsi inter se inimicitias, quas pro sua quisque parte suscipiunt. Non itaque deos suos debuit colere ciuitas magis quam alios, a quibus adiuuarentur sui. Postremo quoquo modo se habeat deorum iste uel transitus uel fuga, uel migratio uel in pugna defectio, nondum illis temporibus adque in illis terrarum partibus Christi nomen fuerat praedicatum, quando illa regna per ingentes clades bellicas amissa adque translata sunt. Nam post mille ducentos et quod excurrit annos, quando regnum Assyriis ablatum est, si iam ibi Christiana religio aliud regnum praedicaret aeternum et deorum falsorum cultus sacrilegos inhiberet: quid aliud illius gentis uani homines dicerent, nisi regnum, quod tam diu conseruatum est, nulla alia causa nisi suis religionibus desertis et illa recepta perire potuisse? In qua uoce uanitatis, quae poterat esse, isti adtendant speculum suum, et similia conqueri, si ullus in eis pudor est, erubescant. Quamquam Romanum imperium adflictum est potius quam mutatum, quod et aliis ante Christi nomen temporibus ei contigit et ab illa est adflictione recreatum, quod nec istis temporibus desperandum est. Quis enim de hac re nouit uoluntatem Dei?

### Which of the Gods Can the Romans Suppose Presided Over the Increase and Preservation of Their Empire, When They Have Believed that Even the Care of Single Things Could Scarcely Be Committed to Single Gods.

[¶12] Chapter 8.—Which of the Gods Can the Romans Suppose Presided Over the Increase and Preservation of Their Empire, When They Have Believed that Even the Care of Single Things Could Scarcely Be Committed to Single Gods.

> Latin: Caput VIII. Quorum deorum praesidio putent Romani imperium suum auctum adque seruatum, cum singulis uix singularum rerum tuitionem committendam esse crediderint.

[¶13] Next let us ask, if they please, out of so great a crowd of gods which the Romans worship, whom in especial, or what gods they believe to have extended and preserved that empire. Now, surely of this work, which is so excellent and so very full of the highest dignity, they dare not ascribe any part to the goddess Cloacina; or to Volupia, who has her appellation from voluptuousness; or to Libentina, who has her name from lust; or to Vaticanus, who presides over the screaming of infants; or to Cunina, who rules over their cradles. But how is it possible to recount in one part of this book all the names of gods or goddesses, which they could scarcely comprise in great volumes, distributing among these divinities their peculiar offices about single things? They have not even thought that the charge of their lands should be committed to any one god: but they have entrusted their farms to Rusina; the ridges of the mountains to Jugatinus; over the downs they have set the goddess Collatina; over the valleys, Vallonia. Nor could they even find one Segetia so competent, that they could commend to her care all their corn crops at once; but so long as their seed-corn was still under the ground, they would have the goddess Seia set over it; then, whenever it was above ground and formed straw, they set over it the goddess Segetia; and when the grain was collected and stored, they set over it the goddess Tutilina, that it might be kept safe. Who would not have thought that goddess Segetia sufficient to take care of the standing corn until it had passed from the first green blades to the dry ears? Yet she was not enough for men, who loved a multitude of gods, that the miserable soul, despising the chaste embrace of the one true God, should be prostituted to a crowd of demons. Therefore they set Proserpina over the germinating seeds; over the joints and knots of the stems, the god Nodotus; over the sheaths enfolding the ears, the goddess Voluntina; when the sheaths opened that the spike might shoot forth, it was ascribed to the goddess Patelana; when the stems stood all equal with new ears, because the ancients described this equalizing by the term hostire, it was ascribed to the goddess Hostilina; when the grain was in flower, it was dedicated to the goddess Flora; when full of milk, to the god Lacturnus; when maturing, to the goddess Matuta; when the crop was runcated,—that is, removed from the soil,—to the goddess Runcina. Nor do I yet recount them all, for I am sick of all this, though it gives them no shame. Only, I have said these very few things, in order that it may be understood they dare by no means say that the Roman empire has been established, increased, and preserved by their deities, who had all their own functions assigned to them in such a way, that no general oversight was entrusted to any one of them. When, therefore, could Segetia take care of the empire, who was not allowed to take care of the corn and the trees? When could Cunina take thought about war, whose oversight was not allowed to go beyond the cradles of the babies? When could Nodotus give help in battle, who had nothing to do even with the sheath of the ear, but only with the knots of the joints? Every one sets a porter at the door of his house, and because he is a man, he is quite sufficient; but these people have set three gods, Forculus to the doors, Cardea to the hinge, Limentinus to the threshold. Thus Forculus could not at the same time take care also of the hinge and the threshold.

> Latin: Deinde quaeramus, si placet, ex tanta deorum turba, quam Romani colebant, quem potissimum uel quos deos credant illud imperium dilatasse adque seruasse. Neque enim in hoc tam praeclaro opere et tantae plenissimo dignitatis audent aliquas partes deae Cluacinae tribuere aut V olupiae, quae a uoluptate appellata est, aut Lubentinae, cui nomen est a libidine, aut Vaticano, qui infantum uagitibus praesidet, aut Cuninae, quae cunas eorum administrat. Quando autem possunt uno loco libri huius commemorari omnia nomina deorum et dearum, quae illi grandibus uoluminibus uix conprehendere potuerunt singulis rebus propria dispertientes officia numinum? Nec agrorum munus uni alicui deo committendum arbitrati sunt, sed rura deae Rusinae, iuga montium deo Iugatino; collibus deam Collatinam, uallibus Valloniam praefecerunt. Nec saltem potuerunt unam Segetiam talem inuenire, cui semel segetes commendarent, sed sata frumenta, quamdiu sub terra essent, praepositam uoluerunt habere deam Seiam; cum uero iam essent super terram et segetem facerent, deam Segetiam; frumentis uero collectis adque reconditis, ut tuto seruarentur, deam Tutilinam praeposuerunt. Cui non sufficere uideretur illa Segetia, quamdiu seges ab initiis herbidis usque ad aristas aridas perueniret? Non tamen satis fuit hominibus deorum multitudinem amantibus, ut anima misera daemoniorum turbae prostitueretur, unius Dei ueri castum dedignata conplexum. Praefecerunt ergo Proserpinam frumentis germinantibus, geniculis nodisque culmorum deum Nodutum, inuolumentis folliculorum deam Volutinam; cum folliculi patescunt, ut spica exeat, deam Patelanam, cum segetes nouis aristis aequantur, quia ueteres aequare hostire dixerunt, deam Hostilinam; florentibus frumentis deam Floram, lactescentibus deum Lacturnum, maturescentibus deam Matutam; cum runcantur, id est a terra auferuntur, deam Runcinam. Nec omnia commemoro, quia me piget quod illos non pudet. Haec autem paucissima ideo dixi, ut intellegeretur nullo modo eos dicere audere ista numina imperium constituisse auxisse conseruasse Romanum, quae ita suis quaeque adhibebantur officiis, ut nihil uniuersum uni alicui crederetur. Quando ergo Segetia curaret imperium, cui curam gerere simul et segetibus et arboribus non licebat? Quando de armis Cunina cogitaret, cuius praepositura paruulorum cunas non permittebatur excedere? Quando Nodutus adiuuaret in bello, qui nec ad folliculum spicae, sed tantum ad nodum geniculi pertinebat? Unum quisque domui suae ponit ostiarium, et quia homo est, omnino sufficit: tres deos isti posuerunt, Forculum foribus, Cardeam cardini, Limentinum limini. Ita non poterat Forculus simul et cardinem limenque seruare.

### Whether the Great Extent and Long Duration of the Roman Empire Should Be Ascribed to Jove, Whom His Worshippers Believe to Be the Chief God.

[¶15] Chapter 9.—Whether the Great Extent and Long Duration of the Roman Empire Should Be Ascribed to Jove, Whom His Worshippers Believe to Be the Chief God.

> Latin: Caput IX. An imperii Romani amplitudo et diuturnitas Ioui fuerit adscribenda, quem summum deum cultores ipsius opinantur.

[¶16] Therefore omitting, or passing by for a little, that crowd of petty gods, we ought to inquire into the part performed by the great gods, whereby Rome has been made so great as to reign so long over so many nations. Doubtless, therefore, this is the work of Jove. For they will have it that he is the king of all the gods and goddesses, as is shown by his sceptre and by the Capitol on the lofty hill. Concerning that god they publish a saying which, although that of a poet, is most apt, “All things are full of Jove.” Varro believes that this god is worshipped, although called by another name, even by those who worship one God alone without any image. But if this is so, why has he been so badly used at Rome (and indeed by other nations too), that an image of him should be made?—a thing which was so displeasing to Varro himself, that although he was overborne by the perverse custom of so great a city, he had not the least hesitation in both saying and writing, that those who have appointed images for the people have both taken away fear and added error.

> Latin: Omissa igitur ista turba minutorum deorum uel aliquantum intermissa officium maiorum deorum debemus inquirere, quo Roma tam magna facta est, ut tam diu tot gentibus imperaret. Nimirum ergo Iouis hoc opus est. Ipsum enim deorum omnium dearumque regem uolunt: hoc eius indicat sceptrum, hoc in alto colle Capitolium. De isto deo quamuis a poeta dictum conuenientissime praedicant: Ionis omnia plena. Hunc Varro credit etiam ab his coli, qui unum Deum solum sine simulacro colunt, sed alio nomine nuncupari. Quod si ita est, quur tam male tractatus est Romae, sicut quidem et in ceteris gentibus, ut ei fieret simulacrum? Quod ipsi etiam Varroni ita displicet, ut, cum tantae ciuitatis peruersa consuetudine premeretur, nequaquam tamen dicere et scribere dubitaret, quod hi, qui populis instituerunt simulacra, et metum demserunt et errorem addiderunt.

### What Opinions Those Have Followed Who Have Set Divers Gods Over Divers Parts of the World.

[¶18] Chapter 10.—What Opinions Those Have Followed Who Have Set Divers Gods Over Divers Parts of the World.

> Latin: Caput X. Quas opiniones secuti sint, qui diuersos deos diuersis mundi partibus praefecerunt.

[¶19] Why, also, is Juno united to him as his wife, who is called at once “sister and yoke-fellow?” Because, say they, we have Jove in the ether, Juno in the air; and these two elements are united, the one being superior, the other inferior. It is not he, then, of whom it is said, “All things are full of Jove,” if Juno also fills some part. Does each fill either, and are both of this couple in both of these elements, and in each of them at the same time? Why, then, is the ether given to Jove, the air to Juno? Besides, these two should have been enough. Why is it that the sea is assigned to Neptune, the earth to Pluto? And that these also might not be left without mates, Salacia is joined to Neptune, Proserpine to Pluto. For they say that, as Juno possesses the lower part of the heavens,—that is, the air,—so Salacia possesses the lower part of the sea, and Proserpine the lower part of the earth. They seek how they may patch up these fables, but they find no way. For if these things were so, their ancient sages would have maintained that there are three chief elements of the world, not four, in order that each of the elements might have a pair of gods. Now, they have positively affirmed that the ether is one thing, the air another. But water, whether higher or lower, is surely water. Suppose it ever so unlike, can it ever be so much so as no longer to be water? And the lower earth, by whatever divinity it may be distinguished, what else can it be than earth? Lo, then, since the whole physical world is complete in these four or three elements, where shall Minerva be? What should she possess, what should she fill? For she is placed in the Capitol along with these two, although she is not the offspring of their marriage. Or if they say that she possesses the higher part of the ether,—and on that account the poets have feigned that she sprang from the head of Jove,—why then is she not rather reckoned queen of the gods, because she is superior to Jove? Is it because it would be improper to set the daughter before the father? Why, then, is not that rule of justice observed concerning Jove himself toward Saturn? Is it because he was conquered? Have they fought then? By no means, say they; that is an old wife’s fable. Lo, we are not to believe fables, and must hold more worthy opinions concerning the gods! Why, then, do they not assign to the father of Jove a seat, if not of higher, at least of equal honor? Because Saturn, say they, is length of time. Therefore they who worship Saturn worship Time; and it is insinuated that Jupiter, the king of the gods, was born of Time. For is anything unworthy said when Jupiter and Juno are said to have been sprung from Time, if he is the heaven and she is the earth, since both heaven and earth have been made, and are therefore not eternal? For their learned and wise men have this also in their books. Nor is that saying taken by Virgil out of poetic figments, but out of the books of philosophers,

> Latin: Quur illi etiam Iuno uxor adiungitur, quae dicatur ‘soror et coniux’? Quia Iouem, inquiunt, in aethere accipimus, in aere Iunonem, et haec duo elementa coniuncta sunt, alterum superius, alterum inferius. Non est -ergo ille, de quo dictum est ‘louis omnia plena’, si aliquam partem inplet et Iuno. An uterque utrumque inplet, et ambo isti coniuges et in duobus istis elementis et in singulis simul sunt? Quur ergo aether datur Ioui, aer Iunoni? Postremo ipsi duo satis essent: quid est quod mare Neptuno tribuitur, terra Plutoni? Et ne ipsi quoque sine coniugibus remanerent, additur Neptuno Salacia, Plutoni Proserpina. Nam sicut inferiorem caeli partem, id est aerem, inquiunt, Iuno tenet, ita inferiorem maris Salacia et terrae inferiorem Proserpina. Quaerunt quem ad modum sarciant fabulas, nec inueniunt. Si enim haec ita essent, tria potius elementa mundi esse, non quattuor, eorum ueteres proderent, ut singula deorum coniugia diuiderentur singulis elementis. Nunc uero omni modo adfirmauerunt aliud esse aetherem, aliud aerem. Aqua uero siue superior siue inferior utique aqua est; puta quia dissimilis: numquid in tantum ut aqua non sit? Et inferior terra quid aliud potest esso quam terra quantalibet diuersitate distincta? Deinde ecce iam totus in his quattuor uel tribus elementis corporeus conpletus est mundus: Minerua ubi erit? quid tenebit? quid inplebit? Simul enim cum his in Capitolio constituta est, cum ista filia non sit amborum. Aut si aetheris partem superiorem Mineruam tenere dicunt et hac occasione fingere poetas quod de Iouis capite nata sit: quur non ergo ipsa potius deorum regina deputatur, quod sit Ioue superior? An quia indignum erat praeponere patri filiam? Quur non de Ioue ipso erga Saturnum iustitia ista seruata est? An quia uictus est? Ergo pugnarunt? Absit, inquiunt; fabularum est ista garrulitas. Ecce fabulis non credatur et de dis meliora sentiantur: quur ergo non data est patri Iouis, etsi non sublimior, aequalis certe sedes honoris? Quia Saturnus, inquiunt, temporis longitudo est. Tempus ergo colunt, qui Saturnum colunt, et rex deorum Iuppiter insinuatur natus ex tempore. Quid enim indignum dicitur, cum Iuppiter et Iuno nati dicuntur ex tempore, si caelum est ille et illa terra, cum facta sint utique caelum et terra? nam hoc quoque in libris suis habent eorum docti adque sapientes.

[¶20] “Then Ether, the Father Almighty, in copious showers descended

[¶21] Into his spouse’s glad bosom, making it fertile,”

[¶22] —that is, into the bosom of Tellus, or the earth. Although here, also, they will have it that there are some differences, and think that in the earth herself Terra is one thing, Tellus another, and Tellumo another. And they have all these as gods, called by their own names distinguished by their own offices, and venerated with their own altars and rites. This same earth also they call the mother of the gods, so that even the fictions of the poets are more tolerable, if, according, not to their poetical but sacred books, Juno is not only the sister and wife, but also the mother of Jove. The same earth they worship as Ceres, and also as Vesta; while yet they more frequently affirm that Vesta is nothing else than fire, pertaining to the hearths, without which the city cannot exist; and therefore virgins are wont to serve her, because as nothing is born of a virgin, so nothing is born of fire;—but all this nonsense ought to be completely abolished and extinguished by Him who is born of a virgin. For who can bear that, while they ascribe to the fire so much honor, and, as it were, chastity, they do not blush sometimes even to call Vesta Venus, so that honored virginity may vanish in her hand-maidens? For if Vesta is Venus, how can virgins rightly serve her by abstaining from venery? Are there two Venuses, the one a virgin, the other not a maid? Or rather, are there three, one the goddess of virgins, who is also called Vesta, another the goddess of wives, and another of harlots? To her also the Phenicians offered a gift by prostituting their daughters before they united them to husbands. Which of these is the wife of Vulcan? Certainly not the virgin, since she 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 fellow-worker of Minerva. Therefore it is to be understood that she belongs to the married people; but we would not wish them to imitate her in what she did with Mars. “Again,” say they, “you return to fables.” What sort of justice is that, to be angry with us because we say such things of their gods, and not to be angry with themselves, who in their theatres most willingly behold the crimes of their gods? And,—a thing incredible, if it were not thoroughly well proved,—these very theatric representations of the crimes of their gods have been instituted in honor of these same gods.

> Latin: Neque de figmentis poeticis, sed de philosophorum libris a Vergilio dictum est: Tum pater omnipotens fecundis imbribus aether Coniugis in gremium laetae descendit, id est in gremium telluris aut terrae; quia et hic aliquas differentias uolunt esse adque in ipsa terra aliud Terram, aliud Tellurem, aliud Tellumonem putant, et hos omnes deos habent suis nominibus appellatos, suis officiis distinctos, suis aris sacrisque ueneratos. Eandem terram etiam matrem deum uocant, ut iam poetae tolerabiliora confingant, si secundum istorum non poeticos, sed sacrorum libros non solum Iuno, ‘soror et coniux), sed etiam mater est Iouis. Eandem terram Cererem, eandem etiam Vestam uolunt, cum tamen saepius Vestam non nisi ignem esse perhibeant pertinentem ad focos, sine quibus ciuitas esse non potest, et ideo illi uirgines solere seruire, quod sicut ex uirgine, ita nihil ex igne nascatur. Quam totam uanitatem aboleri et extingui utique ab illo oportuit, qui est natus ex uirgine. Quis enim ferat, quod, cum tantum honoris et quasi castitatis igni tribuerint, aliquande Vestam non erubescunt etiam Venerem dicere, ut uanescat in ancillis eius honorata uirginitas? Si enim Vesta Venus est, quo modo ei rite uirgines a Veneriis operibus abstinendo seruierunt? An Veneres duae sunt, una uirgo, altera mulier? An potius tres, una uirginum, quae etiam Vesta est, alia coniugatarum, alia meretricum? Cui etiam Phoenices donum dabant de prostitutione filiarum, antequam eas iungerent uiris. Quae illarum est matrona Vulcani? Non utique uirgo, quoniam habet maritum. Absit autem ut meretrix, ne filio Iunonis et cooperario Mineruae facere uideamur iniuriam. Ergo haec ad coniugatas intellegitur pertinere: sed eam nolumus imitentur in eo quod fecit illa cum Marte. Rursus, inquiunt, ad fabulas redis. Quae ista iustitia est, nobis suscensere, quod talia dicimus de dis eorum, et sibi non suscensere, qui haec in theatris libentissime spectant crimina deorum suorum? Et (quod esset incredibile, nisi contestatissime probaretur) haec ipsa theatrica crimina deorum in honorem instituta sunt eorundem deorum.

## 21. Concerning the Many Gods Whom the Pagan Doctors Defend as Being One and the Same Jove.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/21/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/21/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 11.—Concerning the Many Gods Whom the Pagan Doctors Defend as Being One and the Same Jove.

> Latin: Caput XI. De multis dis, quos doctiores paganorum unum eundemque Iouem esse defendunt.

[¶1] Let them therefore assert as many things as ever they please in physical reasonings and disputations. One while let Jupiter be the soul of this corporeal world, who fills and moves that whole mass, constructed and compacted out of four, or as many elements as they please; another while, let him yield to his sister and brothers their parts of it: now let him be the ether, that from above he may embrace Juno, the air spread out beneath; again, let him be the whole heaven along with the air, and impregnate with fertilizing showers and seeds the earth, as his wife, and, at the same time, his mother (for this is not vile in divine beings); and yet again (that it may not be necessary to run through them all), let him, the one god, of whom many think it has been said by a most noble poet,

[¶2] “For God pervadeth all things,

[¶3] All lands, and the tracts of the sea, and the depth of the heavens,”

[¶4] —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; in divination, Apollo; in merchandise, Mercury; in Janus, the initiator; in Terminus, the terminator; Saturn, in time; Mars and Bellona, in war; Liber, in vineyards; Ceres, in cornfields; Diana, in forests; Minerva, in learning. Finally, let it be him who is in that crowd, as it were, of plebeian gods: let him preside under the name of Liber over the seed of men, and under that of Libera over that of women: let him be Diespiter, who brings forth the birth to the light of day: let him be the goddess Mena, whom they set over the menstruation of women: let him be Lucina, who is invoked by women in childbirth: let him bring help to those who are being born, by taking them up from the bosom of the earth, and let him be called Opis: let him open the mouth in the crying babe, and be 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 than he who is in those goddesses, who sing the fates of the new born, and are called Carmentes: let him preside over fortuitous events, and be called Fortuna: in the goddess Rumina, let him milk out the breast to the little one, because the ancients termed the breast ruma: in the goddess Potina, let him administer drink: in the goddess Educa, let him supply food: 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 which man is spurred on to much action, let him be named the goddess Stimula: let him be the goddess Strenia, for making strenuous; Numeria, who teaches to number; Camoena, who teaches to sing: let him be both the god Consus for granting counsel, and the goddess Sentia for inspiring sentences: let him be the goddess Juventas, who, after the robe of boyhood is laid aside, takes charge of the beginning of the youthful age: let him be Fortuna Barbata, who endues adults with a beard, whom they have not chosen to honor; so that this divinity, 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, let him be invoked as the goddess Virginiensis: let him be Mutunus or Tuternus, who, among the Greeks, is called Priapus. If they are not ashamed of it, let all these which I have named, and whatever others I have not named (for I have not thought fit to name all), let all these gods and goddesses be that one Jupiter, whether, as some will have it, all these are parts of him, or are his powers, as those think who are pleased to consider him the soul of the world, which is the opinion of most of their doctors, and these the greatest. If these things are so (how evil they may be I do not yet meanwhile inquire), what would they lose, if they, by a more prudent abridgment, should worship one god? For what part of him could be contemned if he himself should be worshipped? But if they are afraid lest parts of him should be angry at being passed by or neglected, then it is not the case, as they will 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 life separate from the rest, if it is so that one can be angered, appeased, or stirred up more than another. But if it is said that all together,—that is, the whole Jove himself,—would be offended if his parts were not also worshipped singly and minutely, it is foolishly spoken. Surely none of them could be passed by if he who singly possesses them all should be worshipped. 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 therefore without controversy are gods, can they not see how many they do not worship, to how many they do not build temples or set up altars, and to how very few, in fact, of the stars they have 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 the stars because they are part of Jove whom they worship, by the same compendious method they could supplicate them all in him alone. For in this way no one would be displeased, since in him alone all would be supplicated. No one would be contemned, instead of there being just cause of displeasure given to the much greater number who are passed by in the worship offered to some; especially when Priapus, stretched out in vile nakedness, is preferred to those who shine from their supernal abode.

> Latin: Quotlibet igitur physicis rationibus et disputationibus adserant: modo sit Iuppiter corporei huius mundi animus, qui uniuersam istam molem ex quattuor uel quot eis placet elementis constructam adque conpactam inplet et mouet, modo inde suas partes sorori et fratribus cedat; modo sit aether, ut aerem Iunonem subterfusam desuper amplectatur; modo totum simul cum aere sit ipse caelum, terram uero tamquam coniugem eandemque matrem (quia hoc in diuinis turpe non est) fecundis imbribus et seminibus fetet; modo autem (ne sit necesse per cuncta discurrere) deus unus, de quo multi a poeta nobilissimo dictum putant: deum namque ire per omnes Terrasque tractusque maris caelumque profundum; ipse in aethere sit Iuppiter, ipse in aere Iuno, ipse in mari Neptunus, in inferioribus etiam maris ipse Salacia, in terra Pluto, in terra inferiore Proserpina, in focis domesticis Vesta, in fabrorum fornace Vulcanus, in sideribus sol et luna et stellae, in diuinantibus Apollo, in merce Mercurius, in Iano initiator, in Termino terminator, Saturnus in tempore, Mars et Bellona in bellis, Liber in uineis, Ceres in frumentis, Diana in siluis, Minerua in ingeniis; ipse sit postremo etiam in illa turba quasi plebeiorum deorum; ipse praesit nomine Liberi uirorum seminibus et nomine Liberae feminarum, ipse sit Diespater, qui partum perducat ad diem; ipse sit dea Mena, quam praefecerunt menstruis feminarum, ipse Lucina, quae a parturientibus inuocetur; ipse opem ferat nascentibus excipiendo eos sinu terrae et uocetur Opis, ipse in uagitu os aperiat et uocetur deus Vaticanus; ipse leuet de terra et uocetur dea Leuana, ipse cunas tueatur et uocetur Cunina; non sit alius, sed ipse in illis deabus, quae fata nascentibus canunt et uocantur Carmentes; praesit fortuitis uoceturque Fortuna; in diua Rumina mammam paruulo inmulgeat, quia rumam dixerunt ueteres mammam; in diua Potina potionem ministret, in diua Educa escam praebeat; de pauore infantum Pauentia nuncupetur, de spe, quae uenit, Venilia, de uoluptate Volupia, de actu Agenoria; de stimulis, quibus ad nimium actum homo inpellitur, dea Stimula nominetur; Strenia dea sit strenuum faciendo, Numeria, quae numerare doceat, Camena, quae canere; ipse sit et deus Consus praebendo consilia et dea Sentia sententias inspirando; ipse dea Iuuentas, quae post praetextam excipiat iuuenalis aetatis exordia; ipse sit et Fortuna barbata, quae adultos barba induat (quos honorare noluerunt, ut hoc qualecumque numen saltem masculum deum uel a barba Barbatum, sicut a nodis Nodutum, uel certe non Fortunam, sed quia barbas habet Fortunium nominarent; ipse in Iugatino deo coniuges iungat, et cum uirgini uxori zona soluitur, ipse inuocetur et dea Virginensis uocetur; ipse sit Mutunus uel Tutunus, qui est aput Graecos Priapus: si non pudet, haec omnia quae dixi et quaecumque non dixi (non enim omnia dicenda arbitratus sum), hi omnes di deaeque sit unus Iuppiter, siue sint, ut quidam uolunt, omnia ista partes eius siue uirtutes eius, sicut eis uidetur, quibus eum placet esse mundi animum, quae sententia uelut magnorum multumque doctorum est. Haec si ita sunt (quod quale sit, nondum interim quaero), quid perderent, si unum Deum colerent prudentiore conpendio? Quid enim eius contemneretur, cum ipse coleretur? Si autem metuendum fuit, ne praetermissae siue neglectae partes eius irascerentur: non ergo, ut uolunt, uelut unius animantis haec tota uita est, quae omnes continet deos, quasi. suas uirtutes uel membra uel partes; sed suam quaeque pars habet uitam a ceteris separatam, si praeter alteram irasci altera potest, et alia placari, alia concitari. Si autem dicitur omnes simul, id est totum ipsum Iouem, potuisse offendi, si partes eius non etiam singillatim minutatimque colerentur, stulte dicitur. Nulla quippe illarum praetermitteretur, cum ipse unus, qui haberet omnia, coleretur. Nam ut alia omittam, quae sunt innumerabilia, cum dicunt omnia sidera partes Iouis esse et omnia uiuere adque rationales animas habere, et ideo sine controuersia deos esse, non uident quam multos non colant, quam multis aedes non construant, aras non statuant, quas tamen paucissimis siderum statuendas esse putauerunt et singillatim sacrificandum. Si igitur irascuntur, qui non singillatim coluntur, non metuunt paucis placatis toto caelo irato uiuere? Si autem stellas omnes ideo colunt, quia in Ioue sunt quem colunt, isto conpendio possent in illo uno omnibus supplicare (sic enim nemo irasceretur, cum in illo uno nemo contemneretur) potius quam cultis quibusdam iusta irascendi causa illis, qui praetermissi essent, multo numerosioribus praeberetur, praesertim cum eis de superna sede fulgentibus turpi nuditate distentus praeponeretur Priapus.-

### Concerning the Opinion of Those Who Have Thought that God is the Soul of the World, and the World is the Body of God.

[¶6] Chapter 12.—Concerning the Opinion of Those Who Have Thought that God is the Soul of the World, and the World is the Body of God.

> Latin: Caput XII. De opinione eorum, qui Deum animam mundi et mundum corpus Dei esse putauerunt.

[¶7] Ought not men of intelligence, and indeed men of every kind, to be stirred up to examine the nature of this opinion? For there is no need of excellent capacity for this task, that putting away the desire of contention, they may observe that if God is the soul of the world, and the world is as a body to Him, who is the soul, He must be one living being consisting of soul and body, and that this same God is a kind of womb of nature containing all things in Himself, so that the lives and souls of all living things are taken, according to the manner of each one’s birth, out of His soul which vivifies that whole mass, and therefore nothing at all remains which is not a 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 in slaying any living creature, a part of God must be slaughtered? But I am unwilling to utter all that may occur to those who think of it, yet cannot be spoken without irreverence.

> Latin: Quid: illud nonne debet mouere acutos homines uel qualescumque homines (non enim ad hoc ingenii opus est excellentia), ut deposito studio contentionis adtendant, si mundi animus Deus est eique animo mundus ut corpus est, ut sit unum animal constans ex animo et corpore, adque iste Deus est sinu quodam naturae in se ipso continens omnia, ut ex ipsius anima, qua uiuificatur tota ista moles, uitae adque animae cunctorum uiuentium pro cuiusque nascendi sorte sumantur, nihil omnino remanere, quod non sit pars Dei. Quod si ita est, quis non uideat quanta inpietas et inreligiositas consequatur, ut, quod calcauerit quisque, partem Dei calcet, et in omni animante occidendo pars Dei trucidetur? Nolo omnia dicere, quae possunt occurrere cogitantibus, dici autem sine uerecundia non possunt.

### Concerning Those Who Assert that Only Rational Animals are Parts of the One God.

[¶9] Chapter 13.—Concerning Those Who Assert that Only Rational Animals are Parts of the One God.

> Latin: Caput XIII. De his, qui sola rationalia animantia partes esse unius Dei adserunt.

[¶10] But if they contend that only rational animals, such as men, are parts of God, I do not really see how, if the whole world is God, they can separate beasts from being parts of Him. But what need is there of striving about that? Concerning the rational animal himself,—that is, man,—what more unhappy belief can be entertained than that a part of God is whipped when a boy is whipped? And who, unless he is quite mad, could bear the thought that parts of God can become lascivi ous, iniquitous, impious, and altogether damnable? In brief, why is God angry at those who do not worship Him, since these offenders are parts of Himself? It remains, therefore, that they must say that all the gods have their own lives; that each one lives for himself, and none of them is a part of any one; but that all are to be worshipped,—at least as many as can be known and worshipped; for they are so many it is impossible that all can be so. And of all these, I believe that Jupiter, because he presides as king, is thought by them to have both established and extended the Roman empire. For if he has not done it, what other god do they believe could have attempted so great a work, when they must all be occupied with their own offices and works, nor can one intrude on that of another? Could the kingdom of men then be propagated and increased by the king of the gods?

> Latin: Si autem sola animalia rationalia, sicut sunt homines, partes Dei esse contendunt: non uideo quidem, si totus mundus Deus est, quo modo bestias ab eius partibus separent; sed obluctari quid opus est? De ipso rationali animante, id est homine, quid infelicius credi potest, quam Dei partem uapulare, cum puer uapulat? Iam uero partes Dei fieri lasciuas, iniquas, inpias adque omnino damnabiles quis ferre possit, nisi qui prorsus insanit? Postremo quid irascitur eis, a quibus non colitur, cum a suis partibus non colatur? Restat ergo ut dicant omnes deos suas habere uitas, sibi quemque uiuere, nullum eorum esse partem cuiusquam, sed omnes colendos qui cognosci et coli possunt, quia tam multi sunt, ut omnes non possint. Quorum Iuppiter quia rex praesidet, ipsum credo ab eis putari regnum constituisse uel auxisse Romanum. Nam si hoc ipse non fecit, quem alium deum opus tam magnum potuisse adgredi credant, cum omnes occupati sint officiis et operibus propriis, nec alter inruat in alterius? A rege igitur deorum regnum hominum potuit propagari et augeri.

### The Enlargement of Kingdoms is Unsuitably Ascribed to Jove; For If, as They Will Have It, Victoria is a Goddess, She Alone Would Suffice for This Business.

[¶12] Chapter 14.—The Enlargement of Kingdoms is Unsuitably Ascribed to Jove; For If, as They Will Have It, Victoria is a Goddess, She Alone Would Suffice for This Business.

> Latin: Caput XIV. Augmenta regnorum Ioui incongruenter adscribi, cum, si Victoria tor i ut uolunt dea est, ipsa huic negotio sola sufficeret.

[¶13] Here, first of all, I ask, why even the kingdom itself is not some god. For why should not it also be so, if Victory is a goddess? Or what need is there of Jove himself in this affair, if Victory favors and is propitious, and always goes to those whom she wishes to be victorious? With this goddess favorable and propitious, even if Jove was idle and did nothing, what nations could remain unsubdued, what kingdom would not yield? But perhaps it is displeasing to good men to fight with most wicked unrighteousness, and provoke with voluntary war neighbors who are peaceable and do no wrong, in order to enlarge a kingdom? If they feel thus, I entirely approve and praise them.

> Latin: Hic primum quaero, quur non etiam ipsum regnum aliquis deus est? Quur enim non ita sit, si Victoria dea est? Aut quid ipso Ioue in hac causa opus est, si Victoria faueat sitque propitia et semper eat ad illos, quos uult esse uictores? Hac dea fauente et propitia, etiam Ioue uacante uel aliud agente, quae gentes non subditae remanerent? quae regna non cederent? An forte displicet bonis iniquissima inprobitate pugnare et finitimos quietos nullamque iniuriam facientes ad dilatandum regnum bello spontaneo prouocare? Plane si ita sentiunt adprobo et laudo.

### Whether It is Suitable for Good Men to Wish to Rule More Widely.

[¶15] Chapter 15.—Whether It is Suitable for Good Men to Wish to Rule More Widely.

> Latin: Caput XV. An congruat bonis latius uelle regnare.

[¶16] Let them ask, then, whether it is quite fitting for good men to rejoice in extended empire. For the iniquity of those with whom just wars are carried on favors the growth of a kingdom, which would certainly have been small if the peace and justice of neighbors had not by any wrong provoked the carrying on of war against them; and human affairs being thus more happy, all kingdoms would have been small, rejoicing in neighborly concord; and thus there would have been very many kingdoms of nations in the world, as there are very many houses of citizens in a city. Therefore, to carry on war and extend a kingdom over wholly subdued nations seems to bad men to be felicity, to good men necessity. But because it would be worse that the injurious should rule over those who are more righteous, therefore even that is not unsuitably called felicity. But beyond doubt it is greater felicity to have a good neighbor at peace, than to conquer a bad one by making war. Your wishes are bad, when you desire that one whom you hate or fear should be in such a condition that you can conquer him. If, therefore, by carrying on wars that were just, not impious or unrighteous, the Romans could have acquired so great an empire, ought they not to worship as a goddess even the injustice of foreigners? For we see that this has cooperated much in extending the empire, by making foreigners so unjust that they became people with whom 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 deserved to be Roman gods? By these two, therefore,—that is, by foreign injustice, and the goddess Victoria, for injustice stirs up causes of wars, and Victoria brings these same wars to a happy termination,—the empire has increased, even although Jove has been idle. For what part could Jove have here, when those things which might be thought to be his benefits are held to be gods, called gods, worshipped as gods, and are themselves invoked for their own parts? He also might have some part here, if he himself might be called Empire, just as she is called Victory. Or if empire is the gift of Jove, why may not victory also be held to be his gift? And it certainly would have been held to be so, had he been recognized and worshipped, not as a stone in the Capitol, but as the true King of kings and Lord of lords.

> Latin: Videant ergo ne forte non pertineat ad uiros bonos gaudere de regni latitudine. Iniquitas enim eorum, cum quibus iusta bella gesta sunt, regnum adiuuit ut cresceret, quod utique paruum esset, si quies et iustitia finitimorum contra se bellum geri nulla prouocaret iniuria ac sic felicioribus rebus humanis omnia regna parua essent concordi uicinitate laetantia et ita essent in mundo regna plurima gentium, ut sunt in urbe domus plurimae ciuium. Proinde belligerare et perdomitis gentibus dilatare regnum malis uidetur felicitas, bonis necessitas. Sed quia peius esset, ut iniuriosi iustioribus dominarentur, ideo non incongrue dicitur etiam ista felicitas. Sed procul dubio felicitas maior est uicinum bonum habere concordem quam uicinum malum subiugare bellantem. Mala uota sunt optare habere quem oderis uel quem timeas, ut possit esse quem uincas. Si ergo iusta gerendo bella, non inpia, non iniqua, Romani imperium tam magnum adquirere potuerunt, numquid tamquam aliqua dea colenda est eis etiam iniquitas aliena? Multum enim ad istam latitudinem imperii eam cooperatam uidemus, quae faciebat iniuriosos, ut essent cum quibus iusta bella gererentur et augeretur imperium. Quur autem et iniquitas dea non sit uel externarum gentium, si Pauor et Pallor et Febris di Romani esse meruerunt? His igitur duabus, id est aliena iniquitate et dea Victoria, dum bellorum causas iniquitas excitat, Victoria eadem bella feliciter terminat, etiam feriato Ioue creuit imperium. Quas enim hic partes Iuppiter haberet, cum ea, quae possent beneficia eius putari, di habentur, di uocantur, di coluntur, ipsi pro suis partibus inuocantur? Haberet hic autem etiam ille aliquam partem, si Regnum etiam ipse appellaretur, sicut appellatur illa Victoria. Aut si regnum munus est Iouis, quur non et uictoria munus eius habeatur? Quod profecto haberetur, si non lapis in Capitolio, sed uerus rex regum et dominus dominantium cognosceretur adque coleretur.

### What Was the Reason Why the Romans, in Detailing Separate Gods for All Things and All Movements of the Mind, Chose to Have the Temple of Quiet Outside the Gates.

[¶18] Chapter 16.—What Was the Reason Why the Romans, in Detailing Separate Gods for All Things and All Movements of the Mind, Chose to Have the Temple of Quiet Outside the Gates.

> Latin: Caput XVI. Quid fuerit quod Romani omnibus’rebus et omnibus motibus deos singulos deputantes aedem Quietis extra portas esse uoluerunt.

[¶19] But I wonder very much, that while they assigned to separate gods single things, and (well nigh) all movements of the mind; that while they invoked the goddess Agenoria, who should excite to action; the goddess Stimula, who should stimulate to unusual action; the goddess Murcia, who should not move men beyond measure, but make them, as Pomponius says, murcid—that is, too slothful and inactive; the goddess Strenua, who should make them strenuous; and that while they offered to all these gods and goddesses solemn and public worship, they should yet have been unwilling to give public acknowledgment to her whom they name Quies because she makes men quiet, but built her temple outside the Colline gate. Whether was this a symptom of an unquiet mind, or rather was it thus intimated that he who should persevere in worshipping 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, and ye shall find rest unto your souls?”

> Latin: Miror autem plurimum, quod, cum deos singulos singulis rebus et paene singulis motibus adtribuerent, uocauerunt deam Agenoriam, quae ad agendum excitaret, deam Stimulam, quae ad agendum ultra modum stimularet, deam Murciam, quae praeter modum non moueret ac faceret hominem, ut ait Pomponius, murcidum, id est nimis desidiosum et inactuosum, deam Streniam, quae faceret strenuum, his omnibus dis et deabus publica sacra facere susceperunt, Quietem uero appellantes, quae faceret quietum, cum aedem haberet extra portam Collinam, publice illam suscipere noluerunt. Utrum indicium fuit animi inquieti, an potius ita significatum est, qui illam turbam colere perseueraret non plane deorum, sed daemoniorum, eum quietem habere non posse? ad quam uocat uerus medicus dicens: Discite a me, quoniam mitis sum et humilis corde, et inuenietis requiem animabus uestris.

### Whether, If the Highest Power Belongs to Jove, Victoria Also Ought to Be Worshipped.

[¶21] Chapter 17.—Whether, If the Highest Power Belongs to Jove, Victoria Also Ought to Be Worshipped.

> Latin: Caput XVII. An, si Iouis summa potestas est, etiam Victoria dea debuerit aestimari.

[¶22] Or do they say, perhaps, that Jupiter sends the goddess Victoria, and that she, as it were acting in obedience to the king of the gods, comes to those to whom he may have despatched her, and takes up her quarters on their side? This is truly said, not of Jove, whom they, according to their own imagination, feign to be king of the gods, but of Him who is the true eternal King, because he sends, not Victory, who is no 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 have been discussed by us, they would have replied that they were laughable figments of the poets not to be attributed to true deities. And yet they themselves did not laugh when they were, not reading in the poets, but worshipping in the temples such doating follies. Therefore they should entreat Jove alone for all things, and supplicate him only. For if Victory is a goddess, and is under him as her king, wherever he might have sent her, she could not dare to resist and do her own will rather than his.

> Latin: An forte dicunt, quod deam Victoriam Iuppiter mittat adque illa tamquam regi deorum obtemperans ad quos iusserit ueniat et in eorum parte considat? Hoc uere dicitur non de illo Ioue, quem deorum regem pro sua opinione confingunt, sed de illo uero rege saeculorum, quod mittat non Victoriam, quae nulla substantia est, sed angelum suum et faciat uincere quem uoluerit; cuius consilium occultum esse potest, iniquum non potest. Nam si uictoria dea est, quur non deus est et triumphus, et uictoriae iungitur uel maritus uel frater uel filius? Talia quippe isti de dis opinati sunt, qualia si poetae fingerent adque a nobis exagitarentur, responderent isti ridenda esse figmenta poetarum, non ueris adtribuenda numinibus; et tamen se ipsi non ridebant, cum talia deliramenta non aput poetas legebant, sed in templis colebant. Iouem igitur de omnibus rogarent, ei uni tantummodo supplicarent. Non enim, quo misisset Victoriam, si dea est et sub illo rege est, posset ei audere resistere et suam potius facere uoluntatem.’

## 22. With What Reason They Who Think Felicity and Fortune Goddesses Have Distinguished Them.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/22/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/22/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 18.—With What Reason They Who Think Felicity and Fortune Goddesses Have Distinguished Them.

> Latin: Caput XVIII. Felicitatem et Fortunam qui deas putant, qua ratione secernunt.

[¶1] What shall we say, besides, of the idea that Felicity also is a goddess? She has received a temple; she has merited an altar; suitable rites of worship are paid to her. She alone, then, should be worshipped. For where she is present, what good thing can be absent? But what does a man wish, that he thinks Fortune also a goddess and worships her? Is felicity one thing, fortune another? Fortune, indeed, may be bad as well as good; but felicity, if it could be bad, would not be felicity. Certainly we ought to think all the gods of either sex (if they also have sex) are only good. This says Plato; this say other philosophers; this say all estimable rulers of the republic and the nations. How is it, then, that the goddess Fortune is sometimes good, sometimes bad? Is it perhaps the case that when she is bad she is not a goddess, but is suddenly changed into a malignant demon? How many Fortunes are there then? Just as many as there are men who are fortunate, that is, of good fortune. But since there must also be very many others who at the very same time are men of bad fortune, could she, being one and the same Fortune, be at the same time both bad and good—the one to these, the other to those? She who is the goddess, is she always good? Then she herself is felicity. Why, then, are two names given her? Yet this is tolerable; for it is customary 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 the good have by previous merit; but fortune, which is termed good without any trial of merit, befalls both good and bad men fortuitously, whence also she is named Fortune. How, therefore, is she good, who without any discernment comes—both to the good and to the bad? Why is she worshipped, who is thus blind, running at random on any one whatever, so that for the most part she passes by her worshippers, and cleaves to those who despise her? Or if her worshippers profit somewhat, so that they are seen by her and loved, then she follows merit, and does not come fortuitously. What, then, becomes of that definition of fortune? What becomes of the opinion that she has received her very name from fortuitous events? For it profits one nothing to worship her if she is truly fortune. But if she distinguishes her worshippers, so that she may benefit them, she is not fortune. Or does, Jupiter send her too, whither he pleases? Then let him alone be worshipped; because Fortune is not able to resist him when he commands her, and sends her where he pleases. Or, at least, let the bad worship her, who do not choose to have merit by which the goddess Felicity might be invited.

> Latin: Quid, quod et Felicitas dea est? Aedem accepit, aram meruit, sacra congrua persoluta sunt. Ipsa ergo sola coleretur.I Ubi enim ipsa esset, quid boni non esset? Sed quid sibi uult. quod et Fortuna dea putatur et colitur? An aliud est felicitas, aliud fortuna? Quia fortuna potest esse et mala; felicitas autem si mala fuerit, felicitas non erit. Certe omnes deos utriusque sexus (si et sexum habent) non nisi bonos existimare debemus. Hoc Plato dicit, hoc alii philosophi, hoc excellentes rei publicae populorumque rectores. Quo modo ergo dea Fortuna aliquando bona est, aliquando mala? An forte quando mala est, dea non est, sed in malignum daemonem repente conuertitur? Quot sunt ergo deae istae? Profecto quotquot homines fortunati, hoc est bonae fortunae. Nam cum sint et alii plurimi simul, hoc est uno tempore, malae fortunae, numquid, si ipsa esset, simul et bona esset et mala; his aliud, illis aliud? An illa, quae dea est, semper est bona? Ipsa est ergo Felicitas: quur adhibentur diuersa nomina? Sed hoc ferendum est; solet enim et una res duobus nominibus appellari. Quid diuersae aedes, diuersae arae, diuersa sacra? Est causa, inquiunt, quia felicitas illa est, quam boni habent praecedentibus meritis; fortuna uero, quae dicitur bona, sine ullo examine meritorum fortuito accidit hominibus et bonis et malis, unde etiam Fortuna nominatur. Quo modo ergo bona est, quae sine ullo iudicio uenit et ad bonos et ad malos? Ut quid autem colitur, quae ita caeca est passim in quoslibet incurrens, ut suos cultores plerumque praetereat et suis contemtoribus haereat? Aut si aliquid proficiunt cultores eius, ut ab illa uideantur et amentur, iam merita sequitur, non fortuito uenit. Ubi est definitio illa Fortunae? Ubi est quod a fortuitis etiam nomen accepit? Nihil enim prodest eam colere, si fortuna est. Si autem suos cultores discernit, ut prosit, fortuna non est. An et ipsam, quo uoluerit, Iuppiter mittit? Colatur ergo ipse solus; non enim potest ei iubenti et eam quo uoluerit mittenti Fortuna resistere. Aut certe istam mali colant, qui nolunt habere merita, quibus dea possit Felicitas inuitari.

### Concerning Fortuna Muliebris.

[¶3] Chapter 19.—Concerning Fortuna Muliebris.

> Latin: Caput XIX. De Fortuna muliebri.’

[¶4] To this supposed deity, whom they call Fortuna, they ascribe so much, indeed, that they have a tradition that the image of her, which was dedicated by the Roman matrons, and called Fortuna Muliebris, has spoken, and has said, once and again, that the matrons pleased her by their homage; which, indeed, if it is true, ought not to excite our wonder. For it is not so difficult for malignant demons to deceive, and they ought the rather to advert to their wits and wiles, because it is that goddess who comes by haphazard who has spoken, and not she who comes to reward merit. For Fortuna was loquacious, and Felicitas mute; and for what other reason but that men might not care to live rightly, having made Fortuna their friend, who could make them fortunate without any good desert? And truly, if Fortuna speaks, she should at least speak, not with a womanly, but with a manly voice; lest they themselves who have dedicated the image should think so great a miracle has been wrought by feminine loquacity.

> Latin: Tantum sane huic uelut numini tribuunt, quam Fortunam uocant, ut simulacrum eius, quod a matronis dedicatum est et appellata est Fortuna muliebris, etiam locutum esse memoriae memoriae commendauerint adque dixisse non semel, sed iterum, quod eam rite matronae dedicauerint. Quod quidem si uerum, sit, mirari nos non oportet. Non enim malignis daemonibus etiam sic difficile est fallere, quorum artes adque uersutias hinc potius isti aduertere debuerunt, quod illa dea locuta est, quae fortuito accidit, non quae mentis uenit. Fuit enim Fortuna loquax et muta Felicitas, ut quid aliud, nisi ut homines recte uiuere non curarent conciliata sibi Fortuna, quae illos sine ullis bonis meritis faceret fortunatos? Et certe si Fortuna loquitur, non saltem muliebris, sed uirilis potius loqueretur, ut non ipsae, quae simulacrum dedicauerunt, putarentur tantum miraculum muliebri loquacitate finxisse.

### Concerning Virtue and Faith, Which the Pagans Have Honored with Temples and Sacred Rites, Passing by Other Good Qualities, Which Ought Likewise to Have Been Worshipped, If Deity Was Rightly Attributed to These.

[¶6] Chapter 20.—Concerning Virtue and Faith, Which the Pagans Have Honored with Temples and Sacred Rites, Passing by Other Good Qualities, Which Ought Likewise to Have Been Worshipped, If Deity Was Rightly Attributed to These.

> Latin: Caput XX. De Virtute et Fide, quas pagani templis et sacris honorauerunt praetermittentes alia bona, quae similiter colenda fuerint, si recte aliis diuinitas tribuebatur.

[¶7] They have made Virtue also a goddess, which, indeed, if it could be a goddess, had been preferable to many. And now, because it is not a goddess, but a gift of God, let it be obtained by prayer from Him, by whom alone it can be given, and the whole crowd of false gods vanishes. But why is Faith believed to be a goddess, and why does she herself receive temple and altar? For whoever prudently acknowledges her makes his own self an abode for her. But how do they know what faith is, of which it is the prime and greatest function that the true God may be believed in? But why had not virtue sufficed? Does it not include faith also? Forasmuch as they have thought proper to distribute virtue into four divisions—prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance—and as each of these divisions has its own virtues, faith is among the parts of justice, and has the chief place with as many of us as know what that saying means, “The just shall live by faith.” But if Faith is a goddess, I wonder why these keen lovers of a multitude of gods have wronged so many other goddesses, by passing them by, when they could have dedicated temples and altars to them likewise. Why has temperance not deserved to be a goddess, when some Roman princes have obtained no small glory on account of her? Why, in fine, is fortitude not a goddess, who aided Mucius when he thrust his right hand into the flames; who aided Curtius, when for the sake of his country he threw himself headlong into the yawning earth; who aided Decius the sire, and Decius the son, when they devoted themselves for the army?—though we might question whether these men had true fortitude, if this concerned our present discussion. Why have prudence and wisdom merited no place among the gods? Is it because they are all worshipped under the general name of Virtue itself? Then they could thus worship the true God also, of whom all the other gods are thought to be parts. But in that one name of virtue is comprehended both faith and chastity, which yet have obtained separate altars in temples of their own.

> Latin: Virtutem quoque deam fecerunt; quae quidem si dea esset, multis fuerat praeferenda. Et nunc quia dea non est, sed donum Dei est, ipsa ab illo inpetretur, a quo solo dari potest, et omnis falsorum deorum turba uanescet. Sed quur et Fides dea credita est et accepit etiam ipsa templum et altare? Quam quisquis prudenter agnoscit, habitaculum illi se ipsum facit. Unde autem sciunt illi quid sit fides, cuius primum et maximum officium est, ut in uerum credatur Deum? Sed quur non suffecerat et Virtus? Nonne ibi est et Fides? Quando quidem uirtutem in quattuor species distribuendam esse uiderunt, prudentiam, iustitiam, fortitudinem, temperantiam; et quoniam et istae singulae species suas habent, in partibus iustitiae fides est maximumque locum aput nos habet, quicumque scimus quid sit, quod iustus ex fide uiuit. Sed illos miror adpetitores multitudinis deorum, si fides dea est, quare aliis tam multis deabus iniuriam fecerint praetermittendo eas, quibus similiter aedes et aras dedicare potuerunt? Quur temperantia dea esse non meruit, cum eius nomine nonnulli Romani principes non paruam gloriam conpararint? Quur denique fortitudo dea non est, quae adfuit Mucio. cum dexteram porrexit in flammas; quae adfuit Curtio, cum se pro patria in abruptam terram praecipitem dedit; quae adfuit Decio patri et Decio filio, cum pro exercitu se uouerunt? si tamen his omnibus uera inerat fortitudo, unde modo non agitur. Quare prudentia, quare sapientia nulla numinum loca meruerunt? An quia in nomine generali ipsius uirtutis omnes coluntur? Sic ergo posset et unus Deus coli, cuius partes ceteri di putantur. Sed in illa una uirtute et fides est et pudicitia, quae tamen extra, in aedibus propriis altaria meruerunt.

### That Although Not Understanding Them to Be the Gifts of God, They Ought at Least to Have Been Content with Virtue and Felicity.

[¶9] Chapter 21.—That Although Not Understanding Them to Be the Gifts of God, They Ought at Least to Have Been Content with Virtue and Felicity.

> Latin: Caput XXI. Quod unum non intellegentes Deum Virtute saltem et Felicitate debuerint esse contenti.

[¶10] These, not verity but vanity has made goddesses. For these are gifts of the true God, not themselves goddesses. However, where virtue and felicity are, what else is sought for? What can suffice the man whom virtue and felicity do not suffice? For surely virtue comprehends all things we need do, felicity all things we need wish for. If Jupiter, then, was worshipped in order that he might give these two things,—because, if extent and duration of empire is something good, it pertains to this same felicity,—why is it not understood that they are not goddesses, but the gifts of God? But if they are judged to be goddesses, then at least that other great crowd of gods should not be sought after. For, having considered all the offices which their fancy has distributed among the various gods and goddesses, let them find out, if they can, anything which could be bestowed by any god whatever on a man possessing virtue, possessing felicity. What instruction 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 and rightly. Hence, because virtue is called in Greek ἀρετη, it has been thought the Latins have derived from it the term art. But if Virtue cannot come except to the clever, what need was there of the god Father Catius, who should make men 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 one not yet born, in order that, being made his friend, she might bestow this on him, yet she might confer this favor on parents who were her worshippers, that clever children should be born to them. What need had women in childbirth to invoke Lucina, when, if Felicity should be present, they would have, not only a good delivery, but good children too? What need was there to commend the children to the goddess Ops when they were being born; to the god Vaticanus in their birth-cry; to the goddess Cunina when lying cradled; to the goddess Rimina when sucking; to the god Statilinus when standing; to the goddess Adeona when coming; to Abeona when going away; to the goddess Mens that they might have a good mind; to the god Volumnus, and the goddess Volumna, that they might wish for good things; to the nuptial gods, that they might make good matches; to the rural gods, and chiefly to the goddess Fructesca herself, that they might receive the most abundant fruits; to Mars and Bellona, that they might carry on war well; to the goddess Victoria, that they might be victorious; to the god Honor, that they might be honored; to the goddess Pecunia, that they might have plenty money; to the god Aesculanus, and his son Argentinus, that they might have brass and silver coin? For they set down Aesculanus as the father of Argentinus for this reason, that brass coin began to be used before silver. But I wonder Argentinus has not begotten Aurinus, since gold coin also has followed. Could they have him for a god, they would prefer Aurinus both to his father Argentinus and his grandfather Aesculanus, just as they set Jove before Saturn. Therefore, what necessity was there on account of these gifts, either of soul, or body, or outward estate, to worship and invoke so great a crowd of gods, all of whom I have not mentioned, nor have they themselves been able to provide for all human benefits, minutely and singly methodized, minute and single gods, when the one goddess Felicity was able, with the greatest ease, compendiously to bestow the whole of them? nor should any other be sought after, either for the bestowing of good things, or for the averting of evil. For why 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 Æsculapius, or both together if there should be great danger? Neither should the god Spiniensis be entreated that he might root out the thorns from the fields; nor the goddess Rubigo that the mildew might not come,—Felicitas alone being present and guarding, either no evils would have arisen, or they would have been quite easily driven away. Finally, since we treat of these two goddesses, Virtue and Felicity, if felicity is the reward of virtue, she is not a goddess, but a gift of God. But if she is a goddess, why may she not be said to confer virtue itself, inasmuch as it is a great felicity to attain virtue?

> Latin: Has deas non ueritas, sed uanitas facit; haec enim ueri Dei munera sunt, non ipsae sunt deae. Verum tamen ubi est uirtus et felicitas, quid aliud quaeritur? Quid ei sufficit, cui uirtus felicitasque non sufficit? Omnia quippe agenda conplectitur uirtus, omnia optanda felicitas. Si Iuppiter, ut haec daret, ideo colebatur, quia, si bonum aliquid est latitudo regni adque diuturnitas, ad eandem pertinet felicitatem: quur non intellectum est dona Dei esse, non deas? Si autem putatae sunt deae, saltem alia tanta deorum turba non quaereretur. Consideratis enim officiis deorum dearumque omnium, quae sicut uoluerunt pro sua opinatione finxerunt, inueniant si possunt aliquid, quod praestari ab aliquo deo possit homini habenti uirtutem, habenti felicitatem. Quid doctrinae uel a Mercurio uel a Minerua petendum esset, cum uirtus omnia secum haberet? Ars quippe ipsa bene recteque uiuendi uirtus a ueteribus definita est. Unde ab eo, quod Graece Aperrj dicitur uirtus, nomen artis Latinos traduxisse putauerunt. Sed si uirtus non nisi ad ingeniosum posset uenire, quid opus erat deo Catio patre, qui catos, id est acutos faceret, cum hoc posset conferre felicitas? Ingeniosum quippe nasci felicitatis est, unde, etiamsi non potuit a nondum nato coli dea Felicitas, ut hoc ei conciliata donaret, conferret hoc parentibus eius cultoribus suis, ut eis ingeniosi filii nascerentur. Quid opus erat parturientibus inuocare Lucinam, cum, si adesset Felicitas, non solum bene parerent, sed etiam bonos? Quid necesse erat Opi deae commendare nascentes, deo Vaticano uagientes, deae Cuninae iacentes, deae Ruminae sugentes, deo Statilino stantes, deae Adeonae adeuntes, Abeonae abeuntes; deae Menti, ut bonam haberent mentem, deo Volumno et deae Volumnae, ut bona uellent; dis nuptialibus, ut bene coniugarentur, dis agrestibus, ut fructus uberrimos caperent, et maxime ipsi diuae Fructeseae; Marti et Bellonae, ut bene belligerarent, deae Victoriae, ut uincerent; deo Honori, ut honorarentur, deae Pecuniae, ut pecuniosi essent, deo Aesculano et filio eius Argentino, ut haberent aeream argenteamque pecuniam? Nam ideo patrem Argentini Aesculanum posuerunt, quia prius aerea pecunia in usu coepit esse, post argentea. Miror autem, quod Argentinus non genuit Aurinum, quia et aurea subsecuta est. Quem deum isti si haberent, sicut Saturno Iouem, ita et patri Argentino et auo Aesculano Aurinum praeponerent. Quid ergo erat necesse propter haec bona uel animi uel corporis uel externa tantam deorum turbam colere et inuocare (quos neque omnes commemoraui, nec ipsi potuerunt omnibus bonis humanis minutatim singillatimque digestis deos minutos et singulos prouidere), cum posset magno facilique conpendio una dea Felicitas cuncta conferre, nec solum ad bona capienda quisquam alius, sed neque ad depellenda mala quaereretur? Quur enim esset inuocanda propter fessos diua Fessona, propter hostes depellendos diua Pellonia, propter aegros medicus uel Apollo uel Aesculapius uel ambo simul, quando esset grande periculum? Nec deus Spiniensis, ut spinas ex agris eradicaret; nec dea Rubigo, ut non accederet, rogaretur: una Felicitate praesente et tuente uel nulla mala exorerentur, uel facillime pellerentur. Postremo quoniam de duabus istis deabus Virtute et Felicitate tractamus: si felicitas uirtutis est praemium, non dea, sed Dei donum est; si autem dea est, quur non dicatur et uirtutem ipsa conferre, quando quidem etiam uirtutem consequi felicitas magna est?

### Concerning the Knowledge of the Worship Due to the Gods, Which Varro Glories in Having Himself Conferred on the Romans.

[¶12] Chapter 22.—Concerning the Knowledge of the Worship Due to the Gods, Which Varro Glories in Having Himself Conferred on the Romans.

> Latin: Caput XXII. De scientia colendorum deorum, quam a se Varro gloriatur conlatam esse Romanis.

[¶13] What is it, then, that Varro boasts he has bestowed as a very great benefit on his fellow-citizens, because he not only recounts the gods who ought to be worshipped by the Romans, but also tells what pertains to each of them? “Just as it is of no advantage,” he says, “to know the name and appearance of any man who is a physician, and not know that he is a physician, so,” he says, “it is of no advantage to know well that Æsculapius is a god, if you are not aware that he can bestow the gift of health, and consequently do not know why you ought to supplicate him.” He also affirms this by another comparison, saying, “No one is able, not only to live well, but even to live at all, if he does not know who is a smith, who a baker, who a weaver, from whom he can seek any utensil, whom he may take for a helper, whom for a leader, whom for a teacher;” asserting, “that in this way it can be doubtful to no one, that thus the knowledge of the gods is useful, if one can know what force, and faculty, or power any god may have in any thing. For from this we may be able,” he says, “to know what god we ought to call to, and invoke for any cause; lest we should do as too many are wont to do, and desire water from Liber, and wine from Lymphs.” Very useful, forsooth! Who would not give this man thanks if he could show true things, and if he could teach that the one true God, from whom all good things are, is to be worshipped by men?

> Latin: Quid est ergo, quod pro ingenti beneficio Varro iactat praestare se ciuibus suis, quia non solum ‘commemorat deos, quos coli oporteat a Romanis, uerum etiam dicit quid ad quemque pertineat? Quoniam nihil prodest, inquit, hominis alicuius medici nomen formamque nosse, et quod sit medicus ignorare: ita dicit nihil prodesse scire deum esse Aesculapium, si nescias eum ualetudini opitulari, adque ita ignores quur ei debeas supplicare. Hoc etiam alia similitudine adfirmat dicens, non modo bene uiuere, sed uiuere omnino neminem posse, si ignoret quisnam sit faber, quis pistor, quis tector, a quo quid utensile petere possit, quem adiutorem adsumere, quem ducem, quem doctorem; eo modo nulli dubium esse adserens ita esse utilem cognitionem deorum, si sciatur quam quisque deus uim et facultatem ac potestatem cuiusque rei habeat. (Ex eo enim poterimus, inquit, scire quem cuiusque causa deum aduocare adque inuocare debeamus, ne faciamus, ut mimi solent, et optemus a Libero aquam, a Lymphis uinum’. Magna sane utilitas. Quis non huic gratias ageret, si uera monstraret, et si unum uerum Deum, a quo essent omnia bona, hominibus colendum doceret?

### Concerning Felicity, Whom the Romans, Who Venerate Many Gods, for a Long Time Did Not Worship with Divine Honor, Though She Alone Would Have Sufficed Instead of All.

[¶15] Chapter 23.—Concerning Felicity, Whom the Romans, Who Venerate Many Gods, for a Long Time Did Not Worship with Divine Honor, Though She Alone Would Have Sufficed Instead of All.

> Latin: Caput XXIII. De Felicitate, quam Romani, multorum ueneratores deorum, diu non coluerunt honore diuino, cum pro omnibus sola sufficeret.

[¶16] But how does it happen, if their books and rituals are true, and Felicity is a goddess, that she herself is not appointed as the only one to be worshipped, since she could confer all things, and all at once make men happy? For who wishes anything for any other reason than that he may become happy? Why was it left to Lucullus to dedicate a temple to so great a goddess at so late a date, and after so many Roman rulers? Why did Romulus himself, ambitious as he was of founding a fortunate city, not erect a temple to this goddess before all others? Why did he supplicate the other gods for anything, since he would have lacked nothing had she been with him? For even he himself would neither have been first a king, then afterwards, as they think, a god, if this goddess had not been propitious to him. Why, therefore, did he appoint as gods for the Romans, Janus, Jove, Mars, Picus, Faunus, Tibernus, Hercules, and others, if there were more of them? Why did Titus Tatius add Saturn, Ops, Sun, Moon, Vulcan, Light, and whatever others he added, among whom was even the goddess Cloacina, while Felicity was neglected? Why did Numa appoint so many gods and so many goddesses without this one? Was it perhaps because he could not see her among so great a crowd? Certainly king Hostilius would not have introduced the new gods Fear and Dread to be propitiated, if he could have known or might have worshipped this goddess. For, in presence of Felicity, Fear and Dread would have disappeared,—I do not say propitiated, but put to flight. Next, I ask, how is it that the Roman empire had already immensely increased before any one worshipped Felicity? Was the empire, therefore, more great than happy? For how could true felicity be there, where there was not true piety? For piety is the genuine worship of the true God, and not the worship of as many demons as there are false gods. Yet even afterwards, when Felicity had already been taken into the number of the gods, the great infelicity of the civil wars ensued. Was Felicity perhaps justly indignant, both because she was invited so late, and was invited not to honor, but rather to reproach, because along with her were worshipped Priapus, and Cloacina, and Fear and Dread, and Ague, and others which were not gods to be worshipped, but the crimes of the worshippers? Last of all, if it seemed good to worship so great a goddess along with a most unworthy crowd, why at least was she not worshipped in a more honorable way than the rest? For is it not intolerable that Felicity is placed neither among the gods Consentes, whom they allege to be admitted into the council of Jupiter, nor among the gods whom they term Select? Some temple might be made for her which might be pre-eminent, both in loftiness of site and dignity of style. Why, indeed, not something better than is made for Jupiter himself? For who gave the kingdom even to Jupiter but Felicity? I am supposing that when he reigned he was happy. Felicity, however, is certainly more valuable than a kingdom. For no one doubts that a man might easily be found who may fear to be made a king; but no one is found who is unwilling to be happy. Therefore, if it is thought they can be consulted by augury, or in any other way, the gods themselves should be consulted about this thing, whether they may wish to give place to Felicity. If, perchance, the place should already be occupied by the temples and altars of others, where a greater and more lofty temple might be built to Felicity, even Jupiter himself might give way, so that Felicity might rather obtain the very pinnacle of the Capitoline hill. For there is not any one who would resist Felicity, except, which is impossible, one who might wish to be unhappy. Certainly, if he should be consulted, Jupiter would in no case do what those 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 construct the Capitol, and perceived that the place which seemed to him to be the most worthy and suitable was preoccupied by other gods, not daring to do anything contrary to their pleasure, and believing that they would willingly give place to a god who was so great, and was their own master, because there were many of them there when the Capitol was founded, he inquired by augury whether they chose to give place to Jupiter, and they were all willing to remove thence except those whom I have named, Mars, Terminus, and Juventas; and therefore the Capitol was built in such a way that these three also might be within it, yet with such obscure signs that even the most learned men could scarcely know this. Surely, then, Jupiter himself would by no means despise Felicity, as he was himself despised by Terminus, Mars, and Juventas. But even they themselves who had not given place to Jupiter, would certainly give place to Felicity, who had made Jupiter king over them. Or if they should not give place, they would act thus not out of contempt of her, but because they chose rather to be obscure in the house of Felicity, than to be eminent without her in their own places.

> Latin: Sed (unde nunc agitur) si libri et sacra eorum uera sunt et Felicitas dea est, quur non ipsa una quae coleretur constituta est, quae posset uniuersa conferre et conpendio facere felicem? Quis enim optat aliquid propter aliud quam ut felix fiat? Quur denique tam sero huic tantae deae post tot Romanos principes Lucullus aedem constituit? Quur ipse Romulus felicem cupiens condere ciuitatem non huic templum potissimum struxit nec propter aliquid dis ceteris supplicauit, quando nihil deesset, si haec adesset? Nam et ipse nec prius rex, nec ut putant postea deus fieret, si hanc deam propitiam non haberet. Ut quid ergo constituit Romanis deos Ianum, Iouem, Martem, Picum, Faunum, Tiberinum, Herculem et si quos alios? Ut quid Titus Tatius addidit Saturnum, Opem, Solem, Lunam, Vulcanum, Lucem et quoscumque alios addidit, inter quos etiam deam Cloacinam, Felicitate neglecta? Ut quid Numa tot deos et tot deas sine ista? An eam forte in tanta turba uidere non potuit? Hostilius certe rex deos et ipse nouos Pauorem adque Pallorem propitiandos non introduceret, si deam istam nosset aut coleret. Praesente quippe Felicitate omnis pauor et pallor non propitiatus abscederet, sed pulsus aufugeret. Deinde quid est hoc, quod iam Romanum imperium longe lateque crescebat, et adhuc nemo Felicitatem colebat? An ideo grandius imperium quam felicius fuit? Nam quo modo ibi esset uera felicitas, ubi uera non erat pietas? Pietas est enim uerax ueri Dei cultus, non cultus falsorum tot deorum, quot daemoniorum. Sed et postea iam in deorum numerum Felicitate suscepta magna bellorum ciuilium infelicitas subsecuta est. An forte iuste est indignata Felicitas, quod et tam sero et non ad honorem, sed ad contumeliam potius inuitata est, ut cum ea coleretur Priapus et Cloacina et Pauor et Pallor et Febris et cetera non numina colendorum, sed crimina colentium? Ad extremum si cum turba indignissima tanta dea colenda uisa est, quur non uel inlustrius ceteris colebatur? Quis enim ferat, quod neque inter deos Consentes, quos dicunt in consilium Iouis adhiberi, nec inter deos, quos selectos uocant, Felicitas constituta eat? Templum aliquod ei fieret, quod et loci sublimitate et operis dignitate praemineret. Quur enim non aliquid melius quam ipsi Ioui? Nam quae etiam Ioui regnum nisi Felicitas dedit? si tamen cum regnaret felix fuit. Et potior est felicitas regno. Nemo enim dubitat facile inueniri hominem, qui se timeat fieri regem; nullus autem inuenitur, • qui se nolit esse felicem. Ipsi ergo di si per auguria uel quolibet modo eos posse consuli putant, de hac re consulerentur, utrum uellent Felicitati loco cedere, si forte aliorum aedibus uel altaribus iam fuisset locus occupatus, ubi aedes maior adque sublimior Felicitati construeretur; etiam ipse Iuppiter cederet, ut ipsum uerticem collis Capitolini Felicitas potius obtineret. Non enim quispiam resisteret Felicitati, nisi, quod fieri non potest, qui esse uellet infelix. Nullo modo omnino, si consuleretur, faceret Iuppiter, quod ei fecerunt tres di, Mars, Terminus et Iuuentas, qui maiori et regi ‘suo nullo modo cedere loco uoluerunt. Nam sicut habent eorum litterae, cum rex Tarquinius Capitolium fabricari uellet eumque locum, qui ei dignior aptiorque uidebatur, ab dis aliis cerneret praeoccupatum, non audens aliquid contra eorum facere arbitrium et credens eos tanto numini suoque principi uoluntate cessuros, quia multi erant illic, ubi Capitolium constitutum est. per augurium quaesiuit, utrum concedere locum uellent Ioui; adque ipsi inde cedere omnes uoluerunt praeter illos quos commemoraui, Martem, Terminum, Iuuentatem; adque ideo Capitolium ita constructum est, ut etiam isti tres intus essent tam obscuris signis, ut hoc uix homines doctissimi scirent. Nullo modo igitur Felicitatem Iuppiter ipse contemneret, sicut a Termino, Marte, Iuuentate contemtus est. Sed ipsi etiam, qui non cesserant Ioui, profecto cederent Felicitati, quae illis regem fecerat Iouem. Aut si non cederent, non id contemtu eius facerent, sed quod in domo Felicitatis obscuri esse mallent quam sine illa in locis propriis eminere.

[¶17] Thus the goddess Felicity being established in the largest and loftiest place, the citizens should learn whence the furtherance of every good desire should be sought. And so, by the persuasion of nature herself, the superfluous multitude of other gods being abandoned, Felicity alone would be worshipped, prayer would be made to her alone, her temple alone would be frequented by the citizens who wished to be happy, which no one of them would not wish; and thus felicity, who was sought for from all the gods, would be sought for only from her 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 what man she pleases (and she has it if she is a goddess), what folly is it, after all, to seek from any other god her whom you can obtain by request from her own self! Therefore they ought to honor this goddess above other gods, even by dignity of place. For, as we read in their own authors, the ancient Romans paid greater honors to I know not what Summanus, to whom they attributed nocturnal thunderbolts, than to Jupiter, to whom diurnal thunderbolts were held to pertain. But, after a famous and conspicuous temple had been built to Jupiter, owing to the dignity of the building, the multitude resorted to him in so great numbers, that scarce one can be found who remembers even to have read the name of Summanus, which now he cannot once hear named. But if Felicity is not a goddess, because, as is true, it is a gift of God, that god must be sought who has power to give it, and that hurtful multitude of false gods must be abandoned which the vain multitude of foolish men follows after, making gods to itself of the gifts of God, and offending Himself whose gifts they are by the stubbornness of a proud will. For he cannot be free from infelicity who worships Felicity as a goddess, and forsakes God, the giver of felicity; just as he cannot be free from hunger who licks a painted loaf of bread, and does not buy it of the man who has a real one.

> Latin: Ita dea Felicitate in loco amplissimo et celsissimo constituta discerent ciues, unde omnis boni uoti petendum esset auxilium, ac sic ipsa suadente natura aliorum deorum superflua multitudine derelicta coleretur una Felicitas, uni supplicaretur, unius templum frequentaretur a ciuibus qui felices esse uellent, quorum esset nemo qui nollet, adque ita ipsa a se ipsa peteretur, quae ab omnibus petebatur. Quis enim aliquid ab aliquo deo nisi felicitatem uelit accipere uel quod ad felicitatem existimat pertinere? Proinde si felicitas habet in potestate cum quo homine sit (habet autem, si dea est): quae tandem stultitia est ab aliquo eam deo petere, quam possis a se ipsa inpetrare? Hanc ergo deam super deos ceteros honorare etiam ‘loci dignitate debuerunt. Sicut enim aput ipsos legitur, Romani ueteres nescio quem Summanum, cui nocturna fulmina tribuebant, coluerunt magis quam Iouem, ad quem diurna fulmina pertinerent. Sed postquam Ioui templum insigne ac sublime constructum est, propter aedis dignitatem sic ad eum multitudo confluxit, ut uix inueniatur qui Summani nomen, quod audire iam non potest, se saltem legisse meminerit. Si autem felicitas dea non est, quoniam, quod uerum est, munus est Dei: ille Deus quaeratur, qui eam dare possit, et falsorum deorum multitudo noxia relinquatur, quam stultorum hominum multitudo uana sectatur, Dei dona deos sibi faciens et ipsum, cuius ea dona sunt, obstinatione superbae uoluntatis offendens. Sic enim carere non potest infelicitate, qui tamquam deam felicitatem colit et Deum datorem felicitatis relinquit, sicut carere non potest fame, qui panem pictum lingit et ab homine, qui uerum habet, non petit.

### The Reasons by Which the Pagans Attempt to Defend Their Worshipping Among the Gods the Divine Gifts Themselves.

[¶19] Chapter 24.—The Reasons by Which the Pagans Attempt to Defend Their Worshipping Among the Gods the Divine Gifts Themselves.

> Latin: Caput XXIV. Qua ratione defendant pagani, quod inter deos colant ipsa dona diuina.

[¶20] We may, however, consider their reasons. Is it to be believed, say they, that our forefathers were besotted even to such a degree as not to know that these things are divine gifts, and not gods? But as they knew that such things are granted to no one, except by some god freely bestowing them, they called the gods whose names they did not find out by the names of those things which they deemed to be given by them; sometimes slightly altering the name for that purpose, as, for example, from war they have named Bellona, not bellum; from cradles, Cunina, not cunæ; 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 the things themselves are named, so that the goddess who gives money is called Pecunia, and money is not thought to be itself a goddess: so of Virtus, who gives virtue; Honor, who gives honor; Concordia, who gives concord; Victoria, who gives victory. So, they say, when Felicitas is called a goddess, what is meant is not the thing itself which is given, but that deity by whom felicity is given.

> Latin: Libet autem eorum considerare rationes. Usque adeone. inquiunt, maiores nostros insipientes fuisse credendum est, ut haec nescirent munera diuina esse, non deos? Sed quoniam sciebant nemini talia nisi aliquo deo largiente concedi, quorum deorum nomina non inueniebant, earum rerum nominibus appellabant deos, quas ab eis sentiebant dari, aliqua uocabula inde flectentes, sicut a bello Bellonam nuncupauerunt, non Bellum; sicut a cunis Cuninam, non Cunam; sicut a segetibus Segetiam, non Segetem, a pomis Pomonam, non Pomum: sicut a bubus Bubonam, non Bouem: aut certe nulla uocabuli declinatione sicut res ipsae nominantur, ut Pecunia dicta est dea, quae dat pecuniam, non omnino pecunia dea ipsa putata est; ita Virtus. quae dat uirtutem, Honor, qui honorem, Concordia, quae concordiam, Victoria, quae dat uictoriam. Ita, inquiunt, cum Felicitas dea dicitur, non ipsa quae datur, sed numen illud adtenditur a quo felicitas datur.

### Concerning the One God Only to Be Worshipped, Who, Although His Name is Unknown, is Yet Deemed to Be the Giver of Felicity.

[¶22] Chapter 25.—Concerning the One God Only to Be Worshipped, Who, Although His Name is Unknown, is Yet Deemed to Be the Giver of Felicity.

> Latin: Caput XXV. De uno tantum colendo Deo, qui licet nomine ignoretur, tamen felicitatis dator esse sentitur.

[¶23] Having had that reason rendered to us, we shall perhaps much more easily persuade, as we wish, those whose heart has not become too much hardened. For if now human infirmity has perceived that felicity cannot be given except by some god; if this was perceived by those who worshipped so many gods, at whose head they set Jupiter himself; if, in their ignorance of the name of Him by whom felicity was given, they agreed to call Him by the name of that very thing which they believed He gave;—then it follows that they thought that felicity could not be given even by Jupiter himself, whom they already worshipped, but certainly by him whom they thought fit to worship under the name of Felicity itself. I thoroughly affirm the statement that they believed felicity to be given by a certain God whom they knew not: let Him therefore be sought after, let Him be worshipped, and it is enough. Let the train of innumerable demons be repudiated, and let this God suffice every man whom his gift suffices. For him, I say, God the giver of felicity will not be enough to worship, for whom felicity itself is not enough to receive. But let him for whom it suffices (and man has nothing more he ought to wish for) serve the one God, the giver of felicity. This God is not he whom they call Jupiter. For if they acknowledged him to be the giver of felicity, they would not seek, under the name of Felicity itself, for another god or goddess by whom felicity might be given; nor could they tolerate that Jupiter 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.

> Latin: Ista nobis reddita ratione multo facilius eis, quorum cor non nimis obduruit, persuadebimus fortasse quod uolumus. Si enim iam humana infirmitas sensit non nisi ab aliquo deo dari posse felicitatem, et hoc senserunt homines, qui tam multos colebant deos, in quibus et ipsum eorum regem Iouem: quia nomen eius, a quo daretur felicitas, ignorabant, ideo ipsius rei nomine, quam credebant ab illo dari, eum appellare uoluerunt, satis ergo indicarunt nec ab ipso Ioue dari posse felicitatem, quem iam colebant, sed utique ab illo, quem nomine ipsius felicitatis colendum esse censebant. Confirmo prorsus a quodam deo, quem nesciebant, eos credidisse dari felicitatem: ipse ergo quaeratur, ipse colatur, et sufficit. Repudietur strepitus innumerabilium daemoniorum; illi non sufficiat hic deus, cui non sufficit munus eius. Illi, inquam, non sufficiat ad colendum Deus dator felicitatis, cui non sufficit ad accipiendum ipsa felicitas. Cui autem sufficit (non enim habet homo quid amplius optare debeat), seruiat uni Deo datori felicitatis. Non est ipse, quem nominant Iouem. Nam si eum datorem felicitatis agnoscerent, non utique alium uel aliam, a qua daretur felicitas, nomine ipsius felicitatis inquirerent, neque ipsum Iouem cum tantis iniuriis colendum putarent. Iste alienarum dicitur adulter uxorum, iste pueri pulchri inpudicus amator et raptor.

## 23. Of the Scenic Plays, the Celebration of Which the Gods Have Exacted from Their Worshippers.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/23/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/23/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 26.—Of the Scenic Plays, the Celebration of Which the Gods Have Exacted from Their Worshippers.

> Latin: Caput XXVI. De ludis scaenicis, quos sibi di celebrari a suis cultoribus exegerunt.

[¶1] “But,” says Cicero, “Homer invented these things, and transferred things human to the gods: I would rather transfer things divine to us.” The poet, by ascribing such crimes to the gods, has justly displeased the grave man. Why, then, are the scenic plays, where these crimes are habitually spoken of, acted, exhibited, in honor of the gods, reckoned among things divine by the most learned men? Cicero should exclaim, not against the inventions of the poets, but against the customs of the ancients. Would not they have exclaimed in reply, What have we done? The gods themselves have loudly demanded that these plays should be exhibited in their honor, have fiercely exacted them, have menaced destruction unless this was 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 is related. It was announced in a dream to Titus Latinius, a Roman rustic, that he should go to the senate and tell them to recommence the games of Rome, because on the first day of their celebration a condemned criminal had been led to punishment in sight of the people, an incident so sad as to disturb the gods who were seeking amusement from the games. And when the peasant who had received this intimation was afraid on the following day to deliver it to the senate, it was renewed next night in a severer form: he lost his son, because of his neglect. On the third night he was warned that a yet graver punishment was impending, if he should still refuse obedience. When even thus he did not dare to obey, he fell into a virulent and horrible disease. But then, on the advice of his friends, he gave information to the magistrates, and was carried in a litter into 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 the games should be renewed at fourfold cost. What sensible man does not see that men, being put upon by malignant demons, from whose domination nothing save the grace of God 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 it is that in these plays the poetic crimes of the gods are celebrated, yet they are plays which were re-established by decree of the senate, under compulsion of the gods. In these plays the most shameless actors celebrated Jupiter as the corrupter of chastity, and thus gave him pleasure. If that was a fiction, he would have been moved to anger; but if he was delighted with the representation of his crimes, even although fabulous, then, when he happened to be worshipped, who but the devil could be served? Is it so that he could found, extend, and preserve the Roman empire, who was more vile than any Roman 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 more infelicitously provoked to anger?

> Latin: Sed (fingebat haec Homerus, ait Tullius, et humana ad deos transferebat: diuina mallem ad nos.’ Merito displicuit uiro graui diuinorum criminum poeta confictor. Quur ergo ludi scaenici, ubi haec dictitantur cantitantur actitantur, deorum honoribus exhibentur, inter res diuinas a doctissimis conscribuntur? Hic exclamet Cicero non contra figmenta poetarum, sed contra instituta maiorum; an exclamarent et illi: Quid nos fecimus! Ipsi di ista suis honoribus exhibenda flagitauerunt, atrociter imperarunt, cladem nisi fieret praenuntiarunt, quia neglectum est aliquid, seuerissime uindicarunt, quia id quod neglectum fuerat factum est, placatos se esse monstrarunt. Inter eorum commemoratur uirtutes et miranda facta quod dicam. Tito Latinio rustico Romano patri familias dictum est in somnis, in senatum nuntiaret, ut ludi Romani instaurarentur, quod primo eorum die in quodam scelerato, qui populo spectante ad supplicium duci iussus est, numinibus uidelicet ex ludis hilaritatem quaerentibus triste displicuisset imperium. Cum ergo ille qui somnio commonitus erat postero die iussa facere non ausus esset, secunda nocte hoc idem rursus seuerius imperatum est: amisit filium, quia non fecit. Tertia nocte dictum est homini, quod maior ei poena, si non faceret, inmineret. Cum etiam sic non auderet, in morbum incidit acrem et horribilem. Tum uero ex amicorum sententia ad magistratus rem detulit adque in lectica adlatus est in senatum expositoque somnio recepta continuo ualetudine pedibus suis sanus abscessit. Tanto stupefactus miraculo senatus quadruplicata pecunia ludos censuit instaurari. Quis non uideat, qui sanum sapit, subditos homines malignis daemonibus, a quorum dominatione non liberat nisi gratia Dei per Iesum Christum dominum nostrum, ui conpulsos esse exhibere talibus dis, quae recto consilio poterant turpia iudicari? In illis certe ludis poetica numinum crimina frequentantur, qui ludi cogentibus numinibus iussu senatus instaurabantur. In illis ludis corruptorem pudicitiae Iouem turpissimi histriones cantabant agebant placebant. Si illud fingebatur, ille irasceretur; si autem suis criminibus etiam fictis delectabatur, quando coleretur, nisi diabolo seruiretur? Itane iste Romanum conderet dilataret conseruaret imperium, quouis Romano, cui talia displicebant, homine abiectior? Iste daret felicitatem, qui tam infeliciter colebatur, et nisi ita coleretur, infelicius irascebatur?

### Concerning the Three Kinds of Gods About Which the Pontiff Scævola Has Discoursed.

[¶3] Chapter 27.—Concerning the Three Kinds of Gods About Which the Pontiff Scævola Has Discoursed.

> Latin: Caput XXVII. De tribus generibus deorum, de quibus Scaeuola pontifex disputauit.

[¶4] It is recorded that the very learned pontiff Scævola had distinguished about three kinds of gods—one introduced by the poets, another by the philosophers, another by the statesmen. The first kind he declares to be trifling, because many unworthy things have been invented by the poets concerning the gods; the second does not suit states, because it contains some things that are superfluous, and some, too, which it would be prejudicial for the people to know. It is no great matter about the superfluous things, for it is a common saying of skillful lawyers, “Superfluous things do no harm.” But what are those things which do harm when brought before the multitude? “These,” he says, “that Hercules, Æsculapius, Castor and Pollux, are not gods; for it is declared by learned men that these were but men, and yielded to the common lot of mortals.” What else? “That states have not the true images of the gods; because the true God has neither sex, nor age, nor definite corporeal members.” The pontiff is not willing that the people should know these things; for he does not think they are false. He thinks it expedient, therefore, that states should be deceived in matters of religion; which Varro himself does not even hesitate to say in his books about things divine. Excellent religion! to which the weak, who requires to be delivered, may flee for succor; and when he seeks for the truth by which he may be delivered, it is believed to be expedient for him that he be deceived. And, truly, in these same books, Scævola is not silent as to his reason for rejecting the poetic sort of gods,—to wit, “because they so disfigure the gods that they could not bear comparison even with good men, when they make one to commit theft, another adultery; or, again, to say or do something else basely and foolishly; as that three goddesses contested (with each other) the prize of beauty, and the two vanquished by Venus destroyed Troy; that Jupiter turned himself into a bull or swan that he might copulate with some one; that a goddess married a man, and Saturn devoured his children; that, in fine, there is nothing that could be imagined, either of the miraculous or vicious, which may not be found there, and yet is far removed from the nature of the gods.” O chief pontiff Scævola, take away the plays if thou art able; instruct the people that they may not offer such honors to the immortal gods, in which, if they like, they may admire the crimes of 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, then ask the gods themselves at whose instigation you have ordered these things, that they may not order such things to be offered to them. For if they are bad, and therefore in no way to be believed concerning the majority of the gods, the greater is the wrong done the gods about whom they are feigned with impunity. But they do not hear thee, they are demons, they teach wicked things, they rejoice in vile things; not only do they not count it a wrong if these things are feigned about them, but it is a wrong they are quite unable to bear if they are not acted at their stated festivals. But now, if thou wouldst call on Jupiter against them, chiefly for that reason that more of his crimes are wont to be acted in the scenic plays, is it not the case that, although you call him god Jupiter, by whom this whole world is ruled and administered, it is he to whom the greatest wrong is done by you, because you have thought he ought to be worshipped along with them, and have styled him their king?

> Latin: Relatum est in litteras doctissimum pontificem Scaeuolam disputasse tria genera tradita deorum: unum a poetis, alterum a philosophis, tertium a principibus ciuitatis. Primum genus nugatorium dicit esse, quod multa de dis fingantur indigna; secundum non congruere ciuitatibus, quod habeat aliqua superuacua, aliqua etiam quae obsit populis nosse. De superuacuis non magna causa est; solet enim et a iuris peritis dici: Superflua non nocent. Quae sunt autem illa, quae prolata in multitudinem nocent ? (Haec, inquit, non esse deos Herculem, Aesculapium, Castorem, Pollucem; proditur enim a doctis, quod homines fuerint et humana condicione defecerint.’ Quid aliud? ‘Quod eorum qui sint di non habeant ciuitates uera simulacra, quod uerus Deus nec sexum habeat nec aetatem nec definita corporis membra.’ Haec pontifex nosse populos non uult; nam falsa esse non putat. Expedire igitur existimat falli in religione ciuitates. Quod dicere etiam in libris rerum diuinarum Varro ipse non dubitat. Praeclara religio, quo confugiat liberandus infirmus, et cum ueritatem qua liberetur inquirat, credatur ei expedire quod fallitur. Poeticum sane deorum genus quur Scaeuola respuat, eisdem litteris non tacetur: quia sic uidelicet deos deformant, ut nec bonis hominibus conparentur, cum alium faciant furari, alium adulterare, sic item aliquid aliter turpiter adque inepte dicere ac facere; tres inter se deas certasse de praemio pulchritudinis, uictas duas a Venere Troiam euertisse; Iouem ipsum conuerti in bouem aut cygnum, ut cum aliqua concumbat; deam homini nubere; Saturnum liberos deuorare: nihil denique posse confingi miraculorum adque uitiorum, quod non ibi reperiatur adque ab deorum natura longe absit.s o Scaeuola pontifex maxime, ludos tolle, si potes; praecipe populis, ne tales honores dis inmortalibus deferant, ubi crimina deorum libeat mirari et quae fieri possunt placeat imitari. Si autem tibi responderit populus: Vos nobis inportastis ista pontifices: deos ipsos roga, quibus instigantibus ista iussistis, ne talia sibi iubeant exhiberi. Quae si mala sunt et propterea nullo modo de deorum maiestate credenda, maior est deorum iniuria, de quibus inpune finguntur. Sed non te audiunt, daemones sunt. praua docent, turpibus gaudent: non solum non deputant iniuriam, si de illis ista fingantur, sed eam potius iniuriam ferre non possunt, si per eorum sollemnia non agantur. Iam uero si aduersus eos Ionem iuterpelles, maxime ob eam causam, quia eius plura crimina ludis scaenicis actitantur: nonne etiamsi Deum Iouem nuncupatis, a quo regitur totus adque administratur hic mundus, eo illi fit a uobis maxima iniuria, quod eum cum istis colendum putatis eorumque regem esse perhibetis?

### Whether the Worship of the Gods Has Been of Service to the Romans in Obtaining and Extending the Empire.

[¶6] Chapter 28.—Whether the Worship of the Gods Has Been of Service to the Romans in Obtaining and Extending the Empire.

> Latin: Caput XXVIII. An ad obtinendum dilatandumque regnum profuerit Romanis cultus deorum.

[¶7] Therefore such gods, who are propitiated by such honors, or rather are impeached by them (for it is a greater crime to delight in having such things said of them falsely, than even if they could be said truly), could never by any means have been able to increase and preserve the Roman empire. For if they could have done it, they would rather have bestowed so grand a gift on the Greeks, who, in this kind of divine things,—that is, in scenic plays,—have worshipped them more honorably and worthily, although they have not exempted themselves from those slanders of the poets, by whom they saw the gods torn in pieces, giving them licence to ill-use any man they pleased, and have not deemed the scenic players themselves to be base, but have held them worthy even of distinguished honor. But just as the Romans were able to have gold money, although they did not worship a god Aurinus, so also they could have silver and brass coin, and yet worship neither Argentinus nor his father Aesculanus; and so of all the rest, which it would be irksome for me to detail. It follows, therefore, both that they could not by any means 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 sincere faith and virtue, they would both have a better kingdom here, whatever might be its extent, and whether they might have one here or not, would afterwards receive an eternal kingdom.

> Latin: Nullo igitur modo di tales, qui talibus placantur uel potius accusantur honoribus, ut maius sit crimen quod eis falsis oblectantur, quam si de illis uera dicerentur, Romanum imperium augere et conseruare potuissent. Hoc enim si possent, Graecis potius donum tam grande conferrent, qui eos in huiusce modi rebus diuinis, hoc est ludis scaenicis, honorabilius digniusque coluerunt, quando et a morsibus poetarum, quibus deos dilacerari uidebant, se non subtraxerunt, dando eis licentiam male tractandi homines quos liberet, et ipsos scaenicos non turpes iudicauerunt, sed dignos etiam praeclaris honoribus habuerunt. Sicut autem potuerunt auream pecuniam habere Romani, quamuis deum Aurinum non colerent: sic et argenteam habere potuerunt et aeream, si nec Argentinum nec eius patrem colerent Aesculanum, et sic omnia quae retexere piget. Sic ergo et regnum inuito quidem Deo uero nullo modo habere possent; dis uero istis falsis et multis ignoratis siue contemtis adque illo uno cognito et fide sincera ac moribus culto et melius hic regnum haberent, quantumcumque haberent, et post haec acciperent sempiternum, siue hic haberent siue non haberent.

### Of the Falsity of the Augury by Which the Strength and Stability of the Roman Empire Was Considered to Be Indicated.

[¶9] Chapter 29.—Of the Falsity of the Augury by Which the Strength and Stability of the Roman Empire Was Considered to Be Indicated.

> Latin: Caput XXIX. De falsitate auspicii, quo Romani regni fortitudo et stabilitas uisa est indicari.

[¶10] For what kind of augury is that which they have declared to be most beautiful, and to which I referred a little ago, that Mars, and Terminus, and Juventas would not give place even to Jove, the king of the gods? For thus, they say, it was signified 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 to disturb the Roman frontiers; and also, that the Roman youth, because of the goddess Juventas, should yield to no one. Let them see, therefore, how they can hold him to be the king of their gods, and the giver of their own kingdom, if these auguries set him down for an adversary, to whom it would have been honorable not to yield. However, if these things are true, they need not be at all afraid. For they are not going to confess that the gods who would not yield to Jove have yielded to Christ. For, without altering the boundaries of the empire, Jesus Christ has proved Himself able to drive them, not only from their temples, but from the hearts of their worshippers. But, before Christ came in the flesh, and, indeed, before these things which we have quoted from their books could have been written, but yet after that auspice was made under king Tarquin, the Roman army has been divers times scattered or put to flight, and has shown the falseness of the auspice, which they derived from the fact that the goddess Juventas had not given place to Jove; and the nation dedicated to Mars was trodden down in the city itself by the invading and triumphant Gauls; and the boundaries of the empire, through the falling away of many cities to Hannibal, had been hemmed into a narrow space. Thus the beauty of the auspices is made void, and there has remained only the contumacy against Jove, not of gods, but of demons. For it is one thing not to have yielded, and another to have returned whither you have yielded. Besides, even afterwards, in the oriental regions, the boundaries of the Roman empire were changed by the will of Hadrian; for he yielded up to the Persian 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 to Jove, would seem to have been more afraid of Hadrian, a king of men, than of the king of the gods. The aforesaid provinces having also been taken back again, almost within our own recollection the frontier fell back, when Julian, given up to the oracles of their gods, with immoderate daring ordered the victualling ships to be set on fire. The army being thus left destitute of provisions, and he himself also being presently killed by the enemy, and the legions being hard pressed, while dismayed by the loss of their commander, they were reduced to such extremities that no one could have escaped, unless by articles of peace the boundaries of the empire had then been established where they still remain; not, indeed, with so great a loss as was suffered by the concession of Hadrian, but still at a considerable sacrifice. It was a vain augury, then, that the god Terminus did not yield to Jove, since he yielded to the will of Hadrian, and yielded also to the rashness of Julian, and the necessity of Jovinian. The more intelligent and grave Romans have seen these things, but have had little power against the custom of the state, which was bound to observe the rites of the demons; because even they themselves, although they perceived that these things were vain, yet thought that the religious worship which is due to God should be paid to the nature of things which is established under the rule and government of the one true God, “serving,” as saith the apostle, “the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for evermore.” The help of this true God was necessary to send holy and truly pious men, who would die for the true religion that they might remove the false from among the living.

> Latin: Nam illud quale est quod pulcherrimum auspicium fuisse dixerunt, quod paulo ante commemoraui, Martem et Terminum et Iuuentatem nec Ioui regi deorum loco cedere uoluisse? Sic enim, inquiunt, significatum est, Martiam gentem, id est Romanam, nemini locum quem teneret daturam, Romanos quoque terminos propter deum Terminum neminem commoturum, iuuentutem etiam Romanam propter deam Iuuentatem nemini esse cessuram. Videant ergo quo modo habeant istum regem deorum suorum et datorem regni sui, ut eum auspicia ista pro aduersario ponerent, cui non cedere pulchrum esset. Quamquam haec si uera sunt, non habent omnino quid timeant Non enim confessuri sunt, quod di cesserint Christo, qui Ioui cedere noluerunt; saluis quippe imperii finibus Christo cedere potuerunt et de sedibus locorum et maxime de corde credentium. Sed antequam Christus uenisset in carne, antequam denique ista scriberentur, quae de libris eorum proferimus, sed tamen postea quam factum est sub rege Tarquinio illud auspicium, aliquotiens Romanus exercitus fusus est, hoc est uersus in fugam, falsumque ostendit auspicium, quo Iuuentas illa non cesserat Ioui, et gens Martia superantibus adque inrumpentibus Gallis in ipsa Urbe contrita est, et termini imperii deficientibus multis ad Hannibalem ciuitatibus in angustum fuerant coartati. Ita euacuata est pulchritudo auspiciorum, remansit contra Iouem contumacia, non deorum, sed daemoniorum. Aliud est enim non cessisse, aliud unde cesseras redisse. Quamquam et postea in orientalibus partibus Hadriani uoluntate mutati sunt termini imperii Romani. Ille namque tres prouincias nobiles, Armeniam, Mesopotamiam, Assyriam, Persarum concessit imperio, ut deus ille Terminus, qui Romanos terminos secundum istos tuebatur et per illud pulcherrimum auspicium loco non cesserat Ioui, plus Hadrianum regem hominum quam regem deorum timuisse uideatur. Receptis quoque alio tempore prouinciis memoratis nostra paene memoria retrorsus Terminus cessit, quando Iulianus deorum illorum oraculis deditus inmoderato ausu naues iussit incendi, quibus alimonia portabatur; qua exercitus destitutus mox etiam ipso hostili uulnere extincto in tantam est redactus inopiam, ut inde nullus euaderet undique hostibus incursantibus militem imperatoris morte turbatum, nisi placito pacis illic imperii fines constituerentur, ubi hodieque persistunt, non quidem tanto detrimento, quantum concesserat Hadrianus, sed media tamen conpositione defixi. Uano igitur augurio deus Terminus non cessit Ioui, qui cessit Hadriani uoluntati, cessit etiam Iuliani temeritati et Iouiani necessitati. Uiderunt haec intelle gentdores grauioresque Romani; sed contra consuetudinem ciuitatis, quae daemonicis ritibus fuerat obligata, parum ualebant, quia et ipsi, etiamsi illa uana esse sentiebant, naturae tamen rerum sub unius ueri Dei regimine adque imperio constitutae religiosum cultum, qui Deo debetur, exhibendum putabant, seruientes, ut ait apostolus, creaturae potius quam creatori, qui est benedictus in saecula. Huius Dei ueri erat auxilium necessarium, a quo mitterentur sancti uiri et ueraciter pii, qui pro uera religione morerentur, ut falsae a uiuentibus tollerentur.

### What Kind of Things Even Their Worshippers Have Owned They Have Thought About the Gods of the Nations.

[¶12] Chapter 30.—What Kind of Things Even Their Worshippers Have Owned They Have Thought About the Gods of the Nations.

> Latin: Caput XXX. Qualia de dis gentium etiam cultores eorum se sentire fateantur.

[¶13] Cicero the augur laughs at auguries, and reproves men for regulating the purposes of life by the cries of crows and jackdaws. But it will be said that an academic philosopher, who argues that all things are uncertain, is unworthy to have any authority in these matters. In the second book of his De Natura Deorum, he introduces Lucilius Balbus, who, after showing that superstitions have their origin in physical and philosophical truths, expresses his indignation at the setting up of images and fabulous notions, speaking thus: “Do you not therefore see that from true and useful physical discoveries the reason may be drawn away to fabulous and imaginary gods? This gives birth to false opinions and turbulent errors, and superstitions well-nigh old-wifeish. For both the forms of the gods, and their ages, and clothing, and ornaments, are made 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 having perturbed minds; for we have accounts of the lusts, cares, and angers of the gods. Nor, indeed, as the fables go, have the gods been without their wars and battles. And that not only when, as in Homer, some gods on either side have defended two opposing armies, but they have even carried on wars on their own account, as with the Titans or with the Giants. Such things it is quite absurd either to say or to believe: they are utterly frivolous and groundless.” Behold, now, what is confessed by those who defend the gods of the nations. Afterwards he goes on to say that some things belong to superstition, but others to religion, which he thinks good to teach according to the Stoics. “For not only the philosophers,” he says, “but also our forefathers, have made a distinction between superstition and religion. For those,” he says, “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 fears the public prejudice, to praise the religion of the ancients, and that he wishes to disjoin it from superstition, but cannot find out how to do so? For if those who prayed and sacrificed all day were called superstitious by the ancients, were those also called so who instituted (what he blames) the images of the gods of diverse age and distinct clothing, and invented the genealogies 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 and worshipped such images. Nay, he implicates himself, who, with whatever eloquence he may strive to extricate himself and be free, was yet under the necessity of venerating these images; nor dared he so much as whisper in a discourse to the people what in this disputation he plainly sounds forth. Let us Christians, therefore, give thanks to the Lord our God—not to heaven and earth, as that author argues, but to Him who has made heaven and earth; because these superstitions, which that Balbus, like a babbler, scarcely reprehends, He, by the most deep lowliness of Christ, by the preaching of the apostles, by the faith of the martyrs dying for the truth and living with the truth, has overthrown, not only in the hearts of the religious, but even in the temples of the superstitious, by their own free service.

> Latin: Cicero augur inridet auguria et inridet homines corui et corniculae uocibus uitae consilia moderantes. Sed iste Academicus, qui omnia esse contendit incerta, indignus est qui habeat ullam in his rebus auctoritatem. Disputat aput eum Quintus Lucilius Balbus in secundo de deorum natura libro, et cum ipse superstitiones ex natura rerum uelut physicas et philosophicas inserat, indignatur tamen institutioni simulacrorum et opinionibus fabulosis ita loquens: ‘Videtisne igitur, ut a physicis rebus bene adque utiliter inuentis ratio sit tracta ad commenticios et fictos deos? Quae res genuit falsas opiniones erroresque turbulentos et superstitiones paene aniles. Et formae enim nobis deorum et aetates et uestitus ornatusque noti sunt, genera praeterea, coniugia, cognationes, omniaque traducta ad similitudinem inbecillitatis humanae. Nam et perturbatis animis inducuntur; accepimus enim deorum cupiditates aegritudines iracundias. Nec uero, ut fabulae ferunt, di bellis proeliisque caruerunt; nec solum, ut aput Homerum, ‘cum duos exercitus contrarios alii di ex alia parte defenderent, sed etiam (ut cum Titanis aut cum Gigantibus) sua propria bella gesserunt. Haec et dicuntur et creduntur stultissime et plena sunt uanitatis summaeque leuitatis.’ Ecce interim quae confitentur qui defendunt deos gentium. Deinde cum haec ad superstitionem pertinere dicat, ad religionem uero, quae ipse secundum Stoicos uidetur docere: non enim philosophi solum, inquit, uerum etiam maiores nostri superstitionem a religione separauerunt; nam qui totos dies precabantur, inquit, et immolabant, ut sibi sui liberi superstites essent, superstitiosi sunt appellati.) Quis non intellegat eum conari, dum consuetudinem ciuitatis timet, religionem laudare maiorum eamque a superstitione uelle seiungere, sed quo modo id possit non inuenire? Si enim a maioribus illi sunt appellati superstitiosi, qui totos dies precabantur et immolabant, numquid et illi, qui instituerunt (quod iste reprehendit) deorum simulacra diuersa aetate et ueste distincta, deorum genera coniugia cognationes? Haec utique cum tamquam superstitiosa culpantur, inplicat ista culpa maiores talium simulacrorum institutores adque cultores; inplicat et ipsum, qui, quantolibet eloquio se in libertatem nitatur euoluere, necesse habebat ista uenerari; nec quod in hac disputatione disertus insonat, muttire auderet in populi contione. Agamus itaque Christiani Domino Deo nostro gratias, non caelo et terrae, sicut iste disputat, sed ei qui fecit caelum et terram, qui has superstitiones, quas iste Balbus uelut balbutiens uix reprehendit, per altissimam Christi humilitatem, per apostolorum praedicationem, per fidem martyrum pro ueritate morientium et cum ueritate uiuentium non solum in cordibus religiosis, uerum etiam in aedibus superstitiosis libera suorum seruitute subuertit.

### 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.

[¶15] Chapter 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.

> Latin: Caput XXXI. De opinionibus Varronis, qui reprobata persuasione populari, licet ad notitiam ueri Dei non pel’uenerit, unum tamen Deum colendum esse censuerit.

[¶16] What says Varro himself, whom we grieve to have found, although not by his own judgment, placing the scenic plays among things divine? When in many passages he is exhorting, like a religious man, to the worship of the gods, does he not in doing so admit that he does not in his own judgment believe those things which he relates that the Roman state has instituted; so that he does not hesitate to affirm that if he were founding a new state, he could enumerate the gods and their names better by the rule of nature? But being born into a nation already ancient, he says that he finds himself bound to accept the traditional names and surnames of the gods, and the histories connected with them, and that his purpose 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 indicates that he does not publish all things, because they would not only have been contemptible to himself, but would have seemed despicable even to the rabble, unless they had been passed over in silence. I should be thought to conjecture these things, unless he himself, in another passage, had openly said, in speaking of religious rites, that many things are true which it is not only not useful for the common people to know, but that it is expedient that the people should think otherwise, even though falsely, and therefore the Greeks have shut up the religious ceremonies and mysteries in silence, and within walls. In this he no doubt expresses the policy of the so-called wise men by whom states and peoples are ruled. Yet by this crafty device the malign demons are wonderfully delighted, who possess alike the deceivers and the deceived, and from whose tyranny nothing sets free save the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

> Latin: Quid ipse Varro, quem dolemus in rebus diuinis ludos scaenicos, quamuis non indicio proprio, posuisse, cum ad deos colendos multis locis uelut religiosus hortetur, nonne ita confitetur non se illa iudicio suo sequi, quae ciuitatem Romanam instituisse commemorat, ut, si eam ciuitatem nouam constitueret, ex naturae potius formula deos nominaque eorum se fuisse dedicaturum non dubitet confiteri? Sed iam quoniam in uetere populo esset, acceptam ab antiquis nominum et cognominum historiam tenere, ut tradita est, debere se dicit, et ad eum finem illa scribere ac perscrutari, ut potius eos magis colere quam despicere uulgus uelit. Quibus uerbis homo acutissimus satis indicat non se aperire omnia, quae non sibi tantum contemtui essent, sed etiam ipsi uulgo despicienda uiderentur, nisi tacerentur. Ego ista conicere putari debui, x nisi euidenter alio loco ipse diceret de religionibus loquens multa esse uera, quae non modo uulgo scire non sit utile, sed etiam, tametsi falsa sunt, aliter existimare populum expediat, et ideo Graecos teletas ac mysteria taciturnitate parietibusque clausisse. Hic certe totum consilium prodidit uelut sapientium, per quos ciuitates et populi regerentur. Hac tamen fallacia miris modis maligni daemones delectantur,, qui et deceptoreset deceptos pariter possident, a quorum dominatione non liberat nisi gratia Dei per Iesum Christum dominum nostrum.

[¶17] The same most acute and learned author also says, that those alone seem to him to have perceived what God is, who have believed Him to be the soul of the world, governing it by design and reason. And by this, it appears, that although he did not attain to the truth,—for the true God is not a soul, but the maker and author of the soul,—yet if he could have been free to go against the prejudices of custom, he could have confessed and counselled others that the one God ought to be worshipped, who governs the world by design and reason; so that on this subject only this point would remain to be debated with him, that he had called Him a soul, and not rather the creator of the soul. He says, also, that the ancient Romans, for more than a hundred and seventy years, worshipped the gods without an image. “And if this custom,” he says, “could have remained till now, the gods would have been more purely worshipped.” In favor of this opinion, he cites as a witness among others the Jewish nation; nor does he hesitate to conclude that passage by saying of those who first consecrated images for the people, that they have both taken away religious fear from their fellow-citizens, and increased error, wisely thinking that the gods easily fall into contempt when exhibited under the stolidity of images. But as he does not say they have transmitted error, but that they have increased it, he therefore wishes it to be understood that there was error already when there were no images. Wherefore, when he says they alone have perceived what God is who have believed Him to be the governing soul of the world, and thinks that the rites of religion would have been more purely observed without images, who fails to see how near he has come to the truth? For if he had been able to do anything against so inveterate an error, he would certainly have given it as his opinion both that the one God should be worshipped, and that He should be worshipped without an image; and having so nearly discovered the truth, perhaps he might easily have been put in mind of the mutability of the soul, and might thus have perceived that the true God is that immutable nature which made the soul itself. Since these things are so, whatever ridicule such men have poured in their writings against the plurality of the gods, they have done so rather as compelled by the secret will of God to confess them, than as trying to persuade others. If, therefore, any testimonies are adduced by us from these writings, they are adduced for the confutation of those who are unwilling to consider from how great and malignant a power of the demons the singular sacrifice of the shedding of the most holy blood, and the gift of the imparted Spirit, can set us free.

> Latin: Dicit etiam idem auctor acutissimus adque doctissimus, quod hi soli ei uideantur animum aduertisse quid esset Deus. qui crediderunt eum esse animam motu ac ratione mundum gubernantem, ac per hoc, etsi nondum tenebat quod ueritas habet (Deus enim uerus non anima, sed animae quoque est effector et conditor), tamen si contra praeiudicia consuetudinis liber esse posset, unum Deum colendum fateretur adque suaderet, motu ac ratione mundum gubernantem, ut ea cum illo de hac re quaestio remaneret, quod eum diceret esse animam, non potius et animae creatorem. Dicit etiam antiquos Romanos plus annos centum et septuaginta deos sine simulacro coluisse. <Quod si adhuc, inquit, mansisset, castius di obseruarentur.) Cui sententiae suae testem adhibet inter cetera etiam gentem Iudaeam; nec dubitat eum locum ita concludere, ut dicat, qui primi simulacra deorum populis posuerunt, eos ciuitatibus suis et metum demsisse et errorem addidisse, prudenter existimans deos facile posse in simulacrorum stoliditate contemni. Quod uero non ait ‘errorem tradiderunt’, sed […] iam utique fuisse etiam sine simulacris uult intellegi errorem. Quapropter cum solos dicit animaduertisse quid esset Deus, qui eum crederent animam mundum gubernantem, castiusque existimat sine simulacris obseruari religionem, quis non uideat quantum propinquauerit ueritati? Si enim aliquid contra uetustatem tanti posset erroris, profecto et unum Deum, a quo mundum crederet gubernari, et sine simulacro colendum esse censeret; adque in tam proximo inuentus facile fortasse de animae mutabilitate commoneretur, ut naturam potius incommutabilem, quae ipsam quoque animam condidisset, Deum uerum esse sentiret. Haec cum ita sint, quaecumque tales uiri in suis litteris multorum deorum ludibria posuerunt, confiteri ea potius occulta Dei uoluntate conpulsi sunt quam persuadere conati. Si qua igitur a nobis inde testimonia proferuntur, ad eos redarguendos proferuntur, qui nolunt aduertere de quanta et quam maligna daemonum potestate nos liberet singulare sacrificium tam sancti sanguinis fusi et donum spiritus inpertiti.

### In What Interest the Princes of the Nations Wished False Religions to Continue Among the People Subject to Them.

[¶19] Chapter 32.—In What Interest the Princes of the Nations Wished False Religions to Continue Among the People Subject to Them.

> Latin: Caput XXXII. Ob quam speciem utilitatis principes gentium aput ‘subiectos sibi populos falsas religiones uoluerunt permanere.

[¶20] Varro says also, concerning the generations of the gods, that the people have inclined to the poets rather than to the natural philosophers; and that therefore their forefathers,—that is, the ancient Romans,—believed both in the sex and the generations of the gods, and settled their marriages; which certainly seems to have been done for no other cause except that it was the business of such men as were prudent and wise to deceive the people in matters of religion, and in that very thing not only to worship, but also to imitate the demons, whose greatest lust is to deceive. For just as the demons cannot possess any but those whom they have deceived with guile, so also men in princely office, not indeed being just, but like demons, have persuaded the people in the name of religion to receive as true those things which they themselves knew to be false; in this way, as it were, binding them up more firmly in civil society, so that they might in like manner possess them as subjects. But who that was weak and unlearned could escape the deceits of both the princes of the state and the demons?

> Latin: Dicit etiam de generationibus deorum magis ad poetas quam ad physicos fuisse populos inclinatos,. et ideo et sexum et generationes deorum maiores suos, id est ueteres credidisse Romanos et eorum constituisse coniugia. Quod utique non aliam ob causam factum uidetur, nisi quia hominum uelut prudentium et sapientium negotium fuit populum in religionibus fallere, et in eo ipso non solum colere sed imitari etiam daemones, quibus maxima est fallendi cupiditas. Sicut enim daemones nisi eos, quos fallendo deceperint, possidere non possunt, sic et homines principes, non sane iusti, sed daemonum similes, ea, quae uana esse nouerant, religionis nomine populis tamquam uera suadebant, hoc modo eos ciuili societati uelut aptius adligantes, quo similiter subditos possiderent. Quis autem infirmus et indoctus euaderet simul fallaces et principes ciuitatis et daemones?

### That the Times of All Kings and Kingdoms are Ordained by the Judgment and Power of the True God.

[¶22] Chapter 33.—That the Times of All Kings and Kingdoms are Ordained by the Judgment and Power of the True God.

> Latin: Caput XXXIII. Quod iudicio et potestate Dei ueri omnium regum adque regnorum ordinata sint tempora.

[¶23] Therefore that God, the author and giver of felicity, because He alone is the true God, Himself gives earthly kingdoms both to 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 rules as lord and appoints as governor. Felicity He gives only to the good. Whether a man be a subject or a king makes no difference; he may equally either possess or not possess it. And it shall be full in that life where kings and subjects exist no longer. And therefore earthly kingdoms are given by Him both to the good and the bad; lest His worshippers, still under the conduct of a very weak mind, should covet these gifts from Him as some great things. And this is the mystery of the Old Testament, in which the New was hidden, that there even earthly gifts are promised: those who were spiritual understanding even then, although not yet openly declaring, both the eternity which was symbolized by these earthly things, and in what gifts of God true felicity could be found.

> Latin: Deus igitur ille felicitatis auctor et dator, quia solus est uerus Deus, ipse dat regna terrena et bonis et malis, neque hoc temere et quasi fortuito, quia Deus est, non fortuna, sed pro rerum ordine ac temporum occulto nobis, notissimo sibi; cui tamen ordini temporum non subditus seruit, sed eum ipse tamquam dominus regit moderatorque disponit; felicitatem uero non dat nisi bonis. Hanc enim possunt et non habere et habere seruientes, possunt et non habere et habere regnantes; quae tamen plena in ea uita erit, ubi nemo iam seruiet. Et ideo regna terrena et bonis ab illo dantur et malis, ne eius cultores adhuc in prouectu animi paruuli haec ab eo munera quasi magnum aliquid concupiscant. Et hoc est sacramentum ueteris testamenti, ubi occultum erat nouum, quod illic promissa et dona terrena sunt, intellegentibus et tunc spiritalibus, quamuis nondum in manifestatione praedicantibus, et quae illis temporalibus rebus significaretur aeternitas, et in quibus Dei donis esset uera felicitas.

## 24. Concerning the Kingdom of the Jews, Which Was Founded by the One and True God, and Preserved by Him as Long as They Remained in the True Religion.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/24/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/24/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 34.—Concerning the Kingdom of the Jews, Which Was Founded by the One and True God, and Preserved by Him as Long as They Remained in the True Religion.

> Latin: Caput XXXIV. De regno Iudaeorum, quod ab uno et uero Deo institutum adque seruatum est, donec in uera religione manserunt.

[¶1] Therefore, that it might be known that these earthly good things, after which those pant who cannot imagine better things, remain in the power of the one God Himself, not of the many false gods whom the Romans have formerly believed worthy of worship, He multiplied His people in Egypt from being very few, and delivered them out of it by wonderful signs. Nor did their women invoke Lucina when their offspring was being incredibly multiplied; and that nation having 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 the goddess Rumina they sucked; without Cunina they were cradled, without Educa and Potina they took food and drink; without all those puerile gods they were educated; without the nuptial gods they were married; without the worship of Priapus they had conjugal intercourse; without invocation of Neptune the divided sea opened up a way for them to pass over, and overwhelmed with its returning waves their enemies who pursued them. Neither did they consecrate any goddess Mannia when they received manna from heaven; nor, when the smitten rock poured forth water to them when they thirsted, did they worship Nymphs and Lymphs. Without the mad rites of Mars and Bellona they carried on war; and while, indeed, they did not conquer without victory, yet they did not hold it to be a goddess, but the gift of their God. Without Segetia they had harvests; without Bubona, oxen; honey without Mellona; apples without Pomona: and, in a word, everything for which the Romans thought they must supplicate so great a crowd of false gods, they received much more happily from the one true God. And if they had not sinned against Him with impious curiosity, which seduced them like magic arts, and drew them to strange gods and idols, and at last led them to 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 through almost all lands and nations, it is through the providence of that one true God; that whereas the images, altars, groves, and temples of the false gods are everywhere overthrown, and their sacrifices prohibited, it may be shown from their books how this has been foretold by their prophets so long before; lest, perhaps, when they should be read in ours, they might seem to be invented by us. But now, reserving what is to follow for the following book, we must here set a bound to the prolixity of this one.

> Latin: Itaque ut cognosceretur etiam illa terrena bona, quibus solis inhiant qui meliora cogitare non possunt, in ipsius unius Dei esse posita potestate, non in multorum falsorum, quos colendos Romani antea crediderunt, populum suum in Aegypto de paucissimis multiplicauit et inde signis mirabilibus liberauit. Nec Lucinam mulieres illae inuocauerunt, quando earum partus, ut miris modis multiplicarentur et gens illa incredibiliter cresceret, ab Aegyptiorum persequentium et infantes omnes necare uolentium manibus ipse seruauit. Sine dea Rumina suxerunt, sine Cunina in cunis fuerunt, sine Educa et Potina escam potumque sumserunt, sine tot dis puerilibus educati sunt, sine dis coniugalibus coniugati, sine cultu Priapi coniugibus mixti; sine inuocatione Neptuni mare transeuntibus diuisum patuit et sequentes eorum inimicos fluctibus in se redeuntibus obruit. Nec consecrauerunt aliquam deam Manniam, quando de caelo manna sumserunt; nec quando sitientibus aquam percussa petra profudit, Nymphas Lymphasque coluerunt. Sine insanis sacris Martis et Bellonae bella gesserunt, et sine uictoria quidem non uicerunt, non eam tamen deam, sed Dei sui munus habuerunt. Sine Segetia segetes sine Bubona boues, mella sine Mellona poma sine Pomona, et prorsus omnia, pro quibus tantae falsorum deorum turbae Romani supplicandum putarunt, ab uno uero Deo multo felicius acceperunt. Et si non in eum peccassent, inpia curiositate tamquam magicis artibus seducti ad alienos deos et ad idola defluendo, et postremo Christum occidendo: in eodem regno etsi non spatiosiore, tamen feliciore mansissent. Et nunc quod per omnes fere terras gentesque dispersi sunt, illius unius ueri Dei prouidentia est, ut, quod deorum falsorum usquequaque simulacra arae, luci templa euertuntur et sacrificia prohibentur, de codicibus eorum probetur, quem ad modum hoc fuerit tanto ante prophetatum; ne forte, cum legeretur in nostris, a nobis putaretur esse confictum. Iam quod sequitur in uolumine sequenti uidendum est, et hic dandus huius prolixitatis modus.

### Of fate, freewill, and God’s prescience, and of the source of the virtues of the ancient Romans.

[¶3] Book V.

> Latin: Liber V

[¶4] Argument—Augustin first discusses the doctrine of fate, for the sake of confuting those who are disposed to refer to fate the power and increase of the Roman empire, which could not be attributed to false gods, as has been shown in the preceding book. After that, he proves that there is no contradiction between God’s prescience and our free will. He then speaks of the manners of the ancient Romans, and shows in what sense it was due to the virtue of the Romans 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 happiness of the Christian emperors.

### Preface

[¶6] Since, then, it is established that the complete attainment of all we desire is that which constitutes felicity, which is no goddess, but a gift of God, and that therefore men can worship no god save Him who is able to make them happy,—and were Felicity herself a goddess, she would with reason be the only object of worship,—since, I say, this is established, let us now go on to consider why God, who is able to give with all other things those good gifts which can be possessed by men who are not good, and consequently not happy, has seen fit to grant such extended and long-continued dominion to the Roman empire; for that this was not effected by that multitude of false gods which they worshipped, we have both already adduced, and shall, as occasion offers, yet adduce considerable proof.

> Latin: Quoniam constat omnium rerum optandarum plenitudinem esse felicitatem, quae non est dea, sed donum Dei, et ideo nullum deum colendum esse ab hominibus, nisi qui potest eos facere felices (unde si illa dea esset, sola colenda merito diceretur): iam consequenter uideamus, qua causa Deus, qui potest et illa bona dare, quae habere possunt etiam non boni ac per hoc etiam non felices, Romanum imperium tam magnum tamque diuturnum esse uoluerit. Quia enim hoc deorum falsorum illa quam colebant multitudo non fecit, et multa iam diximus, et ubi uisum fuerit opportunum esse dicemus.

### That the Cause of the Roman Empire, and of All Kingdoms, is Neither Fortuitous Nor Consists in the Position of the Stars.

[¶8] Chapter 1.—That the Cause of the Roman Empire, and of All Kingdoms, is Neither Fortuitous Nor Consists in the Position of the Stars.

> Latin: Caput I. Causam Romani imperii omniumque regnorum nec fortuitam esse nec in stellarum positione consistere.

[¶9] The cause, then, of the greatness of the Roman empire is neither fortuitous nor fatal, according to the judgment or opinion of those who call those things fortuitous which either have no causes, or such causes as do not proceed from some intelligible order, and those things fatal which happen independently of the will of God and man, by the necessity of a certain order. In a word, human kingdoms are established by divine providence. And if any one attributes their existence to fate, because he calls the will or the power of God itself by the name 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 means by fate? For when men hear that word, according to the ordinary use of the language, they simply understand by it the virtue of that particular position of the stars which may exist at the time when any one is born or conceived, which some separate altogether from the will of God, whilst others affirm that this also is dependent on that will. But those who are 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 who wish to be the worshippers of any gods whatsoever, even false gods. 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 whom they think to be gods, oppose the Christian religion. They, however, who make the position of the stars depend on the divine will, and in a manner decree what character each man shall have, and what good or evil shall happen to him, if they think that these same stars have that power conferred upon them by the supreme power of God, in order that they may determine these things according to their will, do a great injury to the celestial sphere, in whose most brilliant senate, and most splendid senate-house, as it were, they suppose that wicked deeds are decreed to be done,—such deeds as that, if any terrestrial state should decree them, it would be condemned to overthrow by the decree of the whole human race. What judgment, then, is left to God concerning the deeds of men, who is Lord both of the stars and of men, when to these deeds a celestial necessity is attributed? Or, if they do not say that the stars, though they have indeed received a certain power from God, who is supreme, determine those things according to their own discretion, but simply that His commands are fulfilled by them instrumentally in the application and enforcing of such necessities, are we thus to think concerning God even what it seemed unworthy that we should think concerning the will of the stars? But, if the stars are said rather to signify these things 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 we grant that they do not speak as they ought, and that we ought to accept as the proper form of speech that employed by the philosophers in predicting those things which they think they discover in the position of the stars, how comes it that they have never been able to assign any cause why, in the life of twins, in their actions, in the events which befall them, in their professions, arts, honors, and other things pertaining to human life, also in their very death, there is often so great a difference, that, as far as these things are concerned, many entire strangers are more like them than they are like each other, though separated at birth by the smallest interval of time, but at conception generated by the same act of copulation, and at the same moment?

> Latin: Causa ergo magnitudinis imperii Romani nec fortuita est nec fatalis secundum eorum sententiam siue opinionem, qui ea dicunt esse fortuita, quae uel nullas causas habent uel non ex aliquo rationabili ordine uenientes, et ea fatalia, quae praeter Dei et hominum uoluntatem cuiusdam ordinis necessitate contingunt. Prorsus diuina prouidentia regna constituuntur humana. Quae si propterea quisquam fato tribuit, quia ipsam Dei uoluntatem uel potestatem fati nomine appellat, sententiam teneat, linguam corrigat. Quur enim non hoc primum dicit, quod postea dicturus est, cum ab illo quisquam quaesierit quid dixerit fatum? Nam id homines quando audiunt. usitata loquendi consuetudine non intellegunt nisi uim positionis siderum, qualis est quando quis nascitur siue concipitur; quod aliqui alienant a Dei uoluntate, aliqui ex illa etiam hoc pendere confirmant. Sed illi, qui sine Dei uoluntate decernere opinantur sidera quid agamus uel quid bonorum habeamus malorumue patiamur, ab auribus omnium repellendi sunt, non solum eorum qui ueram religionem tenent sed qui deorum qualiumcumque, licet falsorum, uolunt esse cultores. Haec enim opinio quid agit aliud, nisi ut nullus omnino colatur aut rogetur Deus? Contra quos modo nobis disputatio non est instituta, sed contra hos qui pro defensione eorum, quos deos putant, Christianae religioni aduersantur. Illi uero, qui positionem stellarum quodam modo decernentium qualis quisque sit et quid ei proueniat boni quidue mali accidat ex Dei uoluntate suspendunt, si easdem stellas putant habere hanc potestatem traditam sibi a summa illius potestate, ut uolentes ista decernant: magnam caelo faciunt iniuriam, in cuius uelut clarissimo senatu ac splendidissima curia opinantur scelera facienda decerni, qualia si aliqua terrena ciuitas decreuisset, genere humano decernente fuerat euertenda. Quale deinde iudicium de hominum factis Deo relinquitur, quibus caelestis necessitas adhibetur, cum dominus ille sit et siderum et hominum? Aut si non dicunt stellas, accepta quidem potestate a. summo Deo, arbitrio suo ista decernere, sed in talibus necessitatibus ingerendis illius omnino iussa conplere: itane de ipso Deo sentiendum est, quod indignissimum uisum est de stellarum uoluntate sentire? Quod si dicuntur stellae significare potius ista quam facere, ut quasi locutio quaedam sit illa positio praedicens futura, non agens (non enim mediocriter doctorum hominum fuit ista sententia): non quidem ita solent loqui mathematici, ut uerbi gratia dicant: ‘Mara ita positus homicidam significat’, sed: ‘homicidam facit’; uerumtamen ut concedamus non eos ut debent loqui et a philosophis accipere oportere sermonis regulam ad ea praenuntianda, quae in siderum positione reperire se putant: quid fit, quod nihil umquam dicere potuerunt, quur in uita geminorum, in actionibus, in euentis, in professionibus, artibus, honoribus ceterisque rebus ad humanam uitam pertinentibus adque in ipsa morte sit plerumque tanta diuersitas, ut similiores eis sint, quantum ad haec adtinet, multi extranei quam ipsi inter se gemini perexiguo temporis interuallo in nascendo separati, in conceptu autem per unum concubitum uno etiam momento seminati?

### On the Difference in the Health of Twins.

[¶11] Chapter 2.—On the Difference in the Health of Twins.

> Latin: Caput II. De geminorum simili dissimilique ualetudine.

[¶12] Cicero says that the famous physician Hippocrates has left in writing that he had suspected that a certain pair of brothers were twins, from the fact that they both took ill at once, and their disease advanced to its crisis and subsided in the same time in each of them. Posidonius the Stoic, who was much given to astrology, used to explain the fact by supposing that they had been born and conceived under the same constellation. In this question the conjecture of the physician is by far more worthy to be accepted, and approaches much nearer to credibility, since, according as the parents were affected in body at the time of copulation, so might the first elements of the fœtuses have been affected, so that all that was necessary for their growth and development up till birth having been supplied from the body of the same mother, they might be born with like constitutions. Thereafter, nourished in the same house, on the same kinds of food, where they would have also the same kinds of air, the same locality, the same quality of water,—which, according to the testimony of medical science, have a very great influence, good or bad, on the condition of bodily health,—and where they would also be accustomed to the 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 wish to adduce that particular position of the stars which existed at the time when they were born or conceived as the cause of their being simultaneously affected with sickness, manifests the greatest arrogance, when so many beings of most diverse kinds, in the most diverse conditions, and subject to the most diverse events, may have been conceived and born at the same time, and in the same district, lying under the same sky. But we know that twins do not only act differently, and travel to very different places, but that they also suffer from different kinds of sickness; for which Hippocrates would give what is in my opinion the simplest reason, namely, that, through diversity of food and exercise, which arises not from the constitution of the body, but from the inclination of the mind, they may have come 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 anything to say to this, if he be unwilling to im pose upon the minds of the uninstructed in things of which they are ignorant. But, as to what they attempt to make out from that very small interval of time elapsing between the births of twins, on account of that point in the heavens where the mark of the natal hour is placed, and which they call the “horoscope,” it is either disproportionately small to the diversity which is found in the dispositions, actions, habits, and fortunes of twins, or it is disproportionately great when compared with the estate of twins, whether low or high, which is the same for both of them, the cause for whose greatest difference they place, in every case, in the hour on which one is born; and, for this reason, if the one is born so immediately after the other that there is no change in the horoscope, I demand an entire similarity in all that respects them both, which can never be found in the case of any twins. But if the slowness of the birth of the second give time for a change in the horoscope, I demand different parents, which twins can never have.

> Latin: Cicero dicit Hippocratem, nobilissimum medicum, scriptum reliquisse, quosdam fratres, cum simul aegrotare coepissent et eorum morbus eodem tempore ingrauesceret, eodem leuaretur, geminos suspicatum; quos Posidonius Stoicus, multum astrologiae deditus, eadem constitutione astrorum natos eademque conceptos solebat adserere. Ita quod medicus pertinere credebat ad simillimam temperiem ualetudinis, hoc philosophus astrologus ad uim constitutionemque siderum, quae fuerat quo tempore concepti natique sunt. In hac causa multo est acceptabilior et de proximo credibilior coniectura medicinalis, quoniam parentes ut erant corpore adfecti, dum concumberent, ita primordia conceptorum adfici potuerunt, ut consecutis ex materno corpore prioribus incrementis paris ualetudinis nascerentur; deinde in una domo eisdem alimentis nutriti, ubi aerem et loci positionem et uim aquarum plurimum ualere ad corpus uel bene uel male accipiendum medicina testatur, eisdem etiam exercitationibus adsuefacti tam simi lia corpora gererent, ut etiam ad aegrotandum uno tempore eisdemque causis similiter mouerentur. Constitutionem uero caeli ac siderum, quae fuit quando concepti siue nati sunt, uelle trahere ad istam aegrotandi parilitatem, cum tam multa diuersissimi generis diuersissimorum effectuum et euentorum eodem tempore in unius regionis terra eidem caelo subdita potuerint concipi et nasci, nescio cuius sit insolentiae. Nos autem nouimus geminos non solum actus et peregrinationes habere diuersas, uerum etiam dispares aegritudines perpeti. De qua re facillimam, quantum mihi uidetur, rationem redderet Hippocrates, diuersis alimentis et exercitationibus, quae non de corporis temperatione, sed de animi uoluntate ueniunt, dissimiles eis accidere potuisse ualetudines. Porro autem Posidonius uel quilibet fatalium siderum adsertor mirum si potest hic inuenire quid dicat, si nolit inperitorum mentibus in eis quas nesciunt rebus inludere. Quod enim conantur efficere de interuallo exiguo temporis, quod inter se gemini dum nascerentur habuerunt, propter caeli particulam, ubi ponitur horae notatio, quem horoscopum uocant: aut non tantum ualet, quanta inuenitur in geminorum uoluntatibus actibus moribus casibusque diuersitas, aut plus etiam ualet, quam est geminorum uel humilitas generis eadem uel nobilitas, cuius maximam diuersitatem non nisi in hora, qua quisque nascitur, ponunt. Ac per hoc si tam celeriter alter post alterum nascitur, ut eadem pars horoscopi maneat, paria cuncta quaero, quae in nullis possunt geminis inueniri; si autem sequentis tarditas horoscopum mutat, parentes diuersos quaero, quos gemini habere non possunt.

### Concerning the Arguments Which Nigidius the Mathematician Drew from the Potter’s Wheel, in the Question About the Birth of Twins.

[¶14] Chapter 3.—Concerning the Arguments Which Nigidius the Mathematician Drew from the Potter’s Wheel, in the Question About the Birth of Twins.

> Latin: Caput III. De argumento, quod ex rota figuli Nigidius mathematicus adsumsit in quaestione geminorum.

[¶15] It is to no purpose, therefore, that that famous fiction about the potter’s wheel is brought forward, which tells of the answer which Nigidius is said to have given when he was perplexed with this question, and on account of which he was called Figulus. For, having whirled round the potter’s wheel with all his strength he marked it with ink, striking it twice with the utmost rapidity, so that the strokes seemed to fall on the very same part of it. Then, when the rotation had ceased, the marks which he had made were found upon the rim of the wheel at no small distance apart. Thus, said he, considering the great rapidity with which the celestial sphere revolves, even though twins were born with as short an interval between their births as there was between the strokes which I gave this wheel, that brief interval of time is equivalent to a very great distance in the celestial sphere. Hence, said he, come whatever dissimilitudes may be remarked in the habits and fortunes of twins. This argument is more fragile than the vessels which are fashioned by the rotation of that wheel. For if there is so much significance in the heavens which cannot be comprehended by observation of the constellations, that, in the case of twins, an inheritance may fall to the one and not to the other, why, in the case of others who are not twins, do they dare, having examined their constellations, to declare such things as pertain to that secret which no one can comprehend, and to attribute them to the precise moment of the birth of each individual? Now, if such predictions in connection with the natal hours of others who are not twins are to be vindicated on the ground that they are founded on the observation of more extended spaces in the heavens, whilst those very small moments of time which separated the births of twins, and correspond to minute portions of celestial space, are to be connected with trifling things about which the mathematicians are not wont to be consulted,—for who would consult them as to when he is to sit, when to walk abroad, when and on what he is to dine? —how can we be justified in so speaking, when we can point out such manifold diversity both in the habits, doings, and destinies of twins?

> Latin: Frustra itaque adfertur nobile illud commentum de figuli rota, quod respondisse ferunt Nigidium hac quaestione turbatum, unde et Figulus appellatus est. Dum enim rotam figuli ui quanta potuit intor?isset, currente illa bis numero de atramento tamquam uno eius loco summa celeritate percussit; deinde inuenta sunt signa, quae fixerat, desistente motu, non paruo interuallo in rotae illius extremitate distantia. <Sic, inquit, in tanta rapacitate caeli, etiamsi alter post alterum tanta celeritate nascatur, quanta rotam bis ipse percussi, in caeli spatio plurimum est: hinc sunt, inquit, quaecumque dissimillima perhibentur in moribus casibusque geminorum.’ Hoc figmentum fragilius est quam uasa, quae illa rotatione finguntur. Nam si tam multum in caelo interest, quod constellationibus conprehendi non potest, ut alteri geminorum hereditas obueniat, alteri non obueniat: quur audent ceteris, qui gemini non sunt, cum inspexerint eorum constellationes, talia pronuntiare, quae ad illud secretum pertinent, quod nemo potest conprehendere et momentis adnotare nascentium? Si autem propterea talia dicunt in aliorum genituris, quia haec ad productiora spatia temporum pertinent; momenta uero illa partium minutarum, quae inter se gemini possunt habere nascentes, rebus minimis tribuuntur, de qualibus mathematici non solent consuli (quis enim consulat quando sedeat, quando deambulet, quando uel quid prandeat?): numquid ista dicimus, quando in moribus operibus casibusque geminorum plurima plurimumque diuersa monstramus?

### Concerning the Twins Esau and Jacob, Who Were Very Unlike Each Other Both in Their Character and Actions.

[¶17] Chapter 4.—Concerning the Twins Esau and Jacob, Who Were Very Unlike Each Other Both in Their Character and Actions.

> Latin: Caput IV. De Esau et Jacob geminis multum inter se morum et actionum qualitate disparibus.

[¶18] In the time of the ancient fathers, to speak concerning illustrious persons, there were born two twin brothers, the one so immediately after the other, that the first took hold of the heel of the second. So great a difference existed in their lives and manners, so great a dissimilarity in their actions, so great a difference in their parents’ love for them respectively, that the very contrast between them produced even a mutual hostile antipathy. Do we mean, when we say that they were so unlike each other, that when the one was walking the other was sitting, when the one was sleeping the other was waking,—which differences are such as are attributed to those minute portions of space which cannot be appreciated by those who note down the position of the stars which exists at the moment of one’s birth, in order that the mathematicians may be consulted concerning it? One of these twins was for a long time a hired servant; the other never served. One of them was beloved by his mother; the other was not so. One of them lost that honor which was so much valued among their people; the other obtained it. And what shall we say of their wives, their children, and their possessions? How different they were in respect to all these! If, therefore, such things as these are connected with those minute intervals of time which elapse between the births of twins, and are not to be attributed to the constellations, wherefore are they predicted in the case of others from the examination of their constellations? And if, on the other hand, these things are said to be predicted, because they are connected, not with minute and inappreciable moments, but with intervals of time which can be observed and noted down, what purpose is that potter’s wheel to serve in this matter, except it be to whirl round men who have hearts of clay, in order that they may be prevented from detecting the emptiness of the talk of the mathematicians?

> Latin: Nati sunt duo gemini antiqua patrum memoria ut de insignibus loquar) sic alter post alterum, ut posterior plantam prioris teneret. Tanta in eorum uita fuerunt moribusque diuersa, tanta in actibus disparilitas, tanta in parentum amore dissimilitudo, ut etiam inimicos eos inter se faceret ipsa distantia. Numquid hoc dicitur, quia uno ambulante alius sedebat, et alio dormiente alius uigilabat, et alio loquente tacebat alius; quae pertinent ad illas minutias, quae non possunt ab eis conprehendi, qui constitutionem siderum, qua quisque nascitur, scribunt, unde mathematici consulantur? Unus duxit mercennariam seruitutem, alius non seruiuit; unus a matre diligebatur, alius non diligebatur; unus honorem, qui magnus aput eos habebatur, amisit, indeptus est alter. Quid de uxoribus, quid de filiis, quid de rebus, quanta diuersitas! Si ergo haec ad illas pertinent minutias temporum, quae inter se habent gemini, et constellationibus non adscribuntur: quare aliorum constellationibus inspectis ista dicuntur? Si autem ideo dicuntur, quia non ad minuta inconprehensibilia, sed ad temporum spatia pertinent, quae obseruari notarique possunt: quid hic agit rota illa figuli, nisi ut homines luteum cor habentes in gyrum mittantur, ne mathematicorum uaniloquia conuincantur?

### In What Manner the Mathematicians are Convicted of Professing a Vain Science.

[¶20] Chapter 5.—In What Manner the Mathematicians are Convicted of Professing a Vain Science.

> Latin: Caput V. Quibus modis conuincantur mathematici uanam scientiam profiteri.

[¶21] Do not those very persons whom the medical sagacity of Hippocrates led him to suspect to be twins, because their disease was observed by him to develop to its crisis and to subside again in the same time in each of them,—do not these, I say, serve as a sufficient refutation of those who wish to attribute to the influence of the stars that which was owing to a similarity of bodily constitution? For wherefore were they both sick of the same disease, and at the same time, and not the one after the other in the order of their birth? (for certainly they could not both be born at the same time.) Or, if the fact of their having been born at different times by no means necessarily implies that they must be sick at different times, why do they contend that the difference in the time of their 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, and do many other things at different times, by reason of their having been born at different times, and yet could not, for the same reason, also be sick at different times? For if a difference in the moment of birth changed the horoscope, and occasioned dissimilarity in all other things, why has that simultaneousness which belonged to their conception remained in their attacks of sickness? Or, if the destinies of health are involved in the time of conception, but those of other things be said to be attached to the time of birth, they ought not to predict anything concerning health from examination of the constellations of birth, when the hour of conception is not also given, that its constellations may be inspected. But if 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 of these twins when he would be sick, from the horoscope of his birth, when the other also, who had not the same horoscope of birth, must of necessity fall sick at the same time? Again, I ask, if the distance of time between the births of twins is so great as to occasion a difference of their constellations on account of the difference of their horoscopes, and therefore of all 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 cannot have been conceived at different times? Or, if two conceived at the same moment of time could have different destinies with respect to their births, why may not also two born at the same moment of time have different destinies for life and for death? For if the one moment in which both were conceived did not hinder that the one should be born before the other, why, if two are born at the same moment, should anything hinder them from dying at the same moment? If a simultaneous conception allows of twins being differently affected in the womb, why should not simultaneousness of birth allow of any two individuals having different fortunes in the world? and thus would all the fictions of this art, or rather delusion, be swept away. What strange circumstance is this, that two children conceived at the same time, nay, at the same moment, under the same position of the stars, have different fates which bring them to different hours of birth, whilst two children, born of two different mothers, at the same moment 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 at conception as yet without destinies, because they can only have them if they be born? What, therefore, do they mean when they say that, if the hour of the conception be found, many things can be predicted by these astrologers? from which also arose that story which is reiterated by some, that a certain sage chose an hour in which to lie with his wife, in order to secure his begetting an illustrious son. From this opinion also came that answer of Posidonius, the great astrologer and also philosopher, concerning those twins who were attacked with sickness at the same time, namely, “That this had happened to them because they were conceived at the same time, and born at the same time.” For certainly he added “conception,” lest it should be said to him that they could not both be born at the same time, knowing that at any rate they must both have been conceived at the same time; wishing thus to show that he did not attribute the fact of their being similarly and simultaneously affected with sickness to the similarity of their bodily constitutions as its proximate cause, but that he held that even in respect of the similarity of their health, they were bound together by a sidereal connection. If, therefore, the time of conception has so much to do with the similarity of destinies, these same destinies ought not to be changed by the circumstances of birth; or, if the destinies of twins be said to be changed because they are born at different times, why should we not rather understand that they had been already changed in order that they might be born at different times? Does not, then, the will of men living in the world change the destinies of birth, when the order of birth can change the destinies they had at conception?

> Latin: Quid idem ipsi, quorum morbum, quod eodem tempore grauior leuiorque apparebat amborum, medicinaliter inspiciens Hippocrates geminos suspicatus est, nonne satis istos redarguunt, qui uolunt sideribus dare, quod de corporum simili temperatione ueniebat? Quur enim similiter eodemque tempore, non alter prior, alter posterior aegrotabant, sicut nati fuerant, quia utique simul nasci ambo non poterant? Aut si nihil momenti adtulit, ut diuersis temporibus aegrotarent, quod diuersis temporibus nati sunt: quare tempus in nascendo diuersum ad aliarum rerum diuersitates ualere contendunt? Quur potuerunt diuersis temporibus peregrinari, diuersis temporibus ducere uxores, diuersis temporibus filios procreare et multa alia, propterea quia diuersis temporibus nati sunt, et non potuerunt eadem causa diuersis etiam temporibus aegrotare? Si enim dispar nascendi mora mutauit horoscopum et disparilitatem intulit ceteris rebus: quur illud in aegritudinibus mansit, quod habebat in temporis aequalitate conceptus? Aut si fata ualetudinis in conceptu sunt, aliarum uero rerum in ortu esse dicuntur, non deberent inspectis natalium constellationibus de ualetudine aliquid dicere, quando eis inspicienda conceptionalis hora non datur. Si autem ideo praenuntiant aegritudines non inspecto conceptionis horoscopo, quia indicant eas momenta nascentium: quo modo dicerent cuilibet eorum geminorum ex natiuitatis hora, quando aegrotaturus esset, cum et alter, qui non habebat eandem horam natiuitatis, necesse haberet pariter aegrotare? Deinde quaero: si tanta distantia est temporis in natiuitate geminorum, ut per hanc oporteat eis constellationes fieri diuersas propter diuersum horoscopum et ob hoc diuersos omnes cardines, ubi tanta uis ponitur, ut hinc etiam diuersa sint fata: unde hoc accidere potuit, cum eorum conceptus diuersum tempus habere non possit? Aut si duorum uno momento temporis conceptorum potuerunt esse ad nascendum fata disparia, quur non et duorum uno momento temporis natorum possint esse ad uiuendum adque moriendum fata disparia? Nam si unum momentum, quo ambo concepti sunt, non inpediuit, ut alter prior, alter posterior nasceretur: quur, uno momento si duo nascantur, inpedit aliquid, ut alter prior, alter posterior moriatur? Si conceptio momenti unius diuersos casus in utero geminos habere permittit, quur natiuitas momenti unius non etiam quoslibet duos in terra diuersos casus habere permittat, ac sic omnis huius artis uel potius uanitatis commenta tollantur? Quid est hoc, quur uno tempore, momento uno. sub una eademque caeli positione concepti diuersa habent fata, quae illos perducant ad diuersarum horarum natiuitatem, et uno momento temporis sub una eademque caeli positione de duabus matribus duo pariter nati diuersa fata habere non possint, quae illos perducant ad diuersam uiuendi uel moriendi necessitatem? An concepti nondum habent fata, quae nisi nascantur habere non poterunt? Quid est ergo quod dicunt, si hora conceptionalis inueniatur, multa ab istis dici posse diuinius? Unde etiam illud a nonnullis praedicatur, quod quidam sapiens horam elegit, qua cum uxore concumberet, unde filium mirabilem gigneret. Unde postremo et hoc est, quod de illis pariter aegrotantibus geminis Posidonius, magnus astrologus idemque philosophus, respondebat, ideo fieri, quod eodem tempore fuissent nati eodemque concepti. Nam utique propter hoc addebat conceptionem, ne diceretur ei non ad liquidum eodem tempore potuisse nasci, quos constabat omnino eodem tempore fuisse conceptos, ut hoc, quod similiter simulque aegrotabant, non daret de proximo pari corporis temperamento, sed eandem quoque ualetudinis parilitatem sidereis nexibus adligaret. Si igitur in conceptu tanta uis est ad aequalitatem fatorum, non debuerunt nascendo eadem fata mutari. Aut si propterea mutantur fata geminorum, quia temporibus diuersis nascuntur, quur non potius intellegamus iam fuisse mutata, ut diuersis temporibus nascerentur? Itane non mutat fata natiuitatis uoluntas uiuentium, cum mutet fata conceptionis ordo nascentium?

### Concerning Twins of Different Sexes.

[¶23] Chapter 6.—Concerning Twins of Different Sexes.

> Latin: Caput VI. De geminis disparis sexus.

[¶24] But even in the very conception of twins, which certainly occurs 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 them are alive, and in the flower of their age; and though they resemble each other in body, as far as difference of sex will permit, still they are very different in the whole scope and purpose of their lives (consideration being had of those differences which necessarily exist between the lives of males and females),—the one holding the office of a count, and being almost constantly away from home with the army in foreign service, the other never leaving her country’s soil, or her native district. Still more,—and this is more incredible, if the destinies of the stars are to be believed in, though it is not wonderful if we consider the wills of men, and the free gifts of God,—he is married; she is a sacred virgin: he has begotten a numerous offspring; she has never even married. But is not the virtue of the horoscope very great? I think I have said enough to show the absurdity of that. But, say those astrologers, whatever be the virtue of the horoscope in other respects, it is certainly of significance with respect to birth. But why not also with respect to conception, which takes place undoubtedly with one act of copulation? And, indeed, so great is the force of nature, that after a woman has once conceived, she ceases to be liable to conception. Or were they, perhaps, changed at birth, either he into a male, or she into a female, because of the difference in their horoscopes? But, whilst it is not altogether absurd to say that certain sidereal influences have some power to cause differences in bodies alone,—as, for instance, we see that the seasons of the year come round by the approaching and receding of the sun, and that certain kinds of things are increased in size or diminished by the waxings and wanings of the moon, such as sea-urchins, oysters, and the wonderful tides of the ocean,—it does not follow that the wills of men are to be made subject to the position of the stars. The astrologers, however, when they wish to bind our actions also to the constellations, only set us on investigating whether, even in these bodies, the changes may not be attributable to some other than a sidereal cause. For what is there which more intimately concerns a body than its sex? And yet, under the same position of the stars, twins of different sexes may be conceived. Wherefore, what greater absurdity can be affirmed or believed than that the position of the stars, which was the same for both of them at the time of conception, could not cause that the one child should not have been of a different sex from her brother, with whom she had a common constellation, whilst the position of the stars which existed at the hour of their birth could cause that she should be separated from him by the great distance between marriage and holy virginity?

> Latin: Quamquam et in ipsis geminorum conceptibus, ubi certe amborum eadem momenta sunt temporum, unde fit ut sub eadem constellatione fatali alter concipiatur masculus, altera femina? Nouimus geminos diuersi sexus, ambo adhuc uiuunt, ambo aetate adhuc uigent; quorum cum sint inter se similes corporum species, quantum in diuerso sexu potest, instituto tamen et proposito uitae ita sunt dispares, ut praeter actus, quos necesse est a uirilibus distare femineos (quod ille in officio comitis militat et a sua domo paene semper peregrinatur, illa de solo patrio et de rure proprio non recedit), insuper (quod est incredibilius, si astralia fata credantur; non autem mirum, si uoluntates hominum et Dei munera cogitentur) ille coniugatus, illa uirgo sacra est; ille numerosam prolem genuit, illa nec nupsit. At enim plurimum uis horoscopi ualet. Hoc quam nihil sit, iam satis disserui. Sed qualecumque sit, in ortu ualere dicunt; numquid et in conceptu? ubi et unum concubitum esse manifestum est, et tanta naturae uis est, ut, cum conceperit femina, deinde alterum concipere omnino non possit; unde necesse est eadem esse in geminis momenta conceptus. An forte quia diuerso horoscopo nati sunt, aut ille in masculum, dum nascerentur, aut illa in feminam commutata est? Cum igitur non usquequaque absurde dici posset ad solas corporum differentias adflatus quosdam ualere sidereos, sicut in solaribus accessibus et decessibus uidemus etiam ipsius anni tempora uariari et lunaribus incrementis adque detrimentis augeri et minui quaedam genera rerum, sicut echinos et conchas et mirabiles aestus oceani; non autem et animi uoluntates positionibus siderum subdi: nunc isti, cum etiam nostros actus inde religare conantur, admonent ut quaeramus, unde ne in ipsis quidem corporibus eis possit ratio ista constare. Quid enim tam ad corpus pertinens quam corporis sexus? et tamen sub eadem positione siderum diuersi sexus gemini concipi potuerunt. Unde quid insipientius dici aut credi potest, quam siderum positionem, quae ad horam conceptionis eadem ambobus fuit, facere non potuisse, ut, cum quo habebat eandem constellationem, sexum diuersum a fratre non haberet; et positionem siderum, quae fuit ad horam nascentium, facere potuisse, ut ab eo tam multum uirginali sanctitate distaret?

## 25. Concerning the Choosing of a Day for Marriage, or for Planting, or Sowing.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/25/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/25/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 7.—Concerning the Choosing of a Day for Marriage, or for Planting, or Sowing.

> Latin: Caput VII. De electione diei, quo uxor ducitur quoue in agro aliquid plantatur aut seritur.

[¶1] Now, will any one bring forward this, that in choosing certain particular days for particular actions, men bring about certain new destinies for their actions? That man, for instance, according to this doctrine, was not born to have an illustrious son, but rather a contemptible one, and therefore, being a man of learning, he choose an hour in which to lie with his wife. He made, therefore, a destiny which he did not have before, and from that destiny of his own making something began to be fatal which was not contained in the destiny of his natal hour. Oh, singular stupidity! A day is chosen on which to marry; and for this reason, I believe, that unless a day be chosen, the marriage may fall on an unlucky day, and turn out an unhappy one. What then becomes of what the stars have already decreed at the hour of birth? Can a man be said to change by an act of choice that which has already been determined for him, whilst that which he himself has determined in the choosing of a day cannot be changed by another power? Thus, if men alone, and not all things under heaven, are subject to the influence of the stars, why do they choose some days as suitable for planting vines or trees, or for sowing grain, other days as suitable for taming beasts on, or for putting the males to the females, that the cows and mares may be impregnated, and for such-like things? If it be said that certain chosen days have an influence on these things, because the constellations rule over all terrestrial bodies, animate and inanimate, according to differences in moments of time, let it be considered what innumerable multitudes of beings are born or arise, or take their origin at the very same instant of time, which come to ends so different, that they may persuade any little boy that these observations about days are ridiculous. For who is so mad as to dare affirm that all trees, all herbs, all beasts, serpents, birds, fishes, worms, have each separately their own moments of birth or commencement? Nevertheless, men are wont, in order to try the skill of the mathematicians, to bring before them the constellations of dumb animals, the constellations of whose birth they diligently observe at home with a view to this discovery; and they prefer those mathematicians to all others, who say from the inspection of the constellations that they indicate the birth of a beast and not of a man. They also dare tell what kind of beast it is, whether it is a wool-bearing beast, or a beast suited for carrying burthens, or one fit for the plough, or for watching a house; for the astrologers are also tried with respect to the fates of dogs, and their answers concerning these are followed by shouts of admiration on the part of those who consult them. They so deceive men as to make them think that during the birth of a man the births of all other beings are suspended, so that not even a fly comes to life at the same time that he is being born, under the same region of the heavens. And if this be admitted with respect to the fly, the reasoning cannot stop there, but must ascend from flies till it lead them up to camels and elephants. Nor are they willing to attend to this, that when a day has been chosen whereon to sow a field, so many grains fall into the ground simultaneously, germinate simultaneously, spring up, come to perfection, and ripen simultaneously; and yet, of all the ears which are coeval, and, so to speak, congerminal, some are destroyed by mildew, some are devoured by the birds, and some are pulled by men. How can they say that all these had their different constellations, which they see coming to so different ends? Will they confess that it is folly to choose days for such things, and to affirm that they do not come within the sphere of the celestial decree, whilst they subject men alone to the stars, on whom alone in the world God has bestowed free wills? All these things being considered, we have good reason to believe that, when the astrologers give very many wonderful answers, it is to be attributed to the occult inspiration of spirits not of the best kind, whose care it is to insinuate into the minds of men, and to confirm in them, those false and noxious opinions concerning the fatal influence of the stars, and not to their marking and inspecting of horoscopes, according to some kind of art which in reality has no existence.

> Latin: Iam illud quis ferat, quod in eligendis diebus noua quaedam suis actibus fata moliuntur? Non erat uidelicet ille ita natus, ut haberet admirabilem filium, sed ita potius, ut contemtibilem gigneret, et ideo uir doctus elegit horam qua misceretur uxori. Fecit ergo fatum, quod non habebat, et ex ipsius facto coepit esse fatale, quod in eius natiuitate non fuerat. s o stultitiam singularem! Eligitur dies ut ducatur uxor; credo propterea, quia potest in diem non bonum, nisi eligatur, incurri et infeliciter duci. Ubi est ergo quod nascenti iam sidera decreuerunt? An potest homo, quod ei iam constitutum est, diei electione mutare, et quod ipse in eligendo die constituerit, non poterit ab alia potestate mutari? Deinde si soli homines, non autem omnia quae sub caelo sunt, constellationibus subiacent, quur aliter eligunt dies adcommodatos ponendis uitibus uel arboribus uel segetibus, alios dies pecoribus uel domandis uel admittendis maribus, quibus equarum uel boum fetentur armenta, et cetera huius modi? Si autem propterea ualent ad has res dies electi, quia terrenis omnibus corporibus siue animantibus secundum diuersitates temporalium momentorum siderum positio dominatur; considerent quam innumerabilia sub uno temporis puncto uel nascantur uel oriantur uel inchoentur, et tam diuersos exitus habeant. ut istas obseruationes cuiuis puero ridendas esse persuadeant Quis enim est tam excors, ut audeat dicere omnes arbores, omnes herbas, omnes bestias serpentes aues pisces uermiculos momenta nascendi singillatim habere diuersa? Solent tamen homines ad tentandam peritiam mathematicorum adferre ad eos constellationes mutorum animalium, quorum ortus propter hanc explorationem domi suae diligenter obseruant, eosque mathematicos praeferunt ceteris, qui constellationibus inspectis dicunt non esse hominem natum, sed pecus. Audent etiam dicere quale pecus, utrum aptum lanitio, an uectationi, an aratro, an custodiae domus. Nam et ad canina fata tentantur et cum magnis admirantium clamoribus ista respondent. Sic desipiunt homines, ut existiment, cum homo nascitur, ceteros rerum ortus ita inhiberi, ut cum illo sub eadem caeli plaga nec musca nascatur. Nam si hanc admiserint, procedit ratiocinatio, quae gradatim accessibus modicis eos a muscis ad camelos elephantosque perducat. Nec illud uolunt aduertere, quod electo ad seminandum agrum die tam multa grana in terram simul ueniunt, simul germinant, exorta segete simul herbescunt pubescunt flauescunt, et tamen inde spicas ceteris coaeuas adque, ut ita dixerim, congerminales alias robigo interimit, alias aues depopulantur, alias homines auellunt. Quo modo istis alias constellationes fuisse dicturi sunt, quas tam diuersos exitus habere conspiciunt? An eos paenitebit his rebus dies eligere easque ad caeleste negabunt pertinere decretum, et solos sideribus subdent homines, quibus solis in terra Deus dedit liberas uoluntates? His omnibus consideratis non inmerito creditur, cum astrologi mirabiliter multa uera respondent, occulto instinctu fieri spirituum non bonorum, quorum cura est has falsas et noxias opiniones de astralibus fatis inserere humanis mentibus adque firmare, non horoscopi notati et inspecti aliqua arte, quae nulla est.

## 26. Concerning Those Who Call by the Name of Fate, Not the Position of the Stars, But the Connection of Causes Which Depends on the Will of God.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/26/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/26/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 8.—Concerning Those Who Call by the Name of Fate, Not the Position of the Stars, But the Connection of Causes Which Depends on the Will of God.

> Latin: Caput VIII. De his, qui non astrorum positionem, sed conexionem causarum ex Dei uoluntate pendentem fati nomine appellant.

[¶1] But, as to those who call by the name of fate, not the disposition of the stars as it may exist when any creature is conceived, or born, or commences its existence, but the whole connection and train of causes which makes everything become what it does become, there is no need that I should labor and strive with them in a merely verbal controversy, since they attribute the so-called order and connection of causes to the will and power of God most high, who is most rightly and most truly believed to know all things before they come to pass, and to leave nothing unordained; from whom are all powers, although the wills of all are not from Him. Now, that it is chiefly the will of God most high, whose power extends itself irresistibly through all things which they call fate, is proved by the following verses, of which, if I mistake not, Annæus Seneca is the author:—

> Latin: Qui uero non astrorum constitutionem, sicuti est cum quidque concipitur uel nascitur uel inchoatur, sed omnium conexionem seriemque causarum, qua fit omne quod fit, fati nomine appellant: non multum cum eis de uerbi controuersia laborandum adque certandum est, quando quidem ipsum causarum ordinem et quandam conexionem Dei summi tribuunt uoluntati et potestati, qui optime et ueracissime creditur et cuncta scire antequam fiant, et nihil inordinatum relinquere; a quo sunt omnes potestates, quamuis ab illo non sint omnium uoluntates.

[¶2] “Father supreme, Thou ruler of the lofty heavens,

> Latin: Ipsam itaque praecipue Dei summi uoluntatem, cuius potestas insuperabiliter per cuncta porrigitur, eos appellare fatum sic probatur.

[¶3] Lead me where’er it is Thy pleasure; I will give

[¶4] A prompt obedience, making no delay,

[¶5] Lo! here I am. Promptly I come to do Thy sovereign will;

[¶6] If thy command shall thwart my inclination, I will still

> Latin: Annaei Senecae sunt, nisi fallor, hi uersus: Duc, summe pater altique dominator poli, Quocumque placuit, nulla parendi mora est.

[¶7] Follow Thee groaning, and the work assigned,

[¶8] With all the suffering of a mind repugnant,

[¶9] Will perform, being evil; which, had I been good,

> Latin: Adsum inpiger: fac nolle, comitabor gomens Malusque patiar, facere quod licuit bono.

[¶10] I should have undertaken and performed, though hard,

[¶11] With virtuous cheerfulness.

> Latin: Ducunt uolentem fata, nolentem trahunt.

[¶12] The Fates do lead the man that follows willing;

[¶13] But the man that is unwilling, him they drag.”

[¶14] Most evidently, in this last verse, he calls that “fate” which he 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 the man that follows willing, but the man that is unwilling, him they drag.”

> Latin: Nempe euidentissime hoc ultimo uersu ea fata appellauit, quam supra dixerat summi patris uoluntatem; cui paratum se oboedire dicit, ut uolens ducatur, ne nolens trahatur; quoniam scilicet Ducunt nolentem fata, nolentem trahunt.

[¶15] The following Homeric lines, which Cicero translates into Latin, also favor this opinion :—

> Latin: Illi quoque uersus Homerici huic sententiae suffragantur, quos Cicero in Latinum uertit: Tales sunt hominum mentes, quali pater ipse Iuppiter Iuppiter lustrauit lumine terras.

[¶16] “Such are the minds of men, as is the light

[¶17] Which Father Jove himself doth pour

[¶18] Illustrious o’er the fruitful earth.”

[¶19] Not that Cicero wishes that a poetical sentiment should have any weight in a question like this; for when he says that the Stoics, when asserting the power of fate, were in the habit of using these verses from Homer, he is not treating concerning the opinion of that poet, but concerning that of those philosophers, since by these verses, which they quote in connection with the controversy which they hold about fate, is most distinctly manifested what it is which they reckon fate, since they call by the name of Jupiter him whom they reckon the supreme god, from whom, they say, hangs the whole chain of fates.

> Latin: Nec in hac quaestione auctoritatem haberet poetica sententia: sed quoniam Stoicos dicit uim fati adserentes istos ex Homero uersus solere usurpare, non de illius poetae, sed de istorum philosophorum opinione tractatur, cum per istos uersus, quos disputationi adhibent quam de fato habent, quid sentiant esse fatum apertissime declaratur, quoniam Iouem appellant, quem summum deum putant, a quo conexionem dicunt pendere fatorum.

## 27. Concerning the Foreknowledge of God and the Free Will of Man, in Opposition to the Definition of Cicero.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/27/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/27/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 9.—Concerning the Foreknowledge of God and the Free Will of Man, in Opposition to the Definition of Cicero.

> Latin: Caput IX. De praescientia Dei et libera hominis uoluntate contra Ciceronis definitionem.

[¶1] The manner in which Cicero addresses himself to the task of refuting the Stoics, shows that he did not think he could effect anything against them in argument unless he had first demolished divination. And this he attempts to accomplish by 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 prediction of events. Thus he both denies the foreknowledge of God, and attempts by vain arguments, and by opposing to himself certain oracles very easy to be refuted, to overthrow all prophecy, even such as is clearer than the light (though even these oracles are not refuted by him).

> Latin: Hos Cicero ita redarguere nititur, ut non existimet aliquid se aduersus eos ualere, nisi auferat diuinationem. Quam sic conatur auferre, ut neget esse scientiam futurorum, eamque omnibus uiribus nullam esse omnino contendat, uel in homine uel in deo, nullamque rerum praedictionem. Ita et Dei praescientiam negat et omnem prophetiam luce clariorem conatur euertere uanis argumentationibus et obponendo sibi quaedam oracula, quae facile possunt refelli; quae tamen nec ipsa conuincit. In his autem mathematicorum coniecturis refutandis eius regnat oratio, quia uere tales sunt, ut se ipsae destruant et refellant.

[¶2] But, in refuting these conjectures of the mathematicians, his argument is triumphant, because truly these are such as destroy and refute themselves. Nevertheless, they are far more tolerable who assert the fatal influence of the stars than they who deny the foreknowledge of future events. For, to confess that God exists, and at the same time to deny that He has foreknowledge of future things, is the most manifest folly. This Cicero himself saw, and therefore attempted to assert the doctrine embodied in the words of Scripture, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” That, however, he did not do in his own person, for he saw how odious and offensive such an opinion would be; and therefore, in his book on the nature of the gods, he makes Cotta dispute concerning this against the Stoics, and preferred to give his own opinion in favor of Lucilius Balbus, to whom he assigned the defence of the Stoical position, rather than in favor of Cotta, who maintained that no divinity exists. However, in his book on divination, he in his own person most openly opposes the doctrine of the prescience of future things. But all this he seems to do in order that he may not grant the doctrine of fate, 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.

> Latin: Multo sunt autem tolerabiliores, qui uel siderea fata constituunt, quam iste qui tollit praescientiam futurorum. Nam et confiteri esse Deum et negare praescium futurorum apertissima insania est. Quod et ipse cum uideret, etiam illud tentauit quod scriptum est: Dixit insipiens in corde suo: Non est Deus; sed non ex sua persona. Vidit enim quam esset inuidiosum et molestum, ideoque Cottam fecit disputantem de hac re aduersus Stoicos in libris de deorum natura et pro Lucilio Balbo, cui Stoicorum partes defendendas dedit, maluit ferre sententiam quam pro Cotta, qui nullam diuinam naturam esse contendit. In libris uero de diuinatione ex se ipso apertissime obpugnat praescientiam futurorum. Hoc autem totum facere uidetur, ne fatum esse consentiat et perdat liberam uoluntatem. Putat enim concessa scientia futurorum ita esse consequens fatum, ut negari omnino non possit.

[¶3] But, let these perplexing debatings and disputations of the philosophers go on as they may, we, in order that we may confess the most high and true God Himself, do confess His will, supreme power, and prescience. Neither let us be afraid lest, after all, we do not do by will that which we do by will, because He, whose foreknowledge is infallible, foreknew that we would do it. It was this which Cicero was afraid of, and therefore opposed foreknowledge. The Stoics also maintained that all things do not come to pass by necessity, although they contended that all things happen according to destiny. What is it, then, that Cicero feared in the prescience of future things? Doubtless it was this,—that if all future things have been foreknown, they will happen in the order in which they have been foreknown; and if they come to pass in this order, 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 efficient cause. But if there is a certain order of causes according to which everything happens which does happen, then by fate, says he, all things happen which do happen. But if this be so, then is there nothing in our own power, and there is no such thing as freedom of will; and if we grant that, says he, the whole economy of human life is subverted. In vain are laws enacted. In vain are reproaches, praises, chidings, exhortations had recourse to; and there is no justice whatever in the appointment of rewards for the good, and punishments for the wicked. And that consequences so disgraceful, and absurd, and pernicious to humanity may not follow, Cicero chooses to reject the foreknowledge of future things, and shuts up 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. He therefore, like a truly great and wise man, and one who consulted very much and very skillfully for the good of humanity, of those two chose the freedom of the will, to confirm which he denied the foreknowledge of future things; and thus, wishing to make men free he makes them sacrilegious. But the religious mind chooses both, confesses both, and maintains both by the faith of piety. But how so? says Cicero; for the knowledge of future things being granted, there follows a chain of consequences which ends in this, that there can be nothing depending on our own free wills. And further, if there is anything depending on our wills, we must go backwards by the same steps of reasoning till we arrive at the conclusion that there is no foreknowledge of future things. For we go backwards through all the steps in the following order:—If there is free will, all things do not happen according to fate; if all things do not happen according to fate, there is not a certain order of causes; and if there is not a certain order of causes, neither is there a certain order of things foreknown by God,—for things cannot come to pass except they are preceded by efficient causes,—but, if there is no fixed and certain order of causes foreknown by God, all things cannot be said to happen according as He foreknew that they would happen. And further, if it is not true that all things happen just as they have been foreknown by Him, there is not, says he, in God any foreknowledge of future events.

> Latin: Sed quoquo modo se habeant tortuosissimae concertationes et disputationes philosophorum, nos ut confitemur summum et uerum Deum, ita uoluntatem summamque potestatem ac praescientiam eius confitemur; nec timemus ne ideo non uoluntate faciamus, quod uoluntate facimus, quia id nos facturos ille praesciuit, cuius praescientia falli non potest; quod Cicero timuit, ut obpugnaret praescientiam, et Stoici, ut non omnia necessitate fieri dicerent, quamuis omnia fato fieri contenderent. Quid est ergo, quod Cicero timuit in praescientia futurorum, ut eam labefactare disputatione detestabili niteretur? Videlicet quia, si praescita sunt omnia futura, hoc ordine uenient, quo uentura esse praescita sunt; et si hoc ordine uenient, certus est ordo rerum praescienti Deo; et si certus est ordo rerum, certus est ordo causarum; non enim fieri aliquid potest, quod non aliqua efficiens causa praecesserit; si autem certus est ordo causarum, quo fit omne quod fit, fato, inquit, fiunt omnia quae fiunt. Quod si ita est, nihil est in nostra potestate nullumque est arbitrium uoluntatis; quod si concedimus, inquit, omnis humana uita subuertitur, frustra leges dantur, frustra obiurgationes laudes, uituperationes exhortationes adhibentur, neque ulla iustitia bonis praemia et. malis supplicia constituta sunt. Haec ergo ne consequantur indigna et absurda et perniciosa rebus humanis, non uult esse praescientiam futurorum; adque in has angustias coartat animum religiosum, ut unum eligat e duobus, aut esse aliquid in nostra uoluntate, aut esse praescientiam futurorum, quoniam utrumque arbitratur esse non posse, sed si alterum confirmabitur, alterum tolli; si elegerimus praescientiam futurorum, tolli uoluntatis arbitrium; si elegerimus uoluntatis arbitrium, tolli praescientiam futurorum. Ipse itaque, ut uir magnus et doctus et uitae humanae plurimum ac peritissime consulens, ex his duobus elegit liberum uoluntatis arbitrium; quod ut COD firmaretur, negauit praescientiam futurorum adque ita, dum uult facere liberos, fecit sacrilegos. Religiosus autem animus utrumque eligit, utrumque confitetur et fide pietatis utrumque confirmat. Quo modo? inquit; nam si est praescientia futurorum, sequentur illa omnia, quae conexa sunt, donec eo perueniatur, ut nihil sit in nostra uoluntate. Porro si est aliquid in nostra uoluntate, eisdem recursis gradibus eo peruenitur, ut non sit praescientia futurorum. Nam per illa omnia sic recurritur: si est uoluntatis arbitrium, non omnia fato fiunt; si non omnia fato fiunt, non est omnium certus ordo causarum; si certus ordo causarum non est, nec rerum certus est ordo praescienti Deo, quae fieri non possunt, nisi praecedentibus et efficientibus causis; si rerum ordo praescienti Deo certus non est, non omnia sic ueniunt, ut ea uentura praesciuit; porro si non omnia sic ueniunt, ut ab illo uentura praescita sunt, non est, inquit, in Deo praescientia omnium futurorum. Nos aduersus istos sacrilegos ausus adque inpios et Deum dicimus omnia scire antequam fiant. et uoluntate nos facere, quidquid a nobis non nisi uolentibus fieri sentimus et nouimus.

[¶4] Now, against the sacrilegious and impious darings of reason, we assert both that God knows all things before they come to pass, and that we do by our free will whatsoever we know and feel to be done by us only because we will it. But that all things come to pass by fate, we do not say; nay we affirm that nothing comes to pass by fate; for we demonstrate that the name of fate, as it is wont to be used by those who speak of fate, meaning thereby the position of the stars at the time of each one’s conception or birth, is an unmeaning word, for astrology itself is a delusion. But an order of causes in which the highest efficiency is attributed to the will of God, we neither deny nor do we designate it by the name of fate, unless, perhaps, we may understand fate to mean that which is spoken, deriving it from fari, to speak; for we cannot deny that it is written in the sacred Scriptures, “God hath spoken once; these two things have I heard, that power belongeth unto God. Also unto Thee, O God, belongeth mercy: for Thou wilt render unto every man according to his works.” Now the expression, “Once hath He spoken,” is to be understood as meaning “immovably,” that is, unchangeably hath He spoken, inasmuch as He knows unchangeably all things which shall be, and all things which He will do. We might, then, use the word fate in the sense it bears when derived from fari, to speak, had it not already come to be understood in another sense, into which I am unwilling that the hearts of men should unconsciously slide. But it does not follow that, though there is for God a certain order of all causes, there must therefore be nothing depending on the free exercise of our own wills, for our wills themselves are included in that order of causes which is certain to God, and is embraced by His foreknowledge, for human wills are also causes of human actions; and He who foreknew all the causes of things would certainly among those causes not have been ignorant of our wills. For even that very concession which Cicero himself makes is enough to refute him in this argument. For what does it help him to say that nothing takes place without a cause, but that every cause is not fatal, there being a fortuitous cause, a natural cause, and a voluntary cause? It is sufficient that he confesses that whatever happens must be preceded by a cause. For we say that those causes which are called fortuitous are not a mere name for the absence of causes, but are only latent, and we attribute them either to the will of the true God, or to that of spirits of some kind or other. And as to natural causes, we by no means separate them from the will of Him who is the author and framer of all nature. But now as to voluntary causes. They are referable either to God, or to angels, or to men, or to animals of whatever description, if indeed those instinctive movements 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 of angels, I mean either the wills of good angels, whom we call the angels of God, or of the wicked angels, whom we call the angels of the devil, or demons. Also by the wills of men I mean the wills either of the good or of the wicked. And from this we conclude that there are no efficient causes of all things which come to pass unless voluntary causes, that is, such as belong to that nature which is the spirit of life. For the air or wind is called spirit, but, inasmuch as it is a body, it is not the spirit of life. The spirit of life, therefore, which quickens all things, and is the creator of every body, and of every created spirit, is God Himself, the uncreated spirit. In His supreme will resides the power which acts on the wills of all created spirits, helping the good, judging the evil, controlling all, granting power to some, not granting it to others. For, as He is the creator of all natures, so also is He the bestower of all powers, not of all wills; for wicked wills are not from Him, being contrary to nature, which is from Him. As to bodies, they are more subject to wills: some to our wills, by which I mean the wills of all living mortal creatures, but more to the wills of men than of beasts. But all of them are most of all subject to the will of God, to whom all wills also are subject, since they have no power except what He has bestowed upon them. The cause of things, therefore, which makes but is not made, is God; but all other causes both make and are made. Such are all created spirits, and especially the rational. Material causes, therefore, which may rather be said to be made than to make, are not to be reckoned among efficient causes, because they can only do what the wills of spirits do by them. How, then, does an order of causes which is certain to the foreknowledge of God necessitate that there should be nothing which is dependent on our wills, when our wills themselves have a very important place in the order of causes? Cicero, then, contends with those who call this order of causes fatal, or rather designate this order itself by 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. But, whereas he denies that the order of all causes is most certain, and perfectly clear to the prescience of God, we detest his opinion more than the Stoics do. For he either denies that God exists,—which, indeed, in an assumed personage, he has labored to do, in his book De Natura Deorum,—or if he confesses that He exists, but denies that He is prescient of future things, what is that but just “the fool saying in his heart there is no God?” For one who is not prescient of all future things is not God. Wherefore our wills also have just so much power as God willed and foreknew that they should have; and therefore whatever power they have, they have it within most certain limits; and whatever they are to do, they are 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 the name of fate to anything at all, I should rather say that fate belongs to the weaker of two parties, will to the stronger, who has the other in his power, than that the freedom of our will is excluded by that order of causes, which, by an unusual application of the word peculiar to themselves, the Stoics call Fate.

> Latin: Omnia uero fieri fato non dicimus, immo nulla fieri fato dicimus; quoniam fati nomen ubi solet a loquentibus poni, id est in constitutione siderum cum quisque conceptus aut natus est, quoniam res ipsa inaniter adseritur, nihil ualere monstramus. Ordinem autem causarum, ubi uoluntas Dei plurimum potest, neque negamus, neque fati uocabulo nuncupamus, nisi forte ut fatum a fando dictum intellegamus, id est a loquendo; non enim abnuere possumus esse scriptum in litteris sanctis: Semel locutus est Deus, duo haec audiui, quoniam potestas Dei est, et tibi, Domine, misericordia, qui reddis unicuique secundum opera eius. Quod enim dictum est: Semel locutus est, intellegitur […] hoc est incommutabiliter, ‘est locutus, sicut nouit incommutabiliter omnia quae futura sunt et quae ipse facturus est. Hac itaque ratione possemus a fando fatum appellare, nisi hoc nomen iam in alia re soleret intellegi, quo corda hominum nolumus inclinari. Non est autem consequens, ut, si Deo certus est omnium ordo causarum, ideo nihil sit in nostrae uoluntatis arbitrio. Et ipsae quippe nostrae uoluntates in causarum ordine sunt, qui certus est Deo eiusque praescientia continetur, quoniam et humanae uoluntates humanorum operum causae sunt. Adque ita, qui omnes rerum causas praesciuit, profecto in eis causis etiam nostras uoluntates ignorare non potuit, quas nostrorum operum causas esse praesciuit. Nam et illud, quod idem Cicero concedit, nihil fieri si causa efficiens non praecedat, satis est ad eum in hac quaestione redarguendum. Quid enim eum adiuuat, quod dicit nihil quidem fieri sine causa, sed non omnem causam esse fatalem, quia est causa fortuita, est naturalis, est uoluntaria? Sufficit, quia omne, quod fit, non nisi causa praecedente fieri confitetur. Nos enim eas causas, quae dicuntur fortuitae, unde etiam fortuna nomen accepit, non esse dicimus nullas, sed latentes, easque tribuimus uel Dei ueri uel quorumlibet spirituum uoluntati, ipsasque naturales nequaquam ab illius uoluntate seiungimus, qui est auctor omnis conditorque naturae. Iam uero causae uoluntariae aut Dei sunt aut angelorum ant hominum aut quorumque animalium, si tamen uoluntates appellandae sunt animarum rationis expertium motus illi, quibus aliqua faciunt secundum naturam suam, cum quid uel adpetunt uel euitant. Angelorum autem uoluntates dico seu bonorum, quos angelos Dei dicimus, seu malorum, quos angelos diaboli uel etiam daemones appellamus: sic et hominum, et bonorum scilicet et malorum. Ac per hoc colligitur non esse causas efficientes omnium quae fiunt nisi uoluntarias, illius naturae scilicet, quae spiritus uitae est. Nam et aer iste seu uentus dicitur spiritus; sed quoniam corpus est, non est spiritus uitae. Spiritus ergo uitae, qui uiuificat omnia creatorque est omnis corporis et omnis creati spiritus, ipse est Deus, spiritus utique non creatus. In eius uoluntate summa potestas est, quae creatorum spirituum bonas uoluntates adiuuat, malas iudicat, omnes ordinat et quibusdam tribuit potestates, quibus dam non tribuit. Sicut enim omnium naturarum creator est, ita omnium potestatum dator, non uoluntatum. Malae quippe uoluntates ab illo non sunt, quoniam contra naturam sunt, quae ab illo est. Corpora igitur magis subiacent uoluntatibus, quaedam nostris, id est omnium animantium mortalium et magis hominum quam bestiarum; quaedam uero angelorum; sed omnia maxime Dei uoluntati subdita sunt, cui etiam uoluntates omnes subiciuntur, quia non habent potestatem nisi quam ille concedit. Causa itaque rerum, quae facit nec fit, Deus est; aliae uero causae et faciunt et fiunt, sicut sunt omnes creati spiritus, maxime rationales. Corporales autem causae, quae magis fiunt quam faciunt, non sunt inter causas efficientes adnumerandae, quoniam hoc possunt, quod ex ipsis faciunt spirituum uoluntates. Quo modo igitur ordo causarum, qui praescienti certus est Deo, id efficit, ut nihil sit in nostra uoluntate, cum in ipso causarum ordine magnum habeant locum nostrae uoluntates? Contendat ergo Cicero cum eis, qui hunc causarum ordinem dicunt esse fatalem uel potius ipsum fati nomine appellant, quod nos abhorremus praecipue propter uocabulum, quod non in re uera consueuit intellegi. Quod uero negat ordinem omnium causarum esse certissimum et Dei praescientiae notissimum, plus eum quam Stoici detestamur. Aut enim esse Deum negat, quod quidem inducta alterius persona in libris de deorum natura facere molitus est; aut si esse confitetur Deum, quem negat praescium futurorum, etiam sic nihil dicit aliud, quam quod ille dixit insipiens in corde suo: Non est Deus. Qui enim non est praescius omnium futurorum, non est utique Deus. Quapropter et uoluntates nostrae tantum ualent, quantum Deus eas ualere uoluit adque praesciuit; et ideo quidquid ualent, certissime ualent, et quod facturae sunt, ipsae omnino facturae sunt, quia ualituras adque facturas ille praesciuit, cuius praescientia falli non potest. Quapropter si mihi fati nomen alicui rei adhibendum placeret, magis dicerem fatum esse infirmioris potentioris uoluntatem, qui eum usitato in potestate, quam illo causarum ordine, quem non usitato sed suo more Stoici fatum appellant, arbitrium nostrae uoluntatis auferri.

### Whether Our Wills are Ruled by Necessity.

[¶6] Chapter 10.—Whether Our Wills are Ruled by Necessity.

> Latin: Caput X. An uoluntatibus hominum aliqua dominetur necessitas.

[¶7] Wherefore, neither is that necessity to be feared, for dread of which the Stoics labored to make such distinctions among the causes of things as should enable them to rescue certain things from the dominion of necessity, and to subject others to it. Among those things which they wished not to be subject to necessity they placed our wills, knowing that they would not be free if subjected to necessity. For if that is to be called our necessity which is not in our power, but even though we be unwilling effects what it can effect,—as, for instance, the necessity of death,—it is manifest that our wills by which we live up-rightly or wickedly are not under such a necessity; for we do many things which, if we were not willing, we should certainly not do. This is primarily true of the act of willing itself,—for if we will, it is; if we will not, it is not,—for we should not will if we were unwilling. But if we define necessity to be that according to which we say that it is necessary that anything be of such or such a nature, or be done in such and such a manner, I know not why we should have any dread of that necessity taking away the freedom of our will. For we do not put the life of God or the foreknowledge of God under necessity if we should say that it is necessary that God should live forever, and foreknow all things; as neither is His power diminished when we say that He cannot die or fall into error,—for this is in such a way impossible to Him, that if it were possible for Him, He would be of less power. But assuredly He is rightly called omnipotent, though He can neither die nor fall into error. For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent. So also, when we say that it is necessary that, when we will, we will by free choice, in so saying we both affirm what is true beyond doubt, and do not still subject our wills thereby to a necessity which destroys liberty. Our wills, therefore, exist as wills, and do themselves whatever we do by willing, and which would not be done if we were unwilling. But when any one suffers anything, being unwilling by the will of another, even in that case will retains its essential validity, —we do not mean the will of the party who inflicts the suffering, for we resolve it into the power of God. For if a will should simply exist, but not be able to do what it wills, it would be overborne by a more powerful will. Nor would this be the case unless there had existed will, and that not the will of the other party, but the will of him who willed, but was not able to accomplish what he willed. Therefore, whatsoever a man suffers contrary to 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 will who gives power to wills. It is not the case, therefore, that because God foreknew what would be in the power of our wills, there is for that reason nothing in the power of our wills. For he who foreknew this did not foreknow nothing. Moreover, if He who foreknew what would be in the power of our wills did not foreknow nothing, but something, assuredly, even though He did foreknow, there is something in the power of our wills. Therefore we are by no means compelled, either, retaining the prescience of God, to take away the freedom of the will, or, retaining the freedom of the will, to deny that He is prescient of future things, which is impious. But we embrace both. We faithfully and sincerely confess both. The former, that we may believe well; the latter, that we may live well. For he lives ill who does not believe well concerning God. Wherefore, be it far from us, in order to maintain our freedom, to deny the prescience of Him by whose help we are or shall be free. Consequently, it is not in vain that laws are enacted, and that reproaches, exhortations, praises, and vituperations are had recourse to; for these also He foreknew, and they are of great avail, even as great as He foreknew that they would be of. Prayers, also, are of avail to procure those things which He foreknew that He would grant to those who offered them; and with justice have rewards been appointed for good deeds, and punishments for sins. For a man does not therefore sin because God foreknew that he would sin. Nay, it cannot be doubted but that it is the man himself who sins when he does sin, because He, whose foreknowledge is infallible, foreknew not that fate, or fortune, or something else would sin, but that the man himself would sin, who, if he wills not, sins not. But if he shall not will to sin, even this did God foreknow.

> Latin: Unde nec illa necessitas formidanda est, quam formidando Stoici laborauerunt causas rerum distinguere ita, ut quasdam subtraherent necessitati, quasdam subderent, adque in his, quas esse sub necessitate uoluerunt, posuerunt etiam nostras uoluntates, ne uidelicet non essent liberae, si subderentur necessitati. Si enim necessitas nostra illa dicenda est, quae non est in nostra potestate, sed etiam si nolimus efficit quod potest, sicut est necessitas mortis: manifestum est uoluntates nostras, quibus recte uel perperam uiuitur, sub tali necessitate non esse. Multa enim facimus, quae si nollemus, non utique faceremus. Quo primitus pertinet ipsum uelle; nam si uolumus, est, si nolumus, non est; non enim uellemus, si nollemus. Si autem illa definitur esse necessitas, secundum quam dicimus necesse esse ut ita sit aliquid uel ita fiat, nescio quur eam timeamus, ne nobis libertatem auferat uoluntatis. Neque enim et uitam Dei et praescientiam Dei sub necessitate ponimus, si dicamus necesse esse Deum semper uiuere et cuncta praescire; sicut nec potestas eius minuitur, cum dicitur mori fallique non posse. Sic enim hoc non potest, ut potius, si posset, minoris esset utique potestatis. Recte quippe omnipotens dicitur, qui tamen mori et falli non potest. Dicitur enim omnipotens faciendo quod uult, non patiendo quod non uult; quod ei si accideret, nequaquam esset omnipotens. Unde propterea quaedam non potest, quia omnipotens est. Sic etiam cum dicimus necesse esse, ut, cum uolumus, libero uelimus arbitrio: et uerum procul dubio dicimus, et non ideo ipsum liberum arbitrium necessitati subicimus, quae adimit libertatem. Sunt igitur nostrae uoluntates et ipsae faciunt, quidquid uolendo facimus, quod non fieret, si nollemus. Quidquid autem aliorum hominum uoluntate nolens quisque patitur, etiam sic uoluntas ualet, etsi non illius, tamen hominis uoluntas; sed potestas Dei. Nam si uoluntas tantum esset nec posset quod uellet, potentiore uoluntate inpediretur; nec sic tamen uoluntas nisi uoluntas esset, nec alterius, sed eius esset qui uellet, etsi non posset inplere quod uellet. Unde quidquid praeter suam uoluntatem patitur homo, non debet tribuere humanis uel angelicis uel cuiusquam creati spiritus uoluntatibus, sed eius potius, qui dat potestatem uolentibus. Non ergo propterea nihil est in nostra uoluntate, quia Deus praesciuit quid futurum esset in nostra uoluntate. Non enim, qui hoc praesciuit, nihil praesciuit. Porro si ille, qui praesciuit quid futurum esset in nostra uoluntate, non utique nihil, sed aliquid praesciuit: profecto et illo praesciente est aliquid in nostra uoluntate. Quocirca nullo modo cogimur aut retenta praescientia Dei tollere uoluntatis arbitrium aut retento uoluntatis arbitrio Deum (quod nefas est) negare praescium futurorum; sed utrumque amplectimur, utrumque fideliter et ueraciter confitemur; illud, ut bene credamus; hoc, ut bene uiuamus. Male autem uiuitur, si de Deo non bene creditur. Unde absit a nobis eius negare praescientiam, ut libere uelimus, quo adiuuante sumus liberi uel erimus. Proinde non frustra sunt leges obiurgationes exhortationes laudes et uituperationes, quia et ipsas futuras esse praesciuit, et ualent plurimum, quantum eas ualituras esse praesciuit, et preces ualent ad ea inpetranda, quae se precantibus concessurum esse praesciuit, et iuste praemia bonis factis et peccatis supplicia constituta sunt. Neque enim ideo peccat homo, quia Deus illum peccaturum esse praesciuit; immo ideo non dubitatur ipsum peccare cum peccat, quia ille, cuius praescientia falli non potest, non fatum, non fortunam, non aliquid aliud, sed ipsum peccaturum esse praesciuit. Qui si nolit, utique non peccat; sed si peccare noluerit, etiam hoc ille praesciuit.

### Concerning the Universal Providence of God in the Laws of Which All Things are Comprehended.

[¶9] Chapter 11.—Concerning the Universal Providence of God in the Laws of Which All Things are Comprehended.

> Latin: Caput XI. De uniuersali prouidentia Dei, cuius legibus omnia continentur.

[¶10] Therefore God supreme and true, with His Word and Holy Spirit (which three are one), one God omnipotent, creator and maker of every soul and of every body; by whose gift all are happy 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 and to the evil, being in common with stones, vegetable life in common with trees, sensuous life in common with brutes, intellectual life in common with angels alone; from whom is every mode, every species, every order; from whom are measure, number, weight; from whom is everything which has an existence in nature, of whatever kind it be, and of whatever value; from whom are the seeds of forms and the forms of seeds, and the motion of seeds and of forms; who gave also to flesh its origin, beauty, health, reproductive fecundity, disposition of members, and the salutary concord of its 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 speak of heaven and earth, angels and men, but not even the entrails of the smallest and most contemptible animal, or the feather of 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 among all its parts;—that God can never be believed to have left the kingdoms of men, their dominations and servitudes, outside of the laws of His providence.

> Latin: Deus itaque summus et uerus cum Uerbo suo et Spiritu sancto, quae tria unum sunt, Deus unus omnipotens, creator et factor omnia animae adque omnis corporis, cuius sunt participatione felices, quicumque sunt ueritate, non uanitate felices, qui fecit hominem rationale animal ex anima et corpore, qui eum peccantem nec inpunitum esse permisit nec sine misericordia dereliquit; qui bonis et malis essentiam etiam cum lapidibus, uitam seminalem etiam cum arboribus, uitam sensualem etiam cum pecoribus, uitam intellectualem cum solis angelis dedit; a quo est omnis modus omnis species omnis ordo; a quo est mensura numerus pondus; a quo est quidquid naturaliter est, cuiuscumque generis est, cuiuslibet aestimationis est; a quo sunt semina formarum formae seminum motus seminum adque formarum; qui dedit et carni originem pulchritudinem ualetudinem, propagationis fecunditatem membrorum dispositionem salutem concordiae; qui et animae inrationali dedit memoriam sensum adpetitum, rationali autem insuper mentem intellegentiam uoluntatem; qui non solum caelum et terram, nec solum angelum et hominem, sed nec exigui et contemtibilis animantis uiscera nec auis pinnulam, nec herbae flosculum nec arboris folium sine suarum partium conuenientia et quadam ueluti pace dereliquit: nullo modo est credendus regna hominum eorumque dominationes et seruitutes a suae prouidentiae legibus alienas esse uoluisse.

## 28. By What Virtues the Ancient Romans Merited that the True God, Although They Did Not Worship Him, Should Enlarge Their Empire.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/28/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/28/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 12.—By What Virtues the Ancient Romans Merited that the True God, Although They Did Not Worship Him, Should Enlarge Their Empire.

> Latin: Caput XII. Quibus moribus antiqui Romani meruerint, ut Deus uerus, quamuis non eum colerent, eorum augeret imperium.

[¶1] Wherefore let us go on to consider what virtues of the Romans they were which the true God, in whose power are also the kingdoms of the earth, condescended to help in order to raise the empire, and also for what reason He did so. And, in order to discuss this question on clearer ground, we have written the former books, to show that the power of those gods, who, they thought, were to be worshipped with such trifling and silly rites, had nothing to do in this matter; and also what we have already accomplished of the present volume, to refute the doctrine of fate, lest any one who might have been already persuaded that the Roman empire was not extended and preserved by the worship of these gods, might still be attributing its extension and preservation to some kind of fate, rather than to the most powerful will of God most high. The ancient and primitive Ro mans, therefore, though their history shows us that, like all the other nations, with the 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, desirous of great glory, and content with a moderate fortune.” Glory they most ardently loved: for it they wished to live, for it they did not hesitate to die. Every other desire was repressed by the strength of their passion for that one thing. At length their country itself, because it seemed inglorious to serve, but glorious to rule and to command, they first earnestly desired to be free, and then to be mistress. Hence it was that, not enduring the domination of kings, they put the government into the hands of two chiefs, holding office for a year, who were called consuls, not kings or lords. But royal pomp seemed inconsistent with the administration of a ruler (regentis), or the benevolence of one who consults (that is, for the public good) (consulentis), but rather with the haughtiness of a lord (dominantis). King Tarquin, therefore, having been banished, and the consular government having been instituted, it followed, as the same author already alluded to says in his praises of the Romans, that “the state grew with amazing rapidity after it had obtained liberty, so great a desire of glory had taken possession of it.” That eagerness for praise and desire of glory, then, was that which accomplished those many wonderful things, laudable, doubtless, and glorious according to human judgment. The same Sallust praises the great men of his own time, Marcus Cato, and Caius Cæsar, saying that for a long time the republic had no one great in virtue, but that within his memory there had been these two men of eminent virtue, and very different pursuits. Now, among the praises which he pronounces on Cæsar he put this, that he wished for a great empire, an army, and a new war, that he might have a sphere where his genius and virtue might shine forth. Thus it was ever the prayer of men of heroic character that Bellona would excite miserable nations to war, and lash them into agitation with her bloody scourge, so that there might be occasion for the display of their valor. This, forsooth, is what that desire of praise and thirst for glory did. Wherefore, by the love of liberty in the first place, afterwards also by that of domination and through the desire of praise and glory, they achieved many great things; and their most eminent poet testifies to their having been prompted by all these motives:

> Latin: Proinde uideamus, quos Romanorum mores et quam ob causam Deus uerus ad augendum imperium adiuuare dignatus est, in cuius potestate sunt etiam regna terrena. Quod autem ut absolutius disserere possemus, ad hoc pertinentem etiam superiorem librum conscripsimus, quod in hac re potestas nulla sit eorum deorum, quos etiam rebus nugatoriis colendos putarunt, et praesentis uoluminis partes superiores, quas huc usque perduximus, de fati quaestione tollenda, ne quisquam, cui iam persuasam esset non illorum deorum cultu Romanum imperium propagatum adque seruatum, nescio cui fato potius id tribueret quam Dei summi potentissimae uoluntati. Ueteres igitur primique Romani, quantum eorum docet et commendat historia, quamuis ut aliae gentes excepta una populi Hebraeorum deos falsos colerent et non Deo uictimas, sed daemoniis immolarent, tamen ‘laudis auidi, pecuniae liberales erant, gloriam ingentem, diuitias honestas uolebant; hanc ardentissime dilexerunt, propter hanc uiuere uoluerunt, pro hac emori non dubitauerunt; ceteras cupiditates huius unius ingenti cupiditate presserunt. Ipsam denique patriam suam, quoniam seruire uidebatur inglorium, dominari uero adque imperare gloriosum, prius omni studio liberam, deinde dominam esse concupiuerunt. Hinc est quod regalem dominationem non ferentes (annua imperia binosque imperatores sibi fecerunt, qui consules appellati sunt a consulendo, non reges aut domini a regnando adque dominando’; cum et reges utique a regendo dicti melius uideantur, ut regnum a regibus, reges autem, ut dictum est, a regendo; sed fastus regius non disciplina putata est regentis uel beneuolentia consulentis, sed superbia dominantis. Expulso itaque rege Tarquinio et consulibus institutis secutum est, quod idem auctor in Romanorum laudibus posuit, quod ‘ciuitas incredibile memoratu est adepta libertate quantum breui creuerit; tanta cupido gloriae incesserat.) Ista ergo laudis auiditas et cupido gloriae multa illa miranda fecit, laudabilia scilicet adque gloriosa secundum hominum existimationem. Laudat idem Sallustius temporibus suis magnos et praeclaros uiros, Marcum Catonem et Gaium Caesarem, dicens quod diu illa res publica non habuit quemquam uirtute magnum, sed sua memoria fuisse illos duos ingenti uirtute, diuersis moribus. In laudibus autem Caesaris posuit, quod sibi magnum imperium, exercitum, bellum nouum exoptabat, ubi uirtus enitescere posset. Ita fiebat in uotis uirorum uirtute magnorum, ut excitaret in bellum miseras gentes et flagello agitaret Bellona sanguineo, ut esset ubi uirtus eorum enitesceret. Hoc illa profecto laudis auiditas et gloriae cupido faciebat. Amore itaque primitus libertatis, post etiam dominationis et cupiditate laudis et gloriae multa magna fecerunt.

[¶2] “Porsenna there, with pride elate,

[¶3] Bids Rome to Tarquin ope her gate;

[¶4] With arms he hems the city in,

[¶5] Æneas’ sons stand firm to win.”

[¶6] At that time it was their greatest ambition either to die bravely or to live free; but when liberty was obtained, so great a desire of glory took possession of them, that liberty alone was not enough unless domination also should be sought, their great ambition being that which the same poet puts into the mouth of Jupiter:

> Latin: Reddit eis utriusque rei testimonium etiam poeta insignis illorum; inde quippe ait: Nec non Tarquinium eiectum Porsenna iubebat Accipere ingentique urbem obsidione premebat; Aeneadae in ferrum pro libertate ruebant. Tunc itaque magnum illis fuit aut fortiter mori aut liberos uiuere.

[¶7] “Nay, Juno’s self, whose wild alarms

[¶8] Set ocean, earth, and heaven in arms,

[¶9] Shall change for smiles her moody frown,

[¶10] And vie with me in zeal to crown

> Latin: Sed cum esset adepta libertas, tanta cupido gloriae incesserat, ut parum esset sola libertas, nisi et dominatio quaereretur, dum pro magno habetur, quod uelut loquente Ioue idem poeta dicit: Quin aspera Iuno, Quae mare nunc terrasque metu caelumque fatigat, Consilia in melius referet mecumque fouebit Romanos rerum dominos gentemque togatam.

[¶11] Rome’s sons, the nation of the gown.

[¶12] So stands my will. There comes a day,

[¶13] While Rome’s great ages hold their way,

[¶14] When old Assaracus’s sons

[¶15] Shall quit them on the myrmidons,

[¶16] O’er Phthia and Mycenæ reign,

[¶17] And humble Argos to their chain.”

> Latin: Sic placitum.

[¶18] Which things, indeed, Virgil makes Jupiter predict as future, whilst, in reality, he was only himself passing in review in his own mind, things which were already done, and which were beheld by him as present realities. But I have mentioned them with the intention of showing that, next to liberty, the Romans so highly esteemed domination, that it received a place among those things on which they bestowed the greatest praise. Hence also it is that that poet, preferring to the arts of other nations those arts which peculiarly belong to the Romans, namely, the arts of ruling and commanding, and of subjugating and vanquishing nations, says,

> Latin: Ueniet lustris labentibus aetas, Cum domus Assaraci Phthiam clarasque Mycenas Seruitio premet ac uictis dominabitur Argis. Quae quidem Vergilius Iouem inducens tamquam futura praedicentem ipse iam facta recolebat cernebatque praesentia; uerum propterea commemorare illa uolui, ut ostenderem dominationem post libertatem sic habuisse Romanos, ut in eorum magnis laudibus poneretur.

[¶19] “Others, belike, with happier grace,

[¶20] From bronze or stone shall call the face,

[¶21] Plead doubtful causes, map the skies,

[¶22] And tell when planets set or rise;

[¶23] But Roman thou, do thou control

> Latin: Hinc est et illud eiusdem poetae, quod, cum artibus aliarum gentium eas ipsas proprias Romanorum artes regnandi adque imperandi et subigendi ac debellandi populos anteponeret, ait: Excudent alii spirantia mollius aera, Cedo equidem, uiuos ducent do marmore uultus, Orabunt causas melius caelique meatus Describent radio et surgentia sidera dicent: Tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento (Hae tibi erunt artes) pacique inponere mores, Parcere subiectis et debellare superbos.

[¶24] The nations far and wide;

[¶25] Be this thy genius, to impose

[¶26] The rule of peace on vanquished foes,

[¶27] Show pity to the humble soul,

[¶28] And crush the sons of pride.”

[¶29] These arts they exercised with the more skill the less they gave themselves up to pleasures, and to enervation of body and mind in coveting and amassing riches, and through these corrupting morals, by extorting them from the miserable citizens and lavishing them on base stage-players. Hence these men of base character, who abounded when Sallust wrote and Virgil sang these things, did not seek after honors and glory by these arts, but by treachery and deceit. Wherefore the same says, “But at first it was rather ambition than avarice that stirred the minds of men, which vice, however, is nearer to virtue. For glory, honor, and power are desired alike by the good man and by the ignoble; but the former,” he says, “strives onward to them by the true way, whilst the other, knowing nothing of the good arts, seeks them by fraud and deceit.” And what is meant by seeking the attainment of glory, honor, and power by good arts, is to seek them by virtue, and not by deceitful intrigue; for the good and the ignoble man alike desire these things, but the good man strives to overtake them by the true way. The way is virtue, along which he presses as to the goal of possession—namely, to glory, honor, and power. Now that this was a sentiment engrained in the Roman mind, is indicated even by the temples of their gods; for they built in very close proximity the temples of Virtue and Honor, worshipping as gods the gifts of God. Hence we can understand what they who were good thought to be the end of virtue, and to what they ultimately referred it, namely, to honor; for, as to the bad, they had no virtue though they desired honor, and strove to possess it by fraud and deceit. Praise of a higher kind is bestowed upon Cato, for he says of him “The less he sought glory, the more it followed him.” We say 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 is content 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 he says, “But let every one prove his own work, and then he shall have glory in himself, and not in another.” That glory, honor, 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 directed towards that end in which is the highest and ultimate good of man. Wherefore even the honors which Cato sought he ought not to have sought, but the state ought to have conferred them on him unsolicited, on account of his virtues.

> Latin: Has artes illi tanto peritius exercebant, quanto minus se uoluptatibus dabant et eneruationi animi et corporis in concupiscendis et augendis diuitiis et per illas moribus corrumpendis, rapiendo miseris ciuibus, largiendo scaenicis turpibus. [Unde] Qui tales iam morum labe superabant adque abundabant, quando scribebat ista Sallustius canebatque Vergilius, non illis artibus ad honores et gloriam, sed dolis adque fallaciis ambiebant. Unde idem dicit: Sed primo magis ambitio quam auaritia animos hominum exercebat, quod tamen uitium propius uirtutem erat. Nam gloriam honorem imperium bonus et ignauus aeque sibi exoptant; sed ille, inquit, uera uia nititur, huic quia bonae artes desunt, dolis adque fallaciis contendit.’ Hae sunt illae bonae artes, per uirtutem scilicet, non per fallacem ambitionem ad honorem et gloriam et imperium peruenire; quae tamen bonus et ignauus aeque sibi exoptant; sed ille, id est bonus, uera uia nititur. Via uirtus est, qua nititur tamquam ad possessionis finem, id est ad gloriam honorem imperium. Hoc insitum habuisse Romanos etiam deorum aput illos aedes indicant, quas coniunctissimas constituerunt, Virtutis et Honoris, pro dis habentes quae dantur a Deo. Unde intellegi potest quem finem uolebant esse uirtutis et quo eam referebant qui boni erant, ad honorem scilicet; nam mali nec habebant eam, quamuis honorem habere cuperent, quem malis artibus conabantur adipisci, id est dolis adque fallaciis. a Melius laudatus est Cato. De illo quippe ait: (Quo minus petebat gloriam, eo illum magis sequebatur.’ Quando quidem gloria est, cuius illi cupiditate flagrabant, iudicium hominum bene de hominibus opinantium; et ideo melior est uirtus, quae humano testimonio contenta non est nisi conscientiae suae. Unde dicit apostolus: Nam gloria nostra haec est: testimonium conscientiae nostrae; et alio loco: Opus autem suum probet unusquisque, et tunc in semet ipso tantum gloriam habebit et non in altero.

[¶30] But, of the two great Romans of that time, Cato was he whose 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 the condition of the state both then and in former times. “I do not think,” he says, “that it was by arms that our ancestors made the republic great from being small. Had that been the case, the republic of our day would have been by far more flourishing than that of their times, for the number of our allies and citizens is far greater; and, besides, we possess a far greater abundance of armor and of horses than they did. But it was other things than these that made them great, and we have none of them: industry at home, just government without, 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 the good and the bad; all the rewards of virtue are got possession of by intrigue. And no wonder, when every individual consults only for his own good, when ye are the slaves of pleasure at home, and, in public affairs, of money and favor, no wonder that an onslaught is made upon the unprotected republic.”

> Latin: Gloriam ergo et honorem et imperium, quae sibi exoptabant et quo bonis artibus peruenire nitebantur boni, non debet sequi uirtus, sed ipsa uirtutem. Neque enim est uera uirtus, nisi quae ad eum finem tendit, ubi est bonum hominis, quo melius non est. Unde et honores, quos petiuit Cato, petere non debuit, sed eos ciuitas ob eius uirtutem non petenti dare. Sed cum illa memoria duo Romani essent uirtute magni, Caesar et Cato, longe uirtus Catonis ueritati uidetur propinquior fuisse quam Caesaris. Proinde qualis esset illo tempore ciuitas et antea qualis fuisset, uideamus in ipsa sententia Catonis: ‘Nolite, inquit, existimare maiores nostros armis rem publicam ex parua magnam fecisse. Si ita esset, multo pulcherrimam eam nos haberemus. Quippe sociorum adque ciuium, praeterea armorum et equorum maior copia nobis quam illis est. Sed alia fuere quae illos magnos fecerunt, quae nobis nulla sunt: domi industria, foris iustum imperium, animus in consulendo liber, neque delicto neque libidini obnoxius.

[¶31] He who hears these words of Cato or of Sallust probably thinks that such praise bestowed on the ancient Romans was applicable 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 from the very beginning of the state wrongs were committed by the more powerful, which led to the separation of the people from the fathers, besides which there were other internal dissensions; and the only time at which there existed a just and moderate administration was after the banishment of the kings, and that no longer than whilst they had cause to be afraid of Tarquin, and were carrying on the grievous war which had been undertaken on his account against Etruria; but afterwards the fathers oppressed the people as slaves, flogged them as the kings had done, drove them from their land, and, to the exclusion of all others, held the government in their own hands alone. And to these discords, whilst the fathers were wishing to rule, and the people were unwilling to serve, the second Punic war put an end; for again great fear began to press upon their disquieted minds, holding them back from those distractions by another and greater anxiety, and bringing them back to civil concord. But the great things which were then achieved were accomplished through the administration of a few men, who were good in their own way. And by the wisdom and forethought of these few good men, which first enabled the republic to endure these evils and mitigated them, it waxed greater and greater. And this the same historian affirms, when he says that, reading and hearing of the many illustrious achievements of the Roman people in peace and in war, by land and by sea, he wished to understand what it was by which these great things were specially sustained. For he knew that very often the Romans had with a small company contended with great legions of the enemy; and he knew also that with small resources they had carried on wars with opulent kings. And he says that, after having given the matter much consideration, it seemed evident to him that the pre-eminent virtue of a few citizens had achieved the whole, and that that explained how poverty overcame wealth, and small numbers great multitudes. But, he adds, after that the state had been corrupted by luxury and indolence, again the republic, by its own greatness, was able to bear the vices of its magistrates and generals. Wherefore even the praises of Cato are only applicable to a few; for only a few were possessed of that virtue which leads men to pursue after glory, honor, and power by the true way,—that is, by virtue itself. This industry at home, of which Cato speaks, was the consequence of a desire to enrich the public treasury, even though the result should be poverty at home; and therefore, when he speaks of the evil arising out of the corruption of morals, he reverses the expression, and says, “Poverty in the state, riches at home.”

> Latin: Pro his nos habemus luxuriam adque auaritiam, publice egestatem, priuatim opulentiam; laudamus diuitias, sequimur inertiam; inter bonos et malos discrimen nullum; omnia uirtutis praemia ambitio possidet. Neque mirum: ubi uos separatim sibi quisque consilium capitis, ubi domi uoluptatibus, hic pecuniae aut gratiae seruitis, eo fit ut impetus fiat in uacuam rem publicam.’ Qui audit haec Catonis uerba siue Sallustii, putat, quales laudantur Romani ueteres, omnes eos tales tunc fuisse uel plures. Non ita est; alioquin uera non essent, quae ipse item scribit, ea quae commemoraui in secundo libro huius operis, ubi dicit, iniurias ualidiorum et ob eas discessionem plebis a patribus aliasque dissensiones domi fuisse iam inde a principio, neque amplius aequo et modesto iure actum quam expulsis regibus quamdiu metus a Tarquinio fuit, donec bellum graue, quod propter ipsum cum Etruria susceptum fuerat, finiretur; postea uero seruili imperio patres exercuisse plebem, regio more uerberasse, agro pepulisse et ceteris expertibus solos egisse in imperio; quarum discordiarum, dum illi dominari uellent, illi seruire nollent, finem fuisse bello Punico secundo, quia rursus grauis metus coepit urguere adque ab illis perturbationibus alia maiore cura cohibere animos inquietos et’ ad concordiam reuocare ciuilem. Sed per quosdam paucos, qui pro suo modo boni erant, magna administrabantur adque illis toleratis ac temperatis malis paucorum bonorum prouidentia res illa crescebat; sicut idem historicus dicit multa sibi legenti et audienti, quae populus Romanus domi militiaeque, mari adque terra praeclara facinora fecerit, libuisse adtendere quae res maxime tanta negotia sustinuisset; quoniam sciebat saepenumero parua manu cum magnis legionibus hostium contendisse Romanos, cognouerat paruis copiis bella gesta cum opulentis regibus; sibique multa agitanti constare dixit, paucorum ciuium egregiam uirtutem cuncta patrauisse, eoque factum ut diuitias paupertas, multitudinem paucitas superaret. ‘Sed postquam luxu adque desidia, inquit, ciuitas corrupta est, rursus res publica magnitudine sui imperatorum adque magistratuum uitia sustentabat.’ Paucorum igitur uirtus ad gloriam honorem imperium uera uia, id est ipsa uirtute. nitentium etiam a Catone laudata est. Hinc erat domi industria, quam commemorauit Cato, ut aerarium esset opulentum, tenues res priuatae. Unde corruptis moribus uitium e contrario posuit, publice egestatem, priuatim opulentiam.

## 29. Concerning the Love of Praise, Which, Though It is a Vice, is Reckoned a Virtue, Because by It Greater Vice is Restrained.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/29/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/29/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 13.—Concerning the Love of Praise, Which, Though It is a Vice, is Reckoned a Virtue, Because by It Greater Vice is Restrained.

> Latin: Caput XIII. De amore laudis, qui, cum sit uitium, ob hoc uirtus putatur, quia per ipsam uitia maiora cohibentur.

[¶1] Wherefore, when the kingdoms of the East had been illustrious for a long time, it pleased God that there should also arise a Western empire, which, though later in time, should be more illustrious in extent and greatness. And, in order that it might overcome the grievous evils which existed among other nations, He purposely granted it to such men as, for the sake of honor, and praise, and glory, consulted well for their country, in whose glory they sought their own, and whose safety they did not hesitate to prefer to their own, suppressing the desire of wealth and many other vices for this one vice, namely, the love of praise. For he has the soundest perception who recognizes that even the love of praise is a vice; nor has this escaped the perception of the poet Horace, who says,

> Latin: Quam ob rem quam diu fuissent regna Orientis inlustria, uoluit Deus et Occidentale fieri, quod tempore esset posterius, sed imperii latitudine et magnitudine inlustrius, idque talibus potissimum concessit hominibus ad domanda grauia mala multarum gentium, qui causa honoris laudis et gloriae consuluerunt patriae, in qua ipsam gloriam requirebant, salutemque eius saluti suae praeponere non dubitauerunt, pro isto uno uitio, id est amore laudis, pecuniae cupiditatem et multa alia uitia conprimentes. Nam sanius uidet, qui et amorem laudis uitium esse cognoscit, quod nec poetam fugit Horatium, qui ait: Laudis amore tumes: sunt certa piacula, quae te Ter pure lecto poterunt recreare libello.

[¶2] “You’re bloated by ambition? take advice:

[¶3] Yon book will ease you if you read it thrice.”

[¶4] And the same poet, in a lyric song, hath thus spoken with the desire of repressing the passion for domination:

[¶5] “Rule an ambitious spirit, and thou hast

> Latin: Idemque in carmine lyrico ad reprimendam dominandi libidinem ita cecinit: Latius regnes auidum domando Spiritum, quam si Libyam remotis Gadibus iungas et uterque Poenus Seruiat uni.

[¶6] A wider kingdom than if thou shouldst join

[¶7] To distant Gades Lybia, and thus

[¶8] Shouldst hold in service either Carthaginian.”

[¶9] Nevertheless, they who restrain baser lusts, not by the power of the Holy Spirit obtained by the faith of piety, or by the love of intelligible beauty, but by desire of human praise, or, at all events, restrain them better by the love of such praise, are not indeed yet holy, but only less base. Even Tully was not able to conceal this fact; for, in the same books which he wrote, De Republica, when speaking concerning the education of a chief of the state, who ought, he says, to be nourished on glory, goes on to say that their ancestors did many wonderful and illustrious things through desire of glory. So far, therefore, from resisting this vice, they even thought that it ought to be excited and kindled up, supposing that that would be beneficial to the republic. But not even in his books on philosophy does Tully dissimulate this poisonous opinion, for he there avows it more clearly than day. For when he is speaking of those studies which are to be pursued with a view to the true good, and not with the vainglorious desire of human praise, he introduces the following universal and general statement:

> Latin: Uerum tamen qui libidines turpiores fide pietatis inpeti’ato Spiritu sancto et amore intellegibilis pulchritudinis non refrenant, melius saltem cupiditate humanae laudis et gloriae non quidem iam sancti, sed minus turpes sunt. Etiam Tullius hinc dissimulare non potuit in eisdem libris quos de re publica scripsit, ubi loquitur de instituendo principe ciuitatis, quem dicit alendum esse gloria, et consequenter commemorat maiores suos multa mira adque praeclara gloriae cupiditate fecisse. Huic igitur uitio non solum non resistebant, uerum etiam id excitandum et accendendum esse censebant, putantes hoc utile esse rei publicae. Quamquam nec in ipsis philosophiae libris Tullius ab hac peste dissimulet, ubi eam luce clarius confitetur. Cum enim de studiis talibus loqueretur, quae utique sectanda sunt fine ueri boni, non uentositate laudis humanae, hanc intulit uniuersalem generalemque sententiam: ‘Honos alit artes, omnesque accenduntur ad studia gloria iacentque ea semper, quae aput quosque inprobantur.’

[¶10] “Honor nourishes the arts, and all are stimulated to the prosecution of studies by glory; and those pursuits are always neglected which are generally discredited.”

### Concerning the Eradication of the Love of Human Praise, Because All the Glory of the Righteous is in God.

[¶12] Chapter 14.—Concerning the Eradication of the Love of Human Praise, Because All the Glory of the Righteous is in God.

> Latin: Caput XIV. De resecando amore laudis humanae, quoniam iustorum gloria omnis in Deo sit.

[¶13] It is, therefore, doubtless far better to resist this desire than to yield to it, for the purer one is from this defilement, the liker is he to God; and, though this vice be not thoroughly eradicated from his heart,—for it does not cease to tempt even the minds of those who are making good progress in virtue,—at any rate, let the desire of glory be surpassed by the love of righteousness, so that, if there be seen anywhere “lying neglected things which are generally discredited,” if they are good, if they are right, even the love of human praise may blush and yield to the love of truth. For so hostile is this vice to pious faith, if the love of glory be greater in the heart than the fear or love of God, that the Lord said, “How can ye believe, who look for glory from one another, and do not seek the glory which is from God alone?” Also, concerning some who had believed on Him, but were afraid to confess Him openly, the evangelist says, “They loved the praise of men more than the praise of God;” which did not the holy apostles, who, when they proclaimed the name of Christ in those places where it was not only discredited, and therefore neglected,—according as Cicero says, “Those things are always neglected which are generally discredited,”—but was even held in the utmost detestation, holding to what they had heard from the Good Master, who was also the physician of minds, “If any one shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father who is in heaven, and before the angels of God,” amidst maledictions and reproaches, and most grievous persecutions and cruel punishments, were not deterred from the preaching of human salvation by the noise of human indignation. And when, as they did and spake divine things, and lived divine lives, conquering, as it were, hard hearts, and introducing into them the peace of righteousness, great glory followed them in the church of Christ, they did not rest in that as in the end of their virtue, but, referring that glory itself to the glory of God, by whose grace they were what they were, they sought to kindle, also by that same flame, the minds of those for whose good they consulted, to the love of Him, by whom they could be made to be what they themselves were. For their Master had taught them not to seek to be good for the sake of human glory, saying, “Take heed that ye do not your righteousness before men to be seen of them, or otherwise ye shall not have a reward from your Father who is in heaven.” But again, lest, understanding this wrongly, they should, through fear of pleasing men, be less useful through concealing their goodness, showing for what end they ought to make it known, He says, “Let your works shine before men, that they may see your good deeds, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” Not, observe, “that ye may be seen by them, that is, in order that their eyes may be directed upon you,”—for of yourselves ye are, nothing,—but “that they may glorify your Father who is in heaven,” by fixing their regards on whom they may become such as ye are. These the martyrs followed, who surpassed the Scævolas, and the Curtiuses, and the Deciuses, both in true virtue, because in true piety, and also in the greatness of their number. But since those Romans were in an earthly city, and had before them, as the end of all the offices undertaken in its behalf, its safety, and a kingdom, not in heaven, but in earth,—not in the sphere of eternal life, but in the sphere of demise and succession, where the dead are succeeded by the dying,—what else but glory should they love, by which they wished even after death to live in the mouths of their admirers?

> Latin: Huic igitur cupiditati melius resistitur sine dubitatione quam ceditur. Tanto enim quisque est Deo similior, quanto et ab hac inmunditia mundior. Quae in hac uita etsi non funditus eradicatur ex corde, quia etiam bene proficientes animos tentare non cessat, saltem cupiditas gloriae superetur dilectione iustitiae: ut, si alicubi iacent quae aput quosque inprobantur, si bona, si recta sunt, etiam ipse amor humanae laudis erubescat et cedat amori ueritatis. Tam enim est hoc uitium inimicum piae fidei, si maior in corde sit cupiditas gloriae quam Dei timor uel amor, ut Dominus diceret: Quo modo potestis credere gloriam ab inuicem expectantes et gloriam quae a solo Deo est non quaerentes? Item de quibusdam, qui in eum crediderant et uerebantur palam confiteri, ait euangelista: Dilexerunt gloriam hominum magis quam Dei. Quod sancti apostoli non fecerunt; qui cum in his locis praedicarent Christi nomen, ubi non solum inprobabatur (sicut ille ait: iacentque ea semper, quae aput quosque inprobantur), uerum etiam summae detestationis habebatur, tenentes quod audierant a bono magistro eodemque medico mentium: Si quis me negauerit coram hominibus, negabo eum coram patre meo, qui in caelis est, uel coram angelis Dei, inter maledicta et obprobria, inter grauissimas persecutiones crudelesque poenas non sunt deterriti a praedicatione salutis humanae tanto fremitu offensionis humanae. Et quod eos diuina facientes adque dicentes diuineque uiuentes debellatis quodam modo cordibus duris adque introducta pace iustitiae ingens in ecclesia Christi gloria consecuta est: non in ea tamquam in suae uirtutis fine quieuerunt, sed eam quoque ipsam ad Dei gloriam referentes, cuius gratia tales erant, isto quoque fomite eos, quibus consulebant, ad amorem illius, a quo et ipsi tales fierent, accendebant. Namque ne propter humanam gloriam boni essent, docuerat eos magister illorum dicens: Cauete facere iustitiam uestram coram hominibus, ut uideamini ab eis; alioquin mercedem non habebitis aput patrem uestrum, qui in caelis est. Sed rursus ne hoc peruerse intellegentes hominibus placere metuerent minusque prodessent latendo, quod boni sunt, demonstrans quo fine innotescere deberent: Luceant, inquit, opera uestra coram hominibus, ut uideant bona facta uestra et glorificent patrem uestrum, qui in caelis est. Non ergo ut uideamini ab eis, id est hac intentione, ut eos ad uos conuerti uelitis, quia non per uos aliquid estis; sed ut glorificent patrem uestrum, qui in caelis est, ad quem conuersi fiant quod estis. Hos secuti sunt martyres, qui Scaeuolas et Curtios et Decios non sibi inferendo poenas, sed inlatas ferendo et uirtute uera, quoniam uera pietate, et innumerabili multitudine superarunt. Sed cum illi essent in ciuitate terrena, quibus propositus erat omnium pro illa officiorum finis incolumitas eius et regnum non in caelo, sed in terra; non in uita aeterna, sed in decessione morientium et successione moriturorum: quid aliud amarent quam gloriam, qua uolebant etiam post mortem tamquam uiuere in ore laudantium?

### Concerning the Temporal Reward Which God Granted to the Virtues of the Romans.

[¶15] Chapter 15.—Concerning the Temporal Reward Which God Granted to the Virtues of the Romans.

> Latin: Caput XV. De mercede temporali, quam Deus reddidit bonis moribus Romanorum.

[¶16] Now, therefore, with regard to those to whom God did not purpose to give eternal life with His holy angels in His own celestial city, to the society of which that true piety which does not render the service of religion, which the Greeks call λατρεία, to any save the true God conducts, if He had also withheld from them the terrestrial glory of that most excellent empire, a reward would not have been rendered to their good arts,—that is, their virtues,—by which they sought to attain so great glory. For as to those who seem to do some good that they may receive glory from men, the Lord also says, “Verily I say unto you, they have received their reward.” So also these despised their own private affairs for the sake of the republic, and for its treasury resisted avarice, consulted for the good of their country with a spirit of freedom, addicted neither to what their laws pronounced to be crime nor to lust. By all these acts, as by the true way, they pressed forward to honors, power, and glory; they were honored among almost all nations; they imposed the laws of their empire upon many nations; and at this day, both in literature and history, they are glorious among almost all nations. There is no reason why they should complain against the justice of the supreme and true God,—“they have received their reward.”

> Latin: Quibus ergo non erat daturus Deus uitam aeternam cum sanctis angelis suis in sua ciuitate caelesti, ad cuius societatem pietas uera perducit, quae non exhibet seruitutem religionis, quam λατρείαν Graeci uocant, nisi uni uero Deo, si neque hanc eis terrenam gloriam excellentissimi imperii concederet: non redderetur merces bonis artibus eorum, id est uirtutibus, quibus ad tantam gloriam peruenire nitebantur. De talibus enim, qui propter hoc boni aliquid facere uidentur, ut glorificentur ab hominibus, etiam Dominus ait: Amen dico uobis, perceperunt mercedem suam. Sic et isti priuatas res suas pro re communi, hoc est re publica, et pro eius aerario contemserunt, auaritiae restiterunt, consuluerunt patriae consilio libero, neque delicto secundum suas leges neque libidini obnoxii; his omnibus artibus tamquam uera uia nisi sunt ad honores imperium gloriam; honorati sunt in omnibus fere gentibus, imperii sui leges inposuerunt multis gentibus. hodieque litteris et historia gloriosi sunt paene in omnibus gentibus: non est quod de summi et ueri Dei iustititia conquerantur; perceperunt mercedem suam.

### Concerning the Reward of the Holy Citizens of the Celestial City, to Whom the Example of the Virtues of the Romans are Useful.

[¶18] Chapter 16.—Concerning the Reward of the Holy Citizens of the Celestial City, to Whom the Example of the Virtues of the Romans are Useful.

> Latin: Caput XVI. De mercede sanctorum ciuium ciuitatis aeternae, quibus utilia sunt Romanorum exempla uirtutum.

[¶19] But the reward of the saints is far different, who even here endured reproaches for that city of God which is hateful to the lovers of this world. That city is eternal. There none are born, for none die. There is true and full felicity,—not a goddess, but a gift of God. Thence we receive the pledge of faith whilst on our pilgrimage we sigh for its beauty. There rises not the sun on the good and the evil, but the Sun of Righteousness protects the good alone. There no great industry shall be expended to enrich the public treasury by suffering privations at home, for there is the common treasury of truth. And, therefore, it was not only for the sake of recompensing the citizens of Rome that her empire and glory had been so signally extended, but also that the citizens of that eternal city, during their pilgrimage here, might diligently and soberly contemplate these examples, and see what a love they owe to the supernal country on account of life eternal, if the terrestrial country was so much beloved by its citizens on account of human glory.

> Latin: Merces autem sanctorum longe alia est etiam hic obprobria sustinentium pro ueritate Dei, quae mundi huius dilectoribus odiosa est. Illa ciuitas sempiterna est; ibi nullus oritur, quia nullus moritur; ibi est uera et plena felicitas, non dea, sed donum Dei; inde fidei pignus accepimus, quamdiu peregrinantes eius pulchritudini suspiramus; ibi non oritur sol super bonos et malos, sed sol iustitiae solos protegit bonos; ibi non erit magna industria ditare publicum aerarium priuatis rebus angustis, ubi thensaurus communis est ueritatis. Proinde non solum ut talis merces talibus hominibus redderetur Romanum imperium ad humanam gloriam dilatatum est; uerum etiam ut ciues aeternae illius ciuitatis, quamdiu hic peregrinantur, diligenter et sobrie illa intueantur exempla et uideant quanta dilectio debeatur supernae patriae propter uitam aeternam, si tantum a suis ciuibus terrena dilecta est propter hominum gloriam.,

### To What Profit the Romans Carried on Wars, and How Much They Contributed to the Well-Being of Those Whom They Conquered.

[¶21] Chapter 17.—To What Profit the Romans Carried on Wars, and How Much They Contributed to the Well-Being of Those Whom They Conquered.

> Latin: Caput XVII. Quo fructu Romani bella gesserint et quantum his quos uicere contulerint.

[¶22] For, as far as this life of mortals is concerned, which is spent and ended in a few days, what does it matter under whose government a dying man lives, if they who govern do not force him to impiety and iniquity? Did the Romans at all harm those nations, on whom, when subjugated, they imposed their laws, except in as far as that was accomplished with great slaughter in war? Now, had it been done with consent of the nations, it would have been done with greater success, but there would have been no glory of conquest, for neither did the Romans themselves live exempt from those laws which they imposed on others. Had this been done without Mars and Bellona, so that there should have been no place for victory, no one conquering where no one had fought, would not the condition of the Romans and of the other nations have been one and the same, especially if that had been done at once which afterwards was done most humanely and most acceptably, namely, the admission of all to the rights of Roman citizens who belonged to the Roman empire, and if that had been made the privilege of all which was formerly the privilege of a few, with this one condition, that the humbler class who had no lands of their own should live at the public expense—an alimentary impost, which would have been paid with a much better grace by them into the hands of good administrators of the republic, of which they were members, by their own hearty consent, than it would have been paid with had it to be extorted from them as conquered men? For I do not see what it makes for the safety, good morals, and certainly not for the dignity, of men, that some have conquered and others have been conquered, except that it yields them that most insane pomp of human glory, in which “they have received their reward,” who burned with excessive desire of it, and carried on most eager wars. For do not their lands pay tribute? Have they any privilege of learning what the others are not privileged to learn? Are there not many senators in the other countries who do not even know Rome by sight? Take away outward show, and what are all men after all but men? But even though the perversity of the age should permit that all the better men should be more highly honored than others, neither thus should human honor be held at a great price, for it is smoke which has no weight. But let us avail ourselves even in these things of the kindness of God. Let us consider how great things they despised, how great things they endured, what lusts they subdued for the sake of human glory, who merited that glory, as it were, in reward for such virtues; and let this be useful to us even in suppressing pride, so that, as that city in which it has been promised us to reign as far surpasses this one as heaven is distant from the earth, as eternal life surpasses temporal joy, solid glory empty praise, or the society of angels the society of mortals, or the glory of Him who made the sun and moon the light of the sun and moon, the citizens of so great a country may not seem to themselves to have done anything very great, if, in order to obtain it, they have done some good works or endured some evils, when those men for this terrestrial country already obtained, did such great things, suffered such great things. And especially are all these things to be considered, because the remission of sins which collects citizens to the celestial country has something in it to which a shadowy resemblance is found in that asylum of Romulus, whither escape from the punishment of all manner of crimes congregated that multitude with which the state was to be founded.

> Latin: Quantum enim pertinet ad hanc uitam mortalium, quae paucis diebus ducitur et finitur, quid interest sub cuius imperio uiuat homo moriturus, si illi qui imperant ad inpia et iniqua non cogant? Aut uero aliquid nocuerunt Romani gentibus, quibus subiugatis inposuerunt leges suas, nisi quia id factum est ingenti strage bellorum? Quod si concorditer fieret, id ipsum fieret meliore successu; sed nulla esset gloria triumphantium. Neque enim et Romani non uiuebant sub legibus suis, quas ceteris inponebant. Hoc si fieret sine Marte et Bellona, ut nec Victoria locum haberet, nemine uincente ubi nemo pugnauerat: nonne Romanis et ceteris gentibus una esset eademque condicio? praesertim si mox fieret, quod postea gratissime adque humanissime factum est, ut omnes ad Romanum imperium pertinentes societatem acciperent ciuitatis et Romani ciues essent, ac sic esset omnium, quod erat ante paucorum; tantum quod plebs illa, quae suos agros non haberet, de publico uiueret; qui pastus eius per bonos administratores rei publicae gratius a concordibus praestaretur quam uictis extorqueretur. Nam quid intersit ad incolumitatem bonosque mores, ipsas certe hominum dignitates, quod alii uicerunt, alii uicti sunt, omnino non uideo, praeter illum gloriae humanae inanissimum fastum, in quo perceperunt mercedem suam, qui eius ingenti cupidine arserunt et ardentia bella gesserunt. Numquid enim illorum agri tributa non soluunt? Numquid eis licet discere, quod aliis non licet? Numquid non multi senatores sunt in aliis terris, qui Romam ne facie quidem norunt? Tolle iactantiam, et omnes homines quid sunt nisi homines? Quod si peruersitas saeculi admitteret, ut honoratiores essent quique meliores: nec sic pro magno haberi debuit honor humanus, quia nullius est ponderis fumus. Sed utamur etiam in his rebus beneficio Domini Dei nostri; consideremus quanta contemserint, quae pertulerint, quas cupiditates subegerint pro humana gloria, qui eam tamquam mercedem talium uirtutum accipere meruerunt, et ualeat nobis etiam hoc ad obprimendam superbiam, ut, cum illa ciuitas, in qua nobis regnare promissum est, tantum ab hac distet, quantum distat caelum a terra, a temporali laetitia uita aeterna, ab inanibus laudibus solida gloria, a societate mortalium societas angelorum, a lumine solis et lunae lumen eius qui solem fecit et lunam, nihil sibi magnum fecisse uideantur tantae patriae ciues, si pro illa adipiscenda fecerint boni operis aliquid uel mala. aliqua sustinuerint, cum illi pro hac terrena iam adepta tanta fecerint, tanta perpessi sint, praesertim quia remissio peccatorum, quae ciues ad aeternam colligit patriam, habet aliquid, cui per umbram quandam simile fuit asylum illud Romuleum, quo multitudinem, qua illa ciuitas conderetur, quorumlibet delictorum congregauit inpunitas.

## 30. How Far Christians Ought to Be from Boasting, If They Have Done Anything for the Love of the Eternal Country, When the Romans Did Such Great Things for Human Glory and a Terrestrial City.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/30/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/30/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 18.—How Far Christians Ought to Be from Boasting, If They Have Done Anything for the Love of the Eternal Country, When the Romans Did Such Great Things for Human Glory and a Terrestrial City.

> Latin: Caput XVIII. Quam alieni a iactantia esse debeant Christiani, si aliquid fecerint pro dilectione patriae aeternae, cum tanta Romani gesserint pro humana gloria et ciuitate terrena.

[¶1] What great thing, therefore, is it for that eternal and celestial city to despise all the charms of this world, however pleasant, if for the sake of this terrestrial city Brutus could even put to death his son,—a sacrifice which the heavenly city compels no one to make? But certainly it is more difficult to put to death one’s sons, than to do what is required to be done for the heavenly country, even to distribute to the poor those things which were looked upon as things to be massed and laid up for one’s children, or to let them go, if there arise any temptation which compels us to do so, for the sake of faith and righteousness. For it is not earthly riches which make us or our 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 makes us happy, who is the true riches of minds. But of Brutus, even the poet who celebrates his praises testifies that it was the occasion of unhappiness to him that he slew his son, for he says,

> Latin: Quid ergo magnum est pro illa aeterna caelestique patria cuncta saeculi huius quamlibet iucunda blandimenta contemnere, si pro hac temporali adque terrena filios Brutus potuit et occidere, quod illa facere neminem cogit? Sed certe difficilius est filios interimere, quam quod pro ista faciendum est, ea, quae filiis congreganda uidebantur adque seruanda, uel donare pauperibus uel, si existat tentatio, quae id pro fide adque iustitia fieri conpellat, amittere. Felices enim uel nos uel filios nostros non diuitiae terrenae faciunt aut nobis uiuentibus amittendae aut nobis mortuis a quibus nescimus uel forte a quibus nolumus possidendae; sed Deus felices facit, qui est mentium uera opulentia. Bruto autem, quia filios occidit, infelicitatis perhibet testimonium etiam poeta laudator.

[¶2] “And call his own rebellious seed

[¶3] For menaced liberty to bleed.

[¶4] Unhappy father! howsoe’er

> Latin: Ait enim: Natosqne pater nona bella monentes Ad poenam pulchra pro libertate uocabit Infelix, utcumque ferent ea facta minores.

[¶5] The deed be judged by after days.”

[¶6] But in the following verse he consoles him in his unhappiness, saying,

[¶7] “His country’s love shall all o’erbear.”

> Latin: Sed uersu sequenti consolatus est infelicem: Uincit amor patriae laudumque inmensa cupido.

[¶8] There are those two things, namely, liberty and the desire of human praise, which compelled the Romans to admirable deeds. If, therefore, for the liberty of dying men, and for the 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 desire of human praise, but through the earnest desire of fleeing men, not from King Tarquin, but from demons and the prince of the 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, not because he fought against his country, but because, being challenged by an enemy, he through youthful impetuosity fought, though for his country, yet contrary to orders which he his father had given as general; and this he did, notwithstanding that his son was victorious, lest there should be more evil in the example of authority despised, than good in the glory of slaying an enemy;—if, I say, Torquatus acted thus, wherefore should they boast themselves, who, for the laws of a celestial country, despise all earthly good things, which are loved far less than sons? If Furius Camillus, who was condemned by those who envied him, notwithstanding that he had thrown off from the necks of his countrymen the yoke of their most bitter enemies, the Veientes, again delivered his ungrateful country from the Gauls, because he had no other in which he could have better opportunities for living a life of glory;—if Camillus did thus, why should he be extolled as having done some great thing, who, having, it may be, suffered in the church at the hands of carnal enemies most grievous and dishonoring injury, has not betaken himself to heretical enemies, or himself raised some heresy against her, but has rather 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 which eternal life can be obtained? If Mucius, in order that peace might be made with King Porsenna, who was pressing the Romans 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 for his destruction, so that Porsenna, terrified at his daring, and at the thought of a conspiracy of such as he, without any delay recalled all his warlike purposes, and made peace;—if, I say, Mucius did this, who shall speak of his meritorious claims to the kingdom of heaven, if for it he may have given to the flames not one hand, but even his whole body, and that not by his own spontaneous act, but because he was persecuted by another? If Curtius, spurring on his steed, threw himself all armed into a precipitous gulf, obeying the oracles of their gods, which had commanded that the Romans should throw into that gulf the best thing which they possessed, and they could only understand thereby that, since they excelled in men and arms, the gods had commanded that an armed man should be cast headlong into that destruction;—if he did this, shall we say that that man has done a great thing for the eternal city who may have died by a like death, not, however, precipitating himself spontaneously into a gulf, but having suffered this death at the hands of some enemy of his faith, more especially when he has received from his Lord, who is also King of his country, a more certain oracle, “Fear not them who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul?” If the Decii dedicated themselves to death, consecrating themselves in a form of words, as it were, that falling, and pacifying by their blood the wrath of the gods, they might be the means of delivering the Roman army;—if they did this, let not the holy martyrs carry themselves proudly, as though they had done some meritorious thing for a share in that country where are eternal life and felicity, if even to the shedding of their blood, loving not only the brethren for whom it was shed, but, according as had been commanded them, even their enemies by whom it was being shed, they have vied with one another in faith of love and love of faith. If Marcus Pulvillus, when engaged in dedicating a temple to Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, received with such indifference the false intelligence which was brought to 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 received that intelligence with such indifference that he even ordered that his son should be cast out unburied, the love of glory having overcome in his heart the grief of bereavement, how shall any one affirm that he had done a great thing for the preaching of the gospel, by which the citizens of the heavenly city are delivered from divers errors and gathered together from divers wanderings, to whom his Lord has said, when anxious about the burial of his father, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their dead?” Regulus, in order not to break his oath, even with his most cruel enemies, returned to them from Rome itself, because (as he is said to have replied to the Romans when they wished to retain him) he could not have the dignity of an honorable citizen at Rome after having been a slave to the Africans, and the Carthaginians put him to death with the utmost tortures, because he had spoken against them in the senate. If Regulus acted thus, what tortures are not to be despised for the sake of good faith toward that country to whose beatitude faith itself leads? Or what will a man have rendered to the Lord for all He has bestowed upon him, if, for the faithfulness he owes to Him, he shall have suffered such things as Regulus suffered at the hands of his most ruthless enemies for the good faith which he owed to them? And how shall a Christian dare vaunt himself of his voluntary poverty, which he has chosen in order that during the pilgrimage of this life he may walk the more disencumbered on the way which leads to the country where the true riches are, even God Himself;—how, I say, shall he vaunt himself for this, when he hears or reads that Lucius Valerius, who died when he was holding the office of consul, was so poor that his funeral expenses were paid with money collected by the people?—or when he hears that Quintius Cincinnatus, who, possessing only four acres of land, and cultivating them with his own hands, was taken from the plough to be made dictator,—an office more honorable even than that of consul,—and that, after having won great glory by conquering the enemy, he preferred notwithstanding to continue in his poverty? Or how shall he boast of having done a great thing, who has not been prevailed upon by the offer of any reward of this world to renounce his connection with that heavenly and eternal country, when he hears that Fabricius could not be prevailed on to forsake the Roman city by the great gifts offered to him by Pyrrhus king of the Epirots, who promised him the fourth part of his kingdom, but preferred to abide there in his poverty 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, they themselves were so poor in their own houses, that one of them, who had already been twice a consul, was expelled from that senate of poor men by the censor, because he was discovered to possess ten pounds weight of silverplate,—since, I say, those very men by whose triumphs the public treasury was enriched were so poor, ought not all Christians, who make common property of their riches with a far nobler purpose, even that (according to what is written in the Acts of the Apostles) they may distribute to each one according to his need, and that no one may say that anything is his own, but that all things may be their common possession,—ought they not to understand that they should not vaunt themselves, because they do that to obtain the society of angels, when those men did well-nigh the same thing to preserve the glory of the Romans?

> Latin: Haec sunt duo illa, libertas et cupiditas laudis humanae, quae ad facta conpulit miranda Romanos. Si ergo pro libertate moriturorum et cupiditate laudum, quae a mortalibus expetuntur, occidi filii a patre potuerunt: quid magnum est, si pro uera libertate, quae nos. ab iniquitatis et mortis et diaboli dominatu liberos facit, nec cupiditate humanarum laudum, sed caritate liberandorum hominum, non a Tarquinio rege, sed a daemonibus et daemonum principe, non filii occiduntur, sed Christi pauperes inter filios conputantur? Si alius etiam Romanus princeps, cognomine Torquatus, filium, non quia contra patriam, sed etiam pro patria, tamen quia contra imperium suum, id est contra quod imperauerat pater imperator, ab hoste prouocatus iuuenali ardore pugnauerat, licet uicisset, occidit, ne plus mali esset in exemplo imperii contemti quam boni in gloria hostis occisi: ut quid. se iactent, qui pro inmortalis patriae legibus omnia, quae multo minus quam filii diliguntur, bona terrena contemnunt? Si Furius Camillus etiam ingratam patriam, a cuius ceruicibus acerrimorum hostium Veientium iugum depulerat damnatusque ab aemulis fuerat, a Gallis iterum liberauit, quia non habebat potiorem, ubi posset uiuere gloriosius: quur extollatur, uelut grande aliquid fecerit, qui forte in ecclesia ab inimicis carnalibus grauissimam exhonorationis passus iniuriam non se ad eius hostes haereticos transtulit aut aliquam contra illam ipse haeresem condidit, sed eam potius quantum ualuit ab haereticorum perniciosissima prauitate defendit, cum alia non sit, non ubi uiuatur in hominum gloria, sed ubi uita ad aeterna aeterna? Si Mucius, ut cum Porsenna rege pax fieret, qui grauissimo bello Romanos premebat, quia Porsennam ipsum occidere non potuit et pro eo alterum deceptus occidit, in ardentem aram ante eius oculos dexteram extendit, dicens multos tales, qualem illum uideret, in eius exitium coniurasse cuius ille fortitudinem et coniurationem talium perhorrescens sine ulla dubitatione se ab illo bello facta pace conpescuit: quis regno caelorum inputaturus est merita sua, si pro illo non unam manum neque hoc sibi ultro faciens, sed persequente aliquo patiens totum flammis corpus inpenderit? Si Curtius armatus equo concito in abruptum hiatum terrae se praecipitem dedit, deorum suorum oraculis seruiens, quoniam iusserant, ut illuc id quod Romani haberent optimum mitteretur, nec aliud intellegere potuerunt, quam uiris armisque se excellere, unde uidelicet oportebat, ut deorum iussis in illum interitum uir praecipitaretur armatus: quid se magnum pro aeterna patria fecisse dicturus est, qui aliquem fidei suae passus inimicum non se ultro in talem mortem mittens, sed ab illo missus obierit; quando quidem a Domino suo eodemque rege patriae suae certius oraculum accepit: Nolite timere eos, qui corpus occidunt, animam autem non possunt occidere? Si se occidendos certis uerbis quodam modo consecrantes Decii deuouerunt, ut illis cadentibus et iram deorum sanguine suo placantibus Romanus liberaretur exercitus: nullo modo superbient sancti martyres, tamquam dignum aliquid pro illius patriae participatione fecerint, ubi aeterna est et uera felicitas, si usque ad sui sanguinis effusionem non solum suos fratres, pro quibus fundebatur, uerum et ipsos inimicos, a quibus fundebatur, sicut eis praeceptum est, diligentes caritatis fide et fidei caritate certarunt? Si Marcus Puluillus dedicans aedem Iouis Iunonis Mineruae falso sibi ab inuidis morte filii nuntiata, ut illo nuntio perturbatus abscederet adque ita dedicationis gloriam collega eius consequeretur, ita contemsit, ut eum etiam proici insepultum iuberet (sic in eius corde orbitatis dolorem gloriae cupiditas uicerat): quid magnum se pro euangelii sancti praedicatione, qua ciues supernae patriae de diuersis liberantur et colliguntur erroribus, fecisse dicturus est, cui Dominus de sepultura patris sui sollicito ait: Sequere me et sine mortuos sepelire mortuos suos? Si Marcus Regulus, ne crudelissimos hostes iurando falleret, ad eos ab ipsa Roma reuersus est, quoniam, sicut Romanis eum tenere uolentibus respondisse fertur, postea quam Afris seruierat, dignitatem illic honesti ciuis habere non posset, eumque Carthaginienses, quoniam contra eos in Romano senatu egerat, grauissimis suppliciis necauerunt: qui cruciatus non sunt pro fide illius patriae contemnendi, ad cuius beatitudinem fides ipsa perducit? aut quid retribuetur Domino pro omnibus quae retribuit, si pro fide quae illi debetur talia fuerit homo passus, qualia pro fide quam perniciosissimis inimicis debebat passus est Regulus? Quo modo se audebit extollere de uoluntaria paupertate Christianus, ut in huius uitae peregrinatione expeditior ambulet uiam, quae perducit ad patriam, ubi uerae diuitiae Deus ipse est, cum audiat uel legat Lucium Valerium, qui in suo defunctus est consulatu, usque adeo fuisse pauperem, ut nummis a populo conlatis eius sepultura curaretur? audiat uel legat Quintium Cincinnatum, cum quattuor iugera possideret et ea suis manibus coleret, ab aratro esse adductum, ut dictator fieret, maior utique honore quam consul, uictisque hostibus ingentem gloriam consecutum in eadem paupertate mansisse? Aut quid se magnum fecisse praedicabit, qui nullo praemio mundi huius fuerit ab aeternae illius patriae societate seductus, cum Fabricium didicerit tantis muneribus Pyrrhi, regis Epirotarum, promissa etiam quarta parte regni, a Romana ciuitate non potuisse deuelli ibique in sua paupertate priuatum manere maluisse? Nam illud quod rem publicam, id est rem populi, rem patriae, rem communem, cum haberent opulentissimam adque ditissimam, sic ipsi in suis domibus pauperes erant, ut quidam eorum, qui iam bis consul fuisset, ex illo senatu hominum pauperum pelleretur notatione censoria, quod decem pondo argenti in uasis habere conpertus est; ita idem ipsi pauperes erant, quorum triumphis publicum ditabatur aerarium: nonne omnes Christiani, qui excellentiore proposito diuitias suas communes faciunt secundum id quod scriptum est in actibus apostolorum, ut distribuatur unicuique sicut cuique opus est, et nemo dicat aliquid proprium, sed sint illis omnia communia, intellegunt se nulla ob hoc uentilari oportere iactantia, id faciendo pro obtinenda societate angelorum, cum paene tale aliquid illi fecerint pro conseruanda gloria Romanorum?

[¶9] How could these, and whatever like things are found in the Roman history, have become so widely known, and have been proclaimed 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 glorious also through the virtues of such great men, the reward which they sought was rendered to their earnest aspirations, and also examples are set before us, containing necessary admonition, in order that we may be stung with shame if we shall see that we have not held fast those virtues for the sake of the most glorious city of God, which are, in whatever way, resembled by those virtues which they held fast for the sake of the glory of a terrestrial city, and that, too, if we shall feel conscious that we have held them fast, we may not be lifted up with pride, because, as the apostle says, “The sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory which shall be revealed in us.” But so far as regards human and temporal glory, the lives of these ancient Romans were reckoned sufficiently worthy. Therefore, also, we see, in the light of that truth which, veiled in the Old Testament, is revealed in the New, namely, that it is not in view of terrestrial and temporal benefits, which divine providence grants promiscuously to good and evil, that God is to be worshipped, but in view of eternal life, everlasting gifts, and of the society of the heavenly city itself;—in the light of this truth we see that the Jews were most righteously given as a trophy to the glory of the Romans; for we see that these Romans, who rested on earthly glory, and sought to obtain it by virtues, such as they were, conquered those who, in their great depravity, slew and rejected the giver of true glory, and of the eternal city.

> Latin: Haec et alia, si qua huius modi reperiuntur in litteris eorum, quando sic innotescerent, quando tanta fama praedicarentur, nisi Romanum imperium longe lateque porrectum magnificis successibus augeretur? Proinde per illud imperium tam latum tamque diuturnum uirorumque tantorum uirtutibus praeclarum adque gloriosum et illorum intentioni merces quam quaerebant est reddita, et nobis proposita necessariae commonitionis exempla, ut, si uirtutes, quarum istae utcumque sunt similes, quas isti pro ciuitatis terrenae gloriae tenuerunt, pro Dei gloriosissima ciuitate non tenuerimus, pudore pungamur; si tenuerimus, superbia non extollamur; quoniam, sicut dicit apostolus, indignae sunt passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam, quae reuelabitur in nobis. Ad humanam uero gloriam praesentisque temporis satis digna uita aestimabatur illorum. Unde etiam Iudaei, qui Christum occiderunt, reuelante testamento nouo quod in uetere uelatum fuit, ut non pro terrenis et temporalibus beneficiis, quae diuina prouidentia permixte bonis malisque concedit, sed pro aeterna uita muneribusque perpetuis et ipsius supernae ciuitatis societate colatur Deus unus et uerus, rectissime istorum gloriae donati sunt, ut hi, qui qualibuscumque uirtutibus terrenam gloriam quaesiuerunt et adquisiuerunt, uincerent eos, qui magnis uitiis datorem uerae gloriae et ciuitatis aeternae occiderunt adque respuerunt.

### Concerning the Difference Between True Glory and the Desire of Domination.

[¶11] Chapter 19.—Concerning the Difference Between True Glory and the Desire of Domination.

> Latin: Caput XIX. Quo inter se differant cupiditas gloriae et cupiditas dominationis.

[¶12] There is assuredly a difference between the desire of human glory and the desire of domination; for, though he who has an overweening delight in human glory will be also very prone to aspire earnestly after domination, nevertheless they who desire the true glory even of human praise strive not to displease those who judge well of them. For there are many good moral qualities, of which many are competent judges, although they are not possessed by many; and by those good moral qualities those men press on to glory, honor and domination, of whom Sallust says, “But they press on by the true way.”

> Latin: Interest sane inter cupiditatem humanae gloriae et cupiditatem dominationis. Nam licet procliue sit, ut, qui humana gloria nimium delectatur, etiam dominari ardenter adfectet, tamen qui ueram licet humanarum laudum gloriam concupiscunt, dant operam bene iudicantibus non displicere.

[¶13] But whosoever, without possessing that desire of glory which makes one fear to displease those who judge his conduct, desires domination and power, very often seeks to obtain what he loves by most open crimes. Therefore he who desires glory presses on to obtain it either by the true way, or certainly by deceit and artifice, wishing to appear good when he is not. Therefore to him who possesses virtues it is a great virtue to despise glory; for contempt of it is seen by God, but is not manifest to human judgment. For whatever any one does before the eyes of men in order to show himself to be a despiser of glory, if they suspect that he is doing it in order to get greater praise,—that is, greater glory,—he has no means of demonstrating to the perceptions of those who suspect 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 is the righteousness of that man who receives his virtues from the Spirit of God, that he loves his very enemies, and so loves them that he desires that his haters and detractors may be turned to righteousness, and become his associates, and that not in an earthly but in a heavenly country. But with respect to his praisers, though he sets little value on their praise, he does not set little value on their love; neither does he elude their praise, lest he should forfeit their love. And, therefore, he strives earnestly to have their praises directed to Him from whom every one receives whatever in him is truly praiseworthy. But he who is a despiser of glory, but is greedy of domination, exceeds the beasts in the vices of cruelty and luxuriousness. Such, indeed, were certain of the Romans, who, wanting the love of esteem, wanted not the thirst for domination; 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 his luxuriousness, that one would have thought there was nothing manly to be dreaded in him, and such his cruelty, that, had not the contrary been known, no one would have thought there was anything effeminate in his character. Nevertheless power and domination are not given even to such men save by the providence of the most high God, when He judges that the state of human affairs is worthy of such lords. The divine utterance is clear on this matter; for the Wisdom of God thus speaks: “By me kings reign, and tyrants possess the land.” But, that it may not be thought that by “tyrants” is meant, not wicked and impious kings, but brave men, in accordance with the ancient use of the word, as when Virgil says,

> Latin: Sunt enim multa in moribus bona, de quibus multi bene iudicant, quamuis ea multi non habeant; per ea bona morum nituntur ad gloriam et imperium uel dominationem, de quibus ait Sallustius: ‘Sed ille uera uia nititur.) Quisquis autem sine cupiditate gloriae, qua ueretur homo bene iudicantibus displicere, dominari adque imperare desiderat, etiam per apertissima scelera quaerit plerumque obtinere quod diligit. Proinde qui gloriam concupiscit, aut uera uia nititur aut certe dolis adque fallaciis contendit, uolens bonus uideri esse, quod non est. Et ideo uirtutes habenti magna uirtus est contemnere gloriam, quia contemtus eius in conspectu Dei est, iudicio autem non aperitur humano. Quidquid enim fecerit ad oculos hominum, quo gloriae contemtor appareat, ad maiorem laudem, hoc est ad maiorem gloriam, facere si credatur, non est unde se suspicantium sensibus aliter esse, quam suspicantur, ostendat. Sed qui contemnit iudicia laudantium, contemnit etiam suspicantium temeritatem, quorum tamen, si uere bonus est, non contemnit salutem, quoniam tantae iustitiae est qui de spiritu Dei uirtutes habet, ut etiam ipsos diligat inimicos, et ita diligat, ut suos osores uel detractores uelit correctos habere consortes non in terrena patria, sed superna; in laudatoribus autem suis, quamuis paruipendat quod eum laudant, non tamen paruipendit quod amant, nec eos uult fallere laudantes, ne decipiat diligentes; ideoque instat ardenter, ut potius ille laudetur, a quo habet homo quidquid in eo iure laudatur. Qui autem gloriae contemtor dominationis est auidus, bestias superat siue crudelitatis uitiis siue luxuriae. Tales quidam Romani fuerunt. Non enim cura existimationis amissa dominationis cupiditate caruerunt. Multos tales fuisse prodit historia; sed huius uitii summitatem et quasi arcem quandam Nero Caesar primus obtinuit, cuius fuit tanta luxuries, ut nihil ab eo putaretur uirile metuendum; tanta crudelitas, ut nihil molle habere crederetur, si nesciretur. Etiam talibus tamen dominandi potestas non datur nisi summi Dei prouidentia, quando res humanas iudicat talibus dominis dignas. Aperta de hac re uox diuina est loquente Dei sapientia: Per me reges regnant et tyranni per me tenent terram. Sed ne tyranni non pessimi adque inprobi reges, sed uetere nomine fortes dicti existimentur (unde ait Vergilius: Pars mihi pacis erit dextram tetigisse tyranni): apertissime alio loco de Deo dictum est: Quia regnare facit hominem hypocritam propter peruersitatem populi.

[¶14] “For know that treaty may not stand

[¶15] Where king greets king and joins not hand,”

[¶16] in another place it is most unambiguously said of God, that He “maketh the man who is an hypocrite to reign on account of the perver sity of the people.” Wherefore, though I have, according to my ability, shown for what reason God, who alone is true and just, helped forward the Romans, who were good according to a certain standard of an earthly state, to the acquirement of the glory of so great an empire, there may be, nevertheless, a more hidden cause, known better to God than to us, depending on the diversity of the merits of the human race. Among all who are truly pious, it is at all events agreed that no one without true piety,—that is, true worship of the true God—can have true virtue; and that it is 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, are more useful to the earthly city when they possess even that virtue than if they had not even that. But there could be nothing more fortunate for human affairs than that, by the mercy of God, they who are endowed with true piety of life, if they have the skill for ruling people, should also have the power. But such men, however great virtues they may possess in this life, attribute it solely to the grace of God that He has bestowed it on them—willing, believing, seeking. And, at the same time, they understand how far they are short of that perfection of righteousness which exists in the society of those holy angels for which they are striving to fit themselves. But however much that virtue may be praised and cried up, which without true piety is the slave of human glory, it is not at all to be compared even to the feeble beginnings of the virtue of the saints, whose hope is placed in the grace and mercy of the true God.

> Latin: Quam ob rem, quamuis ut potui satis exposuerim qua causa Deus unus uerus et iustus Romanos secundum quandam formam terrenae ciuitatis bonos adiuuerit ad tanti imperii gloriam consequendam: potest tamen et alia causa esse latentior propter diuersa merita generis humani, Deo magis nota quam nobis, dum illud constet inter omnes ueraciter pios, neminem sine uera pietate, id est ueri Dei uero cultu, ueram posse habere uirtutem, nec eam ueram esse, quando gloriae seruit humanae; eos tamen, qui ciues non sint ciuitatis aeternae, quae in sacris litteris nostris dicitur ciuitas Dei, utiliores esse terrenae ciuitati, quando habent uirtutem uel ipsam, quam si nec ipsam. Illi autem, qui uera pietate praediti bene uiuunt, si habent scientiam regendi populos, nihil est felicius rebus humanis, quam si Deo miserante habeant potestatem. Tales autem homines uirtutes suas, quantascumque in hac uita possunt habere, non tribuunt nisi gratiae Dei, quod eas uolentibus credentibus petentibus dederit, simulque intellegunt. quantum sibi desit ad perfectionem iustitiae, qualis est in illorum sanctorum angelorum societate, cui se nituntur aptare. Quantumlibet autem laudetur adque praedicetur uirtus, quae sine uera pietate seruit hominum gloriae, nequaquam sanctorum exiguis initiis conparanda est, quorum spes posita est in gratia et in misericordia ueri Dei.

### That It is as Shameful for the Virtues to Serve Human Glory as Bodily Pleasure.

[¶18] Chapter 20.—That It is as Shameful for the Virtues to Serve Human Glory as Bodily Pleasure.

> Latin: Caput XX. Tam turpiter seruire uirtutes humanae gloriae quam corporis uoluptati.

[¶19] Philosophers,—who place the end of human good in virtue itself, in order to put to shame certain other philosophers, who indeed approve of the virtues, but measure them all with reference to the end of bodily pleasure, and think that this pleasure is to be sought for its own sake, but the virtues on account 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 her nod, that they may do whatever she shall command. She commands Prudence to be ever on the watch to discover how Pleasure may rule, and be safe. Justice she orders to grant what benefits she can, in order to secure those friendships which are necessary for bodily pleasure; to do wrong to no one, lest, on account of the breaking of the laws, Pleasure be not able to live in security. Fortitude she orders to keep her mistress, that is, Pleasure, bravely in her mind, if any affliction befall her body which does not occasion death, in order that by remembrance of former delights she may mitigate the poignancy of present pain. Temperance she commands to take only a certain quantity even of the most favorite food, lest, through immoderate use, anything prove hurtful by disturbing the health of the body, and thus Pleasure, which the Epicureans make to consist chiefly in the health of the body, be grievously offended. Thus the virtues, with the whole dignity of their glory, will be the slaves of Pleasure, as of some imperious and disreputable woman.

> Latin: Solent philosophi, qui finem boni humani in ipsa uirtute constituunt, ad ingerendum pudorem quibusdam philosophis. qui uirtutes quidem probant, sed eas uoluptatis corporalis fine metiuntur et illam per se ipsam putant adpetendam. istas propter ipsam, tabulam quandam uerbis pingere, ubi uoluptas in sella regali quasi delicata quaedam regina considat, eique uirtutes famulae subiciantur, obseruantes eius nutum, ut faciant quod illa imperauerit, quae prudentiae iubeat, ut uigilanter inquirat, quo modo uoluptas regnet et salua sit; iustitiae iubeat, ut praestet beneficia quae potest ad conparandas amicitias corporalibus commodis necessarias, nulli faciat iniuriam, ne offensis legibus uoluptas uiuere secura non possit; fortitudini iubeat. ut, si dolor corpori accesserit, qui non conpellat in mortem, teneat dominam suam, id est uoluptatem, fortiter in animi cogitatione, ut per pristinarum deliciarum suarum recordationem mitiget praesentis doloris aculeos; temperantiae iubeat, ut tantum capiat alimentorum etsi qua delectant, ne per inmoderationem noxium aliquid ualetudinem turbet et uoluptas, quam etiam in corporis sanitate Epicurei maximam ponunt, grauiter offendatur.

[¶20] There is nothing, say our philosophers, more disgraceful and monstrous than this picture, and which the eyes of good men can less endure. And they say the truth. But I do not 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 glory be not a luxurious woman, it is nevertheless puffed up, and has much vanity in it. Wherefore it is unworthy of the solidity and firmness of the virtues to represent them as serving this glory, so that Prudence shall provide nothing, Justice distribute nothing, Temperance moderate nothing, except to the end that men may be pleased and vain glory served. Nor will they be able to defend themselves from the charge of such baseness, whilst they, by way of being despisers of 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 to human praise; for he who seeks to please himself seeks still to please man. But he who, with true piety towards God, whom he loves, believes, and hopes in, fixes his attention more on those things in which he displeases himself, than on those things, if there are any such, which please himself, or rather, not himself, but the truth, does not attribute that by which he can now please the truth to anything but to the mercy of Him whom he has feared to displease, giving thanks for what in him is healed, and pouring out prayers for the healing of that which is yet unhealed.

> Latin: Ita uirtutes cum tota suae gloria dignitatis tamquam imperiosae cuidam et inhonestae mulierculae seruient uoluptati. Nihil hac pictura dicunt esse ignominiosius et deformius et quod minus ferre bonorum possit aspectus; et uerum dicunt. Sed non existimo satis debiti decoris esse picturam, si etiam talis fingatur, ubi uirtutes humanae gloriae seruiunt. Licet enim ipsa gloria delicata mulier non sit, inflata [tamen] est et multum inanitatis habet. Unde non ei digne seruit soliditas quaedam firmitasque uirtutum, ut nihil prouideat prouidentia, nihil distribuat iustitia, nihil toleret fortitudo, nihil temperantia moderetur, nisi unde placeatur hominibus et uentosae gloriae seruiatur. Nec illi se ab ista foeditate defenderint, qui, cum aliena spernant iudicia uelut gloriae contemtores, sibi sapientes uidentur et sibi placent. Nam eorum uirtus, si tamen ulla est, alio modo quodam humanae subditur laudi; neque enim ipse, qui sibi placet, homo non est. Qui autem uera pietate in Deum, quem diligit, credit et sperat, plus intendit in ea, quibus sibi displicet, quam in ea, si qua in illo sunt, quae non tam ipsi quam ueritati placent; neque id tribuit, unde iam potest placere, nisi eius misericordiae, cui metuit displicere; de his sanatis gratias agens, de illis sanandis preces fundens.

### That the Roman Dominion Was Granted by Him from Whom is All Power, and by Whose Providence All Things are Ruled.

[¶22] Chapter 21.—That the Roman Dominion Was Granted by Him from Whom is All Power, and by Whose Providence All Things are Ruled.

> Latin: Caput XXI. Romanum regnum a Deo uero esse dispositum, a quo est omnis potestas et cuius prouidentia reguntur uniuersa.

[¶23] These things being so, we do not attribute the power of giving kingdoms and empires to any save to the true God, who gives happiness in the kingdom of heaven to the pious alone, but gives kingly power on earth both to the pious and the impious, as it may please Him, whose good pleasure is always just. For though we have said something about the principles which guide His administration, in so far as it has seemed good to Him to explain it, nevertheless it is too much for us, and far surpasses our strength, to discuss the hidden things of men’s hearts, and by a clear examination to determine the merits of various kingdoms. He, therefore, who is the one true God, who never leaves the human race without just judgment and help, gave a kingdom to the Romans when He would, and as great as He would, as He did also to the Assyrians, and even the Persians, by whom, as their own books testify, only two gods are worshipped, the one good and the other evil,—to say nothing concerning the Hebrew people, of whom I have already spoken as much as seemed necessary, who, as long as they were a kingdom, worshipped none save the true God. The same, therefore, who gave to the Persians harvests, though they did not worship the goddess Segetia, who gave the other blessings of the earth, though they did not worship the many gods which the Romans supposed to preside, each one over some particular thing, or even many of them over each several thing,—He, I say, gave the Persians dominion, though they worshipped none of those gods to whom the Romans believed themselves indebted for the empire. And the same is true in respect of men as well as nations. He who gave power to Marius gave it also to Caius Cæsar; He who gave it to Augustus gave it also to Nero; He also who gave it to the most benignant emperors, the Vespasians, father and son, gave it also to the cruel Domitian; and, finally, to avoid the necessity of going over them all, He who gave it to the Christian Constantine gave it also to the apostate Julian, whose gifted mind was deceived by a sacrilegious and detestable curiosity, stimulated by the love of power. And it was because he was addicted through curiosity to vain oracles, that, confident of victory, he burned the ships which were laden with the provisions necessary for his army, and therefore, engaging with hot zeal in rashly audacious enterprises, he was soon slain, as the just consequence of his recklessness, and left his army unprovisioned in an enemy’s country, and in such a predicament that it never could have escaped, save by altering the boundaries of the Roman empire, in violation of that omen of the god Terminus of which I spoke in the preceding book; for the god Terminus yielded to necessity, though he had not yielded to Jupiter. Manifestly these things are ruled and governed by the one God according as He pleases; and if His motives are hid, are they therefore unjust?

> Latin: Quae cum ita sint, non tribuamus dandi regni adque imperii potestatem nisi Deo uero, qui dat felicitatem in regno caelorum solis piis; regnum uero terrenum et piis et inpiis. sicut ei placet, cui nihil iniuste placet. Quamuis enim aliquid dixerimus, quod apertum nobis esse uoluit: tamen multum est ad nos et ualde superat uires nostras hominum occulta discutere et liquido examine merita diiudicare regnorum. Ille igitur unus uerus Deus, qui nec iudicio nec adiutorio deserit genus humanum, quando uoluit et quantum uoluit Romanis regnum dedit; qui dedit Assyriis, uel etiam Persis, a quibus solos duos deos coli, unum bonum, alterum malum, continent litterae istorum; ut taceam de populo Hebraeo, de quo iam dixi quantum satis uisum est, qui praeter unum Deum non coluit et quando regnauit. Qui ergo Persis dedit segetes sine cultu deae Segetiae, qui alia dona terrarum sine cultu tot deorum, quos isti rebus singulis singulos, uel etiam rebus singulis plures praeposuerunt: ipse etiam regnum dedit sine cultu eorum, per quorum cultum se isti regnasse crediderunt. Sic etiam hominibus: qui Mario, ipse Gaio Caesari; qui Augusto, ipse et Neroni; qui Vespasianis, uel patri uel filio, suauissimis imperatoribus, ipse et Domitiano crudelissimo; et ne per singulos ire necesse sit, qui Constantino Christiano, ipse apostatae Iuliano, cuius egregiam indolem decepit amore dominandi sacrilega et detestanda curiositas, cuius uanis deditus oraculis erat, quando fretus securitate uictoriae naues, quibus uictus necessarius portabatur, incendit; deinde feruide instans inmodicis ausibus et mox mento temeritatis occisus in locis hostilibus egenum reliquit exercitum, ut aliter inde non posset euadi, nisi contra illud auspicium dei Termini, de quo superiore libro diximus, Romani imperii termini mouerentur. Cessit enim Terminus deus necessitati, qui non cesserat Ioui. Haec plane Deus unus et uerus regit et gubernat, ut placet; et si occultis causis, numquid iniustis?

## 31. The Durations and Issues of War Depend on the Will of God.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/31/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/31/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 22.—The Durations and Issues of War Depend on the Will of God.

> Latin: Caput XXII. Tempora exitusque bellorum ex Dei pendere iudicio.

[¶1] Thus also the durations of wars are determined by Him as He may see meet, according to His righteous will, and pleasure, and mercy, to afflict or to console the human race, so that they are sometimes of longer, sometimes of shorter duration. The war of the Pirates and the third Punic war were terminated with incredible celerity. Also the war of the fugitive gladiators, though in it many Roman generals and the consuls were defeated, and Italy was terribly wasted and ravaged, was nevertheless ended in the third year, having itself been, during its continuance, the end of much. The Picentes, the Marsi, and the Peligni, not distant but Italian nations, after a long and most loyal servitude under the Roman yoke, attempted to raise their heads into liberty, though many nations had now been subjected to the Roman power, and Carthage had been overthrown. In this Italian war the Romans were very often defeated, and two consuls perished, besides other noble senators; nevertheless this calamity was not protracted over a long space of time, for the fifth year put an end to it. But the second Punic war, lasting for the space of eighteen years, and occasioning the greatest disasters and calamities to the republic, wore out and well-nigh consumed the strength of the Romans; for in two battles about seventy thousand Romans fell. The first Punic war was terminated after having been waged for three-and-twenty years. The Mithridatic war was waged for forty years. And that no one may think that in the early and much belauded times of the Romans they were far braver and more able to bring wars to a speedy termination, the Samnite war was protracted for nearly fifty years; and in this war the Romans were so beaten that they were even put under the yoke. But because they did not love glory for the sake of justice, but seemed 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 Christian times they see any war protracted a little longer than they expected, straightway make a fierce and insolent attack on our religion, exclaiming that, but for it, the deities would have been supplicated still, according to ancient rites; and then, by that bravery of the Romans, which, with the help of Mars and Bellona, speedily brought to an end such great wars, this war also would be speedily terminated. Let them, therefore, who have read history recollect what long-continued wars, having various issues and entailing woeful slaughter, were waged by the ancient Romans, in accordance with the general truth that the earth, like the tempestuous deep, is subject to agitations from tempests—tempests of such evils, in various degrees,—and let them sometimes confess what they do not like to own, and not, by madly speaking against God, destroy themselves and deceive the ignorant.

> Latin: Sic etiam tempora ipsa bellorum, sicut in eius arbitrio est iustoque iudicio et misericordia uel adterere uel consolari genus humanum, ut alia citius, alia tardius finiantur. Bellum piratarum a Pompeio, bellum Punicum tertium ab Scipione incredibili celeritate et temporis breuitate confecta sunt. Bellum quoque fugitiuorum gladiatorum, quamuis multis Romanis ducibus et duobus consulibus uictis Italiaque horribiliter contrita adque uastata, tertio tamen anno post multa consumta consumtum est. Picentes, Marsi et Peligni, gentes non exterae, sed Italicae, post diuturnam et deuotissimam sub Romano iugo seruitutem in libertatem caput erigere tentauerunt, iam multis nationibus Romano imperio subiugatis deletaque Carthagine; in quo bello Italico Romanis saepissime uictis ubi et duo consules perierunt et alii nobilissimi senatores, non diuturno tamen tempore tractum est hoc malum; nam quintus annus ei finem dedit. Sed bellum Punicum secundum cum maximis detrimentis et calamitate rei publicae per annos decem et octo Romanas uires extenuauit et paene consumsit; duobus proeliis ferme septuaginta Romanorum milia ceciderunt. Bellum Punicum primum per uiginti et tres annos peractum est; bellum Mithridaticum quadraginta. Ac ne quisquam arbitretur rudimenta Romanorum fuisse fortiora ad bella citius peragenda, superioribus temporibus multum in omni uirtute laudatis bellum Samniticum annis tractum est ferme quinquaginta; in quo bello ita Romani uicti sunt, ut sub iugum etiam mitterentur. Sed quia non diligebant gloriam propter iustitiam, sed iustitiam propter gloriam diligere uidebantur, pacem factam foedusque ruperunt. Haec ideo commemoro, quoniam multi praeteritarum rerum ignari, quidam etiam dissimulatores suae scientiae, si temporibus Christianis aliquod bellum paulo diutius trahi uident, ilico in nostram religionem proteruissime insiliunt, exclamantes, quod, si ipsa non esset et uetere ritu numina colerentur, iam Romana illa uirtute, quae adiuuante Marte et Bellona tanta celeriter bella confecit, id quoque celerrime finiretur. Recolant igitur qui legerunt, quam diuturna bella, quam uariis euentis, quam luctuosis cladibus a ueteribus sint gesta Romanis, sicut solet orbis terrarum uelut procellosissimum pelagus uaria talium malorum tempestate iactari, et quod nolunt aliquando fateantur, nec insanis aduersus Deum linguis se interimant et decipiant inperitos.

### Concerning the War in Which Radagaisus, King of the Goths, a Worshipper of Demons, Was Conquered in One Day, with All His Mighty Forces.

[¶3] Chapter 23.—Concerning the War in Which Radagaisus, King of the Goths, a Worshipper of Demons, Was Conquered in One Day, with All His Mighty Forces.

> Latin: Caput XXIII. De bello, in quo Radagaisus rex Gothorum, daemonum cultor, uno die cum ingentibus copiis suis uictus est.

[¶4] Nevertheless they do not mention with thanksgiving what God has very recently, and within our own memory, wonderfully and mercifully done, but as far as in them lies they attempt, if possible, to bury it in universal oblivion. But should we be silent about these things, we should be in like manner ungrateful. When Radagaisus, king of the Goths, having taken up his position very near to the city, with a vast and savage army, was already close upon the Romans, he was in one day so speedily and so thoroughly beaten, that, whilst not even one Roman was wounded, much less slain, far more than a hundred thousand of his army were prostrated, and he himself and his sons, having been captured, were forthwith put to death, suffering the punishment they deserved. For had so impious a man, with so great and so impious a host, entered the city, whom would he have spared? what tombs of the martyrs would he have respected? in his treatment of what person would he have manifested the fear of God? whose blood would he have refrained from shedding? whose chastity would he have wished to preserve inviolate? But how loud would they not have been in the praises of their gods! How insultingly they would have boasted, saying that Radagaisus had conquered, that he had been able to achieve such great things, because he propitiated and won over the gods by daily sacrifices,—a thing which the Christian religion did not allow the Romans to do! For when he was approaching to those places where he was overwhelmed at the nod of the 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 help and protection of the gods friendly to him, because of the sacrifices which he was said to be daily offering to them, would certainly not be conquered by those who were not performing such sacrifices to the Roman gods, and did not even permit that they should be offered by any one. And now these wretched men do not give thanks to God for his great mercy, who, having determined to chastise the corruption of men, which was worthy of far heavier chastisement than the corruption of the barbarians, tempered His indignation with such mildness as, in the first instance, to cause that the king of the Goths should be conquered in a wonderful manner, lest glory should accrue to demons, whom he was known to be supplicating, and thus the minds of the weak should be overthrown; and then, afterwards, to cause that, when Rome was to be taken, it should be taken by those barbarians who, contrary to any custom of all former wars, protected, through reverence for the Christian religion, those who fled for refuge to the sacred places, and who so opposed the demons themselves, and the rites of impious sacrifices, that they seemed to be carrying on a far more terrible war with them than with men. Thus did the true Lord and Governor of things both scourge the Romans mercifully, and, by the marvellous defeat of the worshippers of demons, show that those 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 be deserted on account of the urgencies of the present time, but may be more clung to in most confident expectation of eternal life.

> Latin: Quod tamen nostra memoria recentissimo tempore Deus mirabiliter et misericorditer fecit, non cum gratiarum actione commemorant, sed, quantum in ipsis est, omnium sifieri potest hominum obliuione sepelire conantur; quod a nobis si tacebitur, similiter erimus ingrati. Cum Radagaisus, rex Gothorum, agmine ingenti et inmani iam in Urbis uicinia constitutus Romanis ceruicibus inmineret, uno die tanta celeritate sic uictus est, ut ne uno quidem non dicam extincto, sed uulnerato Romanorum multo amplius quam centum milium prosterneretur eius exercitus adque ipse mox captus poena debita necaretur. Nam si ille tam inpius cum tantis et tam inpiis copiis Romam fuisset ingressus. cui pepercisset? quibus locis martyrum honorem detulisset? in qua persona Deum timeret? cuius non sanguinem fusum, cuius pudicitiam uellet intactam? Quas autem isti pro dis suis uoces haberent, quanta insultatione iactarent, quod ille ideo uicisset, ideo tanta potuisset, quia cottidianis sacrificiis placabat adque inuitabat deos, quod Romanos facere Christiana religio non sinebat? Nam propinquante iam illo his locis, ubi nutu summae maiestatis obpressus est, cum eius fama ubique crebresceret, nobis aput Carthaginem dicebatur, hoc credere spargere iactare paganos, quod ille dis amicis protegentibus et opitulantibus, quibus immolare cottidie ferebatur, uinci omnino non posset ab eis, qui talia dis Bomanis sacra non facerent nec fieri a quoquam permitterent. Et non agunt miseri gratias tantae misericordiae Dei, qui cum. statuisset inruptione barbarica grauiora ⟨pati⟩ dignos mores hominum castigare, indignationem suam tanta mansuetudine temperauit, ut illum primo faceret mirabiliter uinci, ne ad infirmorum animos euertendos gloria daretur daemonibus, quibus eum supplicare constabat; deinde ab his barbaris Roma caperetur, qui contra omnem consuetudinem gestorum ante bellorum ad loca sancta confugientes Christianae religionis reuerentia tuerentur ipsisque daemonibus adque inpiorum sacrificiorum ritibus, de quibus ille praesumserat, sic aduersarentur nomine Christiano, ut longe atrocius bellum cum eis quam cum hominibus gerere uiderentur; ita uerus dominus gubernatorque rerum et Romanos cum misericordia flagellauit, et tam incredibiliter uictis supplicatoribus daemonum nec saluti rerum praesentium necessaria esse sacrificia illa monstrauit, ut ab his qui non peruicaciter caciter contendunt, sed prudenter adtendunt, nec propter praesentes necessitates uera religio deseratur, et magis aeternae uitae fidelissima expectatione teneatur.

### What Was the Happiness of the Christian Emperors, and How Far It Was True Happiness.

[¶6] Chapter 24.—What Was the Happiness of the Christian Emperors, and How Far It Was True Happiness.

> Latin: Caput XXIV. Quae sit Christianorum imperatorum et quam uera felicitas.

[¶7] For neither do we say that certain Christian emperors were therefore happy because they ruled a long time, or, dying a peaceful death, left their sons to succeed them in the empire, or subdued the enemies of the republic, or were able both to guard against and to suppress the attempt of hostile citizens rising against them. These and other gifts or comforts of this sorrowful life even certain worshippers of demons have merited to receive, who do not belong to the kingdom of God to which these belong; and this is to be traced to the mercy of God, who would not have those who believe in Him desire such things as the highest good. But we say that they are happy if they rule justly; if they are not lifted up amid the praises of those who pay them sublime honors, and the obsequiousness of those who salute them with an excessive humility, but remember that they are men; if they make their power the handmaid of His majesty by using it for the greatest possible extension of His worship; if they fear, love, worship God; if more than their own they love that kingdom in which they are not afraid to have partners; if they are slow to punish, ready to pardon; if they apply that punishment as necessary to government and defence of the republic, and not in order to gratify their own enmity; if they grant pardon, not that iniquity may go unpunished, but with the hope that the transgressor may amend his ways; if they compensate with the lenity of mercy and the liberality of benevolence for whatever severity they may be compelled to decree; if their luxury is as much restrained as it might have been unrestrained; if they prefer to govern depraved desires rather than any nation whatever; and if they do all these things, not through ardent desire of empty glory, but through love of eternal felicity, not neglecting to offer to the true God, who is their God, for their sins, the sacrifices of humility, contrition, and prayer. Such Christian emperors, we say, are happy in the present time by hope, and are destined to be so in the enjoyment of the reality itself, when that which we wait for shall have arrived.

> Latin: Neque enim nos Christianos quosdam imperatores ideo felices dicimus, quia uel diutius imperarunt uel imperantes filios morte placida reliquerunt, uel hostes rei publicae domuerunt uel inimicos ciues aduersus se insurgentes et cauere obprimere potuerunt. Haec et alia uitae huius aerumnosae uel munera uel solacia quidam etiam cultores daemonum accipere meruerunt, qui non pertinent ad regnum Dei, quo pertinent isti; et hoc ipsius misericordia factum est, ne ab illo ista qui in eum crederent uelut summa bona desiderarent. Sed felices eos dicimus, si iuste imperant, si inter linguas sublimiter honorantium et obsequia nimis humiliter salutantium non extolluntur, et se homines esse meminerunt; si suam potestatem ad Dei cultum maxime dilatandum maiestati eius famulam faciunt; si Deum timent diligunt colunt; si plus amant illud regnum, ubi non timent habere consortes; si tardius uindicant, facile ignoscunt; si eandem uindictam pro necessitate regendae tuendaeque rei publicae, non pro saturandis inimicitiarum odiis exerunt; si eandem ueniam non ad inpunitatem iniquitatis, sed ad spem correctionis indulgent; si, quod aspere coguntur plerumque decernere, misericordiae lenitate et beneficiorum largitate conpensant; si luxuria tanto eis est castigatior, quanto posset esse liberior; si malunt cupiditatibus prauis quam quibuslibet gentibus imperare et si haec omnia faciunt non propter ardorem inanis gloriae, sed propter caritatem felicitatis aeternae; si pro suis peccatis humilitatis et miserationis et orationis sacrificium Deo suo uero immolare non neglegunt. Tales Christianos imperatores dicimus esse felices interim spe, postea re ipsa futuros, cum id quod expectamus aduenerit.

### Concerning the Prosperity Which God Granted to the Christian Emperor Constantine.

[¶9] Chapter 25.—Concerning the Prosperity Which God Granted to the Christian Emperor Constantine.

> Latin: Caput XXV. De prosperitatibus, quas Constantino imperatori Christiano Deus contulit.

[¶10] For the good God, lest men, who believe that He is to be worshipped with a view to eternal life, should think that no one could attain to all this high estate, and to this terrestrial dominion, unless he should be a worshipper of the demons,—supposing that these spirits have great power with respect to such things,—for this reason He gave to the Emperor Constantine, who was not a worshipper of demons, but of the true God Himself, such fullness of earthly gifts as no one would even dare wish for. To him also He granted the honor of founding a city, a companion to the Roman empire, the daughter, as it were, of Rome itself, but without any temple or image of the demons. He reigned for a long period as sole emperor, and unaided held and defended the whole Roman world. In conducting and carrying on wars he was most victorious; in overthrowing tyrants he was most successful. He died at a great age, of sickness and old age, and left his sons to succeed him in the empire. But again, lest any emperor should become a Christian in order to merit the happiness of Constantine, when every one should be a Christian for the sake of eternal life, God took away Jovian far sooner than Julian, and permitted that Gratian should be slain by the sword of a tyrant. But in his case there was far more mitigation of the calamity than in the case of the great Pompey, for he could not be avenged by Cato, whom he had left, as it were, heir to the civil war. But Gratian, though pious minds require not such consolations, was avenged by Theodosius, whom he had associated with himself in the empire, though he had a little brother of his own, being more desirous of a faithful alliance than of extensive power.

> Latin: Nam bonus Deus, ne homines, qui eum crederent propter aeternam uitam colendum, has sublimitates et regna terrena existimarent posse neminem consequi, nisi daemonibus supplicet, quod hi spiritus in talibus multum ualerent, Constantinum imperatorem non supplicantem daemonibus, sed ipsum uerum Deum colentem tantis terrenis inpleuit muneribus, quanta optare nullus auderet; cui etiam condere ciuitatem Romano imperio sociam, uelut ipsius Romae -filiam, sed sine aliquo daemonum templo simulacroque concessit. Diu imperauit, uniuersum orbem Romanum unus Augustus tenuit et defendit; in administrandis et gerendis bellis uictoriosissimus fuit, in tyrannis obprimendis per omnia prosperatus est; grandaeuus aegritudine et senectute defunctus est, filios imperantes reliquit. Sed rursus ne imperator quisquam ideo Christianus esset, ut felicitatem Constantini mereretur, cum propter uitam aeternam quisque debeat esse Christianus: Iouianum multo citius quam Iulianum abstulit; Gratianum ferro tyrannico permisit interimi, longe quidem mitius quam magnum Pompeium colentem uelut Romanos deos. Nam ille uindicari a Catone non potuit, quem ciuilis belli quodam modo heredem reliquerat; iste autem, quamuis piae animae solacia talia non requirant, a Theodosio uindicatus est; quem regni participem fecerat, cum paruulum haberet et fratrem, auidior fidae societatis quam nimiae potestatis.

### On the Faith and Piety of Theodosius Augustus.

[¶12] Chapter 26.—On the Faith and Piety of Theodosius Augustus.

> Latin: Caput XXVI. De fide ac pietate Theodosii Augusti.

[¶13] 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 his little brother Valentinian under his protection, as joint emperor, after he had been expelled by Maximus, the murderer of his father. He guarded him with paternal affection, though he might without any difficulty have got rid of him, being entirely destitute of all resources, had he been animated with the desire of extensive empire, and not with the ambition of being a benefactor. It was therefore a far greater pleasure to him, when he had adopted the boy, and preserved to him his imperial dignity, to console him by his very humanity and kindness. Afterwards, when that success was rendering Maximus terrible, Theodosius, in the midst of his perplexing anxieties, was not drawn away to follow the suggestions of a sacrilegious and unlawful curiosity, but sent to John, whose abode was in the desert of Egypt,—for he had learned that this servant of God (whose fame was spreading abroad) was endowed with the gift of prophecy,—and from him he received assurance of victory. Immediately the slayer of the tyrant Maximus, with the deepest feelings of compassion and respect, restored the boy Valentinianus to his share in the empire from which he had been driven. Valentinianus being soon after slain by secret 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 tyrant Eugenius, who had been unlawfully elected to succeed that emperor, and defeated his very powerful army, more by prayer than by the sword. Some soldiers who were at the battle reported to me that all the missiles they were throwing were snatched from their hands by a vehement wind, which blew from the direction of Theodosius’ army upon the enemy; nor did it only drive with greater velocity the darts which were hurled against them, but also turned back upon their own bodies the darts which they themselves were throwing. And therefore the poet Claudian, although an alien from the name of Christ, nevertheless says in his praises of him, “O prince, too much beloved by God, for thee Æolus pours armed tempests from their caves; for thee the air fights, and the winds with one accord obey thy bugles.” But the victor, as he had believed and predicted, overthrew the statues of Jupiter, which had been, as it were, consecrated by I know not what kind of rites against him, and set up in the Alps. And the thunderbolts of these statues, which were made of gold, he mirthfully and graciously presented to his couriers who (as the joy of the occasion permitted) were jocularly saying that they would be most happy to be struck by such thunderbolts. The sons of his own enemies, whose fathers had been slain not so much by his orders as by the vehemence of war, having fled for refuge to a church, though they were not yet Christians, he was anxious, taking advantage of the occasion, to bring over 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 honors. 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 wished not to finish civil wars even when they were finished, but rather grieved that they had arisen at all, than wished that when they were finished they should harm any one. Amid all these events, from the very commencement of his reign, he did not cease to help the troubled church against the impious by most just and merciful laws, which the heretical Valens, favoring the Arians, had vehemently afflicted. Indeed, he rejoiced more to be a member of this church than he did to be a king upon the earth. The idols of the Gentiles he everywhere ordered to be overthrown, understanding well that not 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 the urgency of certain of his intimates, he avenged the grievous crime of the Thessalonians, which at the prayer of the bishops he had promised to pardon, and, being laid hold of by the discipline of the church, did penance in such a way that the sight of his imperial loftiness prostrated made the people who were interceding for him weep more than the consciousness of offence had made them fear it when enraged? These and other similar good works, which it would be long to tell, he carried with him from this world of time, where the greatest human nobility and loftiness are but vapor. Of these works the reward is eternal happiness, of which God is the giver, though only to those who are sincerely pious. But all other blessings 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. And among these blessings is also to be reckoned the possession of an 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 confuted and convicted by the most manifest proofs, by which it is shown that for obtaining these terrestrial things, which are all the foolish desire to have, that multitude of false gods is of no use, attempt to assert that the gods are to be worshipped with a view to the interest, not of the present life, but of that which is to come after death. For as to those who, for the sake of the friendship of this world, are willing to worship vanities, and do not grieve that they are left to their puerile understandings, I think they have been sufficiently answered in these five books; of which books, when I had published the first three, and they had begun to come into the hands of many, I heard that certain persons were preparing against them an answer of some kind or other in writing. Then it was told me that they had already written their answer, but were waiting a time when they could publish it without danger. Such persons I would advise not to desire what cannot be of any advantage to them; for it is very easy for a man to seem to himself to have answered arguments, when he has only been unwilling to be silent. For what is more loquacious than vanity? And though it be able, if it like, to shout more loudly than the truth, it is not, for all that, more powerful than the truth. But let men consider diligently all the things that we have said, and if, perchance, judging without party spirit, they shall clearly perceive that they are such things as may rather be shaken than torn up by their most impudent garrulity, and, as it were, satirical and mimic levity, let them restrain their absurdities, and let them choose rather to be corrected by the wise than to be lauded by the foolish. For if they are waiting an opportunity, not for liberty to speak the truth, but for license to revile, may not that befall them which Tully says concerning some one, “Oh, wretched man! who was at liberty to sin?” Wherefore, whoever he be who deems himself happy because of license to revile, he would be far happier if that were not allowed him at all; for he might all the while, laying aside empty boast, be contradicting those to whose views he is opposed by way of free consultation with them, and be listening, as it becomes him, honorably, gravely, candidly, to all that can be adduced by those whom he consults by friendly disputation.

> Latin: Unde et ille non solum uiuo seruauit quam debebat fidem,_ uerum etiam post eius mortem pulsum ab eius interfectore Maximo Valentinianum eius paruulum fratrem in sui partes imperii tamquam Christianus excepit pupillum, paterno custodiuit adfectu, quem destitutum omnibus opibus nullo negotio posset auferre, si latius regnandi cupiditate magis quam benefaciendi caritate flagraret; unde potius eum seruata eius imperatoria dignitate susceptum ipsa humanitate et gratia consolatus est. Deinde cum Maximum terribilem faceret ille successus, hic in angustiis curarum suarum non est lapsus ad curiositates sacrilegas adque inlicitas, sed ad Iohannem in Aegypti eremo constitutum, quem Dei seruum prophetandi spiritu praeditum fama crebrescente didicerat, misit adque ab eo nuntium uictoriae certissimum accepit. Mox tyranni Maximi extinctor Valentinianum puerum imperii sui partibus, unde fugatus fuerat, cum misericordissima ueneratione restituit, eoque siue per insidias siue quo alio pacto uel casu proxime extincto alium tyrannum Eugenium, qui in illius imperatoris locum non legitime fuerat subrogatus, accepto rursus prophetico responso fide certus obpressit, contra cuius robustissimum exercitum magis orando quam feriendo pugnauit. Milites nobis qui aderant rettulerunt extorta sibi esse de manibus quaecumque iaculabantur, cum a Theodosii partibus in aduersarios uehemens uentus iret et non solum quaecumque in eos iaciebantur concitatissime raperet, uerum etiam ipsorum tela in eorum corpora retorqueret. Unde et poeta Claudianus, quamuis a Christi nomine alienus, in eius tamen laudibus dixit: O nimium dilecte Deo, cui — militat aether, Et coniurati ueniunt ad classica uenti! Victor autem, sicut crediderat et praedixerat, Iouis simulacra, quae aduersus eum fuerant nescio quibus ritibus uelut consecrata et in Alpibus constituta, deposuit, eorumque fulmina, quod aurea fuissent, iocantibus (quod illa laetitia permittebat) cursoribus et se ab eis fulminari uelle dicentibus hilariter benigneque donauit. Inimicorum suorum filios, quos, non ipsius iussu, belli abstulerat impetus, etiam nondum Christianos ad ecclesiam confugientes, Christianos hac occasione fieri uoluit et Christiana caritate dilexit, nec priuauit rebus et auxit honoribus. In neminem post uictoriam priuatas inimicitias ualere permisit. Bella ciuilia non sicut Cinna et Marius et Sylla et alii tales nec finita finire uoluerunt, sed magis doluit exorta quam cuiquam nocere uoluit terminata. Inter haec omnia ex ipso initio imperii sui non quieuit iustissimis et misericordissimis legibus aduersus inpios laboranti ecclesiae subuenire, quam Valens haereticus fauens Arianis uehementer adflixerat; cuius ecclesiae se membrum esse magis quam in terris regnare gaudebat. Simulacra gentilium ubique euertenda praecepit, satis intellegens nec terrena munera in daemoniorum, sed in Dei ueri esse posita potestate. Quid autem fuit eius religiosa humilitate mirabilius, quando in Thessalonicensium grauissimum scelus, cui iam episcopis intercedentibus promiserat indulgentiam, tumultu quorundam, qui ei cohaerebant, uindicare conpulsus est et ecclesiastica cohercitus disciplina sic egit paenitentiam, ut ‘imperatoriam celsitudinem pro illo populus orans magis fleret uidendo prostratam, quam peccando timeret iratam? Haec ille secum et si qua similia, quae commemorare longum est, bona opera tulit ex isto temporali uapore cuiuslibet culminis et sublimitatis humanae; quorum operum merces est aeterna felicitas, cuius dator est Deus solis ueraciter piis. Cetera uero uitae huius uel fastigia uel subsidia, sicut ipsum mundum lucem auras, terras aquas fructus ipsiusque hominis animam corpus, sensus mentem uitam, bonis malisque largitur; in quibus est etiam quaelibet imperii magnitudo, quam pro temporum gubernatione dispensat. Proinde iam etiam illis respondendum esse uideo, qui manifestissimis documentis, quibus ostenditur, quod ad ista temporalia, quae sola stulti habere concupiscunt, nihil deorum falsorum numerositas prosit, confutati adque conuicti conantur adserere non propter uitae praesentis utilitatem, sed propter eam, quae post mortem futura est, colendos deos. Nam istis, qui propter amicitias mundi huius uolunt uana colere et non se permitti puerilibus sensibus conqueruntur, his quinque libris satis arbitror esse responsum. Quorum tres priores cum edidissem et in multorum manibus esse coepissent, audiui quosdam nescio quam aduersus eos responsionem scribendo praeparare. Deinde ad me perlatum est, quod iam scripserint, sed tempus quaerant, quo sine periculo possint edere. Quos admoneo, non optent quod eis non expedit. Facile est enim cuiquam uideri respondisse, qui tacere noluerit. Aut quid est loquacius uanitate? quae non ideo potest quod ueritas, quia, si uoluerit, etiam plus potest clamare quam ueritas. Sed considerent omnia diligenter, et si forte sine studio partium iudicantes talia esse perspexerint, quae potius exagitari quam conuelli possint garrulitate inpudentissima et quasi satyrica uel mimica leuitate, cohibeant suas nugas et potius a prudentibus emendari quam laudari ab inpudentibus eligant. Nam si non ad libertatem uera dicendi, sed ad licentiam maledicendi tempus expectant, absit ut eis eueniat quod ait Tullius de quodam, qui peccandi licentia felix appellabatur:s o miserum, cui peccare licebat! Unde quisquis est, qui maledicendi licentia felicem se putat, multo erit felicior, si hoc illi omnino non liceat, cum possit deposita inanitate iactantiae etiam isto tempore tamquam studio consulendi quidquid uoluerit contradicere et, quantum possunt, ab eis quos consulit amica disputatione honeste grauiter libere quod oportet audire.

### Of Varro’s threefold division of theology, and of the inability of the gods to contribute anything to the happiness of the future life.

[¶15] Book VI.

> Latin: Liber VI

[¶16] Argument—Hitherto the argument has been conducted against those who believe that the gods are to be worshipped for the sake of temporal advantages, now it is directed against those who believe that they are to be worshipped for the sake of eternal life. Augustin devotes the five following books to the confutation of this latter belief, and first of all shows how mean an opinion of the gods was held by Varro himself, the most esteemed writer on heathen theology. Of this theology Augustin adopts Varro’s division into three kinds, mythical, natural, and civil; and at once demonstrates that neither the mythical nor the civil can contribute anything to the happiness of the future life.

### Preface

[¶18] In 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, not the Creator, are to be worshipped for the advantage of this mortal life, and of terrestrial affairs, with that rite and service which the Greeks call λατρεία, and which is due to the one true God. And who does not know that, in the face of excessive stupidity and obstinacy, neither these five nor any other number of books whatsoever could be enough, when it is esteemed the glory of vanity to yield to no amount of strength on the side of truth,—certainly to his destruction over whom so heinous a vice tyrannizes? For, notwithstanding all the assiduity of the physician who attempts to effect a cure, the disease remains unconquered, not through any fault of his, but because of the incurableness of the sick man. But those who thoroughly weigh the things which they read, having understood and considered them, without any, or with no great and excessive degree of that obstinacy which belongs to a long-cherished error, will more readily judge that, in the five books already finished, we have done more than the necessity of the question demanded, than that we have given it less discussion than it required. And they cannot have doubted but that all the hatred which the ignorant attempt to bring upon the Christian religion on account of the disasters of this life, and the destruction and change which befall terrestrial things, whilst the learned do not merely dissimulate, but encourage that hatred, contrary to their own consciences, being possessed 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.

> Latin: Quinque superioribus libris satis mihi aduersus eos uideor disputasse, qui multos deos et falsos, quos esse inutilia. simulacra uel inmundos spiritus et perniciosa daemonia uel certe creaturas, non creatorem ueritas Christiana conuincit, propter uitae huius mortalis rerumque terrenarum utilitatem eo ritu ac seruitute, quae Graece Xatpeca dicitur et uni uero Deo debetur, uenerandos et colendos putant. Et nimiae quidem stultitiae uel pertinaciae nec istos quinque nec ullos alios quanticumque numeri libros satis esse posse quis nesciat? quando ea putatur gloria uanitatis, nullis cedere uiribus ueritatis, in perniciem utique eius, cui uitium tam inmane dominatur. Nam et contra omnem curantis industriam non malo medici, sed aegroti insanabilis morbus inuictus est. Hi uero, qui ea quae legunt uel sine ulla uel non cum magna ac nimia ueteris erroris obstinatione intellecta et considerata perpendunt, facilius nos isto numero terminatorum quinque uoluminum plus, quam quaestionis ipsius necessitas postulabat, quam minus disseruisse iudicabunt, totamque inuidiam, quam Christianae religioni de huius uitae cladibus terrenarumque contritione ac mutatione rerum inperiti facere conantur, non solum dissimulantibus, sed contra suam conscientiam etiam fauentibus doctis, quos inpietas uesana possedit, omnino esse inanem rectae cogitationis adque rationis plenamque leuissimae temeritatis et perniciosissimae animositatis dubitare non poterunt.

### Of Those Who Maintain that They Worship the Gods Not for the Sake of Temporal But Eternal Advantages.

[¶20] Chapter 1.—Of Those Who Maintain that They Worship the Gods Not for the Sake of Temporal But Eternal Advantages.

> Latin: Caput I. De his, qui dicunt deos a se non propter praesentem uitam coli, sed propter aeternam.

[¶21] Now, as, in the next place (as the promised order demands), those are to be refuted and taught who contend that the gods of the nations, which the Christian truth destroys, are to be worshipped not on account of this life, but on account of that which is to be after death, I shall do well to commence my disputation with the truthful oracle of the holy psalm, “Blessed is the man whose hope is the Lord God, and who respecteth not vanities and lying follies.” Nevertheless, in all vanities and lying follies the philosophers are to be listened to with far more toleration, who have repudiated those opinions and errors of the people; for the people set up images to the deities, and either feigned concerning those whom they call immortal gods many false and unworthy things, or believed them, already feigned, and, when believed, mixed them up with their worship and sacred rites.

> Latin: Nunc ergo quoniam deinceps, ut promissus ordo expetit, etiam hi refellendi et docendi sunt, qui non propter istam uitam, sed propter illam, quae post mortem futura est, deos gentium, quos Christiana religio destruit, colendos esse contendunt: placet a ueridico oraculo sancti psalmi sumere exordium disputationis meae: Beatus, cuius est Dominus Deus spes ipsius et non respexit in uanitates et insanias mendaces. Verum tamen in omnibus uanitatibus insaniisque mendacibus longe tolerabilius philosophi audiendi sunt, quibus displicuerunt istae opiniones erroresque populorum. qui populi constituerunt simulacra numinibus multaque de his, quos deos inmortales uocant, falsa adque indigna siue finxerunt siue ficta crediderunt. et credita eorum cultui sacrorumque ritibus miscuerunt.

[¶22] With those men who, though not by free avowal of their convictions, do still testify that they disapprove of those things by their muttering disapprobation during disputations on the subject, it may not be very far amiss to discuss the following question: Whether for the sake of the life which is to be after death, we ought to worship, not the one God who made all 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 are therefore considered more excellent and more noble than all the others? But who will assert that it must be affirmed and contended that those gods, certain of whom I have mentioned in the fourth book, to whom are distributed, each to each, the charges of minute things, do bestow eternal life? But will those most skilled and most acute men, who glory in having written for the great benefit of men, to teach on what account each god is to be worshipped, and what is to be sought from each, lest with most disgraceful absurdity, such as a mimic is wont for the sake of merriment to exhibit, water should be sought from Liber, wine from the Lymphs,—will those men indeed affirm to any man supplicating the immortal gods, that when he shall have asked wine from the Lymphs, and they shall have answered him, “We have water, seek wine from Liber,” he may rightly say, “If ye have not wine, at least give me eternal life?” What more monstrous than this absurdity? Will not these Lymphs,—for they are wont to be very easily made laugh,—laughing loudly (if they do not attempt to deceive like demons), answer the suppliant, “O man, dost thou think that we have life (vitam) in our power, who thou hearest have not even the vine (vitem)?” It is therefore most impudent folly to seek and hope for eternal life from such gods as are asserted so to preside over the separate minute concernments 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 sought from another, it is so incongruous and absurd that it appears very like to mimic drollery,—which, when it is done by mimics knowing what they are doing, is deservedly laughed at in the theatre, but when it is done by foolish persons, who do not know better, is more deservedly ridiculed in the world. Wherefore, as concerns those gods which the states have established, it has been cleverly invented and handed down to memory by learned men, what god or goddess is to be supplicated in relation to every particular thing,—what, for instance, is to be sought from Liber, what from the Lymphs, what from Vulcan, and so of all the rest, some of whom I have mentioned in the fourth book, and some I have thought right to omit. Further, if it is an error to seek wine from Ceres, bread from Liber, water from Vulcan, fire from the Lymphs, how much greater absurdity ought it to be thought, if supplication be made to any one of these for eternal life?

> Latin: Cum his hominibus, qui, etsi non libere praedicando, saltem utcumque in disputationibus mussitando, talia se inprobare testati sunt, non usque adeo inconuenienter quaestio ista tractatur: utrum non unum Deum, qui fecit omnem spiritalem corporalemque creaturam, propter uitam, quae post mortem futura est, coli oporteat, sed multos deos, quos ab illo uno factos et sublimiter conlocatos quidam eorundem philosophorum ceteris excellentiores nobilioresque senserunt. Ceterum quis ferat dici adque contendi deos illos, quorum in quarto libro quosdam commemoraui, quibus singulis singula rerum exiguarum distribuuntur officia, uitam aeternam cuique praestare? An uero peritissimi illi et acutissimi uiri, qui se pro magno beneficio conscripta docuisse gloriantur, ut sciretur quare cuique deo supplicandum esset, quid a quoque esset petendum, ne absurditate turpissima, qualis ioculariter in mimo fieri solet, peteretur a Libero aqua, a Lymphis uinum, auctores erunt cuipiam hominum dis inmortalibus supplicanti, ut, cum a Lymphis petierit uinum eique responderint: Nos aquam habemus, hoc a Libero. pete, possit recte dicere: Si uinum non habetis, saltem date mihi uitam aeternam? Quid hac absurditate monstruosius? Nonne illae cachinnantes (solent enim esse ad risum faciles), si non adfectent fallere ut daemones, supplici respondebunt:s o homo, putasne in potestate nos habere uitam, quas audis non habere uel uitem? Inpudentissimae igitur stultitiae est uitam aeternam a talibus dis petere uel sperare, qui uitae huius aerumnosissimae adque breuissimae et si qua ad eam pertinent adminiculandam adque fulciendam ita singulas particulas tueri adseruntur, ut, si id, quod sub alterius tutela ac potestate est, petatur ab altero, tam sit inconueniens et absurdum, ut mimicae scurrilitati uideatur esse simillimum. Quod cum fit a scientibus mimis, digne ridentur in theatro; cum uero a nescientibus stultis, dignius inridentur in mundo. Cui ergo deo uel deae propter quid supplicaretur, quantum ad illos deos adtinet quos instituerunt ciuitates, a doctis sollerter inuentum memoriaeque mandatum est: quid a Libero, uerbi gratia, quid a Lymphis, quid a Vulcano ac sic a ceteris, quos partim commemoraui in quarto libro, partim praetereundos putaui. Porro si a Cerere uinum, a Libero panem, a Vulcano aquam, a Lymphis ignem petere erroris est: quanto maioris deliramenti esse intellegi debet, si cuiquam istorum pro uita supplicetur aeterna!

[¶23] 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 shown to be very far from the truth to think that even terrestrial kingdoms 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 preferred to all terrestrial kingdoms, can be given to any one by any of these gods? For the reason why such gods seemed to us not to be able to give even an earthly kingdom, was not because they are very great and exalted, whilst that is something small and abject, which they, in their so great sublimity, would not condescend to care for, but because, however deservedly any one may, in consideration of human frailty, despise the falling pinnacles of an earthly kingdom, these gods have presented such an appearance as to seem most unworthy to have the granting and preserving of even those entrusted to them; and consequently, if (as we have taught in the two last books of our work, where this matter is treated of) no god out of all that crowd, either belonging to, as it were, the plebeian or to the noble gods, is fit to give mortal kingdoms to mortals, how much less is he able to make immortals of mortals?

> Latin: Quam ob rem si, cum de regno terreno quaereremus, quosnam illud deos uel deas hominibus credendum esset posse conferre, discussis omnibus longe alienum a ueritate monstratum est a quoquam istorum multorum numinum adque falsorum saltem regna terrena existimare constitui: nonne insanissimae inpietatis est, si aeterna uita, quae terrenis omnibus regnis sine ulla dubitatione uel conparatione praeferenda est, ab istorum quoquam dari cuiquam posse credatur? Neque enim propterea di tales uel terrenum regnum dare non posse uisi sunt, quia illi magni et excelsi sunt, hoc quiddam paruum et abiectum, quod non dignarentur in tanta sublimitate curare; sed quantumlibet consideratione fragilitatis humanae caducos apices terreni regni merito quisque contemnat, illi di tales apparuerunt, ut indignissimi uiderentur, quibus danda adque seruanda deberent uel ista committi.

[¶24] And more than this, if, according to the opinion of those with whom we are now arguing, the gods are to be worshipped, not on account of the present life, but of that which is to be after death, then, certainly, they are not to be worshipped on account of those particular things which are distributed and portioned out (not by any law of rational truth, but by mere vain conjecture) to the power of such gods, as they believe they ought to be worshipped, who contend that their worship is necessary for all the desirable things of this mortal life, against whom I have disputed sufficiently, as far as I was able, in the five preceding books. These things being so, if the age itself of those who worshipped the goddess Juventas should be characterized by remarkable vigor, whilst her despisers should either die within the years of youth, or should, during that period, grow cold as with the torpor of old age; if bearded Fortuna should cover the cheeks of her worshippers more handsomely and more gracefully than all others, whilst we should see those by whom she was despised either altogether beardless or ill-bearded; even then we should most rightly say, that thus far these several gods had power, limited in some way by their functions, and that, consequently, neither ought eternal life to be sought from Juventas, who could not give a beard, nor ought any good thing after this life to be expected from Fortuna Barbata, who has no power even in this life to give the age itself at which the beard grows. But now, when their worship is necessary not even on account of those very things which they think are subjected to their power,—for many worshippers of the goddess Juventas have not been at all vigorous at that age, and many who do not worship her rejoice in youthful strength; and also many suppliants of Fortuna Barbata have either not been able to attain to any beard at all, not even an ugly one, although they who adore her in order to obtain a beard are ridiculed by her bearded despisers,—is the human heart really so foolish as to believe that that worship of the gods, which it acknowledges to be vain and ridiculous with respect to those very temporal and swiftly passing gifts, over each of which one of these gods is said to preside, is fruitful in results with respect to eternal life? And that they are able to 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 temporal occupations, that none of them might sit idle; for they had supposed the existence of an exceedingly great number.

> Latin: Ac per hoc, si (ut superiora proximis duobus libris pertractata docuerunt) nullus deus ex illa turba uel quasi plebeiorum uel quasi procerum deorum idoneus est regna mortalia mortalibus dare, quanto minus potest inmortales ex mortalibus facere! - Huc accedit, quia, si iam cum illis agimus, qui non propter istam, sed propter uitam quae post mortem futura est existimant colendos deos, iam nec propter illa saltem, quae deorum talium potestati tamquam dispertita et propria non ratione ueritatis, sed uanitatis opinione tribuuntur, omnino colendi sunt, sicut credunt hi, qui cultum eorum uitae huius mortalis utilitatibus necessarium esse contendunt; contra quos iam quinque praecedentibus uoluminibus satis, quantum potui, disputaui. Quae cum ita sint, si eorum, qui colerent deam Iuuentatem, aetas ipsa floreret insignius, contemtores autem eius uel intra annos occumberent iuuentutis, uel in ea tamquam senili torpore frigescerent; si malas cultorum suorum speciosius et festiuius Fortuna barbata uestiret, a quibus autem sperneretur, glabros aut male barbatos uideremus: etiam sic rectissime diceremus huc usque istas deas singulas posse, suis officiis quodam modo limitatas, ac per hoc nec a Iuuentate oportere peti uitam aeternam, quae non daret barbam, nec a Fortuna barbata boni aliquid post hanc uitam esse sperandum, cuius in hac uita potestas nulla esset, ut eandem saltem aetatem, quae barba induitur, ipsa praestaret. Nunc uero cum earum cultus nec propter ista ipsa, quae putant eis subdita, sit necessarius, quia et multi colentes Iuuentatem deam minime in illa aetate uiguerunt, et multi non eam colentes gaudent robore iuuentutis, itemque multi Fortunae barbatae supplices ad nullam uel deformem barbam peruenire potuerunt, et si qui eam pro barba inpetranda uenerantur, a barbatis eius contemtoribus inridentur: itane desipit cor humanum, ut, quorum deorum cultum propter ista ipsa temporalia et cito praetereuntia munera, quibus singulis singuli praeesse perhibentur, inanem ludibriosumque cognoscit, propter uitam aeternam credat esse fructuosum? Hanc dare illos posse nec hi dicere ausi sunt, qui eis, ut ab insipientibus populis colerentur, ista opera temporalia, quoniam nimis multos putarunt, ne quisquam eorum sederet otiosus, minutatim diuisa tribuerunt.

## 32. What We are to Believe that Varro Thought Concerning the Gods of the Nations, Whose Various Kinds and Sacred Rites He Has Shown to Be Such that He Would Have Acted More Reverently Towards Them Had He Been Altogether Silent Concerning Them.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/32/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/32/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 2.—What We are to Believe that Varro Thought Concerning the Gods of the Nations, Whose Various Kinds and Sacred Rites He Has Shown to Be Such that He Would Have Acted More Reverently Towards Them Had He Been Altogether Silent Concerning Them.

> Latin: Caput II. Quid Varronem de dis gentium sensisse credendum sit. quorum talia et genera et sacra detexit, ut reuerentius cum eis ageret, si de illis omnino reticeret.

[¶1] Who has investigated those things more carefully than Marcus Varro? Who has discovered them more learnedly? Who has considered them more attentively? Who has distinguished them more acutely? Who has written about them more diligently and more fully?—who, though he is less pleasing in his eloquence, is nevertheless so full of instruction and wisdom, that in all the erudition which we call secular, but they liberal, he will teach the student of things as much as Cicero delights the student of words. And even Tully himself renders him such testimony, as to say in his Academic books that he had held that disputation which is there carried on with Marcus Varro, “a man,” he adds, “unquestionably the acutest of all men, and, without any doubt, the most learned.” He does not say the most eloquent or the most fluent, for in reality he was very deficient in this faculty, but he says, “of all men the most acute.” And in 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 so certain concerning this thing, that he laid aside that doubt which he is wont to have recourse to in all things, as if, when about to dispute in favor 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 he extols the literary works of the same Varro, he says, “Us straying and wandering in our own city like strangers, thy books, as it were, brought home, that at length we might come to know of who we were and where we were. Thou has opened up to us the age of the country, the distribution of seasons, the laws of sacred things, and of the priests; thou hast opened up to us domestic and public discipline; thou hast pointed out to us the proper places for religious ceremonies, and hast informed us concerning sacred places. Thou hast shown us the names, kinds, offices, causes of all divine and human things.”

> Latin: Quis Marco Varrone curiosius ista quaesiuit? quis inuenit doctius? quis considerauit adtentius? quis distinxit acutius? quis diligentius pleniusque conscripsit? Qui tametsi minus est suauis eloquio, doctrina tamen adque sententiis ita refertus est, ut in omni eruditione, quam nos saecularem, illi autem liberalem uocant, studiosum rerum tantum iste doceat, quantum studiosum -uerborum Cicero delectat. Denique et ipse [Tullius] huic tale testimonium perhibet, ut in libris Academicis dicat eam, quae ibi uersatur, disputationem se habuisse cum Marco Varrone, (homine, inquit, omnium facile acutissimo et sine ulla dubitatione doctissimo). Non ait […] uel (facundissimo), quoniam re uera in hac facultate multum inpar est; sed ‘omnium, inquit, facile acutissimo), et in eis libris. id est Academicis, ubi cuncta dubitanda esse contendit, addidit ‘sine ulla dubitatione doctissimo’. Profecto de hac re sic erat certus, ut auferret dubitationem, quam solet in omnibus adhibere, tamquam de hoc uno etiam pro Academicorum dubitatione disputaturus se Academicum fuisset oblitus. In primo autem libro cum eiusdem Varronis litteraria opera praedicaret: ‘Nos, inquit, in nostra urbe peregrinantes errantesque tamquam hospites tui libri quasi domum reduxerunt, ut possemus aliquando qui et ubi essemus agnoscere.

[¶2] This man, then, of so distinguished and excellent acquirements, and, as Terentian briefly says of him in a most elegant verse,

[¶3] “Varro, a man universally informed,”

[¶4] who read so much that we wonder when he had time to write, wrote so much that we can scarcely believe any one could have read it all,—this man, I say, so great in talent, so great in learning, had he been an opposer and destroyer of the so-called divine things of which he wrote, and had he said that they pertained to superstition rather than to religion, might perhaps, even in that case, not have written so many things which are ridiculous, contemptible, detestable. But when he so worshipped these same gods, and so vindicated their worship, as to say, in that same literary work of his, that he was afraid lest they should perish, not by an assault by enemies, but by the negligence of the citizens, and that from this ignominy they are being delivered by him, and are being laid up and preserved in the memory of the good by means of such books, with a zeal far more beneficial than that through which Metellus is declared to have rescued the sacred things of Vesta from the flames, and Æneas to have rescued the Penates from the burning of Troy; and when he nevertheless, gives forth such things to be read by succeeding ages as are deservedly judged by wise and unwise to be unfit to be read, and to be most hostile to the truth of religion; what ought we to think but that a most acute and learned man,—not, however made free by the Holy Spirit,—was overpowered by the custom and laws of his state, and, not being able to be silent about those things by which he was influenced, spoke of them under pretence of commending religion?

> Latin: Tu aetatem patriae, tu descriptiones temporum, tu sacrorum iura. tu sacerdotum, tu domesticam, tu publicam disciplinam, tu sedem regionum locorum, tu omnium diuinarum humanarumque rerum nomina genera, officia causas aperuisti.’ Iste igitur uir tam insignis excellentisque peritiae et, quod de illo etiam Terentianus elegantissimo uel’siculo breuiter ait: Vir doctissimus undecumque Varro, qui tam multa legit, ut aliquid ei scribere uacuisse miremur; tam multa scripsit, quam multa uix quemquam legere potuisse credamus: iste, inquam, uir tantus ingenio tantusque doctrina, si rerum uelut diuinarum, de quibus scribit, obpugnator esset adque destructor easque non ad religionem, sed ad superstitionem diceret pertinere, nescio utrum tam multa in eis ridenda contemnenda detestanda conscriberet. Cum uero deos eosdem ita coluerit colendosque censuerit, ut in eo ipso opere litterarum suarum dicat se timere ne pereant, non incursu hostili, sed ciuium neglegentia, de qua illos uelut ruina liberari a se dicit et in memoria bonorum per eius modi libros recondi adque seruari utiliore cura, quam qua Metellus de incendio sacra Vestalia et Aeneas de Troiano excidio penates liberasse praedicatur; et tamen ea legenda saeculis prodit, quae a sapientibus et insipientibus merito abicienda et ueritati religionis inimicissima iudicentur: quid existimare debemus nisi hominem acerrimum ac peritissimum, non tamen sancto Spiritu liberum, obpressum fuisse suae ciuitatis consuetudine ac legibus, et tamen ea quibus mouebatur sub specie commendandae religionis tacere noluisse.

### Varro’s Distribution of His Book Which He Composed Concerning the Antiquities of Human and Divine Things.

[¶6] Chapter 3.—Varro’s Distribution of His Book Which He Composed Concerning the Antiquities of Human and Divine Things.

> Latin: Caput III. Quae sit partitio Varronis librorum suorum, quos de antiquitatibus rerum humanarum diuinarumque conposuit.

[¶7] He wrote forty-one books of antiquities. These he divided into human and divine things. Twenty-five he devoted to human things, sixteen to divine things; following this plan in that division,—namely, to give six books to each of the four divisions of human things. For he directs his attention to these considerations: who perform, where they perform, when they perform, what they perform. Therefore in the first six books he wrote concerning men; in the second six, concerning places; in the third six, concerning times; in the fourth and last six, concerning things. Four times six, however, make only twenty-four. But he placed at the head of them one separate work, which spoke of all these things conjointly.

> Latin: Quadraginta et unum libros scripsit antiquitatum; hos in res humanas diuinasque diuisit, rebus humanis uiginti quinque, diuinis sedecim tribuit, istam secutus in ea partitione rationem, ut rerum humanarum libros senos quattuor partibus daret. Intendit enim qui agant, ubi agant, quando agant, quid agant. In sex itaque primis de hominibus scripsit, in secundis sex de locis, sex tertios de temporibus, sex quartos eosdemque postremos de rebus absoluit. Quater autem seni uiginti et quattuor fiunt. Sed unum singularem, qui communiter prius de omnibus loqueretur, in capite posuit.

[¶8] In divine things, the same order he preserved throughout, as far as concerns those things which are performed to the gods. For sacred things are performed by men in places and times. These four things I have mentioned he embraced in twelve books, allotting three to each. For he wrote the first three concerning men, the following three concerning places, the third three concerning times, and the fourth three concerning sacred rites,—showing who should perform, where they should perform, when they should perform, what they should perform, with most subtle distinction. But because it was necessary to say—and that especially was expected—to whom they should perform sacred rites, he wrote concerning the gods themselves the last three books; and these five times three made 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; which being finished, he proceeded to subdivide the first three in that five-fold distribution which pertain to men, making the first concerning high priests, the second concerning augurs, the third concerning the fifteen men presiding over the sacred ceremonies. The second three he made concerning places, speaking in one of them concerning their chapels, in the second concerning their temples, and in the third concerning religious places. The next three which follow these, and pertain to times,—that is, to festival days,—he distributed so as to make one concerning holidays, the other concerning the circus games, and the third concerning scenic plays. Of the fourth three, pertaining to sacred things, he devoted one to consecrations, another to private, the last to public, sacred rites. In the three which remain, the gods themselves follow this pompous train, as it were, for whom all this culture has been expended. In the first book are the certain gods, in the second the uncertain, in the third, and last of all, the chief and select gods.

> Latin: In diuinis identidem rebus eadem ab illo diuisionis forma seruata est, quantum adtinet ad ea, quae dis exhibenda sunt. Exhibentur enim ab hominibus in locis et temporibus sacra. Haec quattuor, quae dixi, libris conplexus est ternis: nam tres priores de hominibus scripsit, sequentes de locis, tertios de temporibus, quartos de sacris, etiam hic, qui exhibeant, ubi exhibeant, quando exhibeant, quid exhibeant, subtilissima distinctione commendans. Sed quia oportebat dicere et maxime id expectabatur, quibus exhibeant, de ipsis quoque dis tres conscripsit extremos, ut quinquies terni quindecim fierent. Sunt autem omnes, ut diximus, sedecim, quia et istorum exordio unum singularem, qui prius de omnibus loqueretur, adposuit. Quo absoluto consequenter ex illa quinquepertita distributione tres praecedentes, qui ad homines pertinent, ita subdiuisit, ut primus sit de pontificibus, secundus de auguribus, tertius de quindecimuiris sacrorum; secundos tres ad loca pertinentes, ita ut in uno eorum de sacellis, altero de sacris aedibus diceret, tertio de locis religiosis; tres porro, qui istos sequuntur et ad tempora pertinent, id est ad dies festos, ita ut unum eorum faceret de feriis, alterum de ludis circensibus, de scaenicis tertium; quartorum trium ad sacra pertinentium uni dedit consecrationes, alteri sacra priuata, ultimo publica. Hanc uelut pompam obsequiorum in tribus, qui restant, di ipsi sequuntur extremi, quibus iste uniuersus cultus inpensus est: in primo di certi, in secundo incerti, in tertio cunctorum nouissimo di praecipui adque selecti.

### That from the Disputation of Varro, It Follows that the Worshippers of the Gods Regard Human Things as More Ancient Than Divine Things.

[¶10] Chapter 4.—That from the Disputation of Varro, It Follows that the Worshippers of the Gods Regard Human Things as More Ancient Than Divine Things.

> Latin: Caput IV. Quod ex disputatione Varronis aput cultores deorum antiquiores res humanae quam diuinae reperiantur.

[¶11] In this whole series of most beautiful and most subtle distributions and distinctions, it will most easily appear evident from the things we have said already, and from what is to be said hereafter, to any man who is not, in the obstinacy of his heart, an enemy to himself, that it is vain to seek and to hope for, and even most impudent to wish for eternal life. For these institutions are either the work of men or of demons,—not of those whom they call good demons, but, to speak more plainly, of unclean, and, without controversy, malign spirits, who with wonderful slyness and secretness suggest to the thoughts of the impious, and sometimes openly present to their understandings, noxious opinions, by which the human mind grows more and more foolish, and becomes unable to adapt itself to and abide in the immutable and eternal truth, and seek to confirm these opinions by every kind of fallacious attestation in their power. This very same Varro testifies that he wrote first concerning human things, but afterwards concerning divine things, because the states existed first, and afterward these things were instituted by them. But the true religion was not instituted by any earthly state, but plainly it established the celestial city. It, however, is inspired and taught by the true God, the giver of eternal life to His true worshippers.

> Latin: In hac tota serie pulcherrimae ac subtilissimae distributionis et distinctionis uitam aeternam frustra quaeri et sperari inpudentissime uel optari, ex his, quae iam diximus et quae deinceps dicenda sunt, cuiuis hominum, qui corde obstinato sibi non fuerit inimicus, facillime apparet. Vel hominum enim sunt ista instituta uel daemonum, non quales uocant illi daemones bonos, sed, ut loquar apertius, inmundorum spirituum et sine controuersia malignorum, qui noxias opiniones, quibus anima humana magis magisque uanescat et incommutabili aeternaeque ueritati coaptari adque inhaerere non possit, inuidentia mirabili et occulte inserunt cogitationibus inpiorum et aperte aliquando ingerunt sensibus et qua possunt fallaci adtestatione confirmant. Iste ipse Varro propterea se prius de rebus humanis, de diuinis autem postea scripsisse testatur, quod prius extiterint ciuitates, deinde ab eis haec instituta sint. Vera autem religio non a terrena aliqua ciuitate instituta est, sed plane caelestem ipsa instituit ciuitatem. Eam uero inspirat et docet uerus Deus, dator uitae aeternae, ueris cultoribus suis.

[¶12] The following is the reason Varro gives when he confesses that 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 painted tablet, the mason before the edifice, so states are before those things which are instituted by states.” But he says that he would have written first concerning the gods, afterwards concerning men, if he had been writing concerning the whole nature of the gods,—as if he were really writing concerning some portion of, and not all, the nature of the gods; or as if, indeed, some portion of, though not all, the nature of the gods ought not to be put before that of men. How, then, comes it that in those three last books, when he is diligently explaining the certain, uncertain and select gods, he seems to pass over no portion of the nature of the gods? Why, then, does he say, “If we had been writing on the whole nature of the gods, we would first have finished the divine things before we touched the human?” For he either writes concerning the whole nature of the gods, or concerning some portion of it, or concerning no part of it at all. If concerning it all, it is certainly to be put before human things; if concerning some part of it, why should it not, from the very nature of the case, precede human things? Is not even some part of the gods to be preferred to the whole of humanity? But if it is too much to prefer a part of the divine to all human things, that part is certainly worthy to be preferred to the Romans at least. For he writes the books concerning human things, not with reference to the whole world, but only to Rome; which books he says he had properly placed, in the order of writing, before the books on divine things, like a painter before the painted tablet, or a mason before the building, most openly confessing that, as a picture or a structure, even these divine things were instituted by men. There remains only the third supposition, that he is to be understood to have written concerning no divine nature, but that he did not wish to say this openly, but left it to the intelligent to infer; for when one says “not all,” usage understands that to mean “some,” but it may be understood as meaning none, because that which is 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 the order of writing. But, as the truth declares, even though Varro is silent, the divine nature should have taken precedence of Roman things, though it were not all, but only some. But it is properly put after, therefore it is none. His arrangement, therefore, was due, not to a desire to give human things priority to divine things, but to his unwillingness to prefer false things to true. For in what he wrote on human things, he followed the history of affairs; but in what he wrote concerning those things which they call divine, what else did he follow but mere conjectures about vain things? This, doubtless, is what, in a subtle manner, he wished to signify; not only writing concerning divine things after the human, but even giving a reason why he did so; for if he had suppressed this, some, perchance, would have defended his doing so in one way, and some in another. But in that very reason he has rendered, he has left nothing for men to conjecture at will, and has sufficiently proved that he preferred men to the institutions of men, not the nature of men to the nature of the gods. Thus he confessed that, in writing the books concerning divine things, he did not write concerning the truth which belongs to nature, but the falseness which belongs to error; which he has elsewhere expressed more openly (as I have mentioned in the fourth book), saying that, had he been founding a new city himself, he would have written according to the order of nature; but as he had only found an old one, he could not but follow its custom.

> Latin: Varronis igitur confitentis ideo se prius de rebus humanis scripsisse, postea de diuinis, quia diuinae istae ab hominibus institutae sunt, haec ratio est: ‘Sicut prior est, inquit, pictor quam tabula picta, prior faber quam aedificium: ita priores sunt ciuitates quam ea, quae a ciuitatibus instituta sunt). Dicit autem prius se scripturum fuisse de dis, postea de hominibus, si de omni natura deorum scriberet, quasi hic de aliqua scribat et non de omni, aut uero etiam aliqua, licet non omnis, deorum natura non prior debeat esse quam hominum. Quid, quod in illis tribus nouissimis libris deos certos et incertos et selectos diligenter explicans nullam deorum naturam praetermittere uidetur? Quid est ergo, quod ait: (Si de omni natura deorum et hominum scriberemus, prius diuina absoluissemus, quam humana adtigissemus’? Aut enim de omni natura deorum scribit, aut de aliqua, aut omnino de nulla. Si de omni, praeponenda utique est rebus humanis; si de aliqua, quur non etiam ipsa res praecedat humanas? An indigna est praeferri etiam uniuersae naturae hominum pars aliqua deorum? Quod si multum est, ut aliqua pars diuina praeponatur uniuersis rebus humanis, saltem digna est uel Romanis. Rerum quippe humanarum libros, non quantum ad orbem terrarum, sed quantum ad solam Romam pertinet, scripsit, quos tamen rerum diuinarum libris se dixit scribendi ordine merito praetulisse, sicut pictorem tabulae pictae, sicut fabrum aedificio, apertissime confitens, quod etiam istae res diuinae, sicut pictura, sicut structura, ab hominibus institutae sint. Restat ut de nulla deorum natura scripsisse intellegatur, neque hoc aperte dicere uoluisse, sed intellegentibus reliquisse. Ubi enim dicitur ‘non omnis, usitate quidem intellegitur aliqua; sed potest intellegi et […] quoniam quae nulla est nec omnis nec aliqua est. Nam, ut ipse dicit, si omnis esset natura deorum, de qua scriberet, scribendi ordine rebus humanis praeponenda esset; ut autem et ipso tacente ueritas clamat, praeponenda esset certe rebus Romanis, etiamsi non omnis, sed saltem aliqua esset: recte autem postponitur; ergo nulla est. Non itaque rebus diuinis anteferre uoluit res humanas, sed rebus ueris noluit anteferre res falsas. In his enim, quae scripsit de rebus humanis, secutus est historiam rerum gestarum; quae autem de his, quas diuinas uocat, quid nisi opiniones rerum uanarum? Hoc est nimirum, quod uoluit subtili significatione monstrare, non solum scribens de his posterius quam de illis, sed etiam rationem reddens quur id fecerit. Quam si tacuisset, aliter hoc factum eius ab aliis fortasse defenderetur. In ea uero ipsa ratione, quam reddidit, nec aliis quidquam reliquit pro arbitrio suspicari et satis probauit homines se praeposuisse institutis hominum, non naturam hominum naturae deorum. Ita se libros rerum diuinarum non de ueritate quae pertinet ad naturam, sed de falsitate quae pertinet ad errorem scripsisse confessus est. Quod apertius alibi posuit, sicut in quarto libro commemoraui, ex naturae formula se scripturum fuisse, si nouam ipse conderet ciuitatem; quia uero iam ueterem inuenerat, non se potuisse nisi eius consuetudinem sequi.

### Concerning the Three Kinds of Theology According to Varro, Namely, One Fabulous, the Other Natural, the Third Civil.

[¶14] Chapter 5.—Concerning the Three Kinds of Theology According to Varro, Namely, One Fabulous, the Other Natural, the Third Civil.

> Latin: Caput V. De tribus generibus theologiae secundum Varronem, id est uno fabuloso, altero naturali tertioque ciuili.

[¶15] Now what are we to say of this proposition of his, namely, that there are three kinds of theology, that is, of the account which is given of the gods; and of these, the one is called mythical, the other physical, and the third civil? Did the Latin usage permit, we should call the kind which he has placed first in order fabular, but let us call it fabulous, for mythical is derived from the Greek μῦθος, a fable; but that the second should be called natural, the usage of speech now admits; the third he himself has designated in Latin, call ing it civil. Then he says, “they call that kind mythical which the poets chiefly use; physical, that which the philosophers use; civil, that which the people use. As to the first I have mentioned,” says he, “in it are many fictions, which are contrary to the dignity and nature of the immortals. For we find in it that one god has been born from the head, another from the thigh, another from drops of blood; also, in this we find that gods have stolen, committed adultery, served men; in a word, in this all manner of things are attributed to the gods, such as may befall, not merely any man, but even the most contemptible man.” He certainly, where he could, where he dared, where he thought he could do it with impunity, has manifested, without any of the haziness of ambiguity, how great injury was done to the nature of the gods by lying fables; for he was speaking, not concerning natural theology, not concerning civil, but concerning fabulous theology, which he thought he could freely find fault with.

> Latin: Deinde illud quale est, quod tria genera theologiae dicit esse, id est rationis quae de dis explicatur, eorumque unum mythicon [appellari], alterum physicon, tertium ciuile? Latine si usus admitteret, genus, quod primum posuit, fabulare appellaremus; sed fabulosum dicamus; a fabulis enim mythicon dictum est, quoniam μυ̃ϑος Graece fabula dicitur. Secundum autem ut naturale dicatur, iam et consuetudo locutionis admittit. Tertium etiam ipse Latine enuntiauit, quod ciuile appellatur. Deinde ait: ‘Mythicon appellant, quo maxime utuntur poetae; physicon, quo philosophi; ciuile, quo populi. Primum, inquit, quod dixi, in eo sunt multa contra dignitatem et naturam inmortalium ficta. In hoc enim est, ut deus alius ei capite, alius ex femore sit, alius ex guttis sanguinis natus: in hoc, ut di furati sint, ut adulterarint, ut seruierint homini; denique in hoc omnia dis adtribuuntur, quae non modo in hominem, sed etiam quae in contemtissimum hominem cadere possunt’. Hic certe ubi potuit, ubi ausus est, ubi inpunitum putauit, quanta mendacissimis fabulis naturae deorum fieret iniuria, sine caligine ullius ambiguitatis expressit. Loquebatur enim non de naturali theologia, non de ciuili, sed de fabulosa, quam libere a se putauit esse culpandam.

[¶16] Let us see, now, what he says concerning the second kind. “The second kind which I have explained,” he says, “is that concerning which philosophers have left many books, in which they treat such questions as these: what gods there are, where they are, of what kind and character they are, since what time they 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 such things, which men’s ears can more easily hear inside the walls of a school than outside in the Forum.” He finds fault with nothing in this kind of theology which they call physical, and which belongs to philosophers, except that he has related their controversies among themselves, through which there has arisen a multitude of dissentient sects. Nevertheless he has removed this kind from the Forum, that is, from the populace, but he has shut it up in schools. But that first kind, most false and most base, he has not removed from the citizens. Oh, the religious ears of the people, and among them even those of the Romans, that are not able to bear what the philosophers dispute concerning the gods! But when the poets sing and stage-players act such things as are derogatory to the dignity and the nature of the immortals, such as may befall not a man merely, 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 are propitiated by them.

> Latin: Videamus quid de altera dicat. ‘Secundum genus est, inquit, quod demonstraui, de quo multos libros philosophi reliquerunt; in quibus est, di qui sint, ubi, quod genus, quale; a quodam tempore an a sempiterno fuerint di; ex igni sint, ut credit Heraclitus, an ex numeris, ut Pythagoras, an ex atomis, ut ait Epicurus. Sic alia, quae facilius intra parietes in schola quam extra in foro ferre possunt aures). Nihil in hoc genere culpauit, quod physicon uocant et ad philosophos pertinet, tantum quod eorum inter se controuersias commemorauit, per quos facta est dissidentium multitudo sectarum. Remouit tamen hoc genus a foro, id est a populis; scholis uero et parietibus clausit. Illud autem primum mendacissimum adque turpissimum a ciuitatibus non remouit.s o religiosas aures populares adque in his etiam Romanas! Quod de dis inmortalibus philosophi disputant, ferre non possunt; quod uero poetae canunt et histriones agunt, quia contra dignitatem ac naturam inmortalium ficta sunt, quia non modo in hominem, sed etiam in contemtissimum hominem cadere possunt, non solum ferunt, sed etiam libenter audiunt. Neque id tantum, sed dis quoque ipsis haec placere et per haec eos placandos esse decernunt.

[¶17] But some one may say, Let us distinguish these two kinds of theology, the mythical and the physical,—that is, the fabulous and the natural,—from this civil kind about which we are now speaking. Anticipating this, he himself has distinguished them. Let us see now how he explains the civil theology itself. I see, indeed, why it should be distinguished as fabulous, even because it is false, because it is base, because it is unworthy. But to wish to distinguish the natural from the civil, what else is that but to confess that the civil itself is false? For if that be natural, what fault has it that it should be excluded? And if this which is called civil be not natural, what merit has it that it should be admitted? This, in truth, is the cause why he wrote first concerning human things, and afterwards concerning divine things; since in divine things he did not follow nature, but the institution of men. Let us look at this civil theology of his. “The third kind,” says he, “is that which citizens in cities, and especially the priests, ought to know and to administer. From it 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 second to the world, the third to the city.” Who does not see to which he gives the palm? Certainly to the second, which he said above is that of the philosophers. For he testifies that this pertains to the world, than which they think there is nothing better. But those two theologies, the first and the third,—to wit, those of the theatre and of the city,—has he distinguished them or united them? For although we see that the city is in the world, we do not see that it follows that any things belonging to the city pertain to the world. For it is possible that such things may be worshipped and believed in the city, according to false opinions, as have no existence either in the world or out of it. But where is the theatre but in the city? Who instituted the theatre but the state? For what purpose did it constitute it but for scenic plays? And to what class of things do scenic plays belong but to those divine things concerning which these books of Varro’s are written with so much ability?

> Latin: Dixerit aliquis: Haec duo genera mythicon et physicon, id est fabulosum adque naturale, discernamus ab hoc ciuili, de quo nunc agitur, unde illa et ipse discreuit, iamque ipsum ciuile uideamus qualiter explicet. Video quidem, quur debeat discerni fabulosum: quia falsum, quia turpe, quia indignum est. Naturale autem a ciuili uelle discernere quid est aliud quam etiam ipsum ciuile fateri esse mendosum? Si enim illud naturale est, quid habet reprehensionis, ut excludatur? Si autem hoc quod ciuile dicitur naturale non est, quid habet meriti, ut admittatur? Haec nempe illa causa est, quare prius scripserit de rebus humanis, posterius de diuinis, quoniam in diuinis rebus non naturam, sed hominum instituta secutus est. Intueamur sane et ciuilem theologian. ‘Tertium genus est, inquit, quod in urbibus ciues, maxime sacerdotes, nosse adque administrare debent. In quo est, quos deos publice, ⟨quae⟩ sacra ac sacrificia colere et facere quemque par sit’ Adhuc quod sequitur adtendamus. Trima, inquit, theologia maxime adcommodata est ad theatrum, secunda ad mundum, tertia ad urbem’. Quis non uideat, cui palmam dederit? Utique secundae, quam supra dixit esse philosophorum. Hanc enim pertinere testatur ad mundum, quo isti nihil esse excellentius opinantur in rebus. Duas uero illas theologias, primam et tertiam, theatri scilicet adque urbis, distinxit an iunxit? Videmus enim non continuo, quod est urbis, pertinere posse et ad mundum, quamuis urbes esse uideamus in mundo; fieri enim potest, ut in urbe secundum falsas opiniones ea colantur et ea credantur, quorum in mundo uel extra mundum natura sit nusquam: theatrum uero ubi est nisi in urbe? Quis theatrum instituit nisi ciuitas? Propter quid instituit nisi propter ludos scaenicos? Ubi sunt ludi scaenici nisi in rebus diuinis, de quibus hi libri tanta sollertia conscribuntur?

### Concerning the Mythic, that Is, the Fabulous, Theology, and the Civil, Against Varro.

[¶19] Chapter 6.—Concerning the Mythic, that Is, the Fabulous, Theology, and the Civil, Against Varro.

> Latin: Caput VI. De theologia mythica, id est fabulosa, et de ciuili contra Varronem.

[¶20] O Marcus Varro! thou art the most acute, and without doubt the most learned, but still a man, not God,—now lifted up by the Spirit of God to see and to announce divine things, thou seest, indeed, that divine things are to be separated from human trifles and lies, but thou fearest to offend those most corrupt opinions of the populace, and their customs in public superstitions, which thou thyself, when thou considerest them on all sides, perceivest, and all your literature loudly pronounces to be abhorrent from the nature of the gods, even of such gods as the frailty of the human mind supposes to exist in the elements of this world. What can the most excellent human talent do here? What can human learning, though manifold, avail thee in this perplexity? Thou desirest to worship the natural gods; thou art compelled to worship the civil. Thou hast found some of the gods to be fabulous, on whom thou vomitest forth very freely what thou thinkest, and, whether thou willest or not, thou wettest therewith even the civil gods. Thou sayest, forsooth, that the fabulous 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 the gods who are laughed at in the theatre are not other than those who are adored in the temples; and ye do not exhibit games in honor of other gods than those to whom ye immolate victims. How much more freely and more subtly wouldst thou have decided these hadst thou said that some gods are natural, others established by men; and concerning those who have been so established, the literature of the poets gives one account, and that of the priests another,—both of which are, nevertheless, so friendly the one to the other, through fellowship in falsehood, that they are both pleasing to the demons, to whom the doctrine of the truth is hostile.

> Latin: O Marce Varro, cum sis homo omnium acutissimus et sine ulla dubitatione doctissimus, sed tamen homo, non Deus, nec spiritu Dei ad uidenda et adnuntianda diuina in ueritatem libertatemque subuectus, cernis quidem quam sint res diuinae ab humanis nugis adque mendaciis dirimendae; sed uitiosissimas populorum opiniones et consuetudines in superstitionibus publicis uereris offendere, quas ab deorum natura abhorrere uel talium, quales in huius mundi elementis humani animi suspicatur infirmitas, et sentis ipse, cum eas usquequaque consideras, et omnis uestra litteratura circumsonat. Quid hic agit humanum quamuis excellentissimum ingenium? Quid tibi humana licet multiplex ingensque doctrina in his angustiis suffragatur? Naturales deos colere cupis, ciuiles cogeris. Inuenisti alios fabulosos, in quos liberius quod sentis euomas, unde et istos ciuiles uelis nolisue perfundas. Dicis quippe fabulosos adcommodatos esse ad theatrum, naturales ad mundum, ciuiles ad urbem, cum mundus opus sit diuinum, urbes uero et theatra opera sint hominum, nec alii derideantur in theatris, quam qui adorantur in templis, nec aliis ludos exhibeatis, quam quibus uictimas immolatis. Quanto liberius subtiliusque ista diuideres, dicens alios esse deos naturales, alios ab hominibus institutos, sed de institutis aliud habere litteras poetarum, aliud sacerdotum, utrasque tamen ita esse inter se amicas consortio falsitatis, ut gratae sint utraeque daemonibus, quibus doctrina inimica est ueritatis!

[¶21] That theology, therefore, which they call natural, being put aside for a moment, as it is afterwards to be discussed, we ask if any one is really content to seek a hope for eternal life from poetical, theatrical, scenic gods? Perish the thought! The true God avert so wild and sacrilegious a madness! What, is eternal life to be asked from those gods 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 and furious impiety. So then, neither by the fabulous nor by the civil theology does any one obtain eternal life. For the one sows base things concerning the gods by feigning them, the other reaps by cherishing them; the one scatters lies, the other gathers them together; the one pursues divine things with false crimes, the other incorporates among divine things the plays which are made up of these crimes; the one sounds abroad in human songs impious fictions concerning the gods, the other consecrates these for the festivities of the gods themselves; the one sings the misdeeds and crimes of the gods, the other loves them; the one gives forth or feigns, the other either attests the true or delights in the false. Both are base; both are damnable. But the one which is theatrical teaches public abomination, and that one which is of the city adorns itself with that abomination. Shall eternal life be hoped for from these, by which this short and temporal life is polluted? Does the society of wicked men pollute our life if they insinuate themselves into our affections, and win our assent? and does not the society of demons pollute the life, who are worshipped with their own crimes?—if with true crimes, how wicked the demons! if with false, how wicked the worship!

> Latin: Sequestrata igitur paululum theologia, quam naturalem uocant, de qua postea disserendum est, placetne tandem uitam aeternam peti aut sperari ab dis poeticis theatricis, ludicris scaenicis? Absit; immo auertat Deus uerus tam inmanem sacrilegamque dementiam. Quid? ab eis dis, quibus haec placent et quos haec placant, cum eorum illic crimina frequententur, uita aeterna poscenda est? Nemo, ut arbitror, usque ad tantum praecipitium furiosissimae inpietatis insanit. Nec fabulosa igitur nec ciuili theologia sempiternam quisquam adipiscitur uitam. Illa enim de dis turpia fingendo seminat, haec fauendo metit; illa mendacia spargit, haec colligit; illa res diuinas falsis criminibus insectatur, haec eorum criminum ludos in diuinis rebus amplectitur; illa de. dis nefanda figmenta hominum carminibus personat, haec ea deorum ipsorum festiuitatibus consecrat; facinora et flagitia numinum illa cantat, haec amat; illa prodit aut fingit, haec autem aut adtestatur ueris aut oblectatur et falsis. Ambae turpes ambaeque damnabiles; sed illa, quae theatrica est, publicam turpitudinem profitetur; ista, quae urbana est, illius turpitudine ornatur. Hincine uita aeterna sperabitur, unde ista breuis temporalisque polluitur? An uero uitam polluit consortium nefariorum hominum, si se inserant adfectionibus et adsensionibus nostris, et uitam non polluit societas daemonum, qui coluntur criminibus suis?

[¶22] When we say these things, it may perchance seem to some one who is very ignorant of these matters that only those things concerning the gods which are sung in the songs of the 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 priests perform are pure and free from all unseemliness. Had this been so, never would any one have thought that these theatrical abominations should be celebrated in their honor, never would the gods themselves have ordered them to be performed to them. But men are in nowise ashamed to perform these things in the theatres, because similar things are carried on in the temples. In short, when the fore-mentioned author attempted to distinguish the civil theology from the fabulous and natural, as a sort of third and distinct kind, he wished it to be understood to be rather tempered by both than separated from either. For he says that those things which the poets write are less than the people ought to follow, whilst what the philosophers say is more than it is expedient for the people to pry into. “Which,” says he, “differ in such a way, that nevertheless not a few things from both of them have been taken to the account of the civil theology; wherefore we will indicate what the civil theology has in common with that of the poet, though it ought to be more closely connected with the theology of philosophers.” Civil theology is therefore not quite disconnected from that of the poets. Nevertheless, in another place, concerning the generations of the gods, he says that the people are more inclined toward the poets than toward the physical theologists. For in this place he said what ought to be done; in that other place, what was really done. He said that the latter had written for the sake of utility, but the poets for the sake of amusement. And hence the things from the poets’ writings, which the people ought not to follow, are the crimes of the gods; which, nevertheless, amuse both the people and the gods. For, for amusement’s sake, he says, the poets write, and not for that of utility; nevertheless they write such things as the gods will desire, and the people perform.

> Latin: Si ueris, quam mali! si falsis, quam male! Haec cum dicimus, uideri fortasse cuipiam nimis harum rerum ignaro potest ea sola de dis talibus maiestati indigna diuinae et ridicula detestabilia, celebrari, quae poeticis cantantur carminibus et ludis scaenicis actitantur; sacra uero illa, quae non histriones, sed sacerdotes agunt, ab omni esse dedecore purgata et aliena. Hoc si ita esset, numquam theatricas turpitudines in eorum honorem quisquam celebrandas esse censeret, numquam eas ipsi di praeciperent sibimet exhiberi. Sed ideo nihil pudet ad obsequium deorum talia gerere in theatris, quia similia geruntur in templis. Denique cum memoratus auctor ciuilem theologian a fabulosa et naturali tertiam quandam sui generis distinguere conaretur, magis eam ex utraque temperatam quam ab utraque separatam intellegi uoluit. Ait enim ea, quae scribunt poetae, minus esse quam ut populi sequi debeant; quae autem philosophi, plus quam ut ea uulgum scrutari expediat. ‘Quae sic abhorrent, inquit, ut tamen ex utroque genere ad ciuiles rationes adsumta sint non pauca. Quare quae erunt communia, una cum propriis ciuilibus scribemus; e quibus maior societas debet esse nobis cum philosophis quam cum poetis. Non ergo ulla cum poetis. Et tamen alio loco dicit de generationibus deorum magis ad poetas quam ad physicos fuisse populos inclinatos. Hic enim dixit quid fieri debeat, ibi quid fiat. Physicos dixit utilitatis causa scripsisse, poetas delectationis. Ac per hoc ea, quae a poetis conscripta populi sequi non debent, crimina sunt deorum, quae tamen delectant et populos et deos. Delectationis enim causa, sicut dicit, scribunt poetae, non utilitatis; ea tamen scribunt, quae di expetant, populi exhibeant.

## 33. Concerning the Likeness and Agreement of the Fabulous and Civil Theologies.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/33/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/33/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 7.—Concerning the Likeness and Agreement of the Fabulous and Civil Theologies.

> Latin: Caput VII. De fabulosae et ciuilis theologiae similitudine adque concordia.

[¶1] That theology, therefore, which is fabulous, theatrical, scenic, and full of all baseness and unseemliness, is taken up into the civil theology; and part of that theology, which in its totality is deservedly judged to be worthy of reprobation and rejection, is pronounced worthy to be cultivated and observed;—not at all an incongruous part, as I have undertaken to show, and one which, being alien to the whole body, was unsuitably attached to and suspended from it, but a part entirely congruous with, and most harmoniously fitted to the rest, as a member of the same body. For what else do those images, forms, ages, sexes, characteristics of the gods show? If the poets have Jupiter with a beard and Mercury beardless, have not the priests the same? Is the Priapus of the priests less obscene than the Priapus of the players? Does he receive the adoration of worshippers in a different form from that in which he moves about the stage for the amusement of spectators? Is not Saturn old and Apollo young in the shrines where their images stand as well as when represented by actors’ masks? Why are Forculus, who presides over doors, and Limentinus, who presides over thresholds and lintels, male gods, and Cardea between them feminine, who presides over hinges? Are not those things found in books on divine things, which grave poets have deemed unworthy of their verses? Does the Diana of the theatre carry arms, whilst the Diana of the city is simply a virgin? Is the stage Apollo a lyrist, but the Delphic Apollo ignorant of this art? But these things are decent compared with the more shameful things. What was thought of Jupiter himself by those who placed his wet nurse in the Capitol? Did they not bear witness to Euhemerus, who, not with the garrulity of a fable-teller, but with the gravity of an historian who had diligently investigated the matter, wrote that all such gods had been men and mortals? And they who appointed the Epulones as parasites at the table of Jupiter, what else did they wish for but mimic sacred rites. For if any mimic had said that parasites of Jupiter were made use of at his table, he would assuredly have appeared to be seeking to call forth laughter. Varro said it,—not when he was mocking, but when he was commending the gods did he say it. His books on divine, 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, and confesses that, as they made the gods with a human form, so they believed that they are delighted with human pleasures.

> Latin: Reuocatur igitur ad theologian ciuilem theologia fabulosa theatrica scaenica, indignitatis et turpitudinis plena, et haec tota, quae merito culpanda et respuenda iudicatur, pars huius est, quae colenda et obseruanda censetur; non sane pars incongrua, sicut ostendere institui, et quae ab uniuerso corpore aliena inportune illi conexa adque suspensa sit, sed omnino consona et tamquam eiusdem corporis membrum conuenientissime copulata. Quid enim aliud ostendunt illa simulacra formae aetates sexus habitus deorum? Numquid barbatum Iouem, inberbem Mercurium poetae habent, pontifices non habent? Numquid Priapo mimi, non etiam sacerdotes enormia pudenda fecerunt? An aliter stat adorandus in locis sacris, quam procedit ridendus in theatris? Num Saturnus senex, Apollo ephebus ita personae sunt histrionum, ut non sint statuae delubrorum? Quur Forculus, qui foribus praeest, et Limentinus, qui limini, di sunt masculi, adque inter hos Cardea femina est, quae cardinem seruat? Nonne ista in rerum diuinarum libris reperiuntur, quae graues poetae suis carminibus indigna duxerunt? Numquid Diana theatrica portat arma et urbana simpliciter uirgo est? Numquid scaenicus Apollo citharista est et ab hac arte Delphicus uacat? Sed haec honestiora sunt in conparatione turpiorum. Quid de ipso Ioue senserunt, qui eius nutricem in Capitolio posuerunt? Nonne adtestati sunt Euemero, qui omnes tales deos non fabulosa garrulitate, sed historica diligentia homines fuisse mortalesque conscripsit? Epulones etiam deos, parasitos Iouis, ad eius mensam qui constituerunt, quid aliud quam mimica sacra esse uoluerunt? Nam parasitos Iouis ad conuiuium eius adhibitos si mimus dixisset, utique risum quaesisse uideretur. Varro dixit! non cum inrideret deos, sed cum commendaret hoc dixit; diuinarum, non humanarum rerum libri hoc eum scripsisse testantur, nec ubi ludos scaenicos exponebat, sed ubi Capitolina iura pandebat. Denique talibus uincitur et fatetur, sicut forma humana deos fecerunt, ita eos delectari humanis uoluptatibus credidisse.

[¶2] For also malign spirits were not so wanting to their own business as not to confirm noxious opinions in the minds of men by converting them into sport. Whence also is that story about the sacristan of Hercules, which says that, having nothing to do, he took to playing at dice as a pastime, throwing them alternately with the one hand for Hercules, with the other for himself, with this understanding, that if he should win, he should from the funds of the temple prepare himself a supper, and hire a mistress; but if Hercules should win the game, he himself should, at his own expense, provide the same for the pleasure of Hercules. Then, when he had been beaten by himself, as though by Hercules, he gave to the god Hercules the supper he owed him, and also the most noble harlot Larentina. But she, having fallen asleep in the temple, dreamed that Hercules had had intercourse with her, and had said to her that she would find her payment with the youth whom she should first meet on leaving the temple, and that she was to believe this to be paid to her by Hercules. And so the first youth that met her on going out was the wealthy Tarutius, who kept her a long time, and when he died left her his heir. She, having obtained a most ample fortune, that she should not seem ungrateful for the divine hire, in her turn made the Roman people her heir, which she thought to be most acceptable to the deities; and, having disappeared, the will was found. By which meritorious conduct they say that she gained divine honors.

> Latin: Non enim et maligni spiritus suo negotio defuerunt, ut has noxias opiniones humanarum mentium ludificatione firmarent. Unde etiam illud est, quod Herculis aedituus otiosus adque feriatus lusit tesseris secum utraque manu alternante, in una constituens Herculem, in altera se ipsum, sub ea condicione, ut, si ipse uicisset, de stipe templi sibi cenam pararet amicamque conduceret; si autem uictoria Herculis fieret, hoc idem de pecunia sua uoluptati Herculis exhiberet; deinde cum a se ipso tamquam ab Hercule uictus esset, debitam cenam et nobilissimam meretricem Larentinam deo Herculi dedit. At illa cum dormisset in templo, uidit in somnis Herculem sibi esse commixtum sibique dixisse, quod inde discedens, cui primum iuueni obuia fieret, aput illum esset inuentura mercedem, quam sibi credere deberet ab Hercule persolutam. Ac sic abeunti cum primus iuuenis ditissimus Tarutius occurrisset eamque dilectam secum diutius habuisset, illa herede defunctus est. Quae amplissimam adepta pecuniam ne diuinae mercedi uideretur ingrata, quod acceptissimum putauit esse numinibus, populum Romanum etiam ipsa scripsit heredem, adque illa non conparente inuentum est testamentum; quibus meritis eam ferunt etiam honores meruisse diuinos.

[¶3] Now had these things been feigned by the poets and acted by the mimics, they would without any doubt have been said to pertain to the fabulous theology, and would have been judged worthy to be separated from the dig nity of the civil theology. But when these shameful things,—not of the poets, but of the people; not of the mimics, but of the sacred things; not of the 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 the baseness of the gods, which is so great; but surely in vain do the priests attempt, by rites called sacred, to represent their nobleness of character, which has no existence. There are sacred rites of Juno; and these are celebrated in her beloved island, Samos, where she was given in marriage to Jupiter. There are sacred rites of Ceres, in which Proserpine is sought for, having been carried off by Pluto. There are sacred rites of Venus, in which, her beloved Adonis being slain by a boar’s tooth, the lovely youth is lamented. There are sacred rites of the 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, whom they call Galli. Since, then, these things are more unseemly than all scenic abomination, why is it that they strive to separate, as it were, the fabulous fictions of the poet concerning the gods, as, forsooth, pertaining to the theatre, from the civil theology which they wish to belong to the city, as though they were separating from noble and worthy things, things unworthy and base? Wherefore there is more reason to thank the stage-actors, who have spared the eyes of men and have not laid bare by theatrical exhibition all the things which are hid by the walls of the temples. What good is to be thought of their sacred rites which are concealed in darkness, when those which are brought forth into the light are so detestable? And certainly they themselves have seen what they transact in secret through the agency of mutilated and effeminate men. Yet they have not been able to conceal those same men miserably and vile enervated and corrupted. Let them persuade whom they can that they transact anything holy through such men, who, they cannot deny, are numbered, and live among their sacred things. We know not what they transact, but we know through whom they transact; for we know what things are transacted on the stage, where never, even in a chorus of harlots, hath one who is mutilated or an effeminate appeared. And, nevertheless, even these things are acted by vile and infamous characters; for, indeed, they ought not to be acted by men of good character. What, then, are those sacred rites, for the performance of which holiness has chosen such men as not even the obscenity of the stage has admitted?

> Latin: Haec si poetae fingerent, si mimi agerent, ad fabulosam theologian dicerentur procul dubio pertinere et a ciuilis theologiae dignitate separanda iudicarentur. Cum uero haec dedecora non poetarum, sed populorum; non mimorum, sed sacrorum; non theatrorum, sed templorum; id est non fabulosae, sed ciuilis theologiae, a tanto auctore produntur: non frustra histriones ludicris artibus fingunt deorum quae tanta est turpitudinem, sed plane frustra sacerdotes uelut sacris ritibus conantur fingere deorum quae nulla est honestatem. Sacra sunt Iunonis, et haec in eius dilecta insula Samo celebrabantur, ubi nuptum data est Ioui; sacra sunt Cereris, ubi a Plutone rapta Proserpina quaeritur; sacra sunt Veneris, ubi amatus eius Adon aprino dente extinctus iuuenis formosissimus plangitur; sacra sunt Matris deum, ubi Attis pulcher adulescens ab ea dilectus et muliebri zelo abscisus etiam hominum abscisorum, quos Gallos uocant, infelicitate deploratur. Haec cum deformiora sint omni scaenica foeditate, quid est quod fabulosa de dis figmenta poetarum ad theatrum uidelicet pertinentia uelut secernere nituntur a ciuili theologia, quam pertinere ad urbem uolunt, quasi ab honestis et dignis indigna et turpia? Itaque potius est unde gratiae debeantur histrionibus, qui oculis hominum pepercerunt nec omnia spectaculis nudauerunt, quae sacrarum aedium parietibus occuluntur. Quid de sacris eorum boni sentiendum est, quae tenebris operiuntur, cum tam sint detestabilia, quae proferuntur in lucem? Et certe quid in occulto agant per abscisos et molles, ipsi uiderint; eosdem tamen homines infeliciter ac turpiter eneruatos adque corruptos occultare minime potuerunt. Persuadeant cui possunt se aliquid sanctum per tales agere homines, quos inter sua sancta numerari adque uersari negare non possunt. Nescimus quid agant, sed scimus per quales agant. Nouimus enim quae agantur in scaena, quo numquam uel in choro meretricum abscisus aut mollis intrauit; et tamen etiam ipsa turpes et infames agunt; neque enim ab honestis agi debuerunt. Quae sunt ergo illa sacra, quibus agendis tales elegit sanctitas, quales nec thymelica in se admisit obscenitas?

### Concerning the Interpretations, Consisting of Natural Explanations, Which the Pagan Teachers Attempt to Show for Their Gods.

[¶5] Chapter 8.—Concerning the Interpretations, Consisting of Natural Explanations, Which the Pagan Teachers Attempt to Show for Their Gods.

> Latin: Caput VIII. De interpretationibus naturalium rationum, quas doctores pagani pro dis suis conantur ostendere.

[¶6] But all these things, they say, have certain physical, that is, natural interpretations, showing their natural meaning; as though in this disputation we were seeking physics and not 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 there is 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 of the gods is the earth, why do we make further inquiry? why do we carry our investigation through all the rest of it? What can more manifestly favor them who say that all those gods were men? For they are earth-born in the sense that the earth is their mother. But in the true theology the earth is the work, not the mother, of God. But in whatever way their sacred rites may be interpreted, and whatever reference they may have to the nature of things, it is not according to nature, but contrary to nature, that men should be effeminates. This disease, this crime, this abomination, has a recognized place among those sacred things, though even depraved men will scarcely be compelled by torments to confess they are guilty of it. Again, if these sacred rites, which are proved to be fouler than scenic abominations, are excused and justified on the ground that they have their own interpretations, by which they are shown to symbolize the nature of things, why are not the poetical things in like manner excused and justified? For many have interpreted even these in like fashion, to such a degree that even that which they say is the most monstrous and most horrible,—namely, that Saturn devoured his own children,—has been interpreted by some of them to mean that length of time, which is signified by the name of Saturn, consumes whatever it begets; or that, as the same Varro thinks, Saturn belongs to seeds which fall back again into the earth from whence they spring. And so one interprets it in one way, and one in another. And the same is to be said of all the rest of this theology.

> Latin: At enim habent ista physiologicas quasdam, sicut aiunt, id est naturalium rationum interpretationes. Quasi uero nos in hac disputatione physiologian quaerimus et non theologian, id est rationem non naturae, sed Dei. Quamuis enim qui uerus Deus est non opinione, sed natura Deus sit: non tamen omnis natura deus est, quia et hominis et pecoris, et arboris et lapidis utique natura est, quorum nihil est deus. Si autem interpretationis huius, quando agitur de sacris Matris deum, caput est certe quod Mater deum terra est, quid ultra quaerimus, quid cetera perscrutamur? Quid euidentius suffragatur eis, qui dicunt omnes istos deos homines fuisse? Sic enim sunt terrigenae, sic eis mater est terra. In uera autem theologia opus Dei est terra, non mater. Verum tamen quoquo modo sacra eius interpretentur et referant ad rerum naturam: uiros muliebria pati non est secundum naturam, sed contra naturam. Hic morbus, hoc crimen, hoc dedecus habet inter illa sacra professionem, quod in uitiosis hominum moribus uix habet inter tormenta confessionem. Deinde si ista sacra, quae scaenicis turpitudinibus conuincuntur esse foediora, hinc excusantur adque purgantur, quod habent interpretationes suas, quibus ostendantur rerum significare naturam: quur non etiam poetica similiter excusentur adque purgentur? Multi enim et ipsa ad eundem modum interpretati sunt, usque adeo ut, quod ab eis inmanissimum et infandissimum dicitur, Saturnum suos filios deuorasse, ita nonnulli interpretentur, quod longinquitas temporis, quae Saturni nomine significatur, quidquid gignit ipsa consumat, uel, sicut idem opinatur Varro, quod pertineat Saturnus ad semina, quae in terram, de qua oriuntur, iterum recidunt. Itemque alii alio modo et similiter cetera.

[¶7] And, nevertheless, it is called the fabulous theology, and is censured, 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 pertain to 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 and learned men, by whom those things were written, understood that both theologies ought to be rejected,—to wit, both that fabulous and this civil one,—but the former they dared to reject, the latter they dared not; the former they set forth to be censured, the latter they showed to be very like it; not that it might be chosen to be held in preference to the other, but that it might be understood to be worthy of being rejected together with it. And thus, without danger to those who feared to censure the civil theology, both of them being brought into contempt, that theology which they call natural might find a place in better disposed minds; for the civil and the fabulous are both fabulous and both civil. He who shall wisely inspect the vanities and obscenities of both will find that they are both fabulous; and he who shall direct his attention to the scenic plays pertaining to the fabulous theology in the festivals of the civil gods, and in the divine rites of the cities, will find they are both civil. How, then, can the power of giving eternal life be attributed to any of those gods whose own images and sacred rites convict them of being most 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 have been men, and to have had their sacred rites and solemnities instituted in their honor according to the life or death of each of them, the demons suggesting and confirming this error, or certainly most foul spirits, who, taking advantage of some occasion or other, have stolen into the minds of men to deceive them?

> Latin: Et tamen theologia fabulosa dicitur et cum omnibus huiusce modi interpretationibus suis reprehenditur abicitur inprobatur, nec solum a naturali, quae philosophorum est, uerum etiam ab ista ciuili, de qua agimus, quae ad urbes populosque adseritur pertinere, eo quod de dis indigna confinxerit, merito repudianda discernitur, eo nimirum consilio, ut, quoniam acutissimi homines adque doctissimi, a quibus ista conscripta sunt, ambas inprobandas intellegebant, et illam scilicet fabulosam et istam ciuilem, illam uero audebant inprobare, hanc non audebant; illam culpandam proposuerunt, hanc eius similem conparandam exposuerunt, — non ut haec prae illa tenenda eligeretur, sed ut cum illa respuenda intellegeretur, adque ita sine periculo eorum, qui ciuilem theologian reprehendere metuebant, utraque contemta ea, quam naturalem uocant, aput meliores animos inueniret locum. Nam et ciuilis et fabulosa ambae fabulosae sunt ambaeque ciuiles; ambas inueniet fabulosas, qui uanitates et obscenitates ambarum prudenter inspexerit; ambas ciuiles, qui scaenicos ludos pertinentes ad fabulosam in deorum ciuilium festiuitatibus et in urbium diuinis rebus aduerterit. Quo modo igitur uitae aeternae dandae potestas cuiquam deorum istorum tribuitur, quos sua simulacra et sacra conuincunt dis fabulosis apertissime reprobatis esse simillimos formis aetatibus, sexu habitu, coniugiis generationibus ritibus, in quibus omnibus aut homines fuisse intelleguntur et pro uniuscuiusque uita uel morte sacra eis et sollemnia constituta, hunc errorem insinuantibus firmantibusque daemonibus, aut certe ex qualibet occasione inmundissimi spiritus fallendis humanis mentibus inrepsisse?

### Concerning the Special Offices of the Gods.

[¶9] Chapter 9.—Concerning the Special Offices of the Gods.

> Latin: Caput IX. De officiis singulorum deorum.

[¶10] And as to those very offices of the gods, so meanly and so minutely portioned out, so that they say that they ought to be supplicated, each one according to his special function,—about which we have spoken much already, though not all that is to be said concerning it,—are they not more consistent with mimic buffoonery than divine majesty? If any one should use two nurses for his infant, one of whom should give nothing but food, the other nothing but drink, as these make use of two goddesses for this purpose, Educa and Potina, he should certainly seem to be foolish, and to do in his house a thing worthy of a mimic. They would have Liber to have been named from “liberation,” because through him males at the time 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 they say that they also emit seed; and they also say that on this account the same part of the male and of the female is placed in the temple, that of the male to Liber, and that of the female to Libera. To these things they add the women assigned to Liber, and the wine for exciting lust. Thus the Bacchanalia are celebrated with the utmost insanity, with respect to which Varro himself confesses that such things would not be done by 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, they perhaps perceived how much power unclean spirits, when held to be gods, exercise over the minds of men. These things, certainly, were not to be done in the theatres; for there they play, not rave, although to have gods who are delighted with such plays is very like raving.

> Latin: Quid? ipsa numinum officia tam uiliter minutatimque concisa, propter quod eis dicunt pro uniuscuiusque proprio munere supplicari oportere, unde non quidem omnia, sed multa iam diximus, nonne scurrilitati mimicae quam diuinae consonant dignitati? Si duas quisquam nutrices adhiberet infanti, quarum una nihil nisi escam, altera nihil nisi potum daret, sicut isti ad hoc duas adhibuerunt deas, Educam et Potinam, nempe desipere et aliquid mimo simile in sua domo agere uideretur. Liberum a liberamento appellatum uolunt, quod mares in coeundo per eius beneficium emissis seminibus liberentur; hoc idem in feminis agere Liberam, quam etiam Venerem putant, quod et ipsam perhibeant semina emittere; et ob haec Libero eandem uirilem corporis partem in templo poni, femineam Liberae. Ad haec addunt mulieres adtributas Libero et uinum propter libidinem concitandam. Sic Bacchanalia summa celebrabantur insania; ubi Varro ipse confitetur a Bacchantibus talia fieri non potuisse nisi mente commota. Haec tamen postea displicuerunt senatui saniori, et ea iussit auferri. Saltem hic tandem forsitan senserunt quid inmundi spiritus, dum pro dis habentur, in hominum mentibus possint. Haec certe non fierent in theatris; ludunt quippe ibi, non fuiiunt; quamuis deos habere, qui etiam ludis talibus delectentur, simile sit furoris.

[¶11] But what kind of distinction is this which he makes between the religious and the superstitious man, saying that the gods are feared by the superstitious man, but are reverenced as parents by the religious man, not feared as enemies; and that they are all so good that they will more readily spare those who are impious than hurt one who is innocent? And yet he tells us that three gods are assigned as guardians to a woman after she has been delivered, lest the god Silvanus come in and molest her; and that in order to signify the presence of these 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 these symbols of agriculture having been exhibited, the god Silvanus might be hindered from entering, because neither are trees cut down or pruned without a hatchet, neither is grain ground without a pestle, nor corn heaped up without a besom. Now from these three things three gods have been named: Intercidona, from the cut made by the hatchet; Pilumnus, from the pestle; Diverra, from the besom;—by which guardian gods the woman who has been de livered is preserved against the power of the god Silvanus. Thus the guardianship of kindly-disposed gods would not avail against the malice of a mischievous god, unless they were three to one, and fought against him, as it were, with the opposing emblems of cultivation, who, being an inhabitant 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 ridiculous than the things which are laughed at in the theatres?

> Latin: Quale autem illud est, quod, cum religiosum a superstitioso ea distinctione discernat, uta superstitioso dicat timeri deos, a religioso autem tantum uereri ut parentes, non ut hostes timeri, adque omnes ita bonos dicat, ut facilius sit eos nocentibus parcere quam laedere quemquam innocentem, tamen mulieri fetae post partum tres deos custodes commemorat adhiberi, ne Siluanus deus per noctem ingrediatur et uexet, eorumque custodum significandorum causa tres homines noctu : circuire limina domus et primo limen securi ferire, postea pilo, tertio deuerrere scopis, ut his datis culturae signis deus Siluanus prohibeatur intrare, quod neque arbores caeduntur ac putantur sine ferro, neque far conficitur sine pilo, neque fruges coaceruantur sine scopis; ab his autem tribus rebus tres nuncupatos deos, Intercidonam a securis intercisione, Pilumnum a pilo, Deuerram a scopis, quibus dis custodibus contra uim dei Siluani feta conseruaretur. Ita contra dei nocentis saeuitiam non ualeret custodia bonorum, nisi plures essent aduersus unum eique aspero horrendo inculto, utpote siluestri, signis culturae tamquam contrariis repugnarent. Itane ista est innocentia deorum, ista concordia? Haeccine sunt numina salubria urbium, magis ridenda quam ludibria theatrorum? Cum mas et femina coniunguntur, adhibetur deus Iugatinus; sit hoc ferendum.

[¶12] When a male and a female are united, the god Jugatinus presides. Well, let this be borne with. But the married woman must 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 Manturnæ is used. What more is required? Let human modesty be spared. Let the lust of flesh and blood go on with the rest, the secret of shame being respected. Why is the bed-chamber filled with a crowd of deities, when even the groomsmen have departed? And, moreover, it is so filled, not that in consideration of their presence more regard may be paid to chastity, but that by their help the woman, naturally of the weaker sex, and trembling with the novelty of her situation, may the more readily yield her virginity. For there are the goddess Virginiensis, and the god-father Subigus, and the goddess-mother Prema, and the goddess Pertunda, and Venus, and Priapus. What is this? If it was absolutely necessary that a man, laboring at this work, should be helped by the gods, might not some one god or goddess have been sufficient? Was Venus not sufficient alone, who is even said to be named from this, that without her power a woman does not cease to be a virgin? If there is any shame in men, which is not in the deities, is it not the case that, when the married couple believe that so many gods of either sex are present, and busy at this work, they are so much affected with shame, that the man is less moved, and the woman more reluctant? And certainly, if the goddess Virginiensis is present to loose the virgin’s zone, if the god Subigus is present that the virgin may be got under the man, if the goddess Prema is present that, having been got under him, she may be kept down, and may not move herself, what has the goddess Pertunda to do there? Let her blush; let her go forth. Let the husband himself 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, and not a god. For if she were believed to be a male, and were called Pertundus, the husband would demand more help against him for the chastity of his wife than the newly-delivered woman against Silvanus. But why am I saying this, when Priapus, too, is there, a male to excess, upon whose immense and most unsightly member the newly-married bride is commanded to sit, according to the most honorable and most religious custom of matrons?

> Latin: Sed domum est ducenda quae nubit; adhibetur et deus Domiducus; ut in domo sit, adhibetur deus Domitius; ut maneat cum uiro, additur dea Manturna. Quid ultra quaeritur? Parcatur humanae uerecundiae; peragat cetera concupiscentia carnis et sanguinis procurato secreto pudoris. Quid inpletur cubiculum turba numinum, quando et paranymphi inde discedunt? Et ad hoc inpletur, non ut eorum praesentia cogitata maior sit cura pudicitiae, sed ut feminae sexu infirmae, nouitate pauidae illis cooperantibus sine ulla difficultate uirginitas auferatur. Adest enim dea Virginiensis et deus pater Subigus, et dea mater Prema et dea Pertunda, et Venus et Priapus. Quid est hoc? Si omnino laborantem in illo opere uirum ab dis adiuuari oportebat, non sufficeret aliquis unus aut aliqua una? Numquid Venus sola parum esset, quae ad hoc etiam dicitur nuncupata, quod sine ui femina uirgo esse non desinat? Si est ulla frons in hominibus, quae non est in numinibus, nonne, cum credunt coniugati tot deos utriusque sexus esse praesentes et huic operi instantes, ita pudore adficiuntur, ut et ille minus moueatur et illa plus reluctetur? Et certe si adest Virginiensis dea, ut uirgini zona soluatur; si adest deus Subigus, ut uiro subigatur; si adest dea Prema, ut subacta, ne se commoueat, conprimatur: dea Pertunda ibi quid facit? Erubescat, eat foras; agat aliquid et maritus. Valde inhonestum est, ut, quod uocatur illa, quisquam inpleat nisi ille. Sed forte ideo toleratur, quia dea dicitur esse, non deus. Nam si masculus crederetur et Pertundus uocaretur, maius contra eum pro uxoris pudicitia posceret maritus auxilium quam feta contra Siluanum. Sed quid hoc dicam, cum ibi sit et Priapus nimius masculus, super cuius inmanissimum et turpissimum fascinum sedere noua nupta iubebatur, more honestissimo et religiosissimo matronarum?

[¶13] Let them go on, and let them attempt with all the subtlety they can to distinguish the civil theology from the fabulous, the cities from the theatres, the temples from the stages, the sacred things of the priests from the songs of the poets, as honorable things from base things, truthful things from fallacious, grave from light, serious from ludicrous, desirable things from things to be rejected, we understand what they do. They are aware that that theatrical and fabulous theology hangs by the civil, and is reflected back upon it from the songs of the poets as from a mirror; and thus, that theology having been exposed to view which they do not dare to condemn, they more freely assail and censure that picture of it, in order that those who perceive what they mean may detest this very face itself of which that is the picture,—which, however, the gods themselves, as though seeing themselves in the same mirror, love so much, that it is better seen in both of them who and what 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 their solemnities, and reckon them among divine things; and thus they have both shown themselves more manifestly to be most impure spirits, and have made that rejected and reprobated theatrical theology a member and a part of this, as it were, chosen and approved theology of the city, so that, though the whole is disgraceful and false, and contains in it fictitious gods, one part of it is in the literature of the priests, the other in the songs of the poets. Whether it may have other parts is another question. At present, I think, I have sufficiently shown, on account of the division of Varro, that the theology of 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 eternal life from either the one or the other.

> Latin: Eant adhuc et theologian ciuilem a theologia fabulosa, urbes a theatris, templa ab scaenis, sacra pontificum a carminibus poetarum, uelut res honestas a turpibus, ueraces a fallacibus, graues a leuibus, serias a ludicris, adpetendas a respuendis, qua possunt quasi conentur subtilitate discernere. Intellegimus quid agant; illam theatricam et fabulosam theologian ab ista ciuili pendere nouerunt et ei de carminibus poetarum tamquam de speculo resultare, et ideo ista exposita, quam damnare non audent, illam eius imaginem liberius arguunt et reprehendunt, ut, qui agnoscunt quid uelint, et hanc ipsam faciem, cuius illa imago est, detestentur; quam tamen di ipsi tamquam in eodem speculo se intuentes ita diligunt, ut qui qualesque sint in utraque melius uideantur. Unde etiam cultores suos terribilibus imperiis conpulerunt, ut inmunditiam theologiae fabulosae sibi dicarent, in suis sollemnitatibus ponerent, in rebus diuinis haberent, adque ita et se ipsos inmundissimos spiritus manifestius esse docuerunt, et huius urbanae theologiae uelut electae et probatae illam theatricam abiectam adque reprobatam membrum partemque fecerunt, ut, cum sit uniuersa turpis et fallax adque in se contineat commenticios deos, una pars eius sit in litteris sacerdotum, altera in carminibus poetarum. Utrum habeat et alias partes, alia quaestio est: nunc propter diuisionem Varronis et urbanam et theatricam theologian ad unam ciuilem pertinere satis, ut opinor, ostendi. Unde, quia sunt ambae similis turpitudinis absurditatis, indignitatis falsitatis, absit a ueris religiosis, ut siue ab hac siue ab illa uita speretur aeterna.

[¶14] In fine, even Varro himself, in his account and enumeration of the gods, starts from the moment of a man’s conception. He commences the series of those gods who take charge of man with Janus, carries it on to the death of the man decrepit with age, and terminates it with the goddess Nænia, who is sung at the funerals of the aged. After that, he begins to give an account of the other gods, whose province is not man himself, but man’s belongings, as food, clothing, and all that is necessary for this life; and, in the case of all these, he explains what is the special office of each, and for what each ought to be supplicated. But with all this scrupulous and comprehensive diligence, he has neither proved the existence, nor so much as mentioned the name, of any god from whom eternal life is to be sought,—the one object for which we are Christians. Who, then, is so stupid as not to perceive that this man, by setting forth and opening up so diligently the civil theology, and by exhibiting its likeness to that fabulous, shameful, and disgraceful theology, and also by teaching that that fabulous sort is also a part of this other, was laboring to obtain a place in the minds of men for none but that natural theology, which he says pertains to philosophers, with such subtlety that he censures the fabulous, and, not daring openly to censure the civil, shows its censurable character by simply exhibiting it; and thus, both being reprobated by the judgment of men of right understanding, the natural alone remains to be chosen? But concerning this in its own place, by the help of the true God, we have to discuss more diligently.

> Latin: Denique et ipse Varro commemorare et enumerare deos coepit a conceptione hominis, quorum numerum est exorsus a Iano, eamque seriem perduxit usque ad decrepiti hominis mortem, et deos ad ipsum hominem pertinentes clausit ad Neniam deam, quae in funeribus senum cantatur; deinde coepit deos alios ostendere, qui pertinerent non ad ipsum hominem, sed ad ea, quae sunt hominis, sicuti est uictus adque uestitus et quaecumque alia huic uitae sunt necessaria, ostendens in omnibus, quod sit cuiusque munus et propter quid cuique debeat supplicari; in qua uniuersa diligentia nullos demonstrauit uel nominauit deos, a quibus uita aeterna poscenda sit, propter quam unam proprie nos Christiani sumus. Quis ergo usque adeo tardus sit, ut non intellegat istum hominem ciuilem theologian tam diligenter exponendo et aperiendo eamque illi fabulosae, indignae adque probrosae, similem demonstrando adque ipsam fabulosam partem esse huius satis euidenter docendo non nisi illi naturali, quam dicit ad philosophos pertinere, in animis hominum moliri locum, ea subtilitate, ut fabulosam reprehendat, ciuilem uero reprehendere quidem non audeat, sed prodendo reprehensibilem ostendat, adque ita utraque iudicio recte intellegentium reprobata sola naturalis remaneat eligenda? De qua suo loco in adiutorio Dei ueri diligentius disserendum est.

### Concerning the Liberty of Seneca, Who More Vehemently Censured the Civil Theology Than Varro Did the Fabulous.

[¶16] Chapter 10.—Concerning the Liberty of Seneca, Who More Vehemently Censured the Civil Theology Than Varro Did the Fabulous.

> Latin: Caput X. De libertate Senecae, qui uehementius ciuilem theologian reprehendit quam Varro fabulosam.

[¶17] That liberty, in truth, which this man wanted, so that he did not dare to censure that theology of the city, which is very similar to the theatrical, so openly as he did the theatrical itself, was, though not fully, yet in part possessed by Annæus Seneca, whom we have some evidence to show to have flourished in the times of our apostles. It was in part possessed by him, I say, for he possessed it in writing, but not in living. For in that book which he wrote against superstition, he more copiously and vehemently censured that civil and urban theology than Varro the theatrical and fabulous. For, when speaking concerning images, he says, “They dedicate images of the sacred and inviolable immortals in most worthless and motionless matter. They give them the appearance of man, beasts, and fishes, and some make them of mixed sex, and heterogeneous bodies. They call them deities, when they are such that if they should get breath and should suddenly meet them, they would be held to be monsters.” Then, a while afterwards, when extolling the natural theology, he had expounded the sentiments of certain philosophers, he opposes to himself a question, and says, “Here some one says, Shall I believe that the heavens and the earth are gods, and that some are above the moon and some below it? Shall I bring forward either Plato or the peripatetic Strato, one of whom made God to be without a body, the other without a mind?” In answer to which he says, “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 of Picus and Tiberinus; Tullus Hostilius that of Pavor and Pallor, the most disagreeable affections of men, the one of which is the agitation of the mind under fright, the other that of the body, not a disease, indeed, but a change of color.” Wilt thou rather believe that these are deities, and receive them into heaven? But with what freedom he has written concerning the rites themselves, cruel and shameful! “One,” he says, “castrates himself, another cuts his arms. Where will they find room for the fear of these gods when angry, who use such means of gaining their favor when propitious? But gods who wish to be worshipped in this fashion should be worshipped in none. So great is the frenzy of the mind when perturbed and driven from its seat, that the gods are propitiated by men in a manner in which not even men of the greatest ferocity and fable-renowned cruelty vent their rage. Tyrants have lacerated the limbs of some; they never ordered any one to lacerate his own. For the gratification of royal lust, some have been castrated; but no one ever, by the command of his lord, laid violent hands on himself to emasculate himself. They kill themselves in the temples. They supplicate with their wounds and with their blood. If any one has time to see the things they do and the things they suffer, he will find so many things unseemly for men of respectability, so unworthy of freemen, so unlike the doings of sane men, that no one would doubt that they are mad, had they been mad with the minority; but now the multitude of the insane is the defence of their sanity.”

> Latin: Libertas sane, quae huic defuit, ne istam urbanam theologian [tam diligenter exponendo] theatricae simillimam aperte sicut illam reprehendere auderet, Annaeo Senecae, quem nonnullis indiciis inuenimus apostolorum nostrorum claruisse temporibus, non quidem ex toto, uerum ex aliqua parte non defuit. Adfuit enim scribenti, uiuenti defuit. Nam in eo libro, quem contra superstitiones condidit, multo copiosius adque uehementius reprehendit ipse ciuilem istam et urbanam theologian quam Varro theatricam adque fabulosam. Cum enim de simulacris ageret: ‘Sacros, inquit, inmortales, inuiolabiles in materia uilissima adque inmobili dedicant, habitus illis hominum ferarumque et piscium, quidam uero mixto sexu, diuersis corporibus induunt; numina uocant, quae si spiritu accepto subito occurrerent, monstra haberentur. Deinde aliquanto post, cum theologian naturalem praedicans quorundam philosophorum sententias digessisset, obposuit sibi quaestionem et ait: ‘Hoc loco dicit aliquis: Credam ego caelum et terram deos esse et supra lunam alios, infra alios? Ego feram aut Platonem aut Peripateticum Stratonem, quorum alter fecit deum sine corpore, alter sine animo?’ Et ad hoc respondens: ‘Quid ergo tandem, inquit, ueriora tibi uidentur Titi Tatii aut Romuli aut Tulli Hostilii somnia? Cloacinam Tatius dedicauit deam, Picum Tiberinumque Romulus, Hostilius Pauorem adque Pallorem, taeterrimos omnium adfectus, quorum alter mentis territae motus est, alter corporis ne morbus quidem, sed color. Haec numina potius credes et caelo recipies?’ De ipsis uero ritibus crudeliter turpibus quam libere scripsit! Ille, inquit, uiriles sibi partes amputat, ille lacertos secat. Ubi iratos deos timent, qui sic propitios merentur? Di autem nullo debent coli genere, si hoc uolunt. Tantus est perturbatae mentis et sedibus suis pulsae furor, ut sic di placentur, quem ad modum ne quidem homines saeuiunt taeterrimi et in fabulas traditae crudelitatis. Tyranni lacerauerunt aliquorum membra, neminem sua lacerare iusserunt. In regiae libidinis uoluptatem castrati sunt quidam; sed nemo sibi, ne uir esset, iubente domino manus intulit. Se ipsi in templis contrucidant, uulneribus suis ac sanguine supplicant. Si cui intueri uacet, quae faciunt quaeque patiuntur, inueniet tam indecora honestis, tam indigna liberis, tam dissimilia sanis, ut nemo fuerit dubitaturus furere eos, si cum paucioribus furerent; nunc sanitatis patrocinium est insanientium turba.’ Iam illa, quae in ipso Capitolio fieri solere commemorat et intrepide omnino coarguit, quis credat nisi ab inridentibus aut furentibus fieri?

[¶18] He next relates those things which are wont to be done in the Capitol, and with the utmost intrepidity insists that they are such things as one could only believe to be done by men making sport, or by madmen. For having spoken with derision of this, that in the Egyptian sacred rites Osiris, being lost, is lamented for, but straightway, when found, is the occasion of great joy by his reappearance, because both the losing and the finding of him are feigned; and yet that grief and that joy which are elicited thereby from those who have lost nothing and found nothing are real;—having I say, so spoken of this, he says, “Still there is a fixed time for this frenzy. It is tolerable to go mad once in the year. Go into the Capitol. One is suggesting divine commands to a god; another is telling the hours to Jupiter; one is a lictor; another is an anointer, who with the mere movement of his arms imitates one anointing. There are women who arrange the hair of Juno and Minerva, standing far away not only from her image, but even from her temple. These move their fingers in the manner of hairdressers. There are some women who hold a mirror. There are some who are calling the gods to assist them in court. There are some who are holding up documents 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 gods would gladly be spectators of that which men had ceased to care about. Every kind of artificers working for the immortal gods is dwelling there in idleness.” And a little after he says, “Nevertheless these, though they give themselves up to the gods for purposes superflous enough, do not do so for any abominable or infamous purpose. There sit certain women in the Capitol who think they are beloved by Jupiter; nor are they frightened even by the look of the, if you will believe the poets, most wrathful Juno.”

> Latin: Nam cum in sacris Aegyptiis Osirim lugeri perditum, mox autem inuentum magno esse gaudio derisisset, cum perditio eius inuentioque fingatur, dolor tamen ille adque laetitia ab eis, qui nihil perdiderunt nihilque inuenerunt, ueraciter exprimatur: ‘Huic tamen, inquit, furori certum tempus est. Tolerabile est semel anno insanire. In Capitolium perueni: pudebit publicatae dementiae, quod sibi uanus furor adtribuit officii. Alius nomina deo subicit, alius horas Ioui nuntiat, alius lector est, alius unctor, qui uano motu bracchiorum imitatur unguentem. Sunt quae Iunoni ac Mineruae capillos disponant (longe a templo, non tantum a simulacro stantes digitos mouent ornantium modo), sunt quae speculum teneant; sunt qui ad uadimonia sua deos aduocent, sunt qui libellos offerant et illos causam suam doceant. Doctus archimimus, senex iam decrepitus, cottidie in Capitolio mimum agebat, quasi di libenter spectarent, quem illi homines desierant. Omne illic artificum genus operatum dis inmortalibus desidet’. Et paulo post: Hi tamen, inquit, etiamsi superuacuum usum, non turpem nec infamem deo promittunt. Sedent quaedam in Capitolio, quae se a Ioue amari putant: ne Iunonis quidem, si credere poetis uelis, iracundissimae respectu terrentur.’ Hanc libertatem Varro non habuit; tantum modo poeticam theologian reprehendere ausus est, ciuilem non ausus est, quam iste concidit.

[¶19] This liberty Varro did not enjoy. It was only the poetical theology he seemed to censure. The civil, which this man cuts to pieces, he was not bold enough to impugn. But if we attend 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 the civil theology, Seneca preferred, as the best course to be followed by a wise man, to feign respect for them in act, but to have no real regard for them at heart. “All which things,” he says, “a wise man will observe as being commanded by the laws, but not as being pleasing to the gods.” And a little after he says, “And what of this, that we unite the gods in marriage, and that not even naturally, for we join brothers and sisters? We marry Bellona to Mars, Venus to Vulcan, Salacia to Neptune. Some of them we leave unmarried, as though 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 whom I am not astonished that suitors have been awanting. All this ignoble crowd of gods, which the superstition of ages has amassed, we ought,” he says, “to adore in such a way as to remember all the while that its worship belongs rather to custom than to reality.” Wherefore, neither those laws nor customs instituted in the civil theology that which was pleasing to the gods, or which pertained to reality. But this man, whom philosophy had made, as it were, free, nevertheless, because he was an illustrious senator of the Roman people, worshipped what he censured, did what he condemned, adored what he reproached, because, forsooth, philosophy had taught him something great,—namely, not to be superstitious in the world, but, on account of the laws of cities and the customs of men, to be an actor, not on the stage, but in the temples,—conduct the more to be condemned, that those things which he was deceitfully acting he so acted that the people thought he was acting sincerely. But a stage-actor would rather delight people by acting plays than take them in by false pretences.

> Latin: Sed si uerum adtendamus, deteriora sunt templa ubi haec aguntur, quam theatra ubi finguntur. Unde in his sacris ciuilis theologiae has partes potius elegit Seneca sapienti, ut eas in animi religione non habeat, sed in actibus fingat. Ait enim: ‘Quae omnia sapiens seruabit tamquam legibus iussa, non tamquam dis grata. Et paulo post: <Quid quod et matrimonia, inquit, deorum iungimus, et ne pie quidem, fratrum ac sororum! Bellonam Marti conlocamus, Vulcano Venerem, Neptuno Salaciam. Quosdam tamen caelibes relinquimus, quasi condicio defecerit, praesertim cum quaedam uiduae sint, ut Populonia uel Fulgora et diua Rumina; quibus non miror petitorem defuisse. Omnem istam ignobilem deorum turbam, quam longo aeuo longa superstitio congessit, sic, inquit, adorabimus, ut meminerimus cultum eius magis ad morem quam ad rem pertinere’. Nec leges ergo illae nec mos in ciuili theologia id instituerunt, quod dis gratum esset uel ad rem pertineret. Sed iste, quem philosophi quasi liberum fecerunt, tamen, quia inlustris populi Romani senator erat, colebat quod reprehendebat, agebat quod arguebat, quod culpabat adorabat; quia uidelicet magnum aliquid eum philosophia docuerat, ne superstitiosus esset in mundo, sed propter leges ciuium moresque hominum non quidem ageret fingentem scaenicum in theatro, sed imitaretur in templo; eo damnabilius, quo illa, quae mendaciter agebat, sic ageret, ut eum populus ueraciter agere existimaret; scaenicus autem ludendo potius delectaret, quam fallendo deciperet.

### What Seneca Thought Concerning the Jews.

[¶21] Chapter 11.—What Seneca Thought Concerning the Jews.

> Latin: Caput XI. Quid de Iudaeis Seneca senserit.

[¶22] Seneca, among the other superstitions of civil theology, also found fault with the sacred things of the Jews, and especially the sabbaths, affirming that they act uselessly in keeping those seventh days, whereby they lose through idleness about the seventh part of their life, and also many things which demand immediate attention are damaged. The Christians, however, who were already most hostile to the Jews, he did not dare to mention, either for praise or blame, lest, if he praised them, he should do so against the ancient custom of his country, or, perhaps, if he should blame them, he should do so against his own will.

> Latin: Hic inter alias ciuilis theologiae superstitiones reprehendit etiam sacramenta Iudaeorum et maxime sabbata, inutiliter eos facere adfirmans, quod per illos singulos septem interpositos dies septimam fere partem aetatis suae perdant uacando et multa in tempore urgentia non agendo laedantur. Christianos tamen iam tunc Iudaeis inimicissimos in neutram partem commemorare ausus est, ne uel laudaret contra suae patriae ueterem consuetudinem, uel reprehenderet contra propriam forsitan uoluntatem.

[¶23] When he was speaking concerning those Jews, he said, “When, meanwhile, the customs of that most accursed nation have gained such strength that they have been now received in all 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 what he 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 taken away from the people of God, to whom the mystery of eternal life was revealed, we have both spoken elsewhere, especially when we were treating against the Manichæans, and also intend to speak in this work in a more suitable place.

> Latin: De illis sane Iudaeis cum loqueretur, ait: ‘Cum interim usque eo sceleratissimae gentis consuetudo conualuit, ut per omnes iam terras recepta sit: uicti uictoribus leges dederunt). Mirabatur haec dicens et quid diuinitus ageretur ignorans subiecit plane sententiam, qua significaret quid de illorum sacramentorum ratione sentiret. Ait enim: <Illi tamen causas ritus sui nouerunt; maior pars populi facit, quod quur faciat ignorat). Sed de sacramentis Iudaeorum, uel quur uel quatenus instituta sint auctoritate diuina, ac post modum a populo Dei, cui uitae aeternae mysterium reuelatum est, tempore quo oportuit eadem auctoritate sublata sint, et alias diximus, maxime cum aduersus Manichaeos ageremus, et in hoc opere loco opportuniore dicendum est.

## 34. That When Once the Vanity of the Gods of the Nations Has Been Exposed, It Cannot Be Doubted that They are Unable to Bestow Eternal Life on Any One, When They Cannot Afford Help Even with Respect to the Things Of this Temporal Life.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/34/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/34/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 12.—That When Once the Vanity of the Gods of the Nations Has Been Exposed, It Cannot Be Doubted that They are Unable to Bestow Eternal Life on Any One, When They Cannot Afford Help Even with Respect to the Things Of this Temporal Life.

> Latin: Caput XII. Quod gentilium deorum uanitate detecta nequeat dubitari aeternam eos uitam nemini posse praestare, qui nec ipsam adiuuent temporalem.

[¶1] Now, since there are three theologies, which the Greeks call respectively mythical, physical, and political, and which may be called in Latin fabulous, natural, and civil; and since neither from the fabulous, which even the worshippers of many 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 any of these theologies,—if any one thinks that what has been said in this book is not enough for him, let him also add to it the many and various dissertations concerning God as the giver of felicity, contained in the former books, especially the fourth one.

> Latin: Nunc propter tres theologias, quas Graeci dicunt mythicen physicen politicen, Latine autem dici possunt fabulosa naturalis ciuilis, quod neque de fabulosa, quam et ipsi deorum multorum falsorumque cultores liberrime reprehenderunt, neque de ciuili, cuius illa pars esse conuincitur eiusque et ista simillima uel etiam deterior inuenitur, speranda est aeterna uita, si cui satis non sunt quae in hoc uolumine dicta sunt, adiungat etiam illa, quae in superioribus libris et maxime quarto de felicitatis datore Deo plurima disputata sunt.

[¶2] For to what but to felicity should men consecrate themselves, were felicity a goddess? However, as it is not a goddess, but a gift of God, to what God but the giver of happiness ought we to consecrate ourselves, who piously love eternal life, in which there is true and full felicity? But I think, from what has been said, no one ought to doubt that none 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 that they are most foul spirits. Moreover, how can he give eternal life who cannot give happiness? For we mean by eternal life that life where there is endless happiness. For if the soul live in eternal punishments, by which also those unclean spirits shall be tormented, that is rather eternal death than eternal life. For there is no greater or worse death than when death never dies. But because the soul from its very nature, being created immortal, cannot be without some kind of life, its utmost death is alienation from the life of God in an eternity of punishment. So, then, He only who gives true happiness gives eternal life, that is, an endlessly happy life. And since those gods whom this civil theology worships have been proved to be unable to give this happiness, they ought not to be worshipped on account of those temporal and terrestrial things, as we showed in the five former books, much less on account of eternal life, which is to be after death, as we have sought to show in this one book especially, whilst the other books also lend it their co-operation. But since the strength of inveterate habit has its roots very deep, if any one thinks that I have not disputed sufficiently to show that this civil theology ought to be rejected and shunned, let him attend to another book which, with God’s help, is to be joined to this one.

> Latin: Nam cui nisi uni felicitati propter aeternam uitam consecrandi homines essent, si dea felicitas esset? Quia uero non dea, sed munus est dei: cui deo nisi datori felicitatis consecrandi sumus, qui aeternam uitam, ubi uera est et plena felicitas, pia caritate diligimus? Non autem esse datorem felicitatis quemquam istorum deorum, qui tanta turpitudine coluntur et. nisi ita colantur, multo turpius irascuntur adque ob hoc se spiritus inmundissimos confitentur, puto ex his, quae dicta sunt, neminem dubitare oportere. Porro qui non dat felicitatem, uitam quo modo dare posset aeternam? Eam quippe uitam aeternam dicimus, ubi est sine fine felicitas. Nam si anima in poenis uiuit aeternis, quibus et ipsi spiritus cruciabuntur inmundi. mors est illa potius aeterna quam uita. Nulla quippe maior et peior est mors, quam ubi non moritur mors. Sed quod animae natura, per id quod inmortalis creata est, sine qualicumque uita esse non potest, summa mors eius est alienatio a uita Dei in aeternitate supplicii. Vitam igitur aeternam, id est sine ullo fine felicem, solus ille dat, qui dat ueram felicitatem. Quam quoniam illi, quos colit theologia ista ciuilis, dare non posse conuicti sunt: non solum propter ista temporalia adque terrena, quod superioribus quinque libris ostendimus, sed multo magis propter uitam aeternam, quae post mortem futura est, quod isto uno etiam illis cooperantibus egimus, colendi non sunt. Sed quoniam ueternosae consuetudinis uis nimis in alto radices habet, si cui de ista ciuili theologia respuenda adque uitanda parum uideor disputasse, in aliud uolumen, quod huic opitulante Deo coniungendum est, animum intendat.

### Of the ‘select gods’ of the civil theology, and that eternal life is not obtained by worshipping them.

[¶4] Book VII.

> Latin: Liber VII

[¶5] Argument—In this book it is shown that eternal life is not obtained by the worship of Janus, Jupiter, Saturn, and the other “select gods” of the civil theology.

### Preface

[¶7] It will be the duty of those who are endowed with quicker and better understandings, in whose case the former books are sufficient, and more than sufficient, to effect their intended object, to bear with me with patience and equanimity whilst I attempt with more than ordinary diligence to tear up and eradicate depraved and ancient opinions hostile to the truth of piety, which the long-continued error of the human race has fixed very deeply in unenlightened minds; co-operating also in this, according to my little measure, with the grace of Him who, being the true God, is able to accomplish it, and on whose help I depend in my work; and, for the sake of others, such should not deem superfluous what they feel to be no longer necessary for themselves. A very great matter is at stake when the true and truly holy divinity is commended to men as that which they ought to seek after and to worship; not, however, on account of the transitory vapor of mortal life, but on account of life eternal, which alone is blessed, although the help necessary for this frail life we are now living is also afforded us by it.

> Latin: Diligentius me prauas et ueteres opiniones ueritati pietatis inimicas, quas tenebrosis animis altius et tenacius diuturnus humani generis error infixit, euellere adque exstirpare conantem et illius gratiae, qui hoc ut uerus Deus potest, pro meo modulo in eius adiutorio cooperantem ingenia celeriora adque meliora, quibus ad hanc rem superiores libri satis superque sufficiunt, patienter et aequanimiter ferre debebunt et propter alios non putare superfluum, quod iam sibi sentiunt non necessarium. Multum magna res agitur, cum uera et uere sancta diuinitas, quamuis ab ea nobis etiam huic, quam nunc gerimus, fragilitati necessaria subsidia praebeantur, non tamen propter mortalis uitae transitorium uaporem, sed propter uitam beatam, quae non nisi aeterna est, quaerenda et colenda praedicatur.

### 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.

[¶9] Chapter 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.

> Latin: Caput I. An cum in theologia ciuili deitatem non esse constiterit, in selectis dis eam inueniri posse credendum sit.

[¶10] If there is any one whom the sixth book, which I have last finished, 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 Greeks call θεότης;—if there is any one, I say, whom the sixth book has not persuaded that this divinity or deity is not to be found in that theology which they call civil, and which Marcus Varro has explained in sixteen books,—that is, that the happiness of eternal life is not attainable through the worship of gods such as states have established to be worshipped, and that in such a form,—perhaps, when he has read this book, he will not have anything further to desire in order to the clearing up of this question. For it is possible that some one may think that at least the select and chief gods, whom Varro comprised in his last book, and of whom we have not spoken sufficiently, are to be worshipped on account of the blessed life, which is none other than eternal. In respect to which matter I do not say what Tertullian said, perhaps more 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 selected for some greater and more excellent office: as in warfare, when recruits have been elected, there are some again elected from among those for the performance of some greater military service; and in the church, when persons are elected to be overseers, certainly the rest are not rejected, since all good Christians are deservedly called elect; in the erection of a building corner-stones are elected, though the other stones, which are destined for other parts of the structure, are not rejected; grapes are elected for eating, whilst the others, which we leave for drinking, are not rejected. There is no need of adducing many illustrations, since the thing is evident. Wherefore the selection of certain gods from among many affords no proper reason 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 for what purpose they may appear to have been selected.

> Latin: Hanc diuinitatem uel, ut sic dixerim, deitatem (nam et hoc uerbo uti iam nostros non piget, ut de Graeco expressius transferant quod illi […] appellant) — hanc ergo diuinitatem siue deitatem non esse in ea theologia, quam ciuilem uocant, quae a Marco Varrone sedecim uoluminibus explicata est, id est non perueniri ad aeternae uitae felicitatem talium deorum cultu, quales a ciuitatibus qualiterque colendi instituti sunt, cui nondum persuasit sextus liber, quem proxime absoluimus, cum istum forsitan legerit, quid de hac quaestione expedienda ulterius desideret, non habebit. Fieri enim potest, ut saltem deos selectos adque praecipuos, quos Varro uolumine conplexus est ultimo, de quibus parum diximus, quisquam colendos propter uitam beatam, quae non nisi aeterna est, opinetur. Qua in re non dico quod facetius ait Tertullianus fortasse quam uerius: Si di eliguntur ut bulbi, utique ceteri reprobi iudicantur. Non hoc dico: uideo enim etiam ex selectis selegi aliquos ad aliquid maius adque praestantius, sicut in militia, cum tirones electi fuerint, ex his quoque eliguntur ad opus aliquod maius armorum; et cum eliguntur in ecclesia, qui fiant praepositi, non utique ceteri reprobantur, cum omnes boni fideles electi merito nuncupentur. Eliguntur in aedificio lapides angulares, non reprobatis ceteris, qui structurae partibus aliis deputantur. Eliguntur uuae ad uescendum, nec reprobantur aliae, quas relinquimus ad bibendum. Non opus est multa percurrere, cum res in aperto sit. Quam ob rem non ex hoc, quod di ex multis quidam selecti sunt, uel. is qui scripsit uel eorum cultores uel di ipsi uituperandi sunt, sed aduertendum potius quinam isti sint et ad quam rem selecti uideantur.

### Who are the Select Gods, and Whether They are Held to Be Exempt from the Offices of the Commoner Gods.

[¶12] Chapter 2.—Who are the Select Gods, and Whether They are Held to Be Exempt from the Offices of the Commoner Gods.

> Latin: Caput II. Qui sint di selecti, et an ab officiis uiliorum deorum habeantur excepti.

[¶13] 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, Vesta; of which twenty gods, twelve are males, and eight females. Whether are these deities called select, because of their higher spheres of administration in the world, or because they have become better known to the people, and more worship has been expended on them? If it be on account of the greater works which are performed by them in the world, we ought not to have found them among that, as it were, plebeian crowd of deities, which has assigned to it the charge of minute and trifling things. For, first of all, at the conception of a fœtus, from which point all the works commence which have been distributed in minute detail to many deities, Janus himself opens the way for the reception of the seed; there also is Saturn, on account of the seed itself; there is Liber, who liberates the male by the effusion of the seed; there is Libera, whom they also would have to be Venus, who confers this same benefit on the woman, namely, that she also be liberated by the emission of the seed;—all these are of the number of those who are called select. But there is also the goddess Mena, who presides over the menses; though the daughter of Jupiter, ignoble nevertheless. And this province of the menses the same author, in his book on the select gods, assigns to Juno herself, who is even queen among the select gods; and here, as Juno Lucina, along with the same Mena, her stepdaughter, she presides over the same blood. There also are two gods, exceedingly obscure, Vitumnus and Sentinus—the one of whom imparts life to the fœtus, and the other sensation; and, of a truth, they bestow, most ignoble though they be, far more than all those noble and select gods bestow. For, surely, without life and sensation, what is the whole fœtus which a woman carries in her womb, but a most vile and worthless thing, no better than slime and dust?

> Latin: Hos certe deos selectos Varro unius libri contextione commendat: Ianum, Iouem, Saturnum, Genium, Mercurium, Apollinem, Martem, Vulcanum, Neptunum, Solem, Orcum, Liberum patrem, Tellurem, Cererem, Iunonem, Lunam, Dianam, Mineruam, Venerem, Vestam; in quibus omnibus ferme uiginti duodecim mares, octo sunt feminae. Haec numina utrum propter maiores in mundo administrationes selecta dicuntur, an quod populis magis innotuerunt maiorque est eis cultus exhibitus? Si propterea, quia opera maiora ab his administrantur in mundo, non eos inuenire debuimus inter illam quasi plebeiam numinum multitudinem minutis opusculis deputatam. Nam ipse primum Ianus, cum puerperium concipitur, unde illa cuncta opera sumunt exordium minutatim minutis distributa numinibus, aditum aperit recipiendo semini. Ibi est et Saturnus propter ipsum semen; ibi Liber, qui marem effuso semine liberat; ibi Libera, quam et Venerem uolunt, quae hoc idem beneficium conferat feminae, ut etiam ipsa emisso semine liberetur. Omnes hi ex illis sunt, qui selecti appellantur. Sed ibi est et dea Mena, quae menstruis fluoribus praeest, quamuis Iouis filia, tamen ignobilis. Et hanc prouinciam fluorum menstruorum in libro selectorum deorum ipsi Iunoni idem auctor adsignat, quae in dis selectis etiam regina est et hic tamquam Iuno Lucina cum eadem Mena priuigna sua eidem cruori praesidet. Ibi sunt et duo nescio qui obscurissimi, Vitumnus et Sentinus, quorum alter uitam, alter sensus puerperio largiuntur. Et nimirum multo plus praestant, cum sint ignobilissimi, quam illi tot proceres et selecti. Nam profecto sine uita et sensu, quid est illud totum, quod muliebri utero geritur, nisi nescio quid abiectissimum limo ac pulueri conparandum?

### 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 Inferior Gods.

[¶15] Chapter 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 Inferior Gods.

> Latin: Caput III. Quam nulla sit ratio, quae de selectione quorundam deorum possit ostendi, cum multis inferioribus excellentior administratio deputetur.

[¶16] What is the cause, therefore, which has driven so many select gods to these very small works, in which they are excelled by Vitumnus and Sentinus, though little known and sunk in obscurity, inasmuch as they confer the munificent gifts of life and sensation? For the select Janus bestows an entrance, and, as it were, a door for the seed; the select Saturn bestows the seed itself; the select Liber bestows on men the emission of the same seed; Libera, who is Ceres or Venus, 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 the obscure and ignoble Sentinus confers sensation;—which two last things are as much more excellent than the others, as they themselves are excelled by reason and intellect. For as those things which reason and understand are preferable to those which, without intellect and reason, as in the case of cattle, live and feel; so also those things which have been endowed with life and sensation are deservedly preferred to those things which neither live nor feel. Therefore Vitumnus the life-giver, and Sentinus the sense-giver, ought to have been reckoned among the select gods, rather than Janus the admitter of seed, and Saturn the giver or sower of seed, and Liber and Libera the movers and liberators of seed; which seed is not worth a thought, unless it attain to life and sensation. Yet these select gifts are not given by select gods, but by certain unknown, and, considering their dignity, neglected gods. But if it be replied that Janus has dominion over all beginnings, and therefore the opening of the way for conception is not without reason assigned to him; and that Saturn has dominion over all seeds, and therefore the sowing of the seed whereby a human being is generated cannot be excluded from his operation; that Liber and Libera have power over the emission of all seeds, and therefore preside over those seeds which pertain to the procreation of men; that Juno presides over all purgations and births, and therefore she has also charge of the purgations of women and the births of human beings;—if they give this reply, let them find an answer to the question concerning Vitumnus and Sentinus, whether they are willing that these likewise should have dominion over all things which live and feel. If they grant this, let them observe in how sublime a position they are about to place them. For to spring from seeds is in the earth and of the earth, but to live and feel are supposed to be properties even of the sidereal gods. But if they say that only such things as come to life in flesh, and are supported by senses, are assigned to Sentinus, why does not that God who made all things live and feel, bestow on flesh also life and sensation, in the universality of His operation conferring also on fœtuses this gift? And what, then, is the use of Vitumnus and Sentinus? But if these, as it were, extreme and lowest things have been committed by Him who presides universally over life and sense to these gods as to servants, are these select gods then so destitute of servants, that they could not find any to whom even they might commit those things, but with all their dignity, for which they are, it seems, deemed worthy to be selected, were compelled to perform their work along with ignoble ones? Juno is select queen of the gods, and the sister and wife of Jupiter; nevertheless she is Iterduca, the conductor, to boys, and performs this work along with a most ignoble pair—the goddesses Abeona and Adeona. There they have also placed the goddess Mena, who gives to boys a good mind, 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, and who conducts him home again); as if it is of any advantage for one to make a journey, and to be conducted home again, if his mind is not good. And yet the goddess who bestows that gift has not been placed by the selectors among the select gods, though she ought indeed to have been preferred even to Minerva, to whom, in this minute distribution of work, they have allotted the memory of boys. For who will doubt that it is a far better thing to have a good mind, than ever so great a memory? For no one is bad who has a good mind; but some who are very bad are possessed of an admirable memory, and are so much the worse, the less they are able to forget the bad things which they think. And yet Minerva is among the select gods, whilst the goddess Mena is hidden by a worthless crowd. What shall I say concerning Virtus? What concerning Felicitas?—concerning whom I have already spoken much in the fourth book; to whom, though they held them to be goddesses, they have not thought fit to assign a place among the select gods, among whom they have given a place to Mars and Orcus, the one the causer of death, the other the receiver of the dead.

> Latin: Quae igitur causa tot selectos deos ad haec opera minima conpulit, ubi a Vitumno et Sentino, quos fama obscura recondit, in huius munificentiae partitione superentur? Confert enim selectus Ianus aditum et quasi ianuam semini; confert selectus Saturnus semen ipsum; confert selectus Liber eiusdem seminis emissionem uiris; confert hoc idem Libera, quae Ceres seu Venus est, feminis; confert selecta Iuno, et hoc non sola, sed cum Mena, filia Iouis, fluores menstruos ad eius, quod conceptum est, incrementum: et confert Vitumnus obscurus et ignobilis uitam; confert Sentinus obscurus et ignobilis sensum; quae duo tanto illis rebus praestantiora sunt, quanto et ipsa intellectu ac ratione uincuntur. Sicut enim, quae ratiocinantur et intellegunt, profecto potiora sunt his, quae sine intellectu adque ratione ut pecora uiuunt et sentiunt: ita et illa, quae uita sensuque sunt praedita, his, quae nec uiuunt nec sentiunt, merito praeferuntur. Inter selectos itaque deos Vitumnus uiuificator et Sentinus sensificator magis haberi debuerunt quam Ianus seminis admissor et Saturnus seminis dator uel sator et Liber et Libera seminum commotores uel emissores; quae semina cogitare indignum est, nisi ad uitam sensumque peruenerint, quae munera selecta non dantur a dis selectis, sed a quibusdam incognitis et prae istorum dignitate neglectis. Quod si respondetur omnium initiorum potestatem habere Ianum et ideo illi etiam quod aperitur conceptui non inmerito adtribui, et omnium seminum Saturnum et ideo seminationem quoque hominis non posse ab eius operatione seiungi, omnium seminum emittendorum Liberum et Liberam et ideo his etiam praeesse. quae ad substituendos homines pertinent, omnium purgandorum et pariendorum Iunonem et ideo eam non deesse purgationibus feminarum et partubus hominum: quaerant quid respondeant de Vitumno et Sentino, utrum et ipsos uelint habere omnium quae uiuunt et sentiunt potestatem. Quod si concedunt, adtendant quam eos sublimius locaturi sint. Nam seminibus nasci in terra et ex terra est; uiuere autem adque sentire etiam deos sidereos opinantur. Si autem dicunt Vitumno adque Sentino haec sola adtributa, quae in carne uiuescunt et sensibus adminiculantur, quur non. deus ille, qui facit omnia uiuere adque sentire, etiam carni uitam praebet et sensum, uniuersali opere hoc munus etiam partubus tribuens? et quid opus est Vitumno adque Sentino? Quod si ab illo, qui uitae ac sensibus uniuersaliter praesidet, his quasi famulis ista carnalia uelut extrema et ima commissa sunt: itane sunt illi selecti destituti familia, ut non inuenirent quibus etiam ipsi ista committerent, sed cum tota sua nobilitate, qua uisi sunt seligendi, opus facere cum ignobilibus cogerentur? Iuno selecta et regina Iouisque et soror et coniunx; haec tamen Iterduca est pueris et opus facit cum deabus ignobilissimis Abeona et Adeona. Ibi posuerunt et Mentem deam, quae faciat pueris bonam mentem, et inter selectos ista non ponitur, quasi quidquam maius praestari homini potest; ponitur autem Iuno, quia Iterduca est et Domiduca, quasi quidquam prosit iter carpere et domum duci, si mens non est bona, cuius muneris deam selectores isti inter selecta numina minime posuerunt. Quae profecto et Mineruae fuerat praeferenda, cui per ista minuta opera puerorum memoriam tribuerunt. Quis enim dubitet multo esse melius habere bonam mentem quam memoriam quantumlibet ingentem? Nemo enim malus est, qui bonam habet mentem; quidam uero pessimi memoria sunt mirabili, tanto peiores quanto minus possunt quod male cogitant obliuisci. Et tamen Minerua est inter selectos deos; Mentem autem deam turba uilis operuit. Quid de Virtute dicam? quid de Felicitate? de quibus in quarto libro plura iam diximus; quas cum deas haberent, nullum eis locum inter selectos deos dare uoluerunt, ubi dederunt Marti et Orco, uni effectori mortium alteri receptori.

[¶17] Since, therefore, we see that even the select gods themselves work together with the others, like a senate with the people, in all those minute works which have been minutely portioned out among many gods; and since we find that far greater and better things are administered by certain gods who have not been reckoned worthy to be selected than by those who are called select, it remains that we suppose that they were called select and chief, not on account of their holding more exalted offices in the world, but because it happened to them to become better known to the people. And even Varro himself says, that in that way obscurity had fallen to the lot of some father gods and mother goddesses, as it fails to the lot of man. If, therefore, Felicity ought not perhaps to have been put among the select gods, because they did not attain to that noble position by merit, but by chance, Fortune at least should have been placed among them, or rather before them; for they say that that goddess distributes to every one the gifts she receives, not according to any rational arrangement, but according as chance may determine. She ought to have held the uppermost place among the select gods, for among them chiefly it is that she shows what power she has. For we see that they have been selected not on account of some eminent virtue or rational happiness, but by that random power of Fortune which the worshippers of these gods think that she exerts. For that most eloquent man Sallust also may perhaps have the gods themselves in view when he says: “But, in truth, fortune rules in everything; it renders all things famous or obscure, according to caprice rather than according to truth.” For they cannot discover a reason why Venus should have been made famous, whilst Virtus has been made obscure, when the divinity of both of them has been solemnly recognized by them, and their merits are not to be compared. Again, if she has deserved a noble position on account of the fact that she is much sought after—for there are more who seek after Venus than after Virtus—why has Minerva been celebrated whilst Pecunia has been left in obscurity, although throughout the whole human race avarice allures a far greater number than skill? And even among those who are skilled in the arts, you will rarely find a man who does not practise his own art for the purpose of pecuniary gain; and that for the sake of which anything is made, is always valued more than that which is made for the sake of something else. If, then, this selection of gods has been made by the judgment of the foolish multitude, why has not the goddess Pecunia been preferred to Minerva, since there are many artificers for the sake of money? But if this distinction has been made by the few wise, why has Virtus been preferred 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, renders all things famous or obscure according to caprice rather than according to the truth—since she has been able to exercise so much power even over the gods, as, according to her capricious judgment, to render those of them famous whom she would, and those obscure whom she would; Fortune herself ought to occupy the place of pre-eminence among the select gods, since over them also she has such pre-eminent power. Or must we suppose that the reason why she is not among the select is simply this, that even Fortune herself has had an adverse fortune? She was adverse, then, to herself, since, whilst ennobling others, she herself has remained obscure.

> Latin: Cum igitur in his minutis operibus, quae minutatim dis pluribus distributa sunt, etiam ipsos selectos uideamus tamquam senatum cum plebe pariter operari, et inueniamus a quibusdam dis, qui nequaquam seligendi putati sunt, multa maiora adque meliora administrari quam ab illis, qui selecti uocantur: restat arbitrari non propter praestantiores in mundo administrationes, sed quia prouenit eis, ut magis populis innotescerent, selectos eos et praecipuos nuncupatos. Unde dicit etiam ipse Varro, quod dis quibusdam patribus et deabus matribus, sicut hominibus, ignobilitas accidisset. Si ergo Felicitas ideo fortasse inter selectos deos esse non debuit, quod ad istam nobilitatem non merito, sed fortuito peruenerunt: saltem inter illos uel potius prae illis Fortuna poneretur, quam dicunt deam non rationabili dispositione, sed ut temere acciderit, sua cuique dona conferre. Haec in dis selectis tenere apicem debuit, in quibus maxime quid posset ostendit; quando eos uidemus non praecipua uirtute, non rationabili felicitate, sed temeraria, sicut eorum cultores de illa sentiunt, Fortunae potestate selectos. Nam et uir disertissimus Sallustius etiam ipsos deos fortassis adtendit, cum diceret: ‘Sed profecto fortuna in omni re dominatur; ea res cunctas ex libidine magis quam ex uero celebrat obscuratque.’ Non enim possunt inuenire causam, quur celebrata sit Venus et obscurata sit Virtus, cum ambarum ab istis consecrata sint numina nec conparanda sint merita. Aut si hoc nobilitari meruit, quod plures adpetunt, plures enim Venerem quam Virtutem: quur celebrata est dea Minerua et obscurata est dea Pecunia? cum in genere humano plures adliciat auaritia quam peritia, et in eis ipsis, qui sunt artificiosi, raro inuenias hominem, qui non habeat artem suam pecuniaria mercede uenalem, plurisque pendatur semper propter quod aliquid fit, quam id quod propter aliud fit. Si ergo insipientis iudicio multitudinis facta est deorum ista selectio, quur dea Pecunia Mineruae praelata non est, cum propter pecuniam sint artifices multi? Si autem paucorum sapientium est ista distinctio, quur non praelata est Veneri Virtus, cum eam longe praeferat ratio? Saltem certe, ut dixi, ipsa Fortuna, quae, sicut putant qui ei plurimum tribuunt, in omni re dominatur et res cunctas ex libidine magis quam ex uero celebrat obscuratque, si tantum et in deos ualuit, ut temerario iudicio suo quos uellet celebraret obscuraretque quos uellet, praecipuum locum haberet in selectis, quae in ipsos quoque deos tam praecipuae est potestatis. An ut illic esse non posset, nihil aliud etiam ipsa Fortuna nisi aduersam putanda est habuisse fortunam? Sibi ergo aduersata est, quae alios nobiles faciens nobilitata non est.

### The Inferior Gods, Whose Names are Not Associated with Infamy, Have Been Better Dealt with Than the Select Gods, Whose Infamies are Celebrated.

[¶19] Chapter 4.—The Inferior Gods, Whose Names are Not Associated with Infamy, Have Been Better Dealt with Than the Select Gods, Whose Infamies are Celebrated.

> Latin: Caput IV. Melius actum cum dis inferioribus, qui nullis infamentur obprobriis, quam cum selectis, quorum tantae turpitudines celebrentur.

[¶20] However, any one who eagerly seeks for celebrity and renown, might congratulate those select gods, and call them fortunate, were it not that he saw that they have been selected more to their injury than to their honor. For that low crowd of gods have been protected by their very meanness and obscurity from being overwhelmed with infamy. We laugh, indeed, when we see them distributed by the mere fiction of human opinions, according to the special works assigned to them, like those who farm small portions of the public 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 been finished by one perfect workman. But the only reason why the combined skill of many workmen was thought necessary, was, that it is better that each part of an art should be learned by a special workman, which can be done speedily and easily, than that they should all be compelled to be perfect in one art throughout all its parts, which they could only attain slowly and with difficulty. Nevertheless there is scarcely to be found one of the non-select gods who has brought infamy on himself by any crime, whilst there is scarce any one of the select gods who has not received upon himself the brand of notable infamy. These latter have descended to the humble works of the others, whilst the others have not come up to their sublime crimes. Concerning Janus, there does not readily occur to my recollection anything infamous; and perhaps he was such an one as lived more innocently than the rest, and further removed from misdeeds and crimes. He kindly received and entertained Saturn when he was fleeing; he divided his kingdom with his guest, so that each of them had a city for himself, the one Janiculum, and the other Saturnia. But those seekers after every kind of unseemliness in the worship of the gods have disgraced him, whose life they found to be less disgracful than that of the other gods, with an image of monstrous deformity, making it sometimes with two faces, and sometimes, as it were, double, with four faces. Did they wish that, as the most of the select gods had lost shame through the perpetration of shameful crimes, his greater innocence should be marked by a greater number of faces?

> Latin: Gratularetur autem dis istis selectis quisquam nobilitatis et claritudinis adpetitor et eos diceret fortunatos, si non eos magis ad iniurias quam ad honores selectos uideret. Nam illam infimam turbam ipsa ignobilitas texit, ne obrueretur obprobriis. Ridemus quidem, cum eos uidemus figmentis humanarum opinionum partitis inter se operibus distributos, tamquam minuscularios uectigalium conductores uel tamquam opifices in uico argentario, ubi unum uasculum, ut perfectum exeat, per multos artifices transit, cum ab uno perfecto perfici posset. Sed aliter non putatum est operantium multitudini consulendum, nisi ut singulas artis partes cito ac facile discerent singuli, ne omnes in arte una tarde ac difficile cogerentur esse perfecti. Verum tamen uix quisquam reperitur deorum non selectorum, qui aliquo crimine famam traxit infamem; uix autem selectorum quispiam, qui non in se notam contumeliae insignis acceperit. Illi ad istorum humilia opera descenderunt, isti in illorum sublimia crimina non uenerunt. De Iano quidem non mihi facile quidquam occurrit, quod ad probrum pertineat. Et fortasse talis fuerit, innocentius uixerit et a facinoribus flagitiisque remotius. Saturnum fugientem benignus excepit; cum hospite partitus est regnum, ut etiam ciuitates singulas conderent, iste laniculum, ille Saturniam. Sed isti in cultu deorum omnis dedecoris adpetitores, cuius uitam minus turpem inuenerunt, eum simulacri monstrosa deformitate turparunt, nunc eum bifrontem, nunc etiam quadrifrontem, tamquam geminum, facientes. An forte uoluerunt, ut, quoniam plurimi di selecti erubescenda perpetrando amiserant frontem, quanto iste innocentior esset, tanto frontosior appareret?

### Concerning the More Secret Doctrine of the Pagans, and Concerning the Physical Interpretations.

[¶22] Chapter 5.—Concerning the More Secret Doctrine of the Pagans, and Concerning the Physical Interpretations.

> Latin: Caput V. De paganorum secretiore doctrina physicisque rationibus.

[¶23] But let us hear their own physical interpretations by which they attempt to color, as with the appearance of profounder doctrine, the baseness of most miserable error. Varro, in the first place, commends these interpretations so strongly as to say, that the ancients invented the images, badges, and adornments of the gods, in order that when those who went to the mysteries should see them with their bodily eyes, they might with the eyes of their mind see the soul of the world, and its parts, that is, the true gods; and also that the meaning which was intended by those who made their images with the human form, seemed to be this,—namely, that the mind of mortals, which is in a human body, is very like to the immortal mind, just as vessels might be placed to represent the gods, as, for instance, a wine-vessel 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 rational soul was signified, because the human form is the vessel, as it were, in which that nature is wont to be contained which they attribute to God, or to the gods. These are the mysteries of doctrine to which that most learned man penetrated in order that he might bring them forth to the light. But, O thou most acute man, hast thou lost among those mysteries that prudence which led thee to form the sober opinion, that those who first established those images for the people took away fear from the citizens and added error, and that the ancient Romans honored the gods more chastely without images? For it was through consideration of them that thou wast emboldened 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 fear all those sentiments (true sentiments, nevertheless) concerning the folly of setting up images, and wouldst have extolled more loftily, and more loquaciously, those mysterious doctrines consisting of these vain and pernicious fictions. Thy soul, so learned and so clever (and for this I grieve much for thee), could never through these mysteries have reached its God; that is, the God by whom, not with whom, it was made, of whom it is not a part, but a work,—that God who is not the soul of all things, but who made every soul, and in whose light alone every soul is blessed, if it be not ungrateful for His grace.

> Latin: Sed ipsorum potius interpretationes physicas audiamus, quibus turpitudinem miserrimi erroris uelut altioris doctrinae specie colorare conantur. Primum eas interpretationes sic Varro commendat, ut dicat antiquos simulacra deorum et insignia ornatusque finxisse, quae cum oculis animaduertissent hi, qui adissent doctrinae mysteria, possent animam mundi ac partes eius, id est deos ueros, animo uidere; quorum qui simulacra specie hominis fecerunt, hoc uideri secutos, quod mortalium animus, qui est in corpore humano, simillimus est inmortalis animi; tamquam si uasa ponerentur causa notandorum deorum et in Liberi aede oenophorum sisteretur, quod significaret uinum, per id quod continet id quod continetur; ita per simulacrum, quod formam haberet humanam, significari animam rationalem, quod eo uelut uase natura ista soleat contineri, cuius naturae deum uolunt esse uel deos. Haec sunt mysteria doctrinae, quae iste uir doctissimus penetrauerat, unde in lucem ista proferret. Sed, o homo acutissime, num in istis doctrinae mysteriis illam prudentiam perdidisti, qua tibi sobrie uisum est, quod hi, qui primi populis simulacra constituerunt, et metum demserunt ciuibus suis et errorem addiderunt, castiusque deos sine simulacris ueteres obseruasse Romanos? Hi enim tibi fuerunt auctores, ut haec contra posteriores Romanos dicere auderes. Nam si et illi antiquissimi simulacra coluissent, fortassis totum istum sensum de simulacris non constituendis, interim uerum, timoris silentio premeres et in huiusce modi perniciosis uanisque figmentis mysteria ista doctrinae loquacius et elatius praedicares. Anima tua tamen tam docta et ingeniosa (ubi te multum dolemus) per haec mysteria doctrinae ad Deum suum, id est a quo facta est, non cum quo facta est; nec cuius portio, sed cuius conditio est; nec qui est omnium anima, sed qui fecit omnem animam, quo solo inlustrante anima fit beata, si eius gratiae non sit ingrata, nullo modo potuit peruenire.

[¶24] But the things which follow in this book will show what is the nature of these mysteries, and what value is to be set upon them. Meanwhile, this most learned man confesses as his opinion that the soul of the world and its parts are the true gods, from which we perceive that his theology (to wit, that same natural theology to which he pays great regard) has been able, in its completeness, to extend itself even to the nature of the rational soul. For in this book (concerning the select gods) he says a very few things by anticipation concerning the natural theology; and we shall see whether he has been able in that book, by means of physical interpretations, to refer to this natural theology that civil theology, concerning which he wrote last when treating of the select gods. Now, if he has been able to do this, the whole is natural; and in 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 this natural theology with which he is so much pleased is true (for though it has reached as far as the soul, it has not reached to the true God who made the soul), how much more contemptible and false is that civil theology which is chiefly occupied about what is corporeal, as will be shown by its very interpretations, which they have with such diligence sought out and enucleated, some of which I must necessarily mention!

> Latin: Verum ista mysteria doctrinae qualia sint quantique pendenda, quae sequuntur ostendent. Fatetur interim uir iste doctissimus animam mundi ac partes eius esse ueros deos; unde intellegitur totam eius theologian, eam ipsam scilicet naturalem, cui plurimum tribuit, usque ad animae rationalis naturam se extendere potuisse. De naturali enim paucissima praeloquitur in hoc libro, quem de dis selectis ultimum scripsit; in quo uidebimus utrum per interpretationes physiologicas possit ad hanc naturalem referre ciuilem. Quod si potuerit, tota naturalis erit: et quid opus erat ab ea ciuilem tanta cura distinctionis abiungere? Si autem recto discrimine separata est: quando nec ista uera est quae illi naturalis placet (peruenit enim usque ad animam, non usque ad uerum Deum qui fecit et animam), quanto est abiectior et falsior ista ciuilis, quae maxime circa corporum est occupata naturam, sicut ipsae interpretationes eius, ex quibus quaedam necessaria commemorare me oportet, tanta ab ipsis exquisitae et enucleatae diligentia demonstrabunt.

## 35. Concerning the Opinion of Varro, that God is the Soul of the World, Which Nevertheless, in Its Various Parts, Has Many Souls Whose Nature is Divine.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/35/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/35/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 6.—Concerning the Opinion of Varro, that God is the Soul of the World, Which Nevertheless, in Its Various Parts, Has Many Souls Whose Nature is Divine.

> Latin: Caput VI. De opinione Varronis, qua arbitratus est Deum animam esse mundi, qui tamen in partibus suis habeat animas multas, quarum diuina natura sit.

[¶1] The same Varro, then, still speaking by anticipation, says that he thinks that God is the soul of the world (which the Greeks call κόσμος), and that this world itself is God; but as a wise man, though he consists of body and mind, is nevertheless called wise on account of his mind, so the world is called God on account of mind, although it consists of mind and body. Here he seems, in some fashion at least, to acknowledge one God; but that he may introduce more, he adds that the world is divided into two parts, heaven and earth, which are 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. All these four parts, he says, are full of souls; those which are in the ether and air being immortal, and those which are in the water and on the earth mortal. From the highest part of the heavens to the orbit of the moon there are souls, namely, the stars and planets; and these are not only understood to be gods, but are seen to be such. And between the orbit of the moon and the commencement of the region of clouds and winds there are aerial souls; but these are seen with the mind, not with the eyes, and are called Heroes, and Lares, and Genii. This is the natural theology which is briefly set forth in these anticipatory statements, and which satisfied not Varro only, but many philosophers besides. This I must discuss more carefully, when, with the help of God, I shall have completed what I have yet to say concerning the civil theology, as far as it concerns the select gods.

> Latin: Dicit ergo idem Varro adhuc de naturali theologia praeloquens deum se arbitrari esse animam mundi, quem Graeci uocant xo[i.ov, et hunc ipsum mundum esse deum; sed sicut hominem sapientem, cum sit ex corpore et animo, tamen ab animo dici sapientem, ita mundum deum dici ab animo, cum sit ex animo et corpore. Hic uidetur quoquo modo unum confiteri Deum; sed ut plures etiam introducat, adiungit mundum diuidi in duas partes, caelum et terram; et caelum bifariam, in aethera et aera; terram uero in aquam et humum; e quibus summum esse aethera, secundum aera, tertiam aquam, infimam terram; quas omnes partes quattuor animarum esse plenas, in aethere et aere inmortalium, in aqua et terra mortalium. Ab summo autem circuitu caeli ad circulum lunae aetherias animas esse astra ac stellas; eos caelestes deos non modo intellegi esse, sed etiam uideri; inter lunae uero gyrum et nimborum ac uentorum cacumina aerias esse animas, sed eas animo, non oculis uideri et uocari heroas et lares et genios. Haec est uidelicet breuiter in ista praelocutione proposita theologia naturalis, quae non huic tantum, sed multis philosophis placuit; de qua tunc diligentius disserendum est, cum de ciuili, quantum ad deos selectos adtinet, opitulante Deo uero quod restat inpleuero.

### Whether It is Reasonable to Separate Janus and Terminus as Two Distinct Deities.

[¶3] Chapter 7.—Whether It is Reasonable to Separate Janus and Terminus as Two Distinct Deities.

> Latin: Caput VII. An rationabile fuerit Ianum et Terminum in duo numina _ separari.

[¶4] Who, then, is Janus, with whom Varro commences? He is the world. Certainly a very brief and unambiguous reply. Why, then, do they say that the beginnings of things pertain to him, but the ends to another whom they call Terminus? For they say that two months have been dedicated to these two gods, with reference to beginnings and ends—January to Janus, and February to Terminus—over and above those ten months which commence with March and end with December. And they say that that is the reason why the Terminalia are celebrated in the month of February, the same month in which the sacred purification is made which they call Februum, and from which the month derives its name. Do the beginnings of things, therefore, pertain to the world, which is Janus, and not also the ends, since another god has been placed over them? Do they not own that all things which they say begin in this world also come to an end in this world? What folly it is, to give him only half power in work, when in his image they give him two faces! Would it not be a far more elegant way of interpreting the two-faced image, to say that Janus and Terminus are the same, and that the one face has reference to beginnings, the other to ends? For one who works ought to have respect to both. For he who in every forthputting of activity does not look back on the beginning, does not look forward to the end. Wherefore it is necessary that prospective intention be connected with retrospective memory. For how shall one find how to finish anything, if he has forgotten what it was which he had begun? But if they thought that the blessed life is begun in this world, and perfected beyond the world, and for that reason attributed to Janus, that is, to the world, only the power of beginnings, they should certainly have preferred Terminus to him, and should not have shut him out from the number of the select gods. Yet even now, when the beginnings and ends of temporal things are represented by these two gods, more honor ought to have been given to Terminus. For the greater joy is that which is felt when anything is finished; but things begun are always cause of much anxiety until they are brought to an end, which end he who begins anything very greatly longs for, fixes his mind on, expects, desires; nor does any one ever rejoice over anything he has begun, unless it be brought to an end.

> Latin: lanus igitur, a quo sumsit exordium, quaero quisnam sit. Respondetur: Mundus est. Breuis haec plane est adque aperta responsio. Quur ergo ad eum dicuntur rerum initia pertinere, fines uero ad alterum, quem Terminum uocant? Nam propter initia et fines duobus istis dis duos menses perhibent dedicatos praeter illos decem, quibus usque ad Decembrem caput est Martius, Ianuarium lano, Februarium Termino. Ideo Terminalia eodem mense Februario celebrari dicunt, cum fit sacrum purgatorium, quod uocant Februm, unde mensis nomen accepit. Numquid ergo ad mundum, qui lanus est, initia rerum pertinent et fines non pertinent, ut alter illis deus praeficeretur? Nonne omnia, quae in hoc mundo fieri dicunt, in hoc etiam mundo terminari fatentur? Quae est ista uanitas, in opere illi dare potestatem dimidiam, in simulacro faciem duplam? Nonne istum bifrontem multo elegantius interpretarentur, si eundem et Ianum et Terminum dicerent adque initiis unam faciem, finibus alteram darent? quoniam qui operatur utrumque debet intendere; in omni enim motu actionis suae qui non respicit initium non prospicit finem. Unde necesse est a memoria respiciente prospiciens conectatur intentio; nam cui exciderit quod coeperit, quo modo finiat non inueniet. Quod si uitam beatam in hoc mundo inchoari putarent, extra mundum perfici, et ideo Iano, id est mundo, solam initiorum tribuerent potestatem: profecto ei praeponerent Terminum eumque ab dis selectis non alienarent. Quamquam etiam nunc cum in istis duobus dis initia rerum temporalium finesque tractantur, Termino dari debuit plus honoris. Maior enim laetitia est, cum res quaeque perficitur; sollicitudinis autem plena sunt coepta, donec perducantur ad finem, quem qui aliquid incipit maxime adpetit intendit, expectat exoptat, nec de re inchoata, nisi terminetur, exultat.

### For What Reason the Worshippers of Janus Have Made His Image with Two Faces, When They Would Sometimes Have It Be Seen with Four.

[¶6] Chapter 8.—For What Reason the Worshippers of Janus Have Made His Image with Two Faces, When They Would Sometimes Have It Be Seen with Four.

> Latin: Caput VIII. Ob quam causam cultores Iani bifrontem imaginem ipsius finxerint, quam tamen etiam quadrifrontem uideri uolunt.

[¶7] But now let the interpretation of the two-faced image be produced. For they say that it has two faces, one before and one behind, because our gaping mouths seem to resemble the world: whence the Greeks call the palate οὐρανός, and some Latin poets, he says, have called the heavens palatum [the palate]; and from the gaping mouth, they say, there is a way out in the direction of the teeth, and a way in in the direction of the gullet. See what the world has been brought to on account of a Greek or a poetical word for our palate! Let this god be worshipped only on account of saliva, which has two open doorways under the heavens of the palate,—one through which part of it may be spitten out, the other through which part of it may be swallowed down. Besides, what is more absurd than not to find in the world itself two doorways opposite to each other, through which it may either receive anything into itself, or cast it out from itself; and to seek of our throat and gullet, to which the world has no resemblance, to make up an image of the world in Janus, because the world is said to resemble the palate, to which Janus bears no likeness? But when they make him four-faced, and call him double Janus, they interpret this as having reference to the four quarters of the world, as though the world looked out on anything, like Janus through his four faces. Again, if Janus is the world, and the world consists of four quarters, then the image of the two-faced Janus is false. Or if it is true, because the whole world is sometimes understood by the expression east and west, will any one call the world double when north and south also are mentioned, as they call Janus double when he has four faces? They have no way at all of interpreting, in relation to the world, four doorways by which to go in and to come out as they did in the case of the two-faced Janus, where they found, at any rate in the human mouth, something which answered to what they said about him; unless perhaps Neptune come to their aid, and hand them a fish, which, besides the mouth and gullet, has also the openings of the gills, one on each side. Nevertheless, with all the doors, no soul escapes this vanity but that one which hears the truth saying, “I am the door.”

> Latin: Sed iam bifrontis simulacri interpretatio proferatur. Duas eum facies ante et retro habere dicunt, quod hiatus noster, cum os aperimus, mundo similis uideatur; unde et palatum Graeci copavov appellant, et nonnulli, inquit, poetae Latini caelum uocauerunt palatum, a quo hiatu oris et foras esse aditum ad dentes uersus et introrsus ad fauces. Ecce quo perductus est mundus propter palati nostri uocabulum uel Graecum uel poeticum. Quid autem hoc ad animam, quid ad uitam aeternam? Propter solas saliuas colatur hic deus, quibus partim glutiendis partim spuendis sub caelo palati utraque panditur ianua. Quid est porro absurdius, quam in ipso mundo non inuenire duas ianuas ex aduerso sitas, per quas uel ad. mittat ad se aliquid intro uel emittat a se foras, et de nostro ore et gutture, quorum similitudinem mundus non habet, uelle mundi simulacrum conponere in Iano propter solum I palatum, cuius similitudinem Ianus non habet? Cum uero eum faciunt quadrifrontem et Ianum geminum appellant, ad quattuor mundi partes hoc interpretantur, quasi aliquid spectet mundus foras sicut per omnes facies Ianus. Deinde si Ianus est mundus et mundus quattuor partibus constat, falsum est simulacrum Iani bifrontis; aut si propterea uerum est, quia etiam nomine Orientis et Occidentis totus solet mundus intellegi, numquid, cum duas partes alias nominamus Septentrionis et Austri, sicut illum quadrifrontem dicunt geminum Ianum, ita quisquam geminum dicturus est mundum? Non habent omnino unde quattuor ianuas, quae intrantibus et exeuntibus pateant, interpretentur ad mundi similitudinem, sicut de bifronti quod dicerent saltem in ore hominis inuenerunt, nisi Neptunus forte subueniat et porrigat piscem, cui praeter hiatum oris et gutturis etiam dextra et sinistra fauces patent. Et tamen hanc uanitatem per tot ianuas nulla effugit anima, nisi quae audit ueritatem dicentem: Ego sum ianua.

### Concerning the Power of Jupiter, and a Comparison of Jupiter with Janus.

[¶9] Chapter 9.—Concerning the Power of Jupiter, and a Comparison of Jupiter with Janus.

> Latin: Caput IX. De Iouis potestate adque eiusdem cum Iano conparatione o nparatione.

[¶10] But they also show whom they would have Jove (who is also called Jupiter) understood to be. He is the god, say they, who has the power of the causes by which anything comes to be in the world. And how great a thing this is, that most noble verse of Virgil testifies:

> Latin: Iouem autem, qui etiam Iuppiter dicitur, quem uelint in-; tellegi, exponant. ‘Deus est, inquiunt, habens potestatem can-’, sarum, quibus aliquid fit in mundo.’ Hoc quam magnum sit,I nobilissimus Vergilii uersus ille testatur: Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.

[¶11] “Happy is he who has learned the causes of things.”

[¶12] But why is Janus preferred to him? Let that most acute and most learned man answer us this question. “Because,” says he, “Janus has dominion over first things, Jupiter over highest things. Therefore Jupiter is deservedly held to be the king of all things; for highest things are better than first things: for although first things precede in time, highest things excel by dignity.”

> Latin: Sed quur ei praeponitur Ianus? hoc nobis uir ille acutissimus doctissimusque respondeat. ‘Quoniam penes lacum, inquit, sunt prima, penes louem summa. Merito ergo rex omnium Iuppiter habetur.

[¶13] Now this would have been rightly said had the first parts of things which are done been distinguished from the highest parts; as, for instance, it is the beginning of a thing done to set out, the highest part to arrive. The commencing to learn is 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, has been 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 be prevented in time by things which are made or done, or by the beginnings of such things; for the thing which makes is always prior to the thing which is made. Therefore, though the beginnings of things which are made or done pertain to Janus, they are nevertheless not prior to the efficient causes which they attribute to Jupiter. For as nothing takes place without being preceded by an efficient cause, so without an efficient cause nothing begins to take place. Verily, if the people call this god Jupiter, in whose power are all the causes of 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 should totally deny the existence of any god. It would therefore be better for them to call some other god by the name of Jupiter—some one worthy of base and criminal honors; substituting instead of Jupiter some vain fiction (as Saturn is said to have had a stone given to him to devour instead of his son,) 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 out for the commission of so many licentious acts,—having in his power nature and the highest causes of all natural things, but not having his own causes good.

> Latin: Prima enim uincuntur a summis, quia, licet prima praecedant tempore, summa superant dignitate.’ Sed recte hoc diceretur, si factorum prima discernerentur et summa; sicut initium facti est proficisci, summum peruenire; initium facti inceptio discendi, summum perceptio doctrinae; ac sic in omnibus prima sunt initia summique sunt fines. Sed iam hoc negotium inter Ianum Terminumque discussum est. Causae autem, quae dantur Ioui, efficientia sunt, non effecta; neque ullo modo fieri potest, ut uel tempore praeueniantur a factis initiisue factorum. Semper enim prior est res quae facit, quam illa quae fit. Quapropter si ad Ianum pertinent initia factorum, non ideo priora sunt efficientibus causis, quas Ioui tribuunt. Sicut enim nihil fit, ita nihil inchoatur ut fiat, quod non faciens causa praecesserit. Hunc sane deum, penes quem sunt omnes causae factarum omnium naturarum naturaliumque rerum, si Iouem populi appellant et tantis contumeliis tamque scelestis criminationibus colunt; taetriore sacrilegio sese obstringunt, quam si prorsus nullum putarent deum. Unde satius esset eis alium aliquem Iouis nomine nuncupare, dignum turpibus et flagitiosis honoribus, subposito uano figmento quod potius blasphemarent (sicut Saturno dicitur subpositus lapis, quem pro filio deuoraret), quam istum deum dicere et tonantem et adulterantem, et totum mundum regentem et per tot stupra diffluentem, et naturarum omnium naturalium rerum causas summas habentem et suas causas bonas non habentem. Deinde quaero, quem iam locum inter deos huic Ioui tribuant, si Ianus est mundus.

[¶14] Next, I ask what place they find any longer for this Jupiter among the gods, if Janus is the world; for Varro defined the true gods to be the soul of the world, and the parts of it. And therefore whatever falls not within this definition, is certainly not a true god, according to them. Will they then say that Jupiter is the soul of the world, and Janus the body —that is, this visible world? If they say this, it will not be possible for them to affirm that Janus is a god. For even, according to them, the body of the world is not a god, but the soul of the world and its parts. Wherefore Varro, seeing this, says that he thinks God is the soul of the world, and that this world itself is God; but that as a wise man though he consists of soul and body, is nevertheless called wise from the soul, so the world is called God from the soul, though it consists of soul and body. Therefore the body of the world alone is not God, but either the soul of it alone, or the soul and the body together, yet so as that it is God not by virtue of the body, but by virtue of the soul. If, therefore, Janus is the world, and Janus is a god, will they say, in order that Jupiter may be a god, that he is some part of Janus? For they are wont rather to attribute universal existence to Jupiter; whence the saying, “All things are full of Jupiter.” Therefore they must think Jupiter also, in order that he may be a god, and especially king of the gods, to be the world, that he may rule over the other gods—according to them, his parts. To this effect, also, the same Varro expounds certain verses of Valerius Soranus in that book which he wrote apart from the others concerning the worship of the gods. These are the verses:

> Latin: Deos enim ueros animam mundi ac partes eius iste definiuit; ac per hoc, quidquid hoc non est, non est utique secundum istos uerus deus. Num igitur ita dicturi sunt Iouem animam mundi, ut Ianus sit corpus eius, id est iste uisibilis mundus? Hoc si dicunt, non erit quem ad modum Ianum deum dicant, quoniam mundi corpus non est deus uel secundum ipsos, sed anima mundi ac partes eius. Unde apertissime idem dicit deum se arbitrari esse animam mundi et hunc ipsum mundum esse deum; sed sicut hominem sapientem, cum sit ex animo et corpore, tamen ei animo dici sapientem, ita mundum deum dici ab animo, cum sit ex animo et corpore. Solum itaque mundi corpus non est deus, sed aut sola anima eius aut simul corpus et animus, ita tamen ut non sit a corpore, sed ab animo deus. Si ergo Ianus est mundus et deus est Ianus, numquid Iouem, ut deus esse possit, aliquam partem Iani esse dicturi sunt? Magis enim Ioui uniuersum solent tribuere; unde est: Iouis omnia plena. Ergo et Iouem, ut deus sit et maxime rex deorum, non alium possunt existimare quam mundum, ut dis ceteris secundum istos suis partibus regnet. In hanc sententiam etiam quosdam uersus Valerii Sorani exponit idem Varro in eo libro, quem seorsum ab istis de cultu deorum scripsit; qui uersus hi sunt: Iuppiter omnipotens regum rerumque deumque Progenitor genetrixquo deum, deus unus et omnes.

[¶15] “Almighty Jove, progenitor of kings, and things, and gods,

[¶16] And eke the mother of the gods, god one and all.”

[¶17] But in the same book he expounds these verses by saying that as the male emits seed, and the female receives it, so Jupiter, whom they believed to be the world, both emits all seeds from himself and receives them into himself. For which reason, he says, Soranus wrote, “Jove, progenitor and mother;” and with no less reason said that one and all were the same. For the world is one, and in that one are all things.

> Latin: Exponuntur autem in eodem libro ita: cum marem existimarent qui semen emitteret, feminam quae acciperet, Iouemque esse mundum et eum omnia semina ex se emittere et in se recipere, ‘cum causa, inquit, scripsit Soranus: Iuppiter progenitor genetrixque; nec minus cum causa unum et omnia idem esse; mundus enim unus, et in eo uno omnia sunt.’

### Whether the Distinction Between Janus and Jupiter is a Proper One.

[¶19] Chapter 10.—Whether the Distinction Between Janus and Jupiter is a Proper One.

> Latin: Caput X. An Iani et Iouis recta discretio sit.

[¶20] Since, therefore, Janus is the world, and Jupiter is the world, wherefore are Janus and Jupiter two gods, while the world is but one? Why do they have separate temples, separate altars, different rites, dissimilar images? If it be because the nature of beginnings is one, and the nature of causes another, and the one has received the name of Janus, the other of Jupiter; is it then the case, that if one man has two distinct offices of authority, or two arts, two judges or two artificers are spoken of, because the nature of the offices or the arts is different? So also with respect to one god: if he have the power of beginnings and of causes, must he therefore be thought to be two gods, because beginnings and causes are two things? But if they think that this is right, let them also affirm that Jupiter is as many gods as they have given him surnames, on account of many powers; for the things from which these surnames are applied to him are many and diverse. I shall mention a few of them.

> Latin: Cum ergo et Ianus mundus sit et Iuppiter mundus sit unusque sit mundus, quare duo di sunt Ianus et Iuppiter? Quare seorsus habent templa seorsus aras, diuersa sacra dissimilia simulacra? Si propterea, quod alia uis est primordiorum, alia causarum, et illa Iani, illa Iouis nomen accepit: numquid si unus homo in diuersis rebus duas habeat potestates aut duas artes, quia singularum diuersa uis est, ideo duo iudices aut duo dicuntur artifices? Sic ergo et unus Deus cum ipse habeat potestatem primordiorum, ipse causarum, num propterea illum duos deos esse necesse est putari, quia primordia causaeque res duae sunt? Quod si hoc iustum putant, etiam ipsum Iouem tot deos esse dicant, quotquot ei cognomina propter multas potestates dederunt, quoniam res omnes, ex quibus illa cognomina sunt adhibita, multae adque diuersae sunt, ex quibus pauca commemoro.

## 36. Concerning the Surnames of Jupiter, Which are Referred Not to Many Gods, But to One and the Same God.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/36/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/36/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 11.—Concerning the Surnames of Jupiter, Which are Referred Not to Many Gods, But to One and the Same God.

> Latin: Caput XI. De cognominibus Iouis, quae non ad multos deos, sed ad unum eundemque referuntur.

[¶1] They have called him Victor, Invictus, Opitulus, Impulsor, Stator, Centumpeda, Supinalis, Tigillus, Almus, Ruminus, and other names which it were long to enumerate. But these surnames they have given to one god on account of diverse causes and powers, but yet have not compelled him to be, on account of so many things, as many gods. They gave him these surnames because he conquered all things; because he was 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 beam he held together and 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 yet it is one who is said to perform them all. I think that the causes and the beginnings of things, on account of which they have thought that the one world is two gods, Jupiter and Janus, are nearer to each other than the holding together of the world, and the giving of the pap to animals; and yet, on account of these two works so far apart from each other, both in nature and dignity, there has not been any necessity for the existence of two gods; but one Jupiter has been called, on account of the one Tigillus, on account of the other Ruminus. I am unwilling to say that the giving of the pap to sucking animals might have become Juno rather than Jupiter, especially when there was the goddess Rumina to help and to serve her in this work; for I think it may be replied that Juno herself is nothing else than Jupiter, according to those verses of Valerius Soranus, where it has been said:

> Latin: Dixerunt eum Victorem, Inuictum, Opitulum, Inpulsorem, Statorem, Centumpedam, Supinalem. Tigillum, Almum, Ruminum et alia quae persequi longum est. Haec autem cognomina inposuerunt uni deo propter causas potestatesque diuersas, non tamen propter tot res etiam tot deos eum esse coegerunt.: quod omnia uinceret, quod a nemine uinceretur, quod opem indigentibus ferret, quod haberet inpellendi, statuendi, stabiliendi. liendi, resupinandi potestatem, quod tamquam tigillus mundum contineret ac sustineret, quod aleret omnia, quod ruma, id est mamma, aleret animalia. In his, ut aduertimus, quaedam magna sunt, quaedam exigua; et tamen unus utraque facere perhibetur. Puto inter se propinquiora esse causas rerum adque primordia, propter quas res unum mundum duos deos esse uoluerunt, Iouem adque Ianum, quam continere mundum et mammam dare animalibus; nec tamen propter haec opera duo tam longe inter se ui et dignitate diuersa duo di esse conpulsi sunt; sed unus Iuppiter propter illud Tigillus, propter illud Ruminus appellatus est. Nolo dicere, quod animalibus mammam praebere sugentibus magis Iunonem potuit decere quam Iouem, praesertim cum esset etiam diua Rumina, quae in hoc opus adiutorium illi famulatumue praeberet. Cogito enim posse responderi, et ipsam Iunonem nihil aliud esse quam Iouem, secundum illos Valerii Sorani uersus, ubi dictum est: Iuppiter omnipotens regum rerumque deumque Progenitor genetrixque deam.

[¶2] “Almighty Jove, progenitor of kings, and things, and gods,

[¶3] And eke the mother of the gods,” etc.

[¶4] Why, then, was he called Ruminus, when they who may perchance inquire more diligently may find that he is also that goddess Rumina?

> Latin: Quare ergo dictus est et Ruminus, cum diligentius fortasse quaerentibus ipse inueniatur esse etiam illa diua Rumina?

[¶5] If, then, it was rightly thought unworthy of the majesty of the gods, that in one ear of corn one god should have the care of the joint, another that of the husk, how much more unworthy of that majesty is it, that one thing, and that of the lowest kind, even the giving of the pap to animals that they may be nourished, should be under the care of two gods, one of whom is Jupiter himself, the very king of all things, who does this not along with his own wife, but with some ignoble Rumina (unless perhaps he himself is Rumina, being Ruminus for males and Rumina for females)! I should certainly have said that they had been unwilling to apply to Jupiter a feminine 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 a goddess among those petty deities, as I have already mentioned in the fourth book. But since both males and females have money [pecuniam], why has he not been called both Pecunius and Pecunia? That is their concern.

> Latin: Si enim maiestate deorum recte uidebatur indignum, ut in una spica alter ad curam geniculi, altera ad folliculi pertineret: quanto est indignius unam rem infimam, id est ut mammis alantur animalia, duorum deorum potestate curari, quorum sit unus Iuppiter, rex ipse cunctorum, et hoc agat non saltem cum coniuge sua, sed cum ignobili nescio qua Rumina, nisi quia ipse est etiam ipsa Rumina; Ruminus fortasse pro sugentibus maribus, Rumina pro feminis. Dicerem quippe noluisse illos Ioui femininum nomen inponere, nisi et in illis uersibus ‘progenitor genetrixque’ diceretur, et inter eius alia cognomina legerem, quod etiam Pecunia uocaretur, quam deam inter illos minuscularios inuenimus et in quarto libro commemorauimus. Sed cum et mares et feminae habeant pecuniam, quur non et Pecunia et Pecunius appellatus sit, sicut Rumina et Ruminus, ipsi uiderint._

### That Jupiter is Also Called Pecunia.

[¶7] Chapter 12.—That Jupiter is Also Called Pecunia.

> Latin: Caput XII. Quod Iuppiter etiam Pecunia nuncupetur.

[¶8] How elegantly they have accounted for this name! “He is also called Pecunia,” say they, “because all things belong to him.” Oh how grand an explanation of the name of a deity! Yes; he to whom all things belong is most meanly and most contumeliously called Pecunia. In comparison of all things which are contained by heaven and earth, what are all things together which are possessed by men under the name of money? And this name, forsooth, hath avarice given to Jupiter, that whoever was a lover of money might seem to himself to love not an ordinary god, but the very king of all things himself. But it would be a far different thing if he had been called Riches. For riches are one thing, money another. For we call rich the wise, the just, the good, who have either no money or very little. For they are more truly rich in possessing virtue, since by it, even as re spects things necessary for the body, they are content with what they have. But we call 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 able but to want. And we properly call God Himself rich; not, however, in money, but in omnipotence. Therefore they who have abundance of money are called rich, but inwardly needy if they are greedy. So also, those who have no money are called poor, but inwardly rich if they are wise.

> Latin: Quam uero eleganter rationem huius nominis reddiderunt! uocatur Pecunia, inquiunt, uocatur, quod eius sunt omnia>.s o magnam rationem diuini nominis! Immo uero ille, cuius sunt omnia, uilissime et contumeliosissime Pecunia nuncupatur. Ad omnia enim, quae caelo et terra continentur, quid est pecunia in omnibus omnino rebus, quae ab hominibus nomine pecuniae possidentur? Sed nimirum hoc auaritia Ioui nomen inposuit, ut, quisquis amat pecuniam, non quemlibet deum, sed ipsum regem omnium sibi amare uideatur. Longe autem aliud esset, si diuitiae uocaretur. Aliud namque sunt diuitiae, aliud pecunia. Nam dicimus diuites sapientes, iustos, bonos, quibus pecunia uel nulla uel parua est; magis enim sunt uirtutibus diuites, per quas eis etiam in ipsis corporalium rerum necessitatibus sat est quod adest: pauperes uero auaros, semper inhiantes et egentes; quamlibet enim magnas pecunias habere possunt, sed in earum quantacumque abundantia non egere non possunt. Et Deum ipsum uerum recte dicimus diuitem, non tamen pecunia, sed omnipotentia. Dicuntur itaque et diuites pecuniosi; sed interius egeni, si cupidi: item dicuntur pauperes pecunia carentes; sed interius diuites, si sapientes.

[¶9] 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?” For had there been anything wholesomely taught by this philosophy concerning eternal life, how much more appropriately would that god who is the ruler of the world have been called by them, not money, but wisdom, the love of which purges from the filth of avarice, that is, of the love of money!

> Latin: Qualis ergo ista theologia debet esse sapienti, ubi rex deorum eius rei nomen accepit, ‘quam nemo sapiens concupiuit’? Quanto enim facilius, si aliquid hac doctrina quod ad uitam pertineret aeternam salubriter disceretur, deus mundi rector non ab eis Pecunia, sed Sapientia uocaretur, cuius amor purgat a sordibus auaritiae, hoc est ab amore pecuniae!

### That When It is Expounded What Saturn Is, What Genius Is, It Comes to This, that Both of Them are Shown to Be Jupiter.

[¶11] Chapter 13.—That When It is Expounded What Saturn Is, What Genius Is, It Comes to This, that Both of Them are Shown to Be Jupiter.

> Latin: Caput XIII. Quod, dum exponitur quid Saturnus quidue sit Genius, uterque unus Iuppiter esse doceatur.

[¶12] But why speak more of this Jupiter, with whom perchance all the rest are to be identified; so that, he being all, the opinion as to the existence of many gods may remain as a mere opinion, empty of all truth? And they are all to be referred to him, if his various parts and powers are thought of as so many gods, or if the principle of mind which they think to be diffused through all things has received the names of many gods from the various parts which the mass of this visible world combines in itself, and from the manifold administration of nature. For what is Saturn also? “One of the principal gods,” he says, “who has dominion over all sowings.” Does not the exposition of the verses of Valerius Soranus teach that Jupiter is the world, and that he emits all seeds from himself, and receives them into himself?

> Latin: Sed quid de hoc Ioue plura, ad quem fortasse ceteri referendi sunt, ut inanis remaneat deorum opinio plurimorum, cum hic ipse sint omnes, siue quando partes eius uel potestates existimantur, siue cum uis animae, quam putant per cuncta diffusam, ex partibus molis huius, in quas uisibilis mundus iste consurgit, et multiplici administratione naturae quasi plurium deorum nomina accepit? Quid est enim et Saturnus? ‘Unus, inquit, de principibus deus, penes quem sationum omnium dominatus est.’ Nonne expositio uersuum illorum Valerii Sorani sic se habet, Iouem esse mundum et eum omnia semina ex se emittere et in se recipere?

[¶13] It is he, then, with whom is the dominion of all sowings. What is Genius? “He is the god who is set over, and has the power of begetting, all things.” Who else than the world do they believe to have this power, to which it has been said:

> Latin: Ipse est igitur penes quem sationum omnium dominatus est.

[¶14] “Almighty Jove, progenitor and mother?”

[¶15] And when in another place he says that Genius is the rational soul of every one, and therefore exists separately in each individual, but that the corresponding soul of the world is God, he just comes back to this same thing,—namely, that the soul of the world itself is to be held to be, as it were, the universal genius. This, therefore, is what he calls Jupiter. For if every genius is a god, and the soul of every man a genius, it follows that the soul of every man is a god. But if very absurdity compels even these theologists themselves to shrink from this, it remains that they call that genius god by special and pre-eminent distinction, whom they call the soul of the world, and therefore Jupiter.

> Latin: Quid est Genius? ‘Deus, inquit, qui praepositus est ac uim habet omnium rerum gignendarum.) Quem alium hanc uim habere credunt quam mundum, cui dictum est: ‘luppiter progenitor genetrixque?’ Et cum alio loco genium dicit esse uniuscuiusque animum rationalem et ideo esse singulos singulorum, talem autem mundi animum Deum esse: ad hoc idem utique reuocat, ut tamquam uniuersalis genius ipse mundi animus esse credatur. Hic est igitur quem appellant Iouem. Nam si omnis genius deus et omnis uiri animus genius, sequitur ut sit omnis uiri animus deus; quod si et ipsos abhorrere absurditas ipsa conpellit, restat ut eum singulariter et excellenter dicant deum Genium, quem dicunt mundi animum ac per hoc Iouem.

### Concerning the Offices of Mercury and Mars.

[¶17] Chapter 14.—Concerning the Offices of Mercury and Mars.

> Latin: Caput XIV. De Mercurii et Martis officiis.

[¶18] But they have not found how to refer Mercury and Mars to any parts of the world, and to the works of God which are in the elements; and therefore they have set them at least over human works, making them assistants in speaking and in carrying on wars. Now Mercury, if he has also the power of the speech of the gods, rules also over the king of the gods himself, 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 human speech which is held to be attributed to him, then we say it is incredible that Jupiter should have condescended to give the pap not only to children, but also to beasts—from which he has been surnamed Ruminus—and yet should have been unwilling that the care of our speech, by which we excel the beasts, should pertain to him. And thus speech itself both belongs to Jupiter, and is Mercury. But if speech itself is said to be Mercury, as those things which are said concerning him by way of interpretation show it to be;—for he is said to have been called Mercury, that is, he who runs between, because speech runs between men: they say also that the Greeks call him ῾Ερμῆς, because speech, or interpretation, which certainly belongs to speech, is called by them ἑρμηνεία: also he is said to preside over payments, because speech passes between sellers and buyers: the wings, too, which he has on his head and on his feet, they say mean that speech passes winged through the air: he is also said to have been called the messenger, because by means of speech all our thoughts are expressed;—if, therefore, speech itself is Mercury, then, even by their own confession, he is not a god. But when they make to themselves gods of such as are not even demons, by praying to unclean spirits, they are possessed by such as are not gods, but demons. In like manner, because they have not been able to find for Mars any element or part of the world in which he might perform some works of nature of whatever kind, they have said that he is the god of war, which is a work of men, and that not one which is considered desirable by them. If, therefore, Felicitas should give perpetual peace, Mars would have nothing to do. But if war itself is Mars, as speech is Mercury, I wish it were as true that there were no war to be falsely called a god, as it is true that it is not a god.

> Latin: Mercurium uero et Martem quo modo referrent ad aliquas partes mundi et opera Dei, quae sunt in elementis, non inuenerunt, et ideo eos saltem operibus hominum praeposuerunt, sermocinandi et belligerandi administros. Quorum Mercurius si sermonis etiam deorum potestatem gerit, ipsi quoque regi deorum dominatur, si secundum eius arbitrium Iuppiter loquitur aut loquendi ab illo accepit facultatem; quod utique absurdum est. Si autem illi humani tantum sermonis potestas tributa perhibetur, non est credibile ad lactandos mamma non solum pueros, sed etiam pecora, unde Ruminus cognominatus est, Iouem descendere uoluisse, et curam nostri sermonis, quo pecoribus antecellimus, ad se pertinere noluisse; ac per hoc idem ipse est Iouis adque Mercurius. Quod si sermo ipse dicitur esse Mercurius, sicut ea, quae de illo interpretantur, ostendunt (nam ideo Mercurius quasi medius currens dicitur appellatus, quod sermo currat inter homines medius; ideo ‛Ερμη̃ς Graece, quod sermo uel interpretatio, quae ad sermonem utique pertinet, ἑρμηνεία dicitur; ideo et mercibus praeesse, quia inter uendentes et ementes sermo fit medius; alas eius in capite et pedibus significare uolucrem ferri per aera sermonem; nuntium dictum, quoniam per sermonem omnia cogitata enuntiantur) — si ergo Mercurius ipse sermo est, etiam ipsis confitentibus deus non est. Sed cum sibi deos faciunt eos, qui nec daemones sunt, inmundis supplicando spiritibus possidentur ab eis, qui non di, sed daemones sunt. Item quia nec Marti aliquod elementum uel partem mundi inuenire potuerunt, ubi ageret opera qualiacumque naturae, deum belli esse dixerunt, quod opus est hominum et optabilius non est. Si ergo pacem perpetuam Felicitas daret, Mars quid ageret non haberet. Si autem ipsum bellum est Mars, sicut sermo Mercurius: utinam quam manifestum est, quod non sit deus, tam non sit et bellum, quod uel falso uocetur deus.

### Concerning Certain Stars Which the Pagans Have Called by the Names of Their Gods.

[¶20] Chapter 15.—Concerning Certain Stars Which the Pagans Have Called by the Names of Their Gods.

> Latin: Caput XV. De stellis quibusdam, quas pagani deorum suorum nominibus nuncuparunt.

[¶21] But possibly these stars which have been called by their names are these gods. For they call a certain star Mercury, and likewise a certain other star Mars. But among those stars which are called by the names of gods, is that one which they call Jupiter, and yet with them Jupiter is the world. There also is that one they call Saturn, and yet they give to him no small property besides,—namely, all seeds. There also is 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 to contend about that most brilliant star, as though about another golden apple. For some say that Lucifer belongs to Venus, and some to Juno. But, as usual, Venus conquers. For by far the greatest number assign that star to Venus, so much so that there is scarcely found one of them who thinks otherwise. But since they call Jupiter the king of all, who will not laugh to see his star so far surpassed in brilliancy by the star of Venus? For it ought to have been as much more brilliant than the rest, as he himself is more powerful. They answer that it only appears so because it is higher up, and very much farther away from the earth. If, therefore, its greater dignity has deserved a higher place, why is Saturn higher in the heavens than Jupiter? Was the vanity of the fable which made Jupiter king not able to reach the stars? And has Saturn been permitted to obtain at least in the heavens, what he could not obtain in his own kingdom nor in the Capitol?

> Latin: Nisi forte illae stellae sunt hi di, quas eorum appellauere nominibus. Nam stellam quandam uocant Mercurium, quandam itidem Martem. Sed ibi est et illa quam uocant Iouem, et tamen eis mundus est Iouis; ibi quam uocant Saturnum, et tamen ei praeterea dant non paruam substantiam, omnium uidelicet seminum; ibi est et illa omnium clarissima, quae ab eis appellatur Venus, et tamen eandem Venerem esse etiam Lunam uolunt; quamuis de illo fulgentissimo sidere aput eos tamquam de malo aureo Iuno Venusque contendant. Luciferum enim quidam Veneris, quidam dicunt esse Iunonis; sed, ut solet, Venus uincit. Nam multo plures eam stellam Veneri tribuunt, ita ut uix eorum quisquam reperiatur, qui aliud opinetur. Quis autem non rideat, cum regem omnium Iouem dicant, quod stella eius ab stella Veneris tanta uincitur claritate? Tanto enim esse debuit ceteris illa fulgentior, quanto est ipse potentior. Respondent ideo sic uideri, quia illa, quae putatur obscurior, superior est adque a terris longe remotior. Si ergo superiorem locum maior dignitas meruit, quare Saturnus ibi est Ioue superior? An uanitas fabulae, quae regem Iouem facit, non potuit usque ad sidera peruenire, et quod non ualuit Saturnus in regno suo neque in Capitolio, saltem obtinere est permissus in caelo?

[¶22] But why has Janus received no star? If it is because he is the world, and they are all in him, the world is also Jupiter’s, and yet he has one. Did Janus compromise his case as best he could, and instead of the one star which he does not have among the heavenly bodies, accept so many faces on earth? Again, if they think that on account of the stars alone Mercury and Mars are parts of the world, in order that they may be able to have them for gods, since speech and war are not parts of the world, but acts of men, how is it that they have made no altars, established no rites, built no temples for Aries, and Taurus, and Cancer, and Scorpio, and the rest which they number as the celestial signs, and which consist not of single stars, but each of them of many stars, which also they say are situated above those already mentioned in the highest part of the heavens, where a more constant motion causes the stars to follow an undeviating course? And why have they not reckoned them as gods, I do not say among those select gods, but not even among those, as it were, plebeian gods?

> Latin: Quare autem Ianus non accepit aliquam stellam? Si, quia mundus est et omnes in illo sunt: et Ionis mundus est et habet tamen. An iste causam suam conposuit ut potuit et pro una stella, quam non habet inter sidera, tot facies accepit in terra? Deinde si propter solas stellas Mercurium et Martem partes mundi putant, ut eos deos habere possint, quia utique sermo et bellum non sunt partes mundi, sed actus hominum: quur Arieti et Tauro et Cancro et Scorpioni ceterisque huius modi, quae caelestia signa numerant et stellis non singulis, sed singula pluribus constant superiusque istis in summo caelo perhibent conlocata, ubi constantior motus inerrabilem meatum sideribus praebet, nullas aras, nulla sacra, nulla templa fecerunt, nec deos, non dico inter hos selectos, sed ne inter illos quidem quasi plebeios habuerunt?

## 37. Concerning Apollo and Diana, and the Other Select Gods Whom They Would Have to Be Parts of the World.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/37/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/37/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 16.—Concerning Apollo and Diana, and the Other Select Gods Whom They Would Have to Be Parts of the World.

> Latin: Caput XVI. De Apolline et Diana ceterisque selectis dis, quos partes mundi esse uoluerunt.

[¶1] Although they would have Apollo to be a diviner and physician, they have nevertheless given him a place as some part of the world. They have said that he is also the sun; and likewise they have said that Diana, his sister, is the moon, and the guardian of roads. Whence also they will have her be a virgin, because a road brings forth nothing. They also make both of them have arrows, because those two planets send their rays from the heavens to the earth. They make Vulcan to be the fire of the world; Neptune the waters of the world; Father Dis, that is, Orcus, the earthy and lowest part of the world. Liber and Ceres they set over seeds,—the former over the seeds of males, the latter over the seeds of females; or the one over the fluid part of seed, but the other over the dry part. And all this together is referred 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 make this same Ceres to be the Great Mother, who they say is none other than the earth, and call her also Juno. And therefore they assign to her the second causes of things, notwithstanding that it has been said to Jupiter, “progenitor and mother of the gods;” because, according to them, the whole world itself is Jupiter’s. Minerva, also, because they set her over human arts, and did not find even a star in which to place her, has been said by them to be either the highest ether, or even the moon. Also Vesta herself they have thought to be the highest of the goddesses, because she is the earth; although they have thought that the milder fire of the world, which is used for the ordinary purposes of human life, not the more violent fire, such as belongs to Vulcan, is to be assigned to her. And thus they will have all those select gods to be the world and its parts,—some of them the whole world, others of them its parts; the whole of it Jupiter,—its parts, Genius, Mater Magna, Sol and Luna, or rather Apollo and Diana, and so on. And sometimes they make one god many things; sometimes one thing many gods. Many things are one god in the case of Jupiter; for both the whole world is Jupiter, and the sky alone is Jupiter, and the star 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 the star. Likewise Minerva is the highest ether, and Minerva is likewise the moon, which they suppose to be in the lowest limit of the ether. And also they make one thing many gods in this way. The world is both Janus and Jupiter; also the earth is Juno, and Mater Magna, and Ceres.

> Latin: Apollinem quamuis diuinatorem et medicum uelint, tamen ut in. aliqua parte mundi statuerent, ipsum etiam solem esse dixerunt, Dianamque germanam eius similiter lunam et uiarum praesidem (unde et uirginem uolunt, quod uia nihil pariat!, et ideo ambos sagittas habere, quod ipsa duo sidera de caelo radios terras usque pertendant. Vulcanum uolunt ignem mundi, Neptunum aquas mundi, Ditem patrem, hoc est Orcum, terrenam et infimam partem mundi. Liberum et Cererem praeponunt seminibus, uel illum masculinis, illam femininis; uel illum liquori, illam uero ariditati seminum. Et hoc utique totum refertur ad mundum, id est ad Iouem, qui propterea dictus est ‘progenitor genetrixque’, quod omnia semina ex se emitteret et in se reciperet. Quando quidem etiam Matrem Magnam eandem Cererem uolunt, quam nihil aliud dicunt esse quam terram, eamque perhibent et lunonem, et ideo ei secundas causas rerum tribuunt, cum tamen Ioui sit dictum ‘progenitor genetrixque deum’, quia secundum eos totus ipse mundus est Ionis. Mineruam etiam, quia eam humanis artibus praeposuerunt nec inuenerunt uel stellam, ubi eam ponerent, eandem uel summum aethera uel etiam lunam esse dixerunt. Vestam quoque ipsam propterea dearum maximam putauerunt, quod ipsa sit terra, quamuis ignem mundi leuiorem, qui pertinet ad usus hominum faciles, non uiolentiorem, qualis Vulcani est, ei deputandum esse crediderunt. Ac per hoc omnes istos selectos deos hunc esse mundum uolunt, in quibusdam uniuersum, in quibusdam partes eius; uniuersum sicut Iouem, partes eius, ut Genium, ut Matrem Magnam, ut Solem, ut Lunam, uel potius Apollinem et Dianam. Et aliquando unum deum res plures, aliquando unam rem deos plures faciunt. Nam unus deus res plures sunt, sicut ipse Iuppiter; et mundus enim totus Iuppiter, et solum caelum Iuppiter, et sola stella Iuppiter habetur et dicitur; itemque Iuno secundarum causarum domina et Iuno aer et Iuno terra et, si Venerem uinceret, Iuno stella. Similiter Minerua summus aether et Minerua itidem luna, quam esse in aetheris infimo limite existimant Unam uero rem deos plures ita faciunt: Et Ianus est mundus et Iuppiter; sic et Iuno est terra et Mater Magna et Ceres.

### That Even Varro Himself Pronounced His Own Opinions Regarding the Gods Ambiguous.

[¶3] Chapter 17.—That Even Varro Himself Pronounced His Own Opinions Regarding the Gods Ambiguous.

> Latin: Caput XVII. Quod etiam ipse Varro opiniones suas de dis pronuntiarit ambiguas.

[¶4] And the same is true with respect to all the rest, as is true with respect to those things which I have mentioned for the sake of example. They do not explain them, but rather involve them. They rush hither and thither, to this side or to that, according as they are driven by the impulse of erratic opinion; so that even Varro himself has chosen rather to doubt concerning all things, than to affirm anything. For, having written the first of the three last books concerning the certain gods, and having commenced in the second of these to speak of the uncertain gods, he says: “I ought not to be censured for having stated in this book the doubtful opinions concerning the gods. For he who, when he has read 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 have written in the first book, than to attempt to reduce all the things I shall write in this one to any orderly system.” Thus he 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, after having exhibited by anticipation as much of the natural theology as he deemed necessary, and when about to commence to speak of the vanities and lying insanities of the civil theology, where he was not only without the guidance of the truth of things, but was also pressed by the authority of tradition, he says: “I will write in this book concerning the public gods of the Roman people, to whom they have dedicated temples, and whom they have conspicuously distinguished by many adornments; but, as Xenophon of Colophon writes, I will state what I think, not what I am prepared to maintain: it is for man to think those things, for God to know them.”

> Latin: Et sicut haec, quae exempli gratia commemoraui, ita cetera non explicant, sed potius inplicant; sicut impetus errabundae opinionis inpulerit, ita huc adque illuc, hinc adque illinc insiliunt et resiliunt, ut ipse Varro de omnibus dubitare quam aliquid adfirmare maluerit. Nam trium extremorum primum de dis certis cum absoluisset librum, in altero de dis incertis dicere ingressus ait: ‘Cum in hoc libello dubias de dis opiniones posuero, reprehendi non debeo. Qui enim putabit iudicari oportere et posse, cum audierit, faciet ipse. Ego citius perduci possum, ut in primo libro quae dixi in dubitationem reuocem, quam in hoc quae perscribam omnia ut ad aliquam dirigam summam.) Ita non solum istum de dis incertis, sed etiam illum de certis fecit incertum. In tertio porro isto de dis selectis, postea quam praelocutus est quod ex naturali theologia praeloquendum putauit, ingressurus huius ciuilis theologiae uanitates et insanias mendaces, ubi eum non solum non ducebat rerum ueritas, sed etiam maiorum premebat auctoritas: ‘De dis, inquit, populi Romani publicis, quibus aedes dedicauerunt eosque pluribus signis ornatos notauerunt, in hoc libro scribam, sed ut Xenophanes Colophonius scribit, quid putem, non quid contendam, ponam. Hominis est enim haec opinari, dei scire’.

[¶5] It is not, then, an account of things comprehended and most certainly believed which he promised, when about to write those things which were instituted by men. He only timidly promises an account of things which are but the subject of doubtful opinion. Nor, indeed, was it possible for him to affirm with the same certainty that Janus was the world, and such like things; or to discover with the same certainty 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 the same certainty with which he knew such things as that the world existed, that the heavens and earth existed, the heavens bright with stars, and the earth fertile through seeds; or with the same perfect conviction with which he believed that this universal mass of nature is governed and administered by a certain invisible and mighty force.

> Latin: Rerum igitur non conprehensarum nec firmissime creditarum, sed opinatarum et dubitandarum sermonem trepidus pollicetur dicturus ea, quae ab hominibus instituta sunt. Neque enim, sicut sciebat esse mundum, esse caelum et terram, caelum sideribus fulgidum, terram seminibus fertilem, adque huius modi cetera, sicut hanc totam molem adque naturam ui quadam inuisibili ac praepotenti regi adque administrari certa animi stabilitate credebat: ita poterat adfirmare de Iano, quod mundus ipse esset, aut de Saturno inuenire, quo modo et Iouis pater esset et Ioui regnanti subditus factus esset et cetera talia.

### A More Credible Cause of the Rise of Pagan Error.

[¶7] Chapter 18.—A More Credible Cause of the Rise of Pagan Error.

> Latin: Caput XVIII. Quae credibilior causa sit, qua error paganitatis inoleuerit.

[¶8] A far more credible account of these gods is given, when it is said that they were men, and that to each one of them sacred rites and solemnities were instituted, according to his particular genius, manners, actions, circumstances; which rites and solemnities, by gradually creeping through the souls of men, which are like demons, and eager for things which yield them sport, were spread far and wide; the poets adorning them with lies, and false spirits seducing men to receive them. 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 (according to Varro’s interpretation) Saturn was overthrown by his son Jupiter: for cause, which belongs to Jupiter, is before seed, which belongs to Saturn. For had this been so, Saturn would never have been before Jupiter, nor would he have been the father of Jupiter. For cause always precedes seed, and is never generated from seed. But when they seek to honor by natural interpretation most vain fables or deeds of men, even the acutest men are so perplexed that we are compelled to grieve for their folly also.

> Latin: De quibus credibilior redditur ratio, cum perhibentur homines fuisse et unicuique eorum ab his, qui eos adulando deos esse uoluerunt, ex eius ingenio moribus, actibus casibus sacra et sollemnia constituta adque haec paulatim per animas hominum daemonibus similes et ludicrarum rerum auidas inrependo longe lateque uulgata, ornantibus ea mendaciis poetarum et ad ea fallacibus spiritibus seducentibus. Facilius enim fieri potuit, ut iuuenis inpius uel ab inpio patre interfici metuens et auidus regni patrem pelleret regno, quam id, quod iste interpretatur, ideo Saturnum patrem a Ioue filio superatum, quod ante est causa quae pertinet ad Iouem, quam semen quod pertinet ad Saturnum. Si enim hoc ita esset, numquam Saturnus prior fuisset nec pater Iouis esset. Semper enim semen causa praecedit nec umquam generatur ex semine. Sed cum conantur uanissimas fabulas siue hominum res gestas uelut naturalibus interpretationibus honorare, etiam homines acutissimi tantas patiuntur angustias, ut eorum quoque uanitatem dolere cogamur.

### Concerning the Interpretations Which Compose the Reason of the Worship of Saturn.

[¶10] Chapter 19.—Concerning the Interpretations Which Compose the Reason of the Worship of Saturn.

> Latin: Caput XIX. De interpretationibus, quibus colendi Saturni ratio concinnatur.

[¶11] They said, says Varro, that Saturn was wont to devour all that sprang from him, because seeds returned to the earth from whence they sprang. And when it is said that a lump of earth was put before Saturn to be devoured instead of Jupiter, it is signified, he says, that before the art of ploughing was discovered, seeds were buried in the earth by the hands of men. The earth itself, then, and not seeds, should have been called Saturn, because it in a manner devours what it has brought forth, when the seeds which have sprung from it return again into it. And what has Saturn’s receiving of a lump of earth instead of Jupiter to do with this, that the seeds were covered in the soil by the hands of men? Was the seed kept from being devoured, like other things, by being covered with the soil? For what they say would imply that he who put on the soil took away the seed, as Jupiter is said to have been taken away when the lump of soil was offered to Saturn instead of him, and not rather that the soil, by covering the seed, only caused it to be devoured the more eagerly. Then, in that way, Jupiter is the seed, and not the cause of the seed, as was said a little before.

> Latin: nata, inquit, dixerunt, quae nata ex eo essent, solitum deuorare, quod eo semina, unde nascerentur, redirent. Et quod illi pro Ioue gleba obiecta est deuoranda, significat, inquit. manibus humanis obrui coeptas serendo fruges, antequam utilitas arandi esset inuenta. Saturnus ergo dici debuit ipsa terra, non semina; ipsa enim quodam modo deuorat quae genuerit, cum ex ea nata semina in eam rursus recipienda redierint. Et quod pro Ioue accepisse dicitur glebam, quid hoc ad id ualet, quod manibus hominum semen gleba coopertum est? Numquid ideo non est, ut cetera, deuoratum, quod gleba coopertum est? Ita enim hoc dictum est, quasi qui glebam obposuit semen abstulerit, sicut Saturno perhibent oblata gleba ablatum Iouem, ac non potius gleba semen operiendo fecerit illud diligentius deuorari. Deinde isto modo semen est Iuppiter, non seminis causa, quod paulo ante dicebatur.

[¶12] But what shall men do who cannot find anything wise to say, because they are interpreting foolish things? Saturn has a pruning-knife. That, says Varro, is on account of agriculture. Certainly in Saturn’s reign there as yet existed no agriculture, and therefore the former times of Saturn are spoken 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-knife when he had lost his sceptre; that he who had been a king, and lived at ease during the first part of his time, should become a laborious workman whilst his son occupied the throne. Then he says that boys were wont to be immolated to him by certain peoples, the Carthaginians for instance; and also that adults were immolated by some nations, for example the Gauls—because, of all seeds, the human race is the best. What need we say more concerning this most cruel vanity. Let us rather attend to and hold by this, that these interpretations are not carried up to the true God,—a living, incorporeal, unchangeable nature, from whom a blessed life enduring for ever may be obtained,—but that they end in things which are corporeal, temporal, mutable, and mortal. And whereas it is said in the fables that Saturn castrated his father Cœlus, this signifies, says Varro, that the divine seed belongs to Saturn, and not to Cœlus; for this reason, as far as a reason can be discovered, namely, that in heaven nothing is born from seed. But, lo! Saturn, if he is the son of Cœlus, is the son of Jupiter. For they affirm times without number, and that emphatically, that the heavens are Jupiter. Thus those things which come not of the truth, do very often, without being impelled by any one, themselves overthrow one another. He says that Saturn was called Κρονος, which in the Greek tongue signifies a space of time, because, without that, seed cannot be productive. These and many other things are said concerning Saturn, and they are all referred to seed. But Saturn surely, with all that great power, might have sufficed for seed. Why are other gods demanded for it, especially Liber and Libera, that is, Ceres?—concerning whom again, as far as seed is concerned, he says as many things as if he had said nothing concerning Saturn.

> Latin: Sed quid faciant homines, qui, cum res stultas interpretantur, non inueniunt quid sapienter dicatur? Saturnum habet, inquit, propter agriculturam.’ Certe illo regnante nondum erat agricultura, et ideo priora eius tempora perhibentur, sicut idem ipse fabellas interpretatur, quia primi homines ex his uiuebant seminibus, quae terra sponte gignebat. An falcem sceptro perdito accepit, ut, qui primis temporibus rex fuerat otiosus, filio regnante fieret operarius laboriosus? Deinde ideo dicit a quibusdam pueros ei solitos immolari, sicut a Poenis, et a quibusdam etiam maiores, sicut a Gallis, quia omnium seminum optimum est genua humanum. De hac crudelissima uanitate quid opus est plura dicere? Hoc potius aduertamus adque teneamus, has interpretationes non referri ad Deum uerum, uiuam, incorpoream incommutabilemque naturam, a quo uita in aeternum beata poscenda est; sed earum esse fines in rebus corporalibus, temporalibus, mutabilibus adque mortalibus. ‘Quod Caelum, inquit, patrem Saturnus castrasse in fabulis dicitur, hoc significat penes Saturnum, non penes Caelum semen esse diuinum’. Hoc propterea, quantum intellegi datur, quia nihil in caelo de seminibus nascitur. Sed ecce, Saturnus si Caeli est filius, Iouis est filius. Caelum enim esse Iouem innumerabiliter et diligenter adfirmant. Ita ista, quae a ueritate non ueniunt, plerumque et nullo inpellente se ipsa subuertunt. Chronon appellatum dicit, quod Graeco uocabulo significat temporis spatium, sine quo semen, inquit, non potest esse fecundum. Haec et alia de Saturno multa dicuntur, et ad semen omnia referuntur. Sed saltem Saturnus seminibus cum tanta ista potestate sufficeret; quid ad haec di alii l’equiruntur, maxime Liber et Libera, id est Ceres? De quibus rursus, quod ad semen adtinet, tanta dicit, quasi de Saturno nihil dixerit.

### Concerning the Rites of Eleusinian Ceres.

[¶14] Chapter 20.—Concerning the Rites of Eleusinian Ceres.

> Latin: Caput XX. De sacris Cereris Eleusinae.

[¶15] Now among the rites of Ceres, those Eleusinian rites are much famed which were in the highest repute among the Athenians, of which Varro offers no interpretation except with respect to corn, which Ceres discovered, and with respect to Proserpine, whom Ceres lost, Orcus having carried her away. And this Proserpine herself, he says, signifies the fecundity of seeds. But as this fecundity departed at a certain season, whilst the earth wore an aspect of sorrow through the consequent sterility, there arose an opinion that the daughter of Ceres, that is, fecundity itself, who was called Proserpine, from proserpere (to creep forth, to spring), had been carried away by Orcus, and detained among the inhabitants of the nether world; which circumstance was celebrated with public mourning. But since the same fecundity again returned, there arose joy because Proserpine had been given back by Orcus, and thus these rites were instituted. Then Varro adds, that many things are taught in the mysteries of Ceres which only refer to the discovery of fruits.

> Latin: In Cereris autem sacris praedicantur illa Eleusinia, quae aput Athenienses nobilissima fuerunt. De quibus iste nihil interpretatur, nisi quod adtinet ad frumentum, quod Ceres inuenit, et ad Proserpinam, quam rapiente Orco perdidit; et hanc ipsam dicit significare fecunditatem seminum; quae cum defuisset quodam tempore eademque sterilitate terra maereret, exortam esse opinionem, quod filiam Cereris, id est ipsam fecunditatem, quae a proserpendo Proserpina dicta esset, Orcus abstulerat et aput inferos detinuerat; quae res cum fuisset luctu publico celebrata, quia rursus eadem fecunditas rediit, Proserpina reddita exortam esse laetitiam et ex hoc sollemnia constituta. Dicit deinde multa in mysteriis eius tradi, quae nisi ad frugum inuentionem non pertineant.

### Concerning the Shamefulness of the Rites Which are Celebrated in Honor of Liber.

[¶17] Chapter 21.—Concerning the Shamefulness of the Rites Which are Celebrated in Honor of Liber.

> Latin: Caput XXI. De turpitudine sacrorum, quae Libero celebrabantur.

[¶18] Now as to the rites of Liber, whom they have set over liquid seeds, and therefore not only over the liquors of fruits, among which wine holds, so to speak, the primacy, but also over the seeds of animals:—as to these rites, I am unwilling to undertake to show to what excess of turpitude they had reached, because that would entail a lengthened discourse, though I am not unwilling to do so as a demonstration of the proud stupidity of those who practise them. Among other rites which I am compelled from the greatness of their number to omit, Varro says that in Italy, at the places where roads crossed each other the rites of Liber were celebrated with such unrestrained turpitude, that the private parts of a man were worshipped in his honor. Nor was this abomination transacted in secret that some regard at least might be paid to modesty, but was openly and wantonly displayed. For during the festival of Liber this obscene member, placed on a car, was carried with great honor, first over the crossroads in the country, and then into the city. But in the town of Lavinium a whole month was devoted to Liber alone, during the days of which all the people gave themselves up to the must dissolute conversation, until that member had been carried through the forum and brought to rest in its own place; on which unseemly member it was necessary that the most honorable matron should place a wreath in the presence of all the people. Thus, forsooth, was the god Liber to be appeased in order to the growth of seeds. Thus was enchantment to be driven away from fields, even by a matron’s being compelled to do in public what not even a harlot ought to be permitted to do in a theatre, if there were matrons among the spectators. For these reasons, then, Saturn alone was not believed to be sufficient for seeds,—namely, that the impure mind might find occasions for multiplying the gods; and that, being righteously abandoned to uncleanness by the one true God, and being prostituted to the worship of many false gods, through an avidity for ever greater and greater uncleanness, it should call these sacrilegious rites sacred things, and should abandon itself to be violated and polluted by crowds of foul demons.

> Latin: Iam uero Liberi sacra, quem liquidis seminibus ac per hoc non solum liquoribus fructuum, quorum quodam modo primatum uinum tenet, uerum etiam seminibus animalium praefecerunt, ad quantam turpitudinem peruenerint, piget quidem dicere propter sermonis longitudinem; sed propter istorum superbam hebetudinem non piget. Inter cetera, quae praetermittere, quoniam multa sunt, cogor, in Italiae compitis quaedam dicit sacra Liberi celebrata cum tanta licentia turpitudinis. ut in eius honorem pudenda uirilia colerentur, non saltem aliquantum uerecundiore secreto, sed in propatulo exultante nequitia. Nam hoc turpe membrum per Liberi dies festos cum honore magno plostellis inpositum prius rure in compitis et usque in urbem postea uectabatur. In oppido autem Lauinio unus Libero totus mensis tribuebatur, cuius diebus omnes uerbis flagitiosissimis uterentur, donec illud membrum per forum transuectum esset adque in loco suo quiesceret. Cui membro inhonesto matrem familias honestissimam palam coronam necesse erat inponere. Sic uidelicet Liber deus placandus fuerat pro euentibus seminum, sic ab agris fascinatio repellenda, ut matrona facere cogeretur in publico, quod nec meretrix, si matronae spectarent, permitti debuit in theatro. Propter haec Saturnus solus creditus non est sufficere posse seminibus, ut occasiones multiplicandorum deorum inmunda anima reperiret, et ab uno uero Deo merito inmunditiae destituta ac per multos falsos auiditate maioris inmunditiae prostituta ista sacrilegia sacra nominaret seseque spurcorum daemonum turbis conuiolandam polluendamque praeberet.

### Concerning Neptune, and Salacia and Venilia.

[¶20] Chapter 22.—Concerning Neptune, and Salacia and Venilia.

> Latin: Caput XXII. De Neptuno et Salacia ac Venilia.

[¶21] Now Neptune had Salacia to wife, who they say is the nether waters of the sea. Wherefore was Venilia also joined to him? Was it not simply through the lust of the soul desiring a greater number of demons to whom to prostitute itself, and not because this goddess was necessary to the perfection of their sacred rites? But let the interpretation of this illustrious theology be brought forward to restrain us from this 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, are there two goddesses, when it is one wave which comes and returns? Certainly it is mad lust itself, which in its eagerness for many deities resembles the waves which break on the shore. For though the water which goes is not different from that which returns, still the soul which goes and returns not is defiled by two demons, whom it has taken occasion by this false pretext to invite. I ask thee, O Varro, and you who have read such works of learned men, and think ye have learned something great,—I ask you to interpret this, I do not say in a manner consistent with the eternal and unchangeable nature which alone is God, but only in a manner consistent with the doctrine concerning the soul of the world and its parts, which ye think to be the true gods. It is a somewhat more tolerable thing that ye have made that part of the soul of the world which pervades the sea your god Neptune. Is the wave, then, which comes to the shore and returns to the main, two parts of the world, or two parts of the soul of the world? Who of you is so silly as to think so? Why, then, have they made to you two goddesses? The only reason seems to be, that your wise ancestors have provided, not that many gods should rule you, but that many of such demons as are delighted with those vanities and falsehoods should possess you. 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 she is the receding wave, ye have put her on the surface. Was she enraged at her husband for taking Venilia as a concubine, and thus drove him from the upper part of the sea?

> Latin: Iam utique habebat Salaciam Neptunus uxorem, quam inferiorem aquam maris esse dixerunt: ut quid illi adiuncta est et Venilia, nisi ut sine ulla causa necessariorum sacrorum sola libidine animae prostitutae multiplicaretur inuitatio daemoniorum? Sed proferatur interpretatio praeclarae theologiae, quae nos ab ista reprehensione reddita ratione conpescat. ‘Venilia, inquit, unda est, quae ad litus uenit; Salacia, quae in salum redit. Quur ergo deae fiunt duae, cum sit una unda quae uenit et redit? Nempe ipsa est exaestuans in multa numina libido uesana. Quamuis enim aqua non geminetur quae it et redit, huius tamen occasione uanitatis duobus daemoniis inuitatis amplius commaculatur anima, quae it et non redit. Quaeso te, Varro, uel uos, qui tam doctorum hominum talia scripta legistis et aliquid magnum uos didicisse iactatis, interpretamini hoc, nolo dicere secundum illam aeternam incommutabilemque naturam, qui solus est Deus, sed saltem secundum animam mundi et partes eius, quos deos esse ueros existimatis. Partem animae mundi, quae mare permeat, deum uobis fecisse Neptunum utcumque tolerabilioris erroris est. Itane unda ad litus ueniens et in salum rediens duae sunt partes mundi aut duae partes animae mundi? Quis uestrum ita desipiat, ut hoc sapiat? Quur ergo uobis duas deas fecerunt, nisi quia prouisum est a sapientibus maioribus uestris, non ut di plures uos regerent, sed ut ea, quae istis uanitatibus et falsitatibus gaudent, plura uos daemonia possiderent? Quur autem illa Salacia per hanc interpretationem inferiorem maris partem, qua uiro erat subdita, perdidit? Namque illam modo, cum relluentem fluctum esse perhibetis, in superficie posuistis. An quia Veniliam pellicem accepit, irata suum maritum de supernis maris exclusit?

## 38. Concerning the Earth, Which Varro Affirms to Be a Goddess, Because that Soul of the World Which He Thinks to Be God Pervades Also This Lowest Part of His Body, and Imparts to It a Divine Force.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/38/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/38/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 23.—Concerning the Earth, Which Varro Affirms to Be a Goddess, Because that Soul of the World Which He Thinks to Be God Pervades Also This Lowest Part of His Body, and Imparts to It a Divine Force.

> Latin: Caput XXIII. De Terra, quam Varro deam esse confirmat, eo quod ille animus mundi, quem opinatur deum, etiam hanc corporis sui infimam partem permeet eique uim diuinam inpertiat.

[¶1] Surely the earth, which we see full of its own living creatures, is one; but for all that, it is but a mighty mass among the 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, who render it fruitful by cultivating it; but though they plough it, do not adore it? But, say they, the part of the soul of the world which pervades it makes it a goddess. As if it were not a far more evident thing, nay, a thing which is not called in question, that there is a soul in man. And yet men are not held to be gods, but (a thing to be sadly lamented), with wonderful and pitiful delusion, are subjected to those who are not gods, and than whom they themselves are better, as the objects of deserved worship and adoration. And certainly the same Varro, in the book concerning the select gods, affirms that there are three grades of soul in universal nature. One which pervades all the living parts of the body, and has not sensation, but only the power of life,—that principle which penetrates into the bones, nails and hair. By this principle in the world trees are nourished, and grow without being possessed of sensation, and live in a manner peculiar to themselves. The second grade of soul is that in which there is sensation. This principle penetrates into the eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, and the organs of sensation. The third grade of soul is the highest, and is called mind, where intelligence has its throne. This grade of soul no mortal creatures except man are possessed of. Now this part of the soul of the world, Varro says, is called God, and in us is called Genius. And the stones and earth in the world, which we see, and which are not pervaded by the power of sensation, are, as it were, the bones and nails of God. Again, the sun, moon, and stars, which we perceive, and by which He perceives, are His organs of perception. Moreover, the ether is His mind; and by the virtue which is in it, which penetrates into the stars, it also makes them gods; and because it penetrates through them into the earth, it makes it the goddess Tellus, whence again it enters and permeates the sea and ocean, making them the god Neptune.

> Latin: Nempe una est terra, quam plenam quidem uidemus animalibus suis; uerum tamen ipsam magnum corpus in elementis mundique infimam partem, quur eam uolunt deam? An quia fecunda est? Quur ergo non magis homines di sunt, qui eam fecundiorem faciunt excolendo; sed cum arant, non cum adorant? Sed pars animae mundi, inquiunt, quae per illam permeat. deam facit. Quasi non euidentior sit in hominibus anima, quae utrum sit nulla fit quaestio; et tamen homines di non habentur et, quod est grauiter dolendum, his, qui di non sunt et quibus ipsi meliores sunt, colendis et adorandis mirabili et miserabili errore subduntur. Et certe idem Varro in eodem de dis selectis libro tres esse adfirmat animae gradus in omni uniuersaque natura: unum, qui omnes partes corporis, quae uiuunt, transit et non habet sensum, sed tantum ad uiuendum ualetudinem; hanc uim in nostro corpore permanare dicit in ossa, ungues, capillos; sicut in mundo arbores sine sensu aluntur et crescunt et modo quodam suo uiuunt: secundum gradum animae, in quo sensus est; hanc uim peruenire in oculos, aures, nares, os, tactum: tertium gradum esse animae summum, quod uocatur animus, in quo intellegentia praeminet; hoc praeter hominem omnes carere mortales. Hanc partem animae mundi dicit Deum, in nobis autem genium uocari. Esse autem in mundo lapides ac terram, quam uidemus, quo non permanat sensus, ut ossa, ut ungues Dei; solem uero, lunam, stellas, quae sentimus quibusque ipse sentit, sensus esse eius; aethera porro animum eius; cuius uim, quae peruenit in astra, ea quoque facere deos, et per ea quod in terram permanat, deam Tellurem; quod autem inde permanat in mare adque oceanum, deum esse Neptunum.

[¶2] Let him return from this, which he thinks to be natural theology, back to that from which he went out, in order to rest from the fatigue occasioned by the many turnings and windings of his path. Let him return, I say, let him return to the civil theology. I wish to detain him there a while. I have somewhat to say which has to do with that theology. I am not yet saying, that if the earth and stones are similar to our bones and nails, they are in like manner devoid of intelligence, as they are devoid of sensation. Nor am I saying that, if our bones and nails are said to have intelligence, because they are in a man who has intelligence, he who says that the things analogous to these in the world are gods, is as stupid as he is who says that our bones and nails are men. We shall perhaps have occasion to dispute these things with the philosophers. At present, however, I wish to deal with Varro as a political theologian. For it is possible that, 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 caused him to relapse into the point of view of that theology, and to say this in order that the ancestors of his nation, and other states, might not be believed to have bestowed on Neptune an irrational worship. What I am to say is this: Since the earth is one, why has not that part of the soul of the world which permeates the earth made it that one goddess which he calls Tellus? But had it done so, what then had become of Orcus, the brother of Jupiter and Neptune, whom they call Father Dis? And where, in that case, had been his wife Proserpine, who, according to another opinion given in the same book, is called, not the fecundity of the earth, but its lower part? But if they say that part of the soul of the world, when it permeates the upper part of the earth, makes the god Father Dis, but when it pervades the nether part of the same the goddess Proserpine; what, in that case, will that Tellus be? For all that which she was has been divided into these two parts, and these two gods; so that it is impossible to find what to make or where to place her as a third goddess, except it be said that those divinities Orcus and Proserpine are the one goddess Tellus, and that they are not three gods, but one or two, whilst notwithstanding they are called three, held to be three, worshipped as three, having their own several altars, their own shrines, rites, images, priests, whilst their own false demons also through these things defile the prostituted soul. Let this further question be answered: What part of the earth does a part of the soul of the world permeate in order to make the god Tellumo? No, says he; but the earth being one and the same, has a double life,—the masculine, which produces seed, 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 others being added,—namely, to Tellus, Tellumo, Altor, and Rusor? We have already spoken concerning Tellus and Tellumo. But why do they worship Altor? Because, says he, all that springs of the earth is nourished by the earth. Wherefore do they worship Rusor? Because all things return back again to the place whence they proceeded.

> Latin: Redeat ergo ab hac, quam theologian naturalem putat, quo uelut requiescendi causa ab his ambagibus adque anfractibus fatigatus egressus est; redeat, inquam, redeat ad ciuilem; hic eum adhuc teneo, tantisper de hac ago. Nondum dico, si terra et lapides nostris sunt ossibus et unguibus similes, similiter eos intellegentiam non habere, sicut sensu carent; aut si idcirco habere dicuntur ossa et ungues nostri intellegentiam,. quia in homine sunt qui habet intellegentiam, tam stultum esse qui hos in mundo deos dicit, quam stultus est qui in nobis ossa et ungues homines dicit. Sed haec cum philosophis fortassis agenda sunt; nunc autem istum adhuc politicum uolo. Fieri enim potest, ut, licet in illam naturalis theologiae ueluti libertatem caput erigere paululum uoluisse uideatur, adhuc tamen hunc librum uersans et se in illo uersari cogitans, eum etiam inde respexerit et hoc propterea dixerit, ne maiores eius siue aliae ciuitates Tellurem adque Neptunum inaniter coluisse credantur. Sed hoc dico: pars animi mundani, quae per terram permeat, sicut una est terra, quur non etiam unam fecit deam, quam dicit esse Tellurem? Quod si ita fecit, ubi erit Orcus, frater Iouis adque Neptuni, quem Ditem patrem uocant? ubi eius coniunx Proserpina, quae secundum aliam in eisdem libris positam opinionem non terrae fecunditas, sed pars inferior perhibetur? Quod si dicunt animi mundani partem, cum permeat terrae partem superiorem, Ditem patrem facere deum; cum uero inferiorem, Proserpinam deam: Tellus illa quid erit? Ita enim totum, quod ipsa erat, in duas istas partes deosque diuisum est, ut ipsa tertia quae sit aut ubi sit inuenire non possit; nisi quis dicat simul istos deos Orcum adque Proserpinam unam deam esse Tellurem et non esse iam tres, sed aut unam aut duos; et tamen tres dicuntur, tres habentur, tres coluntur aris suis, delubris suis, sacris, simulacris, sacerdotibus suis, et per haec etiam fallacibus prostitutam animam constuprantibus daemonibus suis. Adhuc respondeatur, quam partem terrae permeet pars mundani animi, ut deum faciat Tellumonem? Non, inquit, sed una eademque terra habet geminam uim, et masculinam, quod semina producat, et femininam, quod recipiat adque nutriat; inde a ui feminae dictam esse Tellurem, a masculi Tellumonem. Quur ergo pontifices, ut ipse indicat, additis quoque aliis duobus quattuor dis faciunt rem diuinam, Telluri, Tellumoni, Altori, Rusori? De Tellure et Tellumone iam dictum est. Altori quare? Quod ex terra, inquit, aluntur omnia quae nata sunt. Rusori quare? Quod rursus, inquit, cuncta eodem reuoluuntur.

### Concerning the Surnames of Tellus and Their Significations, Which, Although They Indicate Many Properties, Ought Not to Have Established the Opinion that There is a Corresponding Number of Gods.

[¶4] Chapter 24.—Concerning the Surnames of Tellus and Their Significations, Which, Although They Indicate Many Properties, Ought Not to Have Established the Opinion that There is a Corresponding Number of Gods.

> Latin: Caput XXIV. De Telluris cognominibus eorumque significationibus, quae etiamsi erant multarum rerum indices, non debuerunt multorum deorum firmare opiniones.

[¶5] 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 have so many surnames, are for all that only single deities,—for by all 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 sometimes even the vilest women themselves grow tired of those crowds which they have sought after under the impulse of wicked passion, so also the soul, become vile, and prostituted to impure spirits, sometimes begins to loathe to multiply to itself gods to whom to surrender itself to be polluted by them, as much as it once delighted in so doing. For Varro himself, as if ashamed of that crowd of gods, would make Tellus to be one goddess. “They say,” says he, “that whereas the one great mother has a tympanum, it is signified that she is the orb of the earth; whereas she has towers on her head, towns are signified; and whereas seats are fixed round about her, it is signified that whilst all things move, she moves not. And their having made the Galli to serve this goddess, signifies that they who are in need of seed ought to follow the earth for in it all seeds are found. By their throwing themselves down 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 the noise made by the throwing of iron utensils, and by men’s hands, and all other noises connected with agricultural operations; and these cymbals are of brass, because the ancients used brazen utensils in their agriculture before iron was discovered. They place beside the goddess an unbound and tame lion, to show that there is no kind of land so wild and so excessively barren as that it would be profitless to attempt to bring it in and cultivate it.” Then he adds that, because they gave many names and surnames to mother Tellus, it came to be thought that these signified many gods. “They think,” says he, “that Tellus is Ops, because the earth is improved by labor; Mother, because it brings forth much; Great, because it brings forth seed; Proserpine, because fruits creep forth from it; Vesta, because it is invested with herbs. And thus,” says he, “they not at all absurdly identify other goddesses with the earth.” If, then, it is one goddess (though, if the truth were consulted, it is not even that), why do they nevertheless separate it into many? Let there be many names of one goddess, and let there not be as many goddesses as there are names.

> Latin: Debuit ergo una terra propter istam quatergeminam uim quattuor habere cognomina, non quattuor facere deos; sicut tot cognominibus unus Iuppiter et tot cognominibus una Iuno, in quibus omnibus uis multiplex esse dicitur ad unum deum uel unam deam pertinens, non multitudo cognominum deorum etiam multitudinem faciens. Sed profecto sicut aliquando etiam ipsas uilissimas feminas earum, quas libidine quaesierunt, taedet paenitetque turbarum: sic animam uilem factam et inmundis spiritibus prostitutam deos sibi multiplicare, quibus contaminanda prosterneretur, sicut plurimum libuit, sic aliquando et piguit. Nam et ipse Varro quasi de ipsa turba uerecundatus unam deam uult esse Tellurem. ‘Eandem, inquit, dicunt Matrem Magnam; quod tympanum habeat, significari esse orbem terrae; quod turres in capite, oppida; quod sedens fingatur, circa eam cum omnia moueantur, ipsam non moueri. Quod Gallos huic deae ut seruirent fecerunt, significat, qui semine indigeant, terram sequi oportere; in ea quippe omnia reperiri. Quod se aput eam iactant, praecipitur, inquit, qui terram colunt, ne sedeant; semper enim esse quod agant. Cymbalorum sonitus ferramentorum iactandorum ac manuum et eius rei crepitum in colendo agro qui fit significant; ideo aere, quod eam antiqui colebant aere, antequam ferrum esset inuentum. Leonem, inquit, adiungunt solutum ac mansuetum, ut ostendant nullum genus esse terrae tam remotum ac uehementer ferum, quod non subigi colique conueniat. Deinde adiungit et dicit, Tellurem matrem et nominibus pluribus et cognominibus quod nominarunt, deos existimatos esse conplures. (Tellurem, inquit, putant esse Opem, quod opere fiat melior; Matrem, quod plurima pariat; Magnam, quod cibum pariat; Proserpinam, quod ex ea proserpant fruges; Vestam, quod uestiatur herbis. Sic alias deas, inquit, non absurde ad hanc reuocant.’ Si ergo una dea est, quae quidem consulta ueritate nec ipsa est, interim quid itur in multas? Unius sint ista multa nomina, non tam deae multae quam nomina.

[¶6] But the authority of the erring ancients weighs heavily on Varro, 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 thought that there were really many goddesses, does not conflict.” How does it not conflict, when it is entirely a different thing to say that one goddess has many names, and to say that there are many goddesses? But it is possible, he says, that the same thing may both be one, and yet have in it a plurality of things. I grant that there are many things in one man; are there therefore in him many men? In like manner, in one goddess there are many things; are there therefore also many goddesses? But let them divide, unite, multiply, reduplicate, and implicate as they like.

> Latin: Sed errantium maiorum auctoritas deprimit et eundem Varronem post hanc sententiam trepidare conpellit. Adiungit enim et dicit: Cum quibus opinio maiorum de his deabus, quod plures eas putarunt esse, non pugnat.’ Quo modo non pugnat, cum ualde aliud sit unam deam nomina habere multa, aliud esse deas multas? ‘Sed potest, inquit, fieri ut eadem res et una sit, et in ea quaedam res sint plures.’ Concedo in una homine esse res plures, numquid ideo et homines plures? Sic in una dea esse res plures, numquid ideo et deas plures? Verum sicut uolunt, diuidant conflent, multiplicent replicent inplicent.

[¶7] These are the famous mysteries of Tellus and the Great Mother, all of which are shown to have reference to mortal seeds and to agriculture. Do these things, then,—namely, the tympanum, the towers, the Galli, the tossing to and fro of limbs, the noise of cymbals, the images of lions,—do these things, having this reference and this end, promise eternal life? Do the mutilated Galli, then, serve this Great Mother in order to signify that they who are in need of seed should follow the earth, as though it were not rather the case that this very service caused them to want seed? For whether do they, by following this goddess, acquire seed, being in want of it, or, by following her, lose seed when they have it? Is this to interpret or to deprecate? Nor is it considered to what a degree malign demons have gained the upper hand, inasmuch as they have been able to exact such cruel rites without having dared to promise any great things in return for them. Had the earth not been a goddess, men would have, by laboring, laid their hands on it in order to obtain seed through it, and would not have laid violent hands on themselves in order to lose seed on account of it. Had it not been a goddess, it would have become so fertile by the hands of others, that it would not have compelled a man to be rendered barren by his own hands; nor that in the festival of Liber an honorable matron put a wreath on the private parts of a man in the sight of the multitude, where perhaps her husband was standing by blushing and perspiring, if there is any shame left in men; and that in the celebration of marriages the newly-married bride was ordered to sit upon Priapus. These things are bad enough, but they are small and contemptible in comparison with that most cruel abomination, or most abominable cruelty, by which either set is so deluded that neither perishes of its wound. There the enchantment of fields is feared; here the amputation of members is not feared. There the modesty of the bride is outraged, but in such a manner as that neither her fruitfulness nor even her virginity is taken away; here a man is so mutilated that he is neither changed into a woman nor remains a man.

> Latin: Haec sunt Telluris et Matris Magnae praeclara mysteria, unde omnia referuntur ad mortalia semina et exercendam agriculturam. Itane ad haec relata et hunc finem habentia tympanum, turres, Galli, iactatio insana membrorum, crepitus cymbalorum, confictio leonum uitam cuiquam pollicentur aeternam? Itane propterea Galli abscisi huic Magnae deae seruiunt, ut significent, qui semine indigeant, terram sequi oportere; quasi non eos ipsa potius seruitus semine faciat indigere? Utrum enim sequendo hanc deam, cum indigeant, semen adquirunt, an potius sequendo hanc deam, cum habeant, semen amittunt? Hoc interpretari est an detestari? Nec adtenditur, quantum maligni daemones praeualuerint, qui nec aliqua magna his sacris polliceri ausi sunt, et tam crudelia exigere potuerunt. Si dea terra non esset, manus ei homines operando inferrent, ut semina consequerentur per illam, non et sibi saeuiendo, ut semina perderent propter illam; si dea non esset, ita fecunda fieret manibus alienis, ut non cogeret hominem sterilem fieri manibus suis. Iam quod in Liberi sacris honesta matrona pudenda uirilia coronabat spectante multitudine, ubi rubens et sudans, si est ulla frons in hominibus, adstabat forsitan et maritus; et quod in celebratione nuptiarum super Priapi scapum noua nupta sedere iubebatur: longe contemtibiliora adque leuiora sunt prae ista turpitudine crudelissima uel crudelitate turpissima, ubi daemonicis ritibus sic uterque sexus inluditur, ut neuter suo uulnere perimatur. Ibi fascinatio timetur agrorum, hic membrorum amputatio non timetur. Ibi sic dehonestatur nouae nuptae uerecundia, ut non solum fecunditas, sed nec uirginitas adimatur; hic ita amputatur uirilitas, ut nec conuertatur in feminam nec uir relinquatur.

### The Interpretation of the Mutilation of Atys Which the Doctrine of the Greek Sages Set Forth.

[¶9] Chapter 25.—The Interpretation of the Mutilation of Atys Which the Doctrine of the Greek Sages Set Forth.

> Latin: Caput XXV. Quam interpretationem de abscisione Attidis Graecorum sapientium doctrina reppererit

[¶10] Varro has not spoken of that Atys, nor sought out any interpretation for him, in memory of whose being loved by Ceres the Gallus is mutilated. But the learned and wise Greeks have by no means been silent about an interpretation so holy and so illustrious. The celebrated philosopher Porphyry has said that Atys signifies the flowers of spring, which is the most beautiful season, and therefore was mutilated because the flower falls before the fruit appears. They have not, then, compared the man himself, or rather that semblance of a man they called Atys, to the flower, but his male organs,—these, indeed, fell whilst he was living. Did I say fell? nay, truly they did not fall, nor were they plucked off, but torn away. Nor when that flower was lost did any fruit follow, but rather sterility. What, then, do they say is signified by the castrated Atys himself, and whatever remained to him after his castration? To what do they refer that? What interpretation does that give rise to? Do they, after vain endeavors to discover an interpretation, seek to persuade men that that is rather to be believed which report has made public, and which has also been written concerning his having been a mutilated man? Our Varro has very properly opposed this, and has been unwilling to state it; for it certainly was not unknown to that most learned man.

> Latin: Et Attis ille non est commemoratus nec eius ab isto interpretatio requisita est, in cuius dilectionis memoriam Gallus absciditur. Sed docti Graeci adque sapientes nequaquam rationem tam sanctam praeclaramque tacuerunt. Propter uernalem quippe faciem terrae, quae ceteris est temporibus pulchrior, Porphyrius, philosophus nobilis, Attin flores significare perhibuit, et ideo abscisum, quia flos decidit ante fructum. Non ergo ipsum hominem uel quasi hominem, qui est uocatus Attis, sed uirilia eius flori conparauerunt. Ipsa quippe illo uiuente deciderunt; immo uero non deciderunt neque decerpta, sed plane discerpta sunt; nec illo flore amisso quisquam postea fructus, sed potius sterilitas consecuta est. Quid ergo ipse reliquus, et quidquid remansit absciso? quid eo significari dicitur? quo refertur? quae interpretatio inde profertur? An haec frustra moliendo nihilque inueniendo persuadent illud potius esse credendum, quod de homine castrato fama iactauit litterisque mandatum est? Merito hinc auersatus est Varro noster, neque hoc dicere uoluit; non enim hominem doctissimum latuit.

### Concerning the Abomination of the Sacred Rites of the Great Mother.

[¶12] Chapter 26.—Concerning the Abomination of the Sacred Rites of the Great Mother.

> Latin: Caput XXVI. De turpitudine sacrorum Matris Magnae.

[¶13] Concerning the effeminates consecrated to the same Great Mother, in defiance of all the modesty which belongs to men and women, Varro has not wished to say anything, nor do I remember to have read anywhere aught concerning them. These effeminates, no later than yesterday, were going through the streets and places of Carthage with anointed hair, whitened faces, relaxed bodies, and feminine gait, exacting from the people the means of maintaining their ignominious lives. Nothing has been said concerning them. Interpretation failed, reason blushed, speech was silent. The Great Mother has surpassed all her sons, not in greatness of deity, but of crime. To this monster not even the monstrosity of Janus is to be compared. His deformity was only in his image; hers was the deformity of cruelty in her sacred rites. He has a redundancy of members in stone images; she inflicts the loss of members on men. This abomination is not surpassed by the licentious deeds of Jupiter, so many and so great. He, with all his seductions of women, only disgraced heaven with one 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, or even set him before her in this kind of abominable cruelty, for he mutilated his father. But at the festivals of Saturn, men could rather be slain by the 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 to him. This Great Mother of the gods, however, has brought mutilated men into Roman temples, and has preserved that cruel custom, being believed to promote the strength of the Romans by emasculating their men. Compared with this evil, what are the thefts of Mercury, the wantonness of Venus, and the base and flagitious deeds of the rest of them, which we might bring forward from books, were it not that they are daily sung and danced in the theatres? But what are these things to so great an evil,—an evil whose magnitude was only proportioned 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 audacity and impudence of the poets that these things have been sung and written of. But that they have been incorporated into the body of divine rites and honors, the deities themselves demanding and extorting that incorporation, what is that but the crime of the gods? nay more, the confession of demons and the deception of wretched men? But as to this that the Great Mother is considered to be worshipped in the appropriate form when she is worshipped by the consecration of mutilated 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 whom he could not live decently before death, being subjected to such foul superstitions, and bound over to unclean demons? But all these things, says Varro, are to be referred to the world. Let him consider if it be not rather to the unclean. But why not refer that to the world which is demonstrated to be in the world? We, however, seek for a mind which, trusting to true religion, does not adore the world as its god, but for the 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.

> Latin: Itemque de mollibus eidem Matri Magnae contra omnem uirorum mulierumque uerecundiam consecratis, qui usque in hesternum diem madidis capillis facie dealbata, fluentibus membris incessu femineo per plateas uicosque Carthaginis etiam a propolis unde turpiter uiuerent exigebant, nihil Varro dicere uoluit nec uspiam me legisse commemini. Defecit interpretatio, erubuit ratio, conticuit oratio. Vicit Matris Magnae omnes deos filios non numinis magnitudo, sed criminis. Huic monstro nec Iani monstrositas conparatur. Ille in simulacris habebat solam deformitatem, ista in sacris deformem crudelitatem; ille membra in lapidibus addita, haec in hominibus perdita. Hoc dedecus tot Iouis ipsius et tanta stupra non uincunt. Ille inter femineas corruptelas uno Ganymede caelum infamauit; ista tot mollibus professis et publicis et inquinauit terram et caelo fecit iniuriam. Saturnum fortasse possemus huic in isto genere turpissimae crudelitatis siue conferre siue praeferre, qui patrem castrasse perhibetur; sed in Saturni sacris homines alienis manibus potius occidi quam suis abscidi potuerunt. Deuorauit ille filios, ut poetae ferunt, et physici ex hoc interpretantur quod uolunt; ut autem historia prodit, necauit; sed quod ei Poeni suos filios sacrificati sunt, non recepere Romani. At uero ista Magna deorum Mater etiam Romanis templis castratos intulit adque istam saeuitiam moremque seruauit, credita uires adiuuare Romanorum exsecando uirilia uirorum. Quid sunt ad hoc malum furta Mercurii, Veneris lasciuia, stupra ac turpitudines ceterorum, quae proferremus de libris, nisi cottidie cantarentur et saltarentur in theatris? Sed haec quid sunt ad tantum malum, cuius magnitudo Magnae Matri tantummodo conpetebat? Praesertim quod illa dicuntur a poetis esse conficta, quasi poetae id etiam finxerint, quod ea sint dis grata et accepta. Ut ergo canerentur uel scriberentur, sit audacia uel petulantia poetarum; ut uero diuinis rebus et honoribus eisdem imperantibus et extorquentibus numinibus adderentur, quid est nisi crimen deorum, immo uero confessio daemoniorum et deceptio miserorum? Verum illud, quod de abscisorum consecratione Mater deum coli meruit, non poetae confinxerunt, sed horrere magis quam canere maluerunt. Hisne dis selectis quisquam consecrandus est, ut post mortem uiuat beate, quibus consecratus ante mortem honeste non potest uiuere, tam foedis superstitionibus subditus et inmundis daemonibus obligatus? Sed haec omnia, inquit, referuntur ad mundum. Videat ne potius ad inmundum. Quid autem non potest referri ad mundum, quod esse demonstratur in mundo? Nos autem animum quaerimus, qui uera religione confisus non tamquam deum suum adoret mundum, sed tamquam opus Dei propter Deum laudet mundum, et mundanis sordibus expiatus mundus perueniat ad Deum, qui condidit mundum.

### Concerning the Figments of the Physical Theologists, Who Neither Worship the True Divinity, Nor Perform the Worship Wherewith the True Divinity Should Be Served.

[¶15] Chapter 27.—Concerning the Figments of the Physical Theologists, Who Neither Worship the True Divinity, Nor Perform the Worship Wherewith the True Divinity Should Be Served.

> Latin: Caput XXVII. De figmentis physiologorum, qui nec ueram diuinitatem colunt, nec eo cultu quo colenda est uera diuinitas.

[¶16] We see that these select gods have, indeed, become more famous than the rest; not, however, that their merits may be brought to light, but that their opprobrious deeds may not be hid. Whence it is more credible that they were men, as not only poetic but also historical literature has handed down. For this which Virgil says,

> Latin: Istos uero deos selectos uidemus quidem clarius innotuisse quam ceteros, non tamen ut eorum inlustrarentur merita, sed ne occultarentur obprobria; unde magis eos homines fuisse credibile est, sicut non solum poeticae litterae, uerum etiam historicae tradiderunt.

[¶17] “Then from Olympus’ heights came down

[¶18] Good Saturn, exiled from his throne

[¶19] By Jove, his mightier heir;”

[¶20] and what follows with reference to this affair, is fully related by the historian Euhemerus, and has been translated into Latin by Ennius. And as they who have written before us in the Greek or in the Latin tongue against such errors as these have said much concerning this matter, I have thought it unnecessary to dwell upon it. When I consider those physical reasons, then, by which learned and acute men attempt to turn human things into divine things, all I see is that they have been able to refer these things only to temporal works and to that which has a corporeal nature, and even though invisible still mutable; and this is by no means the true God. But if this worship had been performed as the symbolism of ideas at least congruous with religion, though it would indeed have been cause of grief that the true God was not announced and proclaimed by its symbolism, nevertheless it could have been in some degree borne with, when it did not occasion and command the performance of such foul and abominable things. But since it is impiety to worship the body or the soul for the true God, by whose indwelling alone the soul is happy, how much more impious is it to worship those things through which neither soul nor body can obtain either salvation or human honor? Wherefore if with temple, priest, and sacrifice, which are due to the true God, any element of the world be worshipped, or any created spirit, even though not impure and evil, that worship is still evil, not because the things are evil by which the worship is performed, but because those things ought only to be used in the worship of Him to whom alone such worship and service are due. But if any one insist that he worships the one true God,—that is, the Creator of every soul and of every body,—with stupid and monstrous idols, with human victims, with putting a wreath on the male organ, with the wages of unchastity, with the cutting of limbs, with emasculation, with the consecration of effeminates, with impure and obscene plays, such a one does not 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 and obscene things,—and that not the true God, namely, the maker of soul and body, but a creature, even though not a wicked creature, whether it be soul or body, or soul and body together, twice sins against God, because he both worships for God what is not God, and also worships with such things as neither God nor what is not God ought to be worshipped with. It is, indeed, manifest how these pagans worship,—that is, how shamefully and criminally they worship; but what or whom they worship would have been left in obscurity, had not their history testi fied that those same confessedly base and foul rites were rendered in obedience to the demands of the gods, who exacted them with terrible severity. Wherefore it is evident beyond doubt that this whole civil theology is occupied in inventing means for attracting wicked and most impure spirits, inviting them to visit senseless images, and through these to take possession of stupid hearts.

> Latin: Nam quod Vergilius ait: Primus ab aetherio uenit Saturnus Olympo, Arma Iouis fugiens et regnis exul ademtis, et quae ad hanc rem pertinentia consequuntur, totam de hoc Euhemerus pandit historiam, quam Ennius in Latinum uertit eloquium; unde quia plurima posuerunt, qui contra huius modi errores ante nos uel Graeco sermone uel Latino scripserunt, non in eo mihi placuit inmorari. Ipsas physiologias cum considero, quibus docti et acuti homines has res humanas conantur uertere in res diuinas, nihil uideo nisi ad temporalia terrenaque opera naturamque corpoream uel etiamsi inuisibilem, tamen mutabilem potuisse reuocari; quod nullo modo est uerus Deus. Hoc autem si saltem religiositati congruis significationibus ageretur, esset quidem dolendum non his uerum Deum adnuntiari adque praedicari, tamen aliquo modo ferendum tam foeda et turpia non fieri nec iuberi; at nunc cum pro Deo uero, quo solo anima se inhabitante fit felix, nefas sit colere aut corpus aut animam, quanto magis nefarium est ista sic colere, ut nec salutem nec decus humanum corpus aut anima colentis obtineat! Quam ob rem si templo sacerdote sacrificio, quod uero Deo debetur, colatur aliquod elementum mundi uel creatus aliquis spiritus, etiamsi non inmundus et malus: non ideo malum est, quia illa mala sunt, quibus colitur, sed quia illa talia sunt, quibus ille solus colendus sit, cui talis cultus seruitusque debetur. Si autem stoliditate uel monstrositate simulacrorum, sacrificiis homicidiorum, coronatione uirilium pudendorum, mercede stuprorum, sectione membrorum, abscisione genitalium, consecratione mollium, festis inpurorum obscenorumque ludorum unum uerum Deum, id est omnis animae corporisque creatorem, colere se quisque contendat: non ideo peccat, quia non est colendus quem colit, sed quia colendum non ut colendus est colit. Qui uero et rebus talibus, id est turpibus et scelestis, et non Deum uerum, id est animae corporisque factorem, sed creaturam quamuis non uitiosam colit, siue illa sit anima siue corpus siue anima simul et corpus. bis peccat in Deum, quod et pro ipso colit, quod non est ipse, et talibus rebus colit, qualibus nec ipse colendus est nec non ipse. Sed hi quonam modo, id est quam turpiter nefarieque coluerint, in promtu est; quid autem uel quos coluerint, esset obscurum, nisi eorum testaretur historia ea ipsa, quae foeda et turpia confitentur, numinibus terribiliter exigentibus reddita; unde remotis constat ambagibus nefarios daemones adque inmundissimos spiritus hac omni ciuili theologia inuisendis stolidis imaginibus et per eas possidendis etiam stultis cordibus inuitatos.

### That the Doctrine of Varro Concerning Theology is in No Part Consistent with Itself.

[¶22] Chapter 28.—That the Doctrine of Varro Concerning Theology is in No Part Consistent with Itself.

> Latin: Caput XXVIII. Quod doctrina Varronis de theologia in nulla sibi parte concordet.

[¶23] To what purpose, then, is it that this most learned and most acute man Varro attempts, as it were, with subtle disputation, to reduce and refer all these gods to heaven and earth? He cannot do it. They go out of his hands like water; they shrink back; they slip down and fall. For when about to speak of the females, that is, the goddesses, he says, “Since, as I observed in the first book concerning places, heaven and earth are the two origins of the gods, on which account they are called celestials and terrestrials, and as I began in the former books with heaven, speaking of Janus, whom some have said to be heaven, and others the earth, so I now commence with Tellus in speaking concerning the goddesses.” I can understand what embarrassment so great a mind was experiencing. For he is influenced by the perception of a certain plausible resemblance, when he says that the heaven is that which does, and the earth that which suffers, and therefore attributes the masculine principle to the one, and the feminine to the other, not considering that it is rather He who made both heaven and earth who is the maker of both activity and passivity. On this principle he interprets the celebrated mysteries of the Samothracians, and promises, with an air of great devoutness, that he will by writing expound these mysteries, which have not been so much as known to his countrymen, and will send them his exposition. Then he says that he had from many proofs gathered that, in those mysteries, among the images one signifies heaven, another the earth, another the patterns of things, which Plato calls ideas. He makes Jupiter to signify 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, with respect to the last, I am forgetting to say that Plato attributed so 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. To return, however,—it is to be observed that Varro has, in the book on the select gods, lost that theory of these gods, in whom he has, as it were, embraced all things. For he assigns the male gods to heaven, the females to earth; among which latter he has placed Minerva, whom he had before placed above heaven itself. Then the male god Neptune is in the sea, which pertains rather to earth than to heaven. Last of all, father Dis, who is called in Greek Πλουτων, another male god, brother of both (Jupiter and Neptune), is also held to be a god of the earth, holding the upper region of the earth himself, and allotting the nether region to his wife Proserpine. How, then, do they attempt to refer the gods to heaven, and the goddesses to earth? What solidity, what consistency, what sobriety has this disputation? But that Tellus is the origin of the goddesses,—the great mother, to wit, beside whom there is continually the noise of the mad and abominable revelry of effeminates and mutilated men, and men who cut themselves, and indulge in frantic gesticulations,—how is it, then, that Janus is called the head of the gods, and Tellus the head of the goddesses? In the one case error does not make one 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 world for the true God. Nevertheless, plain truth makes it evident that they are not able even to do this. Let them rather identify them with dead men and most wicked demons, and no further question will remain.

> Latin: Quid igitur ualet, quod uir doctissimus et acutissimus Varro uelut subtili disputatione hos omnes deos in caelum et in terram redigere ac referre conatur? Non potest; fluunt de manibus, resiliunt, labuntur et decidunt. Dicturus enim ‘de feminis, hoc est deabus: ‘Quoniam, inquit, ut primo libro dixi de locis, duo sunt principia deorum animaduersa de caelo et terra, a quo di partim dicuntur caelestes, partim terrestres: ut in superioribus initium fecimus a caelo, cum diximus de Iano, quem alii caelum, alii dixerunt esse mundum, sic de feminis scribendi facimus initium a Tellure.) Sentio quantam molestiam tale ac tantum patiatur ingenium. Ducitur enim quadam ratione uerisimili, caelum esse quod faciat, terram quae patiatur, et ideo illi masculinam uim tribuit, huic rem femininam, et non adtendit eum potius esse qui haec facit, qui utrumque fecit. Hinc etiam Samothracum nobilia mysteria in superiore libro sic interpretatur eaque se, quae nec suis nota sunt, scribendo expositurum eisque missurum quasi religiosissime pollicetur. Dicit enim se ibi multis indiciis collegisse in simulacris aliud significare caelum, aliud terram, aliud exempla rerum, quas Plato appellat ideas; caelum Iouem, terram Iunonem, ideas Mineruam uult intellegi; caelum a quo fiat aliquid, terram de qua fiat, exemplum secundum quod fiat. Qua in re omitto dicere, quod Plato illas ideas tantam uim habere dicit, ut secundum eas non caelum aliquid fecerit, sed etiam caelum factum sit. Hoc dico, istum in hoc libro selectorum deorum rationem illam trium deorum, quibus quasi cuncta conplexus est, perdidisse. Caelo enim tribuit masculos deos, feminas terrae; inter quas posuit Mineruam, quam supra ipsum caelum ante posuerat. Deinde masculus deus Neptunus in mari est, quod ad terram potius quam ad caelum pertinet. Dis pater postremo, qui Graece Πλούτων dicitur, etiam ipse masculus frater amborum terrenus deus esse perhibetur, superiorem terram tenens, in inferiore habens Proserpinam coniugem. Quo modo ergo deos ad caelum, deas ad terram referre conantur? Quid solidum quid constans, quid sobrium quid definitum habet haec disputatio? Illa est autem Tellus initium dearum, Mater scilicet Magna, aput quam mollium et abscisorum seseque secantium adque. iactantium insana perstrepit turpitudo. Quid est ergo quod dicitur caput deorum Ianus, caput dearum Tellus? Nec ibi facit unum caput error, nec hic sanum furor. Quur haec frustra referre nituntur ad mundum? Quod etsi possent, pro Deo uero mundum nemo pius colit; et tamen eos nec hoc posse ueritas aperta conuincit. Referant haec potius ad homines mortuos et ad daemones pessimos, et nulla quaestio remanebit.

## 39. That All Things Which the Physical Theologists Have Referred to the World and Its Parts, They Ought to Have Referred to the One True God.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/39/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/39/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 29.—That All Things Which the Physical Theologists Have Referred to the World and Its Parts, They Ought to Have Referred to the One True God.

> Latin: Caput XXIX. Quod omnia, quae physiologi ad mundum partesque ipsius rettulerunt, ad unum uerum Deum referre debuerint.

[¶1] For all those things which, according to the account given of those gods, are referred to the world by so-called physical interpretation, may, without any religious scruple, be rather assigned to the true God, who made heaven and earth, and created every soul and every body; and the following is the manner in which we see that this may be done. We worship God,—not heaven and earth, of which two parts this world consists, nor the soul or souls diffused through all living things,—but God who made heaven and earth, and all things which are in them; who made every soul, whatever be the nature of its life, whether it have life without sensation and reason, or life with sensation, or life with both sensation and reason.

> Latin: Namque omnia, quae ab eis ex istorum deorum theologia uelut physicis rationibus referuntur ad mundum, quam sine ullo scrupulo sacrilegae opinionis Deo potius uero, qui fecit mundum, omnis animae et omnis corporis conditori, tribuantur. tur, aduertamus hoc modo: Nos Deum colimus, non caelum et terram, quibus duabus partibus mundus hic constat; nec animam uel animas per uiuentia quaecumque diffusas, sed Deum, qui fecit caelum et terram et omnia, quae in eis sunt; qui fecit omnem animam, sine quocumque modo uiuentem et sensus ac rationis expertem, siue etiam sentientem, siue etiam intellegentem.

### How Piety Distinguishes the Creator from the Creatures, So That, Instead of One God, There are Not Worshipped as Many Gods as There are Works of the One Author.

[¶3] Chapter 30.—How Piety Distinguishes the Creator from the Creatures, So That, Instead of One God, There are Not Worshipped as Many Gods as There are Works of the One Author.

> Latin: Caput XXX. Qua pietate discernatur a creaturis Creator, ne pro uno tot di colantur, quot sunt opera unius auctoris.

[¶4] And now, to begin to go over those works of the one true God, on account of which these have made to themselves many and false gods, whilst they attempt to give an honorable interpretation to their many most abominable and most infamous mysteries,—we worship that God who has appointed to the natures created by Him both the beginnings and the end of their existing and moving; who holds, knows, and disposes the causes of things; who hath created the virtue of seeds; who hath given to what creatures He would a rational soul, which is called mind; who hath bestowed the faculty and use of speech; who hath imparted the gift of foretelling future things to whatever spirits it seemed to Him good; who also Himself predicts future things, through whom He pleases, and through whom He will, removes diseases who, when the human 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 most violent fire of this world, in due relation and proportion to the other elements of immense nature; who is the governor of all the waters; who hath made the sun brightest of all material lights, and hath given him suitable power and motion; who hath not withdrawn, even from the inhabitants of the nether world, His dominion and power; who hath appointed to mortal natures their suitable seed and nourishment, dry or liquid; who establishes and makes fruitful the earth; who bountifully bestows its fruits on animals and on men; who knows and ordains, not only principal causes, but also subsequent causes; who hath determined for the moon her motion; who affords ways in heaven and on earth for passage from one place to another; who hath granted also to human minds, which He hath created, the knowledge of the various arts for the help of life and nature; who hath appointed the union of male and female for the propagation of offspring; who hath favored the societies of men with the gift 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 man Varro has labored to distribute among the select gods, by I know not what physical interpretation, which he has got from other sources, and also conjectured for himself. But these things the one true God makes and does, but as the same God,—that is, as He who is wholly everywhere, included in no space, bound by no chains, mutable in no part of His being, filling heaven and earth with omnipresent power, not with a needy nature. Therefore He governs all things in such a manner as to allow them to perform and exercise their own proper movements. For although they can be nothing without Him, they are not what He is. He does also many things through angels; but only from Himself does He beatify angels. So also, though He send angels to men for certain purposes, He does not for all that beatify men by the good inherent in the angels, but by Himself, as He does the angels themselves.

> Latin: Et ut iam incipiam illa unius et ueri Dei opera percurrere, propter quae isti sibi, dum quasi honeste conantur sacramenta turpissima et scelestissima interpretari, deos multos falsosque fecerunt: illum Deum colimus, qui naturis a se creatis et subsistendi et mouendi initia finesque constituit; qui rerum causas habet, nouit adque disponit; qui uim seminum condidit; qui rationalem animam, quod dicitur animus, quibus uoluit uiuentibus indidit; qui sermonis facultatem usumque donauit; qui munus futura dicendi quibus placuit spiritibus inpertiuit et per quos placet ipse futura praedicit et per quos placet malas ualetudines pellit; qui bellorum quoque ipsorum, cum sic emendandum et castigandum est genus humanum, exordiis progressibus finibusque moderatur; qui mundi huius ignem uehementissimum et uiolentissimum pro inmensae naturae temperamento et creauit et regit; qui uniuersarum aquarum creator et gubernator est; qui solem fecit corporalium clarissimum luminum eique uim congruam et motum dedit; qui ipsis etiam inferis dominationem suam potestatemque non subtrahit; qui semina et alimenta mortalium, siue arida siue liquida, naturis conpetentibus adtributa substituit; qui terram fundat adque fecundat; qui fructus eius animalibus hominibusque largitur; qui causas non solum principales, sed etiam subsequentes nouit adque ordinat; qui lunae statuit modum suum; qui uias caelestes adque terrestres locorum mutationibus praebet; qui humanis ingeniis, quae creauit, etiam scientias artium uariarum ad adiuuandam uitam naturamque concessit; qui coniunctionem maris et feminae ad adiutorium propagandae prolis instituit; qui hominum coetibus, quem focis et luminibus adhiberent, ad facillimos usus munus terreni ignis indulsit. Ista sunt certe, quae dis selectis per nescio quas physicas interpretationes uir acutissimus adque doctissimus Varro, siue quae aliunde accepit, siue quae ipse coniecit, distribuere laborauit. Haec autem facit adque agit unus uerus Deus, sed sicut Deus, id est ubique totus, nullis inclusus locis, nullis uinculis adligatus, in nullas partes sectilis, ex nulla parte mutabilis, inplens caelum et terram praesente potentia, non indigente natura. Sic itaque administrat omnia, quae creauit, ut etiam ipsa proprios exerere et agere motus sinat. Quamuis enim nihil esse possint sine ipso, non sunt quod ipse. Agit autem multa etiam per angelos; sed non nisi ex se ipso beatificat angelos. Ita quamuis propter aliquas causas hominibus angelos mittat, non tamen ex angelis homines, sed ex se ipso, sicut angelos, beatificat. Ab hoc uno et uero Deo uitam speramus aeternam.

### What Benefits God Gives to the Followers of the Truth to Enjoy Over and Above His General Bounty.

[¶6] Chapter 31.—What Benefits God Gives to the Followers of the Truth to Enjoy Over and Above His General Bounty.

> Latin: Caput XXXI. Quibus proprie beneficiis Dei excepta generali largitate sectatores ueritatis utantur.

[¶7] For, besides such benefits as, according to this administration of nature of which we have made some mention, He lavishes on good and bad alike, we have from Him a great manifestation 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 Him who made all these things, nevertheless, what hearts, what number of tongues, shall affirm that they are sufficient to render thanks to Him for this, that He hath not wholly departed from us, laden and overwhelmed with sins, averse to the contemplation of His light, and blinded by the love of darkness, that is, of iniquity, but hath sent to us His own Word, who is His only Son, that by His birth and suffering for us in the flesh, which He assumed, we might know how much God valued man, and that by that unique sacrifice we might be purified from all our sins, and that, love being shed abroad in our hearts by His Spirit, we might, having surmounted all difficulties, come into eternal rest, and the ineffable sweetness of the contemplation of Himself?

> Latin: Habemus enim ab illo praeter huiusce modi beneficia, quae ex hac, de qua nonnulla diximus, administratione naturae bonis malisque largitur, magnum et bonorum proprium magnae dilectionis indicium. Quamquam enim, quod sumus, quod uiuimus, quod caelum terramque conspicimus, quod habemus mentem adque rationem, qua eum ipsum, qui haec omnia condidit, inquiramus, nequaquam ualeamus actioni sufficere gratiarum: tamen quod nos oneratos obrutosque peccatis et a contemplatione suae lucis auersos ac tenebrarum, id est iniquitatis, dilectione caecatos non omnino deseruit misitque nobis Verbum suum, qui est eius unicus filius, quo pro nobis adsumta carne nato adque passo, quanti Deus hominem penderet, nosceremus adque illo sacrificio singulari a peccatis omnibus mundaremur eiusque spiritu in cordibus nostris dilectione diffusa omnibus difficultatibus superatis in aeternam requiem et contemplationis eius ineffabilem dulcedinem ueniremus, quae corda, quot linguae ad agendas ei gratias satis esse contenderint?

### That at No Time in the Past Was the Mystery of Christ’s Redemption Awanting, But Was at All Times Declared, Though in Various Forms.

[¶9] Chapter 32.—That at No Time in the Past Was the Mystery of Christ’s Redemption Awanting, But Was at All Times Declared, Though in Various Forms.

> Latin: Caput XXXII. Quod sacramentum redemtionis Christi nullis retro temporibus defuerit semperque sit diuersis significationibus praedicatum.

[¶10] This mystery of eternal life, even from the beginning of the human race, was, by certain signs and sacraments suitable to the times, announced through angels to those to whom it was meet. Then the Hebrew people was congregated into one republic, as it were, to perform this mystery; and in that republic was foretold, sometimes through men who understood what they spake, and sometimes through men who understood not, 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 the scriptures in which eternal salvation in Christ had been declared. For not only the prophecies which are contained in words, nor only the precepts for the right conduct of life, which teach morals and piety, and are contained in the sacred writings,—not only these, but also the rites, priesthood, tabernacle or temple, altars, sacrifices, ceremonies, and whatever else belongs to that service which is due to God, and which in Greek is properly called λατρεία,—all these signified and fore-announced those things which we who believe in Jesus Christ unto eternal life believe to have been fulfilled, or behold in process of fulfillment, or confidently believe shall yet be fulfilled.

> Latin: Hoc mysterium uitae aeternae iam inde ab exordio generis humani per quaedam signa et sacramenta temporibus congrua, quibus oportuit, per angelos praedicatum est. Deinde populus Hebraeus in unam quandam rem publicam, quae hoc sacramentum ageret, congregatus est, ubi per quosdam scientes, per quos dam nescientes id, quod ex aduentu Christi usque nunc et deinceps agitur, praenuntiaretur esse uenturum; sparsa etiam postea eadem gente per gentes propter testimonium scripturarum, quibus aeterna salus in Christo futura praedicta est. Omnes enim non solum prophetiae, quae in uerbis sunt, nec tantum praecepta uitae, quae mores pietatemque conformant adque illis litteris continentur, uerum etiam sacra, sacerdotia, tabernaculum siue templum, altaria, sacrificia, ceremoniae, dies festi et quidquid aliud ad eam seruitutem pertinet, quae Deo debetur et Graece proprie λατρεία dicitur, ea significata et praenuntiata sunt, quae propter aeternam uitam fidelium in Christo et inpleta credimus et inpleri cernimus et inplenda confidimus.

### That Only Through the Christian Religion Could the Deceit of Malign Spirits, Who Rejoice in the Errors of Men, Have Been Manifested.

[¶12] Chapter 33.—That Only Through the Christian Religion Could the Deceit of Malign Spirits, Who Rejoice in the Errors of Men, Have Been Manifested.

> Latin: Caput XXXIII. Quod per solam Christianam religionem manifestari potuerit fallacia spirituum malignorum de hominum errore gaudentium.

[¶13] This, the only true religion, has alone been able to manifest that the gods of the nations are most impure demons, who desire to be thought gods, availing themselves of the names of certain defunct souls, or the appearance of mundane creatures, and with proud impurity rejoicing in things most base and infamous, as though in divine honors, and envying human souls their conversion to the true God. From whose most cruel and most impious dominion a man is liberated when he believes on Him who has afforded an example of humility, following which men may rise as great as was that pride by which they fell. Hence are not only those gods, concerning whom we have already spoken much, and many others belonging to different nations and lands, but also those of whom we are now treating, who have been selected as it were into the senate of the gods,—selected, however, on account of the notoriousness of their crimes, not on account of the dignity of their virtues,—whose sacred things Varro attempts to refer to certain natural reasons, seeking to make base things honorable, but cannot find how to square and agree with these reasons, because these are not the causes of those rites, which he thinks, or rather wishes to be thought to be so. For had not only these, but also all others of this kind, been real causes, even though they had nothing to do with the true God and eternal life, which is to be sought in religion, they would, by affording some sort of reason drawn from the nature of things, have mitigated in some degree that offence which was occasioned by some turpitude or absurdity in the sacred rites, which was not understood. This he attempted to do in respect to certain fables of the theatres, or mysteries of the shrines; but he did not acquit the theatres of likeness to the shrines, but rather condemned the shrines for likeness to the theatres. However, he in some way made the attempt to soothe the feelings shocked by horrible things, by rendering what he would have to be natural interpretations.

> Latin: Per hanc ergo religionem unam et ueram potuit aperiri deos gentium esse inmundissimos daemones, sub defunctarum occasionibus animarum uel creaturarum specie mundanarum deos se putari cupientes et quasi diuinis honoribus eisdemque scelestis ac turpibus rebus superba inpuritate laetantes adque ad uerum Deum conuersionem humanis animis inuidentes. Ex quorum inmanissimo et inpiissimo dominatu homo liberatur, cum credit in eum, qui praebuit ad exsurgendum tantae humilitatis exemplum, quanta illi superbia ceciderunt. Hinc sunt non solum illi, de quibus multa iam diximus, et alii adque alii similes ceterarum gentium adque terrarum, sed etiam hi, de quibus nunc agimus, tamquam in senatum deorum selecti; sed plane selecti nobilitate criminum, non dignitate uirtutum. Quorum sacra Varro dum quasi ad naturales rationes referre conatur, quaerens honestare res turpes, quo modo his quadret et consonet non potest inuenire, quoniam non sunt ipsae illorum sacrorum causae, quas putat uel potius uult putari. Nam si non solum ipsae, uerum etiam quaelibet aliae huius generis essent, quamuis nihil ad Deum uerum uitamque aeternam, quae in religione quaerenda est, pertinerent, tamen qualicumque de rerum natura reddita ratione aliquantulum mitigarent offensionem, quam non intellecta in sacris aliqua uelut turpitudo aut absurditas fecerat; sicut in quibusdam theatrorum fabulis uel delubrorum mysteriis facere conatus est, ubi non theatra delubrorum similitudine absoluit, sed theatrorum potius similitudine delubra damnauit; tamen utcumque conatus est, ut sensum horribilibus rebus offensum uelut naturalium causarum ratio reddita deleniret.

### Concerning the Books of Numa Pompilius, Which the Senate Ordered to Be Burned, in Order that the Causes of Sacred Rights Therein Assigned Should Not Become Known.

[¶15] Chapter 34.—Concerning the Books of Numa Pompilius, Which the Senate Ordered to Be Burned, in Order that the Causes of Sacred Rights Therein Assigned Should Not Become Known.

> Latin: Caput XXXIV. De libris Numae Pompilii, quos senatus, ne sacrorum causae, quales in eis habebantur, innotescerent, iussit incendi.

[¶16] But, on the other hand, we find, as the same most learned man has related, that the causes of the sacred rites which were given from the books of Numa Pompilius could by no means be tolerated, and were considered unworthy, not only to become known to the religious by being read, but even to lie written in the darkness in which they had been concealed. For now let me say what I promised in the third book of this work to say in its proper place. For, as we read in the same Varro’s book on the worship of the gods, “A certain one Terentius had a field at the Janiculum, and once, when his ploughman was passing the plough near to the tomb of Numa Pompilius, 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 the beginnings of them, referred to the senate what seemed to be a matter of so much importance. And when the chief senators had read certain of the causes why this or that rite was instituted, the senate assented to the dead Numa, and the conscript fathers, as though concerned for the interests of religion, ordered the prætor to burn the books.” Let each one believe what he thinks; nay, let every champion of such impiety say whatever mad contention may suggest. For my part, let it suffice to suggest that the causes of those sacred things which were written down by King Numa Pompilius, the institutor of the Roman rites, ought never to have become known to people or senate, or even to the priests themselves; and also that Numa him self attained to these secrets of demons by an illicit curiosity, in order that he might write them down, so as to be able, by reading, to be reminded of them. However, though he was king, and had no cause to be afraid of any one, he neither dared to teach them to any one, nor to destroy them by obliteration, or any other form of destruction. Therefore, because he was unwilling that any one should know them, lest men should be taught infamous things, and because he was afraid to violate them, lest he should enrage the demons against himself, he buried them in what he thought a safe place, believing that a plough could not approach his sepulchre. But the senate, fearing to condemn the religious solemnities of their ancestors, and therefore compelled to assent to Numa, were nevertheless so convinced that those books were pernicious, that they did not order them to be buried again, knowing that human curiosity would thereby be excited to seek with far greater eagerness after the matter already divulged, but ordered the scandalous relics to be destroyed with fire; because, as they thought it was now a necessity to perform those sacred rites, they judged that the error arising from ignorance of their causes was more tolerable than the disturbance which the knowledge of them would occasion the state.

> Latin: Sed contra inuenimus, sicut ipse uir doctissimus prodidit, de Numae Pompilii libris redditas sacrorum causas nullo modo potuisse tolerari nec dignas habitas, quae non solum lectae innotescerent religiosis, sed saltem scriptae reconderentur in tenebris. Iam enim dicam, quod in tertio huius operis libro me suo loco dicturum esse promiseram. Nam, sicut aput eundem Varronem legitur in libro de cultu deorum, <Terentius quidam cum haberet ad Ianiculum fundum et bubulcus eius iuxta sepulcrum Numae Pompilii traiciens aratrum eruisset ex terra libros eius, ubi sacrorum institutorum scriptae erant causae, in Urbem pertulit ad praetorem. At ille cum inspexisset principia, rem tantam detulit ad senatum. Ubi cum primores quasdam causas legissent, quur quidque in sacris fuerit institutum, Numae mortuo senatus adsensus est, eosque libros tamquam religiosi patres conscripti, praetor ut combureret, censuerunt’. Credat quisque quod putat; immo uero dicat, quod dicendum suggesserit uesana contentio, quilibet tantae inpietatis defensor egregius. Me admonere sufficiat sacrorum causas a rege Pompilio Romanorum sacrorum institutore conscriptas nec populo nec senatui nec saltem ipsis sacerdotibus innotescere debuisse ipsumque Numam Pompilium curiositate inlicita ad ea daemonum peruenisse secreta, quae ipse quidem scriberet, ut haberet unde legendo commoneretur; sed ea tamen, cum rex esset, qui minime quemquam metueret, nec docere aliquem nec delendo uel quoquo modo consumendo perdere auderet. Ita quod scire neminem uoluit, ne homines nefaria doceret, uiolare autem timuit, ne daemones iratos haberet, obruit, ubi tutum putauit, sepulcro suo propinquare aratrum posse non credens. Senatus autem cum religiones formidaret damnare maiorum et ideo Numae adsentiri cogeretur, illos tamen libros tam perniciosos esse iudicauit, ut nec obrui rursus iuberet, ne humana curiositas multo uehementius rem iam proditam quaereret, sed flammis aboleri nefanda monumenta, ut, quia iam necesse esse existimabant sacra illa facere, tolerabilius erraretur causis eorum ignoratis, quam cognitis ciuitas turbaretur.

### Concerning the Hydromancy Through Which Numa Was Befooled by Certain Images of Demons Seen in the Water.

[¶18] Chapter 35.—Concerning the Hydromancy Through Which Numa Was Befooled by Certain Images of Demons Seen in the Water.

> Latin: Caput XXXV. De hydromantia, per quam Numa uisis quibusdam daemonum imaginibus ludificabatur.

[¶19] For Numa himself also, to whom no prophet of God, no holy 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 of him), and might learn from them what he ought to ordain and observe in the sacred rites. This kind of divination, says Varro, was introduced from the Persians, and was used by Numa himself, and at an after time by the philosopher Pythagoras. In this divination, he says, they also inquire at the inhabitants of the nether world, and make use of blood; and this the Greeks call νεκρομαντείαν. But whether it be called necromancy or hydromancy it is the same thing, for in either case the dead are supposed to foretell future things. But by what artifices these things are done, let themselves consider; for I am unwilling to say that these artifices were wont to be prohibited by the laws, and to be very severely punished even in the Gentile states, before the advent of our Saviour. I am unwilling, I say, to affirm this, for perhaps even such things were then allowed. However, it was by these arts that Pompilius learned those sacred rites which he gave forth as facts, whilst he concealed their causes; for even he himself was afraid of that which he had learned. The senate also caused the books in which those causes were recorded to be burned. What is it, then, to me, that Varro attempts to adduce all sorts of fanciful physical interpretations, which if these books had contained, they would certainly not have been burned? For otherwise the conscript fathers would also have burned those books which Varro published and dedicated to the high priest Cæsar. Now Numa is said to have married the nymph Egeria, because (as Varro explains it in the forementioned book) he carried forth water wherewith to perform his hydromancy. Thus facts are wont to be converted into fables through false colorings. It was by that hydromancy, then, that that over-curious Roman king learned both the sacred rites which were to be written in the books of the priests, and also the causes of those rites,—which latter, however, he was unwilling that any one besides himself should know. Wherefore he made these causes, as it were, to die along with himself, taking care to have them written by themselves, and removed from the knowledge of men by being buried in the earth. Wherefore the things which are written in those books were either abominations of demons, so foul and noxious as to render that whole civil theology execrable even in the eyes of such men as those senators, who had accepted so many shameful things in the sacred rites themselves, or they were nothing else than the accounts of dead men, whom, through the lapse of ages, almost all the Gentile 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 pretence of being those very dead men whom they had caused to be thought immortal gods by certain fallacious miracles, performed in order to establish that belief. But, by the hidden providence of the true God, these demons were permitted to confess these things to their friend Numa, having been gained by those arts through which necromancy could be performed, and yet were not constrained to admonish him rather at his death to burn than to bury the books in which they were written. But, in order that these books might be unknown, the demons could not resist the plough by which they were thrown up, or the pen of Varro, through which the things which were done in reference to this matter have come down even to our knowledge. For they are not able to effect anything which they are not allowed; but they are permitted to influence those whom God, in His deep and just judgment, according to their deserts, gives over either to be simply afflicted by them, or to be also subdued and deceived. But how pernicious these writings were judged to be, or how alien from the worship of the true Divinity, may be understood from the fact that the senate preferred to burn what Pompilius had hid, rather than to fear what he feared, so that he could not dare to do that. Wherefore let him who does not desire to live a pious life even now, seek eternal life by means of such rites. But let him who does not wish to have fellowship with malign demons have no fear for the noxious superstition wherewith they are worshipped, but let him recognize the true religion by which they are unmasked and vanquished.

> Latin: Nam et ipse Numa, ad quem nullus Dei propheta, nullus sanctus angelus mittebatur, hydromantian facere conpulsus est, ut in aqua uideret imagines deorum uel potius ludificationes daemonum, a quibus audiret, quid in sacris constituere adque obseruare deberet. Quod genus diuinationis idem Varro a Persis dicit adlatum, quo et ipsum Numam et postea Pythagoram philosophum usum fuisse commemorat; ubi adhibito sanguine etiam inferos perhibet sciscitari et νεϰοιομαντείαν Graece dicit uocari, quae [siue hydromantia] siue necromantia dicatur, id ipsum est, ubi uidentur mortui diuinare. Quibus haec artibus fiant, ipsi uiderint. Nolo enim dicere has artes etiam ante nostri Saluatoris aduentum in ipsis ciuitatibus gentium legibus solere prohiberi et poena seuerissima uindicari. Nolo, inquam, hoc dicere; fortassis enim talia tunc licebant. His tamen artibus didicit sacra illa Pompilius, quorum sacrorum facta prodidit, causas obruit (ita timuit et ipse quod didicit), quarum causarum proditos libros senatus incendit. Quid mihi ergo Varro illorum sacrorum alias nescio quas causas uelut physicas interpretatur? quales si libri illi habuissent, non utique arsissent, aut et istos Varronis ad Caesarem pontificem scriptos adque editos patres conscripti similiter incendissent. Quod ergo aquam egesserit, id est exportauerit, Numa Pompilius, unde hydromantian faceret, ideo nympham Egeriam coniugem dicitur habuisse, quem ad modum in supradicto libro Varronis exponitur. Ita enim solent res gestae aspersione mendaciorum in fabulas uerti. In illa igitur hydromantia curiosissimus rex ille Romanus et sacra didicit, quae in libris suis pontifices haberent, et eorum causas, quas praeter se neminem scire uoluit. Itaque eas seorsum scriptas secum quodam modo mori fecit, quando ita subtrahendas hominum notitiae sepeliendasque curauit. Aut ergo daemonum illic tam sordidae et noxiae cupiditates erant conscriptae, ut ex his tota illa theologia ciuilis etiam aput tales homines execrabilis appareret, qui tam multa in ipsis sacris erubescenda susceperant; aut illi omnes nihil aliud quam homines mortui prodebantur, quos tam prolixa temporis uetustate fere omnes populi gentium deos inmortales esse crediderant, cum et talibus sacris idem illi daemones oblectarentur, qui se colendos pro ipsis mortuis, quos deos putari fecerant, quibusdam fallacium miraculorum adtestationibus subponebant. Sed occulta Dei ueri prouidentia factum est, ut et Pompilio amico suo illis conciliati artibus, quibus hydromantia fieri potuit, cuncta illa confiteri permitterentur, et tamen, ut moriturus incenderet ea potius quam obrueret, admonere non permitterentur; qui ne innotescerent nec aratro, quo sunt eruta, obsistere potuerunt, nec stilo Varronis, quo ea, quae de hac re gesta sunt, in nostram memoriam peruenerunt. Non enim possunt quod non sinuntur efficere; sinuntur autem alto Dei summi iustoque iudicio pro meritis eorum, quos ab eis uel adfligi tantum, uel etiam subici ac decipi iustum est. Quam uero perniciosae uel a cultu uerae diuinitatis alienae illae litterae iudicatae sint, hinc intellegi potest, quod eas maluit senatus incendere, quas Pompilius occultauit, quam timere quod timuit, qui hoc audere non potuit. Qui ergo uitam nec modo habere uult piam, talibus sacris quaerat aeternam; qui autem cum malignis daemonibus non uult habere societatem, non superstitionem, qua coluntur, noxiam pertimescat, sed ueram religionem, qua produntur et uincuntur, agnoscat.

### 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.

[¶21] Book VIII.

> Latin: Liber VIII

[¶22] Argument—Augustin comes now to the third kind of theology, that is, the natural, and takes up the question, whether the worship of the gods of the natural theology is of any avail towards securing blessedness in the life to come. This question he prefers to discuss with the Platonists, because the Platonic system is “facile princeps” among philosophies, and makes the nearest approximation to Christian truth. In pursuing this argument, he first refutes Apuleius, and all who maintain that the demons should be worshipped as messengers and mediators between gods and men; demonstrating that by no possibility can men be reconciled to good gods by demons, who are the slaves of vice, and who delight in and patronize what good and wise men abhor and condemn,—The blasphemous fictions of poets, theatrical exhibitions, and magical arts.

## 40. That the Question of Natural Theology is to Be Discussed with Those Philosophers Who Sought a More Excellent Wisdom.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/40/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/40/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 1.—That the Question of Natural Theology is to Be Discussed with Those Philosophers Who Sought a More Excellent Wisdom.

> Latin: Caput I. De quaestione naturalis theologiae cum philosophis excellentioris scientiae discutienda.

[¶1] We shall require to apply our mind with far greater intensity to the present question than was requisite in the solution and unfolding of the questions handled in the preceding books; for it is not with ordinary men, but with philosophers that we must confer concerning the theology which they call natural. For it is not like the fabulous, that is, the theatrical; nor the civil, that is, the urban theology: the one of which displays the crimes of the gods, whilst the other manifests their criminal desires, which demonstrate them to be rather malign demons than gods. It is, we say, with philosophers we have to confer with respect to this theology,—men whose very name, if rendered into Latin, signifies those who profess the love of wisdom. Now, if wisdom is God, who made all things, as is attested by the divine authority and truth, then the philosopher is a lover of God. But since the thing itself, which is called by this name, exists not in all who glory in the name,—for it does not follow, of course, that all who are called philosophers are lovers of true wisdom,—we must needs select from the number of those with whose opinions 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 we understand to mean an account or explanation of the divine nature. Nor, again, have I undertaken to refute all the vain theological opinions of all the philosophers, but only of such of 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 unchangeable God is sufficient for the obtaining of a blessed life after death, as well as at the present time; and hold that, in order to obtain that life, many gods, created, indeed, and appointed to their 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 in its entirety even to the world and the soul of the world, these acknowledge God as existing above all that is of the nature of soul, and as the Creator not only of this visible world, which is 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 His own unchangeable and incorporeal light. There is no one, who has even a slender knowledge of these things, who does not know of the Platonic philosophers, who derive their name from their master Plato. Concerning this Plato, then, I will briefly state such things as I deem necessary to the present question, mentioning beforehand those who preceded him in time in the same department of literature.

> Latin: Nunc intentiore nobis opus est animo multo quam erat in superiorum solutione quaestionum et explicatione librorum. De theologia quippe, quam naturalem uocant, non cum quibuslibet hominibus (non enim fabulosa est uel ciuilis, hoc est uel theatrica uel urbana; quarum altera iactitat deorum crimina, altera indicat deorum desideria criminosiora ac per hoc malignorum potius daemonum quam deorum), sed cum philosophis est habenda conlatio; quorum ipsum nomen si Latine interpretemur, amorem sapientiae profitetur. Porro si sapientia Deus est, per quem facta sunt omnia, sicut diuina auctoritas ueritasque monstrauit, uerus philosophus est amator Dei. Sed quia res ipsa, cuius hoc nomen est, non est in omnibus, qui hoc nomine gloriantur (neque enim continuo uerae sapientiae sunt amatores quicumque appellantur philosophi): profecto ex omnibus, quorum sententias ex litteris nosse potuimus, eligendi sunt cum quibus non indigne quaestio ista tractetur. Neque enim hoc opere omnes omnium philosophorum uanas opiniones refutare suscepi, sed eas tantum, quae ad theologian pertinent, quo uerbo Graeco significari intellegimus de diuinitate rationem siue sermonem; nec eas omnium, sed eorum tantum, qui cum et esse diuinitatem et humana curare consentiant, non tamen sufficere unius incommutabilis Dei cultum ad uitam adipiscendam etiam post mortem beatam, sed multos ab illo sane uno conditos adque institutos ob eam causam colendos putant. Hi iam etiam Varronis opinionem ueritatis propinquitate transcendunt; si quidem ille totam theologian naturalem usque ad mundum istum uel animam eius extendere potuit, isti uero supra omnem animae naturam confitentur Deum, qui non solum mundum istum uisibilem. qui saepe caeli et terrae nomine nuncupatur, sed etiam omnem omnino animam fecerit, et qui rationalem et intellectualem. cuius generis anima humana est, participatione sui luminis incommutabilis et incorporei beatam facit. Hos philosophos Platonicos appellatos a Platone doctore uocabulo deriuato nullus, qui haec uel tenuiter audiuit, ignorat. De hoc igitur Platone, quae necessaria praesenti quaestioni existimo, breuiter adtingam, prius illos commemorans, qui eum in eodem genere litterarum tempore praecesserunt.

### Concerning the Two Schools of Philosophers, that Is, the Italic and Ionic, and Their Founders.

[¶3] Chapter 2.—Concerning the Two Schools of Philosophers, that Is, the Italic and Ionic, and Their Founders.

> Latin: Caput II. De duobus philosophorum generibus. id est Italico et Ionico, eorumque auctoribus.

[¶4] As far as concerns the literature of the Greeks, whose language holds a more illustrious place than any of the languages of the other nations, history mentions two schools of philosophers, the one called the Italic school, originating in that part of Italy which was formerly called Magna Græcia; the other called the Ionic school, having its origin in those regions which are still called by the name of Greece. The Italic school had for its founder Pythagoras of Samos, to whom also the term “philosophy” is said to owe its origin. For whereas formerly those who seemed to excel others by the laudable manner in which they regulated their lives were called sages, Pythagoras, on being asked what he professed, replied that he was a philosopher, that is, a student or lover of wisdom; for it seemed to him to be the height of arrogance to profess oneself a sage. The founder of the Ionic school, again, was Thales of Miletus, one of those seven who were styled the “seven sages,” of whom six were distinguished by the kind of life they lived, and by certain maxims which they gave forth for the proper conduct of life. Thales was distinguished as an investigator into the nature of things; and, in order that he might have successors in his school, he committed his dissertations to writing. That, however, which especially rendered him eminent was his ability, by means of astronomical calculations, even to predict eclipses of the sun and moon. He thought, however, that water was the first principle of things, and that of it all the elements of the world, the world itself, and all things which are generated in it, ultimately consist. Over all this work, however, which, when we consider the world, appears so admirable, he set nothing of the nature of divine mind. To him succeeded Anaximander, his pupil, who held a different opinion concerning the nature of things; for he did not hold that all things spring from one principle, as Thales did, who held that principle to be water, but thought that each thing springs from its own proper principle. These principles of things he believed to be infinite in number, and thought that they generated innumerable worlds, and all the things which arise in them. He thought, also, that these worlds are subject to a perpetual process of alternate dissolution and regeneration, each one continuing for a longer or shorter period of time, according to the nature of the case; nor did he, any more than Thales, attribute anything to a divine mind in the production of all this activity of things. Anaximander left as his successor his disciple Anaximenes, who attributed all the causes of things to an infinite air. He neither denied nor ignored the existence of gods, but, so far from believing that the air was made by them, he held, on the contrary, that they sprang from the air. Anaxagoras, however, who was his pupil, perceived that a divine mind was the productive cause of all things which we see, and said that all the various kinds of things, according to their several modes and species, were produced out of an infinite matter consisting of homogeneous particles, but by the efficiency of a divine mind. Diogenes, also, another pupil of Anaximenes, said that a certain air was the original substance of things out of which all things were produced, but that it was possessed of a divine reason, without which nothing could be produced from it. Anaxagoras was succeeded by his disciple Archelaus, who also thought that all things consisted of homogeneous particles, of which each particular thing was made, but that those particles were pervaded by a divine mind, which perpetually energized all the eternal bodies, namely, those particles, so that they are alternately united and separated. Socrates, the master of Plato, is said to have been the disciple of Archelaus; and on Plato’s account it is that I have given this brief historical sketch of the whole history of these schools.

> Latin: Quantum enim adtinet ad litteras Graecas, quae lingua inter ceteras gentium clarior habetur, duo philosophorum genera traduntur: unum Italicum ex ea parte Italiae, quae quondam magna Graecia nuncupata est; alterum Ionicum in eis terris, ubi et nunc Graecia nominatur. Italicum genus auctorem habuit Pythagoram Samium, a quo’ etiam ferunt ipsum philosophiae nomen exortum. Nam cum antea sapientes appellarentur, qui modo quodam laudabilis uitae aliis praestare uidebantur, iste interrogatus, quid profiteretur, philosophum se esse respondit, id est studiosum uel amatorem sapientiae; quoniam sapientem profiteri adrogantissimum uidebatur. Ionici uero generis princeps fuit Thales Milesius, unus illorum septem, qui sunt appellati sapientes. Sed illi sex uitae genere distinguebantur et quibusdam praeceptis ad bene uiuendum adcommodatis; iste autem Thales, ut successores etiam propagaret, rerum naturam scrutatus suasque disputationes litteris mandans eminuit maximeque admirabilis extitit, quod astrologiae numeris conprehensis defectus solis et lunae etiam praedicere potuit. Aquam tamen putauit rerum esse principium et hinc omnia elementa mundi ipsumque mundum et quae in eo gignuntur existere. Nihil autem huic operi, quod mundo considerato tam mirabile aspicimus, ex diuina mente praeposuit. Huic successit Anaximander, eius auditor, mutauitque de rerum natura opinionem. Non enim ex una re, sicut Thales ex umore, sed ex suis propriis principiis quasque res nasci putauit. Quae rerum principia singularum esse credidit infinita, et innumerabiles mundos gignere et quaecumque in eis oriuntur; eosque mundos modo dissolui, modo iterum gigni existimauit, quanta quisque aetate sua manere potuerit; nec ipse aliquid diuinae menti in his rerum operibus tribuens. Iste Anaximenen discipulum et successorem reliquit, qui omnes rerum causas aeri infinito dedit, nec deos negauit aut tacuit; non tamen ab ipsis aerem factum, sed ipsos ex aere ortos credidit. Anaxagoras uero êius auditor harum rerum omnium, quas uidemus, effectorem diuinum animum sensit et dixit ex infinita materia, quae constaret dissimilibus inter se particulis rerum omnium, similibus quibusque suis et propriis singula fieri, sed animo faciente diuino. Diogenes quoque Anaximenis alter auditor, aerem quidem dixit rerum esse materiam, de qua omnia fierent; sed eum esse compotem diuinae rationis, sine qua nihil ex eo fieri posset. Anaxagorae successit auditor eius Archelaus. Etiam ipse de particulis inter se similibus, ‘quibus singula quaeque fierent, ita putauit constare omnia, ut inesse etiam mentem diceret, quae corpora aeterna, id est illas particulas, coniungendo et dissipando ageret omnia. Socrates huius discipulus fuisse perhibetur, magister Platonis, propter quem breuiter cuncta ista recolui.

### Of the Socratic Philosophy.

[¶6] Chapter 3.—Of the Socratic Philosophy.

> Latin: Caput III. De Socratica disciplina.

[¶7] Socrates is said to have been the first who directed the entire effort of philosophy to the correction and regulation of manners, all who went before him having expended their greatest efforts in the investigation of physical, that is, natural phenomena. However, it seems to me that it cannot be certainly discovered whether Socrates did this because he was wearied of obscure and uncertain things, and so wished to direct his mind to the discovery of something manifest and certain, which was necessary in order to the obtaining of a blessed life,—that one great object toward which the labor, vigilance, and industry of all philosophers seem to have been directed,—or whether (as some yet more favorable to him suppose) he did it because he was unwilling that minds defiled with earthly desires should essay to raise themselves upward to divine things. For he saw that the causes of things were sought for by them,—which causes he believed to be ultimately reducible to nothing else than the will of the one true and supreme God,—and on this account he thought they could only be comprehended by a purified mind; and therefore 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 raise itself upward by its native vigor to eternal things, and might, with purified understanding, contemplate that nature which is incorporeal and unchangeable light, where live the causes of all created natures. It is evident, however, that he hunted out and pursued, with a wonderful pleasantness of style and argument, and with a most pointed and insinuating urbanity, the foolishness of ignorant men, who thought that they knew this or that,—sometimes confessing his own ignorance, and sometimes dissimulating his knowledge, even in those very moral questions to which he seems to have directed the whole force of his mind. And hence there arose hostility against him, which ended in his being calumniously impeached, 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, that one of them perished by the violence of the multitude, whilst the other only escaped a like punishment by voluntary and perpetual exile.

> Latin: Socrates ergo primus uniuersam philosophiam ad corrigendos componendosque mores flexisse memoratur, cum ante illum omnes magis physicis, id est naturalibus, rebus perscrutandis operam maximam inpenderent. Non mihi autem uidetur posse ad liquidum colligi, utrum Socrates, ut hoc faceret, taedio rerum obscurarum et incertarum ad aliquid apertum et certum reperiendum animum intenderit, quod esset beatae uitae necessarium, propter quam unam omnium philosophorum inuigilasse ac laborasse uidetur industria, an uero, sicut de illo quidam beneuolentius suspicantur, nolebat inmundos terrenis cupiditatibus animos se extendere in diuina conari. Quando quidem ab eis causas rerum uidebat inquiri, quas primas adque summas non nisi in unius ac summi Dei uoluntate esse credebat; unde non eas putabat nisi mundata mente posse conprehendi; et ideo purgandae bonis moribus uitae censebat instandum, ut deprimentibus libidinibus exoneratus animus naturali uigore in aeterna se adtolleret naturamque incorporei et incommutabilis luminis, ubi causae omnium factarum naturarum stabiliter uiuunt, intellegentiae puritate conspiceret. Constat eum tamen inperitorum stultitiam scire se aliquid opinantium etiam in ipsis moralibus quaestionibus, quo totum animum intendisse uidebatur, uel confessa ignorantia sua uel dissimulata scientia lepore mirabili disserendi et acutissima urbanitate agitasse adque uersasse. Unde et concitatis inimicitiis calumniosa criminatione damnatus morte multatus est. Sed eum postea illa ipsa, quae publice damnauerat, Atheniensium ciuitas publice luxit, in duos accusatores eius usque adeo populi indignatione conuersa, ut unus eorum obpressus ni multitudinis interiret, exilio autem uoluntario adque perpetuo poenam similem alter euaderet.

[¶8] Illustrious, therefore, both in his life and in his death, Socrates left very many disciples of his philosophy, who vied 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 man blessed; and because, in the disputations of Socrates, where he raises all manner of questions, makes assertions, and then demolishes them, it did not evidently appear what he held to be the chief good, every one took from these disputations what pleased him best, and every one placed the final good in whatever it appeared to himself to consist. Now, that which is called the final good is that at which, when one has arrived, he is blessed. But so diverse were the opinions held by those followers of Socrates concerning this final good, that (a thing scarcely to be credited with respect to the followers of one master) some placed the chief good in pleasure, as Aristippus, others in virtue, as Antisthenes. Indeed, it were tedious to recount the various opinions of various disciples.

> Latin: Tam praeclara igitur uitae mortisque fama Socrates reliquit plurimos suae philosophiae sectatores, quorum certatim studium fuit in quaestionum moralium disceptatione uersari, ubi agitur de summo bono, quo fieri homo beatus potest. Quod in Socratis disputationibus, dum omnia mouet adserit destruit, quoniam non euidenter apparuit, quod cuique placuit inde sumserunt et ubi cuique uisum est constituerunt finem boni. Finis autem boni appellatur, quo quisque cum peruenerit beatus est. Sic autem diuersas inter se Socratici de isto fine sententias habuerunt, ut (quod uix credibile est unius magistri potuisse facere sectatores) quidam summum bonum esse dicerent uoluptatem, sicut Aristippus; quidam uirtutem, sicut Antisthenes. Sic alii adque alii aliud adque aliud opinati sunt, quos commemorare longum est.

### Concerning Plato, the Chief Among the Disciples of Socrates, and His Threefold Division of Philosophy.

[¶10] Chapter 4.—Concerning Plato, the Chief Among the Disciples of Socrates, and His Threefold Division of Philosophy.

> Latin: Caput IV. De praecipuo inter Socratis discipulos Platone, qui omnem philosophiam triplici partitione distinxit.

[¶11] But, among the disciples of Socrates, Plato was the one who shone with a glory which far excelled that of the others, and who not unjustly eclipsed them all. By birth, an Athenian of honorable parentage, he far surpassed his fellow-disciples in natural endowments, of which he was possessed in a wonderful degree. Yet, deeming himself and the Socratic discipline far from sufficient for bringing philosophy to perfection, he travelled as extensively as he was able, going to every place famed for the cultivation of any science of which he could make himself master. Thus he learned from the Egyptians whatever they held and taught as important; and from Egypt, passing into those parts of Italy which were filled with the fame of the Pythagoreans, he mastered, with the greatest facility, and under the most eminent teachers, all the Italic philosophy which was then in vogue. And, as he had a peculiar love for his master Socrates, he made him the speaker in all his dialogues, putting into his mouth whatever he had learned, either from others, or from the efforts of his own powerful intellect, tempering even his moral disputations with the grace and politeness of the Socratic style. And, as the study of wisdom consists in action and contemplation, so that one 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 part to the investigation into the causes of nature and into pure truth,—Socrates is said to have excelled in the active part of that study, while Pythagoras gave more attention to its contemplative part, on which he brought to bear all the force of his great intellect. To Plato is given the praise of having perfected philosophy by combining both parts into one. He then divides it into three parts,—the first moral, which is chiefly occupied with action; the second natural, of which the object is contemplation; and the third rational, which discriminates between the true and the false. And though this last is necessary both to action and contemplation, it is contemplation, nevertheless, which lays peculiar claim to the office of investigating the nature of truth. Thus this tripartite division is not contrary to that which made the study of wisdom to consist in action and contemplation. Now, as to what Plato thought with respect to each of these parts,—that is, what he believed to be the end of all actions, the cause of all natures, and the light of all intelligences,—it would be a question too long to discuss, and about which we ought not to 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 on various matters, any more than it is to discover what were the real opinions of Socrates. We must, nevertheless, insert into our work certain of those opinions which he expresses in his writings, whether he himself uttered them, or narrates them as expressed by others, and seems himself to approve of,—opinions sometimes favorable to the true religion, which our faith takes up and defends, and sometimes contrary to it, as, for example, in the questions concerning the existence of one God or of many, as it relates to the truly blessed life which is to be after death. For those who are praised as having most closely followed Plato, who is justly preferred to all the other philosophers of the Gentiles, and who are said to have manifested the greatest acuteness in understanding him, do perhaps entertain such an idea of God as to admit that in Him are to be found the cause of existence, the ultimate reason for the understanding, and the end in reference to which the whole life is to be regulated. Of which three things, the first is understood to pertain to the natural, the second to the rational, and the third to the moral part of philosophy. For if man has been so created as to attain, through that which is most excellent in him, to that which excels all things,—that is, to the one true and absolutely good God, without whom no nature exists, no doctrine instructs, no exercise profits,—let Him be sought in whom all things are secure to us, let Him be discovered in whom all truth becomes certain to us, let Him be loved in whom all becomes right to us.

> Latin: Sed inter discipulos Socratis, non quidem inmerito, excellentissima gloria claruit, qua omnino ceteros obscuraret, Plato. Qui cum esset Atheniensis honesto aput suos loco natus et ingenio mirabili longe suos condiscipulos anteiret, parum tamen putans perficiendae philosophiae sufficere se ipsum ac Socraticam disciplinam, quam longe ac late potuit peregrinatus est, quaquauersum eum alicuius nobilitatae scientiae percipiendae fama rapiebat. Itaque et in Aegypto didicit quaecumque magna illic habebantur adque docebantur, et inde in eas Italiae partes ueniens, ubi Pythagoreorum fama celebrabatur, quidquid Italicae philosophiae tunc florebat, auditis eminentioribus in ea doctoribus facillime conprehendit. Et quia magistrum Socratem singulariter diligebat, eum loquentem faciens fere in omnibus sermonibus suis etiam illa, quae uel ab aliis didicerat, uel ipse quanta potuerat intellegentia uiderat, cum illius lepore et moralibus disputationibus temperauit. Itaque cum studium sapientiae in actione et contemplatione uersetur, unde una pars eius actiua, altera contemplatiua dici potest (quarum actiua ad agendam uitam, id est ad mores instituendos pertinet, contemplatiua autem ad conspiciendas naturae causas et sincerissimam ueritatem): Socrates in actiua excelluisse memoratur; Pythagoras uero magis contemplatiuae, quibus potuit intellegentiae uiribus, institisse. Proinde Plato utrumque iungendo philosophiam perfecisse laudatur, quam in tres partes distribuit: unam moralem, quae maxime in actione uersatur; alteram naturalem, quae contemplationi deputata est; tertiam rationalem, qua uerum disterminatur a falso. Quae licet utrique, id est actioni et contemplationi, sit necessaria, maxime tamen contemplatio perspectionem sibi uindicat ueritatis. Ideo haec tripertitio non est contraria illi distinctioni, qua intellegitur omne studium sapientiae in actione et contemplatione consistere. Quid autem in his uel de his singulis partibus Plato senserit, id est, ubi finem omnium actionum, ubi causam omnium naturarum, ubi lumen omnium rationum esse cognouerit uel crediderit, disserendo explicare et longum esse arbitror et temere adfirmandum esse non arbitror. Cum enim magistri sui Socratis, quem facit in suis uoluminibus disputantem, notissimum morem dissimulandae scientiae uel opinionis suae seruare adfectat, quia et illi iste mos placuit, factum est ut etiam ipsius Platonis de rebus magnis sententiae non facile perspici possint. Ex his tamen, quae aput eum leguntur, siue quae dixit, siue quae ab aliis dicta esse narrauit adque conscripsit, quae sibi placita uiderentur, quaedam commemorari et operi huic inseri oportet a nobis, uel ubi suffragatur religioni uerae, quam fides nostra suscipit ac defendit, uel ubi ei uidetur esse contrarius, quantum ad istam de uno Deo et pluribus pertinet quaestionem, propter uitam, quae post mortem futura est, ueraciter beatam. Fortassis enim qui Platonem ceteris philosophis gentium longe recteque praelatum acutius adque ueracius intellexisse ac secuti esse fama celebriore laudantur, aliquid tale de Deo sentiunt, ut in illo inueniatur et causa subsistendi et ratio intellegendi et ordo uiuendi; quorum trium unum ad naturalem, alterum ad rationalem, tertium ad moralem partem intellegitur pertinere. Si enim homo ita creatus est, ut per id, quod in eo praecellit, adtingat illud, quod cuncta praecellit, id est unum uerum optimum Deum, sine quo nulla natura subsistit, nulla doctrina instruit, nullus usus expedit: ipse quaeratur, ubi nobis seria sunt omnia; ipse cernatur, ubi nobis certa sunt omnia; ipse diligatur, ubi nobis recta sunt omnia.

### That It is Especially with the Platonists that We Must Carry on Our Disputations on Matters of Theology, Their Opinions Being Preferable to Those of All Other Philosophers.

[¶13] Chapter 5.—That It is Especially with the Platonists that We Must Carry on Our Disputations on Matters of Theology, Their Opinions Being Preferable to Those of All Other Philosophers.

> Latin: Caput V. Quod de theologia cum Platonicis potissimum disceptandum sit, quorum opinioni omnium philosophorum postponenda sint dogmata.

[¶14] If, then, Plato defined the wise man as one who imitates, knows, loves this God, and who is rendered blessed through fellowship with Him in His own blessedness, why discuss with the other philosophers? It is evident that none come nearer to us than the Platonists. To them, therefore, let that fabulous theology give place which delights the minds of men with the crimes of the gods; and that civil theology also, in which impure demons, under the name of gods, have seduced the peoples of the earth given up to earthly pleasures, desiring to be honored by the errors of men, and by filling the minds of their worshippers with impure desires, exciting them to make the representation of their crimes one of the rites of their worship, whilst they themselves found in the spectators of these exhibitions a most pleasing spectacle,—a theology in which, whatever was honorable in the temple, was defiled by its mixture with the obscenity of the theatre, and whatever was base in the theatre was vindicated by the abominations of the temples. To these philosophers also the interpretations of Varro must give place, in which he explains the sacred rites as having reference to heaven and earth, and to the seeds and operations of perishable things; for, in the first place, those rites have not the signification which he would have men believe is attached to them, and therefore truth does not follow him in his attempt so to interpret them; and even if they had this signification, still those things ought not to be worshipped by the rational soul as its god which are placed below it in the scale of nature, nor ought the soul to prefer to itself as gods things to which the true God has given it the preference. The same must be said of those writings pertaining to the sacred rites, which Numa Pompilius took care to conceal by causing them to be buried along with himself, and which, when they were afterwards turned up by the plough, were burned by order of the senate. And, to treat Numa with all honor, let us mention as belonging to the same rank as these writings that which Alexander of Macedon wrote to his mother as communicated to him by Leo, an Egyptian high priest. In this letter not only Picus and Faunus, and Æneas and Romulus or even Hercules, and Æsculapius and Liber, born of Semele, and the twin sons of Tyndareus, or any other mortals who have been deified, but even the principal gods themselves, to whom Cicero, in his Tusculan questions, alludes without mentioning their names, Jupiter, Juno, Saturn, Vulcan, Vesta, and many others whom Varro attempts to identify with the parts or the elements of the world, are shown to have been men. There is, as we have said, a similarity between this case and that of Numa; for the priest being afraid because he had revealed a mystery, earnestly begged of Alexander to command his mother to burn the letter which conveyed these communications to her. Let these two theologies, then, the fabulous and the civil, give place to the Platonic philosophers, who have recognized the true God as the author of all things, the source of the light of truth, and the bountiful bestower of all blessedness. And not these only, but to these great acknowledgers of so great a God, those philosophers must yield who, having their mind enslaved to their body, supposed the principles of all things to be material; as Thales, who held that the first principle of all things was water; Anaximenes, that it was air; the Stoics, that it was fire; Epicurus, who affirmed that it consisted of atoms, that is to say, of minute corpuscules; and many others whom it is needless to enumerate, but who believed that bodies, simple or 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 things could originate from things without life; others held that all things living or without life spring from a living principle, but that, nevertheless, all things, being material, spring from a material principle. For the Stoics thought that fire, that is, one of the four material elements of which this visible world is composed, was both living and intelligent, the maker of the world and of all things contained in it,—that it was in fact God. These and others like them have only been able to suppose that which their hearts enslaved to sense have vainly suggested to them. And yet they have within themselves something which they could not see: they represented to themselves inwardly things which they had seen without, even when they were not seeing them, but only thinking of them. But this representation in thought is no longer a body, but only the similitude of a body; and that faculty of the mind by which this similitude of a body is seen is neither a body nor the similitude of a body; and the faculty which judges whether the representation is beautiful or ugly is without doubt superior to the object judged of. This principle is the understanding of man, the rational soul; and it is certainly not a body, since that similitude of a body which it beholds and judges of is itself not a body. The soul is neither earth, nor water, nor air, nor fire, of which four bodies, called the four elements, we see that this world is composed. And if the soul is not a body, how should God, its Creator, be a body? Let all those philosophers, then, give place, as we have said, to the Platonists, and those also who have been ashamed to say that God is a body, but yet have thought that our souls are of the same nature as God. They have not been staggered 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 in itself it is unchangeable. As well might they say, “Flesh is wounded by some body, for in itself it is invulnerable.” In a word, 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.

> Latin: Si ergo Plato Dei huius imitatorem cognitorem amatorem dixit esse sapientem, cuius participatione sit beatus, quid opus est excutere ceteros? Nulli nobis quam isti propius accesserunt. Cedat eis igitur non solum theologia illa fabulosa deorum criminibus oblectans animos inpiorum, nec solum etiam illa ciuilis, ubi inpuri daemones terrestribus gaudiis deditos populos deorum nomine seducentes humanos errores tamquam suos diuinos honores habere uoluerunt, ad spectandos suorum criminum ludos cultores suos tamquam ad suum cultum studiis inmundissimis excitantes et sibi delectabiliores ludos de ipsis spectatoribus exhibentes (ubi si qua uelut honesta geruntur in templis, coniuncta sibi theatrorum obscenitate turpantur, et quaecumque turpia geruntur in theatris, comparata sibi templorum foeditate laudantur), et ea, quae Varro ex his sacris quasi ad caelum et terram rerumque mortalium semina et actus interpretatus est (quia nec ipsa illis ritibus significantur, quae ipse insinuare conatur, et ideo ueritas conantem non sequitur; et si ipsa essent, tamen animae rationali ea, quae infra illam naturali ordine constituta sunt, pro deo suo colenda non essent, nec sibi debuit praeferre tamquam deos eas res, quibus ipsam praetulit uerus Deus), et ea, quae Numa Pompilius re uera ad sacra eius modi pertinentia secum sepeliendo curauit abscondi et aratro eruta senatus iussit incendi. (In eo genere sunt etiam illa, ut aliquid de Numa mitius suspicemur, quae Alexander Macedo scribit ad matrem sibi a magno antistite sacrorum Aegyptiorum quodam Leone patefacta, ubi non Picus et Faunus et Aeneas et Romulus uel etiam Hercules et Aesculapius et Liber Semela natus et Tyndaridae fratres et si quos alios ex mortalibus pro dis habent, sed ipsi etiam maiorum gentium di, quos Cicero in Tusculanis tacitis nominibus uidetur adtingere, Iuppiter, Iuno, Saturnus, Vulcanus, Vesta et alii plurimi, quos Varro conatur ad mundi partes siue elementa transferre, homines fuisse produntur. Timens enim et ille quasi reuelata mysteria petens admonet Alexandrum, ut, cum ea matri conscripta insinuauerit, flammis iubeat concremari.) Non solum ergo ista, quae duae theologiae, fabulosa continet et ciuilis, Platonicis philosophis cedant, qui uerum Deum et rerum auctorem et ueritatis inlustratorem et beatitudinis largitorem esse dixerunt; sed alii quoque philosophi, qui corporalia naturae principia corpori deditis mentibus opinati sunt, cedant his tantis et tanti Dei cognitoribus uiris, ut Thales in umore, Anaximenes in aere, Stoici in igne, Epicurus in atomis, hoc est minutissimis corpusculis, quae nec diuidi nec sentiri queunt, et quicumque alii, quorum enumeratione inmorari non est necesse, siue simplicia siue coniuncta corpora, siue uita carentia siue uiuentia, sed tamen corpora, causam principiumque rerum esse dixerunt. Nam quidam eorum a rebus non uiuis res uiuas fieri posse crediderunt, sicut Epicurei; quidam uero a uiuente quidem et uiuentia et non uiuentia, sed tamen a corpore corpora. Nam Stoici ignem, id est corpus unum ex his quattuor elementis, quibus uisibilis mundus hic constat, et uiuentem et sapientem et ipsius mundi fabricatorem adque omnium, quae in eo sunt, eumque omnino ignem deum esse putauerunt. Hi et ceteri similes eorum id solum cogitare potuerunt, quod cum eis corda eorum obstricta carnis sensibus fabulata sunt. In se quippe habebant quod non uidebant, et aput se imaginabantur quod foris uiderant, etiam quando non uidebant, sed tantummodo cogitabant. Hoc autem in conspectu talis cogitationis iam non est corpus, sed similitudo corporis; illud autem, unde uidetur in animo haec similitudo corporis, nec corpus est nec similitudo corporis; et unde uidetur adque utrum pulchra an deformis sit iudicatur, profecto est melius quam ipsa quae iudicatur. Haec mens hominis et rationalis animae natura est, quae utique corpus non est, si iam illa corporis similitudo, cum in animo cogitantis aspicitur adque iudicatur, nec ipsa corpus est. Non est ergo nec terra nec aqua, nec aer nec ignis, quibus quattuor corporibus, quae dicuntur quattuor elementa, mundum corporeum uidemus esse conpactum. Porro si noster animus corpus non est, quo modo Deus creator animi corpus est? Cedant ergo et isti, ut dictum est, Platonicis; cedant et illi, quos quidem puduit dicere Deum corpus esse, uerum tamen eiusdem naturae, cuius ille est, animos nostros esse putauerunt; ita non eos mouit tanta mutabilitas animae, quam Dei naturae tribuere nefas est. Sed dicunt: Corpore mutatur animae natura, nam per se ipsa incommutabilis est. Poterant isti dicere: corpore aliquo uulneratur caro, nam per se ipsa inuulnerabilis est. Prorsus quod mutari non potest, nulla re potest, ac per hoc quod corpore mutari potest, aliqua re potest et ideo incommutabile recte dici non potest.

### Concerning the Meaning of the Platonists in that Part of Philosophy Called Physical.

[¶16] Chapter 6.—Concerning the Meaning of the Platonists in that Part of Philosophy Called Physical.

> Latin: Caput VI. De Platonicorum sensu in ea parte philosophiae. quae physica nominatur.

[¶17] These philosophers, then, whom we see not undeservedly exalted above the rest in fame and glory, have seen that no material body is God, and therefore they have transcended all bodies in seeking for God. They have seen that whatever is changeable is not the most high God, and therefore they have transcended every soul and all changeable spirits in seeking the supreme. They have seen also that, in every changeable thing, the form which makes it that which it is, whatever be its mode or nature, can only be through Him who 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 bodies which are in it; or whether we consider all life, either that which nourishes and maintains, as the life of trees, or that which, besides this, has also sensation, as the life of beasts; or that which adds to all these intelligence, as the life of man; 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 Him it is not one thing to be, and another to live, as though He could be, not living; nor is it to Him one thing to live, and another thing to understand, as though He could live, not understanding; nor is it to Him one thing to understand, another thing to be blessed, as though He could understand and not be blessed. But to Him to live, to understand, to be blessed, are to be. They have understood, from this unchangeableness and this simplicity, that all things must have been made by Him, and that He could Himself have been made by none. For they have considered that whatever is is either body or life, and that life is something better than body, and that the nature of body is sensible, and that of life intelligible. Therefore they have preferred the intelligible nature to the sensible. We mean by sensible things such things as can be perceived by the sight and touch of the body; by intelligible things, such as can be understood by the sight of the mind. For there is no corporeal beauty, whether in the condition of a body, as figure, or in its movement, as in music, of which it is not the mind that judges. But this could never have been, had there not existed in the mind itself a superior form of these things, without bulk, without noise of voice, without space and time. But even in respect of these things, had the mind not been mutable, it would not have been possible for one to judge better than another with regard to sensible forms. He who is clever, judges better than he who is slow, he who is skilled than he who is unskillful, he who is practised than he who is unpractised; and the same person judges better after he has gained experience than he did before. But that which is capable of more and less is mutable; whence able men, who have thought deeply on these things, have gathered that the first form is not to be found in those things whose form is changeable. Since, therefore, they saw that body and mind might be more or less beautiful in form, and that, if they wanted form, they could have no existence, they saw that there is some existence in which is the first form, unchangeable, and therefore not admitting of degrees of comparison, and in that they most rightly believed was the first principle of things which was not made, and by which all things were made. Therefore that which is known of God He manifested to them when His invisible things were seen by them, being understood by those things which have been made; also His eternal power and Godhead by whom all visible and temporal things have been created. We have said enough upon that part of theology which they call physical, that is, natural.

> Latin: Viderunt ergo isti philosophi, quos ceteris non inmerito fama adque gloria praelatos uidemus, nullum corpus esse Deum, et ideo cuncta corpora transcenderunt quaerentes Deum. Viderunt, quidquid mutabile eat. non esse summum Deum, et ideo animam omnem mutabilesque omnes spiritus transcenderunt quaerentes summum Deum. Deinde uiderunt omnem speciem in re quacumque mutabili, qua est, quidquid illud est, quoquo modo et qualiscumque natura est, non esse posse nisi ab illo, qui uere est, quia incommutabiliter est. Ac per hoc siue uniuersi mundi corpus figuras qualitates ordinatumque motum et elementa disposita a caelo usque ad terram et quaecumque corpora in eis sunt, siue omnem uitam, uel quae nutrit et continet, qualis est in arboribus, uel quae et hoc habet et sentit, qualis est in pecoribus, uel quae et haec habet et intellegit, qualis est in hominibus, uel quae nutritorio subsidio non indiget, sed tantum continet sentit intellegit, qualis est in angelis, nisi ab illo esse non posse, qui simpliciter est; quia non aliud illi est esse, aliud uiuere, quasi possit esse non uiuens; nec aliud illi est uiuere, aliud intellegere, quasi possit uiuere non intellegens; nec aliud illi est intellegere, aliud beatum esse, quasi possit intellegere non beatus; sed quod illi est uiuere, intellegere, beatum esse, hoc est illi esse. Propter hanc incommutabilitatem et simplicitatem intellexerunt eum et omnia ista fecisse, et ipsum a nullo fieri potuisse. Considerauerunt enim, quidquid est, uel corpus esse uel uitam, meliusque aliquid uitam esse quam corpus, speciemque corporis esse sensibilem, intellegibilem uitae. Proinde intellegibilem speciem sensibili praetulerunt. Sensibilia dicimus, quae uisu tactuque corporis sentiri queunt; intellegibilia, quae conspectu mentis intellegi. Nulla est enim pulchritudo corporalis siue in statu corporis, sicut est figura, siue in motu, sicut est cantilena, de qua non animus iudicet. Quod profecto non posset, nisi melior in illo esset haec species, sine tumore molis, sine strepitu uocis, sine spatio uel loci uel temporis. Sed ibi quoque nisi mutabilis esset, non alius alio melius de specie sensibili iudicaret; melius ingeniosior quam tardior, melius peritior quam inperitior, melius exercitatior quam minus exercitatus, et idem ipse unus, cum proficit, melius utique postea quam prius. Quod autem recipit magis et minus, sine dubitatione mutabile est. Unde ingeniosi et docti et in his exercitati homines facile collegerunt non esse in eis rebus primam speciem, ubi mutabilis esse conuincitur. Cum igitur in eorum conspectu et corpus et animus magis minusque speciosa essent, si autem omni specie carere possent, omnino nulla essent: uiderunt esse aliquid ubi prima esset incommutabilis et ideo nec conparabilis; adque ibi esse rerum principium rectissime crediderunt, quod factum non esset et ex quo facta cuncta essent. Ita quod notum est Dei, manifestauit eis ipse, cum ab eis inuisibilia eius per ea, quae facta sunt, intellecta conspecta sunt: sempiterna quoque uirtus eius et diuinitas; a quo etiam uisibilia et temporalia cuncta creata sunt. Haec de illa parte, quam physicam, id est naturalem, nuncupant, dicta sint.

### How Much the Platonists are to Be Held as Excelling Other Philosophers in Logic, i.e. Rational Philosophy.

[¶19] Chapter 7.—How Much the Platonists are to Be Held as Excelling Other Philosophers in Logic, i.e. Rational Philosophy.

> Latin: Caput VII. Quanto excellentiores ceteris in logica, id est rationali philosophia, Platonici sint habendi.

[¶20] Then, again, as far as regards the doctrine which treats of that which they call logic, that is, rational philosophy, far be it from us to compare them with those who attributed to the bodily senses the faculty of discriminating truth, and thought, 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, who ascribed to the bodily senses that expertness in disputation which they so ardently love, called by them dialectic, asserting that from the senses the mind conceives the notions (ἒννοιαι) of those things which they explicate by definition. And hence is developed the whole plan and connection of their learning and teaching. I often wonder, with respect to this, 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 comeliness of form? Those, however, whom we justly rank before all others, have distinguished those things which are conceived by the mind from those which are perceived by the senses, neither taking away from the senses anything to which they are competent, nor attributing to them anything beyond their competency. And the light of our understandings, by which all things are learned by us, they have affirmed to be that selfsame God by whom all things were made.

> Latin: Quod autem adtinet ad doctrinam, ubi uersatur pars altera, quae ab eis logica, id est rationalis, uocatur: absit ut his conparandi uideantur qui posuerunt iudicium ueritatis in sensibus corporis eorumque infidis et fallacibus regulis omnia, quae discuntur, metienda esse censuerunt, ut Epicurei et quicumque alii tales, ut etiam ipsi Stoici, qui cum uehementer amauerint sollertiam disputandi, quam dialecticam nominant, a corporis sensibus eam ducendam putarunt, hinc adseuerantes animum concipere notiones, quas appellant Ivvoiac, earum rerum scilicet quas definiendo explicant; hinc propagari adque conecti totam discendi docendique rationem. Ubi ego multum mirari soleo, cum pulchros dicant non esse nisi sapientes, quibus sensibus corporis istam pulchritudinem uiderint, qualibus oculis carnis formam sapientiae decusque conspexerint. Hi uero, quos merito ceteris anteponimus, discreuerunt ea, quae mente conspiciuntur, ab his, quae sensibus adtinguntur, nec sensibus adimentes quod possunt, nec eis dantes ultra quam possunt. Lumen autem mentium esse dixerunt ad discenda omnia eundem ipsum Deum, a quo facta sunt omnia.

### That the Platonists Hold the First Rank in Moral Philosophy Also.

[¶22] Chapter 8.—That the Platonists Hold the First Rank in Moral Philosophy Also.

> Latin: Caput VIII. Quod etiam in morali philosophia Platonici obtineant principatum.

[¶23] The remaining part of philosophy is morals, or what is called by the Greeks ἠθική, in which is discussed the question concerning the chief good,—that which will leave us nothing further to seek in order to be blessed, if only we make all our actions refer to it, and seek it not for the sake of something else, but for its own sake. Therefore it is called the end, because we wish other things on account of it, but itself only for its own sake. This beatific good, therefore, according to 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 requiring anything ulterior to which to refer that good itself. This is why those who have added a third kind of good things, which they call extrinsic,—as honor, glory, wealth, and the like,—have not regarded them as part of the final good, that is, to be sought after for their own sake, but as things which are to be sought for the sake of something else, affirming that this kind of good is good to the good, and evil to the evil. Wherefore, whether they have sought the good of man from the mind or from the body, or from both together, it is still only from man they have supposed that it must be sought. But they who have sought it from the body have sought it from the inferior part of man; they who have sought it from the mind, from the superior part; and they who have sought it from both, from the whole man. Whether therefore, they have sought it from any part, or from the whole man, still they have only sought it from man; nor have these differences, being three, given rise only to three dissentient sects of philosophers, but to many. For diverse philosophers have held 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 who have not affirmed that a man is blessed by the enjoyment of the body, or by the enjoyment of the mind, but by the enjoyment of God,—enjoying Him, however, not as the mind does the body or itself, or as one friend enjoys another, but as the eye enjoys light, if, indeed, we may draw any comparison between these things. But what the nature of this comparison is, will, if God help me, be shown in another place, to the best of my ability. At present, it is sufficient to mention that Plato determined the final good to be to live according to virtue, and affirmed that he only can attain to virtue who knows and imitates God,—which knowledge and imitation are the only cause of blessedness. Therefore he did not doubt that to philosophize is to love God, whose nature is incorporeal. Whence it certainly follows that the student of wisdom, that is, the philosopher, will then become blessed when he shall have begun to enjoy God. For though he is not necessarily blessed who enjoys that which he loves (for many are miserable by loving that which ought not to be loved, 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 loved do not count themselves blessed by loving merely, but by enjoying them. Who, then, but the most miserable will deny that he is blessed, who enjoys that which he loves, and loves the true and highest good? But the true and highest good, according to Plato, is God, and therefore he would call him a philosopher who loves God; for philosophy is directed to the obtaining of the blessed life, and he who loves God is blessed in the enjoyment of God.

> Latin: Reliqua est pars moralis, quam Graeco uocabulo dicunt ethicam, ubi quaeritur de summo bono, quo referentes omnia quae agimus, et quod non propter aliud, sed propter se ipsum adpetentes idque adipiscentes nihil, quo beati simus, ulterius requiramus. Ideo quippe et finis est dictus, quia propter hunc cetera uolumus, ipsum autem non nisi propter ipsum. Hoc ergo beatificum bonum alii a corpore, alii ab animo, alii ab utroque homini esse dixerunt. Videbant quippe ipsum hominem constare ex animo et corpore et ideo ab alterutro istorum duorum aut ab utroque bene sibi esse posse credebant, finali quodam bono, beati essent, quo cuncta quae agebant referrent adque id quo referendum esset non ultra quaererent. Unde illi, qui dicuntur addidisse tertium genus bonorum, quod appellatur extrinsecus, sicuti est honor gloria pecunia et si quid huius modi, non sic addiderunt, ut finale esset, id est propter se ipsum adpetendum, sed propter aliud; bonumque esse hoc genus bonis, malum autem malis. Ita bonum hominis qui uel ab animo uel a corpore uel ab utroque expetiuerunt, nihil aliud quam ab homine expetendum esse putauerunt; sed qui id adpetiuerunt a corpore, a parte hominis deteriore; qui uero ab animo, a parte meliore; qui autem ab utroque, a toto homine. Siue ergo a parte qualibet siue a toto, non nisi ab homine. Nec istae differentiae, quoniam tres sunt, ideo tres, sed multas dissensiones philosophorum sectasque fecerunt, quia et de bono corporis et de bono animi et de bono utriusque diuersi diuersa opinati sunt. Cedant igitur omnes illis philosophis, qui non dixerunt beatum esse hominem fruentem corpore uel fruentem animo, sed fruentem Deo: non sicut corpore uel se ipso animus aut sicut amico amicus, sed sicut luce oculus, si aliquid ab his ad illa similitudinis adferendum est, quod quale sit, si Deus ipse adiuuerit, alio loco, quantum per nos fieri poterit, apparebit. Nunc satis sit commemorare Platonem determinasse finem boni esse secundum uirtutem uiuere et ei soli euenire posse, qui notitiam Dei habeat et imitationem nec esse aliam ob causam beatum; ideoque non dubitat hoc esse philosophari, amare Deum, cuius natura sit incorporalis. Unde utique colligitur tunc fore beatum studiosum sapientiae (id enim est philosophus), cum frui Deo coeperit. Quamuis enim non continuo beatus sit, qui eo fruitur quod amat (multi enim amando ea, quae amanda non sunt, miseri sunt et miseriores cum fruuntur): nemo tamen beatus est, qui eo quod amat non fruitur. Nam et ipsi, qui res non amandas amant, non se beatos putant amando, sed fruendo. Quisquis ergo fruitur eo, quod amat, uerumque et summum bonum amat, quis eum beatum nisi miserrimus negat? Ipsum autem uerum ac summum bonum Plato dicit Deum, unde uult esse philosophum amatorem Dei, ut, quoniam philosophia ad beatam uitam tendit, fruens Deo sit beatus qui Deum amauerit.

## 41. Concerning that Philosophy Which Has Come Nearest to the Christian Faith.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/41/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/41/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 9.—Concerning that Philosophy Which Has Come Nearest to the Christian Faith.

> Latin: Caput IX. De ea philosophia, quae ad ueritatem fidei Christianae propius accessit.

[¶1] Whatever philosophers, therefore, thought concerning the supreme God, that He is both the maker of all created things, the light by which things are known, and the good in reference to which things are to be done; that we have in Him the first principle of nature, the truth of doctrine, and the happiness of life,—whether these philosophers may be more suitably called Platonists, or whether they may give some other name to their sect; whether, we say, that only the chief men of the Ionic school, such as Plato himself, and they who have well understood him, have thought thus; or whether we also include the Italic school, on account of Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans, and all who may have held like opinions; and, lastly, whether also we include all who have been held wise men and philosophers among all nations who are discovered to have seen and taught this, be they Atlantics, Libyans, Egyptians, Indians, Persians, Chaldeans, Scythians, Gauls, Spaniards, or of other nations,—we prefer these to all other philosophers, and confess that they approach nearest to us.

> Latin: Quicumque igitur philosophi de Deo summo et uero ista senserunt, quod et rerum creatarum sit effector et lumen cognoscendarum et bonum agendarum, quod ab illo nobis sit et principium naturae et ueritas doctrinae et felicitas uitae, siue Platonici adcommodatius nuncupentur, siue quodlibet aliud sectae suae nomen inponant; siue tantummodo Ionici generis, qui in eis praecipui fuerunt, ista senserint, sicut idem Plato et qui eum bene intellexerunt; siue etiam Italici, propter Pythagoram et Pythagoreos et si qui forte alii eiusdem sententiae indidem fuerunt; siue aliarum quoque gentium qui sapientes uel philosophi habiti sunt, Atlantici Libyes, Aegyptii, Indi, Persae, Chaldaei, Scythae, Galli, Hispani aliqui reperiuntur, qui hoc uiderint ac docuerint: eos omnes ceteris anteponimus eosque nobis propinquiores fatemur.

### That the Excellency of the Christian Religion is Above All the Science of Philosophers.

[¶3] Chapter 10.—That the Excellency of the Christian Religion is Above All the Science of Philosophers.

> Latin: Caput X. Quae sit inter philosophicas artes religiosi excellentia Christiani.

[¶4] For although a Christian man instructed only in ecclesiastical literature may perhaps be ignorant of the very name of Platonists, and may not even know that there have existed two schools of philosophers speaking the Greek tongue, to wit, the Ionic and Italic, he is nevertheless not so deaf with respect to human affairs, as not to know that philosophers profess the study, and even the possession, of wisdom. He is on his guard, however, with respect to those who philosophize according to the elements of this world, not according to God, by whom the world itself was made; for he is warned by the precept of the apostle, and faithfully hears what has been said, “Beware that no one deceive you through philosophy and vain deceit, according to the elements of the world.” Then, that he may not suppose that all philosophers are such as do this, he hears the same apostle say concerning certain of them, “Because that which is known of God is manifest among them, for God has manifested it to them. For His invisible things from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things which are made, also His eternal power and Godhead.” And, when speaking to the Athenians, after having spoken a mighty thing concerning God, which few are able to understand, “In Him we live, and move, and have our being,” he goes on to say, “As certain also of your own have said.” He knows well, too, to be on his guard against even these philosophers in their errors. For where it has been said by him, “that God has manifested to them by those things which are made His invisible things, that they might be seen by the understanding,” there it has also been said that they did not rightly worship God Himself, because they paid divine honors, which are due to Him alone, to other things also to which they ought not to have paid them,—“because, knowing God, they glorified Him not as God: neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man, and of birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things;”—where the apostle would have us understand him as meaning the Romans, and Greeks, and Egyptians, who gloried in the name of wisdom; but concerning this we will dispute with them afterwards. With respect, however, to that wherein they agree with us we prefer 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 the Christian man, being ignorant of their writings, does not use in disputation words which he has not learned,—not calling that part of philosophy natural (which is the Latin term), or physical (which is the Greek one), which treats of the investigation of nature; or that part rational, or logical, which deals with the question how truth may be discovered; or that part moral, or ethical, which concerns morals, and shows how good is to be sought, and evil to be shunned,—he is not, therefore, ignorant that it is from the one true and supremely good God that we have that nature in which we are made in the image of God, and that doctrine by which we know Him and ourselves, and that grace through which, by cleaving to Him, we are blessed. This, therefore, is the cause why we prefer these to all the others, because, whilst other philosophers have worn out their minds and powers in seeking the causes of things, and endeavoring to discover the right mode of learning and of living, these, by knowing God, have found where resides the cause by which the universe has been constituted, and the light by which truth is to be discovered, and the fountain at which felicity is to be drunk. All philosophers, then, who have had these thoughts concerning God, whether Platonists or others, agree with us. But we have thought it better to plead our cause with the Platonists, because their writings are better known. For the Greeks, whose tongue holds the highest place among the languages of the Gentiles, are loud in their praises of these writings; and the Latins, taken with their excellence, or their renown, have studied them more heartily than other writings, and, by translating them into our tongue, have given them greater celebrity and notoriety.

> Latin: Quamuis enim homo Christianus litteris tantum ecclesiasticis eruditus Platonicorum forte nomen ignoret, nec utrum duo genera philosophorum extiterint in Graeca lingua, Ionicorum et Italicorum, sciat: non tamen ita surdus est in rebus humanis, ut nesciat philosophos uel studium sapientiae uel ipsam sapientiam profiteri. Cauet eos tamen, qui secundum elementa huius mundi philosophantur, non secundum Deum, a quo ipse factus est mundus. Admonetur enim praecepto apostolico fideliterque audit quod dictum est: Cauete ne quis uos decipiat per philosophiam et inanem seductionem secundum elementa mundi. Deinde ne omnes tales esse arbitretur, audit ab eodem apostolo dici de quibusdam: Quia quod notum est Dei, manifestum est in illis; Deus enim illis manifestauit. Inuisibilia enim eius a constitutione mundi per ea, quae facta sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur, sempiterna quoque uirtus eius et diuinitas, et ubi Atheniensibus loquens, cum rem magnam de Deo dixisset et quae a paucis possit intellegi, quod in illo u i u i m u s et mouemur et sumus, adiecit et ait: Sicut et uestri quidam dixerunt. Nouit sane etiam ipsos, in quibus errant, cauere; ubi enim dictum est, quod per ea, quae facta sunt, Deus illis manifestauit intellectu conspicienda inuisibilia sua: ibi etiam dictum est non illos ipsum Deum recte coluisse, quia et aliis rebus, quibus non oportebat, diuinos honores illi uni tantum debitos detulerunt: Quoniam cognoscentes Deum non sicut Deum glorificauerunt aut gratias egerunt, sed euanuerunt in cogitationibus suis et obscuratum est cor insipiens eorum. Dicentes enim se esse sapientes stulti facti sunt et inmutauerunt gloriam incorruptibilis Dei in similitudinem imaginis corruptibilis hominis et uolucrum et quadrupedum et serpentium; ubi et Romanos et Graecos et Aegyptios. qui de sapientiae nomine gloriati sunt, fecit intellegi. Sed de hoc cum istis post modum disputabimus. In quo autem nobis consentiunt de uno Deo huius uniuersitatis auctore, qui non solum super omnia corpora est incorporeus, uerum etiam super omnes animas incorruptibilis, principium nostrum, lumen nostrum, bonum nostrum, in hoc eos ceteris anteponimus. Nec, si litteras eorum Christianus ignorans uerbis, quae non didicit, in disputatione non utitur, ut uel naturalem Latine uel physicam Graece appellet eam partem, in qua de naturae inquisitione tractatur. et rationalem siue logicam, in qua quaeritur quonam modo ueritas percipi possit, et moralem uel ethicam, in qua de moribus agitur bonorumque finibus adpetendis malorumque uitandis, ideo nescit ab uno uero Deo adque optimo et naturam nobis esse, qua facti ad eius imaginem sumus, et doctrinam, qua eum nosque nouerimus, et gratiam, qua illi cohaerendo beati simus. Haec itaque causa est quur istos ceteris praeferamus, quia, cum alii philosophi ingenia sua studiaque contriuerint in requirendis rerum causis, et quinam esset modus discendi adque uiuendi, isti Deo cognito reppererunt ubi esset et causa constitutae uniuersitatis et lux percipiendae ueritatis et fons bibendae felicitatis. Siue ergo isti Platonici siue quicumque alii quarumlibet gentium philosophi de Deo ista sentiunt, nobiscum sentiunt. Sed ideo cum Platonicis magis agere placuit hanc causam, quia eorum sunt litterae notiores. Nam et Graeci, quorum lingua in gentibus praeminet, eas magna praedicatione celebrarunt, et Latini permoti earum uel excellentia uel gloria, ipsas libentius didicerunt adque in nostrum eloquium transferendo nobiliores clarioresque fecerunt.

### How Plato Has Been Able to Approach So Nearly to Christian Knowledge.

[¶6] Chapter 11.—How Plato Has Been Able to Approach So Nearly to Christian Knowledge.

> Latin: Caput XI. Unde Plato eam intellegentiam potuerit adquirere, qua Christianae scientiae propinquauit.

[¶7] Certain partakers with us in the grace of Christ, wonder when they hear and read that Plato had conceptions concerning God, in which they recognize considerable agreement with the 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 the prophetic scriptures, which opinion I myself have expressed in certain of my writings. But a careful calculation of dates, contained in chronological history, shows that Plato was born about a hundred years after the time in which Jeremiah prophesied, and, as he lived eighty-one years, there are found to have been about seventy years from his death to that time when 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 the Greek tongue, to be translated and kept. Therefore, on that voyage of his, Plato could neither have seen Jeremiah, who was dead so long before, nor have read those same scriptures which had not yet been translated into the Greek language, of which he was a master, unless, indeed, we say that, as he was most earnest in the pursuit of knowledge, he also studied those writings through an interpreter, as he did those of the Egyptians,—not, indeed, writing a translation of them (the facilities for doing which were only gained even by Ptolemy in return for munificent acts of kindness, though fear of his kingly authority might have seemed a sufficient motive), but learning as much as he possibly could concerning their contents by means of conversation. What warrants this supposition are the opening verses of Genesis: “In the beginning God made the heaven and earth. And the earth was invisible, and without order; and darkness was over the abyss: and the Spirit of God moved over the waters.” For in the Timæus, when writing on the formation of the world, he says that God first united earth and fire; from which it is evident that he assigns to fire a place in heaven. This opinion bears a certain resemblance to the statement, “In the beginning God made heaven and earth.” Plato next speaks of those two intermediary elements, water and air, by which the other two extremes, namely, earth and fire, were mutually united; from which circumstance he is thought to have so understood the words, “The Spirit of God moved over the waters.” For, not paying sufficient attention to the designations given by those scriptures to the Spirit of God, he may have thought that the four elements are spoken of in that place, because the air also is called spirit. Then, as to Plato’s saying that the philosopher is a lover of God, nothing shines forth more conspicuously in those sacred writings. But the most striking thing in this connection, and that which most of all inclines me almost to assent to the opinion that Plato was not ignorant of those writings, is the answer which was given to the question elicited from the holy Moses when the words of God were conveyed to him by the angel; for, when he asked what was the name of that God who was commanding him to go and deliver the Hebrew people out of Egypt, this answer was given: “I am who am; and thou shalt say to the children of Israel, He who is sent me unto you;” as though compared with Him that truly is, because He is unchangeable, those things which have been created mutable are not,—a truth which Plato zealously held, and most diligently commended. And I know not whether this sentiment is anywhere to be found in the books of those who were before Plato, unless in that book where it is said, “I am who am; and thou shalt say to the children of Israel, who is sent me unto you.”

> Latin: Mirantur autem quidam nobis in Christi gratia sociati, cum audiunt uel legunt Platonem de Deo ista sensisse, quae multum congruere ueritati nostrae religionis agnoscunt. Unde nonnulli putauerunt eum, quando perrexit in Aegyptum, Hieremiam audisse prophetam uel scripturas propheticas in eadem peregrinatione legisse; quorum quidem opinionem in quibusdam libris meis posui. Sed diligenter subputata temporum ratio, quae chronica historia continetur, Platonem indicat a tempore, quo prophetauit Hieremias, centum ferme annos postea natum fuisse; qui cum octoginta et unum uixisset, ab anno mortis eius usque ad id tempus, quo Ptolomaeus rex Aegypti scripturas propheticas gentis Hebraeorum de Iudaea poposcit et per septuaginta uiros Hebraeos, qui etiam Graecam linguam nouerant, interpretandas habendasque curauit, anni reperiuntur ferme sexaginta. Quapropter in illa peregrinatione sua Plato nec Hieremiam uidere potuit tanto ante defunctum, nec easdem scripturas legere, quae nondum fuerant in Graecam linguam translatae, qua ille pollebat; nisi forte, quia fuit acerrimi studii, sicut Aegyptias, ita et istas per interpretem didicit, non ut scribendo transferret (quod Ptolomaeus pro ingenti beneficio, qui a regia potestate etiam timeri poterat, meruisse perhibetur, sed ut conloquendo quid continerent, quantum capere posset, addisceret. Hoc ut existimetur, illa suadere uidentur indicia, quod liber geneseos sic incipit: In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram. Terra autem erat inuisibilis et inconposita, et tenebrae [erant] super abyssum, et spiritus Dei superferebatur super aquam; in Timaeo autem Plato, quem librum de mundi constitutione conscripsit, Deum dicit in illo opere terram primo ignemque iunxisse. Manifestum est autem, quod igni tribuat caeli locum: habet ergo haec sententia quandam illius similitudinem, qua dictum est: In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram. Deinde illa duo media, quibus interpositis sibimet haec extrema copularentur, aquam dicit et aerem; unde putatur sic intellexisse quod scriptum est: spiritus Dei superferebatur super aquam. Parum quippe adtendens quo more soleat illa scriptura appellare spiritum Dei, quoniam et aer spiritus dicitur, quattuor opinatus elementa loco illo commemorata uideri potest Deinde quod Plato dicit amatorem Dei esse philosophum, nihil sic illis sacris litteris flagrat; et maxime illud (quod et me plurimum adducit, ut paene adsentiar Platonem illorum librorum expertem non fuisse), quod, cum ad sanctum Moysen ita uerba Dei per angelum perferantur, ut quaerenti quod sit nomen eius, qui eum pergere praecipiebat ad populum Hebraeum ex Aegypto liberandum, respondeatur: Ego sum qui sum, et dices filiis Israel: Qui est, misit me ad uos, tamquam in eius conparatione, qui uere est quia incommutabilis est, ea quae mutabilia facta sunt non sint, uehementer hoc Plato tenuit et diligentissime commendauit. Et nescio utrum hoc uspiam reperiatur in libris eorum, qui ante Platonem fuerunt, nisi ubi dictum est: Ego sum qui sum, et dices eis: Qui est, misit me ad uos.

### That Even the Platonists, Though They Say These Things Concerning the One True God, Nevertheless Thought that Sacred Rites Were to Be Performed in Honor of Many Gods.

[¶9] Chapter 12.—That Even the Platonists, Though They Say These Things Concerning the One True God, Nevertheless Thought that Sacred Rites Were to Be Performed in Honor of Many Gods.

> Latin: Caput XII. Quod etiam Platonici, licet de uno uero Deo bene senserint, multis tamen dis sacra facienda censuerint.

[¶10] But we need not determine from what source he learned these things,—whether it was from the books of the ancients who preceded him, or, as is more likely, from the words of the apostle: “Because that which is known of God, has been manifested among them, for God hath manifested it to them. For His invisible things from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by those things which have been made, also His eternal power and Godhead.” From whatever source he may have derived this knowledge, then, I think I have made it sufficiently plain that I have not chosen the Platonic philosophers undeservedly as the parties with whom to discuss; because the question we have just taken up concerns the natural theology,—the question, namely, whether sacred rites are to be performed to one God, or to many, for the sake of the happiness which is to be after death. I have specially chosen them because their juster thoughts concerning the one God who made heaven and earth, have made them illustrious among philosophers. This has given them such superiority to all others in the judgment of posterity, that, though Aristotle, the disciple of Plato, a man of eminent abilities, inferior in eloquence to Plato, yet far superior to many in that respect, had founded the Peripatetic sect,—so called because they were in the habit of walking about during their disputations,—and though he had, through the greatness of his fame, gathered very many disciples into his school, even during the life of his master; and though Plato at his death was succeeded in his school, which was called the Academy, by Speusippus, his sister’s son, and Xenocrates, his beloved disciple, who, together with their successors, were called from this name of the school, Academics; nevertheless the most illustrious 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 these were the renowned Plotinus, Iamblichus, and Porphyry, who were Greeks, and the African Apuleius, who was learned both in the Greek and Latin tongues. All these, however, and the rest who were of the same school, and also Plato himself, thought that sacred rites ought to be performed in honor of many gods.

> Latin: Sed undecumque ille ista didicerit, siue praecedentibus eum ueterum libris siue potius, quo modo dicit apostolus, quia quod notum est Dei manifestum est in illis; Deus enim illis manifestauit; inuisibilia enim eius a constitutione mundi per ea, quae facta sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur, sempiterna quoque uirtus eius et diuinitas: nunc non inmerito me Platonicos philosophos elegisse cum quibus agam, quod in ista quaestione, quam modo suscepimus, agitur de naturali theologia, utrum propter felicitatem, quae post mortem futura est, uni Deo an pluribus sacra facere oporteat, satis, ut existimo, exposui. Ideo quippe hos potissimum elegi, quoniam de uno Deo qui fecit caelum et terram, quanto melius senserunt, tanto ceteris gloriosiores et inlustriores habentur, in tantum aliis praelati iudicio posterorum, ut, cum Aristoteles, Platonis discipulus, uir excellentis ingenii et eloquio Platoni quidem inpar, sed multos facile superans, cum sectam Peripateticam condidisset, quod deambulans disputare consueuerat, plurimosque discipulos praeclara fama excellens uiuo adhuc praeceptore in suam haeresim congregasset, post mortem uero Platonis Speusippus, sororis eius filius, et Xenocrates, dilectus eius discipulus, in scholam eius, quae Academia uocabatur, eidem successissent adque ob hoc et ipsi et eorum successores Academici appellarentur, recentiores tamen philosophi nobilissimi, quibus Plato sectandus placuit, noluerint se dici Peripateticos aut Academicos, sed Platonicos. Ex quibus sunt ualde nobilitati Graeci Plotinus, Iamblichus, Porphyrius; in utraque autem lingua, id est et Graeca et Latina, Apuleius Afer extitit Platonicus nobilis. Sed hi omnes et ceteri eius modi et ipse Plato dis plurimis esse sacra facienda putauerunt.

### Concerning the Opinion of Plato, According to Which He Defined the Gods as Beings Entirely Good and the Friends of Virtue.

[¶12] Chapter 13.—Concerning the Opinion of Plato, According to Which He Defined the Gods as Beings Entirely Good and the Friends of Virtue.

> Latin: Caput XIII. De sententia Platonis, qua definiuit deos non esse nisi bonos amicosque uirtutum.

[¶13] Therefore, although in many other important respects they differ from us, nevertheless with respect to this particular point of difference, which I have just stated, as it is one of great moment, and the question on hand concerns it, I will first ask them to what gods they think that sacred rites are to be performed,—to the good or to the bad, or to both the good and the bad? But we have the opinion of Plato affirming that all the gods are good, and that there is not one of the gods bad. It follows, therefore, that these are to be performed to the good, for then they are performed to gods; for if they are 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 be propitiated by sacred rites in order that they may not harm us, but the good gods are to be invoked in order that they may assist us. For there are no bad gods, and it is to the good that, as they say, the due honor of such rites is to be paid. Of what character, then, are those gods who love scenic displays, even demanding that a place be given them among divine things, and that they be exhibited in their honor? The power of these gods proves that they exist, but their liking such things proves that they are bad. For it is well-known what Plato’s opinion was concerning scenic plays. He thinks that the poets themselves, because they have composed songs so unworthy of the majesty and goodness of the gods, ought to be banished from the state. Of what character, therefore, are those gods who contend with Plato himself about those scenic plays? He does not suffer the gods to be defamed by false crimes; the gods command those same crimes to be celebrated in their own honor.

> Latin: Quamquam ergo a nobis et in aliis multis rebus magnisque dissentiant, in hoc tamen, quod modo posui, quia neque parua res est et inde nunc quaestio est, primum ab eis quaero, quibus dis istum cultum exhibendum arbitrentur, utrum bonis an malis an et bonis et malis. Sed habemus Platonis sententiam dicentis omnes deos bonos esse nec esse omnino ullum deorum malum. Consequens est igitur, ut bonis haec exhibenda intellegantur; tunc enim dis exhibentur, quoniam nec di erunt, si boni non erunt. Hoc si ita est, (nam de dis quid aliud decet credere?) illa profecto uacuatur opinio, qua nonnulli putant deos malos sacris placandos esse, ne laedant, bonos autem, ut adiuuent, inuocandos. Mali enim nulli sunt di; bonis porro debitus, ut dicunt, honor sacrorum est deferendus. Qui sunt ergo illi, qui ludos scaenicos amant eosque diuinis rebus adiungi et suis honoribus flagitant exhiberi? quorum uis non eos indicat nullos, sed iste adfectus nimirum indicat malos. Quid enim de ludis scaenicis Plato senserit, notum est, cum poetas ipsos, quod tam indigna deorum maiestate adque bonitate carmina conposuerint, censet ciuitate pellendos. Qui sunt igitur isti di, qui de scaenicis ludis cum ipso Platone contendunt? Ille quippe non patitur deos falsis criminibus infamari; isti eisdem criminibus suos honores celebrari iubent.

[¶14] 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 disease upon him because he had refused to obey them, which they removed when he had fulfilled their commands. Plato, however, bad though they were, did not think they were to be feared; but, holding to his opinion with the utmost firmness and constancy, does not hesitate to remove from a well-ordered state all the sacrilegious follies of the poets, with which these gods are delighted because they themselves are impure. But Labeo places this same Plato (as I have mentioned already in the second book) among the demi-gods. Now Labeo thinks that the bad deities are to be propitiated with bloody victims, and by fasts accompanied with the same, but the good deities with plays, and all other things which are associated with joyfulness. How comes it, then, that the demi-god Plato so persistently dares to take away those pleasures, because he deems them base, not from the demi-gods but from the gods, and these the good gods? And, moreover, those very gods themselves do certainly refute the opinion of Labeo, for they showed themselves in the case of Latinius to be 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 the gods are good and honorable, and friendly to the virtues of the wise, holding it unlawful to think otherwise concerning any of the gods. We will explain it, say they. Let us then attentively listen to them.

> Latin: Denique isti cum eosdem ludos instaurari praeciperent, poscentes turpia etiam maligna gesserunt, Tito Latinio auferentes filium et inmittentes morbum, quod eorum abnuisset imperium, eumque morbum retrahentes, cum iussa conplesset; iste autem illos nec tam malos. timendos putat, sed suae sententiae robur constantissime retinens omnes poetarum sacrilegas nugas, quibus illi inmunditiae societate oblectantur, a populo bene instituto remouere non dubitat. Hunc autem Platonem, quod iam in secundo libro commemoraui, inter semideos Labeo ponit. Qui Labeo numina mala uictimis cruentis adque huius modi supplicationibus placari existimat, bona uero ludis et talibus quasi ad laetitiam pertinentibus rebus. Quid est ergo quod semideus Plato non semideis, sed deis, et hoc bonis, illa oblectamenta, quia iudicat turpia, tam constanter audet auferre? Qui sane di refellunt sententiam Labeonis; nam, se in Latinio non lasciuos tantum adque ludibundos, sed etiam saeuos terribilesque monstrarunt. Exponant ergo nobis ista Platonici, qui omnes deos secundum auctoris sui sententiam bonos et honestos et uirtutibus sapientium socios esse arbitrantur aliterque de ullo deorum sentiri nefas habent. Exponimus, inquiunt. Adtente igitur audiamus.

### Of the Opinion of Those Who Have Said that Rational Souls are of Three Kinds, to Wit, Those of the Celestial Gods, Those of the Aerial Demons, and Those of Terrestrial Men.

[¶16] Chapter 14.—Of the Opinion of Those Who Have Said that Rational Souls are of Three Kinds, to Wit, Those of the Celestial Gods, Those of the Aerial Demons, and Those of Terrestrial Men.

> Latin: Caput XIV. De opinione eorum, qui rationales animas trium generum esse dixerunt, id est in dis caelestibus, in daemonibus aeriis et in hominibus terrenis.

[¶17] There is, say they, a threefold division of all animals endowed with a rational soul, namely, into gods, men, and demons. The gods occupy the loftiest region, men the lowest, the demons the middle region. For the abode of the gods is heaven, that of men the earth, that of the demons the air. As the dignity of their regions is diverse, so also is that of their natures; therefore the gods are better than men and demons. Men have been placed below the gods and demons, both in respect of the order of the regions they inhabit, and the difference of their merits. The demons, therefore, who hold the middle place, as they are inferior to the gods, than whom they inhabit a lower region, so they are superior to men, than whom they inhabit a loftier one. For they have immortality of body in common with the gods, but passions of the 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 are also subject to human passions, from which the gods are far removed, and to which they are altogether strangers. Whence we conclude that it was not the gods, who are all good and highly exalted, that Plato deprived of the pleasure of theatric plays, by reprobating and prohibiting the fictions of the poets, but the demons.

> Latin: Omnium, inquiunt, animalium, in quibus est anima rationalis, tripertita diuisio est, in deos, homines, daemones. Di excelsissimum locum tenent, homines infimum, daemones medium. Nam deorum sedes in caelo est, hominum in terra, in aere daemonum. Sicut eis diuersa dignitas est locorum. ita etiam naturarum. Proinde di sunt hominibus daemonibusque potiores; homines uero infra deos et daemones constituti sunt, ut elementorum ordine, sic differentia meritorum. Daemones igitur medii, quem ad modum dis, quibus inferius habitant, postponendi, ita hominibus, quibus superius, praeferendi sunt. Habent enim cum dis communem inmortalitatem corporum, animorum autem cum hominibus passiones. Quapropter non est mirum, inquiunt, si etiam ludorum obscenitatibus et poetarum figmentis delectantur, quando quidem humanis capiuntur adfectibus, a quibus di longe absunt et modis omnibus alieni sunt. Ex quo colligitur, Platonem poetica detestando et prohibendo figmenta non deos, qui omnes boni et excelsi sunt, priuasse ludorum scaenicorum uoluptate, sed daemones.

[¶18] Of these things many have written: among others Apuleius, the Platonist of Madaura, who composed a whole work on the subject, entitled, Concerning the God of Socrates. He there discusses and explains of what kind that deity was who attended on Socrates, a sort of familiar, by whom it is said he was admon ished to desist from any action which would not turn out to his advantage. He asserts most distinctly, and proves at great length, that it was not a god but a demon; and he discusses with great diligence the opinion of Plato concerning 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, whom he removed from all human contagion, certainly from the demons, all the pleasures of the theatre, by expelling the poets from the state? Evidently in this way he wished to admonish the human soul, although still confined in these moribund members, to despise the shameful commands of the demons, and to detest their impurity, and to choose rather the splendor of virtue. But if Plato showed himself virtuous in answering and prohibiting these things, then certainly it was shameful of the demons to command them. Therefore either Apuleius is wrong, and Socrates’ familiar did not belong to this class of deities, or Plato held contradictory opinions, now honoring the demons, now removing from the well-regulated state the things in which they delighted, or Socrates is not to be congratulated on the friendship of the demon, of which Apuleius was so ashamed that he entitled his book On the God of Socrates, whilst according to the tenor of his discussion, wherein he so diligently and at such length distinguishes gods from demons, he ought not to have entitled it, Concerning the God, but Concerning the Demon of Socrates. But he preferred to put this into the discussion itself rather than into the title of his book. For, through the sound doctrine which has illuminated human society, all, or almost all men have such a horror at the name of demons, that every one who before reading the dissertation of Apuleius, which sets forth the dignity of demons, should have read the title of the book, On the Demon of Socrates, would certainly have thought that the author was not a sane man. But what did even Apuleius find to praise in the demons, except subtlety and strength of body and a higher place of habitation? For when he spoke generally concerning their manners, he said nothing that was good, but very much that was bad. Finally, no one, when he has read that book, wonders that they desired to have even the obscenity of the stage among divine things, or that, wishing to be thought gods, they should be delighted with the crimes of the gods, or that all those sacred solemnities, whose obscenity occasions laughter, and whose shameful cruelty causes horror, should be in agreement with their passions.

> Latin: Haec si ita sunt (quae licet aput alios quoque reperiantur, Apuleius tamen Platonicus Madaurensis de hac re sola unum scripsit librum, cuius esse titulum uoluit ‘de deo Socratis’, ubi disserit et exponit, ex quo genere numinum Socrates habebat adiunctum et amicitia quadam conciliatum, a quo perhibetur solitus admoneri, ut desisteret ab agendo, quando id quod agere uolebat, non prospere fuerat euenturum; dicit enim apertissime et copiosissime adserit non illum deum fuisse, sed daemonem, diligenti disputatione pertractans istam Platonis de deorum sublimitate et hominum humilitate et daemonum medietate sententiam) — haec ergo si ita sunt, quonam modo ausus est Plato, etiamsi non dis, quos ab omni humana contagione semouit, certe ipsis daemonibus poetas urbe pellendo auferre theatricas uoluptates, nisi quia hoc pacto admonuit animum humanum, quamuis adhuc in his moribundis membris positum, pro splendore honestatis inpura daemonum iussa contemnere eorumque inmunditiam detestari? Nam si Plato haec honestissime arguit et prohibuit, profecto daemones turpissime poposcerunt adque iusserunt. Aut ergo fallitur Apuleius et non ex isto genere numinum habuit amicum Socrates aut contraria inter se sentit Plato modo daemones honorando, modo eorum delicias a ciuitate bene morata remouendo, aut non est Socrati amicitia daemonis gratulanda, de qua usque adeo et ipse Apuleius erubuit, ut de deo Socratis praenotaret librum, quem secundum suam disputationem, qua deos a daemonibus tam diligenter copioseque discernit, non appellare de deo, sed de daemone Socratis debuit. Maluit autem hoc in ipsa disputatione quam in titulo libri ponere. Ita enim per sanam doctrinam, quae humanis rebus inluxit, omnes uel paene omnes daemonum nomen exhorrent, ut, quisquis ante disputationem Apulei, qua daemonum dignitas commendatur, titulum libri de daemone Socratis legeret, nequaquam illum hominem sanum fuisse sentiret. Quid autem etiam ipse Apuleius quod in daemonibus laudaret inuenit praeter subtilitatem et firmitatem corporum et habitationis altiorem locum? Nam de moribus eorum, cum de omnibus generaliter loqueretur, non solum nihil boni dixit, sed etiam plurimum mali. Denique lecto illo libro prorsus nemo miratur eos etiam scaenicam turpitudinem in rebus diuinis habere uoluisse, et cum deos se putari uelint, deorum criminibus oblectari potuisse, et quidquid in eorum sacris obscena sollemnitate seu turpi crudelitate uel ridetur uel horretur, eorum adfectibus conuenire.

### That the Demons are Not Better Than Men Because of Their Aerial Bodies, or on Account of Their Superior Place of Abode.

[¶20] Chapter 15.—That the Demons are Not Better Than Men Because of Their Aerial Bodies, or on Account of Their Superior Place of Abode.

> Latin: Caput XV. Quod neque propter aeria corpora neque propter superiora habitacula daemones hominibus antecellant.

[¶21] Wherefore let not the mind truly religious, and submitted to the true God, suppose that demons are better than men, because they have better bodies. Otherwise it must put many beasts before itself which are superior to us both in acuteness of the senses, in ease and quickness of movement, in strength and in long-continued vigor of body. What man can equal the eagle or the vulture in strength of vision? Who can equal the dog in acuteness of smell? Who can equal the hare, the stag, and all the birds in swiftness? Who can equal in strength the lion or the elephant? Who can equal in length of life the serpents, which are affirmed to put off old age along with their skin, and to return to youth again? But as we are better than all these by the possession of reason and understanding, so we ought also to be better than the demons by living good and virtuous lives. For divine providence gave to them bodies of a better quality than ours, that that in which we excel them might in this way be commended to us as deserving to be far more cared for than the body, and that we should learn to despise the bodily excellence of the demons compared with goodness of life, in respect of which we are better than they, knowing that we too shall have immortality of body,—not an immortality tortured by eternal punishment, but that which is consequent on purity of soul.

> Latin: Quam ob rem absit ut ista considerans animus ueraciter religiosus et uero Deo subditus ideo arbitretur daemones se ipso esse meliores, quod habeant corpora meliora. Alioquin multas sibi et bestias praelaturus est, quae nos et acrimonia sensuum et motu facillimo adque celerrimo et ualentia uirium et annosissima firmitate corporum uincunt. Quis hominum uidendo aequabitur aquilis et uulturibus? quis odorando canibus? quis uelocitate leporibus, carnis, omnibus auibus? quis multum ualendo leonibus et elephantis? quis diu uiuendo serpentibus, qui etiam deposita tunica senectutem deponere adque in iuuentam redire perhibentur? Sed sicut his omnibus ratiocinando et intellegendo meliores sumus, ita etiam daemonibus bene adque honeste uiuendo meliores esse debemus. Ob hoc enim et prouidentia diuina eis, quibus nos constat esse potiores, data sunt quaedam potiora corporum munera, ut illud, quo eis praeponimur, etiam isto modo nobis commendaretur multo maiore cura excolendum esse quam corpus, ipsamque excellentiam corporalem, quam daemones habere nossemus, prae bonitate uitae, qua illis anteponimur, contemnere disceremus, habituri et nos inmortalitatem corporum, non quam suppliciorum aeternitas torqueat, sed quam puritas praecedat animorum.

[¶22] But now, as regards loftiness of place, it is altogether ridiculous to be so influenced by the fact that the demons inhabit the air, and we the earth, as to think that on that account they are to be put before us; for in this way we put all the birds before ourselves. But the birds, when they are weary with flying, or require to repair their bodies with food, come back to the earth to rest or to feed, which the demons, they say, do not. Are they, therefore, inclined to say that the birds are superior to us, and the demons superior to the birds? But if it be madness to think so, there is no reason why we should think that, on account of their inhabiting a loftier element, the demons have a claim to our religious submission. But as it is really the case that the birds of the air are not only not put before us who dwell on the earth; but are even subjected to us on account of the dignity of the rational soul which is in us, so also it is the case that the demons, though they are aerial, are not better than we who are terrestrial because the air is higher than the earth, but, on the contrary, men are to be put before demons because their despair is not to be compared to the hope of pious men. Even that law of Plato’s, according to which he mutually orders and arranges the four elements, inserting between the two extreme elements—namely, fire, which is in the highest degree mobile, and the immoveable earth—the two middle ones, air and water, that by how much the air is higher up than the water, and the fire than the air, by so much also are the waters higher than the earth,—this law, I say, sufficiently admonishes us not to estimate the merits of animated creatures according to the grades of the elements. And Apuleius himself says that man is a terrestrial animal in common with the rest, who is nevertheless to be put far before aquatic animals, though Plato puts the waters themselves before the land. By this he would have us understand that the same order is not to be observed when the question concerns the merits of animals, though it seems to be the true one in the gradation of bodies; for it appears 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 body of a higher.

> Latin: Iam uero de loci altitudine, quod daemones in aere, nos autem habitamus in terra, ita permoueri, ut hinc eos nobis esse praeponendos existimemus, omnino ridiculum est. Hoc enim pacto nobis et omnia uolatilia praeponimus. At enim uolatilia cum uolando fatigantur uel reficiendum alimentis corpus habent, terram repetunt uel ad requiem uel ad pastum, quod daemones, inquiunt, non faciunt. Numquid ergo placet eis, ut uolatilia nobis, daemones autem etiam uolatilibus antecellant? Quod si dementissimum est opinari, nihil est quod de habitatione superioris elementi dignos esse daemones existimemus, quibus nos religionis adfectu subdere debeamus. Sicut enim fieri potuit, ut aeriae uolucres terrestribus nobis non solum non praeferantur, uerum etiam subiciantur propter rationalis animae, quae in nobis est, dignitatem: ita fieri potuit, ut daemones, quamuis magis aerii sint, terrestribus nobis non ideo meliores sint, quia est aer quam terra superior; sed ideo eis homines praeferendi sint, quoniam spei piorum hominum nequaquam illorum desperatio conparanda est. Nam et illa ratio Platonis, qua elementa quattuor proportione contexit adque ordinat, ita duobus extremis, igni mobilissimo et terrae inmobili, media duo, aerem et aquam, interserens, ut, quanto est aer aquis et aere ignis, tanto et aquae superiores sint terris, satis nos admonet animalium merita non pro elementorum gradibus aestimare. Et ipse quippe Apuleius cum ceteris terrestre animal hominem dicit, qui tamen longe praeponitur animalibus aquatilibus, cum ipsas aquas terris praeponat Plato: ut intellegant, non eundem ordinem tenendum, cum agitur de meritis animarum, qui uidetur esse ordo in gradibus corporum; sed fieri posse, ut inferius corpus anima melior inhabitet deteriorque superius.

## 42. What Apuleius the Platonist Thought Concerning the Manners and Actions of Demons.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/42/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/42/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 16.—What Apuleius the Platonist Thought Concerning the Manners and Actions of Demons.

> Latin: Caput XVI. Quid de moribus adque actionibus daemonum Apuleius Platonicus senserit.

[¶1] The same Apuleius, when speaking concerning the manners of 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 honors, are delighted with a variety of sacred rites, and are annoyed if any of them be neglected. Among other things, he also says that on them depend the divinations of augurs, soothsayers, and prophets, and the revelations of dreams, and that from them also are the miracles of the magicians. But, when giving a brief definition of them, he says, “Demons are of an animal nature, passive in soul, rational in mind, aerial in body, eternal in time.” “Of which five things, the three first are common to them and us, the fourth peculiar to themselves, and the fifth common to therewith the gods.” But I see that they have in common with the gods two of the first things, which they have in common with us. For he says that the gods also are animals; and when he is assigning to every order of beings its own element, he places us among the other terrestrial animals which live and feel upon the earth. Wherefore, if the demons are animals as to genus, this is common to them, not only with men, but also with the gods and with beasts; if they are rational as to their mind, this is common to them with the gods and with men; if they are eternal in time, this is common to them with the gods only; if they are passive as to their soul, this is common to them with men only; 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, they are not above ourselves, for so are we also; and as to their being eternal as to time, what is the advantage of that if they are not blessed? for better is temporal happiness than eternal misery. Again, as to their being passive in soul, how are they in this respect above us, since we also are so, but would not have been so had we not been miserable? Also, as to their being aerial in body, how much value is to be set on that, since a soul of any kind whatsoever is to be set above every body? and therefore religious worship, which ought to be rendered from the soul, is by no means due to that thing which is inferior to the soul. Moreover, if he had, among those things which he says belong to demons, enumerated virtue, wisdom, happiness, and affirmed that they have those things in common with the gods, and, like them, eternally, he would assuredly have attributed to them something greatly to be desired, and much to be prized. And even in that case it would not have been our duty to worship them like God on account of these things, but rather to worship Him from whom we know they had received them. But how much less are they really worthy of divine honor,—those aerial animals who are only rational that they may be capable of misery, passive that they may be actually miserable, and eternal that it may be impossible for them to end their misery!

> Latin: De moribus ergo daemonum cum idem Platonicus loqueretur, dixit eos eisdem quibus homines animi perturbationibus agitari, inritari iniuriis, obsequiis donisque placari, gaudere honoribus, diuersis sacrorum ritibus oblectari et in eis si quid neglectum fuerit commoueri. Inter cetera etiam dicit ad eos pertinere diuinationes augurum, aruspicum, uatum adque somniorum; ab his quoque esse miracula magorum. Breuiter autem eos definiens ait daemones esse genere animalia, animo passiua, mente rationalia, corpore aeria, tempore aeterna; horum uero quinque tria priora illis esse quae nobis, quartum proprium, quintum eos cum dis habere commune. Sed uideo trium superiorum, quae nobiscum habent, duo etiam cum dis habere. Animalia quippe esse dicit et deos, suaque cuique elementa distribuens in terrestribus animalibus nos posuit cum ceteris quae in terra uiuunt et sentiunt, in aquatilibus pisces et alia natatilia, in aeriis daemones, in aetheriis deos. Ac per hoc quod daemones genere sunt animalia, non solum eis cum hominibus, uerum etiam cum dis pecoribusque commune est; quod mente rationalia, cum dis et hominibus; quod tempore aeterna, cum dis solis; quod animo passiua, cum hominibus solis; quod corpore aeria, ipsi sunt soli. Proinde quod genere sunt animalia, non est magnum, quia hoc sunt et pecora; quod mente rationalia, non est supra nos, quia sumus et nos; quod tempore aeterna, quid boni est, si non beata? Melior est enim temporalis felicitas quam misera aeternitas. Quod animo passiua, quo modo supra nos est, quando et nos hoc sumus, nec ita esset, nisi miseri essemus? Quod corpore aeria, quanti aestimandum est, cum omni corpori praeferatur animae qualiscumque natura, et ideo religionis cultus, qui debetur ex animo, nequaquam debeatur ei rei, quae inferior est animo? Porro si inter illa, quae daemonum esse dicit, adnumeraret uirtutem, sapientiam, felicitatem et haec eos diceret habere cum dis aeterna adque communia, profecto aliquid diceret exoptandum magnique pendendum; nec sic eos tamen propter haec tamquam Deum colere deberemus, sed potius ipsum, a quo haec illos accepisse nossemus. Quanto minus nunc honore diuino aeria digna sunt animalia, ad hoc rationalia ut misera esse possint, ad hoc passiua ut misera sint, ad hoc aeterna ut miseriam finire non possint!

### Whether It is Proper that Men Should Worship Those Spirits from Whose Vices It is Necessary that They Be Freed.

[¶3] Chapter 17.—Whether It is Proper that Men Should Worship Those Spirits from Whose Vices It is Necessary that They Be Freed.

> Latin: Caput XVII. An dignum sit eos spiritus ab homine coli, a quorum uitiis eum oporteat liberari.

[¶4] Wherefore, to omit other things, and confine our attention to that which he says is common to the demons with us, let us ask this question: If all the four elements are full of their own animals, the fire and the air of immortal, and the water and the earth of mortal ones, why are the souls of demons agitated by the whirlwinds and tempests of passions?—for the Greek word παθος means perturbation, whence he chose to call the demons “passive in soul,” because the word passion, which is derived from πάθος, signified a commotion of the mind contrary to reason. Why, then, are these things in the minds of demons which are not in beasts? For if anything of this kind appears in beasts, it is not perturbation, because it is not contrary to reason, of which they are devoid. Now it is foolishness or misery which is the cause of these perturbations in the case of men, for we are not yet blessed in the possession of that perfection of wisdom which is promised to us at last, when we shall be set free from our present mortality. But the gods, they say, are free from these perturbations, because they are not only eternal, but also blessed; for they also have the same kind of rational souls, but most pure from all spot and plague. Wherefore, if the gods are free from perturbation because they are blessed, not miserable animals, and the beasts are free from them because they are animals which are capable neither of blessedness nor misery, it remains that the demons, like men, are subject to perturbations because they are not blessed but miserable animals. What folly, therefore, or rather what madness, to submit ourselves through any sentiment of religion to demons, when it belongs to the true religion to deliver us from that depravity which makes us like to them! For Apuleius himself, although he is very sparing toward them, and thinks they are worthy of divine honors, is nevertheless compelled to confess that they are subject to anger; and the true religion commands us not to be moved with anger, but rather to resist it. The demons are won over by gifts; and the true religion commands us to favor no one on account of gifts received. The demons are flattered by honors; but the true religion commands us by no means to be moved by such things. The demons are haters of some men and lovers of others, not in consequence of a prudent and calm judgment, but because of what he calls their “passive soul;” whereas the true religion commands us to love even our enemies. Lastly, the true religion commands us to put away all disquietude of heart and agitation of mind, and also all commotions and tempests of the soul, which Apuleius asserts to be continually swelling and surging in the souls of demons. Why, therefore, except through foolishness and miserable error shouldst thou humble thyself to worship a being to whom thou desirest to be unlike in thy life? And why shouldst thou pay religious homage to him whom thou art unwilling to imitate, when it is the highest duty of religion to imitate Him whom thou worshippest?

> Latin: Quapropter, ut omittam cetera et hoc solum pertractem, quod nobiscum daemones dixit habere commune, id est animi passiones, si omnia quattuor elementa suis animalibus plena sunt, inmortalibus ignis et aer, mortalibus aqua et terra, quaero quur animi daemonum passionum turbelis et tempestatibus agitentur. Perturbatio est enim, quae Graece πάϑος dicitur; unde illa uoluit uocare animo passiua, quia uerbum de uerbo πάϑος passio diceretur motus animi contra rationem. Quur ergo sunt ista in animis daemonum, quae in pecoribus non sunt? Quoniam si quid in pecore simile apparet, non est perturbatio, quia non est contra rationem, qua pecora carent. In hominibus autem ut sint istae perturbationes, facit hoc stultitia uel miseria; nondum enim sumus in illa perfectione sapientiae beati, quae nobis ab hac mortalitate liberatis in fine promittitur. Deos uero ideo dicunt istas pel’turbationes non perpeti, quia non solum aeterni, uerum etiam beati sunt. Easdem quippe animas rationales etiam ipsos habere perhibent, sed ab omni labe ac peste purissimas. Quam ob rem si propterea di non perturbantur, quod animalia sunt beata, non misera, et propterea pecora non perturbantur, quod animalia sunt, quae nec beata possunt esse nec misera: restat ut daemones sicut homines ideo perturbentur, quod animalia sunt non beata, sed misera. [XVII.] Qua igitur insipientia uel potius amentia per aliquam religionem daemonibus subdimur, cum per ueram religionem ab ea uitiositate, in qua illis sumus similes, liberemur? Cum enim daemones, quod et iste Apuleius, quamuis eis plurimum parcat et diuinis honoribus dignos censeat, tamen cogitur confiteri, ira instigentur, nobis uera religio praecipit, ne ira instigemur, sed ei potius resistamus. Cum daemones donis inuitentur, nobis uera religio praecipit, ne cuiquam donorum acceptione faueamus. Cum daemones honoribus mulceantur, nobis uera religio praecipit, ut talibus nullo modo moueamur. Cum daemones quorundam hominum osores, quorundam amatores sint, non prudenti tranquilloque iudicio, sed animo ut appellat ipse passiuo, nobis uera religio praecipit, ut nostros etiam diligamus inimicos. Postremo omnem motum cordis et salum mentis omnesque turbelas et tempestates animi, quibus daemones aestuare adque fluctuare adserit, nos uera religio deponere iubet. Quae igitur causa est nisi stultitia errorque mirabilis, ut ei te facias uenerando humilem, cui te cupias uiuendo dissimilem; et religione colas, quem imitari nolis, cum religionis summa sit imitari quem colis?

### What Kind of Religion that is Which Teaches that Men Ought to Employ the Advocacy of Demons in Order to Be Recommended to the Favor of the Good Gods.

[¶6] Chapter 18.—What Kind of Religion that is Which Teaches that Men Ought to Employ the Advocacy of Demons in Order to Be Recommended to the Favor of the Good Gods.

> Latin: Caput XVIII. Qualis religio sit, in qua docetur, quod homines, ut commendentur dis bonis, daemonibus uti debeant aduocatis.

[¶7] In vain, therefore, have Apuleius, and they who think with him, conferred on the demons the honor of placing them in the air, between the ethereal heavens and the earth, that they may carry to the gods the prayers of men, to men the answers of the gods: for Plato held, they say, that no god has intercourse with man. They who believe these things have thought it unbecoming that men should have intercourse with the gods, and the gods with men, but a befitting thing that the demons should have intercourse with both gods and men, presenting to the gods the petitions of men, and conveying to men what the gods have granted; so that a chaste man, and one who is a stranger to the crimes of the magic arts, must use as patrons, through whom the gods may be induced to hear him, demons who love these crimes, although the very fact of his not loving them ought to have recommended him to them as one who deserved to be listened to with greater readiness and willingness on their part. They love the abominations of the stage, which chastity does not love. They love, in the sorceries of the magicians, “a thousand arts of inflicting harm,” which innocence does not love. Yet both chastity and innocence, if they wish to obtain anything from the gods, will not be able to do so by their own merits, except their enemies act as mediators on their behalf. Apuleius need not attempt to justify the fictions of the poets, and the mockeries of the stage. If human modesty can act so faithlessly towards itself as not only to love shameful things, but even to think that they are pleasing to the divinity, we can cite on the other side their own highest authority and teacher, Plato.

> Latin: Frustra igitur eis Apuleius, et quicumque ita sentiunt, hunc detulit honorem, sic eos in aere medios inter aetherium caelum terramque constituens, ut, quoniam nullus deus miscetur homini, quod Platonem dixisse perhibent, isti ad deos perferant preces hominum et inde ad homines inpetrata quae poscunt. Indignum enim putauerunt qui ista crediderunt misceri homines dis et deos hominibus; dignum autem misceri daemones et dis et hominibus, hinc petita qui adlegent, inde concessa qui adportent; ut uidelicet homo castus et ab artium magicarum sceleribus alienus eos patronos adhibeat, per quos illum di exaudiant, qui haec amant, quae ille non amando fit dignior, quem facilius et libentius exaudire debeant. Amant quippe illi scaenicas turpitudines, quas non amat pudicitia; amant in maleficiis magorum ‘mille nocendi artes,’ quas non amat innocentia. Ergo et pudicitia et innocentia si quid ab dis inpetrare uoluerit, non poterit suis meritis nisi suis interuenientibus inimicis. Non est quod iste poetica figmenta et theatrica ludibria iustificare conetur. Habemus contra ista magistrum eorum et tantae aput eos auctoritatis Platonem, si pudor humanus ita de se male meretur, ut non solum diligat turpia, uerum etiam diuinitati existimet grata.

### Of the Impiety of the Magic Art, Which is Dependent on the Assistance of Malign Spirits.

[¶9] Chapter 19.—Of the Impiety of the Magic Art, Which is Dependent on the Assistance of Malign Spirits.

> Latin: Caput XIX. De inpietate artis magicae, quae patrocinio nititur spirituum malignorum.

[¶10] Moreover, against those magic arts, concerning which some men, exceedingly wretched and exceedingly impious, delight to boast, may not public opinion itself be brought forward as a witness? For why are those arts so severely punished by the laws, if they are the works of deities who ought to be worshipped? Shall it be said that the Christians have or dained those laws by which magic arts are punished? With what other meaning, except that these sorceries are without doubt pernicious to the human race, did the most illustrious poet say,

> Latin: Porro aduersus magicas artes, de quibus quosdam nimis infelices et nimis inpios etiam gloriari libet, nonne ipsam publicam lucem testem citabo? Quur enim tam grauiter ista plectuntur seueritate legum, si opera sunt numinum colendorum? An forte istas leges Christiani instituerunt, quibus artes magicae puniuntur?

[¶11] “By heaven, I swear, and your dear life,

> Latin: Secundum quem alium sensum, nisi quod haec maleficia generi humano perniciosa esse non dubium est, ait poeta clarissimus: Testor, cara, deos et te, germana, tuumque Dulce caput, magicas inuitam accingier artes?

[¶12] Unwillingly these arms I wield,

[¶13] And take, to meet the coming strife,

[¶14] Enchantment’s sword and shield.”

[¶15] And that also which he says in another place concerning magic arts,

[¶16] “I’ve seen him to another place transport the standing corn,”

[¶17] has reference to the fact that the fruits of one field are said to be transferred to another by these arts which this pestiferous and accursed doctrine teaches. Does not Cicero inform us that, among the laws of the Twelve Tables, that is, the most ancient laws of the Romans, there was a law written which appointed a punishment to be inflicted on him who should do this? Lastly, was it before Christian judges that Apuleius himself was accused of magic arts? Had he known these arts to be divine and pious, and congruous with the works of divine power, he ought not only to have confessed, but also to have professed them, rather blaming the laws by which these things were prohibited and pronounced worthy of condemnation, while they ought to have been held worthy of admiration and respect. For by so doing, either he would have persuaded the judges to adopt his own opinion, or, if they had shown their partiality for unjust laws, and condemned him to death notwithstanding his praising and commending such things, the demons would have bestowed on his soul such rewards as he deserved, who, in order to proclaim and set forth their divine works, had not feared the loss of his human life. As our martyrs, when that religion was charged on them as a crime, by which they knew they 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, by enduring all things for it with fidelity and fortitude, and by dying for it with pious calmness, put to shame the law by which that religion was prohibited, and caused its revocation. But there is extant a most copious and eloquent oration of this Platonic philosopher, in which he defends himself against the charge of practising these arts, affirming that he is wholly a stranger to them, and only wishing to show his innocence by denying such things as cannot be innocently committed. But all the miracles of the magicians, who he thinks are justly deserving of condemnation, are performed according to the teaching and by the power of demons. Why, then, does he think that they ought to be honored? For he asserts that they are necessary, in order to present our prayers to the gods, and yet their works are such as we must shun if we wish our prayers to reach the true God. Again, I ask, what kind of prayers of men does he suppose are presented to the good gods by the demons? If magical prayers, they will have none such; if lawful prayers, they will not receive them through such beings. But if a sinner who is penitent pour out prayers, especially if he has committed any crime of sorcery, does he receive pardon through the intercession of those demons by whose instigation and help he has fallen into the sin he mourns? or do the demons themselves, in order that they may merit pardon for the penitent, first become penitents because they have deceived them? This no one ever said concerning the demons; for had this been the case, they would never have dared to seek for themselves divine honors. For how should they do so who desired by penitence to obtain the grace of pardon; seeing that such detestable pride could not exist along with a humility worthy of pardon?

> Latin: Illud etiam, quod alio loco de his artibus dicit: Adque satas alio uidi traducere messes, eo quod hac pestifera scelerataque doctrina fructus alieni in alias terras transferri perhibentur, nonne in duodecim tabulis, id est Romanorum antiquissimis legibus, Cicero commemorat esse conscriptum et ei, qui hoc fecerit, supplicium constitutum? Postremo Apuleius ipse numquid aput Christianos iudices de magicis artibus accusatus est? Quas utique sibi obiectas si diuinas et pias esse nouerat et diuinarum potestatum operibus congruas, non solum eas confiteri debuit, sed etiam profiteri, leges culpans potius, quibus haec prohiberentur et damnanda putarentur, quae haberi miranda et ueneranda oporteret. Ita enim uel sententiam suam persuaderet iudicibus, uel, si illi secundum iniquas leges saperent eumque talia praedicantem adque laudantem morte multarent, digna animae illius daemones dona rependerent, pro quorum diuinis operibus praedicandis humanam uitam sibi adimi non timeret; sicut martyres nostri, cum eis pro crimine obiceretur Christiana religio, qua nouerant se fieri saluos et gloriosissimos inaeternum, non eam negando temporales poenas euadere delegerunt, sed potius confitendo profitendo praedicando et pro hac omnia fideliter fortiterque tolerando et cum pia securitate moriendo leges, quibus prohibebatur, erubescere conpulerunt mutarique fecerunt. Huius autem philosophi Platonici copiosissima et disertissima extat oratio, qua crimen artium magicarum a se alienum esse defendit seque aliter non uult innocentem uideri nisi ea negando, quae non possunt ab innocente committi. At omnia miracula magorum, quos recte sentit esse damnandos, doctrinis fiunt et operibus daemonum, quos uiderit quur censeat honorandos, eos necessarios adserens perferendis ad deos precibus nostris, quorum debemus opera deuitare, si ad Deum uerum preces nostras uolumus peruenire. Deinde quaero, quales preces hominum dis bonis per daemones adlegari putat, magicas an licitas? Si magicas, nolunt tales; si licitas, nolunt per tales. Si autem peccator paenitens preces fundit, maxime si aliquid magicum admisit, itane tandem illis intercedentibus accipit ueniam, quibus inpellentibus aut fauentibus se cecidisse plangit in culpam? an et ipsi daemones, ut possint paenitentibus mereri indulgentiam, priores agunt, quod eos deceperint, paenitentiam? Hoc nemo umquam de daemonibus dixit, quia, si ita esset, nequaquam sibi auderent diuinos honores expetere, qui paenitendo desiderarent ad gratiam ueniae peruenire. Ibi enim est detestanda superbia, hic humilitas miseranda.

### Whether We are to Believe that the Good Gods are More Willing to Have Intercourse with Demons Than with Men.

[¶19] Chapter 20.—Whether We are to Believe that the Good Gods are More Willing to Have Intercourse with Demons Than with Men.

> Latin: Caput XX. An credendum sit quod di boni libentius daemonibus quam hominibus misceantur.

[¶20] But does any urgent and most pressing cause compel the demons to mediate between the gods and men, that they may offer the prayers of men, and bring back the answers from the gods? and if so, what, pray, is that cause, what is that so great necessity? Because, say they, no god has intercourse with man. Most admirable holiness of God, which has no intercourse with a supplicating man, and yet has intercourse with an arrogant demon! which has no intercourse with a penitent man, and yet has intercourse with a deceiving demon! which has no intercourse with a man fleeing for refuge to the divine nature, and yet has intercourse with a demon feigning divinity! 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 the poets by means of philosophical writings from a well-regulated state, and yet has intercourse with a demon requesting from the princes and priests of a state the theatri cal performance of the mockeries of the poets! which has no intercourse with the man who prohibits the ascribing of crime to the gods, and yet has intercourse with a demon who takes delight in the fictitious representation of their crimes! which has no intercourse with a man punishing the crimes of the magicians by just laws, and yet has intercourse with a demon teaching and practising magical arts! which has no intercourse with a man shunning the imitation of a demon, and yet has intercourse with a demon lying in wait for the deception of a man!

> Latin: At enim urgens causa et artissima cogit daemones medios inter deos et homines agere, ut ab hominibus adferant desiderata, et a dis referant inpetrata. Quaenam tandem ista causa est et quanta necessitas? Quia nullus, inquiunt, Deus miscetur homini. Praeclara igitur sanctitas Dei, qui non miscetur homini supplicanti, et miscetur daemoni adroganti; non miscetur homini paenitenti, et miscetur daemoni decipienti; non miscetur homini confugienti ad diuinitatem, et miscetur daemoni fingenti diuinitatem; non miscetur homini petenti indulgentiam, et miscetur daemoni suadenti nequitiam; non miscetur homini per philosophicos libros poetas de bene instituta ciuitate pellenti, et miscetur daemoni a principibus et pontificibus ciuitatis per scaenicos ludos poetarum ludibria requirenti; non miscetur homini deorum crimina fingere prohibenti, et miscetur daemoni se falsis deorum criminibus oblectanti; non miscetur homini magorum scelera iustis legibus punienti, et miscetur daemoni magicas artes docenti et inplenti; non miscetur homini imitationem daemonis fugienti, et miscetur daemoni deceptionem hominis aucupanti.

### Whether the Gods Use the Demons as Messengers and Interpreters, and Whether They are Deceived by Them Willingly, or Without Their Own Knowledge.

[¶22] Chapter 21.—Whether the Gods Use the Demons as Messengers and Interpreters, and Whether They are Deceived by Them Willingly, or Without Their Own Knowledge.

> Latin: Caput XXI. An daemonibus nuntiis et interpretibus di utantur fallique se ab eis aut ignorent aut uelint.

[¶23] But herein, no doubt, lies the great necessity for this absurdity, so unworthy of the gods, that the ethereal gods, who are concerned about human affairs, would not know what terrestrial men were doing unless the aerial demons should bring them intelligence, because the ether is suspended far away from the earth and far above it, but the air is contiguous both to the ether and to the earth. O admirable wisdom! what else do these men think concerning the gods who, they say, are all in the highest degree good, but that they are concerned about human affairs, lest they should seem unworthy of worship, whilst, on the other hand, from the distance between the elements, they are ignorant of terrestrial things? It is on this account that they have supposed the demons to be necessary as agents, through whom the gods may inform themselves with respect to human affairs, and through whom, when necessary, they may succor men; and it is on account of this office that the demons themselves have been held as deserving of worship. If this be the case, then a demon is better known by these good gods through nearness of body, than a man is by goodness of mind. O mournful necessity, or shall I not rather say detestable and vain error, that I may not impute vanity to the divine nature! For if the gods can, with their minds free from the hindrance of bodies, see our mind, they do not need the demons as messengers from our mind to them; but if the ethereal gods, by means of their bodies, perceive the corporeal indices of minds, as the countenance, speech, motion, and thence understand what the demons tell them, then it is also possible that they 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 they would tell me whether the demons have informed the gods that the fictions of the poets concerning the crimes of the gods displease Plato, concealing the pleasure which they themselves take in them; or whether they have concealed both, and have preferred that the gods should be ignorant with respect to this whole matter, or have told both, as well the pious prudence of Plato with respect to the gods as their own lust, which is injurious to the gods; or whether they have concealed Plato’s opinion, according to which he was unwilling that the gods should be defamed with falsely alleged crimes through the impious license of the poets, whilst they have not been ashamed nor afraid to make known their own wickedness, which make them love theatrical plays, in which the infamous deeds of the gods are celebrated. Let them choose which they will of these four alternatives, and let them consider how much evil any one of them would require them to think of the gods. For if they choose the first, they must then confess that it was not possible for the good gods to dwell with the good Plato, though he sought to prohibit things injurious to them, whilst they dwelt with evil demons, who exulted in their injuries; and this because they suppose that the good gods can only know a good man, placed at so great a distance from them, through the mediation of evil demons, whom they could know on account of their nearness to themselves. If they shall choose the second, and shall say that both these things are concealed by the demons, so that the gods are wholly ignorant both of Plato’s most religious law and the sacrilegious pleasure of the demons, what, in that case, can the gods know to any profit with respect to human affairs through these mediating demons, when they do not know those things which are decreed, through the piety of good men, for the honor 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 opinion of Plato, which prohibited wrongs to be done to the gods, but also their own delight in these wrongs, I would ask if such a communication is not rather an insult? Now the gods, hearing both and knowing both, not only permit the approach of those malign demons, who desire and do things contrary 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 from them; for they inhabit such a place in the concatenated series of the elements, that they can come into contact with those by whom they are accused, but not with him by whom they are defended,—knowing the truth on both sides, but not being able to change the weight of the air and the earth. There remains the fourth supposition; but it is worse than the rest. For who will suffer it to be said that the demons have made known the calumnious fictions of the poets concerning the immortal gods, and also the disgraceful mockeries of the theatres, and their own most ardent lust after, and most sweet pleasure in these things, whilst they have concealed from them that Plato, with the gravity of a philosopher, gave it as his opinion that all these things ought to be removed from a well-regulated republic; so that the good gods are now compelled, through such messengers, to know the evil doings of the most wicked beings, that is to say, of the messengers themselves, and are not allowed to know the good deeds of the philosophers, though the former are for the injury, but these latter for the honor of the gods themselves?

> Latin: Sed nimirum tantae huius absurditatis et indignitatis est magna necessitas, quod scilicet deos aetherios humana curantes quid terrestres homines agerent utique lateret, nisi daemones aerii nuntiarent; quoniam aether longe a terra est alteque suspensus, aer uero aetheri terraeque contiguus.s o mirabilem sapientiam! Quid aliud de dis isti sentiunt, quos omnes optimos uolunt, nisi eos et humana curare, ne cultu uideantur indigni, et propter elementorum distantiam humana nescire, ut credantur daemones necessarii et ob hoc etiam ipsi putentur colendi, per quos di possint et quid in rebus humanis agatur addiscere et ubi oportet hominibus subuenire? Hoc si ita est, dis istis bonis magis notus est daemon per corpus uicinum quam homo per animum bonum.s o multum dolenda necessitas, an potius inridenda uel detestanda uanitas, ne sit uana diuinitas! Si enim animo ab obstaculo corporis libero animum nostrum uidere di possunt, non ad hoc indigent daemonibus nuntiis; si autem animorum indicia corporalia. qualia sunt locutio uultus motus, per corpus suum aetherii di sentiunt et inde colligunt quid etiam daemones nuntient, possunt et mendaciis daemonum decipi. Porro si deorum diuinitas a daemonibus non potest falli, eadem diuinitate quod agimus non potest ignorari. Vellem autem mihi isti dicerent, utrum dis daemones nuntiauerint de criminibus deorum poetica Platoni displicere figmenta et sibi ea placere celauerint, an utrumque occultauerint deosque esse maluerint totius rei huius ignaros, an utrumque indicauerint, et religiosam erga deos Platonis prudentiam et in deos iniuriosam libidinem suam, an sententiam quidem Platonis, qua noluit deos per inpiam licentiam poetarum falsis criminibus infamari, ignotam dis esse uoluerint, suam uero nequitiam, qua ludos scaenicos amant, quibus illa deorum dedecora celebrantur, prodere non erubuerint uel timuerint. Horum quattuor. quae interrogando proposui, quodlibet eligant et in quolibet eorum quantum mali de dis bonis opinentur adtendant. Si enim primum elegerint, confessuri sunt non licuisse dis bonis habitare cum bono Platone, quando eorum iniurias prohibebat, et habitasse cum daemonibus malis, quando eorum iniuriis exultabant, cum di boni hominem bonum longe a se positum non nisi per malos daemones nossent, quos uicinos nosse non possent. Si autem secundum elegerint et utrumque occultatum a daemonibus dixerint, ut di omnino nescirent et Platonis religiosissimam legem et daemonum sacrilegam delectationem: quid in rebus humanis per internuntios daemones di nosse utiliter possunt, quando illa nesciunt, quae in honorem bonorum deorum religione bonorum hominum contra libidinem malorum daemonum decernuntur? Si uero tertium elegerint et non solum sententiam Platonis deorum iniurias prohibentem, sed etiam daemonum nequitiam deorum iniuriis exultantem per eosdem daemones nuntios dis innotuisse responderint: hoc nuntiare est an insultare? et di utrumque sic audiunt, sic utrumque cognoscunt, ut non solum malignos daemones deorum dignitati et Platonis religioni contraria cupientes adque facientes a suo accessu non arceant, uerum etiam per illos malos propinquos Platoni bono longinquo dona transmittant? sic enim eos elementorum quasi catenata series conligauit, ut illis, a quibus criminantur, coniungi possint, huic, a quo defenduntur, non possint, utrumque scientes, sed aeris et terrae transmutare pondera non ualentes. Iam, quod reliquum est, si quartum elegerint, peius est ceteris. Quis enim ferat, si poetarum de dis inmortalibus criminosa figmenta et theatrorum indigna ludibria suamque in his omnibus ardentissimam cupiditatem et suauissimam uoluptatem dis daemones nuntiauerunt, et quod Plato philosophica grauitate de optima re publica haec omnia censuit remouenda tacuerunt; ut iam di boni per tales nuntios nosse cogantur mala pessimorum, nec aliena, sed eorundem nuntiorum, adque his contraria non sinantur nosse bona philosophorum, cum illa sint in iniuriam, ista in honorem ipsorum deorum?

## 43. That We Must, Notwithstanding the Opinion of Apuleius, Reject the Worship of Demons.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/43/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/43/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 22.—That We Must, Notwithstanding the Opinion of Apuleius, Reject the Worship of Demons.

> Latin: Caput XXII. De abiciendo cultu daemonum contra Apuleium.

[¶1] None of these four alternatives, then, is to be chosen; for we dare not suppose such unbecoming things concerning the gods as the adoption of any one of them would lead us to think. It remains, therefore, that no credence whatever is to be given to the opinion of Apuleius and the other philosophers of the same school, namely, that the demons act as messengers and interpreters between the gods and men to carry our petitions from us to the gods, and to bring back to us the help of the gods. On the contrary, we must believe them to be spirits most eager to inflict harm, utterly alien from righteousness, swollen with pride, pale with envy, subtle in deceit; who dwell indeed in this air as in a prison, in keeping with their own character, because, cast down from the height of the higher heaven, they have been condemned to dwell in this element as the just reward of irretrievable transgression. But, though the air is situated above the earth and the waters, they are not on that account superior in merit to men, who, though they do not surpass them as far as their earthly bodies are concerned, do nevertheless far excel them through piety of mind,—they having made choice of the true God as their helper. Over many, however, who are manifestly unworthy of participation in the true religion, they tyrannize as over captives whom they have subdued,—the greatest part of whom they have persuaded of their divinity by wonderful and lying signs, 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 that they are gods, and so have feigned themselves to be messengers between the gods and men. Some, indeed, have thought that not even this latter honor ought to be acknowledged as belonging to them, not believing that they were gods, because they saw that they were wicked, whereas the gods, according to their view, are all good. Nevertheless they dared not say that they were wholly unworthy of all divine honor, for fear of offending the multitude, by whom, through inveterate superstition, the demons were served by the performance of many rites, and the erection of many temples.

> Latin: Quia igitur nihil istorum quattuor eligendum est, ne in quolibet eorum de dis tam male sentiatur, restat, ut nullo modo credendum sit, quod Apuleius persuadere nititur et quicumque alii sunt eiusdem sententiae philosophi, ita esse medios daemones inter deos et homines tamquam internuntios et interpretes, qui hinc ferant petitiones nostras, inde referant deorum subpetias; sed esse spiritus nocendi cupidissimos, a iustitia penitus alienos, superbia tumidos, inuidentia liuidos, fallacia callidos, qui in hoc quidem aere habitant, quia de caeli superioris sublimitate deiecti merito inregressibilis transgressionis in hoc sibi congruo uelut carcere praedamnati sunt; nec tamen, quia supra terras et aquas aeri locus est, ideo et ipsi sunt meritis superiores hominibus, qui eos non terreno corpore, sed electo in auxilium Deo uero pia mente facillime superant. Sed multis plane participatione uerae religionis indignis tamquam captis subditisque dominantur, quorum maximae parti mirabilibus et fallacibus signis siue factorum siue praedictorum deos se esse persuaserunt. Quibusdam uero uitia eorum aliquanto adtentius et diligentius intuentibus non potuerunt persuadere quod di sint, adque inter deos et homines internuntios ac beneficiorum inpetratores se esse finxerunt; si tamen non istum saltem honorem homines eis deferendum putarunt, qui illos nec deos esse credebant, quia malos uidebant, deos autem omnes bonos uolebant, nec audebant tamen omnino indignos dicere honore diuino, maxime ne offenderent populos, a quibus eis cernebant inueterata superstitione per tot sacra et templa seruiri.

### What Hermes Trismegistus Thought Concerning Idolatry, and from What Source He Knew that the Superstitions of Egypt Were to Be Abolished.

[¶3] Chapter 23.—What Hermes Trismegistus Thought Concerning Idolatry, and from What Source He Knew that the Superstitions of Egypt Were to Be Abolished.

> Latin: Caput XXIII. Quid Hermes Trismegistus de idolatria senserit et unde scire potuerit superstitiones Aegyptias auferendas.

[¶4] The Egyptian Hermes, whom they call Trismegistus, had a different opinion concerning those demons. Apuleius, indeed, denies that they are gods; but when he says that they hold a middle place between the gods and men, so that they seem to be necessary for men as mediators between them and the gods, he does not distinguish between the worship due to them and the religious homage due to the supernal gods. This Egyptian, however, says that there are some gods made by the supreme God, and some made by men. Any one who hears this, as I have stated it, no doubt supposes that it has reference to images, because they are the works of the hands of men; but he asserts that visible and tangible images are, as it were, only the bodies of the gods, and that there dwell in them certain spirits, which have been invited to come into them, and which have power to inflict harm, or to fulfil the desires of those by whom divine honors and services are rendered to them. To unite, therefore, by a certain art, those invisible spirits to visible and material things, 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 the words of this Egyptian as they have been translated into our tongue: “And, since we have undertaken to discourse concerning the relationship and fellowship between men and the gods, know, O Æsculapius, the power and strength of man. As the Lord and Father, or that which is highest, even God, is the maker of the celestial gods, so man is the maker of the gods who are in the temples, content to dwell near to men.” And a little after he says, “Thus humanity, always mindful of its nature and origin, perseveres in the imitation of divinity; and as the Lord and Father made eternal gods, that they should be like Himself, so humanity fashioned its own gods according to the likeness of its own countenance.” When this Æsculapius, to whom especially he was speaking, had answered him, and had said, “Dost thou mean the statues, O Trismegistus?”—“Yes, the statues,” replied he, “however unbelieving thou art, O Æsculapius,—the statues, animated and full of sensation and spirit, and who do such great and wonderful things,—the statues prescient of future things, and foretelling them by lot, by prophet, by dreams, and many other things, who bring diseases on men and cure them again, giving them joy or sorrow according to their merits. Dost thou not know, O Æsculapius, that Egypt is an image of heaven, or, more truly, a translation and descent of all things which are ordered and transacted there, that it is, in truth, if we may say so, to be the temple of the whole world? And yet, as it becomes the prudent man to know all things beforehand, ye ought not to be ignorant of this, that there is a time coming when it shall appear that the Egyptians have all in vain, with pious mind, and with most scrupulous diligence, waited on the divinity, and when all their holy worship shall come to nought, and be found to be in vain.”

> Latin: Nam diuersa de illis Hermes Aegyptius, quem Trismegistum uocant, sensit et scripsit. Apuleius enim deos quidem illos negat; sed cum dicit ita inter deos et homines quadam medietate uersari, ut hominibus aput ipsos deos necessarii uideantur, cultum eorum a supernorum deorum religione non separat. Ille autem Aegyptius alios deos esse dicit a summo Deo factos, alios ab hominibus. Hoc qui audit, sicut a me positum est, putat dici de simulacris, quia opera sunt manuum hominum; at ille uisibilia et contrectabilia simulacra uelut corpora deorum esse adserit; inesse autem his quosdam spiritus inuitatos, qui ualeant aliquid siue ad nocendum siue ad desideria nonnulla conplenda eorum, a quibus eis diuini honores et cultus obsequia deferuntur. Hos ergo spiritus inuisibiles per artem quandam uisibilibus rebus corporalis materiae copulare, ut sint quasi animata corpora illis spiritibus dicata et subdita simulacra, hoc esse dicit deos facere eamque magnam et mirabilem deos faciendi accepisse homines potestatem. Huius Aegyptii uerba, sicut in nostram linguam interpretata sunt, ponam. ‘Et quoniam de cognatione, inquit, et consortio hominum deorumque nobis indicitur sermo, potestatem hominis, o Asclepi, uimque cognosce. Dominus, inquit, et Pater uel quod est summum Deus ut effector est deorum caelestium, ita homo fictor est deorum, qui in templis sunt humana proximitate contenti.’ Et paulo post: ‘Ita humanitas, inquit, semper memor naturae et originis suae in illa diui. nitatis imitatione perseuerat, ut, sicuti Pater ac Dominus, ut sui similes essent, deos fecit aeternos, ita humanitas deos suos ex sui uultus similitudine figuraret.’ Hic cum Asclepius, ad quem maxime loquebatur, ei respondisset adque dixisset: ‘Statuas dicis, o Trismegiste?) tum ille: ‘Statuas, inquit, o Asclepi, uides quatenus tu ipse diffidas; statuas animatas sensu et spiritu plenas tantaque facientes et talia, statuas futurorum praescias eaque sorte uate somniis multisque aliis rebus praedicentes, inbecillitates hominibus facientes easque curantes, tristitiam laetitiamque pro meritis. An ignoras, o Asclepi, quod Aegyptus imago sit caeli, aut, quod est uerius, translatio aut descensio omnium quae gubernantur adque exercentur in caelo. Ac si dicendum est uerius, terra nostra mundi totius est templum.

[¶5] Hermes then follows out at great length the statements of this passage, in which he seems to predict the present time, in which the Christian religion is overthrowing all lying figments with a vehemence and liberty proportioned to its superior truth and holiness, in order that the grace of the true Saviour may deliver men from those gods which man has made, and subject them to that God by whom man was made. But when Hermes predicts these things, he speaks as one who is a friend to these same mockeries of demons, and does not clearly express the name of Christ. On the contrary, he deplores, as if it had already taken place, the future abolition of those things by the observance of which there was maintained in Egypt a resemblance of heaven,—he bears witness to Christianity by a kind of mournful prophecy. Now it was with reference to such that the apostle said, that “knowing God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened; professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man,” and so on, for the whole passage is too long to quote. For Hermes makes many such statements agreeable to the truth concerning the one true God who fashioned this world. And I know not how he has become so bewildered by that “darkening of the heart” as to stumble into the expression of a desire that men should always 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 mankind tyrannized over by the work of his own hands, since man, by worshipping the works of his own hands, may more easily cease to be man, than the works of his hands can, through his worship of them, become gods. For it can sooner happen that man, who has received an honorable position, may, through lack of understanding, become comparable to the beasts, than that the works of man may become preferable to the work of God, made in His own image, that is, to man himself. Wherefore deservedly is man left to fall away from Him who made Him, when he prefers to himself that which he himself has made.

> Latin: Et tamen quoniam praescire cuncta prudentem decet, istud uos ignorare fas non est: Futurum tempus est, quo appareat Aegyptios incassum pia mente diuinitatem sedula religione seruasse.’ Deinde multis uerbis Hermes hunc locum exequitur, in quo uidetur hoc tempus praedicere, quo Christiana religio, quanto est ueracior adque sanctior, tanto uehementius et liberius cuncta fallacia figmenta subuertit, ut gratia uerissimi Saluatoris liberet hominem ab eis dis, quos facit homo. et ei Deo subdat, a quo factus est homo. Sed Hermes cum ista praedicit, uelut amicus eisdem ludificationibus daemonum loquitur, nec Christianum nomen euidenter exprimit, sed tamquam ea tollerentur adque delerentur, quorum obseruatione caelestis similitudo custodiretur in Aegypto, ita haec futura deplorans luctuosa quodam modo praedicatione testatur. Erat enim de his, de quibus dicit apostolus, quod cognoscentes Deum non sicut Deum glorificauerunt aut gratias egerunt, sed euanuerunt in cogitationibus suis, et obscuratum est insipiens cor eorum; dicentes enim se esse sapientes stulti facti sunt et inmutauerunt gloriam incorrupti Dei in similitudinem imaginis corruptibilis hominis et cetera, quae commemorare longum est. Multa quippe talia dicit de uno uero Deo fabricatore mundi, qualia ueritas habet; et nescio quo modo illa obscuratione cordis ad ista delabitur, ut dis, quos confitetur ab hominibus fieri, semper uelit homines subdi et haec futuro tempore plangat auferri quasi quicquam sit infelicius homine, cui sua figmenta dominantur; cum sit facilius, ut tamquam deos colendo, quos fecit, nec ipse sit homo, quam ut per eius cultum di possint esse, quos fecit homo. Citius enim fit, ut homo in honore positus pecoribus non intellegens conparetur, quam ut operi Dei ad eius imaginem facto, id est ipsi homini, opus hominis praeferatur.

[¶6] For these vain, deceitful, pernicious, sacrilegious things did the Egyptian Hermes sorrow, because he knew that the time was coming when they should be removed. But his sorrow was as impudently expressed as his knowledge was imprudently obtained; for it was not the Holy Spirit who revealed these things to him, as He had done to the holy prophets, who, foreseeing these things, said with exultation, “If a man shall make gods, lo, they are no gods;” and in another place, “And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered.” But the holy Isaiah prophesies expressly concerning Egypt in reference to this matter, saying, “And the idols of Egypt shall be moved at His presence, and their heart shall be overcome in them,” and other things to the same effect. And with the prophet are to be classed those who rejoiced that that which they knew was to come had actually come,—as Simeon, or Anna, who immediately recognized Jesus when He was born, or Elisabeth, who in the Spirit recognized Him when He was conceived, or Peter, who said by the revelation of the Father, “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.” But to this Egyptian those spirits indicated the time of their own destruction, who also, when the Lord was present in the flesh, said with trembling, “Art Thou come hither to destroy us 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 it appeared to have done, or only that destruction which consisted in their being brought into contempt by being made known. And, indeed, this was a destruction before the time, that is, before the time of judgment, when they are to be punished with eternal damnation, together with all men who are implicated in their wickedness, as the true religion declares, which neither errs nor leads into error; for it is not like him who, blown hither and thither by every wind of doctrine, and mixing true things with things which are false, bewails as about to perish a religion, which he afterwards confesses to be error.

> Latin: Quapropter merito homo deficit ab illo qui eum fecit, cum sibi praeficit ipse quod fecit. Haec uana deceptoria, perniciosa sacrilega Hermes Aegyptius, quia tempus, quo auferrentur, uenturum sciebat, dolebat; sed tam inpudenter dolebat, quam inprudenter sciebat. Non enim haec ei reuelauerat sanctus Spiritus, sicut prophetis sanctis, qui haec praeuidentes cum exultatione dicebant: Si faciet homo deos, et ecce ipsi non sunt di; et alio loco: Erit in illo die, dicit Dominus, exterminabo nomina simulacrorum a terra, et non iam erit eorum memoria; proprie uero de Aegypto, quod ad hanc rem adtinet, ita sanctus Esaias prophetat: Et mouebuntur manufacta Aegypti a facie eius, et cor eorum uincetur in eis, et cetera huius modi. Ex quo genere et illi erant, qui uenturum quod sciebant uenisse gaudebant; qualis Symeon, qualis Anna, qui mox natum Iesum, qualis Elisabeth, quae etiam conceptum in Spiritu agnouit; qualis Petrus reuelante Patre dicens: Tu es Christus, filius Dei uiui. Huic autem Aegyptio illi spiritus indicauerant futura tempora perditionis suae, qui etiam praesenti in carne Domino trementes dixerunt: Quid uenisti ante tempus perdere nos? siue quia subitum illis fuit, quod futurum quidem, sed tardius opinabantur, siue quia perditionem suam hanc ipsam dicebant, qua fiebat ut cogniti spernerentur, et hoc erat ante tempus, id est ante tempus iudicii, quo aeterna damnatione puniendi sunt cum omnibus etiam hominibus, qui eorum societate detinentur, sicut religio loquitur, quae nec fallit nec fallitur, non sicut iste quasi omni uento doctrinae hinc adque inde perflatus et falsis uera permiscens dolet quasi perituram religionem, quem postea confitetur errorem.

### How Hermes Openly Confessed the Error of His Forefathers, the Coming Destruction of Which He Nevertheless Bewailed.

[¶8] Chapter 24.—How Hermes Openly Confessed the Error of His Forefathers, the Coming Destruction of Which He Nevertheless Bewailed.

> Latin: Caput XXIV. Quo modo Hermes parentum suorum sit confessus errorem, quem tamen doluerit destruendum.

[¶9] After a long interval, Hermes again comes back to the subject of the gods which men have made, saying as follows: “But enough on this subject. Let us return to man and to reason, that divine gift on account of which man has been called a rational animal. For the things which have been said 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 the knowledge of the gods, through incredulity and through want of attention to their worship and service, they invented this art of making gods; and this art once invented, they associated with it a suitable virtue borrowed from universal nature, and being incapable of making souls, they evoked those of demons or of angels, and united them with these holy images and divine mysteries, in order that through these souls the images might have power to do good or harm to men.” I know not whether the demons themselves could have been made, even by adjuration, to confess as he has confessed in these words: “Because our forefathers erred very far with respect to the knowledge of the gods, through incredulity and through want of attention to their worship and service, they invented the art of making gods.” Does he say that it was a moderate degree of error which resulted in their discovery of the art of 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 the gods, which was the origin of the art of making gods. And yet this wise man grieves over the ruin of this art at some future time, as if it were a divine religion. Is he not verily compelled by divine influence, on the one hand, to reveal the past error of his forefathers, and by a diabolical influence, on the other hand, to bewail the future punishment of demons? For if their forefathers, by erring very far with respect to the knowledge of the gods, through incredulity and aversion of mind from their worship and service, invented the art of making gods, what wonder is it that all that is done by this detestable art, which is opposed to the divine religion, should be taken away by that religion, when truth corrects error, faith refutes incredulity, and conversion rectifies aversion?

> Latin: Post multa enim ad hoc ipsum redit, ut iterum dicat de dis, quos homines fecerunt, ita loquens: ‘Sed iam de talibus sint satis dicta talia. Iterum, inquit, ad hominem rationemque redeamus, ex quo diuino dono [homo] animal dictum est rationale. Minus enim miranda etsi miranda sunt, quae de homine dicta sunt. Omnium enim mirabilium uicit admirationem, quod homo diuinam potuit inuenire naturam eamque efficere. Quoniam ergo proaui nostri multum errabant circa deorum rationem increduli et non animaduertentes ad cultum religionemque diuinam, inuenerunt artem, qua efficerent deos. Cui inuentae adiunxerunt uirtutem de mundi natura conuenientem, eamque miscentes, quoniam animas facere non poterant, euocantes animas daemonum uel angelorum eas indiderunt imaginibus sanctis diuinisque mysteriis, per quas idola et bene faciendi et male uires habere potuissent., Nescio utrum sic confiterentur ipsi daemones adiurati, quo modo iste confessus est. ‘Quoniam, inquit, proaui nostri multum errrabant circa deorum rationem increduli et non animaduertentes ad cultum religionemque diuinam, inuenerunt artem qua efficerent deos.’ Numquidnam saltem mediocriter eos dixit errasse, ut hanc artem inuenirent faciendi deos, aut contentus fuit dicere: Errabant, nisi adderet et diceret: Multum errabant? Iste ergo multus error et incredulitas non animaduertentium ad cultum religionemque diuinam inuenit artem, qua efficeret deos. Et tamen quod multus error et incredulitas et a cultu ac religione diuina auersio animi inuenit, ut homo arte faceret deos, hoc dolet uir sapiens tamquam religionem diuinam uenturo certo tempore auferri. Vide si non et ui diuina maiorum suorum errorem praeteritum prodere, et ui diabolica poenam daemonum futuram dolere conpellitur. Si enim proaui eorum multum errando circa deorum rationem incredulitate et auersione animi a cultu ac religione diuina inuenerunt artem, qua efficerent deos: quid mirum, si, haec ars detestanda quidquid fecit auersa a religione diuina, aufertur religione diuina, cum ueritas emendat errorem, fides redarguit incredulitatem, conuersio corrigit auersionem?

[¶10] For if he had only said, without mentioning the cause, that his forefathers had discovered the art of making gods, it would have been our duty, if we paid any regard to what is right and pious, to consider and to see that they could never have attained to this art if they had not erred from the truth, if they had believed those things which are worthy of God, if they had attended to divine worship and service. However, if we alone should say that the causes of this art were to be found in the great error and incredulity of men, and aversion of the mind erring from and unfaithful to divine religion, the impudence of those who resist the truth were in some way to be borne with; but when he who admires in man, above all other things, this power which it has been granted him to practise, and sorrows because a time is coming when all those figments of gods invented by men shall even be commanded by the laws to be taken away,—when even this man confesses nevertheless, and explains the causes which led to the discovery of this art, saying that their ancestors, through great error 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 the Lord our God all the thanks we are able, because He has taken away those things by causes the contrary of those which led to their institution? For that which the prevalence of error instituted, the way of truth took away; that which incredulity instituted, faith took away; that which aversion from divine worship and service instituted, conversion to the one true and holy God took away. Nor was this the case only in Egypt, for which country alone the spirit of the demons lamented in Hermes, but in all the earth, which sings to the Lord a new song, as the truly holy and truly prophetic Scriptures have predicted, in which it is written, “Sing unto the Lord a new song; sing unto the Lord, all the earth.” For the title of this psalm is, “When the house was built after the captivity.” For a house is being built to the Lord in all the earth, even the city of God, which is the holy Church, after that captivity in which demons held captive those men who, through faith in God, became living stones in the house. For although man made gods, it did not follow that he who made them was not held captive by them, when, by worshipping them, he was drawn into fellowship with them,—into the fellowship not of stolid idols, but of cunning demons; for what are idols but what they are represented to be in the same scriptures, “They have eyes, but they do not see,” and, though artistically fashioned, are still without life and sensation? But unclean spirits, associated through that wicked art with these same idols, have miserably taken captive the souls of their worshippers, by bringing them down into fellowship with themselves. Whence the apostle says, “We know that an idol is nothing, but those things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I would not ye should have fellowship with demons.” After this captivity, therefore, in which men were held by malign demons, the house of God is being built in all the earth; whence the title of that psalm in which it is said, “Sing unto the Lord a new song; sing unto the Lord, all the earth. Sing unto the Lord, bless His name; declare well His salvation from day to day. Declare His glory among the nations, among all people His wonderful things. For great is the Lord, and much to be praised: He is terrible above all gods. For all the gods of the nations are demons: but the Lord made the heavens.”

> Latin: Si enim tacitis causis dixisset proauos suos inuenisse artem. qua facerent deos: nostrum fuit utique, si quid rectum piumque saperemus, adtendere et uidere nequaquam illos ad hanc artem peruenturos fuisse, qua homo deos facit, si a ueritate non aberrarent, si ea, quae Deo digna sunt, crederent, si animum aduerterent ad cultum religionemque diuinam; et tamen si causas artis huius nos diceremus multum errorem hominum et incredulitatem et animi errantis adque infidelis a diuina religione auersionem, utcumque ferenda esset inpudentia resistentium ueritati. Cum uero idem ipse, qui potestatem huius artis super omnia cetera miratur in homine, qua illi deos facere concessum est, et dolet uenturum esse tempus, quo haec omnia deorum figmenta ab hominibus instituta etiam legibus iubeantur auferri, confitetur tamen adque exprimit causas, quare ad ista peruentum sit, dicens proauos suos multo errore et incredulitate et animum non aduertendo ad cultum religionemque diuinam inuenisse hanc artem, qua facerent deos: nos quid oportet dicere, uel potius quid agere nisi quantas possumus gratias Domino Deo nostro, qui haec contrariis causis, quam instituta sunt, abstulit? Nam quod instituit multitudo erroris, abstulit uia ueritatis; quod instituit incredulitas, abstulit fides; quod instituit a cultu diuinae religionis auersio, abstulit ad unum uerum Deum sanctumque conuersio; nec in sola Aegypto, quam solam in isto plangit daemonum spiritus. sed in omni terra, quae cantat Domino canticum nouum, sicut uere sacrae et uere propheticae litterae praenuntiarunt, ubi scriptum est: Cantate Domino canticum nouum, cantate Domino omnis terra. Titulus quippe psalmi huius est: Quando domus aedificabatur post captiuitatem. Aedificatur enim domus Domino ciuitas Dei, quae est sancta ecclesia, in omni terra post eam captiuitatem, qua illos homines, de quibus credentibus in Deum tamquam lapidibus uiuis domus aedificatur, captos daemonia possidebant. Neque enim, quia deos homo faciebat, ideo non ab eis possidebatur ipse qui fecerat, quando in eorum societatem colendo traducebatur; societatem dico, non idolorum stolidorum, sed uersutorum daemoniorum. Nam quid sunt idola, nisi quod eadem scriptura dicit: Oculos habent, et non uidebunt, et quidquid tale de materiis licet adfabre effigiatis, tamen uita sensuque carentibus dicendum fuit. Sed inmundi spiritus eisdem simulacris arte illa nefaria conligati cultorum suorum animas in suam societatem redigendo miserabiliter captiuauerant. Unde dicit apostolus: Scimus quia nihil est idolum; sed quae immolant gentes, daemoniis immolant, et non Deo; nolo uos socios fieri daemoniorum. Post hanc ergo captiuitatem, qua homines a malignis daemonibus tenebantur, Dei domus aedificatur in omni terra; unde titulum ille psalmus accepit, ubi dicitur: Cantate Domino canticum nouum, cantate Domino omnis terra. Cantate Domino. benedicite nomen eius, bene nuntiate diem ex die salutare eius.

[¶11] Wherefore he who sorrowed because a time was coming when the worship of idols should be abolished, and the domination of the demons over those who worshipped them, wished, under the influence of a demon, that that captivity should always continue, at the cessation of which that psalm celebrates the building of the house of the Lord in all the earth. Hermes foretold these things with grief, the prophet with joyfulness; and because the Spirit is victorious who sang these things through the ancient prophets, even Hermes himself was compelled in a wonderful manner to confess, that those very things which he wished not to be removed, and at the prospect of whose removal 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 although he calls them gods, nevertheless, when he says that they were made by such men as we certainly ought not to be, he shows, whether he will or not, that they are not to be worshipped by those who do not resemble these image-makers, that is, by prudent, faithful, and religious men, at the same time also making it manifest that the very men who made them involved themselves in the worship of those as gods who were not gods. For true is the saying of the prophet, “If a man make gods, lo, they are no gods.” Such gods, therefore, acknowledged by such worshippers and made by such men, did Hermes call “gods made by men,” that is to say, demons, through some art of I know not what description, bound by the chains of their own lusts to images. But, nevertheless, he did not agree with that opinion of the Platonic Apuleius, of which we have already shown the incongruity and absurdity, namely, that they were interpreters and intercessors between the gods whom God made, and men whom the same God made, bringing to God the prayers of men, and from God the gifts given in answer to these prayers. For it is exceedingly stupid to believe that gods whom men have made have more influence with gods whom God has made than men themselves have, whom the very same God has made. And consider, too, that it is a demon which, bound by a man to an image by means of an impious art, has been made a god, but a god to such a man only, not to every man. What kind of god, therefore, is that which no man would make but one erring, incredulous, and averse to the true God? Moreover, if the demons which are worshipped in the temples, being introduced by some kind of strange art into images, that is, into visible representations of themselves, by those men who by this art made gods when they were straying away from, and were averse to the worship and service of the gods,—if, I say, those demons are neither mediators nor interpreters between men and the gods, both on account of their own most wicked and base manners, and because men, though erring, incredulous, and averse from the worship and service of the gods, are nevertheless beyond doubt better than the demons whom they themselves have evoked, then it remains to be affirmed that what power they possess they possess as demons, doing harm by bestowing pretended benefits,—harm all the greater for the deception,—or else 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 then only so far as they are permitted. When, however, they are permitted, it is not because they, being midway between men and the gods, have through the friendship of the gods great power over men; for these demons cannot possibly be friends to the good gods who dwell in the holy and heavenly habitation, by whom we mean holy angels and rational creatures, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers, from whom they are as far separated in disposition and character as vice is distant from virtue, wickedness from goodness.

> Latin: Adnuntiate in gentibus gloriam eius, in omnibus populis mirabilia eius; quoniam magnus Dominus et laudabilis nimis, terribilis est super omnes deos. Quia omnes di gentium daemonia, dominus autem caelos fecit. Qui ergo doluit uenturum fuisse tempus, quo auferretur cultus idolorum et in eos, qui colerent, dominatio daemoniorum, malo spiritu instigatus semper uolebat istam captiuitatem manere, qua transacta psalmus canit aedificari domum in omni terra. Praenuntiabat illa Hermes dolendo; praenuntiabat haec propheta gaudendo. Et quia Spiritus uictor est, qui haec per sanctos prophetas canebat, etiam Hermes ipse ea, quae nolebat et dolebat auferri, non a prudentibus et fidelibus et religiosis, sed ab errantibus et incredulis et a cultu diuinae religionis auersis esse instituta miris modis coactus est confiteri. Qui quamuis eos appellet deos, tamen cum dicit a talibus hominibus factos, quales esse utique non debemus, uelit nolit, ostendit colendos non esse ab eis, qui tales non sunt, quales fuerunt a quibus facti sunt, hoc est a prudentibus, fidelibus, religiosis; simul etiam demonstrans ipsos homines, qui eos fecerunt, sibimet inportasse, ut eos haberent deos, qui non erant di. Verum est quippe illud propheticum: Si faciet homo deos, et ecce ipsi non sunt di. Deos ergo tales, talium deos, arte factos a talibus, cum appellasset Hermes, id est idolis daemones per artem nescio quam cupiditatum suarum uinculis inligatos cum appellaret factos ab hominibus deos, non tamen eis dedit, quod Platonicus Apuleius (unde iam satis diximus et quam sit inconueniens absurdumque monstrauimus), ut ipsi essent interpretes et intercessores inter deos, quos fecit Deus, et homines, quos idem fecit Deus; hinc adferentes uota, inde munera referentes. Nimis enim stultum est credere deos, quos fecerunt homines, plus ualere aput deos, quos fecit Deus, quam ualent ipsi homines, quos idem ipse fecit Deus. Daemon quippe simulacro arte inpia conligatus ab homine factus est deus, sed tali homini, non omni homini. Qualis est ergo iste deus, quem non faceret homo nisi errans et incredulus et auersus a uero Deo? Porro si daemones, qui coluntur in templis, per artem nescio quam imaginibus inditi, hoc est uisibilibus simulacris, ab eis hominibus, qui hac arte fecerunt deos, cum aberrarent auersique essent a cultu et religione diuina, non sunt internuntii nec interpretes inter homines et deos et propter suos pessimos ac turpissimos moros, et quod homines, quamuis errantes et increduli et auersi a cultu ac religione diuina, tamen eis sine dubio meliores sunt, quos deos ipsi arte fecerunt; restat, ut, quod possunt, tamquam daemones possint, uel quasi beneficia praestando magis nocentes, quia magis decipientes, uel aperte malefaciendo (nec tamen quodlibet horum, nisi quando permittuntur alta et secreta Dei prouidentia), non autem tamquam medii inter homines et deos per amicitiam deorum multum aput homines ualeant. Hi enim dis bonis, quos sanctos angelos nos uocamus rationalesque creaturas sanctae caelestis habitationis siue sedes siue dominationes siue principatus siue potestates, amici esse omnino non possunt, a quibus tam longe absunt animi affectione, quam longe absunt a uirtutibus uitia et a bonitate malitia.

### Concerning Those Things Which May Be Common to the Holy Angels and to Men.

[¶13] Chapter 25.—Concerning Those Things Which May Be Common to the Holy Angels and to Men.

> Latin: Caput XXV. De his, quae sanctis angelis et hominibus bonis possunt esse communia.

[¶14] Wherefore we must by no means seek, through the supposed mediation of demons, to avail ourselves of the benevolence or beneficence of the gods, or rather of the good angels, but through resembling them in the possession of a good will, through which we are with them, and live with them, and worship with them the same God, although we cannot see them with the eyes of our flesh. But it is not in locality we are distant from them, but in merit of life, caused by our miserable unlikeness to them in will, and by the weakness of our character; for the mere fact of our dwelling on earth under the conditions of life in the flesh does not prevent our fellowship with them. It is only prevented when we, in the impurity of our hearts, mind earthly things. But in this present time, while we are being healed that we may eventually be as they are, we are brought near to them by faith, if by their assistance we believe that He who is their blessedness is also ours.

> Latin: Nullo modo igitur per daemonum quasi medietatem ambiendum est ad beneuolentiam seu beneficentiam deorum uel potius angelorum bonorum, sed per bonae uoluntatis similitudinem, qua cum illis sumus et cum illis uiuimus et cum illis Deum quem colunt colimus, etsi eos carnalibus oculis uidere non possumus; in quantum autem dissimilitudine uoluntatis et fragilitate infirmitatis miseri sumus, in tantum ab eis longe sumus uitae merito, non corporis loco. Non enim quia in terra condicione carnis habitamus, sed si inmunditia cordis terrena sapimus, non eis iungimur. Cum uero sanamur, ut quales ipsi sunt simus; fide illis interim propinquamus, si ab illo nos fieri beatos, a quo et ipsi facti sunt, etiam ipsis fauentibus credimus.

### That All the Religion of the Pagans Has Reference to Dead Men.

[¶16] Chapter 26.—That All the Religion of the Pagans Has Reference to Dead Men.

> Latin: Caput XXVI. Quod omnis religio paganorum circa homines mortuos fuerit inplicata.

[¶17] It is certainly a remarkable thing how this Egyptian, when expressing his grief that a time was coming when those things would be taken away from Egypt, which he confesses to have been invented by men erring, incredulous, and averse to the service of divine religion, says, among other things, “Then shall that land, the most holy place of shrines and temples, be full of sepulchres and dead men,” as if, in sooth, if these things were not taken away, men would not die! as if dead bodies 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 of the dead! But they who are of a perverse mind, and opposed to us, suppose that what he grieves for is that the memorials of our martyrs were to succeed to their temples and shrines, in order, forsooth, that they may have grounds for thinking that gods were worshipped by the pagans in temples, but that dead men are worshipped by us in sepulchres. For with such blindness do impious men, as it were, stumble over mountains, and will not see the things which strike their own eyes, that they do not attend to the fact that in all the literature of the pagans there are not found any, or scarcely any gods, who have not been men, to whom, when dead, divine honors have been paid. I will not enlarge on the fact that Varro says that all dead men are thought by them to be gods—Manes and proves it by those sacred rites which are performed in honor of almost all the dead, among which he mentions funeral games, considering this the very highest proof of divinity, because games are only wont to be celebrated in honor of divinities. Hermes himself, of whom we are now treating, in that same book in which, as if foretelling future things, he says with sorrow “Then shall that land, the most holy place of shrines and temples, be full of sepulchres and dead men,” testifies that the gods of Egypt were dead men. For, having said that their forefathers, erring very far with respect to the knowledge of the gods, incredulous and inattentive to the divine worship and service, invented the art of making gods, with which art, when invented, they associated the appropriate virtue which is inherent in universal nature, and by mixing up that virtue with this art, they called forth the souls of demons or of angels (for they could not make souls), and caused them to take possession of, or associate themselves with holy images and divine mysteries, in order that through these souls the images might have power to do good or harm to men;—having said this, he goes on, as it were, to prove it by illustrations, saying, “Thy grandsire, O Æsculapius, the first discoverer of medicine, to whom a temple was consecrated in a mountain of Libya, near to the shore of the crocodiles, in which temple lies his earthly man, that is, his body,—for the better part of him, or rather the whole of him, if the whole man is in the intelligent life, went back to heaven,—affords even now by his divinity all those helps to infirm men which formerly he was wont to afford to them by the art of medicine.” He says, therefore that a dead man was worshipped as a god in that place where he had his sepulchre. He deceives men by a falsehood, for the man “went back to heaven.” Then he adds “Does not Hermes, who was my grandsire, and whose name I bear, abiding in the country which is called by his name, help and preserve all mortals who come to him from every quarter?” For this elder Hermes, that is, Mercury, who, he says, was his grandsire, is said to be buried in Hermopolis, that is, in the city called by his name; so here are two gods whom he affirms to have been men, Æsculapius and Mercury. Now concerning Æsculapius, both the Greeks and the Latins think the same thing; but as to Mercury, there are many who do not think that he was formerly a mortal, though Hermes testifies that he was his grandsire. But are these two different individuals who were called by the same name? I will not dispute much whether they are different individuals or not. It is sufficient to know that this Mercury of whom Hermes speaks is, as well as Æsculapius, a god who once was a man, according, to the testimony of this same Trismegistus, esteemed so great by his countrymen, and also the grandson of Mercury himself.

> Latin: Sane aduertendum est, quo modo iste Aegyptius, cum doleret tempus esse uenturum, quo illa auferrentur ex Aegypto, quae fatetur a multum errantibus et incredulis et a cultu diuinae religionis auersis esse instituta, ait inter cetera: Tunc terra ista, sanctissima sedes delubrorum adque templorum, sepulcrorum erit mortuorumque plenissima; quasi uero, si illa non auferrentur, non essent homines morituri, aut alibi essent mortui ponendi quam in terra; et utique, quanto plus uolueretur temporis et dierum, tanto maior esset numerus sepulcrorum propter maiorem numerum mortuorum. Sed hoc uidetur dolere, quod memoriae martyrum nostrorum templis eorum delubrisque succederent. ut uidelicet, qui haec legunt animo a nobis auerso adque peruerso, putent a paganis cultos fuisse deos in templis, a nobis autem coli mortuos in sepulcris. Tanta enim homines inpii caecitate in montes quodam modo offendunt resque oculos suos ferientes nolunt uidere. ut non adtendant in omnibus litteris paganorum aut non inueniri aut uix inueniri deos, qui non homines fuerint mortuisque diuini honores delati sint. Omitto, quod Varro dicit omnes ab eis mortuos existimari manes deos et probat per ea sacra, quae omnibus fere mortuis exhibentur, ubi et ludos commemorat funebres, tamquam hoc sit maximum diuinitatis indicium, quod non soleant ludi nisi numinibus celebrari. Hermes ipse, de quo nunc agitur, in eodem ipso libro, ubi quasi futura praenuntiando deplorans ait: ‘Tunc terra ista, sanctissima sedes delubrorum adque templorum, sepulcrorum erit mortuorumque plenissima’, deos Aegypti homines mortuos esse testatur. Cum enim dixisset proauos suos multum errantes circa deorum rationem, incredulos et non animaduertentes animaduertentes ad cultum religionemque diuinam, inuenisse artem, qua efficerent deos: (Cui inuentae, inquit, adiunxerunt uirtutem de mundi naturaconuenientem eamque miscentes, quoniam animas facere non poterant, euocantes animas daemonum uel angelorum eas indiderunt imaginibus sanctis diuinisque mysteriis, per quas idola et bene faciendi et male uires habere potuissent.’ Deinde sequitur tamquam hoc exemplis probaturus et dicit: ‘Auus enim tuus, o Asclepi, medicinae primus inuentor, cui templum consecratum est in monte Libyae circa litus crocodilorum, in quo eius iacet mundanus homo, id est corpus; reliquus enim, uel potius totus, si est homo totus in sensu uitae, melior remeauit in caelum, omnia etiam nunc hominibus adiumenta praestans infirmis numine nunc suo, quae solent medicinae arte praeberi.’ Ecce dixit mortuum coli pro deo in eo loco, ubi habebat sepulcrum, falsus ac fallens, quod remeauit in caelum. Adiungens deinde aliud (Hermes, inquit, cuius auitum mihi ncmen est, nonne in sibi cognomine patria consistens omnes mortales undique uenientes adiuuat adque conseruat?’ Hic enim Hermes maior, id est Mercurius, quem dicit auum suum fuisse, in Hermopoli, hoc est in sui nominis ciuitate, esse perhibetur. Ecce duos deos dicit homines fuisse, Aesculapium et Mercurium. Sed de Aesculapio et Graeci et Latini hoc idem sentiunt; Mercurium autem multi non putant fuisse mortalem, quem tamen iste auum suum fuisse testatur. At enim alius est ille, alius iste, quamuis eodem nomine nuncupentur. Non multum pugno, alius ille sit, alius iste; uerum et iste; sicut Aesculapius, ex homine deus secundum testimonium tanti aput suos uiri, huius Trismegisti, nepotis sui.

[¶18] Hermes goes on to say, “But do we know how many good things 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 men through this art, he goes on to say, “For it is easy for earthly and mundane gods to be angry, being made and composed by men out of either nature;” thus giving us to understand that he believed that demons were formerly the souls of dead men, which, as he says, by means of a certain art invented by men very far in error, incredulous, and irreligious, were caused to take possession of images, because they who made such gods were not able to make souls. When, therefore, he says “either nature,” 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 place of shrines and temples, was to be full of sepulchres and dead men? Verily, the fallacious spirit, by whose inspiration Hermes spoke these things, was compelled to confess through him that even already that land was full of sepulchres and of dead men, whom they were worshipping as gods. But it was the grief of the demons which was expressing itself through his mouth, who were sorrowing on account of the punishments which were about to fall upon them at the tombs of the martyrs. For in many such places they are tortured and compelled to confess, and are cast out of the bodies of men, of which they had taken possession.

> Latin: Adhuc addit et dicit: ‘Isin uero Osiris quam multa bona praestare propitiam, quantis obesse scimus iratam!’ Deinde ut ostenderet ex hoc genere esse deos, quos illa arte homines faciunt (unde dat intellegi daemones se opinari ex hominum mortuorum animis extitisse, quos per artem, quam inuenerunt homines multum errantes, increduli et inreligiosi, ait inditos simulacris, quia hi, qui tales deos faciebant, animas facere non utique poterant), cum de Iside dixisset, quod commemoraui, ‘quantis obesse scimus iratam’, secutus adiunxit: (Terrenis etenim dis adque mundanis facile est irasci, utpote qui sint ab hominibus ex utraque natura facti adque conpositi.’ ‘Ex utraque natura’ dicit ex anima et corpore, ut pro anima sit daemon, pro corpore simulacrum. ‘Unde contigit, inquit, ab Aegyptiis haec sancta animalia nuncupari colique per singulas ciuitates eorum animas, quorum sunt consecratae uiuentes, ita ut eorum legibus incolantur et eorum nominibus nuncupentur.) Ubi est illa uelut querela luctuosa, quod terra Aegypti, sanctissima sedes delubrorum adque templorum, sepulcrorum futura esset mortuorumque plenissima? Nempe spiritus fallax, cuius instinctu Hermes ista dicebat, per eum ipsum coactus est confiteri iam tunc illam terram sepulcrorum et mortuorum, quos pro dis colebant, fuisse plenissimam. Sed dolor daemonum per eum loquebatur, qui suas futuras poenas aput sanctorum martyrum memorias inminere maerebant. In multis enim talibus locis torquentur et confitentur et de possessis hominum corporibus eiciuntur.

### Concerning the Nature of the Honor Which the Christians Pay to Their Martyrs.

[¶20] Chapter 27.—Concerning the Nature of the Honor Which the Christians Pay to Their Martyrs.

> Latin: Caput XXVII. De modo honoris, quem Christiani martyribus inpendunt.

[¶21] But, nevertheless, we do not build temples, and ordain priests, rites, and sacrifices for these same martyrs; for they are not our gods, but their God is our God. Certainly we honor their reliquaries, as the memorials of holy men of God who strove for the truth even to the death of their bodies, that the true religion might be made known, and false and fictitious religions exposed. For if there were some before them who thought that these religions were really false and fictitious, they were afraid to give expression to their convictions. But who ever heard a priest of the faithful, standing at an altar built for the honor and worship of God over the holy body of some martyr, say in the prayers, I offer to thee a sacrifice, O Peter, or O Paul, or O Cyprian? for it is to God that sacrifices are offered at their tombs,—the God who made them both men and martyrs, and associated them with holy angels in celestial honor; and the reason why we pay such honors to their memory is, that by so doing we may both give thanks to the true God for their victories, and, by recalling them afresh to remembrance, may stir ourselves up to imitate them by seeking to obtain like crowns and palms, calling to our help that same God on whom they called. Therefore, whatever honors the religious may pay in the places of the martyrs, they are but honors rendered to their memory, not sacred rites or sacrifices offered to dead men as to gods. And even such as bring thither food,—which, indeed, is not done by the better Christians, and in most places of the world is not done at all,—do so in order that it may be sanctified to them through the merits of the martyrs, in the name of the Lord of the martyrs, first presenting the food and offering prayer, and thereafter taking it away to be eaten, or to be in part bestowed upon the needy. But he who knows the one sacrifice of Christians, which is the sacrifice offered in those places, also knows that these are not sacrifices offered to the martyrs. It is, then, neither with divine honors nor with human crimes, by which they worship their gods, that we honor our martyrs; neither do we offer sacrifices to them, or convert the crimes of the gods into their sacred rites. For let those who will and can read the letter of Alexander to his mother Olympias, in which he tells the things which were revealed to him by the priest Leon, and let those who have read it recall to memory what it contains, that they may see what great abominations have been handed down to memory, not by poets, but by the mystic writings of the Egyptians, concerning the goddess Isis, the wife of Osiris, and the 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 she brought some ears to the king her husband, and his councillor Mercurius, and hence they identify her with Ceres. Those who read the letter may there see what was the character of those people to whom when dead sacred rites were instituted as to gods, and what those deeds of theirs were which furnished the occasion for these rites. Let them not once dare to compare in any respect those people, though they hold them to be gods, to our holy martyrs, though we do not hold them to be gods. For we do not ordain priests and offer sacrifices to our martyrs, 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, or with such shameful plays as those in which the crimes of the gods are celebrated, which are either real crimes committed by them at a time when they were men, or else, if they never were men, fictitious crimes invented for the pleasure of noxious demons. The god of Socrates, if he had a god, cannot have belonged to this class of demons. But 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 we say more? No one who is even moderately wise imagines that demons are to be worshipped on account of the blessed life which is to be after death. But perhaps they will say that all the gods are good, but that of the demons some are bad and some good, and that it is the good who are to be worshipped, in order that through them we may attain to the eternally blessed life. To the examination of this opinion we will devote the following book.

> Latin: Nec tamen nos eisdem martyribus templa, sacerdotia, sacra et sacrificia constituimus, quoniam non ipsi, sed Deus eorum nobis est Deus. Honoramus sane memorias eorum tamquam sanctorum hominum Dei, qui usque ad mortem corporum suorum pro ueritate certarunt, ut innotesceret uera religio falsis fictisque conuictis; quod etiam si qui antea sentiebant, timendo reprimebant. Quis autem audiuit aliquando fidelium stantem sacerdotem ad altare, etiam super sanctum corpus martyris ad Dei honorem cultumque constructum, dicere in precibus: Offero tibi sacrificium Petre uel Paule uel Cypriane, cum aput eorum memorias offeratur Deo, qui eos et homines et martyres fecit et sanctis suis angelis caelesti honore sociauit, ut ea celebritate et Deo uero de illorum uictoriis gratias agamus et nos ad imitationem talium coronarum adque palmarum eodem inuocato in auxilium ex illorum memoriae renouatione adhortemur? Quaecumque igitur adhibentur religiosorum obsequia in martyrum locis, ornamenta sunt memoriarum, non sacra uel sacrificia mortuorum tamquam deorum. Quicumque etiam epulas suas eo deferunt (quod quidem a Christianis melioribus non fit, et in plerisque terrarum nulla talis est consuetudo) — tamen quicumque id faciunt, quas cum adposuerint, orant et auferunt, ut uescantur uel ex eis etiam indigentibus largiantur, sanctificari sibi eas uolunt per merita martyrum in nomine domini martyrum. Non autem esse ista sacrificia martyrum nouit, qui nouit unum, quod etiam illic offertur, sacrificium Christianorum. Nos itaque martyres nostros nec diuinis honoribus nec humanis criminibus colimus, sicut colunt illi deos suos, nec sacrificia illis offerimus, nec eorum probra in eorum sacra conuertimus. Nam de Iside, uxore Osiris, Aegyptia dea, et de parentibus eorum, qui omnes reges fuisse scribuntur (quibus parentibus suis illa cum sacrificaret, inuenit hordei segetem adque inde spicas marito regi et eius consiliario Mercurio demonstrauit, unde eandem et Cererem uolunt), quae et quanta mala non a poetis, sed mysticis eorum litteris memoriae mandata sint, sicut Leone sacerdote prodente ad Olympiadem matrem scribit Alexander, legant qui uolunt uel possunt, et recolant qui legerunt, et uideant quibus hominibus mortuis uel de quibus eorum factis tamquam dis sacra fuerint instituta. Absit ut eos, quamuis deos habeant, sanctis martyribus nostris, quos tamen deos non habemus, ulla ex parte audeant conparare. Sic enim non constituimus sacerdotes nec offerimus sacrificia martyribus nostris, quia incongruum indebitum inlicitum est adque uni Deo tantummodo debitum, ut nec criminibus suis nec ludis eos turpissimis oblectemus, ubi uel flagitia isti celebrant deorum suorum, si, cum homines essent, talia commiserunt, uel conficta delectamenta daemonum noxiorum, si homines non fuerunt. Ex isto genere daemonum Socrates non haberet deum, si haberet deum; sed fortasse homini ab illa arte faciendi deos alieno et innocenti illi inportauerint talem deum, qui eadem arte excellere uoluerunt. Quid ergo plura? Non esse spiritus istos colendos propter uitam beatam, quae post mortem futura est, nullus uel mediocriter prudens ambigit. Sed fortasse dicturi sunt deos quidem esse omnes bonos, daemones autem alios malos, alios bonos, et eos, per quos ad uitam in aeternum beatam perueniamus, colendos esse censebunt, quos bonos opinantur. Quod quale sit iam in uolumine sequenti uidendum est.

### Of those who allege a distinction among demons, some being good and others evil.

[¶23] Book IX.

> Latin: Liber IX

[¶24] Argument—Having in the preceding book shown that the worship of demons must be abjured, since they in a thousand ways proclaim themselves to be wicked spirits, Augustin in this book meets those who allege a distinction among demons, some being evil, while others are good; and, having exploded this distinction, he proves that to no demon, but to Christ alone, belongs the office of providing men with eternal blessedness.

## 44. The Point at Which the Discussion Has Arrived, and What Remains to Be Handled.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/44/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/44/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 1.—The Point at Which the Discussion Has Arrived, and What Remains to Be Handled.

> Latin: Caput I. Ad quem articulum disputatio praemissa pel’uenerit et quid discutiendum sit de residua quaestione.

[¶1] Some have advanced the opinion that there are both good and bad gods; but some, thinking more respectfully of the gods, have attributed to them so much honor and praise as to preclude the supposition of any god being wicked. But those who have maintained that there are wicked gods as well as good ones have included the demons under the name “gods,” and sometimes though more rarely, have called the gods demons; so that they admit that Jupiter, whom they make the king and head of all the rest, is called a demon by Homer. Those, on the other hand, who maintain that the gods are all good, and far more excellent than the men who are justly called good, are moved by the actions of the demons, which they can neither deny nor impute to the gods whose goodness they affirm, to distinguish between gods and demons; so that, whenever they find anything offensive in the deeds or sentiments by which unseen spirits manifest their power, they believe this to proceed not from the gods, but from the demons. At the same time they believe that, as no god can hold direct intercourse with men, these demons hold the position of mediators, ascending with prayers, and returning with gifts. This is the opinion of the Platonists, the ablest and most esteemed of their philosophers, with whom we therefore chose to debate this question,—whether the worship of a number of gods is of any service toward obtaining blessedness in the future life. And this is the reason why, in the preceding book, we have inquired how the demons, who take pleasure in such things as good and wise men loathe and execrate, in the sacrilegious and immoral fictions which the poets have written not of men, but of the gods themselves, and in the wicked and criminal violence of magical arts, can be regarded as more nearly related and more friendly to the gods than men are, and can mediate between good men and the good gods; and it has been demonstrated that this is absolutely impossible.

> Latin: Et bonos et malos deos esse quidam opinati sunt; quidam uero de dis meliora sentientes tantum eis honoris laudisque tribuerunt, ut nullum deorum malum credere auderent. Sed illi, qui deos quosdam bonos, quosdam malos esse dixerunt, daemones quoque appellauerunt nomine deorum, quamquam et deos, sed rarius, nomine daemonum, ita ut ipsum Iouem, quem uolunt esse regem ac principem ceterorum, ab Homero fateantur daemonem nuncupatum. Hi autem, qui omnes deos non nisi bonos esse adserunt et longe praestantiores eis hominibus, qui perhibentur boni, merito mouentur daemonum factis, quae negare non possunt; eaque nullo modo a dis, quos omnes bonos uolunt, committi posse existimantes differentiam inter deos et daemones adhibere coguntur, ut, quidquid eis merito displicet in operibus uel affectibus prauis, quibus uim suam manifestant occulti spiritus, id credant esse daemonum, non deorum. Sed quia eosdem daemones inter homines et deos ita medios constitutos putant, tamquam nullus deus homini misceatur, ut hinc perferant desiderata, inde referant inpetrata, adque hoc Platonici, praecipui philosophorum ac nobilissimi, sentiunt, cum quibus uelut cum excellentioribus placuit istam examinare quaestionem, utrum cultus plurimorum deorum prosit ad consequendam uitam beatam quae post mortem futura est: libro superiore quaesiuimus, quo pacto daemones, qui talibus gaudent, qualia boni et prudentes homines auersantur et damnant, id est sacrilega flagitiosa facinerosa non de quolibet homine, sed de ipsis dis figmenta poetarum et magicarum artium sceleratam puniendamque uiolentiam, possint quasi propinquiores et amiciores dis bonis conciliare homines bonos, et hoc nulla ratione posse conpertum est.

### Whether Among the Demons, Inferior to the Gods, There are Any Good Spirits Under Whose Guardianship the Human Soul Might Reach True Blessedness.

[¶3] Chapter 2.—Whether Among the Demons, Inferior to the Gods, There are Any Good Spirits Under Whose Guardianship the Human Soul Might Reach True Blessedness.

> Latin: Caput II. An inter daemones, quibus di superiores sunt, sit aliqua pars bonorum, quorum praesidio ad ueram beatitudinem possit humana anima peruenire.

[¶4] This book, then, ought, according to the promise made in the end of the preceding one, to contain a discussion, not of the difference which exists among the gods, who, according to the Platonists, are all good, nor of the difference between gods and demons, the former of whom they separate by a wide interval from men, while the latter are placed intermediately between the gods and men, but of the difference, since they make one, among the demons themselves. This we shall discuss so far as it bears on our theme. It has been the common and usual belief that some of the demons are bad, others good; and this opinon, whether it be that of the Platonists or any other sect, must by no means be passed over in silence, lest some one suppose he ought to cultivate the good demons in order that by their mediation he may be accepted by the gods, all of whom he believes to be good, and that he may live with them after death; whereas he would thus be ensnared in the toils of wicked spirits, and would wander far from the true God, with whom alone, and in whom alone, the human soul, that is to say, the soul that is rational and intellectual, is blessed.

> Latin: Proinde hic liber, sicut in illius fine promisimus, disputationem continere debebit de differentia (si quam uolunt esse) non deorum inter se, quos omnes bonos dicunt, nec de differentia deorum et daemonum, quorum illos ab hominibus longe alteque seiungunt, istos inter deos et homines conlocant; sed de differentia ipsorum daemonum, quod ad praesentem pertinet quaestionem. Aput plerosque enim usitatum est dici, alios bonos alios malos daemones; quae siue sit etiam Platonicorum, siue quorumlibet sententia, nequaquam eius est neglegenda discussio, ne quisquam uelut daemones bonos sequendos sibi esse arbitretur, per quos tamquam medios dis, quos omnes bonos credit, dum conciliari adfectat et studet, ut quasi cum eis possit esse post mortem, inretitus malignorum spirituum deceptusque fallacia longe aberret a uero Deo, cum quo solo et in quo solo et de quo solo anima humana, id est rationalis et intellectualis, beata est.

### What Apuleius Attributes to the Demons, to Whom, Though He Does Not Deny Them Reason, He Does Not Ascribe Virtue.

[¶6] Chapter 3.—What Apuleius Attributes to the Demons, to Whom, Though He Does Not Deny Them Reason, He Does Not Ascribe Virtue.

> Latin: Caput III. Quae daemonibus Apuleius adscribat, quibus cum rationem non subtrahat, nihil uirtutis adsignat.

[¶7] What, then, is the difference between good and evil demons? For the Platonist Apuleius, in a treatise on this whole subject, while he says a great deal about their aerial bodies, has not a word to say of the spiritual virtues with which, if they were good, they must have been endowed. Not a word has he said, then, of that which could give them happiness; but proof of their misery he has given, acknowledging that their mind, by which they rank as reasonable beings, is not only not imbued and fortified with virtue so as to resist all unreasonable passions, but that it is somehow agitated with tempestuous emotions, and is thus on a level with the mind of foolish men. His own words are: “It is this class of demons the poets refer to, when, without serious error, they feign that the gods hate and love individuals among men, prospering and ennobling some, and opposing and distressing others. Therefore pity, indignation, grief, joy, every human emotion is experienced by the demons, with the same mental disturbance, and the same tide of feeling and thought. These turmoils and tempests banish them far from the tranquility of the celestial gods.” Can there be any doubt that in these words it is not some inferior part of their spiritual nature, but the very mind by which the demons hold their rank as rational beings, which he says is tossed with passion like a stormy sea? They cannot, then, be compared even to wise men, who with undisturbed mind resist these perturbations to which they are exposed in this life, and from which human infirmity is never exempt, and who do not yield themselves to approve of or perpetrate anything which might deflect them from the path of wisdom and law of rectitude. They resemble in character, though not in bodily appearance, wicked and foolish men. I might indeed say they are worse, inasmuch as they have 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 from which they can resist their turbulent and depraved emotions.

> Latin: Quae igitur est differentia daemonum bonorum et malorum? Quando quidem Platonicus Apuleius de his uniuersaliter disserens et tam multa loquens de aeriis eorum corporibus de uirtutibus tacuit animorum, quibus essent praediti, si essent boni. Tacuit ergo beatitudinis causam, indicium uero miseriae tacere non potuit, confitens eorum mentem, qua rationales esse perhibuit, non saltem inbutam munitamque uirtute passionibus animi inrationabilibus nequaquam cedere, sed ipsam quoque, sicut stultarum mentium mos est, procellosis quodam modo perturbationibus agitari. Verba namque eius de hac re ista sunt: Ex hoc ferme daemonum numero, inquit, poetae solent haudquaquam procul a ueritate osores et amatores quorundam hominum deos fingere; hos prosperare et euehere, illos contra aduersari et adfligere; igitur et misereri et indignari, et angi et laetari omnemque humani animi faciem pati, simili motu cordis et salo mentis per omnes cogitationum aestus fluctuare. Quae omnes turbelae tempestatesque procul a deorum caelestium tranquillitate exulant.’ Num est in his uerbis ulla dubitatio, quod non animorum aliquas inferiores partes, sed ipsas daemonum mentes, quibus rationalia sunt animalia, uelut procellosum salum dixit passionum tempestate turbari? ut ne hominibus quidem sapientibus conparandi sint. qui huius modi perturbationibus animorum, a quibus humana non est inmunis infirmitas, etiam cum eas huius uitae condicione patiuntur, mente inperturbata, resistunt, non eis cedentes ad aliquid adprobandum uel perpetrandum, quod exorbitet ab itinere sapientiae et lege iustitiae; sed stultis mortalibus et iniustis non corporibus, sed moribus similes (ut non dicam deteriores, eo quo uetustiores et debita poena insanabiles) ipsius quoque mentis, ut iste appellauit, salo fluctuant, nec in ueritate adque uirtute, qua turbulentis et prauis affectionibus repugnatur, ex ulla animi parte consistunt.

### The Opinion of the Peripatetics and Stoics About Mental Emotions.

[¶9] Chapter 4.—The Opinion of the Peripatetics and Stoics About Mental Emotions.

> Latin: Caput IV. De perturbationibus, quae animo accidunt, quae sit Peripateticorum Stoicorumque sententia.

[¶10] Among the philosophers there are two opinions about these mental emotions, which the Greeks call παθη, while some of our own writers, as Cicero, call them perturbations, some affections, and some, to render the Greek word more accurately, passions. Some say that even the wise man is subject to these perturbations, though moderated and controlled by reason, which imposes laws upon them, and so restrains them within necessary bounds. This is the opinion of the Platonists and Aristotelians; for Aristotle was Plato’s disciple, and the founder 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 that the Stoics are here at variance with the Platonists and Peripatetics rather in words than in reality; for the Stoics decline to apply the term “goods” to external and bodily advantages, because they reckon that the only good is virtue, the art of living well, and this exists only in the mind. The other philosophers, 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 of small esteem. And thus it is obvious that, whether these outward things are called goods or advantages, they are held in the same estimation by both parties, and that in this matter the Stoics are pleasing themselves merely with a novel phraseology. It seems, then, to me that in this question, whether the wise man is subject to mental passions, or wholly free from them, the controversy is one of words rather than of things; for I think that, if the reality and not the mere sound of the words is considered, the Stoics hold precisely the same opinion as the Platonists and Peripatetics. For, omitting for brevity’s sake other proofs which I might adduce in support of this opinion, I will state but one which I consider conclusive. Aulus Gellius, a man of extensive erudition, and gifted with an eloquent and graceful style, relates, in his work entitled Noctes Atticæthat he once made a voyage with an eminent Stoic philosopher; and he goes on to relate fully and with gusto what I shall barely state, that when the ship was tossed and in danger from a violent storm, the philosopher grew pale with terror. This was noticed by those on board, who, though themselves threatened with death, were curious to see whether a philosopher would be agitated like other men. When the tempest had passed over, and as soon as their security gave them freedom to resume their talk, one of the passengers, a rich and luxurious Asiatic, begins to banter the philosopher, and rally him because he had even become pale with fear, while he himself had been unmoved by the impending destruction. But the philosopher availed himself 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 a profligate debauchee, but I had reason to be alarmed for the soul of Aristippus.” The rich man being thus disposed of, Aulus Gellius asked the philosopher, in the interests of science and not to annoy him, what was the reason of his fear? And he willing to instruct a man so zealous in the pursuit of knowledge, at once took from his wallet a book of Epictetus the Stoic, in which doctrines were advanced which precisely harmonized with those of Zeno and Chrysippus, the founders of the Stoical school. Aulus Gellius says that he read in this book that the Stoics maintain that there are certain impressions made on the soul by external objects which they call phantasiæ, and that it is not in the power of the soul to determine whether or when it shall be invaded by these. When these impressions are made by alarming and formidable objects, it must needs be that they move the soul even of the wise man, so that for a little he trembles with fear, or is depressed by sadness, these impressions anticipating the work of reason and self-control; but this does not imply that the mind accepts these evil impressions, or approves or consents to them. For this consent is, they think, in a man’s power; there being this difference between the mind of the wise man and that of the fool, that the fool’s mind yields to these passions and consents to them, while that of the wise man, though it cannot help being invaded by them, yet retains with unshaken firmness a true and steady persuasion of those things which it ought rationally to desire or avoid. This account of what Aulus Gellius relates that he read in the book of Epictetus about the sentiments and doctrines of the Stoics I have given as well as I could, not, perhaps, with his choice language, but with greater brevity, and, I think, with greater clearness. And if this be true, then there is no difference, or next to none, between the opinion of the Stoics and that of the other philosophers regarding mental passions and perturbations, for both parties agree in maintaining that the mind and reason of the wise man are not subject to these. And perhaps what the Stoics mean by asserting this, is that the wisdom which characterizes the wise man is clouded by no error and sullied by no taint, but, with this reservation that his wisdom remains undisturbed, he is exposed to the impressions which the goods and ills of this life (or, as they prefer to call them, the advantages or disadvantages) make upon them. For we need not say that if that philosopher had thought nothing of those things which he thought he was forthwith to lose, life and bodily safety, he would not have been so terrified by his danger as to betray his fear by the pallor of his cheek. Nevertheless, he might suffer this mental disturbance, and yet maintain the fixed persuasion that life and bodily safety, which the violence of the tempest threatened to destroy, are not those good things which make their possessors good, as the possession of righteousness does. But in so far as they persist that we must call them not goods but advantages, they quarrel about words and neglect things. For what difference does it make whether goods or advantages be the better name, while the Stoic no less than the Peripatetic is alarmed at the prospect of losing them, and while, though they name them differently, they hold them in like esteem? Both parties assure us that, if urged to the commission of some immorality or crime by the threatened loss of these goods or advantages, they would prefer to lose such things as preserve bodily comfort and security rather than commit such things as violate righteousness. And thus the mind in which this resolution is well grounded suffers no perturbations to prevail with it in opposition to reason, even though they assail the weaker parts of the soul; and not only so, but it rules over them, and, while it refuses its consent and resists them, administers a reign of virtue. Such a character is ascribed to Æneas by Virgil when he says,

> Latin: Duae sunt sententiae philosophorum de his animi motibus, quae Graeci rcdib], nostri autem quidam, sicut Cicero, perturbationes, quidam affectiones uel affectus, quidam uero, sicut iste de Graeco expressius, passiones uocant. Has ergo perturbationes siue affectiones siue passiones quidam philosophi dicunt etiam in sapientem cadere, sed moderatas rationique subiectas, ut eis leges quodam modo, quibus ad necessarium redigantur modum, dominatio mentis inponat. Hoc qui sentiunt, Platonici sunt siue Aristotelici, cum Aristoteles discipulus Platonis fuerit, qui sectam Peripateticam condidit. Aliis autem, sicut Stoicis, cadere ullas omnino huiusce modi passiones in sapientem non placet. Hos autem, id est Stoicos, Cicero in libris de finibus bonorum et malorum uerbis magis quam rebus aduersus Platonicos seu Peripateticos certare conuincit; quando quidem Stoici nolunt bona appellare, sed commoda corporis et externa, eo quod nullum bonum uolunt esse hominis praeter uirtutem, tamquam artem bene uiuendi, quae non nisi in animo est. Haec autem isti simpliciter et ex communi loquendi consuetudine appellant bona; sed in conparatione uirtutis, qua recte uiuitur, parua et exigua. Ex quo fit, ut ab utrisque quodlibet uocentur, seu bona seu commoda, pari tamen aestimatione pensentur, nec in hac quaestione Stoici delectentur nisi nouitate uerborum. Videtur ergo mihi etiam in hoc, ubi quaeritur utrum accidant sapienti passiones animi, an ab eis sit prorsus alienus, de uerbis eos potius quam de rebus facere controuersiam. Nam et ipsos nihil hinc aliud quam Platonicos et Peripateticos sentire existimo, quantum ad uim rerum adtinet, non ad uocabulorum sonum. Ut enim alia omittam, quibus id ostendam, ne longum faciam, aliquid unum quod sit euidentissimum dicam. In libris, quibus titulus est Noctium Atticarum, scribit A. Gellius, uir elegantissimi eloquii et multae undecumque scientiae, se nauigasse aliquando cum quodam philosopho nobili Stoico. Is philosophus, sicut latius et uberius, quod ego breuiter adtingam, narrat A. Gellius, cum illud nauigium horribili caelo et mari periculosissime iactaretur, ui timoris expalluit. Id animaduersum est ab eis, qui aderant, quamuis in mortis uicinia curiosissime adtentis, utrumne philosophus animo turbaretur. Deinde tempestate transacta mox ut securitas praebuit conloquendi uel etiam garriendi locum, quidam ex his, quos nauis illa portabat, diues luxuriosus Asiaticus philosophum conpellat inludens, quod extimuisset adque palluisset, cum ipse mansisset intrepidus in eo quod inpendebat exitio. At ille Aristippi Socratici responsum rettulit, qui cum in re simili eadem uerba ab homine simili audisset, respondit illum pro anima nequissimi nebulonis merito non fuisse sollicitum, se autem pro Aristippi anima timere debuisse. Hac illo diuite responsione depulso postea quaesiuit A. Gellius a philosopho non exagitandi animo, sed discendi, quaenam illa ratio esset pauoris sui. Qui ut doceret hominem sciendi studio nauiter accensum, protulit statim de sarcinula sua Stoici Epicteti librum, in quo ea scripta essent, quae congruerent decretis Zenonis et Chrysippi, quos fuisse Stoicorum principes nouimus. In eo libro se legisse dicit A. Gellius hoc Stoicis placuisse, quod animi uisa, quas appellant phantasias, nec in potestate est utrum et quando incidant animo, cum ueniunt ex terribilibus et formidabilibus rebus, necesse est etiam sapientis animum moueant, ita ut paulisper uel pauescat metu, uel tristitia contrahatur, tamquam his passionibus praeuenientibus mentis et rationis officium; nec ideo tamen in mente fieri opinionem mali, nec adprobari ista eisque consentiri. Hoc enim esse uolunt in potestate idque interesse censent inter animum sapientis et stulti, quod stulti animus eisdem passionibus cedit adque adcommodat mentis adsensum; sapientes autem, quamuis eas necessitate patiantur, retinent tamen de his, quae adpetere uel fugere rationabiliter debent, ueram et stabilem inconcussa mente sententiam. Haec ut potui non quidem commodius A. Gellio, sed certe breuius et, ut puto, planius exposui, quae ille se in Epicteti libro legisse commemorat eum ex decretis Stoicorum dixisse adque sensisse. Quae si ita sunt, aut nihil aut paene nihil distat inter Stoicorum aliorumque philosophorum opinionem de passionibus et perturbationibus animorum; utrique enim mentem rationemque sapientis ab earum dominatione defendunt. Et ideo fortasse dicunt eas in sapientem non cadere Stoici, quia nequaquam eius sapientiam, qua utique sapiens est, ullo errore obnubilant aut labe subuertunt. Accidunt autem animo sapientis salua serenitate sapientiae propter illa, quae commoda uel incommoda appellant, quamuis ea nolint dicere bona uel mala. Nam profecto si nihili penderet eas res ille philosophus, quas amissurum se naufragio sentiebat, sicuti est uita ista salusque corporis, non ita illud periculum perhorresceret, ut palloris etiam testimonio proderetur. Verum tamen et illam poterat permotionem pati, et fixam tenere mente sententiam, uitam illam salutemque corporis, quorum amissionem minabatur tempestatis inmanitas, non esse bona, quae illos quibus inessent facerent bonos, sicut facit iustitia. Quod autem aiunt ea nec bona appellanda esse, sed commoda: uerborum certamini, non rerum examini deputandum est. Quid enim interest, utrum aptius bona uocentur an commoda, dum tamen ne his priuetur non minus Stoicus quam Peripateticus pauescat et palleat, ea non aequaliter appellando, sed aequaliter aestimando? Ambo sane, si bonorum istorum seu commodorum periculis ad flagitium uel facinus urgeantur, ut aliter ea retinere non possint, malle se dicunt haec amittere, quibus natura corporis salua et incolumis habetur, quam illa committere, quibus iustitia uiolatur. Ita mens, ubi fixa est ista sententia, nullas perturbationes, etiamsi accidunt inferioribus animi partibus, in se contra rationem praeualere permittit; quin immo eis ipsa dominatur eisque non consentiendo et potius resistendo regnum uirtutis exercet.

[¶11] “He stands immovable by tears,

> Latin: Talem describit etiam Vergilius Aenean, ubi ait: Mens inmota manet, lacrimae uoluuntur inanes.

[¶12] Nor tenderest words with pity hears.”

### That the Passions Which Assail the Souls of Christians Do Not Seduce Them to Vice, But Exercise Their Virtue.

[¶14] Chapter 5.—That the Passions Which Assail the Souls of Christians Do Not Seduce Them to Vice, But Exercise Their Virtue.

> Latin: Caput V. Quod passiones, quae Christianos animos adficiunt, non in uitium trahant, sed uirtutem exerceant.

[¶15] We need not at present give a careful and copious exposition of the doctrine of Scripture, the sum of Christian knowledge, regarding these passions. It subjects the mind itself to God, that He 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 soul is angry, as why he is angry; not whether he is sad, but what is the cause of his sadness; not whether he fears, but what he fears. For I am not aware that any right thinking person would find fault with anger at a wrongdoer which seeks his amendment, or with sadness which intends relief to the suffering, or with fear lest one in danger be destroyed. The Stoics, indeed, are accustomed to condemn compassion. But how much more honorable had it been in that Stoic we have been telling of, had he been disturbed by compassion prompting him to relieve a fellow-creature, than to be disturbed by the fear of shipwreck! Far better and more humane, and more consonant with pious sentiments, are the words of Cicero in praise of Cæsar, when he says, “Among your virtues none is more admirable and agreeable than your compassion.” And what is compassion but a fellow-feeling for another’s misery, which prompts us to help him if we can? And this emotion is obedient to reason, when compassion is shown without violating right, as when the poor are relieved, or the penitent forgiven. Cicero, who knew how to use language, did not hesitate to call this a virtue, which the Stoics are not ashamed to reckon among the vices, although, as the book of the eminent Stoic, Epictetus, quoting the opinions of Zeno and Chrysippus, the founders of the school, has taught us, they admit that passions of this kind invade the soul of the wise man, whom they would have to be free from all vice. Whence it follows that these very passions are not judged by them to be vices, since they assail the wise man without forcing him to act against reason and virtue; and that, therefore, the opinion of the Peripatetics or Platonists and of the Stoics is one and the same. But, as Cicero says, mere logomachy is the bane of these pitiful Greeks, who thirst for contention rather than for truth. However, it may justly be asked, whether our subjection to these affections, even while we follow virtue, is a part of the infirmity of this life? For the holy angels feel no anger while they punish those whom the eternal law of God consigns to punishment, no fellow-feeling with misery while they relieve the miserable, no fear while they aid those who are in danger; and yet ordinary language ascribes to them also these mental emotions, because, though they have none of our weakness, their acts resemble the actions to which these emotions move us; and thus even God Himself is said in Scripture to be angry, and yet without any perturbation. For this word is used of the effect of His vengeance, not of the disturbing mental affection.

> Latin: Non est nunc necesse copiose ac diligenter ostendere, quid de istis passionibus doceat scriptura diuina, qua Christiana eruditio continetur. Deo quippe [illam] ipsam mentem subicit regendam et iuuandam mentique passiones ita moderandas adque frenandas, ut in usum iustitiae conuertantur. Denique in disciplina nostra non tam quaeritur utrum pius animus irascatur, sed quare irascatur; nec utrum sit tristis, sed unde sit tristis; nec utrum timeat, sed quid timeat. Irasci enim peccanti ut corrigatur, contristari pro adflicto ut liberetur, timere periclitanti ne pereat, nescio utrum quisquam sana consideratione reprehendat. Nam et misericordiam Stoicorum est solere culpare; sed quanto honestius ille Stoicus misericordia perturbaretur hominis liberandi quam timore naufragii. Longe melius et humanius et piorum sensibus adcommodatius Cicero in Caesaris laude locutus est, ubi ait: ‘Nulla de uirtutibus tuis nec admirabilior nec gratior misericordia est.’ Quid est autem misericordia nisi alienae miseriae quaedam in nostro corde conpassio, qua utique si possumus subuenire conpellimur? Seruit autem motus iste rationi, quando ita praebetur misericordia, ut iustitia conseruetur, siue cum indigenti tribuitur, siue cum ignoscitur paenitenti. Hanc Cicero locutor egregius non dubitauit appellare uirtutem, quam Stoicos inter uitia numerare non pudet, qui tamen, ut docuit liber Epicteti, nobilissimi Stoici, ex decretis Zenonis et Chrysippi, qui huius sectae primas habuerunt, huiusce modi passiones in animum sapientis admittunt, quem uitiis omnibus liberum uolunt. Unde fit consequens, ut haec ipsa non putent uitia, quando sapienti sic accidunt, ut contra uirtutem mentis rationemque nihil possint, et una sit eademque sententia Peripateticorum uel etiam Platonicorum et ipsorum Stoicorum, sed, ut ait Tullius, uerbi controuersia iam diu torqueat homines Graeculos contentionis cupidiores quam ueritatis. Sed adhuc merito quaeri potest, utrum ad uitae praesentis pertineat infirmitatem etiam in quibusque bonis officiis huiusce modi perpeti affectus, sancti uero angeli et sine ira puniant, quos accipiunt aeterna Dei lege puniendos, et miseris sine miseriae conpassione subueniant, et periclitantibus eis, quos diligunt, sine timore opitulentur; et tamen istarum nomina passionum consuetudine locutionis humanae etiam in eos usurpentur propter quandam operum similitudinem, non propter affectionum infirmitatem, sicut ipse Deus secundum scripturas irascitur, nec tamen ulla passione turbatur. Hoc enim uerbum uindictae usurpauit effectus. non illius turbulentus affectus.

### Of the Passions Which, According to Apuleius, Agitate the Demons Who Are Supposed by Him to Mediate Between Gods and Men.

[¶17] Chapter 6.—Of the Passions Which, According to Apuleius, Agitate the Demons Who Are Supposed by Him to Mediate Between Gods and Men.

> Latin: Caput VI. Quibus passionibus daemones confitente Apuleio exagitentur, quorum ope homines aput deos adserit adiuuari.

[¶18] Deferring for the present the question about the holy angels, let us examine the opinion of the Platonists, that the demons who mediate between gods and men are agitated by passions. For if their mind, though exposed to their incursion, still remained free and superior to them, Apuleius could not have said that their hearts are tossed with passions as the sea by stormy winds. Their mind, then,—that superior part of their soul whereby they are rational beings, and which, if it actually exists in them, should rule and bridle the turbulent passions of the inferior parts of the soul,—this mind of theirs, I say, is, according to the Platonist referred to, tossed with a hurricane of passions. The mind of the demons, therefore, is subject to the 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 of men into purity of life, since their very highest part, being the slave of passion and subject to vice, only makes them more intent on deceiving and seducing, in proportion to the mental force and energy of desire they possess?

> Latin: Qua interim de sanctis angelis quaestione dilata uideamus quem ad modum dicant Platonici medios daemones inter deos et homines constitutos istis passionum aestibus fluctuare. Si enim mente ab his libera eisque dominante motus huiusce modi paterentur, non eos diceret Apuleius simili motu cordis et salo mentis per omnes cogitationum aestus fluctuare. Ipsa igitur mens eorum, id est pars animi superior, qua rationales sunt, in qua uirtus et sapientia, si ulla eis esset, passionibus turbulentis inferiorum animi partium regendis moderandisque dominaretur, — ipsa, inquam, mens eorum, sicut iste Platonicus confitetur, salo perturbationum fluctuat. Subiecta est ergo mens daemonum passionibus libidinum formidinum irarum adque huiusce modi ceteris. Quae igitur pars in eis libera est composque sapientiae, qua placeant dis et ad bonorum morum similitudinem hominibus consulant, cum eorum mens passionum uitiis subiugata et obpressa, quidquid rationis naturaliter habet, ad fallendum et decipiendum tanto acrius intendat, quanto eam magis possidet nocendi cupiditas?

### That the Platonists Maintain that the Poets Wrong the Gods by Representing Them as Distracted by Party Feeling, to Which the Demons and Not the Gods, are Subject.

[¶20] Chapter 7.—That the Platonists Maintain that the Poets Wrong the Gods by Representing Them as Distracted by Party Feeling, to Which the Demons and Not the Gods, are Subject.

> Latin: Caput VII. Quod Platonici figmentis poetarum infamatos adserant deos de contrariorum studiorum certamine, cum hae partes daemonum, non deorum sint.

[¶21] But if any one says that it is not of all the demons, but only of the wicked, that the poets, not without truth, say that they violently love or hate certain men,—for it was of them Apuleius said that they were driven about by strong currents of emotion,—how can we accept this interpretation, when Apuleius, in the very same connection, represents all the demons, and not only the wicked, as intermediate between gods 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 as allies or enemies to individual men, using this poetical license, though they profess that the gods are very different in character from the demons, and far exalted above them by their celestial abode and wealth of beatitude. This, I say, is the poets’ fiction, to say that these are gods who are not gods, and that, under the names of gods, they fight among themselves about the men whom they love or hate with keen partisan feeling. Apuleius says that this is not far from the truth, since, though they are wrongfully called by the names of the gods, 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 restrain Achilles.” For that this was Minerva he supposes to be poetical fiction; for he thinks that Minerva is a goddess, and he places her among the gods whom he believes to be all good and blessed in the sublime ethereal region, remote from intercourse with men. But that there was a demon favorable to the Greeks and adverse to the Trojans, as another, whom the 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, and that these demons fought for those they loved against those they hated,—in all this he owned that the poets stated something very like the truth. For they made these statements about beings to whom he ascribes the same violent and tempestuous passions as disturb men, and who are therefore capable of loves and hatreds not justly formed, but formed in a party spirit, as the spectators in races or hunts take fancies and prejudices. It seems to have been the great fear of this Platonist that the poetical fictions should be believed of the gods, and not of the demons who bore their names.

> Latin: Quod si quisquam dicit, non ex omnium, sed ex malorum daemonum numero esse, quos poetae quorundam hominum os ores et amatores deos non procul a ueritate confingunt (hos enim dixit Apuleius salo mentis per omnes cogitationum aestus fluctuare): quo modo istud intellegere poterimus, quando, cum hoc diceret, non quorundam, id est malorum, sed omnium daemonum medietatem propter aeria corpora inter deos et homines describebat? Hoc enim ait fingere poetas, quod ex istorum daemonum numero deos faciunt et eis deorum nomina inponunt et quibus uoluerint hominibus ex his amicos inimicosque distribuunt ficti carminis inpunita licentia, cum deos ab his daemonum moribus et caelesti loco et beatitudinis opulentia remotos esse perhibeat. Haec est ergo fictio poetarum deos dicere, qui di non sunt, eosque sub deorum nominibus inter se decertare propter homines, quos pro studio partium diligunt uel oderunt. Non procul autem a ueritate dicit hanc esse fictionem, quoniam deorum appellati uocabulis, qui di non sunt, tales tamen describuntur daemones, quales sunt. Denique hinc esse dicit Homericam illam Mineruam, (quae mediis coetibus Graium cohibendo Achilli interuenit.’ Quod ergo Minerua illa fuerit, poeticum uult esse figmentum. eo quod Mineruam deam putat eamque inter deos, quos omnes bonos beatosque credit, in alta aetheria sede conlocat, procul a conuersatione mortalium; quod autem aliquis daemon fuerit Graecis fauens Troianisque contrarius, sicut alius aduersus Graecos Troianorum opitulator, quem Veneris seu Martis nomine idem poeta commemorat, quos deos iste talia non agentes in habitationibus caelestibus ponit, et hi daemones pro eis, quos amabant, contra eos, quos oderant, inter se decertauerint, hoc non procul a ueritate poetas dixisse confessus est. De his quippe ista dixerunt, quos hominibus simili motu cordis et salo mentis per omnes cogitationum aestus fluctuare testatur, ut possint amores et odia non pro iustitia, sed sicut populus similis eorum in uenatoribus et aurigis secundum suarum studia partium pro aliis aduersus alios exercere. Id enim uidetur philosophus curasse Platonicus, ne, cum haec a poetis canerentur, non a daemonibus mediis, sed ab ipsis dis, quorum nomina poetae fingendo ponunt, fieri crederentur.

### How Apuleius Defines the Gods Who Dwell in Heaven, the Demons Who Occupy the Air, and Men Who Inhabit Earth.

[¶23] Chapter 8.—How Apuleius Defines the Gods Who Dwell in Heaven, the Demons Who Occupy the Air, and Men Who Inhabit Earth.

> Latin: Caput VIII. De dis caelestibus et daemonibus aeriis hominibus que terrenis Apulei Platonici definitione.

[¶24] The definition which Apuleius gives of demons, and in which he of course includes all demons, is that they are in nature animals, in soul subject to passion, in mind reasonable, in body aerial, in duration eternal. Now in these five qualities he has named absolutely nothing which is proper to good men and not also to bad. For when Apuleius had spoken of the celestials first, and had then extended his description so as to include an account of those who dwell far below on the earth, that, after describing the two extremes of rational being, he might proceed to speak of the intermediate demons, he says, “Men, therefore, who are endowed with the faculty of reason and speech, whose soul is immortal and their members mortal, who have weak and anxious spirits, dull and corruptible bodies, dissimilar characters, similar ignorance, who are obstinate in their audacity, and persistent in their hope, whose labor is vain, and whose fortune is ever on the wane, their race immortal, themselves perishing, each generation replenished with creatures whose life is swift and their wisdom slow, their death sudden and their life a wail,—these are the men who dwell on the earth.” In recounting so many qualities which belong to the large proportion of men, did he forget that which is the property of the few when he speaks of their wisdom being slow? If this had been omitted, this his description of the human race, so carefully elaborated, would have been defective. And when he commended the excellence of the gods, he affirmed that they excelled in that very blessedness to which he thinks men must attain by wisdom. And therefore, if he had wished us to believe that some of the demons are good, he should have inserted in his description something by which we might see that they have, in common with the gods, some share of blessedness, or, in common with men, some wisdom. But, as it is, he has mentioned no good quality by which the good may be distinguished from the bad. For although he refrained from giving a full account of their wickedness, through fear of offending, not themselves but their worshippers, for whom he was writing, yet he sufficiently indicated to discerning readers what opinion he had of them; for only in the one article of the eternity of their bodies does he assimilate them to the gods, all of whom, he asserts, are good and blessed, and absolutely free from what he himself calls the stormy passions of the demons; and as to the soul, he quite plainly affirms that they resemble men and not the gods, and that this resemblance lies not in the possession of wisdom, which even men can attain to, but in the perturbation of passions which sway the foolish and wicked, but is so ruled by the good and wise that they prefer not to admit rather than to conquer it. For if he had wished it to be understood that the demons resembled the gods in the eternity not of their bodies but of their souls, he would certainly have admitted men to share in this privilege, because, as a Platonist, he of course must hold that the human soul is eternal. Accordingly, when describing this race of living beings, he said that their souls were immortal, their members mortal. And, consequently, if men have not eternity in common with the gods because they have mortal bodies, demons have eternity in common with the gods because their bodies are immortal.

> Latin: Quid? illa ipsa definitio daemonum parumne intuenda est (ubi certe omnes determinando conplexus est), quod ait daemones esse genere animalia, animo passiua, mente rationalia, corpore aeria, tempore aeterna? In quibus quinque commemoratis nihil dixit omnino, quod daemones cum bonis saltem hominibus id uiderentur habere commune, quod non esset in I malis. Nam ipsos homines cum aliquanto latius describendo conplecteretur, suo loco de illis dicens tamquam de infimis adque terrenis, cum prius dixisset de caelestibus dis, ut commendatis duabus partibus ex summo et infimo ultimis tertio loco de mediis daemonibus loqueretur: ‘Igitur homines, inquit, ratione cluentes, oratione pollentes, inmortalibus animis, moribundis membris, leuibus et anxiis mentibus, brutis et obnoxiis corporibus, dissimilibus moribus, similibus erroribus, peruicaci audacia, pertinaci spe, casso labore, fortuna caduca, singillatim mortales, cuncti tamen uniuerso genere perpetui, uicissim sufficienda prole mutabiles, uolucri tempore, tarda sapientia, cita morte, querula uita terras incolunt.’ Cum hic tam multa diceret, quae ad plurimos homines pertinent, numquid etiam illud tacuit, quod nouerat esse paucorum, ubi ait ‘tarda sapientia’? Quod si praetermisisset, nullo modo recte genus humanum descriptionis huius tam intenta diligentia terminasset. Cum uero deorum excellentiam commendaret, ipsam beatitudinem, quo uolunt homines per sapientiam peruenire, in eis adfirmauit excellere. Proinde si aliquos daemones bonos uellet intellegi, aliquid etiam in ipsorum descriptione poneret, unde uel cum dis aliquam beatitudinis partem, uel cum hominibus qualemcumque sapientiam putarentur habere communem. Nunc uero nullum bonum eorum commemorauit, quo boni discernuntur a malis. Quamuis et eorum malitiae liberius exprimendae pepercerit, non tam ne ipsos, quam ne cultores eorum, aput quos loquebatur, offenderet: significauit tamen prudentibus, quid de illis sentire deberent, quando quidem deos, quos omnes bonos beatosque credi uoluit, ab eonim passionibus adque, ut ait ipse, turbelis omni modo separauit, sola illos corporum aeternitate coniungens. animo autem non dis, sed hominibus similes daemones apertissime inculcans; et hoc non sapientiae bono, cuius et homines possunt esse participes, sed perturbatione passionum, quae stultis malisque dominatur, a sapientibus uero et bonis ita regitur, ut malint eam non habere quam uincere. Nam si non corporum, sed animorum aeternitatem cum dis habere daemones uellet intellegi, non utique homines ab huius rei consortio separaret, quia et hominibus aeternos esse animos procul dubio sicut Platonicus sentit. Ideo cum hoc genus animantum describeret, inmortalibus animis, moribundis membris dixit esse homines. Ac per hoc si propterea communem cum dis aeternitatem non habent homines, quia corpore sunt mortales: propterea ergo daemones habent, quia corpore sunt inmortales.

## 45. Whether the Intercession of the Demons Can Secure for Men the Friendship of the Celestial Gods.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/45/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/45/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 9.—Whether the Intercession of the Demons Can Secure for Men the Friendship of the Celestial Gods.

> Latin: Caput IX. An amicitia caelestium deorum per intercessionem daemonum possit homini prouideri.

[¶1] How, then, can men hope for a favorable introduction to the friendship of the gods by such mediators as these, who are, like men, defective in that which is the better part of every living creature, viz., the soul, and who resemble the gods only in the body, which is the inferior part? For a living creature or animal consists of soul and body, and of these two parts the soul is undoubtedly the better; even though vicious and weak, it is obviously better than even the soundest and strongest body, for the greater excellence of its nature is not reduced to the level of the body even by the pollution of vice, as gold, even when tarnished, is more precious than the purest silver or lead. And yet these mediators, by whose interposition things human and divine are to be harmonized, have an eternal body in common with the gods, and a vicious soul in common with men,—as if the religion by which these demons are to unite gods and men were a bodily, and not a spiritual matter. What wickedness, then, or punishment has suspended these false and deceitful mediators, as it were head downwards, so that their inferior part, their body, is linked to the gods above, 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 that rules? For the body is the servant, as Sallust says: “We use the soul to rule, the body to obey;” adding, “the one we have in common with the gods, the other with the brutes.” For he was here speaking of men; and they have, like the brutes, a mortal body. These demons, whom our philosophic friends have provided for us as mediators with the gods, may indeed say of the soul and body, the one we have in common with the gods, the other with men; but, as I said, they are as it were suspended and bound head downwards, having the slave, the body, in common with the gods, the master, the soul, in common with miserable men,—their inferior part exalted, their superior part depressed. And therefore, if any one supposes that, because they are not subject, like terrestrial animals, to the separation of soul and body by death, they therefore resemble the gods in their eternity, their body must not be considered a chariot of an eternal triumph, but rather the chain of an eternal punishment.

> Latin: Quales igitur mediatores sunt inter homines et deos, per quos ad deorum amicitias homines ambiant, qui hoc cum hominibus habent deterius, quod est in animante melius, id est animum; hoc autem habent cum dis melius, quod est in animante deterius, id est corpus? Cum enim animans, id est animal, ex anima constet et corpore, quorum duorum anima est utique corpore melior, etsi uitiosa et infirma, melior certe corpore etiam sanissimo adque firmissimo, quoniam natura eius excellentior nec labe uitiorum postponitur corpori, sicut aurum etiam sordidum argento seu plumbo, licet purissimo, carius aestimatur: ista mediatores deorum et hominum, per quos interpositos diuinis humana iunguntur, cum dis habent corpus aeternum, uitiosum autem cum hominibus animum: quasi religio, qua uolunt dis homines per daemones iungi, in corpore sit, non in animo constituta. Quaenam tandem istos mediatores falsos adque fallaces quasi capite deorsum nequitia uel poena suspendit, ut inferiorem animalis partem, id est corpus, cum superioribus, superiorem uero, id est animum, cum inferioribus habeant, et cum dis caelestibus in parte seruiente coniuncti, cum hominibus autem terrestribus in parte dominante sint miseri? Corpus quippe seruum est, sicut etiam Sallustius ait: ‘Animi imperio, corporis seruitio magis utimur.’ Adiunxit autem ille: ‘Alterum nobis cum dis, alterum cum beluis commune est,’ quoniam de hominibus loquebatur, quibus sicut beluis mortale corpus est. Isti autem, quos inter nos et deos mediatores nobis philosophi prouiderunt, possunt quidem dicere de animo et corpore: alterum nobis cum dis, alterum cum hominibus commune est; sed, sicut dixi, tamquam in peruersum ligati adque suspensi, seruum corpus cum dis beatis. dominum animum cum hominibus miseris habentes, parte inferiore exaltati, superiore deiecti. Unde etiamsi quisquam propter hoc eos putauerit aeternitatem habere cum dis, quia nulla morte, sicut animalium terrestrium, animi eorum soluuntur a corpore: nec sic existimandum est eorum corpus tamquam honoratorum aeternum uehiculum, sed aeternum uinculum damnatorum.

### That, According to Plotinus, Men, Whose Body is Mortal, are Less Wretched Than Demons, Whose Body is Eternal.

[¶3] Chapter 10.—That, According to Plotinus, Men, Whose Body is Mortal, are Less Wretched Than Demons, Whose Body is Eternal.

> Latin: Caput X. Quod secundum Plotini sententiam minus miseri sint homines in corpore mortali quam daemones in aeterno.

[¶4] Plotinus, whose memory is quite recent, enjoys the reputation of having understood Plato better than any other of his disciples. In speaking of human souls, he says, “The Father in compassion made their bonds mortal;” that is to say, he considered it due to the Father’s mercy that men, having a mortal body, should not be forever confined in the misery of this life. But of this mercy the demons have been judged unworthy, and they have received, in conjunction with a soul subject to passions, a body not mortal like man’s, but eternal. For they should have been happier than men if they had, like men, had a mortal body, and, like the gods, a blessed soul. And they should have been equal to men, if in conjunction with a miserable soul they had at least received, like men, a mortal body, so that death might have freed them from trouble, 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 us to infer that by some progress in wisdom and piety they can become gods, but expressly says that they are demons forever.

> Latin: Plotinus certe nostrae memoriae uicinis temporibus Platonem ceteris excellentius intellexisse laudatur. Is cum de humanis animis ageret: Tater, inquit, misericors mortalia illis uincla faciebat.’ Ita hoc ipsum, quod mortales sunt homines corpore, ad misericordiam Dei patris pertinere arbitratus est, ne semper huius uitae miseria tenerentur. Hac misericordia indigna iudicata est iniquitas daemonum, quae in animi passiui miseria non mortale sicut homines, sed aeternum corpus accepit. Essent quippe feliciores hominibus, si mortale cum eis haberent corpus et cum dis animum beatum. Essent autem pares hominibus, si cum animo misero corpus saltem mortale cum eis habere meruissent; si tamen adquirerent aliquid pietatis, ut ab aerumnis uel in morte requiescerent. Nunc uero non solum feliciores hominibus non sunt animo misero, sed etiam miseriores sunt perpetuo corporis uinculo. Non enim aliqua pietatis et sapientiae disciplina proficientes intellegi uoluit ex daemonibus fieri deos, cum apertissime dixerit daemones aeternos.

### Of the Opinion of the Platonists, that the Souls of Men Become Demons When Disembodied.

[¶6] Chapter 11.—Of the Opinion of the Platonists, that the Souls of Men Become Demons When Disembodied.

> Latin: Caput XI. De opinione Platonicorum, qua putant animas hominum daemones esse post corpora.

[¶7] He says, indeed, that the souls of men are demons, and that men become Lares if they are good, Lemures or Larvæ if they are bad, and Manes if it is uncertain whether they de serve well or ill. Who does not see at a glance that this is a mere whirlpool sucking men to moral destruction? For, however wicked men have been, if they suppose they shall become Larvæ or divine Manes, they will become the worse the more love they have for inflicting injury; for, as the Larvæ are hurtful demons made out of wicked men, these men must suppose that after death they will be invoked with sacrifices and divine honors that they may inflict injuries. But this question we must not pursue. He also states that the blessed are called in Greek εὐδαίμονες, because they are good souls, that is to say, good demons, confirming his opinion that the souls of men are demons.

> Latin: Dicit quidem et animas hominum daemones esse et ex hominibus fieri lares, si boni meriti sunt; lemures, si mali, seu laruas; manes autem deos dici, si incertum est bonorum eos seu malorum esse meritorum. In qua opinione quantam uoraginem aperiant sectandis perditis moribus, quis non uideat, si uel paululum adtendat? Quando quidem quamlibet nequam homines fuerint, uel laruas se fieri dum opinantur, uel dum manes deos, tanto peiores fiunt, quanto sunt nocendi cupidiores, ut etiam quibusdam sacrificiis tamquam diuinis honoribus post mortem se inuitari opinentur, ut noceant. Laruas quippe dicit esse noxios daemones ex hominibus factos. Sed hinc alia quaestio est. Inde autem perhibet appellari Graece beatos εὐδαίμονας, quod boni sint animi, hoc est boni daemones, animos quoque hominum daemones esse confirmans.

### Of the Three Opposite Qualities by Which the Platonists Distinguish Between the Nature of Men and that of Demons.

[¶9] Chapter 12.—Of the Three Opposite Qualities by Which the Platonists Distinguish Between the Nature of Men and that of Demons.

> Latin: Caput XII. De ternis contrariis, quibus secundum Platonicos daemonum hominumque natura distinguitur.

[¶10] But at present we are speaking of those beings whom he described as being properly intermediate between gods and men, in nature animals, in mind rational, in soul subject to passion, in body aerial, in duration eternal. When he had distinguished the gods, whom he placed in the highest heaven, from men, whom he placed on earth, not only by position but also by the unequal dignity of their natures, he concluded in these words: “You have here two kinds of animals: the gods, widely distinguished from men by sublimity of abode, perpetuity of life, perfection of nature; for their habitations are separated by so wide an interval that there can be no intimate communication between them, and while the vitality of the one is eternal and indefeasible, that of the others is fading and precarious, and while the spirits of the gods are exalted in bliss, those of men are sunk in miseries.” Here I find three opposite qualities ascribed to the extremes of being, the highest and lowest. For, after mentioning the three qualities for which we are to admire the gods, he repeated, though in other words, the same three as a foil to the defects of man. The three qualities are, “sublimity of abode, perpetuity of life, perfection of nature.” These he again mentioned so as to bring out their contrasts in man’s condition. As he had mentioned “sublimity of abode,” he says, “Their habitations are separated by so wide an interval;” as he had mentioned “perpetuity of life,” he says, that “while divine life is eternal 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 of men are sunk in miseries.” These three things, then, he predicates of the gods, exaltation, eternity, blessedness; and of man he predicates the opposite, lowliness of habitation, mortality, misery.

> Latin: Sed nunc de his agimus, quos in natura propria descripsit inter deos et homines genere animalia, mente rationalia, animo passiua, corpore aeria, tempore aeterna. Nempe cum prius deos in sublimi caelo, homines autem in terra infima disiunctos locis et naturae dignitate secerneret, ita conclusit: ‘Habetis. inquit, interim bina animalia: deos ab hominibus plurimum differentes loci sublimitate, uitae perpetuitate, naturae perfectione, nullo inter se propinquo communicatu, cum et habitacula summa ab infimis tanta intercapedo fastigii dispescat, et uiuacitas illic aeterna et indefecta sit, hic caduca et subsiciua, et ingenia illa ad beatitudinem sublimata, haec ad miserias infimata..’ Hic terna uideo commemorata contraria de duabus naturae partibus ultimis, id est summis adque infimis. Nam tria quae proposuit de dis laudabilia, eadem repetiuit, aliis quidem uerbis, ut eis aduersa alia tria ex hominibus redderet. Tria deorum haec sunt: loci sublimitas, uitae perpetuitas. perfectio naturae. Haec aliis uerbis ita repetiuit, ut eis tria contraria hnmanae condicionis obponeret. ‘Cum et habitacula, inquit, summa ab infimis tanta intercapedo fastigii dispescat’, quia dixerat loci sublimitatem; et uiuacitas, inquit, illic aeterna et indefecta sit, hic caduca et subsiciua,) quia dixerat uitae perpetuitatem; (et ingenia illa, inquit, ad beatitudinem sublimata, haec ad miserias infimata’, quia dixerat naturae perfectionem. Tria igitur ab eo posita sunt deorum, id est locus sublimis, aeternitas, beatitudo; et his contraria tria hominum, id est locus infimus, mortalitas, miseria.

### How the Demons Can Mediate Between Gods and Men If They Have Nothing in Common with Both, Being Neither Blessed Like the Gods, Nor Miserable Like Men.

[¶12] Chapter 13.—How the Demons Can Mediate Between Gods and Men If They Have Nothing in Common with Both, Being Neither Blessed Like the Gods, Nor Miserable Like Men.

> Latin: Caput XIII. Quo modo daemones, si nec cum dis beati nec cum hominibus sunt miseri, inter utramque partem sine utriusque communione sint medii.

[¶13] If, now, we endeavor to find between these opposites the mean occupied by the demons, there can be no question as to their local position; for, between the highest and lowest place, there is a place which is rightly considered and called the middle place. The other two qualities remain, and to them we must give greater care, that we may see whether they are altogether foreign to the demons, or how they are so bestowed upon them without infringing upon their mediate position. We may dismiss the idea that they are foreign to them. For we cannot say that the demons, being rational animals, are neither blessed nor wretched, as we say of the beasts and plants, which are void of feeling and reason, or as we say of the 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 neither mortal nor immortal; for all living things either live eternally or end life in death. Our author, besides, stated that the demons are eternal. What remains for us to suppose, then, but that these mediate beings are assimilated to the gods in 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 gods above, or sink to men beneath. Therefore, as it has been demonstrated that they must possess these two qualities, they will hold their middle place if they receive one from each party. Consequently, as they cannot receive their eternity from beneath, because it is not there to receive, they must get it from above; and accordingly they have no choice but to complete their mediate position by accepting misery from men.

> Latin: Inter haec terna deorum et hominum quoniam daemones medios posuit, de’loco nulla est controuersia; inter sublimem quippe et infimum medius locus aptissime habetur et dicitur. Cetera bina restant, quibus cura adtentior adhibenda est, quem ad modum uel aliena esse a daemonibus ostendantur, uel si eis distribuantur, ut medietas uidetur exposcere. Sed ab eis aliena esse non possunt. Non enim sicut dicimus locum medium nec summum esse nec infimum, ita daemones, cum sint animalia rationalia, nec beatos esse nec miseros, sicuti sunt arbusta uel pecora, quae sunt sensus uel rationis expertia, recte possumus dicere. Quorum ergo ratio mentibus inest, aut miseros esse aut beatos necesse est. Item non possumus recte dicere nec mortales esse daemones nec aeternos. Omnia namque uiuentia aut in aeternum uiuunt, aut finiunt morte quod uiuunt. Iam uero iste tempore aeternos daemones dixit. Quid igitur restat, nisi ut hi medii de duobus summis unum habeant et de duobus infimis alterum? Nam si utraque de imis habebunt aut utraque de summis, medii non erunt, sed in alterutram partem uel resiliunt uel recumbunt. Quia ergo his binis, sicut demonstratum est, carere utrisque non possunt, acceptis ex utraque parte singulis mediabuntur. Ac per hoc quia de infimis habere non possunt aeternitatem, quae ibi non est, unum hoc de summis habent; et ideo non est alterum ad conplendam medietatem suam, quod de infimis habeant, nisi miseriam.

[¶14] According to the Platonists, then, the gods, who occupy the highest place, enjoy eternal blessedness, or blessed eternity; men, who occupy the lowest, a mortal misery, or a miserable mortality; and the demons, who occupy the mean, a miserable eternity, or an eternal misery. As to those five things which Apu leius included in his definition of demons, he did not show, as he promised, that the demons are mediate. For three of them, that their nature is animal, their mind rational, their soul subject to passions, he said that they have in common with 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 common with the lowest, and only one in common with the highest? Who does not see that the intermediate position is abandoned in proportion as they tend to, and are depressed towards, the lowest extreme? But perhaps we are to accept them as intermediate because of their one property of an aerial body, as the two extremes have each their proper body, the gods an ethereal, men a terrestrial body, and because two of the qualities they possess in common with man they possess also in common with the gods, namely, their animal nature and rational mind. For Apuleius himself, in speaking of gods and men, said, “You have two animal natures.” And Platonists are wont to ascribe a rational mind to the gods. Two qualities remain, their liability to passion, and their eternity,—the first of which they have in common with men, the second with the gods; so that they are neither wafted to the highest nor depressed to the lowest extreme, but perfectly poised in their intermediate position. But then, this is the very circumstance which constitutes the eternal misery, or miserable eternity, of the demons. For he who says that their soul is subject to passions would also have said that they 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 would not be eternal unless their wickedness were great.

> Latin: Est itaque secundum Platonicos sublimium deorum uel beata aeternitas uel aeterna beatitudo; hominum uero infimorum uel miseria mortalis uel mortalitas misera; daemonum autem mediorum uel misera aeternitas uel aeterna miseria. Nam et quinque illis, quae in definitione daemonum posuit, non eos medios, sicut promittebat, ostendit;. quoniam tria dixit eos habere nobiscum, quod genere animalia, quod mente rationalia, quod animo passiua sunt; cum dis autem unum, quod tempore aeterna; et unum proprium, quod corpore aeria. Quo modo ergo medii, quando unum habent cum summis, tria cum infimis? Quis non uideat relicta medietate quantum inclinentur et deprimantur ad infima? Sed plane etiam ibi medii possunt ita inueniri, ut unum habeant proprium, quod est corpus aerium, sicut et illi de summis adque infimis singula propria, di corpus aetherium hominesque terrenum; duo uero communia sint omnibus, quod genere sunt animalia et mente rationalia. Nam et ipse cum de dis et hominibus loqueretur: ‘Habetis, inquit, bina animalia’, et non solent isti deos nisi rationales mente perhibere. Duo sunt residua, quod sunt animo passiua et tempore aeterna; quorum habent unum cum infimis, cum summis alterum, ut proportionali ratione librata medietas neque sustollatur in summa, neque in infima deprimatur. Ipsa est autem illa daemonum misera aeternitas uel aeterna miseria. Qui enim ait animo passiua’, etiam […] dixisset, nisi eorum cultoribus erubuisset. Porro quia prouidentia summi Dei, sicut etiam ipsi fatentur, non fortuita temeritate regitur mundus, numquam esset istorum aeterna miseria, nisi esset magna malitia. Si igitur beati recte dicuntur eudaemones, non sunt eudaemones daemones, quos inter homines et deos isti in medio locauerunt.

[¶15] If, then, the blessed are rightly styled eudemons, the demons intermediate between gods and men are not eudemons. What, then, is the local position of those good demons, who, above men 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 destroys their intermediate character, giving them a close resemblance to the gods, and widely separating them from men. And therefore the Platonists will in vain strive to show how the good demons, if they are both immortal and blessed, can justly be said to hold a middle place between the gods, who are immortal and blessed, and men, who are mortal and miserable. For if they have both immortality and blessedness in common with the gods, and neither of these in common with men, who are both miserable and mortal, are they not rather remote from men and united with the gods, than intermediate between them. They would be intermediate if they held one of their qualities in common with the one party, and the other with the other, as man is a kind of mean between angels and beasts,—the beast being an irrational and mortal animal, the angel a rational and immortal one, while man, inferior to the angel and superior to the beast, and having in common with the one mortality, and with the other reason, is a rational and mortal animal. So, when we seek for an intermediate between the blessed immortals and miserable mortals, we should find a being which is either mortal and blessed, or immortal and miserable.

> Latin: Quis ergo est locus bonorum daemonum, qui supra homines, infra deos istis praebeant adiutorium, illis ministerium? Si enim boni aeternique sunt, profecto et beati sunt. Aeterna autem beatitudo medios eos esse non sinit, quia multum cum dis conparat multumque ab hominibus separat. Unde frustra isti conabuntur ostendere, quo modo daemones boni, si et inmortales sunt et beati, recte medii constituantur inter deos inmortales ac beatos et homines mortales ac miseros. Cum enim utrumque habeant cum dis, et beatitudinem scilicet et inmortalitatem, nihil autem horum cum hominibus et miseris et mortalibus: quo modo non potius remoti sunt ab hominibus disque coniuncti, quam inter utrosque medii constituti? Tunc enim medii essent, si haberent et ipsi duo quaedam sua, non cum binis alterutrorum, sed cum singulis utrorumque communia; sicut homo medium quiddam est, sed inter pecora et angelos, ut, quia pecus est animal inrationale adque mortale, angelus autem rationale et inmortale, medius homo est, sed inferior angelis, superior pecoribus, habens cum pecoribus mortalitatem, rationem cum angelis, animal rationale mortale. Ita ergo cum quaerimus medium inter beatos inmortales miserosque mortales, hoc inuenire debemus, quod aut mortale sit beatum, aut inmortale sit miserum.

### Whether Men, Though Mortal, Can Enjoy True Blessedness.

[¶17] Chapter 14.—Whether Men, Though Mortal, Can Enjoy True Blessedness.

> Latin: Caput XIV. An homines, cum sint mortales, possint uera beatitudine esse felices.

[¶18] It is a great question among men, whether man can be mortal and blessed. Some, taking the humbler view of his condition, have denied that he is capable of blessedness so long as he continues in this mortal life; others, again, have spurned this idea, and have been bold enough to maintain that, even though mortal, men may be blessed by attaining wisdom. But if this be the case, why are not these wise men constituted mediators between miserable mortals and the blessed immortals, since they have blessedness in common with the latter, and mortality in common with the former? Certainly, if they are blessed, they envy no one (for what more miserable than envy?), but seek with all their might to help miserable mortals on to blessedness, so that after death they may become immortal, and be associated with the blessed and immortal angels.

> Latin: Utrum et beatus et mortalis homo esse possit, magna est inter homines quaestio. Quidam enim condicionem suam humilius inspexerunt negaueruntque hominem capacem esse posse beatitudinis, quamdiu mortaliter uiuit. Quidam uero extulerunt se et ausi sunt dicere sapientiae compotes beatos esse posse mortales. Quod si ita est, quur non ipsi potius medii constituuntur inter mortales miseros et inmortales beatos, beatitudinem habentes cum inmortalibus beatis; mortalitatem cum mortalibus miseris? Profecto enim, si beati sunt, inuident nemini (nam quid miserius inuidentia?) et ideo mortalibus miseris, quantum possunt, ad consequendam beatitudinem consulunt, ut etiam inmortales ualeant esse post mortem et angelis inmortalibus beatisque coniungi.

### Of the Man Christ Jesus, the Mediator Between God and Men.

[¶20] Chapter 15.—Of the Man Christ Jesus, the Mediator Between God and Men.

> Latin: Caput XV. De mediatore Dei et hominum, homine Christo lesu.

[¶21] But if, as is much more probable and credible, it must needs be that all men, so long as they are mortal, are also miserable, 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 a blessed immortality. In this intermediate two things are requisite, that He become mortal, and that He do not continue mortal. He did become mortal, not rendering the divinity of the Word infirm, but assuming the infirmity of flesh. Neither did He continue mortal in the flesh, but raised it from the dead; for it is the very fruit of His mediation that those, for the sake of whose redemption He became the Mediator, should not abide eternally in bodily death. Wherefore it became the Mediator between us and God to have both a transient mortality and a permanent blessedness, that by that which is transient He might be assimilated to mortals, and might translate them from mortality to that which is permanent. Good angels, therefore, cannot mediate between miserable mortals and blessed immortals, for they themselves also are both blessed and immortal; but evil angels can mediate, because they are immortal like the one party, miserable like the other. To these is opposed the good Mediator, who, in opposition to their immortality and misery, has chosen to be mortal for a time, and has been able to continue blessed in eternity. It is thus He has destroyed, by the humility of His death and the benignity of His blessedness, those proud immortals and hurtful wretches, and has prevented them from seducing to misery by their boast of immortality those men whose hearts He has cleansed by faith, and whom He has thus freed from their impure dominion.

> Latin: Si autem, quod multo credibilius et probabilius disputatur. omnes homines, quamdiu mortales sunt, etiam miseri sint necesse est, quaerendus est medius, qui non solum homo. uerum etiam deus sit, ut homines ex mortali miseria ad beatam inmortalitatem huius medii beata mortalitas interueniendo perducat; quem neque non fieri mortalem oportebat. neque permanere mortalem. Mortalis quippe factus est non infirmata Verbi diuinitate, sed carnis infirmitate suscepta; non autem permansit in ipsa carne mortalis, quam resuscitauit a mortuis; quoniam ipse est fructus mediationis eius, ut nec ipsi, propter quos liberandos mediator effectus est, in perpetua uel carnis morte remanerent. Proinde mediatorem inter nos et Deum et mortalitatem habere oportuit transeuntem et beatitudinem permanentem, ut per id, quod transit, congrueret morituris, et ad id, quod permanet, transferret ex mortuis. Boni igitur angeli inter miseros mortales et beatos inmortales medii esse non possunt, quia ipsi quoque et beati et inmortales sunt; possunt autem medii esse angeli mali, quia inmortales sunt cum illis, miseri cum istis. His contrarius est mediator bonus, qui aduersus eorum inmortalitatem et miseriam et mortalis esse ad tempus uoluit, et beatus in aeternitate persistere potuit; ac sic eos et inmortales superbos et miseros noxios, ne inmortalitatis iactantia seducerent ad miseriam, et suae mortis humilitate et suae beatitudinis benignitate destruxit in eis, quorum corda per suam fidem mundans ab illorum inmundissima dominatione liberauit.

[¶22] Man, then, mortal and miserable, and far removed from the immortal and the blessed, what medium shall he choose by which he may be united to immortality and blessedness? The immortality of the demons, which might have some charm for man, is miserable; the mortality of Christ, which might offend man, exists no longer. In the one there is the fear of an eternal misery; in the other, death, which could not be eternal, can no longer be feared, and blessedness, which is eternal, must be loved. For the immortal and miserable mediator interposes himself to prevent us from passing to a blessed immortality, because that which hinders such a passage, namely, misery, continues in him; but the mortal and blessed Mediator interposed Himself, in order that, having passed through mortality, He might of mortals make immortals (showing His power to do this in His own resurrection), and from being miserable to raise them to the blessed company 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 who separate are numerous, because the multitude of the blessed are blessed only by their participation in the one God; of which participation 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 one beatific good, to obtain which we need not many but one Mediator, the uncreated Word of God, by whom all things were made, and in partaking of whom we are blessed. I do not say that He is Mediator because He is the Word, for as the Word He is supremely blessed and supremely immortal, and therefore far from miserable mortals; but He is Mediator as He is man, for by His humanity He shows us that, in order to obtain that blessed and beatific good, we need not seek other mediators to lead us through the successive steps of this attainment, but that the blessed and beatific God, having Himself become a partaker of our humanity, has afforded us ready access to the participation of His divinity. For in delivering us from our mortality and misery, He does not lead us to the immortal and blessed angels, so that we should become immortal and blessed by participating in their nature, 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 than the angels, that He might be our Mediator, He remained higher than the angels, in the form of God,—Himself at once the way of life on earth and life itself in heaven.

> Latin: Homo itaque mortalis et miser longe seiunctus ab inmortalibus et beatis quid eligat medium, per quod inmortalitati et beatitudini copuletur? Quod possit delectare in daemonum in mortalitate, miserum est; quod posset offendere in Christi mortalitate, iam non est. Ibi ergo cauenda est miseria sempiterna; hic mors timenda non est, quae non esse potuit sempiterna, et beatitudo amanda est sempiterna. Ad hoc se quippe interponit medius inmortalis et miser, ut ad inmortalitatem beatam transire non sinat, quoniam persistit quod inpedit, id est ipsa miseria; ad hoc se autem interposuit mortalis et beatus, ut mortalitate transacta et ex mortuis faceret inmortales, quod in se resurgendo monstrauit, et ex miseris beatos, unde numquam ipse discessit. Alius est ergo medius malus, qui separat amicos; alius bonus, qui reconciliat inimicos. Et ideo multi sunt medii separatores, quia multitudo. quae beata est, unius Dei participatione fit beata; cuius participationis priuatione misera multitudo malorum angelorum. quae se obponit potius ad inpedimentum, quam interponit ad beatitudinis adiutorium, etiam ipsa multitudine obstrepit quodam modo, ne possit ad illud unum beatificum perueniri, ad quod ut perduceremur, non multis, sed uno mediatore opus erat, et hoc eo ipso, cuius participatione simus beati, hoc est Verbo Dei non facto, per quod facta sunt omnia. Nec tamen ob hoc mediator est, quia Verbum; maxime quippe inmortale et maxime beatum Verbum longe est a mortalibus miseris; sed mediator, per quod homo, eo ipso utique ostendens ad illud non solum beatum, uerum etiam beatificum bonum non oportere quaeri alios mediatores, per quos arbitremur nobis peruentionis gradus esse moliendos, quia beatus et beatificus Deus factus particeps humanitatis nostrae conpendium praebuit participandae diuinitatis suae. Neque enim nos a mortalitate et miseria liberans ad angelos inmortales beatosque ita perducit, ut eorum participatione etiam nos inmortales et beati simus; sed ad illam Trinitatem, cuius et angeli participatione beati sunt. Ideo quando in forma serui. ut mediator esset, infra angelos esse uoluit, in forma Dei supra angelos mansit; idem in inferioribus uia uitae, qui in superioribus uita.

## 46. Whether It is Reasonable in the Platonists to Determine that the Celestial Gods Decline Contact with Earthly Things and Intercourse with Men, Who Therefore Require the Intercession of the Demons.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/46/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/46/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 16.—Whether It is Reasonable in the Platonists to Determine that the Celestial Gods Decline Contact with Earthly Things and Intercourse with Men, Who Therefore Require the Intercession of the Demons.

> Latin: Caput XVI. An rationabiliter Platonici definierint deos caelestes declinantes terrena contagia hominibus non misceri, quibus ad amicitiam deorum daemones suffragentur.

[¶1] That opinion, which the same Platonist avers that Plato uttered, is not true, “that no god holds intercourse with men.” And this, he says, is the chief evidence of their exaltation, that they are never contaminated by contact with men. He admits, therefore, that the demons are contaminated; and it follows that they cannot cleanse those by whom they are themselves contaminated, and thus all alike become impure, the demons by associating with men, and men by worshipping the demons. Or, if they say that the demons are not contaminated by associating and dealing with men, then they are better than the gods, for the gods, were they to do so, would be contaminated. For this, we are told, is the glory of the gods, that they are so highly exalted that no human intercourse can sully them. He affirms, indeed, that the supreme God, the Creator of all things, whom we call the true God, is spoken of by Plato as the only God whom the poverty of human speech fails even passably to describe; and that even the wise, when their mental energy is as far as possible delivered from the trammels of connection with the body, have only such gleams of insight into His nature as may be compared to a flash of lightning illumining the darkness. If, then, this supreme God, who is truly exalted above all things, does nevertheless visit the minds of the wise, when emancipated from the body, with an intelligible and ineffable presence, though this be only occasional, and as it were a swift flash of light athwart the darkness, why are the other gods so sublimely removed from 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 our eyes to those heavenly bodies which give the earth its needful light. If the stars, though they, by his account, are visible gods, are not contaminated when we look at them, neither are the demons contaminated when men see them quite closely. But perhaps it is the human voice, and not the eye, which pollutes the gods; and therefore the demons are appointed to mediate and carry men’s utterances to the gods, who keep themselves remote through fear of pollution? What am I to say of the other senses? For by smell neither the demons, who are present, nor the gods, though they were present and inhaling the exhalations of living men, would be polluted if they are not contaminated with the effluvia of the carcasses offered in sacrifice. As for taste, they are pressed by no necessity of repairing bodily decay, so as to be reduced to ask food from men. And touch is in their own power. For while it may seem that contact is so called, because the sense of touch is specially concerned in it, yet the gods, if so minded, might mingle with men, so as to see and be seen, hear and be heard; and where is the need of touching? For men would not dare to desire this, if they were favored with the sight or conversation of gods or good demons; and if through excessive curiosity they should desire it, how could they accomplish their wish without the consent of the god or demon, when they cannot touch so much as a sparrow unless it be caged?

> Latin: Non enim uerum est, quod idem Platonicus ait Platonem dixisse: ‘Nullus Deus miscetur homini ; et hoc praecipuum eorum sublimitatis ait esse specimen, quod nulla adtrectatione hominum contaminantur. Ergo daemones contaminari fatetur, et ideo eos, a quibus contaminantur, mundare non possunt omnesque inmundi pariter fiunt, et daemones contrectatione hominum et homines cultu daemonum. Aut si et contrectari miscerique hominibus, nec tamen contaminari daemones possunt, dis profecto meliores sunt, quia illi, si miscerentur, contaminarentur. Nam hoc deorum dicitur esse praecipuum, ut eos sublimiter separatos humana contrectatio contaminare non possit. Deum quidem summum omnium creatorem, quem nos uerum Deum dicimus, sic a Platone praedicari adseuerat, quod ipse sit solus qui non possit penuria sermonis humani quauis oratione uel modice conprehendi; uix autem sapientibus uiris, cum se uigore animi quantum licuit a corpore remouerunt, intellectum huius Dei, id quoque interdum uelut in altissimis tenebris rapidissimo coruscamine lumen candidum intermicare. Si ergo supra omnia uere summus Deus intellegibili et ineffabili quadam praesentia, etsi interdum, etsi tamquam rapidissimo coruscamine lumen candidum intermicans, adest tamen sapientium mentibus, cum se quantum licuit a corpore remouerunt, nec ab eis contaminari potest: quid est quod isti di propterea constituuntur longe in sublimi loco, ne contrectatione contaminentur humana? Quasi uero aliud corpora illa aetheria quam uidere sufficiat, quorum luce terra, quantum sufficit, inlustratur. Porro si non contaminantur sidera, cum uidentur, quos deos omnes uisibiles dicit: nec daemones hominum contaminantur aspectu, quamuis de proximo uideantur. An forte uocibus humanis contaminarentur, qui acie non contaminantur oculorum, et ideo daemones medios habent, per quos eis uoces hominum nuntientur, a quibus longe absunt, ut incontaminatissimi perseuerent? Quid iam de ceteris sensibus dicam? Non enim olfaciendo contaminari uel di possent, si adessent, uel cum adsunt daemones possunt uiuorum corporum uaporibus humanorum, si tantis sacrificiorum cadauerinis non contaminantur nidoribus. In gustandi autem sensu nulla necessitate reficiendae mortalitatis urgentur, ut fame adacti cibos ab hominibus quaerant. Tactus uero in potestate est. Nam licet ab eo potissimum sensu contrectatio dicta uideatur, hactenus tamen, si uellent, miscerentur hominibus, ut uiderent et uiderentur, audirent et audirentur. Tangendi autem quae necessitas? Nam neque homines id concupiscere auderent, cum deorum uel daemonum bonorum conspectu uel conloquio fruerentur; et si in tantum curiositas progrederetur, ut uellet: quonam pacto quispiam posset inuitum tangere deum uel daemonem, qui nisi captum non potest passerem?

[¶2] There is, then, nothing to hinder the gods from mingling in a bodily form with men, from seeing and being seen, from speaking and hearing. And if the demons do thus mix with men, as I said, and are not polluted, while the gods, were they to do so, should be polluted, then the demons are less liable to pollution than the gods. And if even the demons are contaminated, how can they help men to attain blessedness after death, if, so far from being able to cleanse them, and present them clean to the unpolluted gods, these mediators are themselves polluted? And if they cannot confer this benefit on men, what good can their friendly mediation do? Or shall its result be, not that men find entrance to the gods, but that men and demons abide together in a state of pollution, and consequently of exclusion from blessedness? Unless, perhaps, some one may say that, like sponges or things of that sort, the demons themselves, in the process of cleansing their friends, become themselves the filthier in proportion as the others become clean. But if this is the solution, then the gods, who shun contact or intercourse with men for fear of pollution, mix with demons who are far more polluted. Or perhaps the gods, 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? If seeing and being seen is contamination, and if the gods, whom Apuleius himself calls visible, “the brilliant lights of the world,” and the other stars, are seen by men, are we to believe that the demons, who cannot be seen unless they please, are safer from contamination? Or if it is only the seeing and not the being seen which contaminates, then they must deny that these gods of theirs, these brilliant lights of the world, see men when their rays beam upon the earth. Their rays are not contaminated by lighting on all manner of pollution, and are we to suppose that the gods would be contaminated if they mixed with men, and even if contact were needed in order to assist them? For there is contact between the earth and the sun’s or moon’s rays, and yet this does not pollute the light.

> Latin: Videndo igitur uisibusque se praebendo et loquendo et audiendo di corporaliter misceri hominibus possent. Hoc autem modo daemones si miscentur, ut dixi, et non contaminantur, di autem contaminarentur, si miscerentur: incontaminabiles dicunt daemones et contaminabiles deos. Si autem contaminantur et daemones, quid conferunt hominibus ad uitam post mortem beatam. quos contaminati mundare non possunt, ut eos mundos dis incontaminatis possint adiungere, inter quos et illos medii constituti sunt? Aut si hoc eis beneficii non conferunt, quid prodest hominibus daemonum amica mediatio? An ut post mortem non ad deos homines per daemones transeant, sed simul uiuant utrique contaminati ac per hoc neutri beati? Nisi forte quis dicat more spongiarum uel huiusce modi rerum mundare daemones amicos suos, ut tanto ipsi sordidiores fiant, quanto fiunt homines eis uelut tergentibus mundiores. Quod si ita est, contaminatioribus di miscentur daemonibus, qui, ne contaminarentur, hominum propinquitatem contrectationemque uitarunt. An forte di possunt ab hominibus contaminatos mundare daemones, nec ab eis contaminari, et eo modo non possent et homines? Quis talia sentiat, nisi quem fallacissimi daemones deceperunt? Quid quod, si uideri et uidere contaminat, uidentur ab hominibus di, quos uisibiles dicit, ‘clarissima mundi lumina) et cetera sidera, tutioresque sunt daemones ab ista hominum contaminatione, qui non possunt uideri, nisi uelint? Aut si non uideri, sed uidere contaminat, negent ab istis clarissimis mundi luminibus, quos deos opinantur, uideri homines, cum radios suos terras usque pertendant. Qui tamen eorum radii per quaeque inmunda diffusi non contaminantur, et di contaminarentur, si hominibus miscerentur, etiamsi esset necessarius in subueniendo contactus? Nam radiis solis et lunae terra contingitur, nec istam contaminat lucem.

### That to Obtain the Blessed Life, Which Consists in Partaking of the Supreme Good, Man Needs Such Mediation as is Furnished Not by a Demon, But by Christ Alone.

[¶4] Chapter 17.—That to Obtain the Blessed Life, Which Consists in Partaking of the Supreme Good, Man Needs Such Mediation as is Furnished Not by a Demon, But by Christ Alone.

> Latin: Caput XVII. Ad consequendam uitam beatam, quae in participat participatione a est summi boni, non tali mediatore indigere hominem qualis est daemon, sed tali qualis est unus Christus.

[¶5] I am considerably surprised that such learned men, men who 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 blessed life. Is that sentiment of Plotinus forgotten?—“We must fly to our beloved fatherland. There is the Father, there our all. What fleet or flight shall convey us thither? Our way is, to become like God.” If, then, one is nearer to God the liker he 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 as it craves things temporal and mutable. And as the things beneath, which are mortal and impure, cannot hold intercourse with the immortal purity which is above, a mediator is indeed needed to remove this difficulty; but not a mediator who resembles the highest order of being by possessing an immortal body, and the lowest by having a diseased soul, which makes him rather grudge that we be healed than help our cure. We need a Mediator who, being united to us here below by the mortality of His body, should at the same time be able to afford us truly divine help in cleansing and liberating us by means of the immortal righteousness of His spirit, whereby He remained heavenly even while here upon earth. Far be it from the incontaminable God to fear pollution from the man He assumed, or from the men among whom He lived in the form of a man. For, though His incarnation showed us nothing else, these two wholesome facts were enough, that true divinity cannot be polluted by flesh, and that demons are not to be considered better than ourselves because they have not flesh. This, then, as Scripture says, is the “Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus,” of whose divinity, whereby He is equal to the Father, and humanity, whereby He has become like us, this is not the place to speak as fully as I could.

> Latin: Miror autem plurimum tam doctos homines, qui cuncta corporalia et sensibilia prae incorporalibus et intellegibilibus postponenda iudicauerunt, cum agitur de beata uita, corporalium contrectationum facere mentionem. Ubi est illud Plotini, ubi ait: Fugiendum est igitur ad carissimam patriam, et ibi pater, et ibi omnia. Quae igitur, inquit, classis aut fuga? Similem Deo fieri.’ Si ergo deo quanto similior, tanto fit quisque propinquior, nulla est ab illo alia longinquitas quam eius dissimilitudo. Incorporali uero illi aeterno et incommutabili tanto est anima hominis dissimilior, quanto rerum temporalium mutabiliumque cupidior. Hoc ut sanetur, quoniam inmortali puritati, quae in summo est, ea quae in imo sunt mortalia et inmunda conuenire non possunt, opus est quidem mediatore; non tamen tali, qui corpus quidem habeat inmortale propinquum summis, animum autem morbidum similem infimis (quo morbo nobis inuideat potius ne sanemur, quam adiuuet ut sanemur); sed tali, qui nobis infimis ex corporis mortalitate coaptatus inmortali spiritus iustitia, per quam non locorum distantia, sed similitudinis excellentia mansit in summis, mundandis liberandisque nobis uere diuinum praebeat adiutorium. Qui profecto incontaminabilis Deus absit ut contaminationem timeret ex homine quo indutus est, aut ex hominibus inter quos in homine conuersatus est. Non enim parua sunt haec interim duo, quae salubriter sua incarnatione monstrauit, nec carne posse contaminari ueram diuinitatem, nec ideo putandos daemones nobis esse meliores, quia non habent carnem. Hic est, sicut eum sancta scriptura praedicat, mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus. de cuius et diuinitate, qua patri est semper aequalis, et humanitate, qua nobis factus est similis, non hic locus est ut conpetenter pro nostra facultate dicamus.

### That the Deceitful Demons, While Promising to Conduct Men to God by Their Intercession, Mean to Turn Them from the Path of Truth.

[¶7] Chapter 18.—That the Deceitful Demons, While Promising to Conduct Men to God by Their Intercession, Mean to Turn Them from the Path of Truth.

> Latin: Caput XVIII. Quod fallacia daemonum, dum sua intercessione uiam spondet ad Deum, hoc adnitatur, ut homines a uia ueritatis auertat.

[¶8] As to the demons, these false and deceitful mediators, who, though their uncleanness of spirit frequently reveals their misery and malignity, yet, by virtue of the levity of their aerial bodies and the nature of the places they inhabit, do contrive to turn us aside and hinder our spiritual progress; they do not help us towards God, but rather prevent us from reaching Him. Since even in the bodily way, which is erroneous and misleading, and in which righteousness does not walk,—for we must rise to God not by bodily ascent, but by incorporeal or spiritual conformity to Him,—in this bodily way, I say, which the friends of the demons arrange according to the weight of the various elements, the aerial demons being set between the ethereal gods and earthy men, they imagine the gods to have this privilege, that by this local interval they are preserved from the pollution of human contact. Thus they believe that the demons are contaminated by men rather than men cleansed by the demons, and that the gods themselves should be polluted unless their local superiority preserved them. Who is so wretched a creature as to expect purification by a way in which men are contaminating, demons contaminated, and gods contaminable? Who would not rather choose that way whereby we escape the contamination of the demons, and are cleansed from pollution by the incontaminable God, so as to be associated with the uncontaminated angels?

> Latin: Falsi autem illi fallacesque mediatores daemones, qui, cum per spiritus inmunditiam miseri ac maligni multis effectibus r clareant, per corporalium tamen locorum interualla et per aeriorum corporum leuitatem a prouectu animorum nos auocare adque auertere moliuntur, non uiam praebent ad Deum, sed. ne uia teneatur, inpediunt. Quando quidem et in ipsa uia corporali (quae falsissima est et plenissima erroris, qua non iter agit iustitia; quoniam non per corporalem altitudinem, sed per spiritalem, hoc est incorporalem, similitudinem ad Deum debemus ascendere) — in ipsa tamen uia corporali. quam daemonum amici per elementorum gradus ordinant inter aetherios deos et terrenos homines aeriis daemonibus mediis constitutis, hoc deos opinantur habere praecipuum, ut propter hoc interuallum locorum contrectatione non contaminentur humana. Ita daemones contaminari potius ab hominibus, quam homines mundari a daemonibus credunt, et deos ipsos contaminari potuisse, nisi loci altitudine munirentur. Quis tam infelix est, ut ista uia mundari se existimet, ubi homines contaminantes, daemones contaminati, di contaminabiles praedicantur, et non potius eligat uiam, ubi contaminantes magis daemones euitentur et ab incontaminabili Deo ad ineundam societatem incontaminatorum angelorum homines a contaminatione mundentur?

### That Even Among Their Own Worshippers the Name ‘Demon’ Has Never a Good Signification.

[¶10] Chapter 19.—That Even Among Their Own Worshippers the Name “Demon” Has Never a Good Signification.

> Latin: Caput XIX. Quod appellatio daemonum iam nec aput cultores eorum adsumatur in significationem alicuius boni.

[¶11] But as some of these demonolators, as I may call them, and among them Labeo, allege that those whom they call demons are by others called angels, I must, if I would not seem to dispute merely about words, say something about the good angels. The Platonists do not deny their existence, but prefer to call them good demons. But we, following Scripture, according to which we are Christians, have learned that some of the angels are good, some bad, but never have we read in Scripture of good demons; but wherever this or any cognate term occurs, it is applied only to wicked spirits. And this usage has become so universal, that, even among those who are called pagans, and who maintain that demons as well as gods should be worshipped, there is scarcely a man, no matter how well read and learned, who would dare to say by way of praise to his slave, You have a demon, or who could doubt that the man to whom he said this would consider it a curse? Why, then, are we to subject ourselves to the necessity of explaining away what we have said when we have given offence by using the word demon, with which every one, or almost every one, connects a bad meaning, while we can so easily evade this necessity by using the word angel?

> Latin: Sed ne de uerbis etiam nos certare uideamur, quoniam nonnulli istorum, ut ita dixerim, daemonicolarum, in quibus et Labeo est, eosdem perhibent ab aliis angelos dici, quos ipsi daemones nuncupant, iam mihi de bonis angelis aliquid uideo disserendum, quos isti esse non negant, sed eos bonos daemones uocare quam angelos malunt. Nos autem, sicut scriptura loquitur, secundum quam Christiani sumus, angelos quidem partim bonos, partim malos, numquam uero bonos daemones legimus; sed ubicumque illarum litterarum hoc nomen positum reperitur, siue daemones, siue daemonia dicantur, non nisi maligni significantur spiritus. Et hanc loquendi consuetudinem in tantum populi usquequaque secuti sunt, ut eorum etiam, qui pagani appellantur et deos multos ac daemones colendos esse contendunt, nullus fere sit tam litteratus et doctus, qui audeat in laude uel seruo suo dicere: ‘Daemonem habes’; sed quilibet hoc dicere uoluerit, non se aliter accipi, quam maledicere uoluisse, dubitare non possit. Quae igitur nos causa conpellit, ut post offensionem aurium tam multarum, ut iam paene sint omnium, quae hoc uerbum non nisi in malam partem audire consuerunt, quod diximus cogamur exponere, cum possimus angelorum nomine adhibito eandem offensionem, quae nomine daemonum fieri poterat, euitare?

### Of the Kind of Knowledge Which Puffs Up the Demons.

[¶13] Chapter 20.—Of the Kind of Knowledge Which Puffs Up the Demons.

> Latin: Caput XX. De qualitate scientiae, quae daemones superbos facit.

[¶14] However, the very origin of the name suggests something worthy of consideration, if we compare it with the divine books. They are called demons from a Greek word meaning knowledge. 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 without charity knowledge does no good, but inflates a man or magnifies him with an empty windiness. The demons, then, have knowledge without charity, and are thereby so inflated or proud, that they crave those divine honors 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 have influence. Against this pride of the demons, under which the human race was held subject as its merited punishment, there was exerted the mighty influence of the humility of God, who appeared in the form of a servant; but men, resembling the demons in pride, but not in knowledge, and being puffed up with uncleanness, failed to recognize Him.

> Latin: Quamquam etiam ipsa origo huius nominis, si diuinos intueamur libros, aliquid adfert cognitione dignissimum. Daemones enim dicuntur (quoniam uocabulum Graecum est) ob scientiam nominati. Apostolus autem spiritu sancto locutus ait: Scientia inflat, caritas uero aedificat; quod recte aliter non intellegitur, nisi scientiam tunc prodesse, cum caritas inest; sine hac autem inflare, id est in superbiam inanissimae quasi uentositatis extollere. Est ergo in daemonibus scientia sine caritate, et ideo tam inflati, hoc est tam superbi sunt, ut honores diuinos et religionis seruitutem, quam uero Deo deberi sciunt, sibi satis egerint exhiberi, et quantum possunt aput quos possunt adhuc agant. Contra superbiam porro daemonum, qua pro meritis possidebatur genus humanum, Dei humilitas, quae in Christo apparuit, quantam uirtutem habeat, animae hominum nesciunt inmunditia elationis inflatae, daemonibus similes, non scientia sed superbia.

### To What Extent the Lord Was Pleased to Make Himself Known to the Demons.

[¶16] Chapter 21.—To What Extent the Lord Was Pleased to Make Himself Known to the Demons.

> Latin: Caput XXI. Ad quem modum Dominus uoluerit daemonibus innotescere.

[¶17] The devils themselves knew this manifestation of God so well, that they said to the Lord though clothed with the infirmity of flesh, “What have we to do with Thee, Jesus of Nazareth? Art Thou come to destroy us before the time?” From these words, it is clear that they had great knowledge, and no charity. They feared His power to punish, and did not love His righteousness. He made known to them so much as He pleased, and He was pleased to make known so much as was needful. But He made Himself known not as to the holy angels, who know Him as the Word of God, and rejoice in His eternity, which they partake, but as was requisite to strike with terror the beings from whose tyranny He was going to free those who were predestined to His kingdom and the glory of it, eternally true and truly eternal. He made Himself known, therefore, to the demons, not by that which is life eternal, and the unchangeable light which illumines the pious, whose souls are cleansed by the faith that is in Him, but by some temporal effects of His power, and evidences of His mysterious presence, which were more easily discerned by the angelic senses even of wicked spirits than by human infirmity. But when He judged it advisable gradually to suppress these signs, and to retire into deeper obscurity, the prince of the demons doubted whether He were the Christ, and endeavored to ascertain this by tempting Him, in so far as He permitted Himself to be tempted, that He might adapt the manhood He wore to be an example for our imitation. But after that temptation, when, as Scripture says, He was ministered to by the angels who are good and holy, and therefore objects of terror to the impure spirits, He revealed more and more distinctly to the demons how great He was, so that, even though the infirmity of His flesh might seem contemptible, none dared to resist His authority.

> Latin: Ipsi autem daemones etiam hoc ita sciunt, ut eidem Domino infirmitate carnis induto dixerint: Quid nobis et tibi, Iesu Nazarene? Venisti perdere nos? Clarum est in his uerbis, quod in eis et tanta scientia erat, et caritas non erat. Poenam suam quippe formidabant ab illo, non in illo iustitiam diligebant. Tantum uero eis innotuit, quantum uoluit; tantum autem uoluit, quantum oportuit. Sed innotuit non sicut angelis sanctis, qui eius, secundum id quod Dei Verbum est, participata aeternitate perfruuntur, sed sicut eis terrendis innotescendum fuit, ex quorum tyrannica quodam modo potestate fuerat liberaturus praedestinatos in suum regnum et gloriam semper ueracem et ueraciter sempiternam. Innotuit ergo daemonibus non per id. quod est uita aeterna et lumen incommutabile, quod inluminat pios, cui uidendo per fidem, quae in illo est, corda mundantur, sed per quaedam temporalia suae uirtutis effecta et occultissimae signa praesentiae, quae angelicis sensibus etiam malignorum spirituum potius quam infirmitati hominum possint esse conspicua. Denique quando ea paululum subprimenda iudicauit et aliquanto altius latuit, dubitauit de illo daemonum princeps eumque tentauit, an Christus esset explorans, quantum se tentari ipse permisit, ut hominem, quem gerebat, ad nostrae imitationis temperaret exemplum. Post illam uero tentationem, cum angeli, sicut scriptum est, ministrarent ei, boni utique et sancti ac per hoc spiritibus inmundis metuendi et tremendi, magis magisque innotescebat daemonibus quantus esset, ut ei iubenti, quamuis in illo contemtibilis uideretur carnis infirmitas, resistere nullus auderet.

### The Difference Between the Knowledge of the Holy Angels and that of the Demons.

[¶19] Chapter 22.—The Difference Between the Knowledge of the Holy Angels and that of the Demons.

> Latin: Caput XXII. Quid intersit inter scientiam sanctorum angelorum et scientiam daemonum.

[¶20] The good angels, therefore, hold cheap all that knowledge of material and transitory things which the demons are so proud of possessing,—not that they are ignorant of these things, but because the love of God, whereby they are sanctified, is very dear to them, and because, in comparison of that not merely immaterial but also unchangeable and ineffable beauty, with the holy love of which they are inflamed, they despise all things which are beneath it, and all that is not it, that they may with every good thing that is in them enjoy that good which is the source of their goodness. And therefore they have a more certain knowledge even of those temporal and mutable things, because they contemplate their principles and causes 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 wisdom of God these eternal, and, as it were, cardinal causes of things temporal, but only foresee a larger part of the future than men do, by reason of their greater acquaintance with the signs which 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 aid of things temporal and changeable, to conjecture the changes that may occur in time, and to modify such things by one’s own will and faculty,—and this is to a certain extent permitted to the demons,—it is another thing to foresee the changes of times in the eternal and immutable laws of God, which live in His wisdom, and to know the will of God, the most infallible and powerful of all causes, by participating in His spirit; and this is granted to the holy angels by a just discretion. And thus they are not only eternal, but blessed. And the good wherein they are blessed is God, by whom they were created. For without end they enjoy the contemplation and participation of Him.

> Latin: His igitur angelis bonis omnis corporalium temporaliumque rerum scientia, qua inflantur daemones, uilis est: non quod earum ignari sint, sed quod illis Dei, qua sanctificantur, caritas cara est, prae cuius non tantum incorporali, uerum etiam incommutabili et ineffabili pulchritudine. cuius sancto amore inardescunt, omnia, quae infra sunt et, quod illud est, non sunt seque ipsos inter illa contemnunt, ut ex toto, quod boni sunt, eo bono, ex quo boni sunt, perfruantur. Et ideo certius etiam temporalia et mutabilia ista nouerunt, quia eorum principales causas in Verbo Dei conspiciunt, per quod factus est mundus; quibus causis quaedam probantur, quaedam reprobantur, cuncta ordinantur. Daemones autem non aeternas temporum causas et quodam modo cardinales in Dei sapientia contemplantur, sed quorundam signorum nobis occultorum maiore experientia multo plura quam homines futura prospiciunt; dispositiones quoque suas aliquando praenuntiant. Denique saepe isti, numquam illi omnino falluntur. Aliud est enim temporalibus temporalia et mutabilibus mutabilia coniectare eisque temporalem et mutabilem modum suae uoluntatis et facultatis inserere, quod daemonibus certa ratione permissum est; aliud autem in aeternis adque incommutabilibus Dei legibus, quae in eius sapientia uiuunt, mutationes temporum praeuidere Deique uoluntatem, quae tam certissima quam potentissima est omnium, spiritus eius participatione cognoscere; quod sanctis angelis recta discretione donatum est. Itaque non solum aeterni, uerum etiam beati sunt. Bonum autem, quo beati sunt, Deus illis est, a quo creati sunt. Illius quippe indeclinabiliter participatione et contemplatione perfruuntur.

## 47. That the Name of Gods is Falsely Given to the Gods of the Gentiles, Though Scripture Applies It Both to the Holy Angels and Just Men.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/47/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/47/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 23.—That the Name of Gods is Falsely Given to the Gods of the Gentiles, Though Scripture Applies It Both to the Holy Angels and Just Men.

> Latin: Caput XXIII. Nomen deorum falso adscribi dis gentium, quod tamen et angelis sanctis et homiuibus iustis ex diuinarum scripturarum auctoritate commune est.

[¶1] If the Platonists prefer to call these angels gods rather than demons, and to reckon them with those whom Plato, their founder and master, maintains were created by the supreme God, they are welcome to do so, for I will not spend strength in fighting about words. For if they say that these beings are immortal, and yet created by the supreme God, blessed but by cleaving to their Creator and not by their own power, they say what we say, whatever name they call these beings by. And that this is the opinion either of all or the best of the Platonists can be ascertained by their writings. And regarding the name itself, if they see fit to call such blessed and immortal creatures gods, this need not give rise to any serious discussion between us, since in our own Scriptures we read, “The God of gods, the Lord hath spoken;” and again, “Confess to the God of gods;” and again, “He is a great King above all gods.” And where it is said, “He is to be feared above all gods,” the reason is forthwith added, for it follows, “for all the gods of the nations are idols, but the Lord made the heavens.” He said, “above all gods,” but added, “of the nations;” that is to say, above all those whom the nations count gods, in other words, demons. By them He is to be feared with that terror in which they cried to the Lord, “Hast Thou come to destroy us?” But where it is said, “the God of gods,” it cannot be understood as the god of the demons; and far be it from us to say that “great King above all gods” means “great King above all demons.” But the same Scripture also 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 great King above all gods.

> Latin: Hos si Platonici malunt deos quam daemones dicere eisque adnumerare, quos a summo Deo conditos deos scribit eorum auctor et magister Plato: dicant quod uolunt; non enim cum eis de uerborum controuersia laborandum est. Si enim sic inmortales, ut tamen a summo Deo factos, et si non per se ipsos, sed ei, a quo facti sunt, adhaerendo beatos esse dicunt: hoc dicunt quod dicimus, quolibet eos nomine appellent. Hanc autem Platonicorum esse sententiam, siue omnium siue meliorum, in eorum litteris inueniri potest. Nam et de ipso nomine, quod huius modi inmortalem beatamque creaturam deos appellant, ideo inter nos et ipsos paene nulla dissensio est, quia et in nostris sacris litteris legitur: Deus deorum dominus locutus est, et alibi: Confitemini deo deorum, et alibi: Rex magnus super omnes deos. Illud autem ubi scriptum est: Terribilis est super omnes deos, quur dictum sit, deinceps ostenditur. Sequitur enim: Quoniam omnes di gentium daemonia, Dominus autem caelos fecit. Super omnes ergo deos dixit, sed gentium, id est quos gentes pro dis habent, quae sunt daemonia; ideo terribilis, sub quo terrore Domino dicebant: Venisti perdere nos? Illud uero, ubi dicitur: Deus deorum, non potest intellegi deus daemoniorum; et rex magnus super omnes deos absit ut dicatur rex magnus super omnia daemonia. Sed homines quoque in populo Dei eadem scriptura deos appellat. Ego, inquit, dixi, di estis et filii Excelsi omnes. Potest itaque intellegi horum deorum deus, qui dictus est deus deorum, et super hos deos rex magnus, qui dictus est rex magnus super omnes deos.

[¶2] Nevertheless, some one may say, if men are called gods because they belong to God’s people, whom He addresses by means of men and angels, are not the immortals, who already enjoy that felicity which men seek to attain by worshipping God, much more worthy of the title? And what shall we reply to this, if not that it is not without reason that in holy Scripture men are more expressly styled gods than those immortal and blessed spirits to whom we hope to be equal in the resurrection, because there was a fear that the weakness of unbelief, being overcome with the excellence of these beings, might presume to constitute some of them a god? In the case of men this was a result that need not be guarded against. Besides, it was right that the men belonging to God’s people should be more expressly called gods, to assure and certify them that He who is called God of gods is their God; because, although those immortal and blessed spirits who dwell in the heavens are called gods, yet they are not called gods of gods, that is to say, gods of the men who constitute God’s people, and to whom it is said, “I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you the children of the Most High.” Hence the saying of the apostle, “Though there be that are called gods, whether in 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 all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him.”

> Latin: Verum tamen cum a nobis quaeritur: si homines dicti sunt di, quod in populo Dei sunt, quem per angelos uel per homines adloquitur Deus, quanto magis inmortales eo nomine digni sunt, qui ea fruuntur beatitudine, ad quam Deum colendo cupiunt homines peruenire: quid respondebimus nisi non frustra in scripturis sanctis expressius homines nuncupatos deos, quam illos inmortales et beatos, quibus nos aequales futuros in resurrectione promittitur, ne scilicet propter illorum excellentiam aliquem eorum nobis constituere deum infidelis auderet infirmitas? Quod in homine facile est euitare. Et euidentius dici debuerunt homines di in populo Dei, ut certi ac fidentes fierent eum esse Deum suum, qui dictus est deus deorum; quia etsi appellentur di inmortales illi et beati, qui in caelis sunt, non tamen dicti sunt di deorum, id est di hominum in populo Dei constitutorum, quibus dictum est: Ego dixi, di estis et filii Excelsi omnes. Hinc est quod ait apostolus: Etsi sunt qui dicuntur di, siue in caelo siue in terra, sicuti sunt di multi et domini multi: nobis tamen unus Deus Pater, ex quo omnia et nos in ipso, et unus Dominus Iesus Christus, per quem omnia et nos per ipsum.

[¶3] We need not, therefore, laboriously contend about the name, since the reality is so obvious as to admit of no shadow of doubt. That which we say, that the angels who are sent to announce the will of God to men belong to the order of blessed immortals, does not satisfy the Platonists, because they believe that this ministry is discharged, not by those whom they call gods, 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 only as good demons, and not as gods who dwell in the heaven of heavens remote from all human contact. But, though it may seem mere wrangling about a name, yet the name of demon is so detestable that we cannot bear in any sense to apply it to the holy angels. Now, therefore, let us close this book in the assurance that, whatever we call these immortal and blessed spirits, who yet are only creatures, they do not act as mediators to introduce to everlasting felicity miserable mortals, from whom they are severed by a twofold distinction. And those others who are mediators, in so far as they have immortality in common with their superiors, and misery in common with their inferiors (for they are justly miserable in punishment of their wickedness), cannot bestow upon us, but rather grudge that we should possess, the blessedness from which they themselves are excluded. And so the friends of the demons have nothing considerable to allege why we should rather worship them as our helpers than avoid them as traitors to our interests. As for those spirits who are good, and who are therefore not only immortal but also blessed, and to whom they suppose we should give the title of gods, and offer worship and sacrifices for the sake of inheriting a future life, we shall, by God’s help, endeavor in the following book to show that these spirits, call them by what name, and ascribe to them what nature you will, desire that religious worship be paid to God alone, by whom they were created, and by whose communications of Himself to them they are blessed.

> Latin: Non multum ergo de nomine disceptandum est, cum res ipsa ita clareat, ut ab scrupulo dubitationis aliena sit. Illud uero, quod nos ex eorum inmortalium beatorum numero missos esse angelos dicimus, qui Dei uoluntatem hominibus adnuntiarent, illis autem non placet, quia hoc ministerium non per illos, quos deos appellant, id est inmortales et beatos, sed per daemones fieri credunt, quos inmortales tantum, non etiam beatos audent dicere, aut certe ita inmortales et beatos, ut tamen daemones bonos, non deos sublimiter conlocatos et ab humana contrectatione semotos, quamuis nominis controuersia uideatur, tamen ita detestabile est nomen daemonum, ut hoc modis omnibus a sanctis angelis nos remouere debeamus. Nunc ergo ita liber iste claudatur, ut sciamus inmortales et beatos, quodlibet uocentur, qui tamen facti et creati sunt, medios non esse ad inmortalem beatitudinem perducendis mortalibus miseris, a quibus utraque differentia separantur. Qui autem medii sunt communem habendo inmortalitatem cum superioribus, miseriam cum inferioribus, quoniam merito malitiae miseri sunt, beatitudinem, quam non habent, inuidere nobis possunt potius quam praebere. Unde nihil habent amici daemonum quod nobis dignum adferant, quur eos tamquam adiutores colere debeamus, quos potius ut deceptores uitare debemus. Quos autem bonos et ideo non solum inmortales, uerum etiam beatos deorum nomine sacris et sacrificiis propter uitam beatam post mortem adipiscendam colendos putant, qualescumque illi sint et quolibet uocabulo digni sint, non eos uelle per tale religionis obsequium nisi unum Deum coli, a quo creati et cuius participatione beati sunt, adiuuante ipso in sequenti libro diligentius disseremus.

### Porphyry’s doctrine of redemption.

[¶5] Book X.

> Latin: Liber X

[¶6] Argument—In this book Augustin teaches that the good angels wish God alone, whom they themselves serve, to receive that divine honor which is rendered by sacrifice, and which is called “latreia.” He then goes on to dispute against Porphyry about the principle and way of the soul’s cleansing and deliverance.

### That the Platonists Themselves Have Determined that God Alone Can Confer Happiness Either on Angels or Men, But that It Yet Remains a Question Whether Those Spirits Whom They Direct Us to Worship, that We May Obtain Happiness, Wish Sacrifice to Be Offered to Themselves, or to the One God Only.

[¶8] Chapter 1.—That the Platonists Themselves Have Determined that God Alone Can Confer Happiness Either on Angels or Men, But that It Yet Remains a Question Whether Those Spirits Whom They Direct Us to Worship, that We May Obtain Happiness, Wish Sacrifice to Be Offered to Themselves, or to the One God Only.

> Latin: Caput I. Veram beatitudinem siue angelis siue hominibus per unum Deum tribui etiam Platonicos definisse: sed utrum hi, quos ob hoc ipsum colendos putant, uni tantum Deo, an etiam sibi sacrificari uelint, esse quaerendum.

[¶9] It is the decided opinion of all who use their brains, that all men desire to be happy. But who are happy, or how they become so, these are questions about which the weakness of human understanding stirs endless and angry controversies, in which philosophers have wasted their strength and expended their leisure. To adduce and discuss their various opinions would be tedious, and is unnecessary. The reader may remember what we said in the eighth book, while making a selection of the philosophers with whom we might discuss the question regarding the future life of happiness, whether we can reach it by paying divine honors to the one true God, the Creator of all gods, or by worshipping many gods, and he will not expect us to repeat here the same argument, especially as, even if he has forgotten it, he may refresh his memory by reperusal. For we made selection of the 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 happy except by partaking of the light of that God by whom both itself and the world were made; and also that the happy life which all men desire cannot be reached by any who does not cleave with a pure and holy love to that one supreme good, the unchangeable God. But as even these philosophers, whether accommodating to the folly and ignorance of the people, or, as the apostle says, “becoming vain in their imaginations,” supposed or allowed others to suppose that many gods should be worshipped, so that some of them considered that divine honor 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 about our religious worship and piety by those immortal and blessed spirits, who dwell in the heavenly places among dominations, principalities, powers, whom the Platonists call gods, and some either good demons, or, like us, angels,—that is to say, to put it more plainly, whether the angels desire us to offer sacrifice and worship, and to consecrate our possessions and ourselves, to them or only to God, theirs and ours.

> Latin: Omnium certa sententia est, qui ratione quoquo modo uti possunt, beatos esse omnes homines uelle. Qui autem sint uel unde fiant dum mortalium quaerit infirmitas, multae magnaeque controuersiae concitatae sunt, in quibus philosophi sua studia et otia contriuerunt, quas in medium adducere adque discutere et longum est et non necessarium. Si enim recolit qui haec legit, quid in libro egerimus octauo in eligendis philosophis, cum quibus haec de beata uita, quae post mortem futura est, quaestio tractaretur, utrum ad eam uni Deo uero, qui etiam effector est deorum, an plurimis dis religione sacrisque seruiendo peruenire possimus: non etiam hic eadem repeti expectat, praesertim cum possit relegendo, si forte oblitus est, adminiculari memoriam. Elegimus enim Platonicos omnium philosophorum merito nobilissimos, propterea quia sapere potuerunt licet inmortalem ac rationalem uel intellectualem hominis animam nisi participato lumine illius Dei, a quo et ipsa et mundus factus est, beatam esse non posse; ita illud, quod omnes homines adpetunt, id est uitam beatam, quemquam isti adsecuturum negant, qui non illi uni optimo, quod est incommutabilis Deus, puritate casti amoris adhaeserit. Sed quia ipsi quoque siue cedentes uanitati errorique populorum siue, ut ait apostolus, euanescentes in cogitationibus suis multos deos colendos ita putauerunt uel putari uoluerunt, ut quidam eorum etiam daemonibus diuinos honores sacrorum et sacrificiorum deferendos esse censerent, quibus iam non parua ex parte respondimus: nunc uidendum ac disserendum est, quantum Deus donat, inmortales ac beati in caelestibus sedibus dominationibus, principatibus potestatibus constituti, quos isti deos et ex quibus quosdam uel bonos daemones uel nobiscum angelos nominant, quo modo credendi sint uelle a nobis religionem pietatemque seruari; hoc est, ut apertius dicam, utrum etiam sibi an tantum Deo suo, qui etiam noster est, placeat eis ut sacra faciamus et sacrificemus, uel aliqua nostra seu nos ipsos religionis ritibus consecremus.

[¶10] For this is the worship which is due to the Divinity, or, to speak more accurately, to the Deity; and, to express this worship in a single word as there does not occur to me any Latin term sufficiently exact, I shall avail myself, whenever necessary, of a Greek word. Λατρεία, whenever it occurs in Scripture, is rendered by the word service. But that service which is due to men, and in reference to which the apostle writes that servants must be subject to their own masters, is usually designated by another word in Greek, whereas the service which is paid to God alone by worship, is always, or almost always, called λατρεία in the usage of those who wrote from the divine oracles. This cannot so well be called simply “cultus,” for in that case it would not seem to be due exclusively to God; for the same word is applied to the respect we pay either to the memory or the living presence of men. From it, too, we derive the words agriculture, colonist, and others. And the heathen call their gods “cœlicolæ,” not because they worship heaven, but because they dwell in it, and as it were colonize it,—not in the sense in which we call those colonists who are attached to their native soil to cultivate it under the rule of the owners, but in the sense in which the great master of the Latin language says, “There was an ancient city 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 from larger cities are called colonies. Consequently, while it is quite true that, using the word in a special sense, “cult” can be rendered to none but God, yet, as the word is applied to other things besides, the cult due to God cannot in Latin be expressed by this word alone.

> Latin: Hic est enim diuinitati uel, si expressius dicendum est, deitati debitus cultus, propter quem uno uerbo significandum, quoniam mihi satis idoneum non occurrit Latinum, Graeco ubi necesse est insinuo quid uelim dicere. Aatfistav quippe nostri, ubicumque sanctarum scripturarum positum est, interpretati sunt seruitutem. Sed ea seruitus, quae debetur hominibus, secundum quam praecipit apostolus seruos dominis suis subditos esse debere, alio nomine Graece nuncupari solet; Xatpeia uero secundum consuetudinem, qua locuti sunt qui nobis diuina eloquia condiderunt, aut semper aut tam frequenter ut paene semper ea dicitur seruitus, quae pertinet ad colendum Deum. Proinde si tantummodo cultus ipse dicatur, non soli Deo deberi uidetur. Dicimur enim colere etiam homines, quos honorifica uel recordatione uel praesentia frequentamus. Nec solum ea, quibus nos religiosa humilitate subicimus, sed quaedam etiam, quae subiecta sunt nobis, perhibentur coli. Nam ex hoc uerbo et agricolae et coloni et incolae uocantur, et ipsos de os non ob aliud appellant caelicolas, nisi quod caelum colant, non utique uenerando, sed inhabitando, tamquam caeli quosdam colonos; non sicut appellantur coloni. qui condicionem debent genitali solo, propter agriculturam sub dominio possessorum, sed, sicut ait quidam Latini eloquii magnus auctor: Urbs antiqua fuit, Tyrii tenuere coloni. Ab incolendo enim colonos uocauit, non ab agricultura. Hinc et ciuitates a maioribus ciuitatibus uelut populorum examinibus conditae coloniae nuncupantur.

[¶11] The word “religion” might seem to express more definitely the worship due to God alone, and therefore Latin translators have used this word to represent θρησκεία; yet, as not only the uneducated, but also the best instructed, use the word religion to express human ties, and relationships, and affinities, it would inevitably introduce ambiguity to use this word in discussing the worship of God, unable as we are to say that religion is nothing else than the worship of God, without contradicting the common usage which applies this word to the observance of social relationships. “Piety,” again, or, as the Greeks say, εὐσέβεια, is commonly understood as the proper designation of the worship of God. Yet this word also is used of dutifulness to parents. The common people, too, use it of works of charity, which, I suppose, arises from the circumstance that God enjoins the performance of such works, and declares that He is pleased with them instead of, or in preference to sacrifices. From this usage it has also come to pass that God Himself is called pious, in which sense the Greeks never use εὐσεβεῖν, though εὐσέβεια is applied to works of charity by their common people also. In some passages of Scripture, therefore, they have sought to preserve the distinction by using not εὐσέβεια, the more general word, but θεοσέβεια, which literally denotes the worship of God. We, on the other hand, cannot express either of these ideas by one word. This worship, then, which in Greek is called λατρεία, and in Latin “servitus” [service], but the service due to God only; this worship, which in Greek is called θρησκεία, and in Latin “religio,” but the religion by which we are bound to God only; this worship, which they call θεοσέβεια, but which we cannot express in one word, but call it the worship of God,—this, we say, belongs only to that God who is the true God, and who makes His worshippers gods. And therefore, whoever these immortal and blessed inhabitants of heaven be, if they do not love us, and wish us to be blessed, then we ought not to worship them; and if they do love us and desire our happiness, they cannot wish us to be made happy by any other means than they themselves have enjoyed,—for how could they wish our blessedness to flow from one source, theirs from another?

> Latin: Ac per hoc cultum quidem non deberi nisi Deo propria quadam notione uerbi huius omnino uerissimum est; sed quia et aliarum rerum dicitur cultus, ideo Latine uno uerbo significari cultus Deo debitus non potest. Nam et ipsa religio quamuis distinctius non quemlibet, sed Dei cultum significare uideatur (unde isto nomine interpretati sunt nostri eam, quae Graece ϑρησϰεία dicitur): tamen quia Latina loquendi consuetudine, non inperitorum, uerum etiam doctissimorum, et cognationibus humanis adque adfinitatibus et quibusque necessitudinibus dicitur exhibenda religio, non eo uocabulo uitatur ambiguum, cum de cultu deitatis uertitur quaestio, ut fidenter dicere ualeamus religionem non esse nisi cultum Dei, quoniam uidetur hoc uerbum a significanda obseruantia propinquitatis humanae insolenter auferri. Pietas quoque proprie Dei cultus intellegi solet, quam Graeci εὐσέβειαν uocant. Haec tamen et erga parentes officiose haberi dicitur. More autem uulgi hoc nomen etiam in operibus misericordiae frequentatur; quod ideo arbitror euenisse, quia haec fieri praecipue mandat Deus eaque sibi uel pro sacrificiis uel prae sacrificiis placere testatur. Ex qua loquendi consuetudine factum est, ut et Deus ipse dicatur pius; quem sane Graeci nullo suo sermonis usu εὐσεβῆν uocant, quamuis εὐσέβειαν pro misericordia illorum etiam uulgus usurpet. Unde in quibusdam scripturarum locis, ut distinctio certior appareret, non εὐσέβειαν, quod ex bono cultu, sed ϑεοσέβειαν, quod ei Dei cultu conpositum resonat, dicere maluerunt. Utrumlibet autem horum nos uno uerbo enuntiare non possumus. Quae itaque λατρεία Graece nuncupatur et Latine interpretatur seruitus, sed ea qua colimus Deum; uel quae θρησκεία Graece, Latine autem religio dicitur, sed ea quae nobis est erga Deum; uel quam illi εὐσέβειαν, nos uero non uno uerbo exprimere, sed Dei cultum possumus appellare: hanc ei tantum Deo deberi dicimus, qui uerus est Deus facitque suos cultores deos. Quicumque igitur sunt in caelestibus habitationibus inmortales et beati, si nos non amant nec beatos esse nos uolunt, colendi utique non sunt. Si autem amant et beatos uolunt, profecto inde uolunt, unde et ipsi sunt; an aliunde ipsi beati, aliunde nos?

### The Opinion of Plotinus the Platonist Regarding Enlightenment from Above.

[¶13] Chapter 2.—The Opinion of Plotinus the Platonist Regarding Enlightenment from Above.

> Latin: Caput II. De superna inluminatione quid Plotinus Platonicus senserit.

[¶14] But with these more estimable philosophers we have no dispute in this matter. For they perceived, and in various forms abundantly expressed in their writings, that these spirits have the same source of happiness as ourselves,—a certain intelligible light, which is their God, and is different from themselves, and illumines them that they may be penetrated with light, and enjoy perfect happiness in the participation of God. Plotinus, commenting on Plato, repeatedly and strongly asserts that not even the soul which they believe to be the soul of the world, derives its blessedness from any other source than we do, viz., from that Light which is distinct from it and created it, and by whose intelligible illumination it enjoys light in things intelligible. He also compares those spiritual things to the vast and conspicuous heavenly bodies, as if God were the sun, and the soul the moon; for they suppose that the moon derives its light from the sun. That great Platonist, therefore, says that the rational soul, or rather the intellectual soul,—in which class he comprehends the souls of the blessed immortals who inhabit heaven,—has no nature superior to it save God, the Creator of the world and the soul itself, and that these heavenly spirits derive their blessed life, and the light of truth from their blessed life, and the light of truth, the source as ourselves, agreeing with the gospel where we read, “There was a man sent from God whose name was John; the same came for a witness to bear witness of that Light, that through Him all might believe. He was not that Light, but that he might bear witness of the Light. That was the true Light which lighteth 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, but needs to receive illumination from another, the true Light. This John himself avows when he delivers his witness: “We have all received of His fullness.”

> Latin: Sed non est nobis ullus cum his excellentioribus philosophis in hac quaestione conflictus. Viderunt enim suisque litteris multis modis copiosissime mandauerunt hinc illos, unde et nos, fieri beatos, obiecto quodam lumine intellegibili. quod Deus est illis et aliud est quam illi, a quo inlustrantur, ut clareant adque eius participatione perfecti beatique subsistant. Saepe multumque Plotinus adserit sensum Platonis explanans, ne illam quidem, quam credunt esse uniuersitatis animam, aliunde beatam esse quam nostram, idque esse lumen quod ipsa non est, sed a quo creata est et quo intellegibiliter inluminante intellegibiliter lucet. Dat etiam similitudinem ad illa incorporea de his caelestibus conspicuis araplisque corporibus, tamquam ille sit sol et ipsa sit luna. Lunam quippe solis obiectu inluminari putant. Dicit ergo ille magnus Platonicus animam rationalem, siue potius intellectualis dicenda sit, ex quo genere etiam inmortalium beatorumque animas esse intellegit, quos in caelestibus sedibus habitare non dubitat, non habere supra se naturam nisi Dei, qui fabricatus est mundum, a quo et ipsa facta est; nec aliunde illis supernis praeberi uitam beatam et lumen intellegentiae ueritatis, quam unde praebetur et nobis, consonans euangelio, ubi legitur: Fuit homo missus a Deo, cui nomen erat Iohannes; hic uenit in testimonium, ut testimonium per perhiberet de lumine, ut omnes crederent per eum. Non erat ille lumen, sed ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine. Erat lumen uerum, quod inluminat omnem hominem uenientem in hunc mundum. In qua differentia satis ostenditur animam rationalem uel intellectualem, qualis erat in Iohanne, sibi lumen esse non posse, sed alterius ueri luminis participatione lucere. Hoc et ipse Iohannes fatetur, ubi ei perhibens testimonium dicit: Nos omnes de plenitudine eius accepimus.

### That the Platonists, Though Knowing Something of the Creator of the Universe, Have Misunderstood the True Worship of God, by Giving Divine Honor to Angels, Good or Bad.

[¶16] Chapter 3.—That the Platonists, Though Knowing Something of the Creator of the Universe, Have Misunderstood the True Worship of God, by Giving Divine Honor to Angels, Good or Bad.

> Latin: Caput III. De uero Dei cultu, a quo Platonici, quamuis creatorem uniuersitatis intellexerint, deuiarunt colendo angelos seu bonos seu malos honore diuino.

[¶17] This being so, if the Platonists, or those who think with them, knowing God, glorified Him as God and gave thanks, if they did not become vain in their own thoughts, if they did not originate or yield to the popular errors, they would certainly acknowledge that neither could the blessed immortals retain, nor we miserable mortals reach, a happy condition without worshipping the one God of gods, who is both theirs and ours. To Him we owe the service which is called in Greek λατρεία, whether we render it outwardly or inwardly; for we are all His temple, each of us severally and all of us together, because He condescends to inhabit each individually and the whole harmonious body, being no greater in all than in each, since He is neither expanded nor divided. Our heart when it rises to Him is His altar; the priest who intercedes for us is His Only-begotten; we sacrifice to Him bleeding victims when we contend for His truth even unto blood; to Him we offer the sweetest incense when we come before Him burning with holy and pious love; to Him we devote and surrender ourselves and His gifts in us; to Him, by solemn feasts and on appointed days, we consecrate the memory of His benefits, lest through the lapse of time ungrateful oblivion should steal upon us; to Him we offer on the altar of our heart the sacrifice of humility and praise, kindled by the fire of burning love. It is that we may see Him, so far as He can be seen; it is that we may cleave to Him, that we are cleansed from all stain of sins and evil passions, and are consecrated in His name. For He is the fountain of our happiness, He the end of all our desires. Being attached to Him, or rather let me say, re-attached,—for we had detached ourselves and lost hold of Him,—being, I say, re-attached to Him, we tend towards Him by love, that we may rest in Him, and find our blessedness by attaining that end. For our good, about which philosophers have so keenly contended, is nothing else than to be united to God. It is, if I may say so, by spiritually embracing Him that the intellectual soul is filled and impregnated with true virtues. We are enjoined to love this good with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our strength. To this good we ought to be led by those who love us, and to lead those we love. Thus are fulfilled those two commandments on which hang all the law and the prophets: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy mind, and with all thy soul;” and “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” For, that man might be intelligent in his self-love, there was appointed for him an end to which he might refer all his actions, that he might be blessed. For he who loves himself wishes nothing else than this. And the end set before him is “to draw near to God.” And so, when one who has this intelligent self-love is commanded to love his neighbor as himself, what else is enjoined than that he shall do all in his power to commend to him the love of God? This is the worship of God, this is true religion, this right piety, this the service due to God only. If any immortal power, then, no matter with what virtue endowed, loves us as himself, he must desire that we find our happiness by submitting ourselves to Him, in submission to whom he himself finds happiness. If he does not worship God, he is wretched, because deprived of God; if he worships God, he cannot wish to be worshipped in God’s stead. On the contrary, these higher powers acquiesce heartily in the divine sentence in which it is written, “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.”

> Latin: Quae cum ita sint, si Platonici uel quicumque alii ista senserunt cognoscentes Deum sicut Deum glorificarent et gratias agerent nec euanescerent in cogitationibus suis nec populorum erroribus partim auctores fierent, partim resistere non auderent: profecto confiterentur et illis inmortalibus ac beatis et nobis mortalibus ac miseris, ut inmortales ac beati esse possimus, unum Deum deorum colendum, qui et noster est et illorum. Huic nos seruitutem, quae Xatpeia Graece dicitur, siue in quibusque sacramentis siue in nobis ipsis debemus. Huius enim templum simul omnes et singuli templa sumus, quia et omnium concordiam et singulos inhabitare dignatur; non in omnibus quam in singulis maior, quoniam nec mole distenditur nec partitione minuitur. Cum ad illum sursum est, eius est altare cor nostrum; eum Unigenito eius sacerdote placamus; ei cruentas uictimas caedimus, quando usque ad sanguinem pro eius ueritate certamus: eum suauissimo adolemus incenso, cum in eius conspectum pio sanctoque amore flagramus: ei dona eius in nobis quoque ipsos uouemus et reddimus; ei beneficiorum eius sollemnitatibus festis et diebus statutis dicamus sacramusque memoriam, ne uolumine temporum ingrata subrepat obliuio; ei sacrificamus hostiam humilitatis et laudis in ara cordis igne feruidam caritatis. Ad hunc uidendum, sicut uideri poterit, eique cohaerendum ab omni peccatorum et cupiditatum malarum labe mundamur et eius nomine consecramur. Ipse enim fons nostrae beatitudinis, ipse omnis adpetitionis est finis. Hunc eligentes uel potius religentes (amiseramus enim neglegentes) — hunc ergo religentes, unde et religio dicta perhibetur, ad eum dilectione tendimus, ut perueniendo quiescamus, ideo beati, quia illo fine perfecti. Bonum enim nostrum, de cuius fine inter philosophos magna contentio est, nullum est aliud quam illi cohaerere, cuius unius anima intellectualis incorporeo, si dici potest, amplexu ueris inpletur fecundaturque uirtutibus. Hoc bonum diligere in toto corde, in tota anima et in tota uirtute praecipimur; ad hoc bonum debemus et a quibus diligimur duci, et quos diligimus ducere. Sic conplentur duo illa praecepta, in quibus tota lex pendet et prophetae: Diliges Dominum Deum tuum in toto corde tuo et in tota anima tua et in tota mente tua, et: Diliges proximum tuum tamquam te ipsum. Ut enim homo se diligere nosset, constitutus est ei finis, quo referret omnia quae ageret, ut beatus esset; non enim qui se diligit aliud uult esse quam beatus. Hic autem finis est adhaerere Deo. Iam igitur scienti diligere se ipsum, cum mandatur de proximo diligendo sicut se ipsum, quid aliud mandatur, nisi ut ei, quantum potest, commendet diligendum Deum? Hic est Dei cultus, haec uera religio, haec recta pietas, haec tantum Deo debita seruitus. Quaecumque igitur inmortalis potestas quantalibet uirtute praedita si nos diligit sicut se ipsam, ei uult esse subditos, ut beati simus, cui et ipsa subdita beata est. Si ergo non colit Deum, misera est, quia priuatur Deo; si autem colit Deum, non uult se coli pro Deo. Illi enim potius diuinae sententiae suffragatur et dilectionis uiribus fauet, qua scriptum est: Sacrificans dis eradicabitur, nisi Domino soli.

### That Sacrifice is Due to the True God Only.

[¶19] Chapter 4.—That Sacrifice is Due to the True God Only.

> Latin: Caput IV. Quod uni uero Deo sacrificium debeatur.

[¶20] But, putting aside for the present the other religious services with which God is worshipped, certainly no man would dare to say that sacrifice is due to any but God. Many parts, indeed, of divine worship are unduly used in showing honor to men, whether through an excessive humility or pernicious flattery; yet, while this is done, those persons who are thus worshipped and venerated, or even adored, are reckoned no more than human; and who ever thought of sacrificing save to one whom he knew, supposed, or feigned to be a god? And how ancient a part of God’s worship sacrifice is, those two brothers, Cain and Abel, sufficiently show, of whom God rejected the elder’s sacrifice, and looked favorably on the younger’s.

> Latin: Nam, ut alia nunc taceam, quae pertinent ad religionis obsequium, quo colitur Deus, sacrificium certe nullus hominum est qui audeat dicere deberi nisi deo. Multa denique de cultu diuino usurpata sunt, quae honoribus deferrentur humanis, siue humilitate nimia siue adulatione pestifera; ita tamen, ut, quibus ea deferrentur, homines haberentur, qui dicuntur colendi et uenerandi, si autem multum eis additur, et adorandi: quis uero sacrificandum censuit nisi ei, quem deum aut sciuit aut putauit aut finxit? Quam porro antiquus sit in sacrificando Dei cultus, duo illi fratres Cain et Abel satis indicant, quorum maioris Deus reprobauit sacrificium, minoris aspexit.

### Of the Sacrifices Which God Does Not Require, But Wished to Be Observed for the Exhibition of Those Things Which He Does Require.

[¶22] Chapter 5.—Of the Sacrifices Which God Does Not Require, But Wished to Be Observed for the Exhibition of Those Things Which He Does Require.

> Latin: Caput V. De sacrificiis, quae Deus non requirit, sed ad significationem eorum offerri uoluit, quae requirit.

[¶23] And who is so foolish as to suppose that the things offered to God are needed by Him for some uses of His own? Divine Scripture in many places explodes this idea. Not to be wearisome, suffice it to quote this brief saying from a psalm: “I have said to the Lord, Thou art my God: for Thou needest not my goodness.” We must believe, then, that God has no need, not only of cattle, or any other earthly and material thing, but even of man’s righteousness, and that whatever right worship is paid to God profits not Him, but man. For no man would say he did a benefit to a fountain by drinking, or to the light by seeing. And the fact that the ancient church offered animal sacrifices, which the people of God now-a-days read of without imitating, proves nothing else than this, that those sacrifices signified the things which we do for the purpose of drawing near to God, and inducing our neighbor to do the same. A sacrifice, therefore, is the visible sacrament or sacred sign of an invisible sacrifice. Hence that penitent in the psalm, or it may be the Psalmist himself, entreating God to be merciful to his sins, says, “If Thou desiredst sacrifice, I would give it: Thou delightest not in whole burnt-offerings. The sacrifice of God is a broken heart: a heart contrite and humble God will not despise.” Observe how, in the very words in which he is expressing God’s refusal of sacrifice, he shows that God requires sacrifice. He does not desire the sacrifice of a slaughtered beast, but He desires the sacrifice of a contrite heart. Thus, that sacrifice which he says God does not wish, is the symbol of the sacrifice which God does wish. God does not wish sacrifices in the sense in which foolish people think He wishes them, viz., to gratify His own pleasure. For if He had not wished that the sacrifices He requires, as, e.g., a heart contrite and humbled by penitent sorrow, should be symbolized by those sacrifices which 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 opportunity arrived, 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 another passage from another psalm, he says, “If I were hungry, I would not tell thee; for the world is mine and the fullness thereof. Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?” as if He should say, Supposing such things were necessary to me, I would never ask thee for what I have in my own hand. Then he goes on to mention what these signify: “Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise, and pay thy vows unto the Most High. And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shall glorify me.” So in another prophet: “Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the High God? Shall I come before Him with burnt-offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? Hath He showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” In the words of this prophet, these two things are distinguished and set forth with sufficient 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 the Hebrews” it is said, “To do good and to communicate, forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.” And so, when it is written, “I desire mercy rather than sacrifice,” nothing else is meant than that one sacrifice is preferred to another; for that which in common speech is called sacrifice is only the symbol of the true sacrifice. Now mercy is the true sacrifice, and therefore it is said, as I have just quoted, “with such sacrifices God is well pleased.” All the divine ordinances, therefore, which we read concerning the sacrifices in the service of the tabernacle or the temple, we are to refer to the love of God and our neighbor. For “on these two commandments,” as it is written, “hang all the law and the prophets.”

> Latin: Quis autem ita desipiat, ut existimet aliquibus usibus Dei esse necessaria, quae in sacrificiis offeruntur? Quod cum multis locis diuina scriptura testetur, ne longum faciamus, breue illud de psalmo commemorare suffecerit: Dixi Domino, Deus meus es tu, quoniam bonorum meorum non eges. Non solum igitur pecore uel qualibet alia re corruptibili adque terrena, sed ne ipsa quidem iustitia hominis Deus egere credendus est, totumque quod recte colitur Deus homini prodesse, non Deo. Neque enim fonti se quisquam dixerit consuluisse, si biberit; aut luci, si uiderit. Nec quod ab antiquis patribus alia sacrificia facta sunt in uictimis pecorum, quae nunc Dei populus legit, non facit, aliud intellegendum est, nisi rebus illis eas res fuisse significatas, quae aguntur in nobis, ad hoc ut inhaereamus Deo et ad eundem finem proximo consulamus. Sacrificium ergo uisibile inuisibilis sacrificii sacramentum, id est sacrum signum est. Unde ille paenitens aput prophetam uel ipse propheta quaerens Deum peccatis suis habere propitium: Si uoluisses, inquit, sacrificium, dedissem utique; holocaustis non delectaberis. Sacrificium Deo spiritus contribulatus: cor contritum et humiliatum Deus non spernet. Intueamur quem ad modum, ubi Deum dixit nolle sacrificium. ibi Deum ostendit uelle sacrificium. Non uult ergo sacrificium trucidati pecoris, sed uult sacrificium contriti cordis. Illo igitur quod eum nolle dixit, hoc significatur, quod eum uelle subiecit. Sic itaque illa Deum nolle dixit, quo modo ab stultis ea uelle creditur, uelut suae gratia uoluptatis. Nam si ea sacrificia quae uult (quorum hoc unum est: cor contritum et humiliatum dolore paenitendi) nollet eis sacrificiis significari, quae uelut sibi delectabilia desiderare putatus est: non utique de his offerendis in lege uetere praecepisset. Et ideo mutanda erant opportuno certoque iam tempore, ne ipsi Deo desiderabilia uel certe in nobis acceptabilia, ac non potius quae his significata sunt crederentur. Hinc et alio loco psalmi alterius: Si esuriero, inquit, non dicam tibi; meus est enim orbis terrae et plenitudo eius. Numquid manducabo carnes taurorum aut sanguinem hircorum potabo? Tamquam diceret: Utique si mihi essent necessaria, non a te peterem, quae habeo in potestate. Deinde subiungens quid illa significent: Immola, inquit, Deo sacrificium laudis et redde Altissimo uota tua et inuoca me in die tribulationis, et eripiam te et magnificabis me. Item aput alium prophetam: In quo, inquit, adprehendam dam Dominum, adsumam Deum meum excelsum? Si adprehendam illum in holocaustis, in uitulis anniculis? Si acceptauerit Dominus in milibus arietum aut in denis milibus hircorum pinguium? Si dedero primogenita mea inpietatis, fructum uentris mei pro peccato animae meae? Si adnuntiatum est tibi, homo, bonum? Aut quid Dominus exquirat a te nisi facere iudicium et diligere misericordiam et paratum esse ire cum Domino Deo tuo? Et in huius prophetae uerbis utrumque distinctum est satisque declaratum illa sacrificia per se ipsa non requirere Deum, quibus significantur haec sacrificia, quae requirit Deus. In epistula, quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos: Bene facere, inquit, et communicatores esse nolite obliuisci; talibus enim sacrificiis placetur Deo. Ac per hoc ubi scriptum est: Misericordiam uolo quam sacrificium nihil aliud quam sacrificium sacrificio praelatum oportet intellegi; quoniam illud, quod ab omnibus appellatur sacrificium, signum est ueri sacrificii. Porro autem misericordia uerum sacrificium est; unde dictum est, quod paulo ante commemoraui: Talibus enim sacrificiis placetur Deo. Quaecumque igitur in ministerio tabernaculi siue templi multis modis de sacrificiis leguntur diuinitus esse praecepta, ad dilectionem Dei et proximi significando referuntur. In his enim duobus praeceptis, ut scriptum est, tota lex pendet et prophetae.

## 48. Of the True and Perfect Sacrifice.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/48/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/48/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 6.—Of the True and Perfect Sacrifice.

> Latin: Caput VI. De uero perfectoque sacrificio.

[¶1] Thus a true sacrifice is every work which is done that we may be united to God in holy fellowship, and which has a reference to that supreme good and end in which alone we can be truly blessed. And therefore even the mercy we show to men, if it is not shown for God’s sake, is not a sacrifice. For, though made or offered by man, sacrifice is a divine thing, as those who called it sacrifice meant to indicate. Thus man himself, consecrated in the name of God, and vowed to God, is a sacrifice in so far as he dies to the world that he may live to God. For this is a part of that mercy which each man shows to himself; as it is written, “Have mercy on thy soul by pleasing God.” Our body, too, as a sacrifice when we chasten it by temperance, if we do so as we ought, for God’s sake, that we may not yield our members instruments of unrighteousness unto sin, but instruments of righteousness unto God. Exhorting to this sacrifice, the apostle says, “I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercy of 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 servant or instrument, is a sacrifice when it is used rightly, and with reference to God, how much more does the soul itself become a sacrifice when it offers itself to God, in order that, being inflamed by the fire of His love, it may receive of His beauty and become pleasing to Him, losing the shape of earthly desire, and being remoulded in the image of permanent loveliness? And this, indeed, the apostle subjoins, saying, “And be not conformed to this world; but be ye transformed in the renewing 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, done with a reference to God, and since works of mercy have no other object than the relief of distress or the conferring of happiness, and since there is no happiness apart from that good of which it is said, “It is good for me to be very near to God,” it follows that the whole redeemed city, that is to say, the congregation or community of the saints, is offered to God as our sacrifice through the great High Priest, who offered Himself to God in His passion for us, that we might be members of this glorious head, according to the form of a servant. For it was this form He offered, in this He was offered, because it is according to it He is Mediator, in this He is our Priest, in this the Sacrifice. Accordingly, when the apostle had exhorted us to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, our reasonable service, and not to be conformed to the world, but to be transformed in the renewing of our mind, that we might prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God, that is to say, the true sacrifice of ourselves, he says, “For I say, through the grace of God which is given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. For, as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another, having gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us.” This is the sacrifice of Christians: we, being many, are one body in Christ. And this also is the sacrifice which the Church continually celebrates in the sacrament of the altar, known to the faithful, in which she teaches that she herself is offered in the offering she makes to God.

> Latin: Proinde uerum sacrificium est omne opus, quod agitur ut sancta societate inhaereamus Deo, relatum scilicet ad illum finem boni, quo ueraciter beati esse possimus. Unde et ipsa misericordia, qua homini subuenitur, si non propter Deum fit, non est sacrificium. Etsi enim ab homine fit uel offertur, tamen sacrificium res diuina est, ita ut hoc quoque uocabulo id Latini ueteres appellauerint. Unde ipse homo Dei nomine consecratus et Deo deuotus, in quantum mundo moritur ut Deo uiuat, sacrificium est. Nam et hoc ad misericordiam pertinet, quam quisque in se ipsum facit. Propterea scriptum est: Miserere animae tuae placens Deo. Corpus etiam nostrum cum temperantia castigamus, si hoc, quem ad modum debemus, propter Deum facimus, ut non exhibeamus membra nostra arma iniquitatis peccato, sed arma iustitiae Deo, sacrificium est. Ad quod exhortans apostolus ait: Obsecro itaque uos, fratres, per misericordiam Dei, ut exhibeatis corpora uestra hostiam uiuam, sanctam, Deo placentem, rationabile obsequium uestrum. Si ergo corpus, quo inferiore tamquam famulo uel tamquam instrumento utitur anima, cum eius bonus et rectus usus ad Deum refertur, sacrificium est: quanto magis anima ipsa cum se refert ad Deum. ut igne amoris eius accensa formam concupiscentiae saecularis amittat eique tamquam incommutabili formae subdita reformetur, hinc ei placens, quod ex eius pulchritudine acceperit, fit sacrificium! Quod idem apostolus consequenter adiungens: Et nolite, inquit, conformari huic saeculo; sed reformamini in nouitate mentis uestrae ad probandum uos quae sit uoluntas Dei, quod bonum et bene placitum et perfectum. Cum igitur uera sacrificia opera sint misericordiae siue in nos ipsos siue in proximos, quae referuntur ad Deum, opera uero misericordiae non ob aliud fiant, nisi ut a miseria liberemur ac per hoc ut beati simus (quod non fit nisi bono illo, de quo dictum est: Mihi autem adhaerere Deo bonum est): profecto efficitur, ut tota ipsa redemta ciuitas, hoc est congregatio societasque sanctorum, uniuersale sacrificium offeratur Deo per sacerdotem magnum, qui etiam se ipsum obtulit in passione pro nobis, ut tanti capitis corpus essemus, secundum formam serui. Hanc enim obtulit, in hac oblatus est, quia secundum hanc mediator est, in hac sacerdos, in hac sacrificium est. Cum itaque nos hortatus esset apostolus, ut exhibeamus corpora nostra hostiam uiuam, sanctam, Deo placentem, rationabile obsequium nostrum, et non conformemur huic saeculo, sed reformemur in nouitate mentis nostrae: ad probandum quae sit uoluntas Dei, quod bonum et bene placitum et perfectum, quod totum sacrificium nos ipsi sumus: Dico enim, inquit, per gratiam Dei, quae data est mihi, omnibus, qui sunt in uobis, non plus sapere, quam oportet sapere, sed sapere ad temperantiam; sicut unicuique Deus partitus est mensuram fidei. Sicut enim in uno corpore multa membra habemus, omnia autem membra non eosdem actus habent: ita multi unum corpus sumus in Christo; singuli autem alter alterius membra, habentes dona diuersa secundum gratiam, quae data est nobis. Hoc est sacrificium Christianorum: multi unum corpus in Christo. Quod etiam sacramento altaris fidelibus noto frequentat ecclesia, ubi ei demonstratur, quod in ea re, quam offert, ipsa offeratur.

### Of the Love of the Holy Angels, Which Prompts Them to Desire that We Worship the One True God, and Not Themselves.

[¶3] Chapter 7.—Of the Love of the Holy Angels, Which Prompts Them to Desire that We Worship the One True God, and Not Themselves.

> Latin: Caput VII. Quod sanctorum angelorum ea sit in nos dilectio, ut nos non suos, sed unius ueri Dei uelint esse cultores.

[¶4] It is very right that these blessed and immortal spirits, who inhabit celestial dwellings, and rejoice in the communications of their Creator’s fullness, firm in His eternity, assured in His truth, holy by His grace, since they compassionately and tenderly regard us miserable mortals, and wish us to become immortal and happy, do not desire us to sacrifice to themselves, but to Him whose sacrifice they know themselves to be in common with us. For we and they together are the one city of God, to which it is said in the psalm, “Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of God;” the human part sojourning here below, the angelic aiding from above. For from that heavenly city, in which God’s will is the intelligible and 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, these precepts, 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.

> Latin: Merito illi in caelestibus sedibus constituti inmortales et beati, qui creatoris sui participatione congaudent, cuius aeternitate firmi, cuius ueritate certi, cuius munere sancti sunt, quoniam nos mortales et miseros, ut inmortales beatique simus, misericorditer diligunt, nolunt nos sibi sacrificari, sed ei, cuius et ipsi nobiscum sacrificium se esse nouerunt. Cum ipsis enim sumus una ciuitas Dei, cui dicitur in psalmo: Gloriosissima dicta sunt de te, ciuitas Dei; cuius pars in nobis peregrinatur, pars in illis opitulatur. De. illa quippe superna ciuitate, ubi Dei uoluntas intellegibilis adque incommutabilis lex est, de illa superna quodam modo curia (geritur namque ibi cura de nobis) ad nos ministrata per angelos sancta illa scriptura descendit, ubi legitur: Sacrificans dis eradicabitur, nisi Domino soli. Huic scripturae, huic legi, praeceptis talibus tanta sunt adtestata miracula, ut satis appareat, cui nos sacrificari uelint inmortales ac beati, qui hoc nobis uolunt esse quod sibi.

### Of the Miracles Which God Has Condescended to Adhibit Through the Ministry of Angels, to His Promises for the Confirmation of the Faith of the Godly.

[¶6] Chapter 8.—Of the Miracles Which God Has Condescended to Adhibit Through the Ministry of Angels, to His Promises for the Confirmation of the Faith of the Godly.

> Latin: Caput VIII. De miraculis, quae Deus ad conroborandam fidem piorum etiam per angelorum ministerium promissis suis adhibere dignatus est.

[¶7] I should seem tedious were I to recount all the ancient miracles, 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. For who can but marvel that Abraham’s barren wife should have given birth to a son at an age when not even a prolific woman could bear children; or, again, that when Abraham sacrificed, a flame from heaven should have run between the divided parts; or that the angels in human form, whom he had hospitably entertained, and who had renewed God’s promise of offspring, should also have predicted the destruction of Sodom by fire from heaven; and that his nephew Lot should have been rescued from Sodom by the angels as the fire was just descending, while his wife, who looked back as she went, and was immediately turned into salt, stood as a sacred beacon warning us that no one who is being saved should long for what he is leaving? How striking also were the wonders done by Moses to rescue God’s people from the yoke of slavery in Egypt, when the magi of the Pharaoh, that is, the king of Egypt, who tyrannized over this people, were suffered to do some wonderful things that they might be vanquished all the more signally! They did these things by the magical arts and incantations to which the evil spirits or demons are addicted; while Moses, having as much greater power as he had right on his side, and having the aid of angels, easily conquered them in the name of the Lord who made heaven and earth. And, in fact, the magicians failed at the third plague; whereas Moses, dealing out the miracles delegated to him, brought ten plagues upon the land, so that the hard hearts of Pharaoh and the Egyptians yielded, and the people were let go. But, quickly repenting, and essaying to overtake the departing Hebrews, who had crossed the sea on dry ground, they were covered and overwhelmed in the returning waters. What shall I say of those frequent and stupendous exhibitions of divine power, while the people were conducted through the wilderness?—of the waters which could not be drunk, but lost their bitterness, and quenched the thirsty, when at God’s command a piece of wood was cast into them? of the manna that descended from heaven to appease their hunger, and which begat worms and putrefied when any one collected more than the appointed quantity, and yet, though double was gathered on the day before the Sabbath (it not being lawful to gather it on that day), remained fresh? of the birds which filled the camp, and turned appetite into satiety when they longed for flesh, which it seemed impossible to supply to so vast a population? of the enemies who met them, and opposed their passage with arms, and were defeated without the loss of a single Hebrew, when Moses prayed with his hands extended in the form of a cross? of the seditious persons who arose among God’s people, and separated themselves from the divinely-ordered community, and were swallowed up alive by the earth, a visible token of an invisible punishment? of the rock struck with the rod, and pouring out waters more than enough for all the host? of the deadly serpents’ bites, sent in just punishment of sin, but healed by looking at the lifted brazen serpent, so that not only were the tormented people healed, but a symbol of the crucifixion of death set before them in this destruction of death by death? It was this serpent which was preserved in memory of this event, and was afterwards worshipped by the mistaken people as an idol, and was destroyed by the pious and God-fearing king Hezekiah, much to his credit.

> Latin: Nam nimis uetera si commemorem, longius quam satis est reuoluere uidebor, quae miracula facta sint adtestantia promissis Dei, quibus ante annorum milia praedicit Abrahae, quod in semine eius omnes gentes benedictionem fuerant habiturae. Quis enim non miretur eidem Abrahae filium peperisse coniugem sterilem eo tempore senectutis, quo parere nec fecunda iam posset, adque in eiusdem Abrahae sacrificio flammam caelitus factam inter diuisas uictimas cucurrisse, eidemque Abrahae praedictum ab angelis caeleste incendium Sodomorum, quos angelos hominibus similes hospitio susceperat et per eos de prole uentura Dei promissa tenuerat, ipsoque inminente iam incendio miram de Sodomis per eosdem angelos liberationem Loth filii fratris eius, cuius uxor in uia retro respiciens adque in salem repente conuersa magno admonuit sacramento neminem in uia liberationis suae praeterita desiderare debere? Illa uero quae et quanta sunt, quae iam per Moysen pro populo Dei de iugo seruitutis eruendo in Aegypto mirabiliter gesta sunt, ubi magi Pharaonis, hoc est regis Aegypti, qui populum illum dominatione deprimebat, ad hoc facere quaedam mira permissi sunt, ut mirabilius uincerentur! Illi enim faciebant ueneficiis et incantationibus magicis, quibus sunt mali angeli, hoc est daemones, dediti; Moyses autem tanto potentius, quanto iustius, nomine Dei, qui fecit caelum et terram, seruientibus angelis eos facile superauit. Denique in tertia plaga deficientibus magis decem plagae per Moysen magna mysteriorum dispositione conpletae sunt, quibus ad Dei populum dimittendum Pharaonis et Aegyptiorum dura corda cesserunt. Moxque paenituit, et cum abscedentes Hebraeos consequi conarentur, illis diuiso mari per siccum transeuntibus unda hinc adque hinc in sese redeunte cooperti et obpressi sunt. Quid de illis miraculis dicam, quae, cum in deserto idem populus ductaretur, stupenda diuinitate crebuerunt: aquas, quae bibi non poterant, misso in eas, sicut Deus praeceperat, ligno amaritudine caruisse sitientesque satiasse; manna esurientibus uenisse de caelo et, cum esset colligentibus constituta mensura, quidquid amplius quisque collegerat, exortis uermibus putruisse, ante diem nero sabbati duplum collectum, quia sabbato colligere non licebat, nulla putredine uiolatum; desiderantibus carne uesci, quae tanto populo nulla sufficere posse uidebatur, uolatilibus castra conpleta et cupiditatis ardorem fastidio satietatis extinctum; obuios hostes transitumque prohibentes adque proeliantes orante Moyse manibusque eius in figuram crucis extentis nullo Hebraeorum cadente prostratos; seditiosos in populo Dei ac sese ab ordinata diuinitus societate diuidentes ad exemplum uisibile inuisibilis poenae uiuos terra dehiscente submersos; uirga percussam petram tantae multitudini abundantia fluenta, fudisse; serpentum morsus mortiferos, poenam iustissimam peccatorum, in ligno exaltato adque prospecto aeneo serpente sanatos, ut et populo subueniretur adflicto, et mors morte destructa uelut crucifixae mortis similitudine signaretur? Quem sane serpentem propter facti memoriam reseruatum cum postea populus errans tamquam idolum colere coepisset, Ezechias rex religiosa potestate Deo seruiens cum magna pietatis laude contriuit.

### Of the Illicit Arts Connected with Demonolatry, and of Which the Platonist Porphyry Adopts Some, and Discards Others.

[¶9] Chapter 9.—Of the Illicit Arts Connected with Demonolatry, and of Which the Platonist Porphyry Adopts Some, and Discards Others.

> Latin: Caput IX. De inlicitis artibus erga daemonum cultum, in quibus Porphyrius Platonicus quaedam probando, quaedam quasi inprobando uersatur.

[¶10] These miracles, and many others of the same nature, which it were tedious to mention, were wrought for the purpose of commending the worship of the one true God, and prohibiting the worship of a multitude of false gods. Moreover, they were wrought by simple faith and godly confidence, not by the incantations and charms composed under the influence of a criminal tampering with the unseen world, of an art which they call either magic, or by the more abominable title necromancy, or the more honorable designation theurgy; for they wish to discriminate between those whom the people call magicians, who practise necromancy, and are addicted to illicit arts and condemned, and those others who seem to them to be 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 names of angels.

> Latin: Haec et alia multa huiusce modi, quae omnia commemorare nimis longum est, fiebant ad commendandum unius Dei ueri cultum et multorum falsorumque prohibendum. Fiebant autem simplici fide adque fiducia pietatis, non incantationibus et carminibus nefariae curiositatis arte conpositis, quam uel magian uel detestabiliori nomine goetian uel honrabiliori theurgian uocant, qui quasi conantur ista discernere et inlicitis artibus deditos alios damnabiles, quos et maleficos uulgus appellat (hos enim ad goetian pertinere dicunt), alios autem laudabiles uideri uolunt, quibus theurgian deputant; cum sint utrique ritibus fallacibus daemonum obstricti sub nominibus angelorum.

[¶11] For even Porphyry promises some kind of purgation of the soul by the help of theurgy, though he does so with some hesitation and shame, and denies that this art can secure to any one a return to God; so that you can detect his opinion vacillating between the profession of philosophy and an art which he feels to be presumptuous and sacrilegious. For at one time he warns us to avoid it as deceitful, and prohibited by law, and dangerous to those who practise it; then again, as if in deference to its advocates, he declares it useful for cleansing one part of the soul, not, indeed, the intellectual part, by which the truth of things intelligible, which have no sensible images, is recognized, 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 theurgic consecrations, or, as they call them, mysteries. He acknowledges, however, that these theurgic mysteries impart to the intellectual soul no such purity as fits it to see its God, and recognize the things that truly exist. And from this acknowledgment we may infer what kind of gods these are, and what kind 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 spiritual part being cleansed by theurgic art, and that this art cannot so purify the spiritual part as to give it entrance to immortality and eternity. And therefore, although he distinguishes angels from demons, asserting that the habitation of the latter is in the air, while the former dwell in the ether and empyrean, and although he advises us to cultivate the friendship of some demon, who may be able after our death to assist us, and elevate us at least a little above the earth,—for he owns that it is by another way we must reach the heavenly society of the angels,—he at the same time distinctly warns us to avoid the society of demons, saying that the soul, expiating its sin after death, execrates the worship of demons by whom it was entangled. And of theurgy itself, though he recommends it as reconciling angels and demons, he cannot deny that it treats with powers which either themselves envy the soul its purity, or serve the arts of those who do envy it. He complains of this through the mouth of some Chaldæan or other: “A good man in Chaldæa complains,” he says, “that his most strenuous efforts to cleanse his soul were frustrated, because another man, who had influence in these matters, and who envied him purity, had prayed to the powers, and bound them by his conjuring not to listen to his request. Therefore,” adds Porphyry, “what the one man bound, the other could not loose.” And from this he concludes that theurgy is a craft which accomplishes not only good but evil among gods and men; and that the gods also have passions, and are perturbed and agitated by the emotions which Apuleius attributed to demons and men, but from which he preserved the gods by that sublimity of residence, which, in common with Plato, he accorded to them.

> Latin: Nam et Porphyrius quandam quasi purgationem animae per theurgian, cunctanter tamen et pudibunda quodam modo disputatione promittit; reuersionem uero ad Deum hanc artem praestare cuiquam negat; ut uideas eum inter uitium sacrilegae curiositatis et philosophiae professionem sententiis alternantibus fluctuare. Nunc enim hanc artem tamquam fallacem et in ipsa actione periculosam et legibus prohibitam cauendam monet; nunc autem uelut eius laudatoribus cedens utilem dicit esse mundandae parti animae, non quidem intellectuali, qua rerum intellegibilium percipitur ueritas, nullas habentium similitudines corporum; sed spiritali, qua corporalium rerum capiuntur imagines. Hanc enim dicit per quasdam conserationes theurgicas, quas teletas uocant, idoneam fieri adque aptam susceptioni spirituum et angelorum et ad uidendos deos. Ex quibus tamen theurgicis teletis fateretur intellectuali animae nihil purgationis accedere, quod eam faciat idoneam ad uidendum Deum suum et perspicienda ea, quae uere sunt. Ex quo intellegi potest, qualium deorum uel qualem uisionem fieri dicat theurgicis consecrationibus, in qua non ea uidentur, quae uere sunt. Denique animam rationalem siue, quod magis amat dicere, intellectualem, in sua posse dicit euadere, etiamsi quod eius spiritale est nulla theurgica fuerit arte purgatum; porro autem a theurgo spiritalem purgari hactenus, ut non ex hoc ad inmortalitatem aeternitatemque perueniat. Quamquam itaque discernat a daemonibus angelos, aeria loca esse daemonum, aetheria uel empyrea disserens angelorum, et admoneat utendum alicuius daemonis amicitia, quo subuectante uel paululum a terra possit eleuari quisque post mortem, aliam uero uiam esse perhibeat ad angelorum superna consortia: cauendam tamen daemonum societatem expressa quodam modo confessione testatur, ubi dicit animam post mortem luendo poenas cultum daemonum a quibus circumueniebatur horrescere: ipsamque theurgian. quam uelut conciliatricem angelorum deorumque commendat, aput tales agere potestates negare non potuit, quae uel ipsae inuideant purgationi animae, uel artibus seruiant inuidorum, querelam de hac re Chaldaei nescio cuius expromens: ‘Conqueritur, inquit, uir in Chaldaea bonus, purgandae animae magno in molimine frustratos sibi esse successus, cum uir ad eadem potens tactus inuidia adiuratas sacris precibus potentias adligasset, ne postulata concederent. Ergo et ligauit ille, inquit, et iste non soluit.’ Quo indicio dixit apparere theurgian esse tam boni conficiendi quam mali et aput deos et aput homines disciplinam; pati etiam deos et ad illas perturbationes passionesque deduci, quas communiter daemonibus et hominibus Apuleius adtribuit; deos tamen ab eis aetheriae sedis altitudine separans et Platonis adserens in illa discretione sententiam.

### Concerning Theurgy, Which Promises a Delusive Purification of the Soul by the Invocation of Demons.

[¶13] Chapter 10.—Concerning Theurgy, Which Promises a Delusive Purification of the Soul by the Invocation of Demons.

> Latin: Caput X. De theurgia, quae falsam purgationem animis daemonum inuocatione promittit.

[¶14] But here we have another and a much more learned Platonist than Apuleius, Porphyry, to wit, asserting that, by I know not what theurgy, even the gods themselves are subjected to passions and perturbations; for by adjurations they were so bound and terrified that they could not confer purity of soul,—were so terrified by him who imposed on them a wicked command, that they could not by the same theurgy be freed from that terror, and fulfill the righteous behest of him who prayed to them, or do the good he sought. Who does not see that all these things are fictions of deceiving demons, unless he be a wretched slave of theirs, and an alien from the grace of the true Liberator? For if the Chaldæan had been dealing with good gods, certainly a well-disposed man, who sought to purify his own soul, would have had more influence with them than an evil-disposed man seeking to hinder him. Or, if the gods were just, and considered the man unworthy of the purification he sought, at all events they should not have been terrified by an envious person, nor hindered, as Porphyry avows, by the fear of a stronger deity, but should have simply denied the boon on their own free judgment. And it is surprising that that well-disposed Chaldæan, who desired to purify his soul by theurgical rites, found no superior deity who could either terrify the frightened gods still more, and force them to confer the boon, or compose their fears, and so enable them to do good without compulsion,—even supposing that the good theurgist had no rites by which he himself might purge away the taint of fear from the gods whom he invoked for the purification of his own soul. And why is it that there is a god who has power to terrify the inferior gods, and none who has power to free them from fear? Is there found a god who listens to the envious man, and frightens the gods from doing good? and is there not found a god who listens to the well-disposed man, and removes the fear of the gods that they may do him good? O excellent theurgy! O admirable purification of the soul!—a theurgy in which the violence of an impure envy has more influence than the entreaty of purity and holiness. Rather let us abominate and avoid the deceit of such wicked spirits, and listen to sound doctrine. As to those who perform these filthy cleansings by sacrilegious rites, and see in their initiated state (as he further tells us, though we may question this vision) certain wonderfully lovely appearances of angels or gods, this is what the apostle refers to when he speaks of “Satan transforming himself into an angel of light.” For these are the delusive appearances of that spirit who longs to entangle wretched souls in the deceptive worship of many and false gods, and to turn them aside from the true worship of the true God, by whom alone they are cleansed and healed, and who, as was said of Proteus, “turns himself into all shapes,” equally hurtful, whether he assaults us as an enemy, or assumes the disguise of a friend.

> Latin: Ecce nunc alius Platonicus, quem doctiorem ferunt, Porphyrius, per nescio quam theurgicam disciplinam etiam ipsos deos obstrictos passionibus et perturbationibus dicit, quoniam sacris precibus adiurari terrerique potuerunt, ne praestarent animae purgationem, et ita terreri ab eo, qui imperabat malum, ut ab alio, qui poscebat bonum, per eandem artem theurgicam solui illo timore non possent et ad dandum beneficium liberari. Quis non uideat haec omnia fallacium daemonum esse commenta, nisi eorum miserrimus seruus et a gratia ueri liberatoris alienus? Nam si haec aput deos agerentur bonos, plus ibi utique ualeret beneficus purgator animae quam maleuolus inpeditor. Aut si dis iustis homo, pro quo agebatur, purgatione uidebatur indignus, non utique ab inuido territi nec, sicut ipse dicit, per metum ualentioris numinis inpediti, sed iudicio libero id negare debuerunt. Mirum est autem, quod benignus ille Chaldaeus, qui theurgicis sacris animam purgare cupiebat, non inuenit aliquem superiorem deum, qui uel plus terreret adque ad bene faciendum cogeret territos deos, uel ab eis terrentem conpesceret, ut libere bene facerent; si tamen theurgo bono sacra defuerunt, quibus ipsos deos, quos inuocabat animae purgatores, prius ab illa timoris peste purgaret. Quid enim causae est, quur deus potentior adhiberi possit a quo terreantur, nec possit a quo purgentur? An inuenitur deus qui exaudiat inuidum et timorem dis incutiat ne bene faciant; nec inuenitur deus qui exaudiat beneuolum et timorem dis auferat ut bene faciant?s o theurgia praeclara, o animae praedicanda purgatio, ubi plus imperat inmunda inuidentia, quam inpetrat pura beneficentia! Immo uero malignorum spirituum cauenda et detestanda fallacia, et salutaris audienda doctrina. Quod enim qui has sordidas purgationes sacrilegis ritibus operantur quasdam mirabiliter pulchras, sicut iste commemorat, uel angelorum imagines uel deorum tamquam purgato spiritu uident (si tamen uel tale aliquid uident), illud est, quod apostolus dicit: Quoniam satanas transfigurat se uelut angelum lucis. Eius enim sunt illa phantasmata, qui miseras animas multorum falsorumque deorum fallacibus sacris cupiens inretire et a uero ueri Dei cultu, quo solo mundantur et sanantur, auertere, sicut de Proteo dictum est, formas se uertit in omnes, hostiliter insequens, fallaciter subueniens, utrobique nocens.

### Of Porphyry’s Epistle to Anebo, in Which He Asks for Information About the Differences Among Demons.

[¶16] Chapter 11.—Of Porphyry’s Epistle to Anebo, in Which He Asks for Information About the Differences Among Demons.

> Latin: Caput XI. De epistula Porphyrii ad Anebontem Aegyptium. in qua petit de diuersitate daemonum se doceri.

[¶17] It was a better tone which Porphyry adopted in his letter to Anebo the Egyptian, in which, assuming the character of an inquirer consulting him, he unmasks and explodes these sacrilegious arts. In that letter, indeed, he repudiates all demons, whom he maintains to be so foolish as to be attracted by the sacrificial vapors, and therefore residing not in the ether, but in the air beneath the moon, and indeed in the moon itself. Yet he has not the boldness to attribute to all the demons all the deceptions and malicious and foolish practices which justly move his indignation. For, though he acknowledges that as a race demons are foolish, he so far accommodates himself to popular ideas as to call some of them benignant demons. He expresses surprise that sacrifices not only incline the gods, but also compel and force them to do what men wish; and he is at a loss to understand how the sun and moon, and other visible celestial bodies,—for bodies he does not doubt that they are,—are considered gods, if the gods are distinguished from the demons by their incorporeality; also, if they are gods, how some are called beneficent and others hurtful, and how they, being corporeal, are numbered with the gods, who are incorporeal. He inquires further, and still as one in doubt, whether diviners and wonderworkers are men of unusually powerful souls, or whether the power to do these things is communicated by spirits from without. He inclines to the latter opinion, on the ground that it is by the use of stones and herbs that they lay spells on people, and open closed doors, and do similar wonders. And on this account, he says, some suppose that there is a race of beings whose property 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 bring about all these things which have the appearance of good or evil, but that what is really good they never help us in, and are indeed unacquainted with, for they make wickedness easy, but throw obstacles in the path of those who eagerly follow virtue; and that they are filled with pride and rashness, delight in sacrificial odors, are taken with flattery. These and the other characteristics of this race of deceitful and malicious spirits, who come into the souls of men and delude their senses, both in sleep and waking, he describes not as things of which he is himself convinced, but only with so much suspicion and doubt as to cause him to speak of them as commonly received opinions. We should sympathize with this great philosopher in the difficulty he experienced in acquainting himself with and confidently assailing the whole fraternity of devils, which any Christian old woman would unhesitatingly describe and most unreservedly detest. Perhaps, however, he shrank from offending Anebo, to whom he was writing, himself the most eminent patron of these mysteries, or the others who marvelled at these magical feats as divine works, and closely allied to the worship of the gods.

> Latin: Melius sapuit iste Porphyrius, cum ad Anebontem scribit Aegyptium, ubi consulenti similis et quaerenti et prodit artes sacrilegas et euertit. Et ibi quidem omnes daemones reprobat, quos dicit ob inprudentiam trahere humidum uaporem et ideo non in aethere, sed in aere esse sub luna adque in ipso lunae globo; uerum tamen non audet omnes fallacias et malitias et ineptias, quibus merito mouetur, omnibus daemonibus dare. Quosdam namque benignos daemones more appellat aliorum, cum omnes generaliter inprudentes esse fateatur. Miratur autem quod non solum di adliciantur uictimis, sed etiam conpellantur adque cogantur facere quod homines uolunt; et si corpore et incorporalitate di a daemonibus distinguuntur, quo modo deos esse existimandum sit solem et lunam et uisibilia cetera in caelo, quae corpora esse non dubitat; et si di sunt. quo modo alii benefici, alii malefici esse dicantur; et quo modo incorporalibus, cum sint corporei, coniungantur. Quaerit etiam ueluti dubitans, utrum in diuinantibus et quaedam mira facientibus animae sint passiones an aliqui spiritus extrinsecus ueniant, per quos haec ualeant; et potius uenire extrinsecus conicit, eo quod lapidibus et herbis adhibitis et adligent quosdam, et aperiant clausa ostia, uel aliquid eius modi mirabiliter operentur. Unde dicit alios opinari esse quoddam genus, cui exaudire sit proprium, natura fallax, omniforme, multimodum, simulans deos et daemones et animas defunctorum, et hoc esse quod efficiat haec omnia quae uidentur bona esse uel praua; ceterum circa ea, quae uere bona sunt, nihil opitulari, immo uero ista nec nosse, sed et male conciliare et insimulare adque inpedire nonnumquam uirtutis sedulos sectatores, et plenum esse temeritatis et fastus, gaudere nidoribus, adulationibus capi, et cetera, quae de hoc genere fallacium malignorumque spirituum, qui extrinsecus in animam ueniunt humanosque sensus sopitos uigilantesue deludunt, non tamquam sibi persuasa confirmat, sed tam tenuiter suspicatur aut dubitat, ut haec alios adserat opinari. Difficile quippe fuit tanto philosopho cunctam diabolicam societatem uel nosse uel fidenter arguere, quam quaelibet anicula Christiana nec cunctatur esse, et liberrime detestatur. Nisi forte iste et ipsum, ad quem scribit, Anebontem tamquam talium sacrorum praeclarissimum antistitem et alios talium operum tamquam diuinorum et ad deos colendos pertinentium admiratores uerecundatur offendere. Sequitur tamen et ea uelut inquirendo commemorat, quae sobrie considerata tribui non possunt nisi malignis et fallacibus potestatibus.

[¶18] However, he pursues this subject, and, still in the character of an inquirer, mentions some things which no sober judgment could attribute to any but malicious and deceitful powers. He asks why, after the better class of spirits have been invoked, the worse should be commanded to perform the wicked desires of men; why they do not hear a man who has just left a woman’s embrace, while they themselves make no scruple of tempting men to incest and adultery; why their priests are commanded to abstain from animal food for fear of being polluted by the corporeal exhalations, while they themselves are attracted by the fumes of sacrifices and other exhalations; why the initiated are forbidden to touch a dead body, while their mysteries are celebrated almost entirely by means of dead bodies; why it is that a man addicted to any vice should utter threats, not to a demon or to the soul of a dead man, but to the sun and moon, or some of the heavenly bodies, which he intimidates by imaginary terrors, that he may wring from them a 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, may do what they are ordered. Porphyry further relates that a man, Chæremon, profoundly versed in these sacred or rather sacrilegious mysteries, had written that the famous Egyptian mysteries of Isis and her husband Osiris had very great influence with the gods to compel them to do what they were ordered, when he who used the spells threatened to divulge or do away with these mysteries, and cried with a threatening voice that he would scatter the members of Osiris if they neglected his orders. Not without reason is Porphyry surprised that a man should utter such wild and empty threats against the gods,—not against gods of no account, but against the heavenly gods, and those that shine with sidereal light,—and that these threats should be effectual to constrain them with resistless power, and alarm them so that they fulfill his wishes. Not without reason does he, in the character of an inquirer into the reasons of these surprising things, give it to be understood that they are done by that race of spirits which he previously described as if quoting other people’s opinions,—spirits who deceive not, as he said, by nature, but by their own corruption, and who simulate gods and dead men, but not, as he said, demons, for demons they really are. As to his idea that by means of herbs, and stones, and animals, and certain incantations and noises, and drawings, sometimes fanciful, and sometimes copied from the motions of the heavenly bodies, men create upon earth powers capable of bringing about various results, all that is only the mystification which these demons practise on those who are subject to them, for the sake of furnishing themselves with merriment at the expense of their dupes. Either, then, Porphyry was sincere in his 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 deceitful demons; or, to take a more favorable view of the philosopher, he adopted this method with the Egyptian who was wedded to these errors, and was proud of them, that he might not offend him by assuming the attitude of a teacher, nor discompose his mind by the altercation of a professed assailant, but, by assuming the character of an inquirer, and the humble attitude of one who was anxious to learn, might turn his attention to these matters, and show how worthy they are to be despised and relinquished. Towards the conclusion of his letter, he requests Anebo to inform him what the Egyptian wisdom indicates as the way to blessedness. But as to those who hold intercourse with the gods, and pester them only for the sake of finding a runaway slave, or acquiring property, or making a bargain of a marriage, or such things, he declares that their pretensions to wisdom are vain. He adds that these same gods, even granting that on other points their utterances were true, were yet so ill-advised and unsatisfactory in their disclosures about blessedness, that they cannot be either gods or good demons, but are either that spirit who is called the deceiver, or mere fictions of the imagination.

> Latin: Quaerit enim quur tamquam melioribus inuocatis quasi peioribus imperetur, ut iniusta praecepta hominis exsequantur; quur adtrectatum re Veneria non exaudiant inprecantem, cum ipsi ad incestos quosque concubitus quoslibet ducere non morentur; quur animantibus suos antistites oportere abstinere denuntient, ne uaporibus profecto corporeis polluantur, ipsi uero et aliis uaporibus inliciantur et nidoribus hostiarum, cumque a cadaueris contactu prohibeatur inspector, plerumque illa cadaueribus celebrentur; quid sit, quod non daemoni uel alicui animae defuncti, sed ipsi soli et lunae aut cuicumque caelestium homo uitio cuilibet obnoxius intendit minas eosque territat falso, ut eis extorqueat ueritatem. Nam et caelum se conlidere comminatur et cetera similia homini inpossibilia, ut illi di tamquam insipientissimi pueri falsis et ridiculis comminationibus territi quod imperatur efficiant. Dicit etiam scripsisse Chaeremonem quendam, talium sacrorum uel potius sacrilegiorum peritum, ea, quae aput Aegyptios sunt celebrata rumoribus uel de Iside uel de Osiri marito eius, maximam uim habere cogendi deos, ut faciant imperata, quando ille, qui carminibus cogit, ea se prodere uel euertere comminatur, ubi se etiam Osiridis membra dissipaturum terribiliter dicit, si facere iussa neglexerint. Haec adque huius modi uana et insana hominem dis minari, nec quibuslibet, sed ipsis caelestibus et siderea luce fulgentibus, nec sine effectu, sed uiolenta potestate cogentem adque his terroribus ad facienda quae uoluerit perducentem, merito Porphyrius admiratur; immo uero sub specie mirantis et causas rerum talium requirentis dat intellegi illos haec agere spiritus, quorum genus superius sub aliorum opinatione descripsit, non, ut ipse posuit, natura, sed uitio fallaces, qui simulant deos et animas defunctorum, daemones autem non, ut ait ipse. simulant, sed plane sunt. Et quod ei uidetur herbis et lapidibus et animantibus et sonis certis quibusdam ac uocibus et figurationibus adque figmentis, quibusdam etiam obseruatis in caeli conuersione motibus siderum fabricari in terra ab hominibus potestates idoneas uariis effectibus exsequendis, totum hoc ad eosdem ipsos daemones pertinet ludificatores animarum sibimet subditarum et uoluptaria sibi ludibria de hominum erroribus exhibentes. Aut ergo re uera dubitans et inquirens ista Porphyrius ea tamen commemorat, quibus conuincantur et redarguantur, nec ad eas potestates, quae nobis ad beatam uitam capessendam fauent, sed ad deceptores daemones pertinere monstrentur; aut, ut meliora de philosopho suspicemur, eo modo uoluit hominem Aegyptium talibus erroribus deditum et aliqua magna se scire opinantem non superba quasi auctoritate doctoris offendere, nec aperte aduersantis altercatione turbare, sed quasi quaerentis et discere cupientis humilitate ad ea cogitanda conuertere et quam sint contemnenda uel etiam deuitanda monstrare. Denique prope ad epistulae finem petit se ab eo doceri, quae sit ad beatitudinem uia ex Aegyptia sapientia. Ceterum illos, quibus conuersatio cum dis ad hoc esset, ut ob inueniendum fugitiuum uel praedium conparandum, aut propter nuptias uel mercaturam uel quid huius modi mentem diuinam inquietarent, frustra eos uideri dicit coluisse sapientiam; illa etiam ipsa numina, cum quibus conuersarentur, etsi de ceteris rebus uera praedicerent, tamen quoniam de beatitudine nihil cautum nec satis idoneum monerent, nec deos illos esse nec benignos daemones, sed aut illorum quod dicitur fallax, aut humanum omne commentum.

### Of the Miracles Wrought by the True God Through the Ministry of the Holy Angels.

[¶20] Chapter 12.—Of the Miracles Wrought by the True God Through the Ministry of the Holy Angels.

> Latin: Caput XII. De miraculis, quae per sanctorum angelorum ministerium Deus uerus operatur.

[¶21] Since by means of these arts wonders are done which quite surpass human power, what choice have we but to believe that these predictions and operations, which seem to be miraculous and divine, and which at the same time form no part of the worship of the one God, in adherence to whom, as the Platonists themselves abundantly testify, all blessedness consists, are the pastime of wicked spirits, who thus seek to seduce and hinder the truly godly? On the other hand, we cannot but believe that all miracles, whether wrought by angels or by other means, so long as they are so done as to commend the worship and religion of the one God in whom alone is blessedness, are wrought by those who love us in a true and godly sort, or through their means, God Himself working in them. For we cannot listen to those who maintain that the invisible God works no visible miracles; for even they believe that He made the world, which surely they will not deny to be visible. Whatever marvel happens in this world, it is certainly less marvellous than this whole world itself,—I mean the sky and earth, and all that is in them,—and these God certainly made. 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 world is little thought of, because always before us, yet, when we arouse ourselves to contemplate it, it is a greater miracle than the rarest and most unheard-of marvels. For man himself is a 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 in things visible to worship Himself, the Invisible. But the place and time of these miracles are dependent on His unchangeable will, in which things future are ordered as if already they were accomplished. For He moves things temporal without Himself moving in time, He does not in one way know things that are to be, and, in another, things that have been; neither does He listen to those who pray otherwise than as He sees those that will pray. For, even when His angels hear us, it is He Himself who hears us in them, as in His true temple not made with hands, as in those men who are His saints; and His answers, though accomplished in time, have been arranged by His eternal appointment.

> Latin: Verum quia tanta et talia geruntur his artibus, ut uniuersum modum humanae facultatis excedant: quid restat, nisi ut ea, quae mirifice tamquam diuinitus praedici uel fieri uidentur nec tamen ad unius Dei cultum referuntur, cui simpliciter inhaerere fatentibus quoque Platonicis et per multa testantibus solum beatificum bonum est, malignorum daemonum ludibria et seductoria inpedimenta, quae uera pietate cauenda sunt, prudenter intellegantur? Porro autem quaecumque miracula siue per angelos siue quocumque modo ita diuinitus fiunt, ut Dei unius, in quo solo beata uita est, cultum religionemque commendent, ea uere ab eis uel per eos, qui nos secundum ueritatem pietatemque diligunt, fieri ipso Deo in illis operante credendum est. Neque enim audiendi sunt, qui Deum inuisibilem uisibilia miracula operari negant, cum ipse etiam secundum ipsos fecerit mundum, quem certe uisibilem negare non possunt. Quidquid igitur mirabile fit in hoc mundo, profecto minus est quam totus hic mundus, id est caelum et terra et omnia quae in eis sunt, quae certe Deus fecit. Sicut autem ipse qui fecit, ita modus quo fecit occultus est et inconprehensibilis homini. Quamuis itaque miracula uisibilium naturarum uidendi adsiduitate uiluerint, tamen, cum ea sapienter intuemur, inusitatissimis rarissimisque maiora sunt. Nam et omni miraculo. quod fit per hominem, maius miraculum est homo. Quapropter Deus, qui fecit uisibilia caelum et terram, non dedignatur facere uisibilia miracula in caelo uel terra, quibus ad se inuisibilem colendum excitet animam adhuc uisibilibus deditam; ubi uero et quando faciat, incommutabile consilium penes ipsum est, in cuius dispositione iam tempora facta sunt quaecumque futura sunt. Nam temporalia mouens temporaliter non mouetur, nec aliter nouit facienda quam facta, nec aliter inuocantes exaudit quam inuocaturos uidet. Nam et cum exaudiunt angeli eius, ipse in eis exaudit, tamquam in uero nec manu facto templo suo, sicut in hominibus sanctis suis, eiusque temporaliter fiunt iussa aeterna eius lege conspecta.

### Of the Invisible God, Who Has Often Made Himself Visible, Not as He Really Is, But as the Beholders Could Bear the Sight.

[¶23] Chapter 13.—Of the Invisible God, Who Has Often Made Himself Visible, Not as He Really Is, But as the Beholders Could Bear the Sight.

> Latin: Caput XIII. De inuisibili Deo, qui se uisibilem saepe praestiterit, non secundum quod est, sed secundum quod poterant ferre cernentes.

[¶24] Neither need we be surprised that God, invisible as He is, should often have appeared visibly to the patriarchs. For as the sound which communicates the thought conceived in the silence of the mind is not the thought itself, so the form by which God, invisible in His own nature, became visible, was not God Himself. Nevertheless it is He Himself who was seen under that form, as that thought itself is heard in the sound of the voice; and the patriarchs recognized that, though the bodily form was not God, they saw the invisible God. For, though Moses conversed with God, yet he said, “If I have found grace in Thy sight, show me Thyself, that I may see and know Thee.” 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 accompanied by awe-inspiring signs, great marvels were wrought, by the ministry of angels, before the people on the mount where the law was being given to them through one man, while the multitude beheld the awful appearances. For the people of Israel believed Moses, not as the Lacedæmonians believed their Lycurgus, because he had received from Jupiter or Apollo the laws he gave them. For when the law which enjoined the worship of one God was given to the people, marvellous signs and earthquakes, such as the divine wisdom judged sufficient, were brought about in the sight of all, that they might know that it was the Creator who could thus use creation to promulgate His law.

> Latin: Nec mouere debet, quod, cum sit inuisibilis, saepe uisibiliter patribus apparuisse memoratur. Sicut enim sonus, quo auditur sententia in silentio intellegentiae constituta, non est boc quod ipsa: ita et species, qua uisus est Deus in natura inuisibili constitutus, non erat quod ipse. Verum tamen ipse in eadem specie corporali uidebatur, sicut illa sententia ipsa in sono uocis auditur; nec illi ignorabant inuisibilem Deum in specie corporali, quod ipse non erat, se uidere. Nam et loquebatur cum loquente Moyses et ei tamen dicebat: Si inueni gratiam ante te, ostende mihi temet ipsum, scienter ut uideam te. Cum igitur oporteret Dei legem in edictis angelorum terribiliter dari, non uni homini paucisue sapientibus, sed uniuersae genti et populo ingenti: coram eodem populo magna facta sunt in monte, ubi lex per unum dabatur, conspiciente multitudine metuenda et tremenda quae fiebant. Non enim populus Israel sic Moysi credidit, quem ad modum suo Lycurgo Lacedaemonii, quod a Ioue seu Apolline leges, quas condidit, accepisset. Cum enim lex dabatur populo, qua coli unus iubebatur Deus, in conspectu ipsius populi, quantum sufficere diuina prouidentia iudicabat, mirabilibus rerum signis et motibus apparebat ad eandem legem dandam creatori seruire creaturam..

## 49. That the One God is to Be Worshipped Not Only for the Sake of Eternal Blessings, But Also in Connection with Temporal Prosperity, Because All Things are Regulated by His Providence.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/49/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/49/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 14.—That the One God is to Be Worshipped Not Only for the Sake of Eternal Blessings, But Also in Connection with Temporal Prosperity, Because All Things are Regulated by His Providence.

> Latin: Caput XIV. De uno Deo colendo non solum propter aeterna, sed etiam propter temporalia beneficia, quia uniuersa in ipsius prouidentiae potestate consistunt.

[¶1] The education of the human race, represented by the people of God, has advanced, like that of an individual, through certain epochs, or, as it were, ages, so that it might gradually rise from earthly to heavenly things, and from the visible to the invisible. This object was kept so clearly in view, that, even in the period when temporal rewards were promised, the one God was presented as the object of worship, that men might not acknowledge any other than the true Creator and Lord of the spirit, even in connection with the earthly blessings of this transitory life. For he who denies that all things, which either angels or men can give us, are in the hand of the one Almighty, is a madman. The Platonist Plotinus discourses concerning providence, and, from the beauty of flowers and foliage, proves that from the supreme God, whose beauty is unseen and ineffable, providence reaches down even to these earthly things here below; and he argues that all these frail and perishing things could not have so exquisite and elaborate a beauty, were they not fashioned by Him whose unseen and unchangeable beauty continually pervades all things. This is proved also by the Lord Jesus, where He says, “Consider the lilies, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin. And yet I say unto you that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothe the grass of the 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 still weakly desiring earthly things, should be accustomed to seek from God alone even these petty temporal boons, and the earthly necessaries of this transitory life, which are contemptible in comparison with eternal blessings, in order that the desire even of these things might not draw it aside from the worship of Him, to whom we come by despising and forsaking such things.

> Latin: Sicut autem unius hominis, ita humani generis, quod ad Dei populum pertinet, recta eruditio per quosdam articulos temporum tamquam aetatum profecit accessibus, ut a temporalibus ad aeterna capienda et a uisibilibus ad inuisibilia surgeretur; ita sane ut etiam illo tempore, quo uisibilia promittebantur diuinitus praemia, unus tamen colendus commendaretur Deus, ne mens humana uel pro ipsis terrenis uitae transitoriae beneficiis cuiquam nisi uero animae creatori et domino subderetur. Omnia quippe, quae praestare hominibus uel angeli uel homines possunt, in unius esse Omnipotentis potestate quisquis diffitetur, insanit. De prouidentia certe Plotinus Platonicus disputat eamque a summo Deo, cuius est intellegibilis adque ineffabilis pulchritudo, usque ad haec terrena et ima pertingere flosculorum adque foliorum pulchritudine conprobat; quae omnia quasi abiecta et uelocissime pereuntia decentissimos formarum suarum numeros habere non posse confirmat, nisi inde formentur, ubi forma intellegibilis et incommutabilis simul habens omnia perseuerat. Hoc Dominus Iesus ibi ostendit, ubi ait: Considerate lilia agri, non laborant neque nent. Dico autem uobis, quia nec Salomon in tota gloria sua sic amictus est, sicut unum ex eis. Quod si faenum agri, quod hodie est et cras in clibanum mittitur, Deus sic uestit: quanto magis uos, modicae fidei? Optime igitur anima humana adhuc terrenis desideriis infirma ea ipsa, quae temporaliter exoptat bona infima adque terrena uitae huic transitoriae necessaria et prae illius uitae sempiternis beneficiis contemnenda, non tamen nisi ab uno Deo expectare consuescit, ut ab illius cultu etiam in istorum desiderio non recedat, ad quem contemtu eorum et ab eis auersione perueniat.

### Of the Ministry of the Holy Angels, by Which They Fulfill the Providence of God.

[¶3] Chapter 15.—Of the Ministry of the Holy Angels, by Which They Fulfill the Providence of God.

> Latin: Caput XV. De ministerio sanctorum angelorum, quo prouidentiae Dei seruiunt.

[¶4] And so it has pleased Divine Providence, as I have said, and as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, that the law enjoining the worship of one God should be given by the disposition of angels. But among them the person of God Himself 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, uttering them syllable by syllable successively, though in His own nature He speaks not in a bodily but in a spiritual way; not to sense, but to the mind; not in words that occupy time, but, if I may so say, eternally, neither beginning to speak nor coming to an end. And what He says is accurately heard, not by the bodily but by the mental ear of His ministers and messengers, who are immortally blessed in the enjoyment of His unchangeable truth; and the directions which they in some ineffable way receive, they execute without delay or difficulty in the sensible and visible world. And this law was 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 blessings few understood, though many took a part in the celebration of their visible signs. Nevertheless, with one consent both the words and the visible rites of that law enjoin the worship of one God,—not one of a crowd of gods, but Him who made heaven and earth, and every soul and every spirit which is other than Himself. He created; all else was created; and, both for being and well-being, all things need Him who created them.

> Latin: Sic itaque diuinae prouidentiae placuit ordinare temporum cursum, ut, quem ad modum dixi et in actibus apostolorum legitur, lex in edictis angelorum daretur de unius ueri Dei. cultu, in quibus et persona ipsius Dei, non quidem per suam substantiam, quae semper corruptibilibus oculis inuisibilis permanet, sed certis indiciis per subiectam creatori creaturam uisibiliter appareret et syllabatim per transitorias temporum morulas humanae linguae uocibus loqueretur, qui in sua natura non corporaliter, sed spiritaliter, non sensibiliter, sed intellegibiliter, non temporaliter, sed, ut ita dicam, aeternaliter nec incipit loqui nec desinit; quod aput illum sincerius audiunt, non corporis aure sed mentis, ministri eius et nuntii, qui eius ueritate incommutabili perfruuntur inmortaliter beati: et quod faciendum modis ineffabilibus audiunt et usque in ista uisibilia adque sensibilia perducendum, incunctanter adque indifficulter efficiunt. Haec autem lex distributione temporum data est, quae prius haberet, ut dictum est, promissa terrena. quibus tamen significarentur aeterna, quae uisibilibus sacramentis celebrarent multi, intellegerent pauci. Unius tamen Dei cultus apertissima illic et uocum et rerum omnium contestatione praecipitur, non unius de turba, sed qui fecit caelum et terram et omnem animam et omnem spiritum, qui non est quod ipse. Ille enim fecit, haec facta sunt, adque ut sint et bene se habeant, eius indigent, a quo facta sunt.

### Whether Those Angels Who Demand that We Pay Them Divine Honor, or Those Who Teach Us to Render Holy Service, Not to Themselves, But to God, are to Be Trusted About the Way to Life Eternal.

[¶6] Chapter 16.—Whether Those Angels Who Demand that We Pay Them Divine Honor, or Those Who Teach Us to Render Holy Service, Not to Themselves, But to God, are to Be Trusted About the Way to Life Eternal.

> Latin: Caput XVI. An de promerenda beata uita his angelis sit credendum dum, qui se coli exigunt honore diuino; an uero illis, qui non sibi, sed uni Deo sancta praecipiunt religione sel’uiri.

[¶7] What angels, then, are we to believe in this matter of blessed and eternal life?—those who wish to be worshipped with religious rites and observances, and require that men sacrifice to them; or those who say that all this worship is due to one God, the Creator, and teach us to render it with true piety to Him, by the vision of whom they are themselves already blessed, and in whom they promise that we shall be so? For that vision of God is the beauty of a vision so great, and is so infinitely desirable, that Plotinus does not hesitate to say that he who enjoys all other blessings in abundance, and has not this, is supremely miserable. Since, therefore, miracles are wrought by some angels to induce us to worship this God, by others, to induce us to worship themselves; and since the former forbid us to worship these, while the latter dare not forbid us to worship God, which are we to listen to? Let the Platonists reply, or any philosophers, or the theurgists, or rather, periurgists,—for this name is good enough for those who practise such arts. In short, let all men answer,—if, at least, there survives 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 who order us to sacrifice to them, or to that One to whom we are ordered to sacrifice by those who forbid us to worship either themselves or these others. If neither the one party nor the other 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 have been at no loss to discern which command proceeded from proud arrogance, and which from true religion. I will say more. If miracles had been wrought only by those who demand sacrifice for themselves, while those who forbade this, and enjoined sacrificing to the one God only, thought fit entirely to forego the use of visible miracles, the authority of the latter was to be preferred by all who would use, not their eyes only, but their reason. But since God, for the sake of commending to us the oracles of His truth, has, by means of these immortal messengers, 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 not be drawn away to false religion by those who require us to sacrifice to them and endeavor to convince us by stupendous appeals to our senses, who is so utterly unreasonable as not to choose and follow the truth, when he finds that it is heralded by even more striking evidences than falsehood?

> Latin: Quibus igitur angelis de beata et sempiterna uita credendum esse censemus? Utrum eis, qui se religionis ritibus coli uolunt sibi sacra et sacrificia flagitantes a mortalibus exhiberi, an eis, qui hunc omnem cultum uni Deo creatori omnium deberi dicunt eique reddendum uera pietate praecipiunt. cuius et ipsi contemplatione beati sunt’ et nos futuros esse promittunt? Illa namque uisio Dei tantae pulchritudinis uisio est et tanto amore dignissima, ut sine hac quibuslibet aliis bonis praeditum adque abundantem non dubitet Plotinus infelicissimum dicere. Cum ergo ad hunc unum quidam angeli. quidam uero ad se ipsos latria colendos signis mirabilibus excitent, et hoc ita, ut illi istos coli prohibeant, isti autem illum prohibere non audeant: quibus potius sit credendum, respondeant Platonici, respondeant quicumque philosophi, respondeant theurgi uel potius periurgi; hoc enim sunt omnes illae artes uocabulo digniores; postremo respondeant homines, si ullus naturae suae sensus, quod rationales creati sunt, ex aliqua parte uiuit in eis; respondeant, inquam, eisne sacrificandum sit dis uel angelis, qui sibi sacrificari iubent, an illi uni, cui iubent hi qui et sibi et istis prohibent? Si nec isti nec illi ulla miracula facerent, sed tantum praeciperent, alii quidem ut sibi sacrificaretur, alii uero id uetarent, sed uni tantum iuberent Deo: satis deberet pietas ipsa discernere, quid horum de fastu superbiae, quid de uera religione descenderet. Plus etiam dicam: si tantum hi mirabilibus factis humanas animas permouerent, qui sacrificia sibi expetunt, illi autem, qui hoc prohibent et uni tantum Deo sacrificari iubent, nequaquam ista uisibilia miracula facere dignarentur: profecto non sensu corporis, sed ratione mentis praeponenda eorum esset auctoritas. Cum uero Deus id egerit ad commendanda eloquia ueritatis suae, ut per istos inmortales nuntios non sui fastum, sed maiestatem illius praedicantes faceret maiora, certiora, clariora miracula, ne infirmis piis illi, qui sacrificia sibi expetunt, falsam religionem facilius persuaderent, eo quod sensibus eorum quaedam stupenda monstrarent: quem tandem ita desipere libeat, ut non uera eligat quae sectetur, ubi et ampliora inuenit quae miretur?

[¶8] As for those miracles which history ascribes to the gods of the heathen,—I do not refer to those prodigies which at intervals happen from some unknown physical causes, and which are arranged and appointed by Divine Providence, such as monstrous births, and unusual meteorological phenomena, whether startling only, or also injurious, and which are said to be brought about and removed by communication with demons, and by their most deceitful craft,—but I refer to these prodigies which manifestly enough are wrought by their power and force, as, that the household gods which Æneas carried from Troy in his flight moved from place to place; that Tarquin cut a whetstone with a razor; that the Epidaurian serpent attached himself as a companion to Æsculapius on his voyage to Rome; that the ship in which the image of the Phrygian mother stood, and which could not be moved by a host of men and oxen, was moved by one weak woman, who attached her girdle to the vessel and drew it, as proof of her chastity; that a vestal, whose virginity was questioned, removed the suspicion by carrying from the Tiber a sieve full of water without any of it dropping: these, then, and the like, are by no means to be compared for greatness and virtue to those which, we read, were wrought among God’s people. How much less can we compare those marvels, which even the laws of heathen nations prohibit and punish,—I mean the magical and theurgic marvels, of which the great part are merely illusions practised upon the senses, as the drawing down of the moon, “that,” as Lucan says, “it may shed a stronger influence on the plants?” And if some of these do seem to equal those which are wrought by the godly, the end for which they are wrought distinguishes the two, and shows that ours are incomparably the more excellent. For those miracles commend the worship of a plurality of gods, who deserve worship the less the more they demand it; but these of ours commend the worship of the one God, who, both by the testimony of His own Scriptures, and by the eventual abolition of sacrifices, proves that He needs no such offerings. If, therefore, any angels demand sacrifice for themselves, we must prefer those who demand it, not for themselves, but for God, the Creator of all, whom they serve. For thus they prove how sincerely they love us, since they wish by sacrifice to subject us, not to themselves, but to Him by the contemplation of whom they themselves are blessed, and to bring us to Him from whom they themselves have never strayed. If, on the other hand, any angels wish us to sacrifice, not to one, but to many, not, indeed, to themselves, but to the gods whose angels they are, we must in this case also prefer those who are the angels of the one God of gods, and who so bid us to worship Him 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 to the one only and supreme God, but to themselves, what better protection against them can we choose than that of the one God whom the good angels serve, the angels who bid us sacrifice, not to themselves, but to Him whose sacrifice we ourselves ought to be?

> Latin: Illa quippe miracula deorum gentilium, quae commendat historia (non ea dico, quae interuallis temporum occultis ipsius mundi causis, uerum tamen sub diuina prouidentia constitutis et ordinatis monstrosa contingunt; quales sunt inusitati partus animalium et caelo terraque rerum insolita facies, siue tantum terrens siue etiam nocens, quae procurari adque mitigari daemonicis ritibus fallacissima eorum astutia perhibentur; sed ea dico, quae ui ac potestate eorum fieri satis euidenter apparet, ut est quod effigies deorum Penatium, quas de Troia Aeneas fugiens aduexit, de loco in locum migrasse referuntur; quod cotem Tarquinius nouacula secuit: quod Epidaurius serpens Aesculapio nauiganti Romam comes adhaesit; quod nauem, qua simulacrum matris Phrygiae uehebatur, tantis hominum boumque conatibus inmobilem redditam una muliercula zona adligatam ad suae pudicitiae testimonium mouit et traxit; quod uirgo Vestalis, de cuius corruptione quaestio uertebatur, aqua inpleto cribro de Tiberi neque perfluente abstulit controuersiam) — haec ergo adque huius modi nequaquam illis, quae in populo Dei facta legimus, uirtute ac magnitudine conferenda sunt; quanto minus ea, quae illorum quoque populorum, qui tales deos coluerunt, legibus iudicata sunt prohibenda adque plectenda, magica scilicet uel theurgica! quorum pleraque specie tenus mortalium sensus imaginaria ludificatione decipiunt, quale est lunam deponere, (donee subpositas, ut ait Lucanus, propior despumet in herbas;’ quaedam uero etsi nonnullis piorum factis uideantur opere coaequari, finis ipse, quo discernuntur, incomparabiliter haec nostra ostendit excellere. Illis enim multi tanto minus sacrificiis colendi sunt, quanto magis haec expetunt; his uero unus commendatur Deus, qui se nullis talibus indigere et scripturarum suarum testificatione et eorundem postea sacrificiorum remotione demonstrat. Si ergo angeli sibi expetunt sacrificium, praeponendi eis sunt, qui non sibi, sed Deo creatori omnium, cui seruiunt. Hinc enim ostendunt quam sincero amore nos diligant, quando per sacrificium non sibi, sed ei nos subdere uolunt, cuius et ipsi contemplatione beati sunt, et ad eum nos peruenire, a quo ipsi non recesserunt. Si autem angeli, qui non uni sed plurimis sacrificia fieri uolunt, non sibi, sed eis dis uolunt, quorum deorum angeli sunt: etiam sic eis praeponendi sunt illi, qui unius Dei deorum angeli sunt, cui sacrificari sic iubent, ut alicui alteri uetent, cum eorum nullus huic uetet, cui uni isti sacrificari iubent. Porro si, quod magis indicat eorum superba fallacia, nec boni nec bonorum deorum angeli sunt. sed daemones mali, qui non unum solum ac summum Deum, sed se ipsos sacrificiis coli uolunt: quod maius quam unius Dei contra eos eligendum est praesidium, cui seruiunt angeli boni, qui non sibi, sed illi iubent ut sacrificio seruiamus, cuius nos ipsi esse sacrificium debemus?

### Concerning the Ark of the Covenant, and the Miraculous Signs Whereby God Authenticated the Law and the Promise.

[¶10] Chapter 17.—Concerning the Ark of the Covenant, and the Miraculous Signs Whereby God Authenticated the Law and the Promise.

> Latin: Caput XVII. De arca testamenti miraculisque signorum, quae ad commendandam legis ac promissionis auctoritatem diuinitus facta sunt.

[¶11] On this account it was that the law of God, given by the disposition of angels, and which commanded that the one God of gods alone receive sacred worship, to the exclusion of all others, was deposited in the ark, called the ark of the testimony. By this name it is sufficiently indicated, not that God, who was worshipped by all those rites, was shut up and enclosed in that place, though His responses emanated from it along with signs appreciable by the senses, but that His will was declared from that throne. The law itself, too, was engraven on tables of stone, and, as I have said, deposited in the ark, which the priests carried with due reverence during the sojourn in the wilderness, along with the tabernacle, which was in like manner called the tabernacle of the testimony; and there was then an accompanying sign, which appeared as a cloud by day and as a fire by night; when the cloud moved, the camp was shifted, and where it stood the camp was pitched. Besides these signs, and the voices which proceeded from the place where the ark was, there were other miraculous testimonies to the law. For when the ark was carried across Jordan, on the entrance to the land of promise, the upper part of the river stopped in its course, and the lower part flowed on, so as to present both to the ark and the people dry ground to pass over. Then, when it was carried seven times round the first hostile and polytheistic city they came to, its walls suddenly fell down, though assaulted by no hand, struck by no battering-ram. Afterwards, too, when they were now resident in the land of promise, and the ark had, in punishment of their sin, been taken by their enemies, its captors triumphantly placed it in the temple of their favorite god, and left it shut up there, but, on opening the temple next day, they found the image they used to pray to fallen to the ground and shamefully shattered. Then, being them selves alarmed by portents, and still more shamefully punished, they restored the ark of the testimony to the people from whom they had taken it. And what was the manner of its restoration? They placed it on a wagon, and yoked to it cows from which they had taken the calves, and let them choose their own course, expecting that in this way the divine will would be indicated; and the cows without any man driving or directing them, steadily pursued the way to the Hebrews, without regarding the lowing of their calves, and thus restored the ark to its worshippers. To God these and such like wonders are small, but they are mighty to terrify and give wholesome instruction to men. For if philosophers, and especially the Platonists, are with justice esteemed wiser than other men, as I have just been mentioning, because they taught that even these earthly and insignificant things are ruled by Divine Providence, inferring this from the numberless beauties which are observable not only in the bodies of animals, but even in plants and grasses, how much more plainly do these things attest the presence of divinity which happen at the time predicted, and in which that religion is commended which 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 to Him, and who, by arranging the appointed times of those sacrifices, and by predicting that they were to pass into a better sacrifice by a better Priest, testified that He has no appetite for these sacrifices, but through them indicated others of more substantial blessing,—and all this not that He Himself may be glorified by these honors, but that we may be stirred up to worship and cleave to Him, being inflamed by His love, which is our advantage rather than His?

> Latin: Proinde lex Dei, quae in edictis data est angelorum, in qua unus Deus deorum religione sacrorum iussus est coli, alii uero quilibet prohibiti, in arca erat posita, quae arca testimonii nuncupata est. Quo nomine satis significatur non Deum, qui per illa omnia colebatur, circumcludi solere uel contineri loco, cum responsa eius et quaedam humanis sensibus darentur signa ex illius arcae loco, sed uoluntatis eius hinc testimonia perhiberi; quod etiam ipsa lex erat in tabulis conscripta lapideis et in arca, ut dixi, posita, quam tempore peregrinationis in eremo cum tabernaculo, quod similiter appellatum est tabernaculum testimonii, cum debita sacerdotes ueneratione portabant; signumque erat, quod per diem nubes apparebat, quae sicut ignis nocte fulgebat; quae nubes cum moueretur, castra mouebantur, et ubi staret, castra ponebantur. Reddita sunt autem illi legi magni miraculi testimonia praeter ista, quae dixi, et praeter uoces, quae ex illius arcae loco edebantur. Nam cum terram promissionis intrantibus eadem arca transiret. Iordanes fluuius ex parte superiore subsistens et ex inferiore decurrens et ipsi et populo siccum praebuit transeundi locum. Deinde ciuitatis, quae prima hostilis occurrit more gentium deos plurimos colens, septiens eadem arca circumacta muri repente ceciderunt, nulla manu oppugnati, nullo ariete percussi. Post haec etiam cum iam in terra promissionis essent et eadem arca propter eorum peccata fuisset ab hostibus capta. hi, qui ceperant, in templo eam dei sui, quem prae ceteris colebant, honorifice conlocarunt abeuntesque clauserunt, apertoque postridie simulacrum, cui supplicabant, inuenerunt conlapsum deformiterque confractum. Deinde ipsi prodigiis acti deformiusque puniti arcam diuini testimonii populo, unde ceperant, reddiderunt. Ipsa autem redditio qualis fuit! Inposuerunt eam plaustro eique iuuencas, a quibus uitulos sugentes abstraxerant, subiunxerunt et eas quo uellent ire siuerunt, etiam inde uim diuinam explorare cupientes. At illae sine duce homine adque rectore ad Hebraeos uiam pertinaciter gradientes nec reuocatae mugitibus esurientium filiorum magnum sacramentum suis cultoribus reportarunt. Haec adque huius modi Deo parua sunt, sed magna terrendis salubriter erudiendisque mortalibus. Si enim philosophi praecipueque Platonici rectius ceteris sapuisse laudantur, sicut paulo ante commemoraui, quod diuinam prouidentiam haec quoque rerum infima adque terrena administrare docuerunt numerosarum testimonio pulchritudinum, quae non solum in corporibus animalium, uenim in herbis etiam faenoque gignuntur: quanto euidentius haec adtestantur diuinitati, quae ad horam praedicationis eius fiunt, ubi ea religio commendatur, quae omnibus caelestibus, terrestribus, infernis sacrificari uetat, uni Deo tantum iubens, qui solus diligens et dilectus beatos facit eorumque sacrificiorum. tempora imperata pr aefiniens eaque per meliorem sacerdotem in melius mutanda praedicens non ista se adpetere, sed per haec alia potiora significare testatur, non ut ipse his honoribus sublimetur, sed ut nos ad eum colendum eique cohaerendum igne amoris eius accensi, quod nobis, non illi, bonum est, excitemur.

### Against Those Who Deny that the Books of the Church are to Be Believed About the Miracles Whereby the People of God Were Educated.

[¶13] Chapter 18.—Against Those Who Deny that the Books of the Church are to Be Believed About the Miracles Whereby the People of God Were Educated.

> Latin: Caput XVIII. Contra eos, qui de miraculis, quibus Dei populus eruditus est, negant ecclesiasticis libris esse credendum dum.

[¶14] Will some one say that these miracles are false, that they never 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 who care for human affairs. For they have induced men to worship them only by means of miraculous works, which the heathen histories testify, and by which the gods have made a display of their own power rather than done any real service. This is the reason why we have not undertaken in this work, of which we are now writing the tenth book, to refute those who either deny that there is any divine power, or contend that it does not interfere with human affairs, but those who prefer their own god to our God, the Founder of the holy and most 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 not in things created, but in Himself. For thus speaks His most trustworthy prophet: “It is good for me to be united to God.” Among philosophers it is a question, what is that end and good to the attainment of which all our duties are to have a relation? The Psalmist did not say, It is good for me to have great wealth, or to wear imperial insignia, purple, sceptre, and diadem; or, as some even of the philosophers have not blushed to say, It is good for me to enjoy sensual pleasure; or, as the better men among them seemed to say, My good is my spiritual strength; but, “It is good for me to be united to God.” This he had learned from Him whom the holy angels, with the accompanying witness of miracles, presented as the sole object of worship. And hence he himself became the sacrifice of God, whose spiritual love inflamed him, and into whose ineffable and incorporeal embrace he yearned to cast himself. Moreover, if the worshippers of many gods (whatever kind of gods they fancy their own to be) believe that the miracles recorded in their civil histories, or in the books of magic, or of the more respectable theurgy, were wrought by these gods, what reason have they for refusing to believe the miracles recorded in those writings, to which we owe a credence as much greater as He is greater to whom alone these writings teach us to sacrifice?

> Latin: An dicet aliquis ista falsa esse miracula nec fuisse facta, sed mendaciter scripta? Quisquis hoc dicit, si de his rebus negat omnino ullis litteris esse credendum, potest etiam dicere nec deos ullos curare mortalia. Non enim se aliter colendos esse persuaserunt nisi mirabilium operum effectibus, quorum et historia gentium testis est, quarum di se ostentare mirabiles potius quam utiles ostendere potuerunt. Unde hoc opere nostro, cuius hunc iam decimum librum habemus in manibus, non eos suscepimus refellendos, qui uel ullam esse uim diuinam negant uel humana non curare contendunt, sed eos, qui nostro Deo conditori sanctae et gloriosissimae ciuitatis deos suos praeferunt, nescientes eum ipsum esse etiam mundi huius uisibilis et mutabilis inuisibilem et incommutabilem conditorem et uitae beatae non de his, quae condidit, sed de se ipso uerissimum largitorem. Eius enim propheta ueracissimus ait: Mihi autem adhaerere Deo bonum est. De fine boni namque inter philosophos quaeritur, ad quod adipiscendum omnia officia referenda sunt. Nec dixit iste: Mihi autem diuitiis abundare bonum est, aut insigniri purpura et sceptro uel diademate excellere, aut, quod nonnulli etiam philosophorum dicere non erubuerunt: Mihi uoluptas corporis bonum est; aut quod melius uelut meliores dicere uisi sunt: Mihi uirtus animi mei bonum est; sed: Mihi, inquit, adhaerere Deo bonum est. Hoc eum docuerat, cui uni tantummodo sacrificandum sancti quoque angeli eius miraculorum etiam contestatione monuerunt. Unde et ipse sacrificium eius factus erat, cuius igne intellegibili correptus ardebat, et in eius ineffabilem incorporeumque conplexum sancto desiderio ferebatur. Porro autem si multorum deorum cultores (qualescumque deos suos esse arbitrentur) ab eis facta esse miracula uel ciuilium rerum historiae uel libris magicis siue, quod honestius putant, theurgicis credunt: quid causae est, quur illis litteris nolint credere ista facta esse, quibus tanto maior debetur fides, quanto super omnes est magnus, cui uni soli sacrificandum esse praecipiunt?

### On the Reasonableness of Offering, as the True Religion Teaches, a Visible Sacrifice to the One True and Invisible God.

[¶16] Chapter 19.—On the Reasonableness of Offering, as the True Religion Teaches, a Visible Sacrifice to the One True and Invisible God.

> Latin: Caput XIX. Quae ratio sit uisibilis sacrificii, quod uni uero et inuisibili Deo offerri docet uera religio.

[¶17] As to those who think that these visible sacrifices are suitably offered to other gods, but that invisible sacrifices, the graces of purity of mind and holiness of will, should be offered, as greater and better, to the invisible God, Himself greater and better than all others, they must be oblivious that these visible sacrifices are signs of the invisible, as the words we utter are the signs of things. And therefore, as in prayer or praise we direct intelligible words to Him to whom in our heart we offer the very feelings we are expressing, so we are to understand that in sacrifice we offer visible sacrifice only to Him to whom in our heart we ought to present ourselves an invisible sacrifice. It is then that the angels, and all those superior powers who are mighty by their goodness and piety, regard us with pleasure, and rejoice with us and assist us to the utmost of their power. But if we offer such worship to them, they decline it; and when on any mission to men they become 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 honor to angels as is due to God, and were prevented from doing so by the angels themselves, and ordered to render it to Him to whom alone they know it to be due. And the holy angels have in this been imitated by holy men of God. For Paul and Barnabas, when they had wrought a miracle of healing in Lycaonia, were thought to be gods, and the Lycaonians desired to sacrifice to them, and they humbly and piously declined this honor, and announced to them the God in whom they should believe. And those deceitful and proud spirits, who exact worship, do so simply because they know it to be due to the true God. For that which they take pleasure in is not, as Porphyry says and some fancy, the smell of the victims, but divine honors. They have, in fact, plenty odors on all hands, and if they wished more, they could provide them for themselves. But the spirits who arrogate to themselves divinity are delighted not with the smoke of carcasses but with the suppliant spirit which they deceive and hold in subjection, and hinder from drawing near to God, preventing him from offering himself in sacrifice to God by inducing him to sacrifice to others.

> Latin: Qui autem putant haec uisibilia sacrificia dis aliis congruere, illi uero tamquam inuisibili inuisibilia et maiori maiora meliorique meliora, qualia sunt purae mentis et bonae uoluntatis officia: profecto nesciunt haec ita signa esse illorum, sicut uerba sonantia signa sunt rerum. Quocirca sicut orantes adque laudantes ad eum dirigimus significantes uoces, cui res ipsas in corde quas significamus offerimus: ita sacrificantes non alteri uisibile sacrificium offerendum esse nouerimus quam illi, cuius in cordibus nostris inuisibile sacrificium nos ipsi esse debemus. Tunc nobis fauent nobisque congaudent adque ad hoc ipsum nos pro suis uiribus adiuuant angeli quique uirtutesque superiores et ipsa bonitate ac pietate potentiores. Si autem illis haec exhibere uoluerimus, non libenter accipiunt, et cum ad homines ita mittuntur, ut eorum praesentia sentiatur, apertissime uetant. Sunt exempla in litteris sanctis. Putauerunt quidam deferendum angelis honorem uel adorando uel sacrificando, qui debetur Deo, et eorum sunt admonitione prohibiti iussique hoc ei deferre, cui uni fas esse nouerunt. Imitati sunt angelos sanctos etiam sancti homines Dei. Nam Paulus et Barnabas in Lycaonia facto quodam miraculo sanitatis putati sunt di, eisque Lycaonii uictimas immolare uoluerunt; quod a se humili pietate remouentes eis in quem crederent adnuntiauerunt Deum. Nec ob aliud fallaces illi superbe sibi hoc exigunt, nisi quia uero Deo deberi sciunt. Non enim re uera, ut ait Porphyrius et nonnulli putant, cadauerinis nidoribus, sed diuinis honoribus gaudent. Copiam uero nidorum magnam habent undique, et si amplius uellent, ipsi sibi poterant exhibere. Qui ergo diuinitatem sibi adrogant spiritus, non cuiuslibet corporis fumo, sed supplicantis animo delectantur, cui decepto subiectoque dominentur, intercludentes iter ad Deum uerum, ne sit homo illius sacrificium, dum sacrificatur cuipiam praeter illum.

### Of the Supreme and True Sacrifice Which Was Effected by the Mediator Between God and Men.

[¶19] Chapter 20.—Of the Supreme and True Sacrifice Which Was Effected by the Mediator Between God and Men.

> Latin: Caput XX–XXI. De summo ueroque sacrificio, quod ipse Dei et hominum mediator effectus est. De modo potestatis daemonibus datae ad glorificandos sanctos per tolerantiam passionum, qui aerios spiritus non placando ipsos, sed in Deo permanendo uicerunt.

[¶20] And hence that true Mediator, in so far as, by assuming the form of a servant, He became the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, though in the form of God He received sacrifice together with the Father, with whom He is one God, yet in the form of a servant He chose rather to be than to receive a sacrifice, that not even by this instance any one might have occasion to suppose that sacrifice should be rendered to any creature. Thus He is both the Priest who offers and the Sacrifice offered. And He designed that there should be a daily sign of this in the sacrifice of the Church, which, being His body, learns to offer herself through Him. Of this true Sacrifice the ancient sacrifices of the saints were the various and numerous signs; and it was thus variously figured, 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 have given place.

> Latin: Unde uerus ille mediator, in quantum formam serui accipiens mediator effectus est Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus, cum in forma Dei sacrificium cum Patre sumat, cum quo et unus Deus est, tamen in forma serui sacrificium maluit esse quam sumere, ne uel hac occasione quisquam existimaret cuilibet sacrificandum esse creaturae. Per hoc et sacerdos est, ipse offerens, ipse et oblatio. Cuius rei sacramentum cottidianum esse uoluit ecclesiae sacrificium, quae cum ipsius capitis corpus sit, se ipsam per ipsum discit offerre. Huius ueri sacrificii multiplicia uariaque signa erant sacrificia prisca sanctorum, cum hoc unum per multa figuraretur, tamquam uerbis multis res una diceretur, ut sine fastidio multum commendaretur. Huic summo ueroque sacrificio cuncta sacrificia falsa cesserunt.

## 50. Of the Power Delegated to Demons for the Trial and Glorification of the Saints, Who Conquer Not by Propitiating the Spirits of the Air, But by Abiding in God.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/50/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/50/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 21 .—Of the Power Delegated to Demons for the Trial and Glorification of the Saints, Who Conquer Not by Propitiating the Spirits of the Air, But by Abiding in God.

[¶1] The power delegated to the demons at certain appointed and well-adjusted seasons, that they may give expression to their hostility to the city of God by stirring up against it the men who are under their influence, and may not only 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, but even useful to the Church, completing as it does the number of martyrs, whom the city of God esteems as all the more illustrious and honored citizens, because they have striven even to blood against the sin of impiety. If the ordinary language of the Church allowed it, we might more elegantly call these men our heroes. For this name is said to be derived from Juno, who in Greek is called Hêrê, and hence, according to the Greek myths, one of her sons was called Heros. And these fables mystically signified that Juno was mistress of the air, which they suppose to be inhabited by the demons and the heroes, understanding by heroes the souls of the well-deserving dead. But for a quite opposite reason would we call our martyrs heroes,—supposing, as I said, that the usage of ecclesiastical language would admit of it,—not because they lived along with the demons in the air, but because they conquered these demons or powers of the air, and among them Juno herself, be she what she may, not unsuitably represented, as she commonly is by the poets, as hostile to virtue, and jealous of men of mark aspiring to the heavens. Virgil, however, unhappily gives way, and yields to her; for, though he represents her as saying, “I am conquered by Æneas,” Helenus gives Æneas himself this religious advice:

> Latin: Moderatis autem praefinitisque temporibus etiam potestas permissa daemonibus, ut hominibus quos possident excitatis inimicitias aduersus Dei ciuitatem tyrannice exerceant sibique sacrificia non solum ab offerentibus sumant et a uolentibus expetant, uerum etiam ab inuitis persequendo uiolenter extorqueant, non solum perniciosa non est, sed etiam utilis inuenitur ecclesiae, ut martyrum numerus inpleatur; quos ciuitas Dei tanto clariores et honoratiores ciues habet, quanto fortius aduersus inpietatis peccatum et usque ad sanguinem certant. Hos multo elegantius, si ecclesiastica loquendi consuetudo pateretur, nostros heroas uocaremus. Hoc enim nomen a Iunone dicitur tractum, quod Graece Iuno Ἥρα appellatur, et ideo nescio quis filius eius secundum Graecorum fabulas Heros fuerit nuncupatus, hoc uidelicet ueluti mysticum significante fabula, quod aer Iunoni deputetur, ubi uolunt cum daemonibus heroas habitare, quo nomine appellant alicuius meriti animas defunctorum. Sed a contrario martyres nostri heroes nuncuparentur, si, ut dixi, usus ecclesiastici sermonis admitteret, non quo eis esset cum daemonibus in aere societas, sed quod eosdem daemones, id est aerias uincerent potestates et in eis ipsam, quidquid putatur significare, Iunonem, quae non usquequaque inconuenienter a poetis inducitur inimica uirtutibus et caelum petentibus uiris fortibus inuida. Sed. rursus ei succumbit infeliciter ceditque Vergilius, ut, cum aput eum illa dicat: Vincor ab Aenea, ipsum Aenean admoneat Helenus quasi consilio religioso et dicat: Iunoni cane nota libens, dominamque potentem Supplicibus supera donis.

[¶2] “Pay vows to Juno: overbear

[¶3] Her queenly soul with gift and prayer.”

[¶4] In conformity with this opinion, Porphyry— expressing, however, not so much his own views as other people’s—says that a good god or genius cannot come to a man unless the evil genius has been first of all propitiated, implying that the evil deities had greater power than the good; for, until they have been appeased and give place, the good can give no assistance; and if the evil deities oppose, the good can give no help; whereas the evil can do injury without the good being able to prevent them. This is not the way of the true and truly holy religion; not thus do our martyrs conquer Juno, that is to say, the powers of the air, who envy the virtues of the pious. Our heroes, if we could so call them, overcome Hêrê, not by suppliant gifts, but by divine virtues. As Scipio, who conquered Africa by his valor, is more suitably styled Africanus than if he had appeased his enemies by gifts, and so won their mercy.

> Latin: Ex qua opinione Porphyrius, quamuis non ex sua sententia, sed ex aliorum, dicit bonum deum uel genium non uenire in hominem, nisi malus fuerit ante placatus; tamquam fortiora sint aput eos numina mala quam bona, quando quidem mala inpediunt adiutoria bonorum, nisi eis placata dent locum, malisque nolentibus bona prodesse non possunt; nocere autem mala possunt, non sibi ualentibus resistere bonis. Non est ista uerae ueraciterque sanctae religionis uia; non sic Iunonem, hoc est aerias potestates piorum uirtutibus inuidentes, nostri martyres uincunt. Non omnino, si dici usitate posset, heroes nostri supplicibus donis, sed uirtutibus diuinis Heran superant. Commodius quippe Scipio Africanus est cognominatus, quod uirtute Africam uicerit, quam si hostes donis placasset, ut parcerent.

### Whence the Saints Derive Power Against Demons and True Purification of Heart.

[¶6] Chapter 22.—Whence the Saints Derive Power Against Demons and True Purification of Heart.

> Latin: Caput XXII. Unde sit sanctis aduersum daemones potestas et unde cordis uera purgatio.

[¶7] It is by true piety that men of God cast out the hostile power of the air which opposes godliness; it is by exorcising it, not by propitiating it; and they overcome all the temptations of the adversary by praying, not to him, but to their own God against him. For the devil cannot conquer or subdue any but those who are in league with sin; and therefore he is conquered in the name of Him who assumed humanity, and that without sin, that Himself being both Priest and Sacrifice, He might bring about the remission of sins, that is to say, might bring it about through the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, by whom we are reconciled to God, the cleansing from sin being accomplished. For men are separated from God only by sins, from which we are in this life cleansed not by our own virtue, but by the divine compassion; through His indulgence, not through our own power. For, whatever virtue we call our own is itself bestowed upon us by His goodness. And we might attribute too much to ourselves while in the flesh, unless we lived in the receipt of pardon until we laid it down. This is the reason why there has been vouchsafed to us, through the Mediator, this grace, that we who are polluted by sinful flesh should be cleansed by the likeness of sinful flesh. By this grace of God, wherein He has shown His great compassion toward us, we are both governed by faith in this life, and, after this life, are led onwards to the fullest perfection by the vision of immutable truth.

> Latin: Vera pietate homines Dei aeriam potestatem inimicam contrariamque pietati exorcizando eiciunt, non placando, omnesque tentationes aduersitatis eius uincunt orando non ipsam, sed Deum suum aduersus ipsam. Non enim aliquem uincit aut subiugat nisi societate peccati. In eius ergo nomine uincitur, qui hominem adsumsit egitque sine peccato, ut in ipso sacerdote ac sacrificio fieret remissio peccatorum, id est per mediatorem Dei et hominum, hominem Christum Iesum, per quem facta peccatorum purgatione reconciliamur Deo. Non enim nisi peccatis homines separantur a Deo, quorum in hac uita non fit nostra uirtute, sed diuina miseratione purgatio, per indulgentiam illius, non per nostram potentiam; quia et ipsa quantulacumque uirtus, quae dicitur nostra, illius est nobis bonitate concessa. Multum autem nobis in hac carne tribueremus, nisi usque ad eius depositionem sub uenia uiueremus. Propterea ergo nobis per Mediatorem praestita est gratia, ut polluti carne peccati carnis peccati similitudine mundaremur. Hac Dei gratia, qua in nos ostendit magnam misericordiam suam, et in hac uita per fidem regimur, et post hanc uitam per ipsam speciem incommutabilis ueritatis ad perfectionem plenissimam perducemur.

### Of the Principles Which, According to the Platonists, Regulate the Purification of the Soul.

[¶9] Chapter 23.—Of the Principles Which, According to the Platonists, Regulate the Purification of the Soul.

> Latin: Caput XXIII. De principiis, in quibus Platonici purgationem animae esse profitentur.

[¶10] Even Porphyry asserts that it was revealed by divine oracles that we are not purified by any sacrifices to sun or moon, meaning it to be inferred that we are not purified by sacrificing to any gods. For what mysteries can purify, if those of the sun and moon, which are esteemed the chief of the celestial gods, do not purify? He says, too, in the same place, that “principles” can purify, lest it should be supposed, from his saying that sacrificing to the sun and moon cannot purify, that sacrificing to some other of the host of gods might do so. And what he as a Platonist means by “principles,” we know. For he speaks of God the Father and God the Son, whom he calls (writing in Greek) the intellect or mind of the Father; but of the Holy Spirit he says either nothing, or nothing plainly, for I do not understand what other he speaks of as holding the middle place between these two. For if, like Plotinus in his discussion regarding the three principal substances, he wished us to understand by this third the soul of nature, he would certainly not have given it the middle place between these two, that is, between the Father and the Son. For Plotinus places the soul of nature after the intellect of the Father, while Porphyry, making it the mean, does not place it after, but between the others. No doubt he spoke according to his light, or as he thought expedient; but we assert that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit not of the Father only, nor of the Son only, but of both. For philosophers speak as they have a mind to, and in the most difficult matters do not scruple to offend religious ears; but we are bound to speak according to a certain rule, lest freedom of speech beget impiety of opinion about the matters themselves of which we speak.

> Latin: Dicit etiam Porphyrius diuinis oraculis fuisse responsum nos non purgari lunae teletis adque solis, ut hinc ostenderetur nullorum deorum teletis hominem posse purgari. Cuius enim teletae purgant, si lunae solisque non purgant, quos inter caelestes deos praecipuos habent? Denique eodem dicit oraculo expressum principia posse purgare, ne forte, cum dictum esset non purgare teletas solis et lunae, alicuius alterius dei de turba ualere ad purgandum teletae crederentur. Quae autem dicat esse principia tamquam Platonicus, nouimus. Dicit enim Deum Patrem et Deum Filium, quem Graece appellat paternum intellectum uel paternam mentem; de Spiritu autem sancto aut nihil aut non aperte aliquid dicit; quamuis quem alium dicat horum medium, non intellego. Si enim tertiam, sicut Plotinus, ubi de tribus principalibus substantiis disputat, animae naturam etiam iste uellet intellegi, non utique diceret horum medium, id est Patris et Filii medium. Postponit quippe Plotinus animae naturam paterno intellectui; iste autem cum dicit medium, non postponit, sed interponit. Et nimirum hoc dixit, ut potuit siue ut uoluit, quod nos sanctum Spiritum, nec Patris tantum nec Filii tantum, sed utriusque Spiritum dicimus. Liberis enim uerbis loquuntur philosophi, nec in rebus ad intellegendum difficillimis offensionem religiosarum aurium pertimescunt. Nobis autem ad certam regulam loqui fas est, ne uerborum licentia etiam de rebus, quae his significantur, inpiam gignat opinionem.

### Of the One Only True Principle Which Alone Purifies and Renews Human Nature.

[¶12] Chapter 24.—Of the One Only True Principle Which Alone Purifies and Renews Human Nature.

> Latin: Caput XXIV. De uno ueroque principio, quod solum naturam humanam purgat adque renouat.

[¶13] Accordingly, when we speak of God, we do not affirm two or three principles, no more than we are at liberty to affirm two or three gods; although, speaking of each, of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Holy Ghost, we confess that each is God: and yet we do not say, as the Sabellian heretics say, that the Father is the same as the Son, and the Holy Spirit the same as the Father and the Son; but we say that the Father is the Father of the Son, and the Son the Son of the Father, and that the Holy Spirit of the Father and the Son is neither the Father nor the Son. It was therefore truly said that man is cleansed only by a Principle, although the Platonists erred in speaking in the plural of principles. But Porphyry, being under the dominion of these envious powers, whose influence he was at once ashamed of and afraid to throw off, refused to recognize that Christ is the Principle by whose incarnation we are purified. Indeed he despised Him, because of the flesh itself which He assumed, that He might offer a sacrifice for our purification,—a great mystery, unintelligible to Porphyry’s pride, which that true and benignant Redeemer brought low by His humility, manifesting Himself to mortals by the mortality which He assumed, and which the malignant and deceitful mediators are proud of wanting, promising, as the boon of immortals, a deceptive assistance to wretched men. Thus the good and true Mediator showed that it is sin which is evil, and not the substance or nature of flesh; for this, together with the human soul, could without sin be both assumed and retained, and laid down in death, and changed to something better by resurrection. He showed also that death itself, although the punishment of sin, was submitted to by Him for our sakes without sin, and must not be evaded by sin on our part, but rather, if opportunity serves, be borne for righteousness’ sake. For he was able to expiate sins by dying, because He both died, and not for sin of His own. But He has not been recognized by Porphyry as the Principle, otherwise he would have recognized Him as the Purifier. The Principle is neither the flesh nor the human soul in Christ but the Word by which all things were made. The flesh, therefore, does not by its own virtue purify, but by virtue of the Word by which it was assumed, when “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” For speaking mystically of eating His flesh, when those who did not understand Him were offended and went away, saying, “This is an hard saying, who can hear it?” He answered to the rest who remained, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing.” The Principle, therefore, having assumed a human soul and flesh, cleanses the soul and flesh of believers. Therefore, when the Jews asked Him who He was, He answered that He was the Principle. And this we carnal and feeble men, liable to sin, and involved in the darkness of ignorance, could not possibly understand, unless we were cleansed and healed by Him, both by means of what we were, and of what we were not. For we were men, but we were not righteous; whereas in His incarnation there was a human nature, but it was righteous, and not sinful. This is the mediation whereby a hand is stretched to the lapsed and fallen; this is the seed “ordained by angels,” by whose ministry the law also was given enjoining the worship of one God, and promising that this Mediator should come.

> Latin: Nos itaque ita non dicimus duo uel tria principia, cum de Deo loquimur, sicut nec duos deos uel tres nobis licitum est dicere quamuis de unoquoque loquentes, uel de Patre uel de Filio uel de Spiritu sancto, etiam singulum quemque Deum esse fateamur, nec dicamus tamen quod haeretici Sabelliani, eundem esse Patrem, qui est et Filius, et eundem Spiritum sanctum, qui est et Pater et Filius, sed Patrem esse Filii Patrem, et Filium Patris Filium, et Patris et Filii Spiritum sanctum nec Patrem esse nec Filium. Verum itaque dictum est non purgari hominem nisi principio, quamuis pluraliter aput eos sint dicta principia. [XXIHI.] Sed subditus Porphyrius inuidis potestatibus, de quibus et erubescebat, et eas libere redarguere formidabat, noluit intellegere Dominum Christum esse principium, cuius incarnatione purgamur. Eum quippe in ipsa carne contemsit. quam propter sacrificium nostrae purgationis adsumsit, magnum scilicet sacramentum ea superbia non intellegens, quam sua ille humilitate deiecit uerus benignusque Mediator, in ea se ostendens mortalitate mortalibus, quam maligni fallacesque mediatores non habendo se superbius extulerunt miserisque hominibus adiutorium deceptorium uelut inmortales mortalibus promiserunt. Bonus itaque uerusque Mediator ostendit peccatum esse malum, non carnis substantiam uel naturam, quae cum anima hominis et suscipi sine peccato potuit et haberi, et morte deponi et in melius resurrectione mutari; nec ipsam mortem, quamuis esset poena peccati, quam tamen pro nobis sine peccato ipse persoluit, peccando esse uitandam, sed potius, si facultas datur, pro iustitia perferendam. Ideo enim soluere potuit moriendo peccata, quia et mortuus est, et non pro peccato. Hunc ille Platonicus non cognouit esse principium; nam cognosceret purgatorium. Neque enim caro principium est aut anima humana, sed Verbum per quod facta sunt omnia. Non ergo caro per se ipsam mundat, sed per Verbum a quo suscepta est, cum Verbum caro factum est et habitauit in nobis. Nam de carne sua manducanda mystice loquens, cum hi qui non intellexerunt offensi recederent dicentes: Durus est hic sermo, quis eum potest audire? respondit manentibus ceteris: Spiritus est qui uiuificat, caro autem non prodest quidquam. Principium ergo suscepta anima et carne et animam credentium mundat et carnem. Ideo quaerentibus Iudaeis quis esset respondit se esse principium. Quod utique carnales, infirmi, peccatis obnoxii et ignorantiae tenebris obuoluti nequaquam percipere possemus, nisi ab eo mundaremur adque sanaremur per hoc quod eramus et non eramus. Eramus enim homines, sed iusti non eramus; in illius autem incarnatione natura humana erat, sed iusta, non peccatrix erat. Haec est mediatio, qua manus lapsis iacentibusque porrecta est; hoc est semen dispositum per angelos, in quorum edictis et lex dabatur, qua et unus Deus coli iubebatur et hic Mediator uenturus promittebatur.

### That All the Saints, Both Under the Law and Before It, Were Justified by Faith in the Mystery of Christ’s Incarnation.

[¶15] Chapter 25.—That All the Saints, Both Under the Law and Before It, Were Justified by Faith in the Mystery of Christ’s Incarnation.

> Latin: Caput XXV. Omnes sanctos et sub legis tempore et sub prioribus saeculis in sacramento et fide Christi iustificatos fuisse.

[¶16] It was by faith in this mystery, and godliness of life, that purification was attainable even by the saints of old, whether before the law was given to the Hebrews (for God and the angels were even then present as instructors), or in the periods under the law, although the promises of spiritual things, being presented in figure, seemed to be carnal, and hence the name of Old Testament. For it was then the prophets lived, by whom, as by angels, the same promise was announced; and among 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.” In this psalm the distinction between the Old and New Testaments is distinctly announced. For the Psalmist says, that when he saw that the carnal and earthly promises were abundantly enjoyed by the ungodly, his feet were almost gone, his steps had well-nigh slipped; and that it seemed to him as if he had served God 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 desire of understanding why it was so, he had labored in vain, until he went into the sanctuary of God, and understood the end of those whom he had erroneously considered happy. Then he understood that they were cast down by that very thing, as he says, which they had made their boast, and that they had been consumed and perished for their inequities; and that that whole fabric of temporal prosperity had become as a dream when one awaketh, and suddenly finds himself destitute of all the joys he had imaged in sleep. And, as in this earth or earthy city they seemed to themselves to be great, he says, “O Lord, in Thy city Thou wilt reduce their image to nothing.” He also shows how beneficial it had been for him to seek even earthly blessings only from the one true God, in whose power are all things, for he says, “As a beast was I before Thee, and I am always with Thee.” “As a beast,” he says, meaning that he was stupid. For I ought to have sought from Thee such things as the ungodly could not enjoy as well as I, and not those things which I saw them enjoying in abundance, and hence concluded I was serving Thee in vain, because they who declined to serve Thee had what I had not. Nevertheless, “I am always with Thee,” because even in my desire for such things I did not pray to other gods. And consequently he goes on, “Thou hast holden me 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 them enjoyed by the wicked, his feet had almost gone. “For what,” he says, “have I in heaven, and what have I desired from Thee upon earth?” He blames himself, and is justly displeased with himself; because, though he had in heaven so vast a possession (as he afterwards understood), he yet sought from his God on earth a transitory and fleeting happiness;—a happiness of mire, we may say. “My heart and my flesh,” he says, “fail, O God of my heart.” Happy failure, from things below to things above! And hence in another psalm He says, “My soul longeth, yea, even faileth, for the courts of the Lord.” Yet, though he had said of both his heart and his flesh that they were failing, he did not say, O God of my heart and my flesh, but, O God of my heart; for by the heart the flesh is made clean. Therefore, says the Lord, “Cleanse that which is within, and the outside shall be clean also.” He then says that God Himself,—not anything received from Him, but Himself,—is his portion. “The God of my heart, and my portion for ever.” Among the various objects 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, who prostitute themselves to many gods. And then follows the verse 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; not to go a-whoring with a multitude of gods. And then shall this union with God be perfected, when all that is to be redeemed in us has been redeemed. But for the present we must, as he goes on to say, “place our hope in God.” “For that which is seen,” says the apostle, “is not hope. For what a man sees, why does he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.” Being, then, for the present established in this hope, let us do what the Psalmist further indicates, and become in our measure angels or messengers of God, declaring His will, and praising His glory and His grace. For when he had said, “To place my hope in God,” he goes on, “that I may declare all Thy praises in the gates of the daughter of Zion.” This is the most glorious city of God; this is the city which knows and worships one God: she is celebrated by the holy angels, who invite us to their society, and desire us to become fellow-citizens with them in this city; for they do not wish us to worship them as our gods, but to join them in worshipping their God and ours; nor to sacrifice to them, but, together with them, to become a sacrifice to God. Accordingly, whoever will 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 greater assistance, when we join them in worshipping one God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, than if we were to offer to themselves sacrifice and worship.

> Latin: Huius sacramenti fide etiam iusti antiqui mundari pie uiuendo potuerunt, non solum antequam lex populo Hebraeo daretur (neque enim eis praedicator Deus uel angeli defuerunt), sed ipsius quoque legis temporibus, quamuis in figuris rerum spiritalium habere uideretur promissa carnalia, propter quod uetus dicitur testamentum. Nam et prophetae tunc erant, per quos, sicut per angelos, eadem promissio praedicata est, et ex illorum numero erat. cuius tam magnam diuinamque sententiam de boni humani fine paulo ante commemoraui: Mihi autem adhaerere Deo bonum est. In quo plane psalmo duorum testamentorum, quae dicuntur uetus et nouum, satis est declarata distinctio. Propter carnales enim terrenasque promissiones, cum eas inpiis abundare perspiceret, dicit pedes suos paene fuisse commotos et effusos in lapsum propemodum gressus suos, tamquam frustra Deo ipse seruisset, cum ea felicitate, quam de illo expectabat, contemtores eius florere perspiceret; seque in rei huius inquisitione laborasse, uolentem quur ita esset adprehendere, donec intraret in sanctuarium Dei et intellegeret in nouissima eorum, qui felices uidebantur erranti. Tunc eos intellexit in eo, quod se extulerunt, sicut dicit, fuisse deiectos et defecisse ac perisse propter iniquitates suas; totumque illud culmen temporalis felicitatis ita eis factum tamquam somnium euigilantis, qui se repente inuenit suis quae somniabat fallacibus gaudiis destitutum. Et quoniam in hac terra uel in ciuitate terrena magni sibi uidebantur: Domine, inquit, imaginem illorum in ciuitate tua ad nihilum rediges. Quod huic tamen utile fuerit etiam ipsa terrena non nisi ab uno uero Deo quaerere, in cuius potestate sunt omnia, satis ostendit ubi ait: Velut pecus factus sum aput te, et ego semper tecum. Velut pecus dixit utique ‘non intellegens.’ ‘Ea quippe a te desiderare debui, quae mihi cum inpiis non possunt esse communia, quibus eos cum abundare cernerem, putaui me incassum tibi seruisse, quando et illi haec haberent, qui tibi seruire noluissent. Tamen ego semper tecum, qui etiam in talium rerum desiderio deos alios non quaesiui. Ac per hoc sequitur: Tenuisti manum dexterae meae, et in uoluntate tua deduxisti me, et cum gloria adsumsisti me; tamquam ad sinistram cuncta illa pertineant, quae abundare aput inpios cum uidisset paene conlapsus est. Quid enim mihi est, inquit, in caelo, et a te quid uolui super terram? Reprehendit se ipsum iusteque sibi displicuit, quia, cum tam magnum bonum haberet in caelo (quod post intellexit), rem transitoriam, fragilem et quodam modo luteam felicitatem a suo Deo quaesiuit in terra. Defecit, inquit, cor meum et caro mea, Deus cordis mei, defectu utique bono ab inferioribus ad superna; unde in alio psalmo dicitur: Desiderat et deficit anima mea in atria Domini; item in alio: Defecit in salutare tuum anima mea. Tamen cum de utroque dixisset, id est de corde et carne deficiente, non subiecit: Deus cordis et carnis meae, sed Deus cordis mei. Per cor quippe caro mundatur. Unde dicit Dominus: Mundate, quae intus sunt, et quae foris sunt munda erunt. Partem deinde suam dicit ipsum Deum, non aliquid ab eo, sed ipsum. Deus, inquit, cordis mei, et pars mea Deus in saecula; quod inter multa, quae ab hominibus eliguntur, ipse illi placuerit eligendus. Quia ecce, inquit, qui longe se faciunt a te, peribunt; perdidisti omnem, qui fornicatur abs te, hoc est, qui multorum deorum uult esse prostibulum. Unde sequitur illud, propter quod et cetera de eodem psalmo dicenda uisa sunt: Mihi autem adhaerere Deo bonum est, non longe ire, non per plurima fornicari. Adhaerere autem Deo tunc perfectum erit, cum totum, quod liberandum est, fuerit liberatum. Nunc uero fit illud, quod sequitur: Ponere in Deo spem meam. Spes enim quae uidetur, non est spes; quod enim uidet quis, quid sperat? ait apostolus. Si autem quod non uidemus speramus, per patientiam expectamus, In hac autem spe nunc constituti agamus quod sequitur, et simus nos quoque pro modulo nostro angeli Dei, id est nuntii eius, adnuntiantes eius uoluntatem et gloriam gratiamque laudantes. Unde cum dixisset: Ponere in Deo spem meam, ut adnuntiem, inquit, omnes laudes tuas in portis filiae Sion. Haec est gloriosissima ciuitas Dei: haec unum Deum nouit et colit; hanc angeli sancti adnuntiauerunt, qui nos ad eius societatem inuitauerunt ciuesque suos in illa esse uoluerunt; quibus non placet ut eos colamus tamquam nostros deos, sed cum eis et illorum et nostrum Deum; nec eis sacrificemus, sed cum ipsis sacrificium simus Deo. Nullo itaque dubitante, qui haec deposita maligna obstinatione considerat, omnes inmortales beati, qui nobis non inuident (neque enim si inuiderent, essent beati), sed potius nos diligunt, ut et nos cum ipsis beati simus, plus nobis fauent, plus adiuuant, quando unum Deum cum illis colimus. Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum, quam si eos ipsos per sacrificia coleremus.

### Of Porphyry’s Weakness in Wavering Between the Confession of the True God and the Worship of Demons.

[¶18] Chapter 26.—Of Porphyry’s Weakness in Wavering Between the Confession of the True God and the Worship of Demons.

> Latin: Caput XXVI. De inconstantia Porphyrii inter confessionem ueri Dei et cultum daemonum fluctuantis.

[¶19] I know not how it is so, but it seems to me that Porphyry blushed for his friends the theurgists; for he knew all that I have adduced, but did not frankly condemn polytheistic worship. He said, in fact, that there are some angels who visit earth, and reveal divine truth to theurgists, and others who publish on earth the things that belong to the Father, His height and depth. Can we believe, then, that the angels whose office it is to declare the will of the Father, wish us to be subject to any but Him whose will they declare? And hence, even this Platonist himself judiciously observes that we should rather imitate than invoke them. We ought not, then, to fear that we may offend these immortal and happy subjects of the one God by not sacrificing to them; for this they know to be due only to the one true God, in allegiance to whom they themselves find their blessedness, and therefore they will not have it given to them, either in figure or in the reality, which the mysteries of sacrifice symbolized. Such arrogance belongs to proud and wretched demons, whose disposition is diametrically opposite to the piety of those who are subject to God, and whose blessedness consists in attachment to Him. And, that we also may attain to this bliss, they aid us, as is fit, with sincere kindliness, and usurp over us no dominion, but declare to us Him under whose rule we are then fellow-subjects. Why, then, O philosopher, do you still fear to speak freely against the powers which are inimical both to true virtue and to the gifts of the true God? Already you have discriminated between the angels who proclaim God’s will, and those who visit theurgists, drawn down by I know not what art. Why do you still ascribe to these latter the honor of declaring divine truth? If they do not declare the will of the Father, what divine revelations can they make? Are not these the evil spirits who were bound over by the incantations of an envious man, that they should not grant purity of soul to another, and could not, as you say, be set free from these bonds by a good man anxious for purity, and recover power over their own actions? Do you still doubt whether these are wicked demons; or do you, perhaps, feign ignorance, that you may not give offence to the theurgists, who have allured you by their secret rites, and have taught you, as a mighty boon, these insane and pernicious devilries? Do you dare to elevate above the air, and even to heaven, these envious powers, or pests, let me rather call them, less worthy of the name of sovereign than of slave, as you yourself own; and are you not ashamed to place them even among your sidereal gods, and so put a slight upon the stars themselves?

> Latin: Nescio quo modo (quantum milii uidetur) amicis suis theurgis erubescebat Porphyrius. Nam ista utcumque sapiebat, sed contra multorum deorum cultum non libere defendebat. Et angelos quippe alios esse dixit. qui deorsum descendentes hominibus theurgicis diuina pronuntient; alios autem, qui in terris ea, quae Patris sunt, et altitudinem eius profunditatemque declarent. Nam igitur hos angelos, quorum ministerium est declarare uoluntatem Patris, credendum est uelle nos subdi nisi ei, cuius nobis adnuntiant uoluntatem? Unde optime admonet etiam ipse Platonicus imitandos eos potius quam inuocandos. Non itaque debemus metuere, ne inmortales et beatos uni Deo subditos non eis sacrificando offendamus. Quod enim non nisi uni uero Deo deberi sciunt, cui et ipsi adhaerendo beati sunt, procul dubio neque per ullam significantem figuram, neque per ipsam rem, quae sacramentis significatur, sibi exhiberi uolunt. Daemonum est haec adrogantia superborum adque miserorum, a quibus longe diuersa est pietas subditorum Deo nec aliunde quam illi cohaerendo beatorum. Ad quod bonum percipiendum etiam nobis sincera benignitate oportet ut faueant, neque sibi adrogent quo eis subiciamur, sed eum adnuntient sub quo eis in pace sociemur. Quid adhuc trepidas, o philosophe, aduersus potestates et ueris uirtutibus et ueri Dei muneribus inuidas habere liberam uocem? Iam distinxisti angelos, qui Patris adnuntiant uoluntatem, ab eis angelis, qui ad theurgos homines nescio qua deducti arte descendunt. Quid adhuc eos honoras, ut dicas pronuntiare diuina? Quae tandem diuina pronuntiant, qui non uoluntatem Patris adnuntiant? Nempe illi sunt, quos sacris precibus inuidus adligauit, ne praestarent animae purgationem, nec a bono, ut dicis, purgare cupiente ab illis uinculis solui et suae potestati reddi potuerunt. Adhuc dubitas haec maligna esse daemonia, uel te fingis fortasse nescire, dum non uis theurgos offendere, a quibus curiositate deceptus ista perniciosa et insana pro magno beneficio didicisti? Audes istam inuidam non potentiam, sed pestilentiam, et non dicam dominam, sed, quod tu fateris, ancillam potius inuidorum isto aere transcenso leuare in caelum et inter deos uestros etiam sidereos conlocare, uel ipsa quoque sidera his obprobriis infamare?

### Of the Impiety of Porphyry, Which is Worse Than Even the Mistake of Apuleius.

[¶21] Chapter 27.—Of the Impiety of Porphyry, Which is Worse Than Even the Mistake of Apuleius.

> Latin: Caput XXVII. De inpietate Porphyrii, qua etiam Apulei transcendit errorem.

[¶22] How much more tolerable and accordant with human feeling is the error of your Platonist co-sectary Apuleius! for he attributed the diseases and storms of human passions only to the demons who occupy a grade beneath the moon, and makes even this avowal as by constraint regarding gods whom he honors; but the superior and celestial gods, who inhabit the ethereal regions, whether visible, as the sun, moon, and other luminaries, whose brilliancy makes them conspicuous, or invisible, but believed in by him, he does his utmost to remove beyond the slightest stain of these perturbations. It is not, then, from Plato, but from your Chaldæan teachers you have 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 from your gods divine revelations; and yet you make yourself superior to these divine revelations by your intellectual life, which dispenses with these theurgic purifications as not needed by a philosopher. But, by way of rewarding your teachers, you recommend these arts to other men, who, not being philosophers, may be persuaded to use what you acknowledge to be useless to yourself, who are capable of higher things; so that those who cannot avail themselves of the virtue of philosophy, which is too arduous for the multitude, may, at your instigation, betake themselves to theurgists by whom they may be purified, not, indeed, in the intellectual, but in the spiritual part of the soul. Now, as the persons who are unfit for philosophy form incomparably the majority of mankind, more may be compelled to consult these secret and illicit teachers of yours than frequent the Platonic schools. For these most impure demons, pretending to be ethereal gods, whose herald and messenger you have become, have promised that those who are purified by theurgy in the spiritual part of their soul shall not indeed return to the Father, but shall dwell among the ethereal gods above the aerial regions. But such fancies are not listened to by the multitudes of men whom Christ came to set free from the tyranny of demons. For in Him they have the most gracious cleansing, in which mind, spirit, and body alike participate. For, in order that He might heal the whole man from the plague of sin, He took without sin the whole human nature. Would that you had known Him, and would that you had committed yourself for healing to Him rather than to your own frail and infirm human virtue, or to pernicious and curious arts! He would not have deceived you; for Him your own oracles, on your own showing, acknowledged holy and immortal. It is of Him, too, that the most famous poet speaks, poetically indeed, since he applies it to the person of another, yet truly, if you refer it to Christ , saying, “Under thine auspices, if any traces of our crimes remain, they shall be obliterated, and earth freed from its perpetual fear.” By which he indicates that, by reason of the infirmity which attaches to this life, the greatest progress in virtue and righteousness leaves room for the existence, if not of crimes, yet of the traces of crimes, which are obliterated only by that Saviour of whom this verse speaks. For that he did not say this at the prompting of his own fancy, Virgil tells us in almost the last verse of that 4th Eclogue, when he says, “The last age predicted by the Cumæan sibyl has now arrived;” whence it plainly appears that this had been dictated by the Cumæan sibyl. But those theurgists, or rather demons, who assume the appearance and form of gods, pollute rather than purify the human spirit by false appearances and the delusive mockery of unsubstantial forms. How can those whose own spirit is unclean cleanse the spirit of man? Were they not unclean, they would not be bound by the incantations of an envious man, and would neither be afraid nor grudge to bestow that hollow boon which they promise. But it is sufficient for our purpose that you acknowledge that the intellectual soul, that is, our mind, cannot be justified by theurgy; and that even the spiritual or inferior part of our soul cannot by this act be made eternal and immortal, though you 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 astonishment and confusion. What avails your forced avowal that theurgy leads men astray, and deceives vast numbers by its ignorant and foolish teaching, and that it is the most manifest mistake to have recourse by prayer and sacrifice to angels and principalities, when at the same time, to save yourself from the charge of spending labor in vain on such arts, you direct men to the theurgists, that by their means men, who do not live by the rule of the intellectual soul, may have their spiritual soul purified?

> Latin: Quanto humanius et tolerabilius consectaneus tuus Platonicus Apuleius errauit, qui tantummodo daemones a luna et infra ordinatos agitari morbis passionum mentisque turbelis honorans eos quidem, sed uolens nolensque confessus est: deos tamen caeli superiores ad aetheria spatia pertinentes, siue uisibiles, quos conspicuos lucere cernebat, solem ac lunam et cetera ibidem lumina, siue inuisibiles, quos putabat, ab omni labe istarum perturbationum quanta potuit disputatione secreuit! Tu autem hoc didicisti non a Platone, sed a Chaldaeis magistris tuis, ut in aetherias uel empyreas mundi sublimitates et firmamenta caelestia extolleres uitia humana, ut possent di uestri theurgis pronuntiare diuina; quibus diuinis te tamen per intellectualem uitam facis altiorem, ut tibi uidelicet tamquam philosopho theurgicae artis purgationes nequaquam necessariae uideantur; sed aliis eas tamen inportas, ut hanc ueluti mercedem reddas magistris tuis, quod eos, qui philosophari non possunt, ad ista seducis, quae tibi tamquam superiorum capaci esse inutilia confiteris; ut uidelicet quicumque a philosophiae uirtute remoti sunt, quae ardua nimis adque paucorum est, te auctore theurgos homines, a quibus non quidem in anima intellectuali, uerum saltem in anima spiritali purgentur, inquirant, et quoniam istorum, quos philosophari piget, incomparabiliter maior est multitudo, plures ad secretos et inlicitos magistros tuos, quam ad scholas Platonicas uenire cogantur. Hoc enim tibi inmundissimi daemones, deos aetherios se esse fingentes, quorum praedicator et angelus factus es, promiserunt, quod in anima spiritali theurgica arte purgati ad Patrem quidem non redeunt, sed super aerias plagas inter deos aetherios habitabunt. Non audit ista hominum multitudo, propter quos a daemonum dominatu liberandos Christus aduenit. In illo enim habent misericordissimam purgationem et mentis et spiritus et corporis sui. Propterea quippe totum hominem sine peccato ille suscepit, ut totum, quo constat homo, a peccatorum peste sanaret. Quem tu quoque utinam cognouisses eique te potius quam uel tuae uirtuti, quae humana, fragilis et infirma est, uel perniciosissimae curiositati sanandum tutius commisisses. Non enim te decepisset, quem uestra, ut tu ipse scribis, oracula sanctum inmortalemque confessa sunt; de quo etiam poeta nobilissimus poetice quidem, quia in alterius adumbrata persona, ueraciter tamen, si ad ipsum referas, dixit: Te duce, si qua manent sceleris uestigia nostri, Inrita perpetua soluent formidine terras. Ea quippe dixit, quae etiam multum proficientium in uirtute iustitiae possunt propter huius uitae infirmitatem, etsi non scelera, scelerum tamen manere uestigia, quae non nisi ab illo saluatore sanantur, de quo iste uersus expressus est. Nam utique non hoc a se ipso se dixisse Vergilius in eclogae ipsius quarto ferme uersu indicat, ubi ait: Ultima Cumaei uenit iam carminis aetas; unde hoc a Cumaea Sibylla dictum esse incunctanter apparet. Theurgi uero illi uel potius daemones deorum species figurasque fingentes inquinant potius quam purgant humanum spiritum falsitate phantasmatum et deceptoria uanarum ludificatione formarum. Quo modo enim purgent hominis spiritum, qui inmundum habent proprium? Alioquin nullo modo carminibus inuidi hominis ligarentur ipsumque inane beneficium. quod praestaturi uidebantur, aut metu premerent aut simili inuidentia denegarent. Sufficit quod purgatione theurgica neque intellectualem animam, hoc est mentem nostram, dicis posse purgari, et ipsam spiritalem, id est nostrae animae partem mente inferiorem, quam tali arte purgari posse adseris, inmortalem tamen aeternamque non posse hac arte fieri confiteris. Christus autem uitam promittit aeternam; unde ad eum mundus uobis quidem stomachantibus, mirantibus tamen stupentibusque concurrit. Quid prodest quia negare non potuisti errare homines theurgica disciplina et quam plurimos fallere per caecam insipientemque sententiam adque esse certissimum errorem agendo et supplicando ad principes angelosque decurrere, et rursum, quasi ne operam perdidisse uidearis ista discendo, mittis homines ad theurgos, ut per eos anima spiritalis purgetur illorum, qui non secundum intellectualem animam uiuunt?

## 51. How It is that Porphyry Has Been So Blind as Not to Recognize the True Wisdom—Christ.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/51/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/51/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 28.—How It is that Porphyry Has Been So Blind as Not to Recognize the True Wisdom—Christ.

> Latin: Caput XXVIII. Quibus persuasionibus Porphyrius obcaecatus non potuerit ueram sapientiam, quod est Christus, agnoscere.

[¶1] You drive men, therefore, into the most palpable error. And yet you are not ashamed of doing so much harm, though you call yourself a lover of virtue and wisdom. Had you been true and faithful in this profession, you would have recognized Christ, the virtue of God and the wisdom of God, and would not, in the pride of vain science, have revolted from His wholesome humility. Nevertheless you acknowledge that the spiritual part of the soul can be purified by the virtue of chastity without the aid of those theurgic arts and mysteries which you wasted your time in learning. You even say, sometimes, that these mysteries do not raise the soul after death, so that, after the termination of this life, they seem to be of no service even to the part you call spiritual; and yet you recur on every opportunity to these arts, for no other purpose, so far as I see, than to appear an accomplished theurgist, and gratify those who are curious in illicit arts, or else to inspire others with the same curiosity. But we give you all praise for saying that this art is to be feared, both on account of the legal 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, that they might be withdrawn from entire absorption in it, or might even be preserved from tampering with it at all! You say, indeed, that ignorance, and the numberless vices resulting from it, cannot be removed by any mysteries, but only by the πατρικὸς νοῦς, that is, the Father’s mind or intellect conscious of the Father’s will. But that Christ is this mind you do not believe; for Him you despise on account of the body He took of a woman and the shame of the cross; for your lofty wisdom spurns such low and contemptible things, and soars to more exalted regions. But He fulfills what the holy prophets truly predicted regarding Him: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nought the prudence of the prudent.” For He does not destroy and bring to nought His own gift in them, but what they arrogate to themselves, and do not hold of Him. And hence the apostle, having quoted this testimony from the prophet, adds, “Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” This is despised as a weak and foolish thing by those who are wise and strong in themselves; yet this is the grace which heals the weak, who do not proudly boast a blessedness of their own, but rather humbly acknowledge their real misery.

> Latin: Mittis ergo homines in errorem certissimum, neque hoc tantum malum te pudet, cum uirtutis et sapientiae profitearis amatorem; quam si uere ac fideliter amasses, Christum Dei uirtutem et Dei sapientiam cognouisses nec ab eius saluberrima humilitate tumore inflatus uanae scientiae resiluisses. Confiteris tamen etiam spiritalem animam sine theurgicis artibus et sine teletis, quibus frustra discendis elaborasti, posse continentiae uirtute purgari. Aliquando etiam dicis, quod teletae non post mortem eleuant animam, ut iam nec eidem ipsi, quam spiritalem uocas, aliquid post huius uitae finem prodesse uideantur; et tamen uersas haec multis modis et repetis, ad nihil aliud, quantum existimo, nisi ut talium quoque rerum quasi peritus appareas et placeas inlicitarum artium curiosis, uel ad eas facias ipse curiosos. Sed bene, quod metuendam dicis hanc artem uel legum periculis uel ipsius actionis. Adque utinam hoc saltem abs te miseri audiant et inde, ne illic absorbeantur, abscedant aut eo penitus non accedant. Ignorantiam certe et propter eam multa uitia per nullas teletas purgari dicis, sed per solum πατριϰὸν voov, id est paternam mentem siue intellectum, qui paternae est conscius uoluntatis. Hunc autem Christum esse non credis; contemnis enim eum propter corpus ex femina acceptum et propter crucis obprobrium, excelsam uidelicet sapientiam spretis adque abiectis infimis idoneus de superioribus carpere. At ille inplet, quod prophetae sancti de illo ueraciter praedixerunt: Perdam sapientiam sapientium et prudentiam prudentium reprobabo. Non enim suam in eis perdit et reprobat, quam ipse donauit, sed quam sibi adrogant, qui non habent ipsius. Unde commemorato isto prophetico testimonio sequitur et dicit apostolus: Ubi sapiens? ubi scriba? ubi conquisitor huius saeculi? Nonne stultam fecit Deus sapientiam huius mundi? Nam quoniam in Dei sapientia non cognouit mundus per sapientiam Deum, placuit Deo per stultitiam praedicationis saluos facere credentes. Quoniam quidem Iudaei signa petunt et Graeci sapientiam quaerunt; nos autem, inquit, praedicamus Christum crucifixum, Iudaeis quidem scandalum, gentibus autem stultitiam, ipsis uero uocatis Iudaeis et Graecis Christum Dei uirtutem et Dei sapientiam; quoniam stultum Dei sapientius est hominibus, et infirmum Dei fortius est hominibus. Hoc quasi stultum et infirmum tamquam sua uirtute sapientes fortesque contemnunt. Sed haec est gratia, quae sanat infirmos, non superbe iactantes falsam beatitudinem suam, sed humiliter potius ueram miseriam confitentes.

### Of the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Which the Platonists in Their Impiety Blush to Acknowledge.

[¶3] Chapter 29.—Of the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Which the Platonists in Their Impiety Blush to Acknowledge.

> Latin: Caput XXIX. De incarnatione Domini nostri Iesu Christi, quam confiteri Platonicorum erubescit in pietas.

[¶4] You proclaim the Father and His Son, whom you call the Father’s intellect or mind, and between these a third, by whom we suppose you mean the Holy Spirit, and in your own fashion you call these three Gods. In this, though your expressions are inaccurate, you do in some sort, and as through a veil, see what we should strive towards; but the incarnation of the unchangeable Son of God, whereby we are saved, and are enabled to reach the things we believe, or in part understand, this is what you refuse to recognize. You see in a fashion, although at a distance, although with filmy eye, the country in 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 to reach God by virtue of intelligence. For you do not say, “Few have thought fit or have wished,” but, “It has been granted to few,”—distinctly acknowledging God’s grace, not man’s sufficiency. You also use this word more expressly, when, in accordance with the opinion of Plato, you make no doubt that in this life a man cannot by any means attain to perfect wisdom, but that whatever is lacking is in the future life made up to those who live intellectually, by God’s providence and grace. Oh, had you but recognized the grace of God in Jesus Christ our Lord, and that very incarnation of His, wherein He assumed a human soul and body, you might have seemed the brightest example of grace! But what am I doing? I know it is useless to speak to a dead man,—useless, at least, so far as regards you, but perhaps not in vain for those who esteem you highly, and love you on account of their love of wisdom or curiosity about those arts which you ought not to have learned; and these persons I address in your name. The grace of God could not have been more graciously commended to us than thus, that the only Son of God, remaining unchangeable in Himself, should assume humanity, and should give us the hope of His love, by means of the mediation of a human nature, through which we, from the condition of men, might come to Him who was so far off,—the immortal from the mortal; the unchangeable from the changeable; the just from the unjust; the blessed from the wretched. And, as He had given us a natural instinct to desire blessedness and immortality, He Himself continuing to be blessed; but assuming mortality, by enduring what we fear, taught us to despise it, that what we long for He might bestow upon us.

> Latin: Praedicas Patrem et eius Filium, quem uocas paternum intellectum seu mentem, et horum medium, quem putamus te dicere Spiritum sanctum, et more uestro appellas tres deos. Ubi, etsi uerbis indisciplinatis utimini, uidetis tamen qualitercumque et quasi per quaedam tenuis imaginationis umbracula, quo nitendum sit; sed incarnationem incommutabilis Filii Dei, qua saluamur, ut ad illa, quae credimus uel ex quantulacumque parte intellegimus, uenire possimus, non uultis agnoscere. Itaque uidetis utcumque, etsi de longinquo, etsi acie caligante, patriam in qua manendum est. sed uiam qua eundum est non tenetis. Confiteris tamen gratiam, quando quidem ad Deum per uirtutem intellegentiae peruenire paucis dicis esse concessum. Non enim dicis: Paucis placuit, uel: Pauci uoluerunt; sed cum dicis esse concessum, procul dubio Dei gratiam, non hominis sufficientiam confiteris. Uteris etiam hoc uerbo apertius, ubi Platonis sententiam sequens nec ipse dubitas in hac uita hominem nullo modo ad perfectionem sapientiae peruenire, secundum intellectum tamen uiuentibus omne quod deest prouidentia Dei et gratia post hanc uitam posse conpleri.s o si cognouisses Dei gratiam per Iesum Ch:istum dominum nostrum ipsamque eius incarnationem, qua hominis animam corpusque suscepit, summum esse exemplum gratiae uidere potuisses. Sed quid faciam? Scio me frustra loqui mortuo, sed quantum ad te adtinet: quantum autem ad eos, qui te magnipendunt et te uel qualicumque amore sapientiae uel curiositate artium, quas non debuisti discere, diligunt, quos potius in tua conpellatione adloquor, fortasse non frustra. Gratia Dei non potuit gratius commendari, quam ut ipse unicus Dei Filius in se incommutabiliter manens indueretur hominem et spem dilectionis suae daret hominibus homine medio, qua ad illum ab hominibus ueniretur, qui tam longe erat inmortalis a mortalibus, incommutabilis a commutabilibus, iustus ab inpiis, beatus a miseris. Et quia naturaliter indidit nobis, ut beati inmortalesque esse cupiamus, manens beatus suscipiensque mortalem, ut nobis tribueret quod amamus, perpetiendo docuit contemnere quod timemus.

[¶5] But in order to your acquiescence in this truth, it is lowliness that is requisite, and to this it is extremely difficult to bend you. For what is there incredible, especially to men like you, accustomed to speculation, which might have predisposed you to believe in this,—what is there incredible, I say, in the assertion that God assumed a human soul and body? You yourselves ascribe such excellence to the intellectual soul, which is, after all, the human soul, that you maintain that it can become consubstantial with that intelligence of the Father whom you believe in as the Son of God. What incredible thing is it, then, if some one soul be assumed by Him in an ineffable and unique manner for the salvation of many? Moreover, our nature itself testifies that a man is incomplete unless a body be united with the soul. This certainly would be more incredible, were it not of all things the most common; for we should more easily believe in a union between spirit and spirit, or, to use your own terminology, between the incorporeal and the incorporeal, even though the one were human, the other divine, the one changeable and the other unchangeable, than in a union between the corporeal and the incorporeal. But perhaps it is the unprecedented birth of a body from a virgin that staggers you? But, so far from this being a difficulty, it ought rather to assist you to receive our religion, that a miraculous person was born miraculously. Or, do you find a difficulty in the fact that, after His body had been given up to death, and had been changed into a higher kind of body by resurrection, and was now no longer mortal but incorruptible, He carried it up into heavenly places? Perhaps you refuse to believe this, because you remember that Porphyry, in these very books from which I have cited so much, and which treat of the return of the soul, so frequently teaches that a body of every kind is to be escaped from, in order that the soul may dwell in blessedness with God. But here, in place of following Porphyry, you ought rather to have corrected him, especially since you agree with him in believing such incredible things about the soul of this visible world and huge material frame. For, as scholars of Plato, you hold that the world is an animal, and a very happy animal, which you wish to be also everlasting. How, then, is it never to be loosed from a body, and yet never lose its happiness, if, in order to the happiness of the soul, the body must be left behind? The sun, too, and the other stars, you not only acknowledge to be bodies, 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 the Christian faith is pressed upon you, you forget, or pretend to ignore, what you habitually discuss or teach? Why is it that you refuse to be Christians, on the ground that you hold opinions which, in fact, you yourselves demolish? Is it not because Christ came in lowliness, and ye are proud? The precise nature of the resurrection bodies of the saints may sometimes occasion discussion among those who are best read in the Christian Scriptures; yet there is not among us the smallest doubt that they shall be everlasting, and of a nature exemplified in the instance of Christ’s risen body. But whatever be their nature, since we maintain that they shall be absolutely incorruptible and immortal, and shall offer no hindrance to the soul’s contemplation, by which it is fixed in God, and as you say that among the celestials the bodies of 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 escaping from the Christian faith, if not because, as I again say, Christ is humble and ye proud? Are ye ashamed to be corrected? This is the vice of the proud. It is, forsooth, a degradation for learned men to pass from the school of Plato to the discipleship of Christ, who by His Spirit taught a fisherman to think and to say, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” The old saint Simplicianus, afterwards bishop of Milan, used to tell me that a certain Platonist was in the habit of saying that this opening passage of the holy gospel, entitled, According to John, should be written in letters of gold, and hung up in all churches in the most conspicuous place. But the proud scorn to take God for their Master, because “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” So that, with these miserable creatures, it is not enough that they are sick, but they boast of their sickness, and are ashamed of the medicine which could heal them. And, doing so, they secure not elevation, but a more disastrous fall.

> Latin: Sed huic ueritati ut possetis adquiescere, humilitate opus erat, quae ceruici uestrae difficillime persuaderi potest. Quid enim incredibile dicitur, praesertim uobis qui talia sapitis, quibus ad hoc credendum uos ipsos admonere debeatis; quid, inquam, uobis incredibile dicitur, cum dicitur Deus adsumsisse humanam animam et corpus? Vos certe tantum tribuitis animae intellectuali, quae anima utique humana est, ut eam consubstantialem paternae illi menti, quem Dei Filium confitemini, fieri posse dicatis. Quid ergo incredibile est, si aliqua una intellectualis anima modo quodam ineffabili et singulari pro multorum salute suscepta est? Corpus uero animae cohaerere, ut homo totus et plenus sit, natura ipsa nostra teste cognoscimus. Quod nisi usitatissimum esset, hoc profecto esset incredibilius; facilius quippe in fidem recipiendum est, etsi humanum diuino, etsi mutabilem incommutabili, tamen spiritum spiritui, aut ut uerbis utar quae in usu habetis, incorporeum incorporeo, quam corpus incorporeo cohaerere. An forte uos offendit inusitatus corporis partus ex uirgine? Neque hoc debet offendere, immo potius ad pietatem suscipiendam debet adducere, quod mirabilis mirabiliter natus est. An uero quod ipsum corpus morte depositum et in melius resurrectione mutatum iam incorruptibile neque mortale in superna subuexit, hoc fortasse credere recusatis intuentes Porphyrium in his ipsis libris, ex quibus multa posui, quos de regressu animae scripsit, tam crebro praecipere omne corpus esse fugiendum, ut anima possit beata permanere cum Deo? Sed ipse potius ista sentiens corrigendus fuit, praesertim cum de anima mundi huius uisibilis et tam ingentis corporeae molis cum illo tam incredibilia sapiatis. Platone quippe auctore animal esse dicitis mundum et animal beatissimum, quod uultis esse etiam sempiternum. Quo modo ergo nec umquam soluetur a corpore, nec umquam carebit beatitudine, si, ut beata sit anima, corpus sit omne fugiendum? Solem quoque istum et cetera sidera non solum in libris uestris corpora esse fatemini, quod uobiscum omnes homines et conspicere non cunctantur et dicere; uerum etiam altiore, ut putatis, peritia haec esse animalia beatissima perhibetis et cum his corporibus sempiterna. Quid ergo est, quod, cum uobis fides Christiana suadetur, tunc obliuiscimini, aut ignorare uos fingitis, quid disputare aut docere soleatis? Quid causae est, quur propter opiniones uestras, quas uos ipsi obpugnatis, Christiani esse nolitis, nisi quia Christus humiliter uenit et uos superbi estis? Qualia sanctorum corpora in resurrectione futura sint, potest aliquanto scrupulosius inter Christianarum scripturarum doctissimos disputari; futura tamen sempiterna minime dubitamus, et talia futura, quale sua resurrectione Christus demonstrauit exemplum. Sed qualiacumque sint, cum incorruptibilia prorsus et inmortalia nihiloque animae contemplationem, qua in Deo figitur, inpedientia praedicentur uosque etiam dicatis esse in caelestibus inmortalia corpora inmortaliter beatorum: quid est quod, ut beati simus, omne corpus fugiendum esse opinamini, ut fidem Christianam quasi rationabiliter fugere uideamini, nisi quia illud est, quod iterum dico: Christus est humilis, uos superbi? An forte corrigi pudet? Et hoc uitium non nisi. superborum est. Pudet uidelicet doctos homines ex discipulis Platonis fieri discipulos Christi, qui piscatorem suo spiritu docuit sapere ac dicere: In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat aput Deum, et Deus erat Verbum. Hoc erat in principio aput Deum. Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est. In ipso uita erat, et uita erat lux hominum, et lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebrae eam non conprehenderunt. Quod initium sancti euangelii, cui nomen est secundum Iohannem, quidam Platonicus, sicut a sancto sene Simpliciano, qui postea Mediolanensi ecclesiae praesedit episcopus, solebamus audire, aureis litteris conscribendum et per omnes ecclesias in locis eminentissimis proponendum esse dicebat. Sed ideo uiluit superbis Deus ille magister, quia Verbum caro factum est et habitauit in nobis; ut parum sit miseris quod aegrotant, nisi se etiam in ipsa aegritudine extollant et de medicina, qua sanari poterant, erubescant. Non enim hoc faciunt ut erigantur, sed ut cadendo grauius adfligantur.

### Porphyry’s Emendations and Modifications of Platonism.

[¶7] Chapter 30.—Porphyry’s Emendations and Modifications of Platonism.

> Latin: Caput XXX. Quanta Platonici dogmatis Porphyrius refutauerit et dissentiendo correxerit.

[¶8] If it is considered unseemly to emend anything which Plato has touched, why did Porphyry himself make emendations, and these not a few? for it is very certain that Plato wrote that the souls of men return after death to the bodies of beasts. Plotinus also, Porphyry’s teacher, held this opinion; yet Porphyry justly rejected it. He was of opinion that human souls return indeed into human bodies, but not into the bodies they had left, but other new bodies. He shrank from the other opinion, lest a woman who had returned into a mule might possibly carry her own son on her back. He did not shrink, however, from a theory which admitted the possibility of a mother coming back into a girl and marrying her own son. How much more honorable a creed is that which was taught by the holy and truthful angels, uttered by the prophets who were moved by God’s Spirit, preached by Him 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 much more honorable, I say, is the belief that souls return once for all to their own bodies, than that they return again and again to divers bodies? Nevertheless Porphyry, as I have said, did considerably improve upon this opinion, in so far, at least, as he maintained that human souls could transmigrate only into human bodies, and made no scruple about demolishing the bestial prisons into which Plato had wished to cast them. He says, too, that God put the soul into the world that it might recognize the evils of matter, and return to the Father, and be for ever emancipated from the polluting contact of matter. And although here is some inappropriate thinking (for the soul is rather given to the body that it may do good; for it would not learn evil unless it did it), yet he corrects the opinion of other Platonists, and that on a point of no small importance, inasmuch as he avows that the soul, which is purged from all evil and received to the Father’s presence, shall never again suffer the ills of this life. By this opinion he quite subverted the favorite Platonic dogma, that as dead men are made out of living ones, so living men are made out of dead ones; and he exploded the idea which Virgil seems to have adopted from Plato, that the purified souls which have been sent into the Elysian fields (the poetic name for the joys of the blessed) are summoned to the river Lethe, that is, to the oblivion of the past,

> Latin: Si post Platonem aliquid emendare existimatur indignum, quur ipse Porphyrius nonnulla et non parua emendauit? Nam Platonem animas hominum post mortem reuolui usque ad corpora bestiarum scripsisse certissimum est. Hanc sententiam Porphyrii doctor tenuit et Plotinus; Porphyrio tamen iure displicuit. In hominum sane non sua quae dimiserant, sed alia noua corpora redire humanas animas arbitratus est. Puduit scilicet illud credere, ne mater fortasse filium in mulam reuoluta uectaret; et non puduit hoc credere, ubi reuoluta mater in puellam filio forsitan nuberet. Quanto creditur honestius, quod sancti et ueraces angeli docuerunt, quod prophetae Dei spiritu acti locuti sunt, quod ipse quem uenturum Saluatorem praemissi nuntii praedixerunt, quod missi apostoli qui orbem terrarum euangelio repleuerunt, — quanto, inquam, honestius creditur reuerti animas semel ad corpora propria quam reuerti totiens ad diuersa! Verum tamen, ut dixi, ex magna parte correctus est in hac opinione Porphyrius, ut saltem in solos homines humanas animas praecipitari posse sentiret, beluinos autem carceres euertere minime dubitaret. Dicit etiam ad hoc Deum animam mundo dedisse, ut materiae cognoscens mala ad Patrem recurreret nec aliquando iam talium polluta contagione teneretur. Ubi etsi aliquid inconuenienter sapit (magis enim data est corpori, ut bona faceret; non enim mala disceret, si non faceret), in eo tamen aliorum Platonicorum opinionem et non in re parua emendauit, quod mundatam ab omnibus malis animam et cum Patre constitutam numquam iam mala mundi huius passuram esse confessus est. Qua sententia profecto abstulit, quod esse Platonicum maxime perhibetur, ut mortuos ex uiuis, ita uiuos ex mertuis semper fieri; falsumque esse ostendit, quod Platonice uidetur dixisse Vergilius, in campos Elysios purgatas animas missas (quo nomine tamquam per fabulam uidentur significari gaudia beatorum) ad fluuium Letheum euocari, hoc est ad obliuionem praeteritorum: Scilicet inmemores supera ut conuexa reuisant Rursus et incipiant in corpora uelle reuerti.

[¶9] “That earthward they may pass once more,

[¶10] Remembering not the things before,

[¶11] And with a blind propension yearn

[¶12] To fleshly bodies to return.”

[¶13] This found no favor with Porphyry, and very justly; for it is indeed foolish to believe that souls should desire to return from that life, which cannot be very blessed unless by the assurance of its permanence, and to come back into this life, and to the pollution of corruptible bodies, as if the result of perfect purification were only to make defilement desirable. For if perfect purification effects the oblivion of all evils, and the oblivion of evils creates a desire for a body in which the soul may again be entangled with evils, then the supreme felicity will be the cause of infelicity, and the perfection of wisdom the cause of foolishness, and the purest cleansing the cause of defilement. And, however long the blessedness of the soul last, it cannot be founded on truth, if, in order to be blessed, it must be deceived. For it cannot be blessed unless it be free from fear. But, to be free from fear, it must be under the false impression that it shall be always blessed,—the false impression, for it is destined to be also at some time miserable. How, then, shall the soul rejoice in truth, whose joy is founded on falsehood? Porphyry saw this, and therefore said that the purified soul returns to the Father, that it may never more be entangled in the polluting contact with evil. The opinion, therefore, of some Platonists, that there is a necessary revolution carrying souls away and bringing them round 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 we were in this life ignorant of what they themselves were doomed to be ignorant of when perfected in purity and wisdom in another and better life, and which they must be ignorant of if they are to be blessed? If it were most absurd and foolish to say so, then certainly we must prefer Porphyry’s opinion to the idea of a circulation of souls through constantly alternating happiness and misery. And if this is just, here is a Platonist emending Plato, here is a man who saw what Plato did not see, and who did not shrink from correcting so illustrious a master, but preferred truth to Plato.

> Latin: Merito displicuit hoc Porphyrio, quoniam re uera credere stultum est ex illa uita, quae beatissima esse non poterit nisi de sua fuerit aeternitate certissima, desiderare animas corruptibilium corporum labem et inde ad ista remeare, tamquam hoc agat summa purgatio, ut inquinatio requiratur. Si enim quod perfecte mundantur hoc efficit, ut omnium obliuiscantur malorum, malorum autem obliuio facit corporum desiderium, ubi rursus inplicentur malis: profecto erit infelicitatis causa summa felicitas et stultitiae causa perfectio sapientiae et inmunditiae causa summa mundatio. Nec ueritate ibi beata erit anima, quamdiucumque erit, ubi oportet fallatur, ut beata sit. Non enim beata erit nisi secura; ut autem secura sit, falso putabit semper se beatam fore, quoniam aliquando erit et misera. Cui ergo gaudendi causa falsitas erit, quo modo de ueritate gaudebit? Vidit hoc Porphyrius purgatamque animam ob hoc reuerti dixit ad Patrem, ne aliquando iam malorum polluta contagione teneatur. Falso igitur a quibusdam est Platonicis creditus quasi necessarius orbis ille ab eisdem abeundi et ad eadem reuertendi. Quod etiamsi uerum esset, quid hoc scire prodesset, nisi forte inde se nobis auderent praeferre Platonici, quia id nos in hac uita iam nesciremus, quod ipsi in alia meliore uita purgatissimi et sapientissimi fuerant nescituri et falsum credendo beati futuri? Quod si absurdissimum et stultissimum est dicere, Porphyrii profecto est praeferenda sententia his, qui animarum circulo alternantem semper beatitudinem et miseriam suspicati sunt. Quod si ita est, ecce Platonicus in melius a Platone dissentit; ecce uidit, quod ille non uidit, nec post talem ac tantum magistrum refugit correctionem, sed homini praeposuit ueritatem.

### Against the Arguments on Which the Platonists Ground Their Assertion that the Human Soul is Co-Eternal with God.

[¶15] Chapter 31.—Against the Arguments on Which the Platonists Ground Their Assertion that the Human Soul is Co-Eternal with God.

> Latin: Caput XXXI. Contra argumentum Platonicorum, quo animam humanam Deo adserunt esse coaeternam.

[¶16] Why, then, do we not rather believe the divinity in those matters, which human talent cannot fathom? Why do we not credit the assertion of divinity, that the soul is not co-eternal with God, but is created, and once was not? For the Platonists seemed to themselves to allege an adequate reason for their rejection of this doctrine, when they affirmed that nothing could be everlasting which had not always existed. Plato, however, in writing concerning the world and the gods in it, whom the Supreme made, most expressly states that they had a beginning and yet would have no end, but, by the sovereign will of the Creator, would endure eternally. But, by way of interpreting this, the Platonists have discovered that he meant a beginning, not of time, but of cause. “For as if a foot,” they say, “had been always from eternity in dust, there would always have been a print underneath it; and yet no one would doubt that this print was made by the pressure of the foot, nor that, though the one was made by the other, neither was prior to the other; so,” they say, “the world and the gods created in it have always been, their Creator 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 it which was not from eternity, but began in time, why is it impossible that the soul itself, though not previously existing, should begin to be in time? Its blessedness, too, which, as he owns, is to be more stable, and indeed endless, after the soul’s experience of evils,—this undoubtedly has a beginning in time, and yet is to be always, though previously it had no existence. This whole argumentation, therefore, to establish that nothing can be endless except that which has had no beginning, 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 the authority of God; and let us take our belief regarding the true religion from the ever-blessed spirits, who do not seek for themselves that honor which they know to be due to their God and ours, and who do not command us to sacrifice save only 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 a sacrifice for us, in that human nature which He assumed, and according to which He desired to be our Priest.

> Latin: Quur ergo non potius diuinitati credimus de his rebus, quas humano ingenio peruestigare non possumus, quae animam quoque ipsam non Deo coaeternam, sed creatam dicit esse, quae non erat? Ut enim hoc Platonici nollent credere, hanc utique causam idoneam sibi uidebantur adferre, quia, nisi quod semper antea fuisset, sempiternum deinceps esse non posset; quamquam et de mundo et de his, quos in mundo deos a Deo factos scribit Plato, apertissime dicat eos esse coepisse et habere initium, finem tamen non habituros, sed per conditoris potentissimam uoluntatem in aeternum mansuros esse perhibeat. Verum id quo modo intellegant inuenerunt, non esse hoc uidelicet temporis, sed substitutionis initium. Sicut enim, inquiunt, si pes ex aeternitate semper fuisset in puluere, semper ei subesset uestigium, quod tamen uestigium a calcante factum nemo dubitaret, nec alterum altero prius esset, quamuis alterum ab altero factum esset: sic, inquiunt, et mundus adque in illo di creati et semper fuerunt semper existente qui fecit, et tamen facti sunt.’ Numquid ergo, si anima semper fuit, etiam miseria eius semper fuisse dicenda est? Porro si aliquid in illa, quod ex aeterno non fuit, esse coepit ex tempore, quur non fieri potuerit, ut ipsa esset ex tempore quae antea non fuisset? Deinde beatitudo quoque eius post experimentum malorum firmior et sine fine mansura, sicut iste confitetur, procul dubio coepit ex tempore, et tamen semper erit, cum antea non fuerit. Illa igitur omnis argumentatio dissoluta est, qua putatur nihil esse posse sine fine temporis, nisi quod initium non habet temporis. Inuenta est enim animae beatitudo, quae cum initium temporis habuerit, finem temporis non habebit. Quapropter diuinae auctoritati humana. cedat infirmitas, eisque beatis et inmortalibus de uera religione credamus, qui sibi honorem non expetunt, quem Deo suo, qui etiam noster est, deberi sciunt, nec iubent, ut sacrificium faciamus, nisi ei tantum, cuius et nos cum illis, ut saepe dixi et saepe dicendum est, sacrificium esse debemus, per eum sacerdotem offerendi, qui in homine, quem suscepit, secundum quem et sacerdos esse uoluit, etiam usque ad mortem sacrificium pro nobis dignatus est fieri.

### Of the Universal Way of the Soul’s Deliverance, Which Porphyry Did Not Find Because He Did Not Rightly Seek It, and Which the Grace of Christ Has Alone Thrown Open.

[¶18] Chapter 32.—Of the Universal Way of the Soul’s Deliverance, Which Porphyry Did Not Find Because He Did Not Rightly Seek It, and Which the Grace of Christ Has Alone Thrown Open.

> Latin: Caput XXXII. De uniuersali uia animae liberandae, quam Porphyrius male quaerendo non repperit, et quam sola gratia Christiana reserauit.

[¶19] This is the religion which possesses the universal way for delivering the soul; for except by this way, none can be delivered. This is a kind of royal way, which alone leads to a kingdom which does not totter like all temporal dignities, but stands firm on eternal foundations. And when Porphyry says, towards the end of the first book De Regressu Animœ, that no system of doctrine which furnishes the universal way for delivering the soul has as yet been received, either from the truest philosophy, or from the ideas and practices of the Indians, or from the reasoning of the Chaldæans, or from any source whatever, and that no historical reading had made him acquainted with that way, he manifestly acknowledges that there is such a way, but that as yet he was not acquainted with it. Nothing of all that he had so laboriously learned concerning the deliverance of the soul, nothing of all that he seemed to others, if not to himself, to know and believe, satisfied him. For he perceived that there was still wanting a commanding authority which it might be right to follow in a matter of such importance. And when he says that he had not learned from any truest philosophy a system which possessed the universal way of the soul’s deliverance, he shows plainly enough, as it seems to me, either that the philosophy of which he was a disciple was not the truest, or that it did not comprehend such a way. And how can that be the truest philosophy which does not possess this way? For what else is the universal way of the soul’s deliverance than that by which 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 from the 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 what he had learned either from the Indians or the Chaldæans; and yet he could not forbear stating that it was from the Chaldæans he had derived these divine oracles of which he makes such frequent mention. What, therefore, does he mean by this universal way of the soul’s deliverance, which had not yet been made known by any truest philosophy, or by the doctrinal systems of those nations which were considered to have great insight in things divine, because they indulged more freely in a curious and fanciful science and worship of angels? What is this universal way of which he acknowledges his ignorance, if not a way which does not belong to one nation as its special property, but is common to all, and divinely bestowed? Porphyry, a man of no mediocre abilities, does not question that such a way exists; for he believes that Divine Providence could not have left men destitute of this universal way of delivering the soul. For he does not say that this way does not exist, but that this great boon and assistance has not yet been discovered, and has not come to his knowledge. And no wonder; for Porphyry lived in an age when this universal way of the soul’s deliverance,—in other words, the Christian religion,—was exposed to the persecutions of idolaters and demon-worshippers, and earthly rulers, that the number of martyrs or witnesses for the truth might be completed and consecrated, and that by them proof might be given that we must endure all bodily sufferings in the cause of the holy faith, and for the commendation of the truth. Porphyry, being a witness of these persecutions, concluded that 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, and deterred him from becoming a Christian, contributed to the confirmation and more effectual commendation of our religion.

> Latin: Haec est religio, quae uniuersalem continet uiam animae liberandae, quoniam nulla nisi hac liberari potest. Haec est enim quodam modo regalis uia, quae una ducit ad regnum, non temporali fastigio nutabundum, sed aeternitatis firmitate securum. Cum autem dicit Porphyrius in primo iuxta finem de regressu animae libro nondum receptum in unam quandam sectam, quae uniuersalem contineat uiam animae liberandae, uel a philosophia uerissima aliqua uel ab Indorum moribus ac disciplina, aut inductione Chaldaeorum aut alia qualibet uia, nondumque in suam notitiam eandem uiam historiali cognitione perlatam: procul dubio confitetur esse aliquam, sed nondum in suam uenisse notitiam. Ita ei non sufficiebat quidquid de anima liberanda studiosissime didicerat sibique uel potius aliis nosse ac tenere uidebatur. Sentiebat enim adhuc sibi deesse aliquam praestantissimam auctoritatem, quam de re tanta sequi oporteret. Cum autem dicit uel a philosophia uerissima aliqua nondum in suam notitiam peruenisse sectam, quae uniuersalem contineat uiam animae liberandae: satis, quantum arbitror, ostendit uel eam philosophiam, in qua ipse philosophatus est, non esse uerissimam, uel ea non contineri talem uiam. Et quo modo iam potest esse uerissima, qua non continetur haec uia? Nam quae alia uia est uniuersalis animae liberandae, nisi qua uniuersae animae liberantur ac per hoc sine illa nulla anima liberatur? Cum autem addit et dicit: uel ab Indorum moribus ac disciplina, uel ab inductione Chaldaeorum uel alia qualibet uia’, manifestissima uoce testatur neque illis quae ab Indis neque illis quae a Chaldaeis didicerat hanc uniuersalem uiam liberandae animae contineri; et utique se a Chaldaeis oracula diuina sumsisse, quorum adsiduam commemorationem facit, tacere non potuit. Quam uult ergo intellegi animae liberandae uniuersalem uiam nondum receptam uel ex aliqua uerissima philosophia uel ex earum gentium doctrinis, quae magnae uelut in diuinis rebus habebantur, quia plus aput eas curiositas ualuit quorumque angelorum cognoscendorum et colendorum, nondumque in suam notitiam historiali cognitione perlatam? Quaenam ista est uniuersalis uia, nisi quae non suae cuique genti propria, sed uniuersis gentibus quae communis esset diuinitus inpertita est? Quam certe iste homo non mediocri ingenio praeditus esse non dubitat. Prouidentiam quippe diuinam sine ista uniuersali uia liberandae animae genus humanum relinquere potuisse non credit. Neque enim ait non esse, sed hoc tantum bonum tantumque adiutorium nondum receptum, nondum in suam notitiam esse perlatum; nec mirum. Tunc enim Porphyrius erat in rebus humanis, quando ista liberandae animae uniuersalis uia, quae non est alia quam religio Christiana, obpugnari permittebatur ab idolorum daemohumque cultoribus regibusque terrenis, propter adserendum et consecrandum martyrum numerum, hoc est testium ueritatis, per quos ostenderetur omnia corporalia mala pro fide pietatis et commendatione ueritatis esse toleranda. Videbat ergo ista Porphyrius et per huius modi persecutiones cito istam uiam perituram et propterea non esse ipsam liberandae animae uniuersalem putabat, non intellegens hoc, quod eum mouebat et quod in eius electione perpeti metuebat, ad eius confirmationem robustioremque commendationem potius pertinere.

[¶20] This, then, is the universal way of the soul’s deliverance, the way that is granted by the divine compassion to the nations universally. And no nation to which the knowledge of it has already come, or may hereafter come, ought to demand, Why so soon? or, Why so late?—for the design of Him who sends it is impenetrable by human capacity. This was felt by Porphyry when he confined himself to saying that this gift of God was not yet received, and had not yet come to his knowledge. For though this was so, he did not on that account pronounce that the way it self had no existence. This, I say, is the universal way for the deliverance of believers, concerning which the faithful Abraham received the divine assurance, “In thy seed shall all nations be blessed.” He, indeed, was by birth a Chaldæan; but, that he might receive these great promises, and that there might be propagated from him a seed “disposed by angels in the hand of a Mediator,” in whom this universal way, thrown open to all nations for the deliverance of the soul, might be found, he was ordered to leave his country, and kindred, and father’s house. Then was he himself, first of all, delivered from the Chaldæan superstitions, and by his obedience worshipped the one true God, whose promises he faithfully trusted. This is the universal way, of which it is said in holy prophecy, “God be merciful unto us, and bless us, and cause His face to shine upon us; that Thy way may be known upon earth, Thy saving health among all nations.” And hence, when our Saviour, so long after, had taken flesh of the seed of Abraham, He says of Himself, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” This is the universal way, of which so long before it had been predicted, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths: for out of Sion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” This way, therefore, is not the property of one, but of all nations. The law and the word of the Lord did not remain in Zion and Jerusalem, but issued thence to be universally diffused. And therefore the Mediator Himself, after His resurrection, says to His alarmed disciples, “These are the words which I spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me. Then opened He their understandings that they might understand the Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” This is the universal way of the soul’s deliverance, which the holy angels and the holy prophets formerly disclosed where they could among the few men who found the grace of God, and especially in the Hebrew nation, whose commonwealth was, as it were, consecrated to prefigure and fore-announce the city of God which was to be gathered from all nations, by their tabernacle, and temple, and priesthood, and sacrifices. In some explicit statements, and in many obscure foreshadowings, this way was declared; but latterly came the Mediator Himself in the flesh, and His blessed apostles, revealing how the grace of the New Testament more openly explained what had been obscurely hinted to preceding generations, in conformity with the relation of the ages of the human race, and as it pleased God in His wisdom to appoint, who also bore them witness with signs and miracles some of which I have cited above. For not only were there visions of angels, and words heard from those heavenly ministrants, but also men of God, armed with the word of simple piety, cast out unclean spirits from the bodies and senses of men, and healed deformities and sicknesses; the wild beasts of earth and sea, the birds of air, inanimate things, 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 and proper to the Saviour’s own person, especially the nativity and the resurrection; in the one of which He wrought only the mystery of a virgin maternity, while in the other He furnished an instance of the resurrection which all shall at last experience. This way purifies the whole man, and prepares the mortal in all his parts for immortality. For, to prevent us from seeking for one purgation for the part which Porphyry calls intellectual, and another for the part he calls spiritual, and another for the body itself, our most mighty and truthful Purifier and Saviour assumed the whole human nature. Except by this way, which has been present among men both during the period of the promises and of the proclamation of their fulfillment, no man has been delivered, no man is delivered, no man shall be delivered.

> Latin: Haec est igitur animae liberandae uniuersalis uia, id est uniuersis gentibus diuina miseratione concessa, cuius profecto notitia ad quoscumque iam uenit et ad quoscumque uentura est, nec debuit nec debebit ei dici: Quare modo? et: Quare sero? quoniam mittentis consilium non est humano ingenio penetrabile. Quod sensit etiam iste, cum dixit, nondum receptum hoc donum Dei et nondum in suam notitiam fuisse perlatum. Neque enim propterea uerum non esse iudicauit, quia nondum in fidem suam receptum fuerat uel in notitiam nondum peruenerat. Haec est, inquam, liberandorum credentium uniuersalis uia, de qua fidelis Abraham diuinum accepit oraculum: In semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes. Qui fuit quidem gente Chaldaeus, sed ut talia promissa perciperet et ex illo propagaretur semen dispositum per angelos in manu Mediatoris, in quo esset ista liberandae animae uniuersalis uia, hoc est omnibus gentibus data, iussus est discedere de terra sua et de cognatione sua et de domo patris sui. Tunc ipse primitus a Chaldaeorum superstitionibus liberatus unum uerum Deum sequendo coluit, cui haec promittenti fideliter credidit. Haec est uniuersalis uia, de qua in sancta prophetia dictum est: Deus misereatur nostri et benedicat nos; inluminet uultum suum super nos et misereatur nostri, ut cognoscamus in terra uiam tuam, in omnibus gentibus salutare tuum. Unde tanto post ex Abrahae semine carne suscepta de ipso ait ipse Saluator: Ego sum uia, ueritas et uita. Haec est uniuersalis uia, de qua tanto ante praedictum est: Erit in nouissimis diebus manifestatus mons domus Domini, paratus super cacumina montium et extolletur super colles, et uenient ad eum uniuersae gentes et ingredientur nationes multae et dicent: Venite, ascendamus in montem Domini et in domum Dei Iacob; et adnuntiabit nobis uiam suam, et ingrediemur in eam. Ex Sion enim prodiet lex et uerbum Domini ab Hierusalem. Via ergo ista non est unius gentis, sed uniuersarum gentium; et lex uerbumque Domini non in Sion et Hierusalem remansit, sed inde processit, ut se per uniuersa diffunderet. Unde ipse Mediator post resurrectionem suam discipulis trepidantibus ait: Oportebat inpleri quae scripta sunt in lege et prophetis et psalmis de me. Tunc aperuit illis sensum, ut intellegerent scripturas, et dixit eis, quia oportebat Christum pati et resurgere a mortuis tertio die et praedicari in nomine eius paenitentiam et remissionem peccatorum per omnes gentes incipientibus ab Hierusalem. Haec est igitur uniuersalis animae liberandae uia, quam sancti angeli sanctique prophetae prius in paucis hominibus ubi potuerunt Dei gratiam reperientibus et maxime in Hebraea gente, cuius erat ipsa quodam modo sacrata res publica in prophetationem et praenuntiationem ciuitatis Dei ex omnibus gentibus congregandae, et tabernaculo et templo et sacerdotio et sacrificiis significauerunt et eloquiis quibusdam manifestis, plerisque mysticis praedixerunt: praesens autem in carne ipse Mediator et beati eius apostoli iam testamenti noui gratiam reuelantes apertius indicarunt, quae aliquanto occultius superioribus sunt significata temporibus, pro aetatum generis humani distributione, sicut eam Deo sapienti placuit ordinare, mirabilium operum diuinorum, quorum superius pauca iam posui, contestantibus signis. Non enim apparuerunt tantummodo uisiones angelicae et caelestium ministrorum sola uerba sonuerunt, uerum etiam hominibus Dei uerbo simplicis pietatis agentibus spiritus inmundi de hominum corporibus ac sensibus pulsi sunt, uitia corporis languoresque sanati, fera animalia terrarum et aquarum, uolatilia caeli, ligna, elementa, sidera diuina iussa fecerunt, inferna cesserunt, mortui reuixerunt; exceptis ipsius Saluatoris propriis singularibusque miraculis, maxime natiuitatis et resurrectionis, quorum in uno maternae uirginitatis tantummodo sacramentum, in altero autem etiam eorum, qui in fine resurrecturi sunt, demonstrauit exemplum. Haec uia totum hominem mundat et inmortalitati mortalem ex omnibus quibus constat partibus praeparat. Ut enim non alia purgatio ei parti quaereretur, quam uocat intellectualem Porphyrius, alia ei, quam uocat spiritalem, aliaque ipsi corpori: propterea totum suscepit ueracissimus potentissimusque mundator adque saluator. Praeter hanc uiam, quae, partim cum haec futura praenuntiantur, partim cum facta nuntiantur, numquam generi humano defuit, nemo liberatus est, nemo liberatur, nemo liberabitur.

[¶21] As to Porphyry’s statement that the universal way of the soul’s deliverance had not yet come to his knowledge by any acquaintance he had with history, I would ask, what more remarkable history can be found than that which has taken possession of the whole world by its authoritative voice? or what 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 by those that are already fulfilled? For neither Porphyry nor any Platonists can despise divination and prediction, even of things that pertain to this life and earthly matters, though they justly despise ordinary soothsaying and the divination that is connected with magical arts. They deny that these are the predictions of great men, or are to be considered important, and they are right; for they are founded, either on the foresight of subsidiary causes, as to a professional eye much of the course of a disease is foreseen by certain pre-monitory symptoms, or the unclean demons predict what they have resolved to do, that they may thus work upon the thoughts and desires of the wicked with an appearance of authority, and incline human frailty to imitate their impure actions. It is not such things that the saints who walk in the universal way care to predict as important, although, for the purpose of commending the faith, they knew and often predicted even such things as could not be detected by human observation, nor be readily verified by experience. But there were other truly important and divine events which they predicted, in so far as it was given them to know the will of God. For the incarnation of Christ, and all those important marvels that were accomplished in Him, and done in His name; the repentance of men and the conversion of their wills to God; the remission of sins, the grace of righteousness, the faith of the pious, and the multitudes in all parts of the world who believe in the true divinity; the overthrow of idolatry and demon worship, and the testing of the faithful by trials; the purification of those who persevered, and their deliverance from all evil; the day of judgment, the resurrection of the dead, 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,—these things were predicted and promised in the Scriptures of this way; and of these we see so many fulfilled, that we justly and piously trust that the rest will also come to pass. As for those who do not believe, and consequently do not understand, that this is the way which leads straight to the vision of God and to eternal fellowship with Him, according to the true predictions and statements of the Holy Scriptures, they may storm at our position, but they cannot storm it.

> Latin: Quod autem Porphyrius uniuersalem uiam animae liberandae nondum in suam notitiam historiali cognitione dicit esse perlatam: quid hac historia uel inlustrius inueniri potest, quae uniuersum orbem tanto apice auctoritatis obtinuit, uel fidelius, in qua ita narrantur praeterita, ut futura etiam praedicantur, quorum multa uidemus inpleta, ex quibus ea quae restant sine dubio speremus inplenda? Non enim potest Porphyrius uel quicumque Platonici etiam in hac uia quasi terrenarum rerum et ad uitam istam mortalem pertinentium diuinationem praedictionemque contemnere, quod merito in aliis uaticinationibus et quorumlibet modorum uel artium diuinationibus faciunt. Negant enim haec uel magnorum hominum uel magni esse pendenda, et recte. Nam uel inferiorum fiunt praesensione causarum, sicut arte medicinae quibusdam antecedentibus signis plurima euentura ualetudine praeuidentur; uel inmundi daemones sua disposita facta praenuntiant, quorum ius et in mentibus adque cupiditatibus iniquorum ad quaeque congruentia facta ducendis quodam modo sibi uindicant, et in materia infima fragilitatis humanae. Non talia sancti homines in ista uniuersali animarum liberandarum uia gradientes tamquam magna prophetare curarunt, quamuis et ista eos non fugerint et ab eis saepe praedicta sint ad eorum fidem faciendam, quae mortalium sensibus non poterant intimari nec ad experimentum celeri facilitate perduci. Sed alia erant uere magna adque diuina, quae quantum dabatur cognita Dei uoluntate futura nuntiabant. Christus quippe in carne uenturus et quae in illo tam clara perfecta sunt adque in eius nomine inpleta, paenitentia hominum et ad Deum conuersio uoluntatum, remissio peccatorum, gratia iustitiae, fides piorum et per uniuersum orbem in ueram diuinitatem multitudo credentium, culturae simulacrorum daemonumque subuersio et a tentationibus exercitatio, proficientium purgatio et liberatio ab omni malo, iudicii dies, resurrectio mortuorum, societatis inpiorum aeterna damnatio regnumque aeternum gloriosissimae ciuitatis Dei conspectu eius inmortaliter perfruentis in huius uiae scripturis praedicta adque promissa sunt; quorum tam multa inpleta conspicimus, ut recta pietate futura esse cetera confidamus. Huius uiae rectitudinem usque ad Deum uidendum eique in aeternum cohaerendum in sanctarum scripturarum qua praedicatur adque adseritur ueritate quicumque non credunt et ob hoc nec intellegunt, obpug are possunt, sed expugnare non possunt.

[¶22] And therefore, in these ten books, though not meeting, I dare say, the expectation of some, yet I have, as the true God and Lord has vouchsafed to aid me, satisfied the desire of certain 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, the first five were directed against those who think we should worship the gods for the sake of the blessings of this life, and the second five against those who think we should worship them for the sake of the life which is to be after death. And now, in fulfillment of the promise I made in the first book, I shall go on to say, as God shall aid me, what I think needs to be said regarding the origin, history, and deserved ends of the two cities, which, as already remarked, are in this world commingled and implicated with one another.

> Latin: Quapropter in decem istis libris, etsi minus quam nonnullorum de nobis expectabat intentio, tamen quorundam studio, quantum uerus Deus et Dominus adiuuare dignatus est, satisfecimus refutando contradictiones inpiorum, qui conditori sanctae ciuitatis, de qua disputare instituimus, deos suos praeferunt. Quorum decem librorum quinque superiores aduersus eos conscripti sunt, qui propter bona uitae huius deos colendos putant; quinque autem posteriores aduersus eos, qui cultura deorum propter uitam, quae post mortem futura est, seruandum existimant. Deinceps itaque, ut in primo libro polliciti sumus, de duarum ciuitatum, quas in hoc saeculo perplexas diximus inuicemque permixtas, exortu et procursu et debitis finibus quod dicendum arbitror, quantum diuinitus adiuuabor, expediam.

## 52. Augustin 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.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/52/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/52/#p-N

[¶0] Book XI.

> Latin: Liber XI

[¶1] Argument—Here begins the second partof this work, which treats of the origin, history, and destinies of the two cities, the earthly and the heavenly. In the first place, Augustin shows in this book how the two cities were formed originally, by the separation of the good and bad angels; and takes occasion to treat of the creation of the world, as it is described in Holy Scripture in the beginning of the book of Genesis.

### Of This Part of the Work, Wherein We Begin to Explain the Origin and End of the Two Cities.

[¶3] Chapter 1.—Of This Part of the Work, Wherein We Begin to Explain the Origin and End of the Two Cities.

> Latin: Caput I. De ea parte operis, qua duarum ciuitatum, id est caelestis adque terrenae, initia et fines incipient demonstrari.

[¶4] The city of God we speak of is the same to which testimony is borne by that Scripture, which excels all the writings of all nations by its divine authority, and has brought under its influence all kinds of minds, and this not by a casual intellectual movement, but obviously by an express providential arrangement. For there it is written, “Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of God.” And in another psalm we read, “Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in the mountain of His holiness, increasing the joy of the whole earth.” And, a little after, in the same psalm, “As we have heard, so have we seen in the city of the Lord of hosts, in the city of our God. God has established it for ever.” And in another, “There is a river the streams whereof shall make glad the city of our God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the Most High. God is in the midst of her, she shall not be moved.” From these and similar testimonies, all of which it were tedious to cite, we have learned that there is a city of God, and its Founder has inspired us with a love which makes us covet its citizenship. To this Founder of the holy city the citizens of the earthly city prefer their own gods, not knowing that He is the God of gods, not of false, i.e., of impious and proud gods, who, being deprived of His unchangeable and freely communicated light, and so reduced to a kind of poverty-stricken power, eagerly grasp at their own private privileges, and seek divine honors from their deluded subjects; but of the pious and holy gods, who are better pleased to submit themselves to one, than to subject many to themselves, and who would rather worship God than be worshipped as God. But to the enemies of this city we have replied in the ten preceding books, according to our ability and the help afforded by our Lord and King. Now, recognizing what is expected of me, and not unmindful of my promise, and relying, too, on the same succor, I will endeavor to treat of the origin, and progress, and deserved destinies of the two cities (the earthly and the heavenly, to wit), which, as we said, are in this present world commingled, and as it were entangled together. And, first, I will explain how the foundations of these two cities were originally laid, in the difference that arose among the angels.

> Latin: Ciuitatem Dei dicimus, cuius ea scriptura testis est, quae non fortuitis motibus animorum, sed plane summae dispositione prouidentiae super omnes omnium gentium litteras omnia sibi genera ingeniorum humanorum diuina excellens auctoritate subiecit. Ibi quippe scriptum est: Gloriosa dicta sunt de te, ciuitas Dei; et in alio psalmo legitur: Magnus Dominus et laudabilis nimis in ciuitate Dei nostri, in monte sancto eius, dilatans exultationes uniuersae terrae; et paulo post in eodem psalmo: Sicut audiuimus, ita et uidimus, in ciuitate domini uirtutum, in ciuitate Dei nostri; Deus fundauit eam in aeternum; item in alio: Fluminis inpetus laetificat ciuitatem Dei, sanctificauit tabernaculum suum Altissimus; Deus in medio eius non commouebitur. His adque huius modi testimoniis, quae omnia commemorare nimis longum est, didicimus esse quandam ciuitatem Dei, cuius ciues esse concupiscimus illo amore, quem nobis illius conditor inspirauit. Huic conditori sanctae ciuitatis ciues terrenae ciuitatis deos suos praeferunt ignorantes eum esse Deum deorum, non deorum falsorum, hoc est inpiorum et superborum, qui eius incommutabili omnibusque communi luce priuati et ob hoc ad quandam egenam potestatem redacti suas quodam modo priuatas potentias consectantur honoresque diuinos a deceptis subditis quaerunt; sed deorum piorum adque sanctorum, qui potius se ipsos uni subdere quam multos sibi, potiusque Deum colere quam pro Deo coli delectantur. Sed huius sanctae ciuitatis inimicis decem superioribus libris, quantum potuimus, domino et rege nostro adiuuante respondimus. Nunc uero quid a me iam expectetur agnoscens meique non inmemor debiti de duarum ciuitatum, terrenae scilicet et caelestis, quas in hoc interim saeculo perplexas quodam modo diximus inuicemque permixtas, exortu et excursu et debitis finibus, quantum ualuero, disputare eius ipsius domini et regis nostri ubique opitulatione fretus adgrediar, primumque dicam, quem ad modum exordia duarum istarum ciuitatum in angelorum diuersitate praecesserint.

### Of the Knowledge of God, to Which No Man Can Attain Save Through the Mediator Between God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus.

[¶6] Chapter 2.—Of the Knowledge of God, to Which No Man Can Attain Save Through the Mediator Between God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus.

> Latin: Caput II. De cognoscendo Deo, ad cuius notitiam nemo hominum peruenit, nisi per mediatorem Dei et hominum, hominem Christum Iesum.

[¶7] It is a great and very rare thing for a man, after he has contemplated the whole creation, corporeal and incorporeal, and has discerned its mutability, to pass beyond it, and, by the continued soaring of his mind, to attain to the unchangeable substance of God, and, in that height of contemplation, to learn from God Himself that none but He has made all that is not of the divine essence. For God speaks with a man not by means of some audible creature dinning in his ears, so that atmospheric vibrations connect Him that makes with him that hears the sound, nor even by means of a spiritual being with the semblance of a body, such as we see in dreams or similar states; for even in this case He speaks as if to the ears of the body, because it is by means of the semblance of a body He speaks, and with the appearance of a real interval of space,—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 with the body. For He speaks to that part of man which is better than all else that is in him, and than which God Himself alone is better. For since man is most properly understood (or, if that cannot be, then, at least, believed) to be made in God’s image, no doubt it is that part of him by which he rises above those lower parts he has in common with the beasts, which brings him nearer to the Supreme. But since the mind itself, though naturally capable of reason and intelligence is disabled by besotting and inveterate vices not merely 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, in the first place, to be impregnated with faith, and so purified. And that in this faith it might advance the more confidently towards the truth, the truth itself, God, God’s Son, assuming humanity without destroying His divinity, established and founded this faith, that there might be a way for man to man’s God through a God-man. For this is the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. For it is as man that He is the Mediator and the Way. Since, if the way lieth between him who goes, and the place whither he goes, 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 whither he should go? Now the only way that is infallibly secured against all mistakes, is when the very same person is at once God and man, God our end, man our way.

> Latin: Magnum est et admodum rarum uniuersam creaturam corpoream et incorpoream consideratam conpertamque mutabilem intentione mentis excedere adque ad incommutabilem Dei substantiam peruenire et illic discere ex ipso, quod cunctam naturam, quae non est quod ipse, non fecit nisi ipse. Sic enim Deus cum homine non per aliquam creaturam loquitur corporalem, corporalibus instrepens auribus, ut inter sonantem et audientem aeria spatia uerberentur, neque per eius modi spiritalem, quae corporum similitudinibus figuratur, sicut in somnis uel quo alio tali modo (nam et sic uelut corporis auribus loquitur, quia uelut per corpus loquitur et uelut interposito corporalium locorum interuallo; multum enim similia sunt talia uisa corporibus); sed loquitur ipsa ueritate, si quis sit idoneus ad audiendum mente, non corpore. Ad illud enim hominis ita loquitur, quod in homine ceteris, quibus homo constat, est melius, et quo ipse Deus solus est melior. Cum enim homo rectissime intellegatur uel, si hoc non potest, saltem credatur factus ad imaginem Dei: profecto ea sui parte est propinquior superiori Deo, qua superat inferiores suas, quas etiam cum pecoribus communes habet. Sed quia ipsa mens, cui ratio et intellegentia naturaliter inest, uitiis quibusdam tenebrosis et ueteribus inualida est, non solum ad inhaerendum fruendo, uerum etiam ad perferendum incommutabile lumen, donec de die in diem renouata adque sanata fiat tantae felicitatis capax, fide primum fuerat inbuenda adque purganda. In qua ut fidentius ambularet ad ueritatem, ipsa ueritas, Deus Dei filius, homine adsumto, non Deo consumto, eandem constituit et fundauit fidem, ut ad hominis Deum iter esset homini per hominem Deum. Hic est enim mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus. Per hoc enim mediator, per quod homo, per hoc et uia. Quoniam si inter eum qui tendit et illud quo tendit uia media est, spes est perueniendi; si autem desit aut. ignoretur qua eundum sit, quid prodest nosse quo eundum sit? Sola est autem aduersus omnes errores uia munitissima, ut idem ipse sit Deus et homo; quo itur Deus, qua itur homo.

### Of the Authority of the Canonical Scriptures Composed by the Divine Spirit.

[¶9] Chapter 3.—Of the Authority of the Canonical Scriptures Composed by the Divine Spirit.

> Latin: Caput III. De auctoritate canonicae scripturae diuino spiritu conditae.

[¶10] This Mediator, having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves. For if we attain the knowledge of present objects by the testimony of our own senses, whether internal or external, then, regarding objects remote from our own senses, we need others to bring their testimony, since we cannot know them by our own, and we credit the persons to whom the objects have been or are sensibly present. Accordingly, as in the case of visible objects which we have not seen, we trust those who have, (and likewise with all sensible objects,) so in the case of things which are perceived by the mind and spirit, i.e., which are remote from our own interior sense, it behoves us to trust those who have seen them set in that incorporeal light, or abidingly contemplate them.

> Latin: Hic prius per prophetas, deinde per se ipsum, postea per apostolos, quantum satis esse iudicauit, locutus etiam scripturam condidit, quae canonica nominatur, eminentissimae auctoritatis, cui fidem habemus de his rebus, quas ignorare non expedit nec per nos ipsos nosse idonei sumus. Nam si ea sciri possunt testibus nobis, quae remota non sunt a sensibus nostris siue interioribus siue etiam exterioribus (unde et praesentia nuncupantur, quod ita ea dicimus esse prae sensibus, sicut prae oculis quae praesto sunt oculis): profecto ea, quae remota sunt a sensibus nostris, quoniam nostro testimonio scire non possumus, de his alios testes requirimus eisque credimus, a quorum sensibus remota esse uel fuisse non credimus. Sicut ergo de uisibilibus, quae non uidimus, eis credimus, qui uiderunt, adque ita de ceteris, quae ad suum quemque sensum corporis pertinent: ita de his, quae animo ac mente sentiuntur (quia et ipse rectissime dicitur sensus, unde et sententia uocabulum accepit), hoc est de inuisibilibus quae a nostro sensu interiore remota sunt, his nos oportet credere, qui haec in illo incorporeo lumine disposita didicerunt uel manentia contuentur.

### That the World is Neither Without Beginning, Nor Yet Created by a New Decree of God, by Which He Afterwards Willed What He Had Not Before Willed.

[¶12] Chapter 4.—That the World is Neither Without Beginning, Nor Yet Created by a New Decree of God, by Which He Afterwards Willed What He Had Not Before Willed.

> Latin: Caput IV. De conditione mundi, quae nec intemporalis sit. nec nouo Dei ordinata consilio, quasi postea uoluerit, quod ante noluerat.

[¶13] 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 can believe from no one more safely than from God Himself. But where have we heard Him? Nowhere more distinctly than in the Holy Scriptures, where His prophet said, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Was the prophet present when God made the heavens and the earth? No; but the wisdom of God, by whom all things were made, was there, and wisdom insinuates itself into holy souls, and makes them the friends of God and His prophets, and noiselessly informs them of His works. They are taught also by the angels of God, who always behold the face of the Father, and announce His will to whom it befits. Of these prophets was he who said and wrote, “In the beginning God created the heavens 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 also would be forthcoming.

> Latin: Visibilium omnium maximus mundus est, inuisibilium omnium maximus Deus est. Sed mundum esse conspicimus, Deum esse credimus. Quod autem Deus fecerit mundum, nulli tutius credimus quam ipsi Deo. Ubi eum audiuimus? Nusquam interim nos melius quam in scripturis sanctis, ubi dixit propheta eius: In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram. Numquidnam ibi fuit iste propheta, quando fecit Deus caelum et terram? Non; sed ibi fuit sapientia Dei, per quam facta sunt omnia, quae in animas sanctas etiam se transferens amicos Dei et prophetas constituit eisque opera sua sine strepitu intus enarrat. Loquuntur eis quoque angeli Dei, qui semper uident faciem Patris uoluntatemque eius quibus oportet adnuntiant. Ex his unus erat iste propheta, qui dixit et scripsit: In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram. Qui tam idoneus testis est, per quem Deo credendum sit, ut eodem spiritu Dei, quo haec sibi reuelata cognouit, etiam ipsam fidem nostram futuram tanto ante praedixerit.

[¶14] But why did God choose then to create the heavens and earth which up to that time He had not made? If they who put this question wish to make out that the world is eternal and without beginning, and that consequently it has not been made by God, they are strangely deceived, and rave in the incurable madness of impiety. For, though the voices of the prophets were silent, the world itself, by its well-ordered changes and movements, and by the fair appearance of all visible things, bears a testimony of its own, both that it has been created, and also that it could not have been created save by God, whose greatness and beauty are unutterable and invisible. As for those who own, indeed, that it was made by God, and yet ascribe to it not a temporal but only a creational beginning, so that in some scarcely intelligible way the world should always have existed a created world they make an assertion which seems to them to defend God from the charge of arbitrary hastiness, or of suddenly conceiving the idea of creating the world as a quite new idea, or of casually changing His will, though He be unchangeable. But I do not see how this supposition of theirs can stand in other respects, and chiefly in respect of the soul; for if they contend that it is co-eternal with God, they will be quite at a loss to explain whence there has accrued to it new misery, which through a previous eternity had not existed. For if they said that its happiness and misery ceaselessly alternate, they must say, further, that this alternation will continue for ever; whence will result this absurdity, that, though the soul is called blessed, it is not so in this, that it foresees its own misery and disgrace. And yet, if it does not foresee it, and supposes that it will be neither disgraced nor wretched, but always blessed, then it is blessed because it is deceived; and a more foolish statement one cannot make. But if their idea is that the soul’s misery has alternated with its bliss during the ages of the past eternity, but that now, when once the soul has been set free, it will return henceforth no more to misery, they are nevertheless of opinion that it has never been truly blessed before, but begins at last to enjoy a new and uncertain happiness; that is to say, they must acknowledge that some new thing, and that an important and signal thing, happens to the soul which never in a whole past eternity happened it before. And if they deny that God’s eternal purpose included this new experience of the soul, they deny that He is the Author of its blessedness, which is unspeakable impiety. If, on the other hand, they say that the future blessedness of the soul is the result of a new decree of God, how will they show that God is not chargeable with that mutability which displeases them? Further, if they acknowledge that it was created in time, but will never perish in time,—that it has, like number, a beginning but no end,—and that, therefore, having once made trial of misery, and been delivered from it, it will never again return thereto, they will certainly admit that this takes place without any violation of the immutable counsel of God. Let them, then, in like manner believe regarding the world that it too could be made in time, and yet that God, in making it, did not alter His eternal design.

> Latin: Sed quid placuit aeterno Deo tunc facere caelum et terram, quae antea non fecisset? Qui hoc dicunt, si mundum aeternum sine ullo initio et ideo nec a Deo factum uideri uolunt, nimis auersi sunt a ueritate et letali morbo inpietatis insaniunt. Exceptis enim propheticis uocibus mundus ipse ordinatissima sua mutabilitate et mobilitate et uisibilium omnium pulcherrima specie quodam modo tacitus et factum se esse et non nisi a Deo ineffabiliter adque inuisibiliter magno et ineffabiliter adque inuisibiliter pulchro fieri se potuisse proclamat. Qui autem a Deo quidem factum fatentur, non tamen eum temporis uolunt habere sed suae creationis initium, ut modo quodam uix intellegibili semper sit factus, dicunt quidem aliquid, unde sibi Deum uidentur uelut a fortuita temeritate defendere, ne subito illi uenisse credatur in mentem, quod numquam ante uenisset, facere mundum, et accidisse illi nouam uoluntatem, cum in nullo sit omnino mutabilis; sed non uideo quo modo eis possit in ceteris rebus ratio ista subsistere maximeque in anima, quam si Deo coaeternam esse contenderint, unde illi acciderit noua miseria, quae numquam antea per aeternum, nullo modo poterunt explicare. Si enim alternasse semper eius miseriam et beatitudinem dixerint, necesse est dicant etiam semper alternaturam; unde illa eos sequetur absurditas, ut etiam cum beata dicitur in hoc utique non sit beata, si futuram suam miseriam et turpitudinem praeuidet; si autem non praeuidet nec se turpem ac miseram fore, sed beatam semper existimat, falsa opinione sit beata; quo dici stultius nihil potest. Si autem semper quidem per saecula retro infinita cum beatitudine alternasse animae miseriam putant, sed nunc iam de cetero, cum fuerit liberata, ad miseriam non esse redituram, nihilo minus conuincuntur numquam eam fuisse uere beatam, sed deinceps esse incipere noua quadam nec fallaci beatitudine; ac per hoc fatebuntur accidere illi aliquid noui, et hoc magnum adque praeclarum, quod numquam retro per aeternitatem accidisset. Cuius nouitatis causam si Deum negabunt in aeterno habuisse consilio, simul eum negabunt beatitudinis eius auctorem, quod nefandae inpietatis est; si autem dicent etiam ipsum nouo consilio excogitasse, ut de cetero sit anima in aeternum beata, quo modo eum alienum ab ea, quae illis quoque displicet, mutabilitate monstrabunt? Porro si ex tempore creatam, sed nullo ulterius tempore perituram, tamquam numerum, habere initium, sed non habere finem fatentur, et ideo semel expertam miserias, si ab eis fuerit liberata, numquam miseram postea futuram: non utique dubitabunt hoc fieri manente incommutabilitate consilii Dei. Sic ergo credant et mundum ex tempore fieri potuisse, nec tamen ideo Deum in eo faciendo aeternum consilium uoluntatemque mutasse.

### That We Ought Not to Seek to Comprehend the Infinite Ages of Time Before the World, Nor the Infinite Realms of Space.

[¶16] Chapter 5.—That We Ought Not to Seek to Comprehend the Infinite Ages of Time Before the World, Nor the Infinite Realms of Space.

> Latin: Caput V. Tam non esse cogitandum de infinitis temporum spatiis ante mundum, quam nec de infinitis locorum spatiis extra mundum, quia, sicut nulla ante ipsum sunt tempora, ita nulla extra ipsum sunt loca.

[¶17] Next, we must see what reply can be made to those who agree that God is the Creator of the world, but have difficulties about the time of its creation, and what reply, also, they can make to difficulties we might raise about the place of its creation. For, as they demand why the world was created then and no sooner, we may ask why it was created just here where it is, and not elsewhere. For if they imagine infinite spaces of time before the world, during which God could not have been idle, in like manner they may conceive outside the world infinite realms of space, in which, if any one says that the Omnipotent cannot hold His hand from working, will it not follow that they must adopt Epicurus’ dream of innumerable worlds? with this difference only, that he asserts that they are formed and destroyed by the fortuitous movements of atoms, while they will hold that they are made by God’s hand, if they maintain that, throughout the boundless immensity of space, stretching interminably in every direction round the world, God cannot rest, and that the worlds which they suppose Him to make cannot be destroyed. For here the question is 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 religious ques tion, for they have acquired a reputation only among men who pay divine honors to a number of gods, and have become conspicuous among the other philosophers for no other reason 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 the divine substance, but, as is worthy of God, own it to be wholly though spiritually present everywhere, will they perchance say that this substance is absent from such immense spaces outside the world, and is occupied in one only, (and that a very little one compared with the infinity beyond), the one, namely, in which is the world? I think they will not proceed to this absurdity. 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 of God, let them give the same account of God’s resting in the infinite times before the world as they give of His resting in the infinite spaces outside of it. And as it does not follow that God set the world in the very spot it occupies and no other by accident rather than by divine reason, although no human reason can comprehend why it was so set, and though there was no merit in the spot chosen to give it the precedence of infinite others, so neither does it follow that we should suppose that God was guided by chance when He created the world in that and no earlier time, although previous times had been running by during an infinite past, and though there was no difference by which one time could be chosen in preference to another. But if they say that the thoughts of men are idle when they conceive infinite places, since there is no place beside the world, we reply that, by the same showing, it is vain to conceive of the past times of God’s rest, since there is no time before the world.

> Latin: Deinde uidendum est, isti, qui Deum conditorem mundi esse consentiunt et tamen quaerunt de mundi tempore quid respondeamus, quid ipsi respondeant de mundi loco. Ita enim quaeritur, quur potius tunc et non antea factus sit, quem ad modum quaeri potest, quur hic potius ubi est et non alibi. Nam si infinita spatia temporis ante mundum cogitant, in quibus eis non uidetur Deus ab opere cessare potuisse, similiter. cogitent extra mundum infinita spatia locorum, in quibus si quisquam dicat non potuisse uacare Omnipotentem, nonne consequens erit, ut innumerabiles mundos cum Epicuro somniare cogantur (ea tantum differentia, quod eos ille fortuitis motibus atomorum gigni adserit et resolui, isti autem opere Dei factos dicturi sunt), si eum per interminabilem inmensitatem locorum extra mundum circumquaque patentium uacare noluerint, nec eosdem mundos, quod etiam de isto sentiunt, ulla causa posse dissolui? Cum his enim agimus, qui et Deum incorporeum et omnium naturarum, quae non sunt quod ipse, creatorem nobiscum sentiunt; alios autem nimis indignum est ad istam disputationem religionis admittere, maxime quod aput eos, qui multis dis sacrorum obsequium deferendum putant, isti philosophos ceteros nobilitate adque auctoritate uicerunt, non ob aliud, nisi quia longo quidem interuallo, uerum tamen reliquis propinquiores sunt ueritati. An forte substantiam Dei, quam nec includunt nec determinant nec distendunt loco, sed eam, sicut de Deo sentire dignum est, fatentur incorporea praesentia ubique totam, a tantis locorum extra mundum spatiis absentem esse dicturi sunt, et uno tantum adque in conparationem illius infinitatis tam exiguo loco, in quo mundus est, occupatam? Non opinor eos in haec uaniloquia progressuros. Cum igitur unum mundum ingenti quidem mole corporea, finitum tamen et loco suo determinatum et operante Deo factum esse dicant: quod respondent de infinitis extra mundum locis, quur in eis ab opere Deus cesset, hoc sibi respondeant de infinitis ante mundum temporibus, quur in eis ab opere Deus cessauerit. Et sicut non est consequens, ut fortuito potius quam ratione diuina Deus non alio, sed isto in quo est loco mundum constituerit, cum pariter infinitis ubique patentibus nullo excellentiore merito posset hic eligi, quamuis eandem diuinam rationem, qua id factum est, nulla possit humana conprehendere: ita non est consequens, ut Deo aliquid existimemus accidisse fortuitum, quod illo potius quam anteriore tempore condidit mundum, cum aequaliter anteriora tempora per infinitum retro spatium praeterissent nec fuisset aliqua differentia, unde tempus tempori eligendo praeponeretur. Quod si dicunt inanes esse hominum cogitationes, quibus infinita imaginantur loca, cum locus nullus sit praeter mundum, respondetur eis isto modo: inaniter homines cogitare praeterita tempora uacationis Dei, cum tempus nullum sit ante mundum.

### That the World and Time Had Both One Beginning, and the One Did Not Anticipate the Other.

[¶19] Chapter 6.—That the World and Time Had Both One Beginning, and the One Did Not Anticipate the Other.

> Latin: Caput VI. Creationis mundi et temporum unum esse principium nec aliud alio praeueniri.

[¶20] 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 that there could have been no time had not some creature been made, which by some motion could give birth to change,—the various parts of which motion and change, as they cannot be simultaneous, succeed one another,—and thus, in these shorter or longer intervals of duration, time would begin? Since then, God, in whose eternity is no change at all, is the Creator and Ordainer of time, I do not see how He can be said to have created the world after spaces of time had elapsed, unless it be said that prior to the world there was some creature by whose movement time could pass. And if the sacred and infallible Scriptures say that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, in order that it may be understood that He had made nothing previously,—for if He had made anything before the rest, this thing would rather be said to have been made “in the beginning,”—then assuredly the world was made, not in time, but simultaneously with time. For that which is made in time is made both after and before some time,—after that which is past, before that which is future. 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 the world’s creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!

> Latin: Si enim recte discernuntur aeternitas et tempus, quod tempus sine aliqua mobili mutabilitate non est, in aeternitate autem nulla mutatio est: quis non uideat, quod tempora non fuissent, nisi creatura fieret, quae aliquid aliqua motione mutaret, cuius motionis et mutationis cum aliud adque aliud, quae simul esse non possunt, cedit adque succedit, in breuioribus uel productioribus morarum interuallis tempus sequeretur? Cum igitur Deus, in cuius aeternitate nulla est omnino mutatio, creator sit temporum et ordinator: quo modo dicatur post temporum spatia mundum creasse non uideo, nisi dicatur ante mundum iam aliquam fuisse creaturam, cuius motibus tempora currerent. Porro si litterae sacrae maximeque ueraces ita dicunt, in principio fecisse Deum caelum et terram, ut nihil antea fecisse intellegatur, quia hoc potius in principio fecisse diceretur, si quid fecisset ante cetera cuncta quae fecit: procul dubio non est mundus factus in tempore, sed cum tempore. Quod enim fit in tempore, et post aliquod fit et ante aliquod tempus; post id quod praeteritum est, ante id quod futurum est; nullum autem posset esse praeteritum, quia nulla erat creatura, cuius mutabilibus motibus ageretur. Cum tempore autem factus est mundus, si in eius conditione factus est mutabilis motus, sicut uidetur se habere etiam ordo ille primorum sex uel septem dierum, in quibus et mane et uespera nominantur, donec omnia, quae his diebus Deus fecit, sexto perficiantur die septimoque in magno mysterio Dei uacatio commendetur. Qui dies cuius modi sint, aut perdifficile nobis aut etiam inpossibile est cogitare, quanto magis dicere.

### Of the Nature of the First Days, Which are Said to Have Had Morning and Evening, Before There Was a Sun.

[¶22] Chapter 7.—Of the Nature of the First Days, Which are Said to Have Had Morning and Evening, Before There Was a Sun.

> Latin: Caput VII. De qualitate primorum dierum, qui etiam antequam sol fieret uesperam et mane traduntur habuisse.

[¶23] We see, indeed, that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting, and no morning but by the rising, of the sun; but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness, and called the light Day, 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 understand how it was, and yet must unhesitatingly believe it. For either it was some material light, whether proceeding from the upper parts of the world, far removed from our sight, or from the spot where the sun was afterwards kindled; or under the name of light the holy city was signified, composed of holy angels and blessed spirits, the city of which the apostle says, “Jerusalem which is above is our eternal mother in heaven;” and 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 of darkness.” Yet in some respects we may appropriately speak of a morning and evening of this day also. For the knowledge of the creature is, in comparison of the knowledge of the Creator, but a twilight; and so it dawns and breaks into morning when the creature is drawn to the praise and love of the Creator; and night never falls when the Creator is not forsaken through love of the creature. In fine, Scripture, when it would recount those days in order, never mentions the word night. It never says, “Night was,” but “The evening and 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 colorless than when they are seen in the wisdom of God, as in the art by which they were made. Therefore evening is a more suitable figure than night; and yet, as I said, morning returns when the creature returns to the praise and love of the Creator. When it does so in the knowledge of itself, that is the first day; when in the knowledge of the firmament, which is the name given to the sky between the waters above and those beneath, that is the second day; when in the knowledge of the earth, and the sea, and all things that grow out of the earth, that is the third day; when in the knowledge of the greater and less luminaries, and all the stars, that is the fourth day; when in the knowledge of all animals that swim in the waters and that fly in the air, that is the fifth day; when in the knowledge of all animals that live on the earth, and of man himself, that is the sixth day.

> Latin: Videmus quippe istos dies notos non habere uesperam nisi de solis occasu nec mane nisi de solis exortu; illorum autem priores tres dies sine sole peracti sunt, qui die quarto factus refertur. Et primitus quidem lux uerbo Dei facta adque inter ipsam et tenebras Deus separasse narratur et eandem lucem uocasse diem, tenebras autem noctem; sed qualis illa sit lux et quo alternante motu qualemque uesperam et mane fecerit, remotum est a sensibus nostris, nec ita ut est intellegi a nobis potest, quod tamen sine ulla haesitatione credendum est. Aut enim aliqua lux corporea ■ est, siue in superioribus mundi partibus longe a conspectibus nostris siue unde sol postmodum accensus est; aut lucis nomine significata est sancta ciuitas in sanctis angelis et spiritibus beatis, de qua dicit apostolus: Quae sursum est Hierusalem, mater nostra aeterna in caelis; ait quippe et alio loco: Omnes enim uos filii lucis estis et filii diei; non sumus noctis neque tenebrarum; si tamen et uesperam diei huius et mane aliquatenus congruenter intellegere ualeamus. Quoniam scientia creaturae in conparationem scientiae Creatoris quodam modo uesperascit, itemque lucescit et mane fit, cum et ipsa refertur ad laudem dilectionemque Creatoris; nec in noctem uergitur, ubi non Creator creaturae dilectione relinquitur. Denique scriptura cum illos dies dinumeraret ex ordine, nusquam interposuit uocabulum noctis. Non enim ait alicubi: Facta est nox; sed: Facta est uespera et factum est mane dies unus. Ita dies secundus et ceteri. Cognitio quippe creaturae in se ipsa decoloratior est, ut ita dicam, quam cum in Dei sapientia cognoscitur, uelut in arte qua facta est. Ideo uespera quam nox congruentius dici potest; quae tamen, ut dixi, cum ad laudandum et ad amandum refertur Creatorem, recurrit in mane. Et hoc cum facit in cognitione sui ipsius, dies unus est; cum in cognitione firmamenti, quod inter aquas inferiores et superiores caelum appellatum est, dies secundus; cum in cognitione terrae ac maris omniumque gignentium, quae radicibus continuata sunt terrae, dies tertius; cum in cognitione luminarium maioris et minoris omniumque siderum, dies quartus; cum in cognitione omnium ex aquis animalium natatilium adque uolatilium, dies quintus; cum in cognitione omnium animalium terrenorum adque ipsius hominis, dies sextus.

## 53. What We are to Understand of God’s Resting on the Seventh Day, After the Six Days’ Work.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/53/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/53/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 8.—What We are to Understand of God’s Resting on the Seventh Day, After the Six Days’ Work.

> Latin: Caput VIII. Quae qualisque intellegenda sit Dei requies, qua post opera sex dierum requieuit in septimo.

[¶1] When it is said that God rested on the seventh day from all His works, and hallowed it, we are not to conceive of this in a childish fashion, as if work were a toil to God, who “spake and it was done,”—spake by the spiritual and eternal, not audible and transitory word. But God’s rest signifies the rest of those who rest in God, as the joy of a house means the joy of those in the house who rejoice, though not the house, but something else, causes the joy. How much more intelligible is such phraseology, then, if the house itself, by its own beauty, makes the inhabitants joyful! For in this case we not only call it joyful by that figure of speech in which the thing containing is used for the thing contained (as when we say, “The theatres applaud,” “The meadows low,” meaning that the men in the one applaud, and the oxen in the other low), but also by that figure in which the cause is spoken of as 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 thereby that those rest who are in Him, and whom He makes to rest. And this the prophetic narrative promises also to the men to whom it speaks, and for whom it was written, that they themselves, after those good works which God does in and by them, if they have managed by faith to get near to God in this life, shall enjoy in Him eternal rest. This was pre-figured to the ancient people of God by the rest enjoined in their sabbath law, of which, in its own place, I shall speak more at large.

> Latin: Cum uero in die septimo requiescit Deus ab omnibus operibus suis et sanctificat eum, nequaquam est accipiendum pueriliter, tamquam Deus laborauerit operando, qui dixit et facta sunt uerbo intellegibili et sempiterno, non sonabili et temporali. Sed requies Dei requiem significat eorum qui requiescunt in Deo, sicut laetitia domus laetitiam significat eorum, qui laetantur in domo, etiamsi non eos domus ipsa, sed alia res aliqua laetos facit. Quanto magis, si eadem domus pulchritudine sua faciat laetos habitatores, ut non solum eo loquendi modo laeta dicatur, quo significamus per id quod continet id quod continetur (sicut theatra plaudunt, prata mugiunt, cum in illis homines plaudunt, in his boues mugiunt); sed etiam illo, quo significatur per efficientem id quod efficitur; sicut laeta epistula dicitur, significans eorum laetitiam, quos legentes efficit laetos. Conuenientissime itaque, cum Deum requieuisse prophetica narrat auctoritas, significatur requies eorum, qui in illo requiescunt et quos facit ipse requiescere; hoc etiam hominibus, quibus loquitur et propter quos utique conscripta est, promittente prophetia, quod etiam ipsi post bona opera, quae in eis et per eos operatur Deus, si ad illum prius in ista uita per fidem quodam modo accesserint, in illo habebunt requiem sempiternam. Hoc enim et sabbati uacatione ex praecepto legis in uetere Dei populo figuratum est, unde suo loco diligentius arbitror disserendum.

### What the Scriptures Teach Us to Believe Concerning the Creation of the Angels.

[¶3] Chapter 9.—What the Scriptures Teach Us to Believe Concerning the Creation of the Angels.

> Latin: Caput IX. De angelorum conditione quid secundum diuina testimonia sentiendum sit.

[¶4] At present, since I have undertaken to treat of the origin of the holy city, and first of the holy angels, who constitute a large part of this city, and indeed the more blessed part, since they have never been expatriated, I will give myself to the task of explaining, by God’s help, and as far as seems suitable, the Scriptures which relate to this point. Where Scripture speaks of the world’s creation, it is not plainly said whether or when the angels were created; but if mention of them is made, it is implicitly under the name of “heaven,” when it is said, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” or perhaps rather under the name of “light,” of which presently. But that they were wholly omitted, I am unable to believe, because it is written that God on the seventh day rested from all His works which He made; and this very book itself begins, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” so that before heaven and earth God seems to have made nothing. Since, therefore, He began with the heavens and the earth,—and the earth itself, as Scripture adds, was at first invisible and formless, light not being as yet made, and darkness covering the face of the deep (that is to say, covering an undefined chaos of earth and sea, for where light is not, darkness must needs be),—and then when all things, which are recorded to have been completed in six days, were created and arranged, how should the angels be omitted, as if they were not among the works of God, from which on the seventh day He rested? Yet, though the fact that the angels are the work of God is not omitted here, it is indeed not explicitly mentioned; but elsewhere Holy Scripture asserts it in the clearest manner. For in the Hymn of the Three Children in the Furnace it was said, “O all ye works of the Lord bless ye the Lord;” and among these works mentioned afterwards in detail, the angels are named. And in 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 of heavens; and ye waters that be above the heavens. Let them praise the name of the Lord; for He commanded, and they were created.” Here the angels are most expressly and by divine authority said to have been made by God, for of them among the other heavenly things it is said, “He commanded, and they were created.” Who, then, will be bold enough to suggest that the angels were made after the six days’ creation? If any one is so foolish, his folly is disposed of by a scripture of like authority, where God says, “When the stars were made, the angels praised me with a loud voice.” The angels therefore existed before the stars; and the stars were made the fourth day. Shall we then say that they were made the third day? Far from it; for we know what was made that day. The earth was separated from the water, and each element took its own distinct form, and the earth produced all that grows on it. On the second day, then? Not even on this; for on it the firmament was made between the waters above and beneath, and was called “Heaven,” in which firmament the stars were made on the fourth day. There is no question, then, that if the angels are included in the works of God during these six days, they are that light which was called “Day,” and whose unity Scripture signalizes by calling that day not the “first day,” but “one day.” For the second day, 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 and of His rest. For when God said, “Let there be light, and there was light,” if we are justified in understanding in this light the creation of the angels, then certainly they were created partakers of the eternal light which is the unchangeable Wisdom of God, by which all things were made, and whom 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 of that unchangeable Light and Day which is the Word of God, by whom both themselves and all else were made. “The true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,”—this Light lighteth also every pure angel, that he may be light not in himself, but in God; from whom if an angel turn away, he becomes impure, as are all those who are called unclean spirits, and are no longer light in the Lord, but darkness in themselves, being deprived of the participation of Light eternal. For evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name “evil.”

> Latin: Nunc, quoniam de sanctae ciuitatis exortu dicere institui et prius quod ad sanctos angelos adtinet dicendum putaui, quae huius ciuitatis et magna pars est et eo beatior, quod numquam peregrinata, quae hinc diuina testimonia subpetant, quantum satis uidebitur, Deo largiente explicare curabo. Ubi de mundi constitutione sacrae litterae loquuntur, non euidenter dicitur, utrum uel quo ordine creati sint angeli; sed si praetermissi non sunt, uel caeli nomine, ubi dictum est: In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram, uel potius lucis huius, de qua loquor, significati sunt. Non autem esse praetermissos hinc existimo, quod scriptum est, requieuisse Deum in die septimo ab omnibus operibus suis quae fecit, cum liber ipse ita sit exorsus: In principio fecit Deus caelum. et terram, ut ante caelum et terram nihil aliud fecisse uideatur. Cum ergo a caelo et terra coeperit, adque ipsa terra, quam primitus fecit, sicut scriptura consequenter eloquitur, inuisibilis et incomposita nondumque luce facta utique tenebrae fuerint super abyssum, id est super quandam terrae et aquae indistinctam confusionem (ubi enim lux non est, tenebrae sint necesse est); deinde si omnia creando disposita sunt, quae per sex dies consummata narrantur: quo modo angeli praetermitterentur, tamquam non essent in operibus Dei, a quibus in die septimo requieuit? Opus autem Dei esse angelos hic quidem etsi non praetermissum, non tamen euidenter expressum est; sed alibi hoc sancta scriptura clarissima uoce testatur. Nam et in hymno trium in camino uirorum cum praedictum esset: Benedicite omnia opera Domini Dominum, in executione eorundem operum etiam angeli nominati sunt: et in psalmo canitur: Laudate Dominum de caelis, laudate eum in excelsis; laudate eum omnes angeli eius, laudate eum omnes uirtutes eius; laudate eum sol et luna, laudate eum omnes stellae et lumen; laudate eum caeli caelorum, et aquae, quae super caelos sunt, laudent nomen Domini; quoniam ipse dixit, et facta sunt; ipse mandauit, et creata sunt. Etiam hic apertissime a Deo factos esse angelos diuinitus dictum est. cum eis inter cetera caelestia commemoratis infertur ad omnia: Ipse dixit, et facta sunt. Quis porro audebit opinari post omnia ista, quae sex diebus enumerata sunt, angelos factos? Sed etsi quisquam ita desipit, redarguit istam uanitatem illa scriptura paris auctoritatis, ubi Deus dicit: Quando facta sunt sidera, laudauerunt me uoce magna omnes angeli mei. Iam ergo erant angeli, quando facta sunt sidera. Facta sunt autem quarto die. Numquidnam ergo die tertio factos esse dicemus? Absit. In promtu est enim, quid illo die factum sit. Ab aquis utique terra discreta est et distinctas sui generis species duo ista elementa sumserunt et produxit terra quidquid ei radicitus inhaeret. Numquidnam secundo? Ne hoc quidem. Tunc enim firmamentum factum est inter aquas superiores et inferiores caelumque appellatum est; in quo firmamento quarto die facta sunt sidera. Nimirum ergo si ad istorum dierum opera Dei pertinent angeli, ipsi sunt illa lux, quae diei nomen accepit. cuius unitas ut commendaretur, non est dictus dies primus, sed dies unus. Nec alius est dies secundus aut tertius aut ceteri; sed idem ipse unus ad inplendum senarium uel septenarium numerum repetitus est propter senariam uel septenariam cognitionem; senariam scilicet operum, quae fecit Deus, et septenariam quietis Dei. Cum enim dixit Deus: Fiat lux, et facta est lux, si recte in hac luce creatio intellegitur angelorum, profecto facti sunt participes lucis aeternae, quod est ipsa incommutabilis sapientia Dei, per quam facta sunt omnia, quem dicimus unigenitum Dei filium; ut ea luce inluminati, qua creati, fierent lux et uocarentur dies participatione incommutabilis lucis et diei, quod est uerbum Dei, per quod et ipsi et omnia facta sunt. Lumen quippe uerum, quod inluminat omnem hominem uenientem in hunc mundum, hoc inluminat et omnem angelum mundum, ut sit lux non in se ipso, sed in Deo; a quo si auertitur angelus. fit inmundus; sicut sunt omnes, qui uocantur inmundi spiritus, nec iam lux in Domino, sed in se ipsis tenebrae, priuati participatione lucis aeternae. Mali enim nulla natura est; sed amissio boni mali nomen accepit.

### Of the Simple and Unchangeable Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, One God, in Whom Substance and Quality are Identical.

[¶6] Chapter 10.—Of the Simple and Unchangeable Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, One God, in Whom Substance and Quality are Identical.

> Latin: Caput X. De simplici et incommutabili trinitate Dei Patris et Dei Filii et Dei Spiritus sancti, unius Dei, cui non est aliud qualitas aliudque substantia.

[¶7] There is, accordingly, a good which is alone simple, and therefore alone unchangeable, and this is God. By this Good have all others been created, but not simple, and therefore not unchangeable. “Created,” I say,—that is, made, not begotten. For that which is begotten of the simple Good is simple as itself, and the same as itself. These two we call the Father and the Son; and both together with the Holy Spirit are one God; and to this Spirit the epithet Holy is in Scripture, as it were, appropriated. And He is another than the Father and the Son, for He is neither the Father nor the Son. I say “another,” not “another thing,” because He is equally with them the simple Good, unchangeable and co-eternal. And this Trinity is one God; and none the less simple because a Trinity. For we do not say that the nature of the good is simple, because the Father alone possesses it, or the Son alone, or the Holy Ghost alone; nor do we say, with the Sabellian heretics, that it is only nominally a Trinity, and has no real distinction of persons; but we say it is simple, because it is what it has, with the exception of the relation of the persons to one another. For, in regard to this relation, it is true that the Father has a Son, and yet is not Himself the Son; and the Son has a Father, and is not Himself the Father. But, as regards Himself, irrespective of relation to the other, each is what He has; thus, He is in Himself living, for He has life, and is Himself the Life which He has.

> Latin: Est itaque bonum solum simplex et ob hoc solum incommutabile, quod est Deus. Ab hoc bono creata sunt omnia bona, sed non simplicia et ob hoc mutabilia. Creata sane, inquam, id est facta, non genita. Quod enim de simplici bono genitum est, pariter simplex est et hoc est quod illud de quo genitum est; quae duo Patrem et Filium dicimus; et utrumque hoc cum spiritu suo unus Deus est; qui spiritus Patris et Filii Spiritus sanctus propria quadam notione huius nominis in sacris litteris nuncupatur. Alius est autem quam Pater et Filius, quia nec Pater est nec Filius; sed […] dixi, non ‛aliud’, quia et hoc pariter simplex pariterque incommutabile bonum est et coaeternum. Et haec trinitas unus est Deus; nec ideo non simplex, quia trinitas. Neque enim propter hoc naturam istam boni simplicem dicimus, quia Pater in ea solus aut solus Filius aut solus Spiritus sanctus, aut uero sola est ista nominis trinitas sine subsistentia personarum, sicut Sabelliani haeretici putauerunt; sed ideo simplex dicitur, quoniam quod habet hoc est, excepto quod relatiue quaeque persona ad alteram dicitur. Nam utique Pater habet Filium, nec tamen ipse est Filius [et Filius habet Patrem, nec tamen ipse est Pater]. In quo ergo ad semet ipsum dicitur, non ad alterum, hoc est quod habet; sicut ad se ipsum dicitur uiuus habendo utique uitam, et eadem uita ipse est.

[¶8] It is for this reason, then, that the nature of the Trinity is called simple, because it has not anything which it can lose, and because it is not one thing and its contents another, as a cup and the liquor, or a body and its color, or the air and the light or heat of it, or a mind and its wisdom. For none of these is what it has: the cup is not liquor, nor the body color, nor the air light and heat, nor the mind wisdom. And hence they can be deprived of what they have, and can be turned or changed into other qualities and states, so that the cup may be emptied of the liquid of which it is full, the body be discolored, 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, but the bodily substance and the quality of incorruption are not the same thing. For the quality of incorruption resides entire in each several part, not greater in one and less in another; for no part is more incorruptible than another. The body, indeed, is itself greater in whole than in part; and one part of it is larger, another smaller, yet is not the larger more incorruptible than the smaller. The body, then, which is not in each of its parts a whole body, is one thing; incorruptibility, which is throughout complete, is another thing;—for every part of the incorruptible body, however unequal to the rest otherwise, is equally incorrupt. For the hand, e.g., is not more incorrupt than the finger because it is larger than the finger; so, though finger and hand are unequal, their incorruptibility is equal. Thus, although incorruptibility is inseparable from an incorruptible body, yet the substance of the 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 it is redeemed), will be so by participating in the unchangeable wisdom, which it is not; for though the air be never robbed of the light that is shed abroad in it, it is not on that account the same thing as the light. I do not mean that the soul is air, as has been supposed by some who could not conceive a spiritual nature; but, with much dissimilarity, the two things have a kind of likeness, which makes it suitable to say that the immaterial soul is illumined with the immaterial light of the simple wisdom of God, as the material air is irradiated with material light, and that, as the air, when deprived of this light, grows dark, (for material darkness is nothing else than air wanting light,) so the soul, deprived of the light of wisdom, grows dark.

> Latin: Propter hoc utique natura dicitur simplex, cui non sit aliquid habere, quod uel possit amittere; uel aliud sit habens, aliud quod habet; sicut uas aliquem liquorem aut corpus colorem aut aer lucem siue feruorem aut anima sapientiam. Nihil enim horum est id quod habet; nam neque uas liquor est, nec corpus color, nec aer lux siue feruor, neque anima sapientia eat. Hinc est quod etiam priuari possunt rebus quas habent, et in alios habitus uel qualitates uerti adque mutari, ut et uas euacuetur umore quo plenum est, et corpus decoloretur et aer tenebrescat siue frigescat et anima desipiat. Sed etsi sit corpus incorruptibile, quale sanctis in resurrectione promittitur, habet quidem ipsius incorruptionis inamissibilem qualitatem, sed manente substantia corporali non hoc est, quod ipsa incorruptio. Nam illa etiam per singulas partes corporis tota est nec alibi maior, alibi minor; neque enim ulla pars est incorruptior quam altera; corpus uero ipsum maius est in toto quam in parte; et cum aliqua pars est in eo amplior, alia minor, non ea quae amplior est incorruptior quam ea quae minor. Aliud est itaque corpus, quod non ubique sui totum est, alia incorruptio, quae ubique eius tota est, quia omnis pars incorruptibilis corporis etiam ceteris inaequalis aequaliter incorrupta est. Neque enim uerbi gratia, quia digitus minor est quam tota manus, ideo incorruptibilior manus quam digitus. Ita cum sint inaequales manus et digitus, aequalis est tamen incorruptibilitas manus et digiti. Ac per hoc quamuis a corpore incorruptibili inseparabilis incorruptibilitas sit, aliud est tamen substantia, qua corpus dicitur, aliud qualitas eius, qua incorruptibile nuncupatur. Et ideo etiam sic non hoc est quod habet. Anima quoque ipsa, etiamsi semper sit sapiens, sicut erit cum liberabitur in aeternum, participatione tamen incommutabilis sapientiae sapiens erit, quae non est quod ipsa. Neque enim si aer infusa luce numquam deseratur, ideo non aliud est ipse, aliud lux qua inluminatur. Neque hoc ita dixerim, quasi aer sit anima, quod putauerunt quidam qui non potuerunt incorpoream cogitare naturam. Sed habent haec ad illa etiam in magna disparilitate quandam similitudinem, ut non inconuenienter dicatur sic inluminari animam incorpoream luce incorporea simplicis sapientiae Dei, sicut inluminatur aeris corpus luce corporea; et sicut aer tenebrescit ista luce desertus (nam nihil sunt aliud quae dicuntur locorum quorumcumque corporalium tenebrae quam aer carens luce), ita tenebrescere animam sapientiae luce priuatam.

[¶9] According to this, then, those things which are essentially and truly divine are called simple, because in them quality and substance are identical, and because they are divine, or wise, or blessed in themselves, and without extraneous supplement. In Holy Scripture, it is true, the Spirit of wisdom is called “manifold” because it contains many things in it; but what it contains it also is, and it being one is all these things. For neither are there many wisdoms, but one, in which are untold and infinite treasures of things intellectual, wherein are all invisible and unchangeable reasons of things visible and changeable which were created by it. For God made nothing unwittingly; not even a human workman can be said to do so. But if He knew all that He made, He made only those things which He had known. Whence flows a very striking but true conclusion, that this world could not be known to us unless it existed, but could not have existed unless it had been known to God.

> Latin: Secundum hoc ergo dicuntur illa simplicia, quae principaliter uereque diuina sunt, quod non aliud est in eis qualitas, aliud substantia, nec aliorum participatione uel diuina uel sapientia uel beata sunt. Ceterum dictus est in scripturis sanctis Spiritus sapientiae multiplex, eo quod multa in sese habeat; sed quae habet, haec et est, et ea omnia unus est. Neque enim multae, sed una sapientia est, in qua sunt infiniti quidam eique finiti thensauri rerum intellegibilium, in quibus sunt omnes inuisibiles adque incommutabiles rationes rerum etiam uisibilium et mutabilium, quae. per ipsam factae sunt. Quoniam Deus non aliquid nesciens fecit, quod nec de quolibet homine artifice recte dici potest; porro si sciens fecit omnia, ea utique fecit quae nouerat. Ex quo occurrit animo quiddam mirum, sed tamen uerum, quod iste mundus nobis notus esse non posset, nisi esset; Deo autem nisi notus esset, esse non posset._,

### Whether the Angels that Fell Partook of the Blessedness Which the Holy Angels Have Always Enjoyed from the Time of Their Creation.

[¶11] Chapter 11.—Whether the Angels that Fell Partook of the Blessedness Which the Holy Angels Have Always Enjoyed from the Time of Their Creation.

> Latin: Caput XI. An eius beatitudinis, quam sancti angeli ab initio sui semper habuerunt, etiam illos spiritus, qui in ueritate non steterunt, participes fuisse credendum sit.

[¶12] And since these things are so, those spirits whom we call angels were never at any time or in any way darkness, but, as soon as they were made, were made light; yet they were not so created in order that they might exist and live in any way whatever, but were enlightened that they might live wisely and blessedly. Some of them, having turned away from this light, have not won this wise and blessed life, which is certainly eternal, and accompanied with the sure confidence of its eternity; 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 partakers of that wisdom before they fell? And how shall we say that they participated in it equally with those who through it are truly and fully blessed, resting in a true certainty of eternal felicity? For if they had equally participated in this true knowledge, then the evil angels would have remained eternally blessed equally with the good, because they were equally expectant of it. For, though a life be never so long, it cannot be truly called eternal if it is destined to have an end; for it is called life inasmuch as it is lived, but eternal because it has no end. Wherefore, although everything eternal is not therefore blessed (for hell-fire is eternal), yet if no life can be truly and perfectly blessed except it be eternal, the life of these angels was not blessed, for it was doomed to end, and therefore not eternal, whether they knew it or not. In the one case fear, in the other ignorance, prevented them from being blessed. And even if their ignorance was not so great as to breed in them a wholly false expectation, but left them wavering in uncertainty whether their good would be eternal or would some time terminate, this very doubt concerning so grand a destiny was incompatible with the plenitude of blessedness which we believe the holy angels enjoyed. For we do not so narrow and restrict the application of the term “blessedness” as to apply it to God only, though doubtless He 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?

> Latin: Quae cum ita sint, nullo modo quidem secundum spatium aliquod temporis prius erant spiritus illi tenebrae, quos angelos dicimus; sed simul ut facti sunt, lux facti sunt; non tamen tantum ita creati, ut quoquo modo essent et quoquo modo uiuerent; sed etiam inluminati, ut sapienter beateque uiuerent. Ab hac inluminatione auersi quidam angeli non obtinuerunt excellentiam sapientis beataeque uitae. quae procul dubio non nisi aeterna est aeternitatisque suae certa adque secura; sed rationalem uitam licet insipientem sic habent, ut eam non possint amittere, nec si uelint. Quatenus autem, antequam peccassent, illius sapientiae fuerint participes, definire quis potest? In eius tamen participatione aequales fuisse istos illis, qui propterea uere pleneque beati sunt, quoniam nequaquam de suae beatitudinis aeternitate falluntur, quo modo dicturi sumus? quando quidem si aequales in ea fuissent, etiam isti in eius aeternitate mansissent pariter beati, quia pariter certi. Neque enim sicut uita, quamdiucumque fuerit, ita aeterna uita ueraciter dici poterit, si finem habitura sit; si quidem uita tantummodo uiuendo, aeterna uero finem non habendo nominata est. Quapropter quamuis non, quidquid aeternum, continuo beatum sit (dicitur enim etiam poenalis ignis aeternus): tamen si uere perfecteque beata uita non nisi aeterna est, non erat talis istorum, quandoque desitura et propterea non aeterna, siue id scirent, siue nescientes aliud putarent; quia scientes timor, nescientes error beatos esse utique non sinebat. Si autem hoc ita nesciebant, ut falsis incertisue non fiderent, sed utrum sempiternum an quandoque finem habiturum esset bonum suum, in neutram partem firma adsensione ferrentur: ipsa de tanta felicitate cunctatio eam beatae uitae plenitudinem, quam in sanctis angelis esse credimus, non habebat. Neque enim beatae uitae uocabulum ita contrahimus ad quasdam significationis angustias, ut solum Deum dicamus beatum; qui tamen uere ita beatus est, ut maior beatitudo esse non possit, in cuius conparatione, quod angeli beati sunt summa quadam sua beatitudine, quanta esse in angelis potest, quid aut quantum est?

### A Comparison of the Blessedness of the Righteous, Who Have Not Yet Received the Divine Reward, with that of Our First Parents in Paradise.

[¶14] Chapter 12.—A Comparison of the Blessedness of the Righteous, Who Have Not Yet Received the Divine Reward, with that of Our First Parents in Paradise.

> Latin: Caput XII. De conparatione beatitudinis iustorum necdum obtinentium promissionis diuinae praemium et primorum in paradiso hominum ante peccatum.

[¶15] And the angels are not the only members of the rational and intellectual creation whom we call blessed. For who will take upon him to deny that those first men in Paradise were blessed previously to sin, although they were uncertain how long their blessedness was to last, and whether it would be eternal (and eternal it would have been had they not sinned),—who, I say, will do so, seeing that even now we not unbecomingly call those blessed whom we see leading a righteous and holy life, in hope of immortality, who have no harrowing remorse of conscience, but obtain readily divine remission of the sins of their present infirmity? These, though they are certain that they shall be rewarded if they persevere, are not certain that they will persevere. For what man can know that he will persevere to the end in the exercise and increase of grace, unless he has been certified by some revelation from Him who, in His just and secret judgment, while He deceives none, informs few regarding this matter? Accordingly, so far as present comfort goes, the first man in Paradise was more blessed than any just man in this insecure state; but as regards the hope of future good, every man who not 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 bodily torments afflict him, is more blessed than was he who, even in that great felicity of Paradise, was uncertain of his fate.

> Latin: Nec ipsos tantum, quod adtinet ad rationalem uel intellectualem creaturam, beatos nuncupandos putamus. Quis enim primos illos homines in paradiso negare audeat beatos fuisse ante peccatum, quamuis sua beatitudo quam diuturna uel utrum aeterna esset incertos (esset autem aeterna, nisi peccassent), cum hodie non inpudenter beatos uocemus, quos uidemus iuste ac pie cum spe futurae inmortalitatis hanc uitam ducere sine crimine uastante conscientiam, facile inpetrantes peccatis huius infirmitatis diuinam misericordiam. Qui licet de suae perseuerantiae praemio certi sint, de ipsa tamen perseuerantia sua reperiuntur incerti. Quis enim hominum se in actione prouectuque iustitiae perseueraturum usque in finem sciat, nisi aliqua reuelatione ab illo fiat certus, qui de hac re iusto latentique iudicio non omnes instruit, sed neminem fallit? Quantum itaque pertinet ad delectationem praesentis boni, beatior erat primus homo in paradiso, quam quilibet iustus in hac infirmitate mortali; quantum autem ad spem futuri, beatior quilibet in quibuslibet cruciatibus corporis, cui non opinione, sed certa ueritate manifestum est, sine fine se habiturum omni molestia carentem societatem angelorum in participatione summi Dei, quam erat ille homo sui casus incertus in magna illa felicitate paradisi.

### Whether All the Angels Were So Created in One Common State of Felicity, that Those Who Fell Were Not Aware that They Would Fall, and that Those Who Stood Received Assurance of Their Own Perseverance After the Ruin of the Fallen.

[¶17] Chapter 13.—Whether All the Angels Were So Created in One Common State of Felicity, that Those Who Fell Were Not Aware that They Would Fall, and that Those Who Stood Received Assurance of Their Own Perseverance After the Ruin of the Fallen.

> Latin: Caput XIII. An ita unius felicitatis omnes angeli sint creati, ut neque lapsuros se possent nosse qui lapsi sunt, et post ruinam labentium perseuerantiae suae praescientiam acceperint qui steterunt.

[¶18] From all this, it will readily occur to any one that the blessedness 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, and know certainly that it shall eternally abide in the same enjoyment. That it is so with the angels of light we piously believe; but that the fallen angels, who by their own default lost that light, did not enjoy this blessedness even before they sinned, reason bids us conclude. Yet if their life was of any duration before they fell, we must allow them a blessedness of some kind, though not that which is accompanied with foresight. Or, if it seems hard to believe that, when the angels were created, some were created in ignorance either of their perseverance or their fall, while others were most certainly assured of the eternity of their felicity,—if it is hard to believe that they were not all from the beginning on an equal footing, until these who are now evil did of their own will fall away from the light of goodness, certainly it is much harder to believe that the holy angels are now uncertain of their eternal blessedness, and do not know regarding themselves as much as we have been able to gather regarding them from the Holy Scriptures. For what catholic Christian does not know that no new devil will ever arise among the good angels, as he knows that this present devil will never again return into the fellowship of the good? For the truth in the gospel promises to the saints and the faithful that they will be equal to the angels of God; and it is also promised them that they will “go away into life eternal.” But if we are certain that we shall never lapse from eternal felicity, while they are not certain, then we shall not be their equals, but their superiors. But as the truth never deceives, and as we shall be their equals, they must be certain of their blessedness. And because the evil angels could not be certain of that, since their blessedness was destined to come to an end, it follows either that the angels were unequal, or that, if equal, the good angels were assured of the eternity of their blessedness after the perdition of the others; unless, possibly, some one may say that the words of the Lord about the devil “He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,” are to be understood as if he was not only a murderer from the beginning of the human race, when man, whom he could kill by his deceit, was made, but also that he did not abide in the truth from the time of his own creation, and was accordingly never blessed with the holy angels, but refused to submit to his Creator, and proudly exulted as if in a private 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 they are, proudly feigns, and mocks himself with a state of things that does not exist; so that what the blessed Apostle John says thus becomes intelligible: “The devil sinneth from the beginning,”—that is, from the time he was created he refused righteousness, which none but a will piously subject to God can enjoy. Whoever adopts this opinion at least disagrees with those heretics the Manichees, and with any other pestilential sect that may suppose that the devil has derived from some adverse evil principle a nature proper to himself. These persons are so befooled by error, that, although they acknowledge with ourselves the authority of the gospels, they do not notice that the Lord did not say, “The devil was naturally a stranger to the truth,” but “The devil abode not in the truth,” by which He meant us to understand that he had fallen from the truth, in which, if he had abode, he would have become a partaker of it, and have remained in blessedness along with the holy angels.

> Latin: Quocirca cuiuis iam non difficulter occurrit utroque coniuncto effici beatitudinem, quam recto proposito intellectualis natura desiderat, hoc est, ut et bono incommutabili, quod Deus est, sine ulla molestia perfruatur et in eo se in aeternum esse mansurum nec ulla dubitatione cunctetur nec ullo errore fallatur. Hanc habere angelos lucis pia fide credimus; hanc nec antequam caderent habuisse angelos peccatores, qui sua prauitate illa luce priuati sunt, consequenti ratione colligimus; habuisse tamen aliquam, etsi non praesciam, beatitudinem, si uitam egerunt ante peccatum, profecto credendi sunt. Aut si durum uidetur, quando facti sunt angeli, alios credere ita factos ut non acciperent praescientiam uel perseuerantiae uel casus sui, alios autem ita ut ueritate certissima aeternitatem suae beatitudinis nossent, sed aequalis felicitatis omnes ab initio creati sunt, et ita fuerunt, donec isti, qui nunc mali sunt, ab illo bonitatis lumine sua uoluntate cecidissent: procul dubio multo est durius nunc putare angelos sanctos aeternae suae beatitudinis incertos, et ipsos de semet ipsis ignorare, quod nos de illis per scripturas sanctas nosse potuimus. Quis enim catholicus Christianus ignorat nullum nouum diabolum ex bonis angelis ulterius futurum, sicut nec istum in societatem bonorum angelorum ulterius rediturum? Veritas quippe in euangelio sanctis fidelibusque promittit, quod erunt aequales angelis Dei; quibus etiam promittitur, quod ibunt in uitam aeternam. Porro autem si nos certi sumus numquam nos ex illa inmortali felicitate casuros, illi uero si certi non sunt, iam potiores, non aequales eis erimus. Sed quia nequaquam Veritas fallit et aequales eis erimus, profecto etiam ipsi certi sunt suae felicitatis aeternae. Cuius illi alii quia certi non fuerunt (non enim erat eorum aeterna felicitas cuius certi essent, quae finem fuerat habitura), restat, ut aut inpares fuerint, aut, si pares fuerunt, post istorum ruinam illis certa scientia suae sempiternae felicitatis accesserit. Nisi forte quis dicat id, quod Dominus ait de diabolo in euangelio: Ille homicida erat ab initio et in ueritate non stetit, sic esse accipiendum, ut non solum homicida fuerit ab initio, id est initio humani generis, ex quo utique homo factus est, quem decipiendo posset occidere, uerum etiam ab initio suae conditionis in ueritate non steterit et ideo numquam beatus cum sanctis angelis fuerit, suo recusans esse subditus creatori et sua per superbiam uelut priuata potestate laetatus, ac per hoc falsus et fallax, quia nec quisquam potestatem Omnipotentis euadit, et qui per piam subiectionem noluit tenere quod uere est, adfectat per superbam elationem simulare quod non est, ut sic intellegatur etiam quod beatus Iohannes apostolus ait: Ab initio diabolus peccat, hoc est, ex quo creatus est, iustitiam recusauit, quam nisi pia Deoque subdita uoluntas habere non posset. Huic sententiae quisquis adquiescit, non cum illis haereticis sapit. id est Manichaeis, et si quae aliae pestes ita sentiunt, quod suam quandam propriam tamquam ex aduerso quodam principio diabolus habeat naturam mali; qui tanta uanitate desipiunt, ut, cum uerba ista euangelica in auctoritate nobiscum habeant, non adtendant non dixisse Dominum: A ueritate alienus fuit; sed: In ueritate non stetit, ubi a ueritate lapsum intellegi uoluit, in qua utique si stetisset, eius particeps factus beatus cum sanctis angelis permaneret.

### An Explanation of What is Said of the Devil, that He Did Not Abide in the Truth, Because the Truth Was Not in Him.

[¶20] Chapter 14.—An Explanation of What is Said of the Devil, that He Did Not Abide in the Truth, Because the Truth Was Not in Him.

> Latin: Caput XIV. Quo genere locutionis dictum sit de diabolo, quod in ueritate non steterit, quia ueritas non est in eo.

[¶21] Moreover, as if we had been inquiring why the devil did not abide in the truth, our Lord subjoins the reason, saying, “because the truth is not in him.” Now, it would be in him had he abode in it. But the phraseology is unusual. For, as the words stand, “He abode not in the truth, because the truth is not in him,” it seems as if the truth’s not being in him were the cause of his not abiding in it; whereas his not abiding in the truth is rather the cause of its not being in him. The same form of speech is found in the psalm: “I have called upon Thee, for Thou hast heard me, O God,” where 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 of this, he demonstrates the effectual earnestness of his prayer by the effect of God’s hearing it; as if he had said, The proof that I have prayed is that Thou hast heard me.

> Latin: Subiecit autem indicium, quasi quaesissemus, unde ostendatur, quod in ueritate non steterit, adque ait: Quia non est ueritas in eo. Esset autem in eo, si in illa stetisset. Locutione autem dictum est minus usitata. Sic enim uidetur sonare: In ueritate non stetit, quia ueritas non est in eo, tamquam ea sit causa, ut in ueritate non steterit, quod in eo ueritas non sit; cum potius ea sit causa, ut in eo ueritas non sit, quod in ueritate non stetit. Ista locutio est et in psalmo: Ego clamaui, quoniam exaudisti me Deus; cum dicendum fuisse uideatur: Exaudisti me Deus, quoniam clamaui. Sed cum dixisset: ‘Ego clamaui, tamquam ab eo quaereretur, unde se clamasse monstraret, ab effectu exauditionis Dei clamoris sui ostendit affectum; tamquam diceret: ‘Hinc ostendo clamasse me, quoniam exaudisti me.’

### How We are to Understand the Words, ‘The Devil Sinneth from the Beginning.’

[¶23] Chapter 15.—How We are to Understand the Words, “The Devil Sinneth from the Beginning.”

> Latin: Caput XV. Quid sentiendum sit de eo, quod dictum est: Ab initio diabolus peccat.

[¶24] As for what John says about the devil, “The devil sinneth from the beginning” they who suppose it is meant hereby that the devil was made with a sinful nature, misunderstand it; for if sin be natural, it is not sin at all. And how do they answer the prophetic proofs,—either what Isaiah says when he represents the devil under the person of the king of Babylon, “How art thou fallen, O Lucifer, son of the morning!” or what Ezekiel says, “Thou hast been in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering,” where it is meant that he was some time without sin; for a little after it is still more explicitly said, “Thou wast perfect in thy ways?” And if these passages cannot well be otherwise interpreted, we must understand by this one also, “He abode not in the truth,” that he was once in the truth, but did not remain in it. And from this passage, “The devil sinneth from the beginning,” it is not to be supposed that he sinned from the beginning of his created existence, but from the beginning of his sin, when by his pride he had once commenced to sin. There is a passage, too, in the Book of Job, of which the devil is the subject: “This is the beginning of the creation of God, which He made to be a sport to His angels,” which agrees with the psalm, where it is said, “There is that dragon which Thou hast made to be a sport therein.” But these passages are not to lead us to suppose that the devil was originally created to be the sport of the angels, but that he was doomed to this punishment after his sin. His beginning, then, is the handiwork of God; for there is no nature, even among the least, and lowest, and last of the beasts, which was not the work of Him from whom has proceeded all measure, all form, all order, without which nothing can be planned or conceived. How much more, then, is this angelic nature, which surpasses in dignity all else that He has made, the handiwork of the Most High!

> Latin: Illud etiam, quod ait de diabolo Iohannes: Ab initio diabolus peccat, non intellegunt, si natura talis est, nullo modo esse peccatum. Sed quid respondetur propheticis testimoniis, siue quod ait Esaias sub figurata persona principis Babyloniae diabolum notans: Quo modo cecidit Lucifer. qui mane oriebatur; siue quod Hiezechiel: In deliciis paradisi Dei fuisti, omni lapide pretioso ornatus es? Ubi intellegitur fuisse aliquando sine peccato. Nam expresses ei paulo post dicitur: Ambulasti in diebus tuis sine uitio. Quae si aliter conuenientius intellegi nequeunt, oportet etiam illud, quod dictum est: In ueritate non stetit, sic accipiamus, quod in ueritate fuerit, sed non permanserit; et illud, quod ab initio diabolus peccat, non ab initio, ex quo creatus est, peccare putandus est, sed ab initio peccati, quod ab ipsius superbia coeperit esse peccatum. Nec illud, quod scriptum est in libro Iob, cum de diabolo sermo esset: Hoc est initium figmenti Domini, quod fecit ad inludendum ab angelis suis (cui consonare uidetur et psalmus, ubi legitur: Draco hic, quem finxisti ad inludendum ei), sic intellegendum est, ut existimemus talem ab initio creatum, cui ab angelis inluderetur, sed in hac poena post peccatum ordinatum. Initium ergo eius figmentum est Domini; non enim est ulla natura etiam in extremis infimisque bestiolis, quam non ille constituit, a quo est omnis modus, omnis species, omnis ordo, sine quibus nihil rerum inueniri uel cogitari potest; quanto magis angelica creatura, quae omnia cetera, quae Deus condidit, naturae dignitate praecedit!

## 54. Of the Ranks and Differences of the Creatures, Estimated by Their Utility, or According to the Natural Gradations of Being.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/54/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/54/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 16.—Of the Ranks and Differences of the Creatures, Estimated by Their Utility, or According to the Natural Gradations of Being.

> Latin: Caput XVI. De gradibus et differentiis creaturarum, quas aliter pendit usus utilitatis, aliter ordo rationis.

[¶1] For, among those beings which exist, and which are not of God the Creator’s essence, those which have life are ranked above those which have none; those that have the power of generation, or even of desiring, above those which want this faculty. And, among things that have life, the sentient are higher than those which have no sensation, as animals are ranked above trees. And, among the sentient, the intelligent are above those that have not intelligence,—men, e.g., above cattle. And, among the intelligent, the immortal such as the angels, above the mortal, such as men. These are the gradations according to the order of nature; but according to the utility each man finds in a thing, there are various standards of value, so that it comes to pass that we prefer some things that have no sensation to some sentient beings. And so strong is this preference, that, had we the power, we would abolish the latter from nature altogether, whether in ignorance of the place they hold in nature, or, though we know it, sacrificing them to our own convenience. Who, e.g., would not rather have bread in his house than mice, gold than fleas? But there is little to wonder at in this, seeing that even when valued by men themselves (whose nature is certainly of the highest dignity), more is often given for a horse than for a slave, for a jewel than for a maid. Thus the reason of one contemplating nature prompts very different judgments from those dictated by the necessity of the needy, or the desire of the voluptuous; for the former considers what value a thing in itself has in the scale of creation, while necessity considers how it meets its need; reason looks for what the mental light will judge to be true, while pleasure looks for what pleasantly titilates the bodily sense. But of such consequence in rational 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 than bad angels.

> Latin: In his enim, quae quoquo modo sunt et non sunt quod Deus est a quo facta sunt, praeponuntur uiuentia non uiuentibus, sicut ea, quae habent uim gignendi uel etiam adpetendi, his, quae isto motu carent; et in his, quae uiuunt, praeponuntur sentientia non sentientibus, sicut arboribus animalia; et in his, quae sentiunt, praeponuntur intellegentia non intellegentibus, sicut homines pecoribus; et in his, quae intellegunt, praeponuntur inmortalia mortalibus, sicut angeli hominibus. Sed ita praeponuntur naturae ordine; est autem alius adque alius pro suo cuiusque usu aestimationis modus, quo fit, ut quaedam sensu carentia quibusdam sentientibus praeponamus, in tantum, ut si potestas esset ea prorsus de natura rerum auferre uellemus, siue quem in ea locum habeant ignorantes. siue etiamsi sciamus nostris ea commodis postponentes. Quis enim non domi suae panem habere quam mures, nummos quam pulices malit? Sed quid mirum, cum in ipsorum etiam hominum aestimatione, quorum certe natura tantae est dignitatis, plerumque carius conparetur equus quam seruus, gemma quam famula? Ita libertate iudicandi plurimum distat ratio considerantis a necessitate indigentis seu uoluptate cupientis, cum ista quid per se ipsum in rerum gradibus pendat, necessitas autem quid propter quid expetat cogitat, et ista quid uerum luci mentis appareat. uoluptas uero quid iucundum corporis sensibus blandiatur expectat. Sed tantum ualet in naturis rationalibus quoddam ueluti pondus uoluntatis et amoris, ut, cum ordine naturae angeli hominibus, tamen lege iustitiae boni homines malis angelis praeferantur.

### That the Flaw of Wickedness is Not Nature, But Contrary to Nature, and Has Its Origin, Not in the Creator, But in the Will.

[¶3] Chapter 17.—That the Flaw of Wickedness is Not Nature, But Contrary to Nature, and Has Its Origin, Not in the Creator, But in the Will.

> Latin: Caput XVII. Vitium malitiae non naturam esse, sed contra naturam, cui ad peccandum non Conditor causa est, sed uoluntas.

[¶4] It is with reference to the nature, then, and not to the wickedness of the devil, that we are to understand these words, “This is the beginning of God’s handiwork;” for, without doubt, wickedness can be a flaw or vice only where the nature previously was not vitiated. Vice, too, is so contrary to nature, that it cannot but damage it. And therefore departure from God would be no vice, unless in a nature whose property it was to abide with God. So that even the wicked will is a strong proof of the goodness of the nature. But God, as He is the supremely good Creator of good natures, so is He of evil wills the most just Ruler; so that, while they make an ill use of good natures, He makes a good use even of evil wills. Accordingly, He caused the devil (good by God’s creation, wicked by his own will) to be cast down from his high position, and to become the mockery of His angels,—that is, He caused his temptations to benefit those whom he wishes to injure by them. And because God, when He created him, was certainly not ignorant of his future malignity, and foresaw the good which He Himself would bring out of his evil, therefore says the psalm, “This leviathan whom Thou hast made to be a sport therein,” that we may see that, even while God in His goodness created him good, He yet had already foreseen and arranged how He would make use of him when he became wicked.

> Latin: Propter naturam igitur, non propter malitiam diaboli, dictum recte intellegimus: Hoc est initium figmenti Domini. Quia sine dubio, ubi esset uitium malitiae, natura non uitiata praecessit. Vitium autem ita contra naturam est, ut non possit nisi nocere naturae. Non itaque esset uitium recedere a Deo, nisi naturae, cuius id uitium est, potius conpeteret esse cum Deo. Quapropter etiam uoluntas mala grande testimonium est naturae bonae. Sed Deus sicut naturarum bonarum optimus creator est, ita malarum uoluntatum iustissimus ordinator, ut, cum illae male utuntur naturis bonis, ipse bene utatur etiam uoluntatibus malis. Itaque fecit, ut diabolus institutione illius bonus, uoluntate sua malus, in inferioribus ordinatus inluderetur ab angelis eius, id est, ut prosint tentationes eius sanctis, quibus eas obesse desiderat. Et quoniam Deus, cum eum conderet, futurae malignitatis eius non erat utique ignarus et praeuidebat quae bona de malo eius esset ipse facturus: propterea psalmus ait: Draco hic, quem finxisti ad inludendum ei, ut in eo ipso quod eum finxit, licet per suam bonitatem bonum, iam per suam praescientiam praeparasse intellegatur quo modo illo uteretur et malo.

### Of the Beauty of the Universe, Which Becomes, by God’s Ordinance, More Brilliant by the Opposition of Contraries.

[¶6] Chapter 18.—Of the Beauty of the Universe, Which Becomes, by God’s Ordinance, More Brilliant by the Opposition of Contraries.

> Latin: Caput XVIII. De pulchritudine uniuersitatis, quae per ordinationem Dei etiam ex contrariorum fit obpositione luculentior.

[¶7] For God would never have created any, I do not say angel, but even man, whose future wickedness He foreknew, unless He had equally known to what uses in behalf of the good He could turn him, thus embellishing, the course of the ages, as it were an exquisite poem set off with antitheses. For what are called antitheses are among the most elegant of 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 the Latin, and indeed the languages of all nations, avail themselves of the same ornaments of style. In the Second Epistle to the Corinthians the Apostle Paul also makes a graceful use of antithesis, in that place where he says, “By the armor of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, by honor and dishonor, 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 always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having 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 the opposition of contraries, arranged, as it were, by an eloquence not of words, but of things. This is quite plainly stated in the Book of Ecclesiasticus, in this way: “Good is set against evil, and life against death: so is the sinner against the godly. So look upon all the works of the Most High, and these are two and two, one against another.”

> Latin: Neque enim Deus ullum, non dico angelorum, sed uel hominum crearet, quem malum futurum esse praescisset, nisi pariter nosset quibus eos bonorum usibus commodaret adque ita ordinem saeculorum tamquam pulcherrimum carmen etiam ex quibusdam quasi antithetis honestaret. Antitheta enim quae appellantur in ornamentis elocutionis sunt decentissima, quae Latine uel appellentur obposita, uel, quod expressius dicitur, contraposita. Non est aput nos huius uocabuli; consuetudo, cum tamen eisdem ornamentis locutionis etiam sermo Latinus utatur, immo linguae omnium gentium. His antithetis et Paulus apostolus in secunda ad Corinthios epistula illum locum suauiter explicat, ubi dicit: Per arma iustitiae dextra et sinistra: per gloriam et ignobilitatem, per infamiam et bonam famam; ut seductores et ueraces, ut qui ignoramur et cognoscimur; quasi morientes, et ecce uiuimus, ut coherciti et non mortificati; ut tristes, semper autem gaudentes; sicut egeni, multos autem ditantes; tamquam nihil habentes et omnia possidentes. Sicut ergo ista contraria contrariis obposita sermonis pulchritudinem reddunt: ita quadam non uerborum, sed rerum eloquentia contrariorum obpositione saeculi pulchritudo conponitur. Apertissime hoc positum est in libro ecclesiastico isto modo: Contra malum bonum est et contra mortem uita; sic contra pium peccator. Et sic intuere in omnia opera Altissimi, bina bina, unum contra unum.

### What, Seemingly, We are to Understand by the Words, ‘God Divided the Light from the Darkness.’

[¶9] Chapter 19.—What, Seemingly, We are to Understand by the Words, “God Divided the Light from the Darkness.”

> Latin: Caput XIX. Quid sentiendum uideatur de eo quod scriptum est: Diuisit Deus inter lucem et tenebras.

[¶10] Accordingly, though the obscurity of the divine word has certainly this advantage, that it causes many opinions about the truth to be started and discussed, each reader seeing some fresh meaning in it, yet, whatever is said to be meant by an obscure passage should be either confirmed by the testimony of obvious facts, or should be asserted in other and less ambiguous texts. This obscurity is beneficial, whether the sense of the author is at last reached after the discussion of many other interpretations, or whether, though that sense remain concealed, other truths are brought out by the discussion of the obscurity. To me it does not seem incongruous with the working of God, if we understand that the angels were created when that first light was made, and that a separation was made between the holy and the unclean angels, when, as is said, “God divided the light from the darkness; and God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.” For He alone could make this discrimination, who was able also before they fell, to foreknow that they would fall, and that, being deprived of the light of truth, they would abide in the darkness of pride. For, so far as regards the day and night, with which we are familiar, He commanded those luminaries of heaven that are obvious to our senses to divide between the light and the darkness. “Let there be,” He says, “lights in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day from the night;” and shortly after He says, “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness.” But between that light, which is the holy company of the angels spiritually radiant with the illumination of the truth, and that opposing darkness, which is the noisome foulness of the spiritual condition of those angels who are turned away from the light of righteousness, only He Himself could divide, from whom their wickedness (not of nature, but of will), while yet it was future, could not be hidden or uncertain.

> Latin: Quamuis itaque diuini sermonis obscuritas etiam ad hoc sit utilis, quod plures sententias ueritatis parit et in lucem notitiae producit, dum alius eum sic, alius sic intellegit (ita tamen ut, quod in obscuro loco intellegitur, uel adtestatione rerum manifestarum uel aliis locis minime dubiis adseratur: siue, cum multa tractantur, ad id quoque perueniatur, quod sensit ille qui scripsit, siue id lateat, sed ex occasione tractandae profundae obscuritatis alia quaedam uera dicantur): non mihi uidetur ab operibus Dei absurda sententia, si, cum lux prima illa facta est, angeli creati intelleguntur, inter sanctos angelos et inmundos fuisse discretum, ubi dictum est: Et diuisit Deus inter lucem et tenebras; et uocauit Deus lucem diem et tenebras uocauit noctem. Solus quippe ille ista discernere potuit, qui potuit etiam priusquam caderent praescire casuros et priuatos lumine ueritatis in tenebrosa superbia remansuros. Nam inter istum nobis notissimum diem et noctem, id est inter hanc lucem et has tenebras, uulgatissima sensibus nostris luminaria caeli ut diuiderent imperauit: Fiant, inquit, luminaria in firmamento caeli, ut luceant super terram et diuidant inter diem et noctem; et paulo post: Et fecit, inquit, Deus duo luminaria magna, luminare maius in principia diei, et luminare minus in principia noctis, et stellas; et posuit illa Deus in firmamento caeli lucere super terram et praeesse diei et nocti et diuidere inter lucem et tenebras. Inter illam uero lucem, quae sancta societas angelorum est inlustratione ueritatis intellegibiliter fulgens, et ei contrarias tenebras, id est malorum angelorum auersorum a luce iustitiae taeterrimas mentes, ipse diuidere potuit, cui etiam futurum non naturae, sed uoluntatis malum occultum aut incertum esse non potuit.

### Of the Words Which Follow the Separation of Light and Darkness, ‘And God Saw the Light that It Was Good.’

[¶12] Chapter 20.—Of the Words Which Follow the Separation of Light and Darkness, “And God Saw the Light that It Was Good.”

> Latin: Caput XX. De eo, quod post discretionem lucis adque tenebrarum dictum est: Et uidit Deus lucem quia bona est.

[¶13] Then, we must not pass from this passage of Scripture without noticing that when God said, “Let there be light, and there was light,” it was immediately added, “And God saw the light that it was good.” No such expression followed the statement that He separated the light from the darkness, and called the light Day and the darkness Night, lest the seal of His approval might seem to be set on such darkness, as well as on the light. For when the darkness was not subject of disapprobation, as when it was divided by the heavenly bodies from this light which our eyes discern, the statement that God saw that it was good is inserted, not before, but after the division is recorded. “And God set them,” so runs the passage, “in the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.” For He approved of both, because both were sinless. But where God said, “Let there be light, and there was light; and God saw the light that it was good;” and the narrative goes on, “and God divided the light from the darkness! and God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night,” there was not in this place subjoined the statement, “And God saw that it was good,” lest both should be designated good, while one of them was evil, not by nature, but by its own fault. And therefore, in this case, the light alone received the approbation of the Creator, while the angelic darkness, though it had been ordained, was yet not approved.

> Latin: Denique nec illud est praetereundum silentio, quod, ubi dixit Deus: Fiat lux, et facta est lux, continuo subiunctum est: Et uidit Deus lucem quia bona est; non postea quam separauit inter lucem et tenebras et uocauit lucem diem et tenebras noctem, ne simul cum luce etiam talibus tenebris testimonium placiti sui perhibuisse uideretur. Nam ubi tenebrae inculpabiles sunt, inter quas et lucem istam his oculis conspicuam luminaria caeli diuidunt, non ante, sed post infertur: Et uidit Deus quia bonum est. Posuit illa, inquit, in firmamento caeli lucere super terram et praeesse diei et nocti et separare inter lucem et tenebras. Et uidit Deus quia bonum est. Utrumque placuit, quia utrumque sine peccato est. Ubi autem dixit Deus: Fiat lux, et facta est lux. Et uidit Deus lucem quia bona est; et postmodum infertur: Et separauit Deus inter lucem et tenebras; et uocauit Deus lucem diem et tenebras uocauit noctem: non hoc loco additum est: Et uidit Deus quia bonum est, ne utrumque appellaretur bonum, cum esset horum alterum malum, uitio proprio, non natura. Et ideo sola ibi lux placuit Conditori; tenebrae autem angelicae, etsi fuerant ordinandae, non tamen fuerant adprobandae.

### Of God’s Eternal and Unchangeable Knowledge and Will, Whereby All He Has Made Pleased Him in the Eternal Design as Well as in the Actual Result.

[¶15] Chapter 21.—Of God’s Eternal and Unchangeable Knowledge and Will, Whereby All He Has Made Pleased Him in the Eternal Design as Well as in the Actual Result.

> Latin: Caput XXI. De aeterna et incommutabili scientia Dei ac uoluntate, qua semper illi uniuersa quae fecit sic placuerunt facienda, quem ad modum facta.

[¶16] For what else is to be understood by that invariable refrain, “And God saw that it was good,” than the approval of the work in its design, which is the wisdom of God? For certainly God did not in the actual achievement of the work first learn that it was good, but, on the contrary, nothing would have been made had it not been first known by Him. While, therefore, He sees that that is good which, had He not seen it before it was made, would never have been made, it is plain that He is not discovering, but teaching that it is good. Plato, indeed, was bold enough to say that, when the universe was completed, God was, as it were, elated with joy. And Plato was not so foolish as to mean by this that God was rendered more blessed by the novelty of His creation; but he wished thus to indicate that the work now completed met with its Maker’s approval, as it had while yet in design. It is not as if the knowledge of God were of various kinds, knowing in different ways things which as yet are not, things which are, and things which have been. For not in our fashion does He look forward to what is future, nor at what is present, nor back upon what is past; but in a manner quite different and far and profoundly remote from our way of thinking. For He does not pass from this to that by transition of thought, but beholds all things with absolute unchangeableness; so that of those things which emerge in time, the future, indeed, are not yet, and the present are now, and the past no longer are; but all of these are by Him comprehended in His stable and eternal presence. Neither does He see in one fashion by the eye, in another by the mind, for He is not composed of mind and body; nor does His present knowledge differ from that which it ever was or shall be, for those variations of time, past, present, and future, though they alter our knowledge, do not affect His, “with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” Neither is there any growth from thought to thought in the conceptions of Him in whose spiritual vision all things which He knows are at once embraced. For as without any movement that time can measure, He Himself moves all temporal things, so He knows all times with a knowledge that time cannot measure. And therefore He saw that what He had made was good, when He saw that it was good to make it. And when He saw it made, He had not on that account a twofold nor any way increased knowledge of it; as if He had less knowledge before He made what He saw. For certainly He would not be the perfect worker He is, unless His knowledge were so perfect as to receive no addition from His finished works. Wherefore, if the only object had been to inform us who made the light, it had been enough to say, “God made the light;” and if further information regarding the means by which it was made had been intended, it would have sufficed to say, “And God said, Let there be light, and there was light,” that we might know not only that God had made the world, but also that He had made it by the word. But because it was right that three leading truths regarding the creature be intimated to us, viz., who made it, by what means, and why, it is written, “God said, Let there be light, and there was light. And God saw the light that it was good.” If, then, we ask who made it, it was “God.” If, by what means, He said “Let it be,” and it was. If we ask, why He made it, “it was good.” Neither is there any author more excellent than God, nor any skill more efficacious than the word of God, nor any cause better than that good might be created by the good God. This also Plato has assigned as the most sufficient reason for the creation of the world, that good works might be made by a good God; whether he read this passage, or, perhaps, was informed of these things by those who had read them, or, by his quick-sighted genius, penetrated to things spiritual and invisible through the things that are created, or was instructed regarding them by those who had discerned them.

> Latin: Quid est enim aliud intellegendum in eo, quod per omnia dicitur: Vidit Deus quia bonum est, nisi operis adprobatio secundum artem facti, quae sapientia Dei est? Deus autem usque adeo non, cum factum est, tunc didicit bonum, ut nihil eorum fieret, si ei fuisset incognitum. Dum ergo uidet quia bonum est, quod, nisi uidisset antequam fieret, non utique fieret: docet bonum esse, non discit. Et Plato quidem plus ausus est dicere, elatum esse scilicet Deum gaudio mundi uniuersitate perfecta. Ubi et ipse non usque adeo desipiebat, ut putaret Deum sui operis nouitate factum beatiorem; sed sic ostendere uoluit artifici suo placuisse iam factum, quod placuerat in arte faciendum; non quod ullo modo Dei scientia uarietur, ut aliud in ea faciant quae nondum sunt, aliud quae iam sunt, aliud quae fuerunt; non enim more nostro ille uel quod futurum est prospicit, uel quod praesens est aspicit, uel quod praeteritum est respicit; sed alio modo quodam a nostrarum cogitationum consuetudine longe alteque diuerso. Ille quippe non ex hoc in illud cogitatione mutata, sed omnino incommutabiliter uidet; ita ut illa quidem, quae temporaliter fiunt, et futura nondum sint et praesentia iam sint et praeterita iam non sint, ipse uero haec omnia stabili ac sempiterna praesentia conprehendat; nec aliter oculis, aliter mente; non enim ex animo constat et corpore; nec aliter nunc et aliter antea et aliter postea; quoniam non sicut nostra, ita eius quoque scientia trium temporum, praesentis uidelicet et praeteriti uel futuri, uarietate mutatur, aput quem non est inmutatio nec momenti obumbratio. Neque enim eius intentio de cogitatione in cogitationem transit, in cuius incorporeo contuitu simul adsunt cuncta quae nouit; quoniam tempora ita nouit nullis suis temporalibus notionibus, quem ad modum temporalia mouet nullis suis temporalibus motibus. Ibi ergo uidit bonum esse quod fecit, ubi bonum esse uidit ut faceret; nec quia factum uidit scientiam duplicauit uel ex aliqua parte auxit, tamquam minoris scientiae fuerit priusquam faceret quod uideret, qui tam perfecte non operaretur, nisi tam perfecta scientia, cui nihil ex eius operibus adderetur. Quapropter. si tantummodo nobis insinuandum esset quis fecerit lucem, sufficeret dicere, fecit Deus lucem; si autem non solum quis fecerit, uerum etiam per quid fecerit, satis esset ita enuntiari: Et dixit Deus: Fiat lux, et facta est lux; ut non tantum Deum, sed etiam per Verbum lucem fecisse nossemus. Quia uero tria quaedam maxime scienda de creatura nobis oportuit intimari, quis eam fecerit, per quid fecerit, quare fecerit: Dixit Deus, inquit: Fiat lux, et facta est lux. Et uidit Deus lucem quia bona est. Si ergo quaerimus, quis fecerit: Deus est; si per quid fecerit: Dixit: Fiat, et facta est; si quare fecerit: Quia bona est. Nec auctor est excellentior Deo, nec ars efficacior Dei uerbo, nec causa melior quam ut bonum crearetur a [Deo] bono. Hanc etiam Plato causam condendi mundi iustissimam dicit, ut a bono Deo bona opera fierent; siue ista legerit, siue ab his qui legerant forte cognouerit; siue acerrimo ingenio inuisibilia Dei per ea, quae facta sunt, intellecta conspexerit, siue ab his qui ista conspexerant et ipse didicerit.

### Of Those Who Do Not Approve of Certain Things Which are a Part of This Good Creation of a Good Creator, and Who Think that There is Some Natural Evil.

[¶18] Chapter 22.—Of Those Who Do Not Approve of Certain Things Which are a Part of This Good Creation of a Good Creator, and Who Think that There is Some Natural Evil.

> Latin: Caput XXII. De his, quibus in uniuersitate rerum a bono Creatore bene conditarum quaedam displicent, et putant nonnullam malam esse naturam.

[¶19] This cause, however, of a good creation, namely, the goodness of God,—this cause, I say, so just and fit, which, when piously and carefully weighed, terminates all the controversies of those who inquire into the origin of the world, has not been recognized by some heretics, because there are, forsooth, many things, such as fire, frost, wild beasts, and so forth, which do not suit but injure this thin blooded and frail mortality of our flesh, which is at present under just punishment. They do not consider how admirable these things are in their own places, how excellent in their own natures, how beautifully adjusted to the rest of creation, and how much grace they contribute to the universe by their own contributions as to a commonwealth; 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 used injudiciously, become wholesome and medicinal when used in conformity with their qualities and design; just as, on the other hand, those things which give us pleasure, such as food, drink, and the light of the sun, are found to be hurtful when immoderately or unseasonably used. And thus divine providence admonishes us not foolishly to vituperate things, but to investigate their utility with care; and, where our mental capacity or infirmity is at fault, to believe that there is a utility, though hidden, as we have experienced that there were other things which we all but failed to discover. For this concealment of the use of things is itself either an exercise of our humility or a levelling of our pride; for no nature at all is evil, and this is a name for nothing but the want of good. But from things earthly to things heavenly, from the visible to the invisible, there are some things better than others; and for this purpose are they unequal, in order that they might all exist. Now God is in such sort a great worker in great things, that He is not less in little things,—for these little things are to be measured not by their own greatness (which does not exist), but by the wisdom of their Designer; as, in the visible appearance of a man, if one eyebrow be shaved off, how nearly nothing is taken from the body, but how much from the beauty!—for that is not constituted by bulk, but by the proportion and arrangement of the members. But we do not greatly wonder that persons, who suppose that some evil nature has been generated and propagated by a kind of opposing principle proper to it, refuse to admit that the cause of the creation was this, that the good God produced a good creation. For they believe that He was driven to this enterprise of creation by the urgent necessity of repulsing the evil that warred against Him, and that He mixed His good nature with 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 labors to cleanse and deliver it, and with all His pains does not wholly succeed; but such part of it as could not be cleansed from that defilement is to serve as a prison and chain of the conquered and incarcerated enemy. The Manichæans would not drivel, or rather, rave in such a style as this, if they believed the nature of God to be, as it is, unchangeable and absolutely incorruptible, and subject to no injury; and if, moreover, they held in Christian sobriety, that the soul which has shown itself capable of being altered for the worse by its own will, and of being corrupted by sin, and so, of being deprived of the light of eternal truth,—that this soul, I say, is not a part of God, nor of the same nature as God, but is created by Him, and is far different from its Creator.

> Latin: Hanc tamen causam, id est ad bona creanda bonitatem Dei, hanc, inquam, causam tam iustam adque idoneam, quae diligenter considerata et pie cogitata omnes controuersias quaerentium mundi originem terminat, quidam haeretici non uiderunt, quia egenam carnis huius fragilemque mortalitatem iam de iusto supplicio uenientem, dum ei non conueniunt, plurima offendunt, sicut ignis aut frigus aut fera bestia aut quid eius modi; nec adtendunt, quam uel in suis locis naturisque uigeant pulchroque ordine disponantur, quantumque uniuersitati rerum pro sui portione decoris tamquam in communem rem publicam conferant uel nobis ipsis, si eis congruenter adque scienter utamur, commoditatis adtribuant, ita ut uenena ipsa, quae per inconuenientiam perniciosa sunt, conuenienter adhibita in salubria medicamenta uertantur; quamque a contrario etiam haec, quibus delectantur, sicut cibus et potus et ista lux, inmoderato et inopportuno usu noxia sentiantur. Unde nos admonet diuina prouidentia non res insipienter uituperare, sed utilitatem rerum diligenter inquirere, et ubi nostrum ingenium uel infirmitas deficit, ita credere occultam, sicut erant quaedam, quae uix potuimus inuenire; quia et ipsa utilitatis occultatio aut humilitatis exercitatio est aut elationis adtritio; cum omnino natura nulla sit malum nomenque hoc non sit nisi priuationis boni. Sed a terrenis usque ad caelestia et a uisibilibus usque ad inuisibilia sunt aliis alia bona meliora, ad hoc inaequalia, ut essent omnia; Deus autem ita est artifex magnus in magnis, ut minor non sit in paruis; quae parua non sua granditate (nam nulla est), sed artificis sapientia metienda sunt; sicut in specie uisibilis hominis, si unum radatur supercilium, quam propemodum nihil corpori, et quam multum detrahitur pulchritudini, quoniam non mole constat, sed parilitate ac dimensione membrorum! Nec sane multum mirandum est, quod hi, qui nonnullam malam putant esse naturam suo quodam contrario exortam propagatamque principio, nolunt accipere istam causam creationis rerum, ut bonus Deus conderet bona, credentes eum potius ad haec mundana molimina rebellantis aduersum se mali repellendi extrema necessitate perductum suamque naturam bonam malo cohercendo superandoque miscuisse, quam turpissime pollutam et crudelissime captiuatam et obpressam labore magno uix mundet ac liberet; non tamen totam, sed quod eius non potuerit ab illa inquinatione purgari, tegmen ac uinculum futurum hostis uicti et inclusi. Sic autem Manichaei non desiperent uel potius insanirent, si Dei naturam, sicuti est, incommutabilem adque omnino incorruptibilem crederent, cui nocere nulla res possit; animam uero, quae uoluntate mutari in deterius et peccato corrumpi potuit adque ita incommutabilis ueritatis luce priuari, non Dei partem nec eius naturae, quae Dei est, sed ab illo conditam longe inparem Conditori Christiana sanitate sentirent.

### Of the Error in Which the Doctrine of Origen is Involved.

[¶21] Chapter 23.—Of the Error in Which the Doctrine of Origen is Involved.

> Latin: Caput XXIII. De errore, in quo Origenis doctrina culpatur.

[¶22] But it is much more surprising that some even of those who, with ourselves, believe that there is one only source of all things, and that no nature which is not divine can exist unless originated by that Creator, have yet refused to accept with a good and simple faith this so good and simple a reason of the world’s creation, that a good God made it good; and that the things created, being different from God, were inferior to Him, and yet were good, being created by none other than He. 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 of debasement from heaven to earth, and diverse bodies as prison-houses; and that this is the world, and this the cause of its creation, not the production of good things, but the restraining of evil. Origen is justly blamed for holding this opinion. For in the books which he entitles περὶ αρχῶν, that is, Of Origins, this is his sentiment, this his utterance. And I can not sufficiently express my astonishment, that a man so erudite and well versed in ecclesiastical literature, should not have observed, in the first place, how opposed this is to the meaning of this authoritative Scripture, which, in recounting all the works of God, regularly adds, “And God saw that it was good;” and, when all were completed, inserts the words, “And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good.” Was it not obviously meant to be understood that there was no other cause of the world’s creation than that good creatures should be made by a good God? In this creation, had no one sinned, the world would have been filled and beautified with natures good without exception; and though there is sin, all things are not therefore full of sin, for the great majority of the heavenly inhabitants preserve their nature’s integrity. And the sinful will though it violated the order of its own nature, did not on that account escape the laws of God, who justly orders all things for good. For as the beauty of a picture is increased by well-managed shadows, so, to the eye that has skill to discern it, the universe is beautified even by sinners, though, considered by themselves, their deformity is a sad blemish.

> Latin: Sed multo est mirandum amplius, quod etiam quidam, qui unum nobiscum credunt omnium rerum esse principium, ullamque naturam, quae non est quod Deus est, nisi ab illo conditore esse non posse, noluerunt tamen istam causam fabricandi mundi tam bonam ac simplicem bene ac simpliciter credere, ut Deus bonus conderet bona et essent post Deum quae non essent quod est Deus, bona tamen, quae non faceret nisi bonus Deus; sed animas dicunt, non quidem partes Dei, sed factas a Deo, peccasse a Conditore recedendo et diuersis progressibus pro diuersitate peccatorum a caelis usque ad terras diuersa corpora quasi uincula meruisse, et hunc esse mundum eamque causam mundi fuisse faciendi, non ut conderentur bona, sed ut mala cohiberentur. Hinc Origenes iure culpatur. In libris enim, quos appellat nep2 ἀρχω̄ν, id est de principiis, hoc sensit, hoc scripsit. Ubi plus quam dici potest miror hominem in ecclesiasticis litteris tam doctum et exercitatum non adtendisse, primum quam hoc esset contrarium scripturae huius tantae auctoritatis intentioni, quae per omnia opera Dei subiungens: Et uidit Deus, quia bonum est, conpletisque omnibus inferens: Et uidit Deus omnia, quae fecit, et ecce bona ualde, nullam aliam causam faciendi mundi intellegi uoluit, nisi ut bona fierent a bono Deo. Ubi si nemo peccasset, tantummodo naturis bonis esset mundus ornatus et plenus; et quia peccatum est, non ideo cuncta sunt inpleta peccatis, cum bonorum longe maior numerus in caelestibus suae naturae ordinem seruet; nec mala uoluntas, quia naturae ordinem seruare noluit, ideo iusti Dei leges omnia bene ordinantis effugit; quoniam sicut pictura cum colore nigro loco suo posito, ita uniuersitas rerum, si quis possit intueri, etiam cum peccatoribus pulchra est, quamuis per se ipsos consideratos sua deformitas turpet.

[¶23] In the second place, Origen, and all who think with him, ought to have seen that if it were the true opinion that the world was created in order that souls might, for their sins, be accommodated with bodies in which they should be shut up as in houses of correction, the more venial sinners receiving lighter and more ethereal bodies, while the grosser and graver sinners received bodies more crass and grovelling, then it would follow that the devils, who are deepest in wickedness, ought, rather than even wicked men, to have earthly bodies, since these are the grossest and least ethereal of all. But in point of fact, that we might see that the deserts of souls are not to be estimated by the qualities of bodies, the wickedest devil possesses an ethereal body, while man, wicked, it is true, but with a wickedness small and venial in comparison with his, received even before his sin a body of clay. And what more foolish assertion can be advanced than that God, by this sun of ours, did not design to benefit the material creation, or lend lustre to its loveliness, and therefore created one single sun for this single world, but that it so happened that one soul only had so sinned as to deserve to be enclosed in such a body as it is? On this principle, if it had chanced that not one, but two, yea, or ten, or a hundred had sinned similarly, and with a like degree of guilt, then this world would have one hundred suns. And that such is not the case, is due not to the considerate foresight of the Creator, contriving the safety and beauty of things material, but rather to the fact that so fine a quality of sinning was hit upon by only one soul, so that it alone has merited such a body. Manifestly persons holding such opinions should aim at confining, not souls of which they know not what they say, but themselves, lest they fall, and deservedly, far indeed from the truth. And as to these three answers which I formerly recommended when in the case of any creature the questions are put, Who made it? By what means? Why? that it should be replied, God, By the Word, Because it was good,—as to these three answers, it is very questionable whether the Trinity itself is thus mystically indicated, that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, 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.

> Latin: Deinde uidere debuit Origenes et quicumque ita sapiunt, si haec opinio uera esset, mundumideo factum, ut animae pro meritis peccatorum suorum tamquam ergastula, quibus poenaliter includerentur, corpora acciperent, superiora et leuiora quae minus, inferiora uero et grauiora quae amplius peccauerunt, daemones, quibus deterius nihil est, terrena corpora, quibus inferius et grauius nihil est, potius quam homines etiam bonos habere debuisse. Nunc uero, ut intellegeremus animarum merita non qualitatibus corporum esse pensanda, aerium pessimus daemon, homo autem, et nunc licet malus longe minoris mitiorisque malitiae, et certe ante peccatum, tamen luteum corpus accepit. Quid autem stultius dici potest, quam isto sole, ut in uno mundo unus esset, non decori pulchritudinis uel etiam saluti rerum corporalium consuluisse artificem Deum, sed hoc potius euenisse, quia una anima sic peccauerat, ut tali corpore mereretur includi? ac per hoc si contigisset, ut non una, sed duae; immo non duae, sed decem uel centum similiter aequaliterque peccassent, centum soles haberet hic mundus? Quod ut non fieret, non opificis prouisione mirabili ad rerum corporalium salutem decoremque consultum est, sed contigit potius tanta unius animae progressione peccantis, ut sola corpus tale mereretur. Non plane animarum, de quibus nesciunt quid loquantur, sed eorum ipsorum, qui talia sapiunt multum longe a ueritate, [et] merito est cohercenda progressio. Haec ergo tria, quae superius commendaui, cum in unaquaque creatura requirantur, quis eam fecerit, per quid fecerit, quare fecerit, ut respondeatur Deus, per Verbum, quia bona est’, utrum altitudine mystica nobis ipsa trinitas intimetur, hoc est Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, an aliquid occurrat, quod hoc loco scripturarum id accipiendum esse prohibeat, multi sermonis est quaestio, nec omnia uno uolumine ut explicemus urgendum est.

## 55. Of the Divine Trinity, and the Indications of Its Presence Scattered Everywhere Among Its Works.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/55/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/55/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 24.—Of the Divine Trinity, and the Indications of Its Presence Scattered Everywhere Among Its Works.

> Latin: Caput XXIV. De trinitate diuina, quae per omnia opera sua significationis suae sparsit indicia.

[¶1] We believe, we maintain, we faithfully preach, that the Father begat the Word, that is, Wisdom, by which all things were 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 alike of Father and of Son, and is Himself consubstantial and co-eternal with both; and that this whole is a Trinity by reason of the individuality of the persons, and one God by reason of the indivisible divine substance, as also one Almighty by reason of the indivisible omnipotence; yet so that, when we inquire regarding each singly, it is said that each is God and Almighty; and, when we speak of all together, it is said that there are not three Gods, nor three Almighties, but one God Almighty; so great is the indivisible unity of these Three, which requires that it be so stated. But, whether the Holy Spirit of the Father, and of the Son, who are both good, can be with propriety called the goodness of both, because He is common to both, I do not presume to determine hastily. Nevertheless, I would have less hesitation in saying that He is the holiness of both, not as if He were a divine attribute merely, but Himself also the divine substance, and the third person in the Trinity. I am the rather emboldened to 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 the other two. But if the divine goodness is nothing else than the divine holiness, then certainly it is a reasonable studiousness, and not presumptuous intrusion, to inquire whether the same Trinity be not hinted at in an enigmatical mode of speech, by which our inquiry is stimulated, when it is written who made each creature, and by what means, and why. For it is the Father of the Word who said, Let there be. And that which was made when He spoke was certainly made by means of the Word. And by the words, “God saw that it was good,” it is sufficiently intimated that God made what was made not from any necessity, nor for the sake of supplying any want, but solely from His own goodness, i.e., because it was good. And this is stated after the creation had taken place, that there might be no doubt that the thing made satisfied the goodness on account of which it was made. And if we are right in understanding; that this goodness is the Holy Spirit, 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 its wisdom, God illumined it; or whence its blessedness, God is its bliss. It has its form by subsisting in Him; its enlightenment by contemplating Him; its joy by abiding in Him. It is; it sees; it loves. In God’s eternity is its life; in God’s truth its light; in God’s goodness its joy.

> Latin: Credimus et tenemus et fideliter praedicamus, quod Pater genuerit Verbum, hoc est sapientiam, per quam facta sunt omnia, unigenitum Filium, unus unum, aeternus coaeternum, summe bonus aequaliter bonum; et quod Spiritus sanctus simul et Patris et Filii sit Spiritus et ipse consubstantialis et coaeternus ambobus; adque hoc totum et trinitas sit propter proprietatem personarum et unus Deus propter inseparabilem diuinitatem, sicut unus Omnipotens propter inseparabilem omnipotentiam; ita tamen, ut etiam cum de singulis quaeritur unusquisque eorum et Deus et omnipotens esse respondeatur; cum uero de omnibus simul, non tres di uel tres omnipotentes, sed unus Deus omnipotens; tanta ibi est in tribus inseparabilis unitas, quae sic se uoluit praedicari. Utrum autem boni Patris et boni Filii Spiritus sanctus, quia communis ambobus est, recte bonitas dici possit amborum, non audeo temerariam praecipitare sententiam; uerum tamen amborum eum dicere sanctitatem facilius ausus fuero, non amborum quasi qualitatem, sed ipsum quoque substantiam et tertiam in trinitate personam. Ad hoc enim me probabilius ducit, quod, cum sit et Pater spiritus et Filius spiritus, et Pater sanctus et Filius sanctus, proprie tamen ipse uocatur Spiritus sanctus tamquam sanctitas substantialis et consubstantialis amborum. Sed si nihil est aliud bonitas diuina quam sanctitas, profecto et intellegentia rationis est, non praesumtionis audacia, ut in operibus Dei secreto quodam loquendi modo, quo nostra exerceatur intentio, eadem nobis insinuata intellegatur trinitas, unamquamque creaturam quis fecerit, per quid fecerit, propter quid fecerit. Pater quippe intellegitur Verbi, qui dixit ut fiat; quod autem illo dicente factum est, procul dubio per Verbum factum est; in eo uero quod dicitur: Vidit Deus, quia bonum est, satis significatur Deum nulla necessitate, nulla suae cuiusquam utilitatis indigentia, sed sola bonitate fecisse quod factum est, id est, quia bonum est; quod ideo postea quam factum est dicitur, ut res, quae facta est, congruere bonitati, propter quam facta est, indicetur. Quae bonitas si Spiritus sanctus recte intellegitur, uniuersa nobis trinitas in suis operibus intimatur. Inde est ciuitatis sanctae, quae in sanctis angelis sursum est, et origo et informatio et beatitudo. Nam si quaeratur unde sit: Deus eam condidit; si unde sit sapiens: a Deo inluminatur; si unde sit felix: Deo fruitur; subsistens modificatur, contemplans inlustratur, inhaerens iucundatur; est, uidet, amat; in aeternitate Dei uiget, in ueritate Dei lucet, in bonitate Dei gaudet.

### Of the Division of Philosophy into Three Parts.

[¶3] Chapter 25.—Of the Division of Philosophy into Three Parts.

> Latin: Caput XXV. De tripertita totius philosophiae disciplina.

[¶4] As far as one can judge, it is for the same reason that philosophers have aimed at a threefold division of science, or rather, were enabled to see that there was a threefold division (for they did not invent, but only discovered it), of which one part is called physical, another logical, the third ethical. The Latin equivalents of these names are now naturalized in the writings of many authors, so that these divisions are called natural, rational, and moral, on which I have touched slightly in the eighth book. Not that I would conclude that these philosophers, in this threefold division, had any thought of a trinity in God, although Plato is said to have been the first to discover and promulgate this distribution, and he saw that God alone could be the author of nature, the bestower of intelligence, and the kindler of love by which life becomes good and blessed. But certain it is that, though philosophers disagree both regarding the nature of things, and the mode of investigating truth, and of the good to which all our actions ought to tend, yet in these three great general questions all their intellectual energy is spent. And though there be a confusing diversity of opinion, every man striving to establish his own opinion in regard to each of these questions, yet no one of them all doubts that nature has some cause, science some method, life some end and aim. Then, again, there are three things which every artificer must possess if he is to effect anything,—nature, education, practice. Nature is to be judged by capacity, education by knowledge, practice by its fruit. I am aware that, properly speaking, fruit is what one enjoys, use [practice] what one uses. And this seems to be the difference between them, that we are said to enjoy that which in itself, and irrespective of other ends, delights us; to use that which we seek for the sake of some end beyond. For which reason the things of time are to be used rather than enjoyed, that we may 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 for money’s sake. However, in common parlance, we both use fruits and enjoy uses. For we correctly speak of the “fruits of the field,” which certainly we all use in the present life. And it was in accordance with this usage that I said that there 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 by which a blessed life is attained: the natural having respect to nature, the rational to education, the moral to practice. If, then, we were ourselves the authors of our nature, we should have generated knowledge in ourselves, and should not require to reach it by education, i.e., by learning it from others. Our love, too, proceeding from ourselves and returning to us, would suffice to make our life blessed, and would stand in need of no extraneous enjoyment. But now, since our nature has God as its requisite author, it is certain that we must have Him for our teacher that we may be wise; Him, too, to dispense to us spiritual sweetness that we may be blessed.

> Latin: Quantum intellegi datur, hinc philosophi sapientiae disciplinam tripertitam esse uoluerunt, immo tripertitam esse animaduertere potuerunt (neque enim ipsi instituerunt ut ita esset. sed ita esse potius inuenerunt), cuius una pars appellaretur physica, altera logica, tertia ethica (quarum nomina Latina iam multorum litteris frequentata sunt, ut naturalis, rationalis moralisque uocarentur; quas etiam in octauo libro breuiter strinximus); non quo sit consequens, ut isti in his tribus aliquid secundum Deum de trinitate cogitauerint, quamuis Plato primus istam distributionem repperisse et commendasse dicatur, cui neque naturarum omnium auctor nisi Deus uisus est neque intellegentiae dator neque amoris, quo bene beateque uiuitur, inspirator. Sed certe cum et de natura rerum et de ratione indagandae ueritatis et de boni fine, ad quem cuncta quae agimus referre debemus, diuersi diuersa sentiant: in his tamen tribus magnis et generalibus quaestionibus omnis eorum uersatur intentio. Ita cum in unaquaque earum quid quisque sectetur multiplex discrepantia sit opinionum, esse tamen aliquam naturae causam, scientiae formam, uitae summam nemo cunctatur. Tria etiam sunt, quae in unoquoque homine artifice spectantur, ut aliquid efficiat: natura, doctrina, usus; natura ingenio, doctrina scientia, usus fructu diiudicandus est. Nec ignoro, quod proprie fructus fruentis, usus utentis sit, adque hoc interesse uideatur, quod ea re frui dicimur, quae nos non ad aliud referenda per se ipsa delectat; uti uero ea re, quam propter aliud quaerimus (unde temporalibus magis utendum est, quam fruendum, ut frui mereamur aeternis; non sicut peruersi, qui frui uolunt nummo, uti autem Deo; quoniam. non nummum propter Deum inpendunt, sed Deum propter nummum colunt); uerum tamen eo loquendi modo, quem plus obtinuit consuetudo, et fructibus utimur et usibus fruimur; nam et fructus iam proprie dicuntur agrorum, quibus utique omnes temporaliter utimur. Hoc itaque more usum dixerim, in his tribus, quae in homine spectanda commonui, quae sunt natura, doctrina, usus. Ex his propter obtinendam beatam uitam tripertita, ut dixi, a philosophis inuenta est disciplina, naturalis propter naturam, rationalis propter doctrinam, moralis propter usum. Si ergo natura nostra esset a nobis, profecto et nostram nos genuissemus sapientiam, nec eam doctrina, id est aliunde discendo, percipere curaremus; et noster amor a nobis profectus et ad nos relatus et ad beate uiuendum sufficeret, nec bono alio quo frueremur ullo indigeret; nunc uero quia natura nostra, ut esset, Deum habet auctorem, procul dubio ut uera sapiamus ipsum debemus habere doctorem, ipsum etiam ut beati simus suauitatis intimae largitorem._

### Of the Image of the Supreme Trinity, Which We Find in Some Sort in Human Nature Even in Its Present State.

[¶6] Chapter 26.—Of the Image of the Supreme Trinity, Which We Find in Some Sort in Human Nature Even in Its Present State.

> Latin: Caput XXVI. De imagine summae trinitatis, quae secundum quendam modum in natura etiam necdum beatificati hominis inuenitur.

[¶7] And we indeed recognize in ourselves the image of God, that is, of the supreme Trinity, an image which, though it be not equal to God, or rather, though it be very far removed from Him,—being neither co-eternal, nor, to say all in a word, consubstantial with Him,—is yet nearer to Him in nature than any 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 our knowledge of it. Moreover, in these three things no true-seeming illusion disturbs us; for we do not come into contact with these by some bodily sense, as we perceive the things outside of us,—colors, e.g., by seeing, sounds by hearing, smells by smelling, tastes by tasting, hard and soft objects by touching,—of all which sensible objects it is the images resembling them, but not themselves which we perceive in the mind and hold in the memory, and which excite us to desire the objects. But, without any delusive representation of images or phantasms, I am most certain that I am, and that 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. For he who is not, cannot be deceived; and if I am deceived, by this same token I am. And since I am if I am deceived, how am I deceived in believing that I am? for it is certain that I am if I am deceived. Since, therefore, I, the person deceived, should be, even if I were deceived, certainly I 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 certain third thing, namely, my love, which is of equal moment. For neither am I deceived in this, that I love, since in those things which I love I am not deceived; though even if these were false, it would still be true that I loved false things. For how could I justly be blamed and prohibited from loving false things, if it were false that I loved them? But, since they are true and real, who doubts that when they are loved, the love of them is itself true and real? Further, as there is no 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 he is nothing?

> Latin: Et nos quidem in nobis, tametsi non aequalem, immo ualde longeque distantem, neque coaeternam et, quo breuius totum dicitur, non eiusdem substantiae, cuius Deus est, tamen qua Deo nihil sit in rebus ab eo factis natura propinquius, imaginem Dei, hoc est illius summae trinitatis, agnoscimus, adhuc reformatione perficiendam, ut sit etiam similitudine proxima. Nam et sumus et nos esse nouimus et id esse ac nosse diligimus. In his autem tribus, quae dixi, nulla nos falsitas ueri similis turbat. Non enim ea sicut illa, quae foris sunt, ullo sensu corporis tangimus, uelut colores uidendo, sonos audiendo, odores olfaciendo, sapores gustando, dura et mollia contrectando sentimus, quorum sensibilium etiam imagines eis simillimas nec iam corporeas cogitatione uersamus, memoria tenemus et per ipsas in istorum desideria concitamur; sed sine ulla phantasiarum uel phantasmatum imaginatione ludificatoria mihi esse me idque nosse et amare certissimum est. Nulla in his ueris Academicorum argumenta formido dicentium: Quid si falleris? Si enim fallor, sum. Nam qui non est, utique nec falli potest: ac per hoc sum, si fallor. Quia sum ergo si fallor, quo modo esse me fallor, quando certum est me esse, si fallor? Quia igitur essem qui fallerer, etiamsi fallerer, procul dubio in eo, quod me noui esse, non fallor. Consequens est autem, ut etiam in eo, quod me noui nosse, non fallar. Sicut enim noui esse me, ita noui etiam hoc ipsum, nosse me. Eaque duo cum amo, eundem quoque amorem quiddam tertium nec inparis aestimationis eis quas noui rebus adiungo. Neque enim fallor amare me, cum in his quae amo non fallar; quamquam etsi illa falsa essent, falsa me amare uerum esset. Nam quo pacto recte reprehenderer et recte prohiberer ab amore falsorum, si me illa amare falsum esset? Cum uero et illa uera adque certa sint, quis dubitet quod eorum, cum amantur, et ipse amor uerus et certus est? Tam porro nemo est qui esse se nolit, quam nemo est qui non esse beatus uelit. Quo modo enim potest beatus esse, si nihil sit?

### Of Existence, and Knowledge of It, and the Love of Both.

[¶9] Chapter 27.—Of Existence, and Knowledge of It, and the Love of Both.

> Latin: Caput XXVII. De essentia et scientia et utriusque amore.

[¶10] 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 are wretched, wish not that they themselves be annihilated, but that their misery be so. Take even those who, both in their own esteem, and in point of fact, are utterly wretched, and who are reckoned so, not only by wise men on account of their folly, but by those who count themselves blessed, and who think them wretched because they are poor and destitute,—if any one should give these men an immortality, in which their misery should be deathless, and should offer the alternative, that if they shrank from existing eternally in the same misery they might be annihilated, and exist nowhere at all, nor in any condition, on the instant they would joyfully, nay exultantly, make election to exist always, even in such a condition, rather than not exist at all. The well-known feeling of such men witnesses to this. For when we see that they fear to die, and will rather live in such misfortune than end it by death, is it not obvious enough how nature shrinks from annihilation? And, accordingly, when they know that they must die, they seek, as a great boon, that this mercy be shown them, that they may a little longer live in the same misery, and delay to end it by death. And so they indubitably prove with what glad alacrity they would accept immortality, even though it secured to them endless destruction. What! do not even all irrational animals, to whom such calculations are unknown, from the huge dragons down 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 as enables them to shun destruction by movements we can see, do not they all seek in their own fashion to conserve their existence, by rooting themselves more and more deeply in the earth, that so they may draw nourishment, and throw out healthy branches towards the sky? In fine, even the lifeless bodies, which want not only sensation but seminal life, yet either seek the upper air or sink deep, or are balanced in an intermediate position, so that they may protect their existence in that situation where they can exist in most accordance with their nature.

> Latin: Ita uero ui quadam naturali ipsum esse iucundum est, ut non ob aliud et hi qui miseri sunt nolint interire et, cum se miseros esse sentiant, non se ipsos de rebus, sed miseriam suam potius auferri uelint. Illis etiam, qui et sibi miserrimi apparent et plane sunt et non solum a sapientibus, quoniam stulti, uerum et ab his, qui se beatos putant, miseri iudicantur, quia pauperes adque mendici sunt, si quis inmortalitatem daret, qua nec ipsa miseria moreretur, proposito sibi quod, si in eadem miseria semper esse nollent, nulli et nusquam essent futuri, sed omni modo perituri, profecto exultarent laetitia et sic semper eligerent esse quam omnino non esse. Huius rei testis est notissimus sensus illorum. Unde enim mori metuunt et malunt in illa aerumna uiuere, quam eam morte finire, nisi quia satis apparet quam refugiat natura non esse? Adque ideo cum se nouerint esse morituros, pro magno beneficio sibi hanc inpendi misericordiam desiderant, ut aliquanto productius in eadem miseria uiuant tardiusque moriantur. Procul dubio ergo indicant, inmortalitatem, saltem talem quae non habeat finem mendicitatis, quanta gratulatione susciperent. Quid? animalia omnia etiam inrationalia, quibus datum non est ista cogitare, ab inmensis draconibus usque ad exiguos uermiculos nonne se esse uelle adque ob hoc interitum fugere omnibus quibus possunt motibus indicant? Quid? arbusta omnesque frutices, quibus nullus est sensus ad uitandam manifesta motione perniciem, nonne ut in auras tutum cacuminis germen emittant, aliud terrae radicis adfigunt, quo alimentum trahant adque ita suum quodam modo esse conseruent? Ipsa postremo corpora, quibus non solum sensus, sed nec ulla saltem seminalis est uita, ita tamen uel exiliunt in superna uel in ima descendunt uel librantur in mediis, ut essentiam suam. ubi secundum naturam possunt esse, custodiant.

[¶11] And how much human nature loves the knowledge of its existence, and how it shrinks from being deceived, will be sufficiently understood from this fact, that every man prefers to grieve in a sane mind, rather than to be glad in madness. And this grand and wonderful instinct belongs to men alone of all animals; for, though some of them have keener eyesight than ourselves for this world’s light, they cannot attain to that spiritual light with which our mind is somehow irradiated, so that we can form right judgments of all things. For our power to judge is proportioned to our acceptance of this light. Nevertheless, the irrational animals, though they have not knowledge, have certainly something resembling knowledge; whereas the other material things are said to be sensible, not because 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, both these and all material things have their causes hidden in their nature; but their outward forms, which lend beauty to this visible structure of the world, are perceived by our senses, so that they seem to wish to compensate for their own want of knowledge by providing us with knowledge. But we perceive them by our bodily senses in such a way that we do not judge of them by these senses. For we have another and far superior sense, belonging to the inner man, by which we perceive what things are just, and what unjust,—just by means of an intelligible idea, unjust by the want of it. This sense is aided in its functions neither by the eyesight, nor by the orifice of the ear, nor by the air-holes of the nostrils, nor by the palate’s taste, nor by any bodily touch. By it I am assured both that I am, and that I know this; and these two I love, and in the same manner I am assured that I love them.

> Latin: Iam uero nosse quantum ametur quamque falli nolit humana natura, uel hinc intellegi potest, quod lamentari quisque sana mente mauult quam laetari in amentia. Quae uis magna adque mirabilis mortalibus praeter homini animantibus nulla est, licet eorum quibusdam ad istam lucem contuendam multo quam nobis sit acrior sensus oculorum; sed lucem illam incorpoream contingere nequeunt, qua mens nostra quodam modo radiatur, ut de his omnibus recte iudicare possimus. Nam in quantum eam capimus, in tantum id possumus. Verum tamen inest in sensibus inrationalium animantium, etsi scientia nullo modo, at certe quaedam scientiae similitudo; cetera autem rerum corporalium, non quia sentiunt, sed quia sentiuntur, sensibilia nuncupata sunt. Quorum in arbustis hoc simile est sensibus, quod aluntur et gignunt. Verum tamen et haec et omnia corporalia latentes in natura causas habent; sed formas suas, quibus mundi huius uisibilis structura formosa est, sentiendas sensibus praebent, ut pro eo, quod nosse non possunt, quasi innotescere uelle uideantur. Sed nos ea sensu corporis ita capimus, ut de his non sensu corporis iudicemus. Habemus enim alium interioris hominis sensum isto longe praestantiorem, quo iusta et iniusta sentimus, iusta per intellegibilem speciem, iniusta per eius priuationem. Ad huius sensus officium non acies pupulae, non foramen auriculae, non spiramenta narium, non gustus faucium, non ullus corporeus tactus accedit. Ibi me et esse et hoc nosse certus sum, et haec amo adque amare me similiter certus sum.

### Whether We Ought to Love the Love Itself with Which We Love Our Existence and Our Knowledge of It, that So We May More Nearly Resemble the Image of the Divine Trinity.

[¶13] Chapter 28.—Whether We Ought to Love the Love Itself with Which We Love Our Existence and Our Knowledge of It, that So We May More Nearly Resemble the Image of the Divine Trinity.

> Latin: Caput XXVIII. An etiam ipsum amorem, quo et esse et scire diligimus, diligere debeamus, quo magis diuinae trinitatis imagini propinquemus.

[¶14] We have said as much as the scope of this work demands regarding these two things, to wit, our existence, and our knowledge of it, and how much they are loved by us, and how there is found even in the lower creatures a kind of likeness of these things, and yet with a difference. We have yet to speak of the love wherewith they are loved, to determine whether this love itself is loved. And doubtless it is; and this is the proof. Because in men who are justly loved, it is rather love itself that is loved; for he is not justly called a good man who knows what is good, but who loves it. Is it not then obvious that we love in ourselves the very love wherewith we love whatever good we love? For there is also a love wherewith we love that which we ought not to love; 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 is good for a man, to the end that this love which conduces to our living well may grow, and the other, which leads us to evil may decrease, until our whole life be perfectly healed and transmuted into good. For if we were beasts, we should love the fleshly and sensual life, and this would be our sufficient good; and when it was well with us in respect of it, we should seek nothing beyond. In like manner, if we were trees, we could not, indeed, in the strict sense of the word, love anything; nevertheless we should seem, as it were, to long for that by which we might become more abundantly and luxuriantly fruitful. If we were stones, or waves, or wind, or flame, or anything of that kind, we should want, indeed, both sensation and life, yet should possess a kind of attraction 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. But we are men, created in the image of our Creator, whose eternity is true, and whose truth is eternal, whose love is eternal and true, and who Himself is the eternal, true, and adorable Trinity, without confusion, without separation; and, therefore, while, as we run over all the works which He has established, we may detect, as it were, His footprints, now more and now less distinct even in those things that are beneath us, since they could not so much as exist, or be bodied forth in any shape, or follow and observe any law, had they not been made by Him who supremely is, and is supremely good and supremely wise; yet in ourselves beholding His image, let us, like that younger son of the gospel, come to ourselves, and arise and return 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 our possession of these three things, not on the testimony of others, but by our own consciousness of their presence, and because we see them with our own most truthful interior vision, yet, as we cannot of our selves know how long they are to continue, and whether they shall never cease to be, and what issue their good or bad use will lead to, we seek for others who can acquaint us of these things, if we have not already found them. 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’s help, to speak of the city of God, not in its state of pilgrimage and mortality, but as it exists ever immortal in the heavens,—that is, let us speak of the holy angels who maintain their allegiance to God, who never were, nor ever shall be, apostate, between whom and those who forsook light eternal and became darkness, God, as we have already said, made at the first a separation.

> Latin: Sed de duobus illis, essentia scilicet et notitia, quantum amentur in nobis, et quem ad modum etiam in ceteris rebus, quae infra sunt, eorum reperiatur, etsi differens, quaedam tamen similitudo, quantum suscepti huius operis ratio uisa est postulare, satis diximus; de amore autem, quo amantur, utrum et ipse amor ametur, non dictum est. Amatur autem; et hinc probamus, quod in hominibus, qui rectius amantur, ipse magis amatur. Neque enim uir bonus merito dicitur qui scit quod bonum est, sed qui diligit Quur ergo et in nobis ipsis non et ipsum amorem nos amare sentimus, quo amamus quidquid boni amamus? Est enim et amor, quo amatur et quod amandum non est, et istum amorem odit in se, qui illum diligit, quo id amatur quod amandum est. Possunt enim ambo esse in uno homine, et hoc bonum est homini, ut illo proficiente quo bene uiuimus, iste deficiat quo male uiuimus, donec ad perfectum sanetur et in bonum commutetur omne quod uiuimus. Si enim pecora essemus, carnalem uitam et quod secundum sensum eius est amaremus idque esset sufficiens bonum nostrum et secundum hoc, cum esset nobis bene, nihil aliud quaereremus. Item si arbores essemus, nihil quidem sentiente motu amare possemus, uerum tamen id quasi adpetere uideremur, quo feracius essemus uberiusque fructuosae. Si essemus lapides aut fluctus aut uentus aut flamma uel quid huius modi, sine ullo quidem sensu adque uita, non tamen nobis deesset quasi quidam nostrorum locorum adque ordinis adpetitus. Nam uelut amores corporum momenta sunt ponderum, siue deorsum grauitate sine sursum leuitate nitantur. Ita enim corpus pondere, sicut animus amore fertur, quocumque fertur. Quoniam igitur homines sumus ad nostri creatoris imaginem creati, cuius est uera aeternitas, aeterna ueritas, aeterna et uera caritas, estque ipse aeterna et uera et cara trinitas neque confusa neque separata: in his quidem rebus, quae infra nos sunt, quoniam et ipsa nec aliquo modo essent nec aliqua specie continerentur nec aliquem ordinem uel adpeterent uel tenerent, nisi ab illo facta essent, qui summe est, qui summe sapiens est, qui summe bonus est, tamquam per omnia, quae fecit mirabili stabilitate, currentes quasi quaedam eius alibi magis, alibi minus inpressa uestigia colligamus; in nobis autem ipsis eius imaginem contuentes tamquam minor ille euangelicus filius ad nosmet ipsos reuersi surgamus et ad illum redeamus, a quo peccando recesseramus. Ibi esse nostrum non habebit mortem, ibi nosse nostrum non habebit errorem, ibi amare nostrum non habebit offensionem. Nunc autem tria ista nostra quamuis certa teneamus nec aliis ea credamus testibus, sed nos ipsi praesentia sentiamus adque interiore ueracissimo cernamus aspectu, tamen, quamdiu futura uel utrum numquam defutura et quo si male, quo autem si bene agantur peruentura sint, quoniam per nos ipsos nosse non possumus, alios hinc testes uel quaerimus uel habemus: de quorum fide quur nulla debeat esse dubitatio, non est iste, sed posterior erit diligentius disserendi locus. In hoc autem libro de ciuitate Dei, quae non peregrinatur in huius uitae mortalitate, sed inmortalis semper in caelis est, id est de angelis sanctis Deo cohaerentibus, qui nec fuerunt umquam nec futuri sunt desertores, inter quos et illos, qui aeternam lucem deserentes tenebrae facti sunt, Deum primitus diuisisse iam diximus, illo adiuuante quod coepimus ut possumus explicemus.

### Of the Knowledge by Which the Holy Angels Know God in His Essence, and by Which They See the Causes of His Works in the Art of the Worker, Before They See Them in the Works of the Artist.

[¶16] Chapter 29.—Of the Knowledge by Which the Holy Angels Know God in His Essence, and by Which They See the Causes of His Works in the Art of the Worker, Before They See Them in the Works of the Artist.

> Latin: Caput XXIX. De sanctorum angelorum scientia, qua trinitatem in ipsa eius deitate nouerunt et qua operum causas prius in operantis arte quam in ipsis operibus artificis intuentur.

[¶17] Those holy angels come to the knowledge of God not by audible words, but by the presence to their souls of immutable truth, i.e., of the only-begotten Word of God; and they know this Word Himself, and the Father, and their Holy Spirit, and that this Trinity is indivisible, and that the three persons of it are one substance, and that there are not three Gods but one God; and this they so know that it is better understood by them than we are by ourselves. Thus, too, they know the creature also, not in itself, but by this better way, in the wisdom of God, as if in the art by which it was created; and, consequently, they know themselves better in God than in themselves, though they have also this latter knowledge. For they were created, and are different from their Creator. In Him, therefore, they have, as it were, a noonday knowledge; in themselves, a twilight knowledge, according to our former explanations. For there is a great difference between knowing a thing in the design in conformity to which it was made, and knowing it in itself,—e.g., the straightness of lines and correctness of figures is known in one way when mentally conceived, in another when described on paper; and justice is known in one way in the unchangeable truth, in another in the spirit of a just man. So is it with all other things,—as, the firmament between the water above and below, which was called the heaven; the gathering of the waters beneath, and the laying bare of the dry land, and the production of plants and trees; the creation of sun, moon, and stars; and of the animals out of the waters, fowls, and fish, and monsters of the deep; and of everything that walks or creeps on the earth, and of man himself, who excels all that is on the earth,—all these things are known in one way by the angels in the Word of God, in which they see the eternally abiding causes and reasons according to which they were made, and in another way in themselves: in the former, 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 adoration of the Creator Himself, it is as if morning dawned in the minds of those who contemplate them.

> Latin: Illi quippe angeli sancti non per uerba sonantia Deum discunt, sed per ipsam praesentiam inmutabilis ueritatis, hoc est Verbum eius unigenitum, et ipsum Verbum et Patrem et eorum Spiritum sanctum, eamque esse inseparabilem trinitatem singulasque in ea personas esse substantiam, et tamen omnes non tres deos esse, sed unum Deum, ita nouerunt, ut eis magis ista, quam nos ipsi nobis cogniti simus. Ipsam quoque creaturam melius ibi, hoc est in sapientia Dei, tamquam in arte, qua facta est, quam in ea ipsa sciunt; ac per hoc et se ipsos ibi melius quam in se ipsis, uerum tamen et in se ipsis. Facti sunt enim et aliud sunt quam ille qui fecit. Ibi ergo tamquam in diurna cognitione, in se ipsis autem tamquam in uespertina, sicut iam supra diximus. Multum enim differt, utrum in ea ratione cognoscatur aliquid, secundum quam factum est, an in se ipso; sicut aliter scitur rectitudo linearum sen ueritas figurarum, cum intellecta conspicitur, aliter cum in puluere scribitur; et aliter iustitia in ueritate incommutabili, aliter in anima iusti. Sic deinde cetera, sicut firmamentum inter aquas superiores et inferiores, quod caelum uocatum est; sicut deorsum aquarum congeries terraeque nudatio et herbarum institutio adque lignorum; sicut solis ac lunae stellarumque conditio; sicut ex aquis animalium, uolucrum scilicet adque piscium beluarumque natantium; sicut quorumque in terra gradientium adque repentium et ipsius hominis, qui cunctis in terra rebus excelleret. Omnia haec aliter in Verbo Dei cognoscuntur ab angelis, ubi habent causas rationesque suas, id est secundum quas facta sunt, incommutabiliter permanentes, aliter in se ipsis; illa clariore, hac obscuriore cognitione, uelut artis adque operum; quae tamen opera cum ad ipsius Creatoris laudem uenerationemque referuntur, tamquam mane lucescit in mentibus contemplantium.

### Of the Perfection of the Number Six, Which is the First of the Numbers Which is Composed of Its Aliquot Parts.

[¶19] Chapter 30.—Of the Perfection of the Number Six, Which is the First of the Numbers Which is Composed of Its Aliquot Parts.

> Latin: Caput XXX. De senarii numeri perfectione, qui primus partium. suarum quantitate conpletur.

[¶20] These works are recorded to have been completed in six days (the same day being six times repeated), because six is a perfect number,—not because God required a protracted time, as if He could not at once create all things, which then should mark the course of time by the movements proper to them, but because the perfection of the works was signified by the number six. For the number six is the first which is made up of its own parts, i.e., of its sixth, third, and half, which are respectively one, two, and three, and which make a total of six. In this way of looking at a number, those are said 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 a part of nine, but not therefore an aliquot part; but one is, for it is the ninth part; and three is, for it is the third. Yet these two parts, the ninth and the third, or one and three, are far from making its whole sum of nine. So again, in the number ten, four is a part, yet does not divide it; but one is an aliquot part, for it is a tenth; so it has a fifth, which is two; 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 not make ten, but eight. Of the number twelve, again, the parts added together exceed the whole; for it has a twelfth, that is, one; a sixth, or two; a fourth, which is three; a third, which is four; and a half, which is six. But one, two, three, four, and six make up, not twelve, but more, viz., sixteen. So much I have thought fit to state for the sake of illustrating the perfection of the number six, which is, as I said, the first which is exactly made up of its own parts added together; and in this number of days God finished His work. And, therefore, we must not despise the science of numbers, which, in many passages of holy Scripture, is found to be of eminent service to the careful interpreter. Neither has it been without reason numbered among God’s praises, “Thou hast ordered all things in number, and measure, and weight.”

> Latin: Haec autem propter senarii numeri perfectionem eodem die sexiens repetito sex diebus perfecta narrantur, non quia Deo fuerit necessaria mora temporum, quasi qui non potuerit creare omnia simul, quae deinceps congruis motibus peragerent tempora; sed quia per senarium numerum est operum significata perfectio. Numerus quippe senarius primus conpletur suis partibus, id est sexta sui parte et tertia et dimidia, quae sunt unum et duo et tria, quae in summam ducta sex fiunt. Partes autem in hac consideratione numerorum illae intellegendae sunt, quae quotae sint dici potest; sicut dimidia, tertia, quarta et deinceps ab aliquo numero denominatae. Neque enim exempli gratia quia in nouenario numero quattuor pars aliqua eius est, ideo dici potest quota eius sit; unum autem potest, nam nona eius est: et tria potest, nam tertia eius est. Coniunctae uero istae duae partes eius, nona scilicet adque tertia, id est unum et tria, longe sunt a tota summa eius, quod est nouem. Itemque in denario quaeternarius est aliqua pars eius; sed quota sit dici non potest; unum autem potest; nam decima pars eius est. Habet et quintam, quod sunt duo; habet et dimidiam, quod sunt quinque. Sed hae tres partes eius, decima et quinta et dimidia, id est unum et duo et quinque, simul ductae non conplent decem; sunt enim octo. Duodenarii uero numeri partes in summam ductae transeunt eum; habet enim duodecimam, quod est unum; habet sextam, quae sunt duo; habet quartam, quae sunt tria; habet tertiam, quae sunt quattuor; habet et dimidiam, quae sunt sex; unum autem et duo et tria et quattuor et sex non duodecim, sed amplius, id est sedecim, fiunt. Hoc breuiter commemorandum putaui ad commendandam senarii numeri perfectionem, qui primus, ut dixi, partibus suis in summam redactis ipse perficitur; in quo perfecit Deus opera sua. Unde ratio numeri contemnenda non est, quae in multis sanctarum scripturarum locis quam magni aestimanda sit elucet diligenter intuentibus. Nec frustra in laudibus Dei dictum est: Omnia in mensura et numero et pondere deposuisti.

### Of the Seventh Day, in Which Completeness and Repose are Celebrated.

[¶22] Chapter 31.—Of the Seventh Day, in Which Completeness and Repose are Celebrated.

> Latin: Caput XXXI. De die septimo, in quo plenitudo et requies commendatur.

[¶23] But, on the seventh day (i.e., the same day repeated seven times, which number is also a perfect one, though for another reason), the rest of God is set forth, and then, too, we first hear of its being hallowed. So that God did not wish to hallow this day by His works, but by His rest, which has no evening, for it is not a creature; so that, being known in one way in the Word of God, and in another in itself, it should make a twofold knowledge, daylight and dusk (day and evening). Much more might be said about the perfection of the number seven, but this book is already too long, and I fear lest I should seem to catch at an opportunity of airing my little 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 three is the first whole number that is odd, four the first that is even, and of these two, seven is composed. On this account it is often put for all numbers together, as, “A just man falleth seven times, and riseth up again,”—that is, let him fall never so often, he will not perish (and this was meant to be understood not of sins, but of afflictions conducing to lowliness). Again, “Seven times a day will I praise Thee,” which elsewhere is expressed thus, “I will bless the Lord at all times.” And many such instances are found in the divine authorities, in which the number seven is, as I said, commonly used to express the whole, or the completeness of anything. And so the Holy Spirit, of whom the Lord says, “He will teach you all truth,” is signified by this number. In it is the rest of God, the rest His people find in Him. For rest is in the whole, i.e., in perfect completeness, while in the part there is labor. And thus we labor as long as we know in part; “but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” It is even with toil we search into the Scriptures themselves. But the holy angels, towards whose society and assembly we sigh while in this our toilsome pilgrimage, as they already abide in their eternal home, so do they enjoy perfect facility of knowledge and felicity of rest. It is without difficulty that they help us; for their spiritual movements, pure and free, cost them no effort.

> Latin: In septimo autem die, id est eodem die septiens repetito, qui numerus etiam ipse alia ratione perfectus est, Dei requies commendatur, in qua primum sanctificatio sonat. Ita Deus noluit istum diem in ullis suis operibus sanctificare, sed in requie sua, quae non habet uesperam; neque enim ulla creatura est, ut etiam ipse aliter in Dei Verbo, aliter in se cognita faciat aliam uelut diurnam, aliam uelut uespertinam notitiam. De septenarii porro numeri perfectione dici quidem plura possunt; sed et liber iste iam prolixus est,. et uereor ne occasione conperta scientiolam nostram leuiter magis quam utiliter iactare uelle uideamur. Habenda est itaque ratio moderationis adque grauitatis, ne forte, cum de numero multum loquimur, mensuram et pondus neglegere iudicemur. Hoc itaque satis sit admonere, quod totus inpar primus numerus ternarius est, totus par quaternarius; ex quibus duobus septenarius constat. Ideo pro uniuerso saepe ponitur, sicuti est: Septiens cadet iustus, et resurget; id est: Quotienscumque ceciderit, non peribit; quod non de iniquitatibus, sed de tribulationibus ad humilitatem perducentibus intellegi uoluit: et: Septiens in die laudabo te; quod alibi alio modo dictum est: Semper laus eius in ore meo; et multa huius modi in. diuinis auctoritatibus reperiuntur, in quibus septenarius numerus, ut dixi, pro cuiusque rei uniuersitate poni solet. Propter hoc eodem saepe numero significatur Spiritus sanctus, de quo Dominus ait: Docebit uos omnem ueritatem. Ibi requies Dei, qua requiescitur in Deo. In toto quippe, id est in plena perfectione, requies; in parte autem labor. Ideo laboramus, quamdiu ex parte scimus, sed cum uenerit quod perfectum est, quod ex parte est euacuabitur. Hinc est quod etiam scripturas istas cum labore rimamur. Sancti uero angeli quorum societati et congregationi in hac peregrinatione laboriosissima suspiramus, sicut habent permanendi aeternitatem, ita cognoscendi facilitatem et requiescendi felicitatem. Sine difficultate quippe nos adiuuant, quoniam spiritalibus motibus puris et liberis non laborant.

## 56. Of the Opinion that the Angels Were Created Before the World.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/56/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/56/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 32.—Of the Opinion that the Angels Were Created Before the World.

> Latin: Caput XXXII. De opinione eorum, qui angelorum creationem anteriorem uolunt esse quam mundi.

[¶1] But if some one oppose our opinion, and say that the holy angels are not referred to when it is said, “Let there be light, and there was light;” if he suppose or teach that some material light, then first created, was meant, and that the angels were created, not only before the firmament dividing the waters and named “the heaven,” but also before the time signified in the words, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth;” if he allege that this phrase, “In the beginning,” does not mean that nothing was made before (for the angels were), but that God made all things by His Wisdom or Word, who is named in Scripture “the Beginning,” as He Himself, in the gospel, replied to the Jews when they asked Him who He was, that He was the Beginning;—I will not contest the point, chiefly because it gives me the liveliest satisfaction to find the Trinity celebrated in the very beginning of the book of Genesis. For having said “In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” meaning that the Father made them in the Son (as the psalm testifies where it says, “How manifold are Thy works, O Lord! in Wisdom hast Thou made them all”), a little afterwards mention is fitly made of the Holy Spirit also. For, when it had been told us what kind of earth God created at first, or what the mass or matter was which God, under the name of “heaven and earth,” had provided for the construction of the world, as is told in the additional words, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep,” then, for the sake of completing the mention of the Trinity, it is immediately added, “And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Let each one, then, take it as he pleases; for it is so profound a passage, that it may well suggest, for the exercise of the reader’s tact, many opinions, and none of them widely departing from the rule of faith. At the same time, let none doubt that the holy angels in their heavenly abodes are, though not, indeed, co-eternal with God, yet secure and certain of eternal and true felicity. To their company the Lord teaches that His little ones belong; and not only says, “They shall be equal to the angels of God,” but shows, too, what blessed contemplation the angels themselves enjoy, saying, “Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones: for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.”

> Latin: Ne quis autem contendat et dicat non sanctos angelos esse significatos in eo quod scriptum est: Fiat lux, et facta est lux, sed quamlibet lucem tunc primum factam esse corpoream ant opinetur aut doceat; angelos autem prius esse factos non tantum ante firmamentum, quod inter aquas et aquas factum appellatum est caelum, sed ante illud de quo dictum est: In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram; adque illud, quod dictum est: In principio, non ita dictum tamquam primum hoc factum sit, cum ante fecerit angelos, sed quia omnia in sapientia fecit, quod est Verbum eius et ipsum scriptura principium nominauit (sicut ipse in euangelio Iudaeis quaerentibus quis esset respondit se esse principium): non e contrario referam contentionem, maxime quia hoc me delectat plurimum, quod etiam in summo exordio sancti libri geneseos trinitas commendatur. Cum enim ita dicitur: In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram, ut Pater fecisse intellegatur in Filio, sicut adtestatur psalmus, ubi legitur: Quam magnificata sunt opera tua Domine! omnia in sapientia fecisti: conuenientissime paulo post commemoratur etiam Spiritus sanctus. Cum enim dictum esset, qualem terram Deus primitus fecerit, uel quam molem materiamue futurae constructionis mundi caeli et terrae nomine nuncupauerit subiciendo et addendo: Terra autem erat inuisibilis et inconposita et tenebrae erant super abyssum: mox ut trinitatis commemoratio conpleretur: Et spiritus, inquit, dei superferebatur super aquam. Proinde ut uolet quisque accipiat, quod ita profundum est, ut ad exercitationem legentium a fidei regula non abhorrentes plures possit generare sententias, dum tamen angelos sanctos in sublimibus sedibus non quidem Deo coaeternos, sed tamen de sua sempiterna et uera felicitate securos et certos esse nemo ambigat. Ad quorum societatem pertinere paruulos suos Dominus docens non solum illud ait: Erunt aequales angelis Dei; uerum ipsi quoque angeli qua contemplatione fruantur ostendit, ubi ait: Videte, ne contemnatis unum ex pusillis istis; dico enim uobis, quia angeli eorum in caelis semper uident faciem Patris mei, qui in caelis est.

### Of the Two Different and Dissimilar Communities of Angels, Which are Not Inappropriately Signified by the Names Light and Darkness.

[¶3] Chapter 33.—Of the Two Different and Dissimilar Communities of Angels, Which are Not Inappropriately Signified by the Names Light and Darkness.

> Latin: Caput XXXIII. De duabus angelorum societatibus diuersis adque disparibus, quae non incongrue intelleguntur lucis et tenebrarum nominibus nuncupatae.

[¶4] That certain angels sinned, and were thrust down to the lowest parts of this world, where they are, as it were, incarcerated till their final damnation in the day of judgment, the Apostle Peter very plainly declares, when he says that “God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness to be reserved into judgment.” 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 not yet enjoying equality with them, are already called “light” by the apostle: “For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord.” But as for these apostate angels, all 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 their literal signification in these passages of Genesis in which it is said, “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 enjoying God, the other swelling with pride; the one to whom it is said, “Praise ye Him, all His angels,” the other whose prince says, “All these things will I give Thee if Thou wilt fall down and worship me;” 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, but giveth grace unto the humble,” we may say, the one dwelling in the heaven of heavens, the other cast thence, and raging through the lower regions of the air; the one tranquil in the brightness of piety, the other tempest-tossed with beclouding desires; the one, at God’s pleasure, tenderly succoring, justly avenging,—the other, set on by its own pride, boiling with the lust of subduing and hurting; the one the minister of God’s goodness to the utmost of their good pleasure, the other held in by God’s power from doing the harm it would; the former laughing at the latter when it does good unwillingly by its persecutions, the latter envying the former when it gathers in its pilgrims. These two angelic communities, then, dissimilar and contrary to one another, the one both by nature good and by will upright, the other also good by nature but by will depraved, as they are exhibited in other and more explicit passages of holy writ, so I think they are spoken of in this book of Genesis under the names of light and darkness; and even if the author perhaps had a different meaning, yet our discussion of the obscure language has not been wasted time; for, though we have been unable to discover his meaning, yet we 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 here spoken of, they have certainly a resemblance to the spiritual, so that Paul can say, “Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.” If, on the other hand, the author of Genesis saw in the words what we see, then our discussion reaches this more satisfactory conclusion, that the man of God, so eminently and divinely wise, or rather, that the Spirit of God who by him recorded God’s works which were finished on the sixth day, may be supposed not to have omitted all mention of the angels whether he included them in the words “in the beginning,” because He made them first, or, which seems most likely, because He made them in the only-begotten Word. And, under these names heaven and earth, the whole creation is signified, either as divided into spiritual and material, which seems the more likely, or into the two great parts of the world in 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.

> Latin: Peccasse autem quosdam angelos et in huius mundi ima detrusos, qui eis uelut carcer est, usque ad futuram in die iudicii ultimam damnationem apostolus Petrus apertissime ostendit dicens, quod Deus angelis peccantibus non pepercerit. sed carceribus caliginis inferi retrudens tradiderit in iudicio puniendos reseruari. Inter hos ergo et illos Deum uel praescientia uel opere diuisisse quis dubitet? illosque lucem merito appellari quis contradicat? quando quidem nos adhuc in fide uiuentes eorum aequalitatem adhuc sperantes, utique nondum tenentes, iam lux dicti ab apostolo sumus: Fuistis enim, inquit, aliquando tenebrae, nunc autem lux in Domino. Istos uero desertores tenebras aptissime nuncupari profecto aduertunt, qui peiores esse hominibus infidelibus siue intellegunt siue credunt. Quapropter, etsi alia lux in isto huius libri loco intellegenda est, ubi legimus: Dixit Deus: Fiat lux, et facta est lux, et aliae tenebrae significatae sunt in eo quod scriptum est: Diuisit Deus inter lucem et tenebras: nos tamen has duas angelicas societates, unam fruentem Deo, alteram tumentem typho; unam cui dicitur: Adorate eum omnes angeli eius, aliam cuius princeps dicit: Haec omnia tibi dabo, si prostratus adoraueris me: unam Dei sancto amore flagrantem, alteram propriae celsitudinis inmundo amore fumantem; et quoniam, sicut scriptum est, Deus superbis resistit, humilibus autem dat gratiam, illam in caelis caelorum habita.item, istam inde deiectam in hoc infimo aerio caelo tumultuantem; illam luminosa pietate tranquillam, istam tenebrosis cupiditatibus turbulentam; illam Dei nutu clementer subuenientem, iuste ulciscentem, istam suo fastu subdendi et nocendi libidine exaestuantem; illam, ut quantum uult consulat, Dei bonitati ministram, istam, ne quantum uult noceat, Dei potestate frenatam; illam huic inludentem ut nolens prosit persecutionibus suis, hanc illi inuidentem, cum peregrinos colligit suos, — nos ergo has duas societates angelicas inter se dispares adque contrarias, unam et natura bonam et uoluntate rectam, aliam uero natura bonam, sed uoluntate peruersam, aliis manifestioribus diuinarum scripturarum testimoniis declaratas, quod etiam in hoc libro, cui nomen est genesis, lucis tenebrarumque uocabulis significatas existimauimus, etiamsi aliud hoc loco sensit forte qui scripsit, non est inutiliter obscuritas huius pertractata sententiae, quia, etsi uoluntatem auctoris libri huius indagare nequiuimus, a regula tamen fidei, quae per alias eiusdem auctoritatis sacras litteras satis fidelibus nota est, non abhorruimus. Etsi enim corporalia hic commemorata sunt opera Dei, habent procul dubio nonnullam similitudinem spiritalium, secundum quam dicit apostolus: Omnes enim uos filii lucis estis et filii diei, non sumus noctis neque tenebrarum. Si autem hoc sensit etiam ille qui scripsit, ad perfectiorem disputationis finem nostra peruenit intentio, ut homo Dei tam eximiae diuinaeque sapientiae, immo per eum Spiritus Dei in commemorandis operibus Dei, quae omnia sexto die dixit esse perfecta, nullo modo angelos praetermisisse credatur siue in principio, quia primo fecit, siue quod conuenientius intellegitur, in principio, quia in Verbo unigenito fecit, scriptum sit: In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram; quibus nominibus uniuersalis est significata creatura, uel spiritalis et corporalis, quod est credibilius, uel magnae duae mundi partes, quibus omnia quae creata sunt continentur, ut primitus eam totam proponeret ac deinde partes eius secundum mysticum dierum numerum exsequeretur.

### Of the Idea that the Angels Were Meant Where the Separation of the Waters by the Firmament is Spoken Of, and of that Other Idea that the Waters Were Not Created.

[¶6] Chapter 34.—Of the Idea that the Angels Were Meant Where the Separation of the Waters by the Firmament is Spoken Of, and of that Other Idea that the Waters Were Not Created.

> Latin: Caput XXXIV. De eo quod quidam putant in conditione firmamenti aquarum discretarum nomine angelos significatos, et quod quidam aquas existimant non creatas.

[¶7] Some, however, have supposed that the angelic hosts are somehow referred to under the name of waters, and that this is what is meant by “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters:” that the waters above should be understood of the angels, and those below either of the visible waters, or of the multitude of bad angels, or of the nations of men. If this be so, then it does not here appear when the angels were created, but when they were separated. Though there have not been wanting men foolish and wicked enough to deny that the waters were made by God, because it is nowhere written, “God said, Let there be waters.” With equal folly they 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.” Yes, and there the water is meant, for both are included in one word. For “the sea is His,” as the psalm says, “and He made it; and His hands formed the dry land.” But those who would understand the angels by the waters above the skies have a difficulty about the specific gravity of the elements, and fear that the waters, owing to their fluidity and weight, could not be set in the upper parts of the world. So that, if they were to construct a man upon their own principles, they would not put in his head any moist humors, or “phlegm” as the Greeks call it, and which acts the part of water among the elements of our body. But, in God’s handiwork, the head is the seat of the phlegm, and surely most fitly; and yet, according to their supposition, so absurdly that if we were not aware of the fact, and were informed by this same record that God had put a moist and cold and therefore heavy humor in the uppermost part of man’s body, these world-weighers would refuse belief. And if they were confronted 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 are written in this divine book regarding the creation of the world, we should have much to say, and should widely digress from the proposed aim of this work. Since, then, we have now said what seemed needful regarding these two diverse and contrary communities of angels, in which the origin of the two human communities (of which we intend to speak anon) is also found, let us at once bring this book also to a conclusion.

> Latin: Quamquam nonnulli putauerint aquarum nomine significatos quodam modo populos angelorum et hoc esse quod dictum est: Fiat firmamentum inter aquam et aquam, ut supra firmamentum angeli intellegantur, infra uero uel aquae istae uisibiles uel malorum angelorum multitudo uel omnium hominum gentes. Quod si ita est, non illic apparet ubi facti sint angeli, sed ubi discreti; quamuis et aquas, quod peruersissimae adque inpiae uanitatis est, negent quidam factas a Deo, quoniam nusquam scriptum est: Dixit Deus: Fiant aquae. Quod possunt simili uanitate etiam de terra dicere; nusquam enim legitur: Dixit Deus: Fiat terra. Sed, inquiunt, scriptum est: In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram. Illic ergo et aqua intellegenda est; uno enim nomine utrumque conprehensum est. Nam ipsius est mare, sicut in psalmo legitur, et ipse fecit illud, et aridam terram manus eius finxerunt. Sed hi, qui in nomine aquarum, quae super caelos sunt, angelos intellegi uolunt, ponderibus elementorum mouentur et ideo non putant aquarum fluuidam grauemque naturam in superioribus mundi locis potuisse constitui; qui secundum rationes suas, si ipsi hominem facere possent, non ei pituitam, quod Graece ϕλέγμα dicitur et tamquam in elementis corporis nostri aquarum uicem obtinet, in capite ponerent. Ibi enim sedes est phlegmatis, secundum Dei opus utique aptissime, secundum istorum autem coniecturam tam absurde, ut, si hoc nesciremus et in hoc libro similiter scriptum esset, quod Deus umorem fluuidum et frigidum ac per hoc grauem in superiore omnibus ceteris humani corporis parte posuerit, isti trutinatores elementorum nequaquam crederent, et si auctoritati eiusdem scripturae subditi essent, aliquid aliud ex hoc intellegendum esse censerent. Sed quoniam, si diligenter singula scrutemur adque tractemus, quae in illo diuino libro de constitutione mundi scripta sunt, et multa dicenda et a proposito instituti operis longe digrediendum est, iamque de duabus istis diuersis inter se adque contrariis societatibus angelorum, in quibus sunt quaedam exordia duarum etiam in rebus humanis ciuitatum, de quibus deinceps dicere institui, quantum satis esse uisum est, disputauimus: hunc quoque librum aliquando claudamus.

### Of the creation of angels and men, and of the origin of evil.

[¶9] Book XII.

> Latin: Liber XII

[¶10] Argument—Augustin 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, and teaches that he is not from eternity, but was created, and by none other than God.

### That the Nature of the Angels, Both Good and Bad, is One and the Same.

[¶12] Chapter 1.—That the Nature of the Angels, Both Good and Bad, is One and the Same.

> Latin: Caput I. De una bonorum angelorum malorumque natura.

[¶13] It has already, in the preceding book, been shown how the two cities originated among the angels. Before I speak of the creation of man, and show how the cities took their rise so far as regards the race of rational mortals I see that I must first, so far as I can, adduce what may demonstrate that it is not incongruous and unsuitable to speak of a society composed of angels and men together; so that there are not four cities or societies,—two, namely, of angels, and as many of men,—but rather two in all, one composed of the good, the other of the wicked, angels or men indifferently.

> Latin: Antequam de institutione hominis dicam, ubi duarum ciuitatum, quantum ad rationalium mortalium genus adtinet. apparebit exortus, sicut superiore libro apparuisse in angelis iam uidetur: prius mihi quaedam de ipsis angelis uideo esse dicenda, quibus demonstretur, quantum a nobis potest, quam non inconueniens neque incongrua dicatur esse hominibus angelisque societas, ut non quattuor (duae scilicet angelorum totidemque hominum), sed duae potius ciuitates, hoc est societates, merito esse dicantur, una in bonis, altera in malis non solum angelis, uerum etiam hominibus constitutae.

[¶14] That the contrary propensities in good and bad angels have arisen, not from a difference in their nature and origin, since God, the good Author and Creator of all essences, created them both, but from a difference in their wills and desires, it is impossible to doubt. While some steadfastly continued in that which was the common good of all, namely, in God Himself, and in His eternity, truth, and love; others, being enamored rather of their own power, as if they could be their own good, lapsed to this private good of their own, from that higher and beatific good which was common to all, and, bartering the lofty dignity of eternity for the inflation of pride, the most assured verity for 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 so the cause of the others’ misery will be found in the contrary, that is, in their not adhering to God. Wherefore, if when the question is asked, why are the former blessed, it is rightly answered, because they adhere to God; and when it is asked, why are the latter miserable, it is rightly answered, because they do not adhere to God,—then there is no other good for the 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 of itself, since it is created out of nothing, but only by Him by whom it has been created. For it is blessed by the possession of that whose loss makes it miserable. He, then, who is blessed not in another, but in himself, cannot be miserable, because he cannot lose himself.

> Latin: Angelorum bonorum et malo rum inter se contrarios adpetitus non naturis principiisque diuersis, cum Deus omnium substantiarum bonus auctor et conditor utrosque creauerit, sed uoluntatibus et cupiditatibus extitisse dubitare fas non est. dum alii constanter in communi omnibus bono, quod ipse illis Deus est, adque in eius aeternitate ueritate caritate persistunt; alii sua potestate potius delectati, uelut bonum suum sibi ipsi essent, a superiore communi omnium beatifico bono ad propria defluxerunt et habentes elationis fastum pro excelsissima aeternitate, uanitatis astutiam pro certissima ueritate. studia partium pro indiuidua caritate superbi fallaces inuidi effecti sunt. Beatitudinis igitur illorum causa est adhaerere Deo; quocirca istorum miseriae causa ex contrario est intellegenda, quod est non adhaerere Deo. Quam ob rem si, cum quaeritur, quare illi beati sint, recte respondetur: Quia Deo adhaerent; et cum quaeritur, quur isti sint miseri, recte respondetur: Quia non adhaerent Deo: non est creaturae rationalis uel intellectualis bonum, quo beata sit, nisi Deus. Ita quamuis non omnis beata possit esse creatura (neque enim hoc munus adipiscuntur aut capiunt ferae ligna saxa et si quid huius modi est), ea tamen, quae potest, non ex se ipsa potest, quia ex nihilo creata est, sed ex illo, a quo creata est. Hoc enim adepto beata, quo amisso misera est. Ille uero qui non alio, sed se ipso bono beatus est, ideo miser non potest esse, quia non se potest amittere.

[¶15] Accordingly we say that there is no unchangeable good but the one, true, blessed God; that the things which He made are indeed good because from Him, yet mutable because made not out of Him, but out of nothing. Although, therefore, they are not the supreme good, for God is a greater good, yet those mutable things which can adhere to the immutable good, and so be blessed, are very good; for so completely is He their good, that without Him they cannot but be wretched. And the other created things in the universe are not better on this account, that they cannot be miserable. For no one would say that the other members of the body are superior to the eyes, because they cannot be blind. But as the sentient nature, even when it feels pain, is superior to the stony, which can feel none, so the rational nature, even when wretched, is more excellent than that which lacks reason or feeling, and can therefore experience no misery. And since this is so, then in this nature which has been created so excellent, that though it be mutable itself, it can yet secure its blessedness by adhering to the immutable good, the supreme God; and since it is not satisfied unless it be perfectly blessed, and cannot be thus blessed save in God,—in this nature, I say, not to adhere to God, is manifestly a fault. Now every fault injures the nature, and is consequently contrary to the nature. The creature, therefore, which cleaves to God, differs from those who do not, not by nature, but by fault; and yet by this very fault the nature itself is proved to be very noble and admirable. For that nature is certainly praised, the fault of which is justly blamed. For we justly blame the fault because it mars the praiseworthy nature. As, then, when we say that blindness is a defect of the eyes, we prove that sight belongs to the nature of the eyes; and when we say that deafness is a defect of the ears, hearing is thereby proved to belong to their nature;—so, when we say that it is a fault of the angelic creature that it does not cleave to God, we hereby most plainly declare that it pertained to its nature to cleave to God. And who can worthily conceive or express how great 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 enjoy this so great good, without death, error, or grief? And thus, since every vice is an injury of the nature, that very vice of the wicked angels, their departure from God, is sufficient proof that God created their nature so good, that it is an injury to it not to be with God.

> Latin: Dicimus itaque incommutabile bonum non esse nisi unum uerum beatum Deum; ea uero, quae fecit, bona quidem esse, quod ab illo, uerum tamen mutabilia, quod non de illo, sed de nihilo facta sunt. Quamquam ergo summa non sint, quibus est Deus maius bonum: magna sunt tamen ea mutabilia bona, quae adhaerere possunt, ut beata sint, inmutabili bono, quod usque adeo bonum eorum est, ut sine illo misera esse necesse sit. Nec ideo cetera in hac creaturae uniuersitate meliora sunt, quia misera esse non possunt; neque enim cetera membra corporis nostri ideo dicendum est oculis esse meliora, quia caeca esse non possunt. Sicut autem melior est natura sentiens et cum dolet quam lapis qui dolere nullo modo potest: ita rationalis natura praestantior etiam misera, quam illa quae rationis uel sensus est expers, et ideo in eam non cadit miseria. Quod cum ita sit, huic naturae, quae in tanta excellentia creata est, ut, licet sit ipsa mutabilis, inhaerendo tamen incommutabili bono, id est summo Deo, beatitudinem consequatur, nec expleat indigentiam suam nisi utique beata sit, eique explendae non sufficiat nisi Deus, profecto non illi adhaerere uitium est. Omne autem uitium naturae nocet ac per hoc contra naturam est. Ab illa igitur, quae adhaeret Deo, non natura differt ista, sed uitio; quo tamen etiam uitio ualde magna multumque laudabilis ostenditur ipsa natura. Cuius enim recte uituperatur uitium, procul dubio natura laudatur. Nam recta uitii uituperatio est, quod illo dehonestatur natura laudabilis. Sicut ergo, cum uitium oculorum dicitur caecitas, id ostenditur, quod ad naturam oculorum pertinet uisus; et cum uitium aurium dicitur surditas, ad earum naturam pertinere demonstratur auditus: ita, cum uitium creaturae angelicae dicitur, quo non adhaeret Deo, hinc apertissime declaratur, eius naturae ut Deo adhaereat conuenire. Quam porro magna sit laus adhaerere Deo, ut ei uiuat, inde sapiat, illo gaudeat tantoque bono sine morte sine errore sine molestia perfruatur, quis digne cogitare possit aut eloqui? Quapropter etiam uitio malorum angelorum, quo non adhaerent Deo, quoniam omne uitium naturae nocet, satis manifestatur Deum tam bonam eorum creasse naturam, cui noxium sit non esse cum Deo.

### That There is No Entity Contrary to the Divine, Because Nonentity Seems to Be that Which is Wholly Opposite to Him Who Supremely and Always is.

[¶17] Chapter 2.—That There is No Entity Contrary to the Divine, Because Nonentity Seems to Be that Which is Wholly Opposite to Him Who Supremely and Always is.

> Latin: Caput II. Nullam essentiam Deo esse contrariam, quia ab eo, qui summe et semper est, hoc in totum uidetur diuersum esse quod non est.

[¶18] This may be enough to prevent any one from supposing, when we speak of the apostate angels, that they could have another nature, derived, as it were, from some different origin, and not from God. From the great impiety of this error we shall disentangle ourselves the more readily and easily, the more distinctly we understand that which God spoke by the angel when He sent Moses to the children of Israel: “I am that I am.” For since God is the supreme existence, that is to say, supremely is, and is therefore unchangeable, the things that He made He empowered to be, but not to be supremely like Himself. To some He communicated a more ample, to others a more limited existence, and thus arranged the natures of beings in ranks. For as from sapere comes sapientia, so from esse comes essentia,—a new word indeed, which the old Latin writers did not use, but which is naturalized in our day, that our language may not want an equivalent for the Greek οὐσία. For this is expressed word for word by essentia. Consequently, to that nature which supremely is, and which created all else that exists, no nature is contrary save that which does not exist. For nonentity is the contrary of that which is. And thus there is no being contrary to God, the Supreme Being, and Author of all beings whatsoever.

> Latin: Haec dicta sint, nec quisquam, cum de angelis apostaticis loquimur, existimet eos aliam uelut ex alio principio habere potuisse naturam, nec eorum naturae auctorem Deum. Cuius erroris inpietate tanto quisque carebit expeditius et facilius, quanto perspicacius intellegere potuerit, quod per angelum Deus dixit, quando Moysen mittebat ad filios Israel: Ego sum, qui sum. Cum enim Deus summa essentia sit, hoc est summe sit, et ideo inmutabilis sit: rebus, quas ex nihilo creauit, esse dedit, Sed non summe esse, sicut est ipse; et aliis dedit esse amplius, aliis minus, adque ita naturas essentiarum gradibus ordinauit (sicut enim ab eo, quod est sapere, uocatur sapientia, sic ab eo, quod est esse, uocatur essentia, nouo quidem nomine, quo usi ueteres non sunt Latini sermonis auctores, sed iam nostris temporibus usitato, ne deesset etiam linguae nostrae, quod Graeci appellant coatav; hoc enim uerbum e uerbo expressum est, ut diceretur essentia); ac per hoc ei naturae, quae summe est, qua faciente sunt quaecumque sunt, contraria natura non est, nisi quae non est. Ei quippe, quod est, non esse contrarium est. Et propterea Deo, id est summae essentiae et auctori omnium qualiumcumque essentiarum, essentia nulla contraria est.

### That the Enemies of God are So, Not by Nature, But by Will, Which, as It Injures Them, Injures a Good Nature; For If Vice Does Not Injure, It is Not Vice.

[¶20] Chapter 3.—That the Enemies of God are So, Not by Nature, But by Will, Which, as It Injures Them, Injures a Good Nature; For If Vice Does Not Injure, It is Not Vice.

> Latin: Caput III. De inimicis Dei non per naturam, sed per contrariam uoluntatem, quae cum ipsis nocet, bonae utique naturae nocet, quia uitium, si non nocet, non est.

[¶21] In Scripture they are called God’s enemies who oppose His rule, not by nature, but by vice; having no power to hurt Him, but only themselves. For they are His enemies, not through 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 His enemies resist Him, is an evil not to God, but to themselves. And to them it is an evil, solely because it corrupts the good of their nature. It is not nature, therefore, but vice, which is contrary to God. For that which is evil is contrary to the good. 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 good also it is contrary. But while it is contrary to God only as evil to good, it is contrary to the nature it vitiates, both as evil and as hurtful. For to God no evils are hurtful; but only to natures mutable and corruptible, though, by the testimony of the vices themselves, originally good. For were they not good, vices could not hurt them. For how do they hurt them but by depriving them of integrity, beauty, welfare, virtue, and, in short, whatever natural good vice is wont to diminish or destroy? But if there be no good to take away, then no injury can be done, and consequently there can be no vice. For it is impossible that there should be a harmless vice. Whence we gather, that though vice cannot injure the unchangeable good, it can injure nothing but good; because it does not exist where it does not injure. This, then, may be thus formulated: Vice cannot be in the highest good, and cannot be but in some good. Things solely good, therefore, can in some circumstances exist; things solely evil, never; for even those natures which are vitiated by an evil will, so far indeed as they are vitiated, are evil, but in so far as they are natures they are good. And when a vitiated nature is punished, besides the good it has in being a nature, it has this also, that it is not unpunished. For this is just, and certainly everything just is a good. For no one is punished for natural, but for voluntary vices. For even the vice which by the force of habit and long continuance has become a second nature, had its origin in the will. For at present we are speaking of the vices of the nature, which has a mental capacity for that enlightenment which discriminates between what is just and what is unjust.

> Latin: Dicuntur autem in scripturis inimici Dei, qui non natura, sed uitiis aduersantur eius imperio, nihil ei ualentes nocere, sed sibi. Inimici enim sunt resistendi uoluntate, non potestate laedendi. Deus namque inmutabilis est et omni modo incorruptibilis. Idcirco uitium, quo resistunt Deo qui eius appellantur inimici, non est Deo, sed ipsis malum, neque hoc ob aliud, nisi quia corrumpit in eis naturae bonum. Natura igitur contraria non est Deo sed uitium, quia malum contrarium est bono. Quis autem neget Deum summe bonum? Vitium ergo contrarium est Deo, tamquam malum bono. Porro autem bonum est et natura quam uitiat; unde et huic bono utique contrarium est; sed Deo tantummodo tamquam bono malum, naturae uero, quam uitiat, non tantum malum, sed etiam noxium. Nulla quippe mala Deo noxia sed mutabilibus corruptibilibusque naturis, bonis tamen ipsorum quoque testimonio uitiorum. Si enim bonae non essent, eis uitia nocere non possent. Nam quid eis nocendo faciunt, nisi adimunt integritatem pulchritudinem, salutem uirtutem et quidquid boni naturae per uitium detrahi siue minui consueuit? Quod si omnino desit, nihil boni adimendo non nocet ac per hoc nec uitium est. Nam esse uitium et non nocere non potest. Unde colligitur, quamuis non possit uitium nocere incommutabili bono, non tamen posse nocere nisi bono, quia non inest, nisi ubi nocet. Hoc etiam isto modo dici potest, uitium esse nec in summo posse bono nec nisi in aliquo bono. Sola ergo bona alicubi esse possunt, sola mala nusquam; quoniam naturae etiam illae, quae ex malae uoluntatis initio uitiatae sunt, in quantum uitiosae sunt, malae sunt, in quantum autem naturae sunt, bonae sunt. Et cum in poenis est natura uitiosa, excepto eo, quod natura est, etiam hoc ibi bonum est, quod inpunita non est. Hoc enim est iustum et omne iustum procul dubio bonum. Non enim quisquam de uitiis naturalibus, sed de uoluntariis poenas luit. Nam etiam quod uitium consuetudine nimioue progressu roboratum uelut naturaliter inoleuit, a uoluntate sumsit exordium. De uitiis quippe nunc loquimur eius naturae, cui mens inest capax intellegibilis lucis, qua discernitur iustum ab iniusto.

### Of the Nature of Irrational and Lifeless Creatures, Which in Their Own Kind and Order Do Not Mar the Beauty of the Universe.

[¶23] Chapter 4.—Of the Nature of Irrational and Lifeless Creatures, Which in Their Own Kind and Order Do Not Mar the Beauty of the Universe.

> Latin: Caput IV. De naturis inrationalium aut uita carentium, quae in suo genere adque ordine ab uniuersitatis decore non discrepant.

[¶24] But it is ridiculous to condemn the faults of beasts and trees, and other such mortal and mutable things as are void of intelligence, sensation, or life, even though these faults should destroy their corruptible nature; for these creatures received, at their Creator’s will, an existence fitting them, by passing away and giving place to others, to secure that lowest form of beauty, the beauty of seasons, which in its own place is a requisite part of this world. For things earthly were neither to be made equal to things heavenly, nor were they, though inferior, to be quite omitted from the universe. Since, then, in those situations where such things are appropriate, some perish to make way for others that are born in their room, and the less succumb to the greater, and the things that are overcome are transformed into the quality of those that have the mastery, this is the appointed order of things transitory. Of this order the beauty does not strike us, because by our mortal frailty we are so involved in a part of it, that we cannot perceive the whole, in which these fragments that offend us are harmonized with the most accurate fitness and beauty. And therefore, where we are not so well able to perceive the wisdom of the Creator, we are very properly enjoined to believe it, lest in the vanity of human rashness we presume to find any fault with the work of so great an Artificer. At the same time, if we attentively consider even these faults of earthly things, which are neither voluntary nor penal, they seem to illustrate the excellence of the natures themselves, which are all originated and created by God; for it is that which pleases us in this nature which we are displeased to see removed by the fault,—unless even the natures themselves displease men, as often happens when they become hurtful to them, and then men estimate them not by their nature, but by their utility; as in the case of those animals whose swarms scourged the pride of the Egyptians. But in this way of estimating, they may find fault with the sun itself; for certain criminals or debtors 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 creatures are glorifying to their Artificer. Thus even the nature of the eternal fire, penal though it be to the condemned sinners, is most assuredly worthy of praise. For what is more beautiful than fire flaming, blazing, and shining? What more useful than fire for warming, restoring, cooking, though nothing is more destructive than fire burning and consuming? The same thing, then, when applied in one way, is destructive, but when applied suitably, is most beneficial. For who can find words to tell its uses throughout the whole world? We must not listen, then, to those who praise the light of fire but find fault with its heat, judging it not by its nature, but by their convenience or discomfort. For they wish to see, but not to be burnt. But they forget that this very light which is so pleasant to them, disagrees with and hurts weak eyes; and in that heat which is disagreeable to them, some animals find the most suitable conditions of a healthy life.

> Latin: Ceterum uitia pecorum et arborum aliarumque rerum mutabilium adque mortalium uel intellectu uel sensu uel uita omnino carentium, quibus eorum dissolubilis natura corrumpitur, damnabilia putare ridiculum est, cum istae creaturae eum modum nutu Creatoris acceperint, ut cedendo ac succedendo peragant infimam pulchritudinem temporum in genere suo istius mundi partibus congruentem. Neque enim caelestibus fuerant terrena coaequanda, aut ideo uniuersitati deesse ista debuerunt, quoniam sunt illa meliora. Cum ergo in his locis, ubi esse talia conpetebat, aliis alia deficientibus oriuntur et succumbunt minora maioribus adque in qualitates superantium superata uertuntur, rerum est ordo transeuntium. Cuius ordinis decus nos propterea non delectat, quoniam parti eius pro condicione nostrae mortalitatis intexti uniuersum, cui particulae, quae nos offendunt, satis apte decenterque conueniunt, sentire non possumus. Unde nobis, in quibus eam contemplari minus idonei sumus, rectissime credenda praecipitur prouidentia Conditoris, ne tanti artificis opus in aliquo reprehendere uanitate humanae temeritatis audeamus. Quamquam et uitia rerum terrenarum non uoluntaria neque poenalia naturas ipsas, quarum nulla omnino est, cuius non sit auctor et conditor Deus, si prudenter adtendamus, eadem ratione commendant, quia et in eis hoc nobis per uitium tolli displicet, quod in natura placet; nisi quia hominibus etiam ipsae naturae plerumque displicent, cum eis fiunt noxiae. non eas considerantibus, sed utilitatem suam, sicut illa animalia, quorum abundantia Aegyptiorum superbia uapulauit. Sed isto modo possunt et solem uituperare, quoniam quidam peccantes uel debita non reddentes poni a iudicibus iubentur ad solem. Non itaque ex commodo uel incommodo nostro, sed per se ipsam considerata natura dat artifici suo gloriam. Sic est et natura ignis aeterni sine ulla dubitatione laudabilis, quamuis damnatis inpiis futura poenalis. Quid enim est igne flammante uigente lucente pulchrius? quid calfaciente curante coquente utilius? quamuis eo nihil sit urente molestius. Idem igitur ipse aliter adpositus perniciosus, qui conuenienter adhibitus commodissimus inuenitur. Nam eius in uniuerso mundo utilitates uerbis explicare quis sufficit? Nec audiendi sunt, qui laudant in igne lucem, ardorem autem uituperant, uidelicet non ex ui naturae, sed ex suo commodo uel incommodo. Videre enim uolunt, ardere nolunt. Sed parum adtendunt eam ipsam lucem, quae certe et illis placet, oculis infirmis per inconuenientiam nocere, et in illo ardore, qui eis displicet, nonnulla animalia per conuenientiam salubriter uiuere.

## 57. That in All Natures, of Every Kind and Rank, God is Glorified.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/57/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/57/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 5.—That in All Natures, of Every Kind and Rank, God is Glorified.

> Latin: Caput V. Quod in omni naturae specie ac modo laudabilis sit Creator.

[¶1] All natures, then, inasmuch as they are, and have therefore a rank and species of their own, and a kind of internal harmony, are certainly good. And when they are in the places assigned to them by the order of their nature, they preserve such being as they have received. And those things which have not received everlasting being, are altered for better or for worse, so as to suit the wants and motions of those things to which the Creator’s law has made them subservient; and thus they tend in the divine providence to that end which is embraced in the general scheme of the government of the universe. So that, though the corruption of transitory and perishable things brings them to utter destruction, it does not prevent their producing that which was designed to be their result. And this being so, God, who supremely is, and who therefore created every being which has not supreme existence (for that which was made of nothing could not be equal to Him, and indeed could not be at all had He not made it), is not 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.

> Latin: Naturae igitur omnes, quoniam sunt et ideo habent modum suum, speciem suam et quandam secum pacem suam, profecto bonae sunt; et cum ibi sunt, ubi esse per naturae ordinem debent, quantum acceperunt, suum esse custodiunt; et quae semper esse non acceperunt, pro usu motuque rerum, quibus Creatoris lege subduntur, in melius deteriusue mutantur, in eum diuina prouidentia tendentes exitum, quem ratio gubernandae uniuersitatis includit; ita ut nec tanta corruptio, quanta usque ad interitum naturas mutabiles mortalesque perducit, sic faciat non esse quod erat, ut non inde fiat consequenter quod esse debebat. Quae cum ita sint, Deus, qui summe est adque ob hoc ab illo facta est omnis essentia, quae non summe est (quia neque illi aequalis esse deberet, quae de nihilo facta esset, neque ullo modo esse posset, si ab illo facta non esset), nec ullorum uitiorum offensione uituperandus et omnium naturarum consideratione laudandus est.

### What the Cause of the Blessedness of the Good Angels Is, and What the Cause of the Misery of the Wicked.

[¶3] Chapter 6.—What the Cause of the Blessedness of the Good Angels Is, and What the Cause of the Misery of the Wicked.

> Latin: Caput VI. Quae causa sit beatitudinis angelorum bonorum et quae causa sit miseriae angelorum malorum.

[¶4] Thus the true cause of the blessedness of the good angels is found to be this, that they cleave to Him who supremely is. And if we ask the cause of the misery of the bad, it occurs to us, and not unreasonably, that they are miserable because they have forsaken Him who supremely is, and have turned to themselves who have no such essence. And this vice, what else is it called than pride? For “pride is the beginning of sin.” They were unwilling, then, to preserve their strength for God; and as adherence to God was the condition of their enjoying an ampler being, they diminished it 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 finding its blessedness in the enjoyment of the Supreme Being; whilst by abandoning Him it should become, not indeed no nature at all, but a nature with a less ample existence, and therefore wretched.

> Latin: Proinde causa beatitudinis angelorum bonorum ea uerissima reperitur, quod ei adhaerent qui summe est. Cum uero causa miseriae malorum angelorum quaeritur, ea merito occurrit, quod ab illo, qui summe est, auersi ad se ipsos conuersi sunt, qui non summe sunt; et hoc uitium quid aliud quam superbia nuncupetur? Initium quippe omnis peccati superbia. Noluerunt ergo ad illum custodire fortitudinem suam, et qui magis essent, si ei qui summe est adhaererent, se illi praeferendo id quod minus est praetulerunt. Hic primus defectus et prima inopia primumque uitium eius naturae, quae ita creata est, ut nec summe esset, et tamen ad beatitudinem habendam eo, qui summe est, frui posset, a quo auersa non quidem nulla, sed tamen minus esset adque ob hoc misera fieret. Huius porro malae uoluntatis causa efficiens si quaeratur, nihil inuenitur.

[¶5] If the further question be asked, What was the efficient cause of their evil will? there is none. For what is it which makes the will bad, when it is the will itself which makes the action bad? And consequently the bad will is the cause of the bad action, but nothing is the efficient cause of the bad will. For if anything is the cause, this thing either has or has not a will. If it has, the will is either good or bad. If good, who is so left to himself as to say that a good will makes a will bad? For in this case a good will would be the cause of sin; a most absurd supposition. On the other hand, if this hypothetical thing has a bad will, I wish to know what made it so; and that we may not go on forever, I ask at once, what made the first evil will bad? For that is not the first which was itself corrupted by an evil will, but that is the first which was made evil by no other will. For if it were preceded by that which made it evil, that will was first which made the other evil. But if it is replied, “Nothing made 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 vice could 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 diminishing good. And therefore there could not be from eternity, as was suggested, an evil will in that thing in which there had been previously a natural good, which the evil will was able to diminish by corrupting it. If, then, it was not from eternity, who, I ask, made it? The only thing that can be suggested in reply is, that something which itself had no will, made the will 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 same reasoning applies if it was equal; for so long as two things have equally a good will, the one cannot produce in the other an evil will. Then remains the supposition that that which corrupted 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 itself good, since it is a nature and being, with a form and rank of its own in its own kind and order. How, then, can a good thing be the efficient cause of an evil will? How, I say, can good be the cause of evil? For when the will abandons what is above itself, and turns to what is lower, it becomes evil—not because that is evil to which it turns, but because the turning itself is wicked. Therefore it is not an inferior thing which has made the will evil, but it is itself which has become so by wickedly and inordinately desiring an inferior thing. For if two men, alike in physical and moral constitution, see the same corporal beauty, and one of them is excited by the sight to desire an illicit enjoyment while the other steadfastly maintains a modest restraint of his will, what do we suppose brings it about, that there is an evil will in the one and not in the other? What produces it in the man in whom it exists? Not the bodily beauty, for that was presented equally to the gaze of both, and yet did not produce in both an evil will. 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 we are supposing that both were of a like temperament of body and soul. Must we, then, say that the one was tempted by a secret suggestion of the evil spirit? As if it was not by his own will that he consented to this suggestion and to any inducement whatever! This consent, then, this evil will which he presented to the evil suasive influence,—what was the cause of it, we ask? For, not to delay on such a difficulty as this, if both are tempted equally and one yields and consents to the temptation while the other remains unmoved by it, what other account can we give of the matter than this, that the one is willing, the other unwilling, to fall away from chastity? And what causes this but their own wills, in cases at least such as we are supposing, where the temperament is identical? The same beauty was equally obvious to the eyes of both; the same secret temptation pressed on both with equal violence. However minutely we examine the case, therefore, we can discern nothing which caused the will of the one to be evil. For if we say that the man himself made his will evil, what was the man himself before his will was evil but a good nature created by God, the unchangeable good? Here are two men who, before the temptation, were alike in body and soul, and of whom one yielded to the tempter who persuaded him, while the other could not be persuaded to desire that lovely body which was equally before the eyes of both. Shall we say of the successfully tempted man that he corrupted his own will, since he was certainly good before his will became bad? Then, why did he do so? Was it because his will was a nature, or because it was made of nothing? We shall find that the latter is the case. For if a nature is the cause of an evil will, what else can we say than that evil arises from good or that good is the cause of evil? And how can it come to pass that a nature, good though mutable, should produce any evil—that is to say, should make the will itself wicked?

> Latin: Quid est enim quod facit uoluntatem malam, cum ipsa faciat opus malum? Ac per hoc mala uoluntas efficiens est operis mali, malae autem uoluntatis efficiens nihil est. Quoniam si res aliqua est, aut habet aut non habet aliquam uoluntatem; si habet, aut bonam profecto habet aut malam; si bonam, quis ita desipiat, ut dicat quod bona uoluntas faciat uoluntatem malam? Erit enim, si ita est, bona uoluntas causa peccati, quo absurdius putari nihil potest. Si autem res ista, quae putatur facere uoluntatem malam, ipsa quoque habet uoluntatem malam, etiam eam quae fecerit res consequenter interrogo, adque ita, ut sit aliquis inquirendi modus, causam primae malae uoluntatis inquiro. Non est enim prima uoluntas mala, quam fecit uoluntas mala; sed illa prima est, quam nulla fecit. Nam si praecessit a qua fieret, illa prior est, quae alteram fecit. Si respondetur quod eam nulla res fecerit et ideo semper fuerit: quaero utrum in aliqua natura fuerit. Si enim in nulla fuit, omnino non fuit; si autem in aliqua, uitiabat eam et corrumpebat eratque illi noxia ac per hoc bono priuabat. Et ideo in mala natura uoluntas mala esse non poterat, sed in bona, mutabili tamen, cui uitium hoc posset nocere. Si enim non nocuit, non utique uitium fuit, ac per hoc nec mala uoluntas fuisse dicenda est. Porro si nocuit, bonum auferendo uel minuendo utique nocuit. Non igitur esse potuit sempiterna uoluntas mala in ea re, in qua bonum naturale praecesserat, quod mala uoluntas nocendo posset adimere. Si ergo non erat sempiterna, quis eam fecerit quaero. Restat ut dicatur, quod ea res fecerit malam uoluntatem, in qua nulla uoluntas fuit. Haec utrum superior sit, requiro, an inferior, an aequalis. Sed superior utique melior; quo modo ergo nullius, ac non potius bonae uoluntatis? Hoc idem profecto et aequalis. Duo quippe quamdiu sunt pariter uoluntatis bonae, non facit alter in altero uoluntatem malam. Relinquitur ut inferior res, cui nulla uoluntas est, fecerit angelicae naturae, quae prima peccauit, uoluntatem malam. Sed etiam res ipsa quaecumque est inferior usque ad infimam terram, quoniam natura et essentia est, procul dubio bona est, habens modum et speciem suam in genere adque ordine suo. Quo modo ergo res bona efficiens est uoluntatis malae? Quo modo, inquam, bonum est causa mali? Cum enim se uoluntas relicto superiore ad inferiora conuertit, efficitur mala, non quia malum est, quo se conuertit, sed quia peruersa est ipsa conuersio. Idcirco non res inferior uoluntatem malam fecit, sed rem inferiorem praue adque inordinate, ipsa quia facta est, adpetiuit. Si enim aliqui duo aequaliter affecti animo et corpore uideant. unius corporis pulchritudinem, qua uisa unus eorum ad inlicite fruendum moueatur, alter in uoluntate pudica stabilis perseueret, quid putamus esse causae, ut in illo fiat, in illo non fiat uoluntas mala? Quae illam res fecit in quo facta est? Neque enim pulchritudo illa corporis; nam eam non fecit in ambobus, quando quidem amborum non dispariliter occurrit aspectibus. An caro intuentis in causa est? quur non et illius? An uero animus? quur non utriusque? Ambos enim et animo et corpore aequaliter affectos fuisse praediximus. An dicendum est alterum eorum occulta maligni spiritus suggestione tentatum, quasi non eidem suggestioni et qualicumque suasioni propria uoluntate consenserit? Hanc igitur consensionem, hanc malam quam male suadenti adhibuit uoluntatem, quae in eo res fecerit, quaerimus. Nam ut hoc quoque inpedimentum ab ista quaestione tollatur, si eadem tentatione ambo tententur, et unus ei cedat adque consentiat, alter idem qui fuerat perseueret: quid aliud apparet, nisi unum noluisse, alterum uoluisse a castitate deficere? Unde, nisi propria uoluntate. ubi eadem fuerat in utroque corporis et animi affectio? Amborum oculis pariter uisa est eadem pulchritudo, ambobus pariter institit occulta tentatio; propriam igitur in uno eorum uoluntatem malam res quae fecerit scire uolentibus, si bene intueantur, nihil occurrit. Si enim dixerimus quod ipse eam fecerit, quid erat ipse ante uoluntatem malam nisi natura bona, cuius auctor Deus, qui est inmutabile bonum? Qui ergo dicit eum, qui consensit tentanti adque suadenti, cui non consensit alius, ad inlicite utendum pulchro corpore, quod uidendum ambobus pariter adfuit, cum ante illam uisionem ac tentationem similes ambo animo et corpore fuerint, ipsum sibi fecisse uoluntatem malam, qui utique bonus ante uoluntatem malam fuerit: quaerat quur eam fecerit, utrum quia natura est, an quia ex nihilo facta est, et inueniet uoluntatem malam non ex eo esse incipere quod natura est, sed ex eo quod de nihilo facta natura est. Nam si natura causa est uoluntatis malae, quid aliud cogimur dicere, nisi a bono fieri malum et bonum esse causam mali? si quidem a natura bona fit uoluntas mala. Quod unde fieri potest, ut natura bona, quamuis mutabilis, antequam habeat uoluntatem malam, faciat aliquid mali, hoc est ipsam uoluntatem malam?

### That We Ought Not to Expect to Find Any Efficient Cause of the Evil Will.

[¶7] Chapter 7.—That We Ought Not to Expect to Find Any Efficient Cause of the Evil Will.

> Latin: Caput VII. Causam efficientem malae uoluntatis non esse quaerendam.

[¶8] Let no one, therefore, look for an efficient cause of the evil will; for it is not efficient, but deficient, as the will itself is not an effecting of something, but a defect. For defection from that which supremely is, to that which has less of being,—this is to begin to have an evil will. Now, to seek to discover the causes of these defections,—causes, as I have said, not efficient, but deficient,—is as if some one sought to see darkness, or hear silence. Yet both of these are known by us, and the former by means only of the eye, the latter only by the ear; but not by their positive actuality, but by their want of it. Let no one, then seek to know from me what I know that I do not know; unless he perhaps wishes to learn to be ignorant of that of which all we know is, that it cannot be known. For those things which are known not by their actuality, but by their want of it, are known, if our expression may be allowed and understood, by not knowing them, that by knowing them they may be not known. For when the eyesight surveys objects that strike the sense, it nowhere sees darkness but where it begins not to see. And so no other sense but the ear can perceive silence, and yet it is only perceived by not hearing. Thus, too, our mind perceives intelligible forms by understanding them; but when they are deficient, it knows them by not knowing them; for “who can understand defects?”

> Latin: Nemo igitur quaerat efficientem causam malae uoluntatis; non enim est efficiens sed deficiens, quia nec illa effectio sed defectio. Deficere namque ab eo, quod summe est, ad id, quod minus est, hoc est incipere habere uoluntatem malam. Causas porro defectionum istarum, cum efficientes non sint, ut dixi, sed deficientes, uelle inuenire tale est, ac si quisquam uelit uidere tenebras uel audire silentium, quod tamen utrumque nobis notum est, neque illud nisi per oculos, neque hoc nisi per aures, non sane in specie, sed in speciei priuatione. Nemo ergo ex me scire quaerat, quod me nescire scio, nisi forte ut nescire discat, quod sciri non posse sciendum est. Ea quippe quae non in specie, sed in eius priuatione sciuntur, si dici aut intellegi potest, quodam modo nesciendo sciuntur, ut sciendo nesciantur. Cum enim acies etiam oculi corporalis currit per species corporales, nusquam tenebras uidet, nisi ubi coeperit non uidere. Ita etiam non ad aliquem alium sensum, sed ad solas aures pertinet sentire silentium, quod tamen nullo modo nisi non audiendo sentitur. Sic species intellegibiles mens quidem nostra intellegendo conspicit; sed ubi deficiunt, nesciendo condiscit. Delicta enim quis intellegit?

### Of the Misdirected Love Whereby the Will Fell Away from the Immutable to the Mutable Good.

[¶10] Chapter 8.—Of the Misdirected Love Whereby the Will Fell Away from the Immutable to the Mutable Good.

> Latin: Caput VIII. De amore peruerso, quo uoluntas ab incommutabili bono ad mutabile bonum deficit.

[¶11] This I do know, that the nature of God can never, nowhere, nowise be defective, and that natures made of nothing can. These latter, however, the more being they have, and the more good they do (for then they do something positive), the more they have efficient causes; but in so far as they are defective in being, and consequently do evil (for then what is their work but vanity?), they have deficient causes. And I know likewise, that the will could not become evil, were it unwilling to become so; and therefore its failings are justly punished, being not necessary, but voluntary. For its defections are not to evil things, but are themselves evil; that is to say, are not towards things that are naturally and in themselves evil, but the defection of the will is evil, because it is contrary to the order of nature, and an abandonment of that which has supreme being for that which has less. For avarice is not a fault inherent in gold, but in the man who inordinately loves gold, to the detriment of justice, which ought to be held in incomparably higher regard than gold. Neither is luxury the fault of lovely and charming objects, but of the heart that inordinately loves sensual pleasures, to the neglect of temperance, which attaches us to objects more lovely in their spirituality, and more delectable by their incorruptibility. Nor yet is boasting the fault of human praise, but of the soul that is inordinately fond of the applause of men, and that makes light of the voice of conscience. Pride, too, is not the fault of him who delegates power, nor of power itself, but of the soul that is inordinately enamored of its own power, and despises the more just dominion of a higher authority. Consequently he who inordinately loves the good which any nature possesses, even though he obtain it, himself becomes evil in the good, and wretched because deprived of a greater good.

> Latin: Hoc scio, naturam Dei numquam, nusquam, nulla ex parte posse deficere, et ea posse deficere, quae ex nihilo facta sunt. Quae tamen quanto magis sunt et bona faciunt (tunc enim aliquid faciunt), causas habent efficientes; in quantum autem deficiunt et ex hoc mala faciunt (quid enim tunc faciunt nisi uana?). causas habent deficientes. Itemque scio, in quo fit mala uoluntas, id in eo fieri, quod si nollet non fieret, et ideo non necessarios, sed uoluntarios defectus iusta poena consequitur. Deficitur enim non ad mala, sed male, id est non ad malas naturas, sed ideo male, quia contra ordinem naturarum ab eo quod summe est ad id quod minus est. Neque enim auri uitium est auaritia, sed hominis peruerse amantis aurum iustitia derelicta, quae incomparabiliter auro debuit anteponi; nec luxuria uitium est pulchrorum suauiumque corporum, sed animae peruerse amantis corporeas uoluptates neglecta temperantia, qua rebus spiritaliter pulchrioribus et incorruptibiliter suauioribus coaptamur; nec iactantia uitium est laudis humanae, sed animae peruerse amantis laudari ab hominibus spreto testimonio conscientiae; nec superbia uitium est dantis potestatem uel ipsius etiam potestatis, sed animae peruerse amantis potestatem suam potentioris iustiore contemta. Ac per hoc qui peruerse amat cuiuslibet naturae bonum, etiamsi adipiscatur, ipse fit in bono malus et miser meliore priuatus.

### Whether the Angels, Besides Receiving from God Their Nature, Received from Him Also Their Good Will by the Holy Spirit Imbuing Them with Love.

[¶13] Chapter 9.—Whether the Angels, Besides Receiving from God Their Nature, Received from Him Also Their Good Will by the Holy Spirit Imbuing Them with Love.

> Latin: Caput IX. An sancti angeli, quem habent creatorem naturae, eundem habeant bonae uoluntatis auctorem per Spiritum sanctum in eis caritate diffusa.

[¶14] There is, then, no natural efficient cause or, if I may be allowed the expression, no essential cause, of the evil will, since itself is the origin of evil in mutable spirits, by which the good of their nature is diminished and corrupted; and the will is made evil by nothing else than defection from God,—a defection of which the cause, too, is certainly deficient. But as to the good will, if we should say that there is no efficient cause of it, we must beware of giving currency to the opinion that the good will of the good angels is not created, but is co-eternal with God. For if they themselves are created, how can we say that their good will was eternal? But if created, was it created along with themselves, or did they 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 themselves to Him who created them, with the love He created in them. And they are separated from the society of the rest, because they have continued in the same good will; while the others have fallen away to another will, which is an evil one, by the very fact of its being a falling away from the good; from which, we may add, they would not have fallen away had they been unwilling to do so. But if the good angels existed for a time without a good will, and produced it in themselves without God’s interference, then it follows that they made themselves better than He made them. Away with such a thought! For without a good will, what were they but evil? Or if they were not evil, because they had not an evil will any more than a good one (for they had not fallen away from that which as yet they had not begun to enjoy), certainly they were not the same, not so good, as when they came to have a good will. Or if they could not make themselves better than they were made by Him who is surpassed by none in His work, then certainly, without His helpful operation, they could not come to possess that good will which made them better. And though their good will effected that they did 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 and blessed life by His communications to them, what does this prove but that the will, however good it might be, would have continued helplessly only to desire Him, had not He who had made their nature out of nothing, and yet capable of enjoying Him, first stimulated it to desire Him, and then filled it with Himself, and so made it better?

> Latin: Cum ergo malae uoluntatis efficiens naturalis uel, si dici potest, essentialis nulla sit causa (ab ipsa quippe incipit spirituum mutabilium malum, quo minuitur adque deprauatur naturae bonum, nec talem uoluntatem facit nisi defectio, qua deseritur Deus. cuius defectionis etiam causa utique deficit): si dixerimus nullam esse efficientem causam etiam uoluntatis bonae, cauendum est, ne uoluntas bona bonorum angelorum non facta, sed Deo coaeterna esse credatur. Cum ergo ipsi facti sint, quo modo illa non esse facta dicetur? Porro quia facta est, utrum cum ipsis facta est, an sine illa fuerunt prius? Sed si cum ipsis, non dubium quod ab illo facta sit, a quo et ipsi; simulque ut facti sunt, ei. a quo facti sunt, amore. cum quo facti sunt, adhaeserunt; eoque sunt isti ab illorum societate discreti, quod illi in eadem bona uoluntate manserunt, isti ab ea deficiendo mutati sunt, mala scilicet uoluntate hoc ipso quod a bona defecerunt; a qua non defecissent. si utique noluissent. Si autem boni angeli fuerunt prius sine bona uoluntate eamque in se ipsi Deo non operante fecerunt, ergo meliores a se ipsis quam ab illo facti sunt. Absit. Quid enim erant sine bona uoluntate nisi mali? Aut si propterea non mali, quia nec mala uoluntas eis inerat (neque enim ab ea, quam nondum coeperant habere, defecerant), certe nondum tales, nondum tam boni quam esse cum bona uoluntate coeperunt. At si non potuerunt se ipsos facere meliores, quam eos ille fecerat, quo nemo melius quidquam facit: profecto et bonam uoluntatem, qua meliores essent, nisi operante adiutorio Creatoris habere non possent. Et cum id egit eorum uoluntas bona, ut non ad se ipsos, qui minus erant, sed ad illum, qui summe est, conuerterentur eique adhaerentes magis essent eiusque participatione sapienter beateque uiuerent: quid aliud ostenditur nisi uoluntatem quamlibet bonam inopem fuisse in solo desiderio remansuram, nisi ille, qui bonam naturam ex nihilo sui capacem fecerat, ex se ipso faceret inplendo meliorem, prius faciens excitando auidiorem? Nam et hoc discutiendum est, si boni angeli ipsi in se fecerunt bonam uoluntatem, utrum aliqua eam an nulla uoluntate fecerunt.

[¶15] Besides, this too has to be inquired into, whether, if the good angels made their own will good, they did so with or without will? If without, then it was not their doing. If with, was the will good or bad? If bad, how could a bad will give birth to a good one? If good, then already they had a good will. And who made this will, which already they had, but He who created them with a good will, or with that chaste love by which they cleaved to Him, in one and the same act creating their nature, and endowing it with grace? And thus we are driven to believe that the holy angels never existed without a good will or the love of God. But the angels who, though created good, are yet evil now, became so by their own will. And this will was not made evil by their good 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 grace of the divine love than those who persevered in the same; or if both were created equally good, then, while the one fell by their evil will, the others were more abundantly assisted, and attained to that pitch of blessedness at which they became certain they should never fall from it,—as we have already shown in the preceding book. We must therefore acknowledge, with the praise due to the Creator, that not only of holy men, but also of the holy angels, it can be said that “the love of God is shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto them.” And that not only of men, but primarily and principally of angels it is true, as it is written, “It is good to draw near to God.” And those who have this good in common, have, both with Him to whom they draw near, and with one another, a holy fellowship, and form one city of God—His living sacrifice, and His living temple. And I see that, as I have now spoken of the rise of this city among the angels, it is time to speak of the origin of that part of it which is hereafter to be united to the immortal angels, and which at present is being gathered from among mortal men, and is either sojourning on earth, or, in the persons of those who have passed through death, is resting in the secret receptacles and abodes of disembodied spirits. For from one man, whom God created as the first, the whole human race descended, according to the faith of Holy Scripture, which deservedly is of wonderful authority among all nations throughout the world; since, among its other true statements, it predicted, by its divine foresight, that all nations would give credit to it.

> Latin: Si nulla, utique nec fecerunt. Si aliqua. utrum mala an bona? Si mala, quo modo esse potuit mala uoluntas bonae uoluntatis effectrix? Si bona, iam ergo habebant. Et istam quis fecerat nisi ille, qui eos cum bona uoluntate, id est cum amore casto quo illi adhaererent, creauit, simul eis et condens naturam et largiens gratiam? Unde sine bona uoluntate, hoc est Dei amore, numquam sanctos angelos fuisse credendum est. Isti autem, qui, cum boni creati essent, tamen mali sunt (mala propria uoluntate, quam bona natura non fecit, nisi cum a bono sponte defecit, ut mali causa non sit bonum, sed defectus a bono), aut minorem acceperunt diuini amoris gratiam quam illi, qui in eadem perstiterunt, aut si utrique boni aequaliter creati sunt, istis mala uoluntate cadentibus illi amplius adiuti ad eam beatitudinis plenitudinem, unde se numquam casuros certissimi fierent, peruenerunt; sicut iam etiam in libro, quem sequitur iste, tractauimus. Confitendum est igitur cum debita laude Creatoris non ad solos sanctos homines pertinere, uerum etiam de sanctis angelis posse dici, quod caritas Dei diffusa sit in eis per Spiritum sanctum, qui datus est eis; nec tantum hominum, sed primitus praecipueque angelorum bonum esse. quod scriptum est: Mihi autem adhaerere Deo bonum est. Hoc bonum quibus commune est, habent et cum illo cui adhaerent et inter se sanctam societatem et sunt una ciuitas Dei eademque uiuum sacrificium eius uiuumque templum eius. Cuius pars. quae coniungenda inmortalibus angelis ex mortalibus hominibus congregatur et nunc mortaliter peregrinatur in terris uel in eis, qui mortem obierunt, secretis animarum receptaculis sedibusque requiescit, eodem Deo creante quem ad modum exorta sit, sicut de angelis dictum est, iam uideo esse dicendum. Ex uno quippe homine. quem primum Deus condidit, humanum genus sumsit exordium secundum sanctae scripturae fidem. quae mirabilem auctoritatem non inmerito habet in orbe terrarum adque in omnibus gentibus, quas sibi esse credituras inter cetera uera, quae dixit, uera diuinitate praedixit.

### Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past.

[¶17] Chapter 10.—Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past.

> Latin: Caput X–XI. De opinione eorum, qui humanum genus sicut ipsum mundum semper fuisse existimant. De falsitate eius historiae, quae multa milia annorum praeteritis temporibus adscribit.

[¶18] Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been. Thus Apuleius says when he is describing our race, “Individually they are mortal, but collectively, and as a race, they are immortal.” And when they are asked, how, if the human race has always been, they vindicate the truth of their history, which narrates who were the inventors, and what they invented, and who first instituted the liberal studies and the other arts, and who first inhabited this or that region, and this or that island? they reply, that most, if not all lands, were so desolated at intervals by fire and flood, that men were greatly reduced in numbers, and from these, again, the population was restored to its former numbers, and that thus there was at intervals a new beginning made, and though those things which had been interrupted and checked by the severe devastations were only renewed, yet they seemed to be originated then; but that man could not exist at all save as produced by man. But they say what they think, not what they know.

> Latin: Omittamus igitur coniecturas hominum nescientium quid loquantur de natura uel institutione generis humani. Alii namque, sicut de ipso mundo crediderunt, semper fuisse homines opinantur. Unde et ait Apuleius, cum hoc animantium genus describeret: ‘Singillatim mortales, cuncti tamen uniuerso genere perpetui.’ Et cum illis dictum fuerit, si semper fuit humanum genus, quonam modo uerum eorum loquatur historia narrans qui fuerint quarumque rerum inuentores, qui primi liberalium disciplinarum aliarumque artium institutores. uel a quibus primum illa uel illa regio parsque terrarum. illa adque illa insula incoli coeperit, respondent diluuiis et conflagrationibus per certa interualla temporum non quidem omnia, sed plurima terrarum ita uastari, ut redigantur homines ad exiguam paucitatem, ex quorum progenie rursus multitudo pristina reparetur; ac sic identidem reperiri et institui quasi prima, cum restituantur potius, quae fuerant illis nimiis uastationibus interrupta et extincta; ceterum hominem nisi ex homine existere omnino non posse. Dicunt autem quod putant. non quod sciunt.

[¶19] They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed. And, not to spend many words in exposing the baselessness of these documents, in which so many thousands of years are accounted for, nor in proving that their authorities are totally inadequate, let me cite only that letter which Alexander the Great wrote to his mother Olympias, giving her the narrative he had from an Egyptian priest, which he had extracted from their sacred archives, and which gave an account of kingdoms mentioned also by the Greek historians. In this letter of Alexander’s a term of upwards of 5000 years is assigned to the kingdom of Assyria; while in the Greek history only 1300 years are reckoned from the reign of Bel himself, whom both Greek and Egyptian agree in counting the first king of Assyria. Then to the empire of the Persians and Macedonians this Egyptian assigned more than 8000 years, counting to the time of Alexander, to whom he was speaking; while among the Greeks, 485 years are assigned to the Macedonians down to the death of Alexander, and to the Persians 233 years, reckoning to the termination of his conquests. Thus these give 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 to have formerly reckoned only four months to their year; so that one year, according to the fuller and truer computation now in use among them as well as among ourselves, would comprehend three of their old years. But not even thus, as I said, does the Greek history correspond with the Egyptian in its chronology. And therefore the former must receive the greater credit, because it does not exceed the true account of the 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 of chronology from the probable credible account, how much less can we believe these documents which, though full of fabu lous and fictitious antiquities, they would fain oppose to the authority of our well-known and divine books, which predicted that the whole world would believe them, and which the whole world accordingly has believed; which proved, too, that it had truly narrated past events by its prediction of future events, which have so exactly come to pass!

> Latin: Fallunt eos etiam quaedam mendacissimae litterae, quas perhibent in historia temporum multa annorum milia continere, cum ex litteris sacris ab institutione hominis nondum conpleta annorum sex milia conputemus. Unde ne multa disputem quem ad modum illarum litterarum, in quibus longe plura annorum milia referuntur, uanitas refellatur et nulla in illis rei huius idonea reperiatur auctoritas: illa epistula Alexandri Magni ad Olympiadem matrem suam, quam scripsit narrationem cuiusdam Aegyptii sacerdotis insinuans, quam protulit ex litteris quae sacrae aput illos haberentur, continet etiam regna, quae Graeca quoque nouit historia; in quibus regnum Assyriorum in eadem epistula Alexandri quinque milia excedit annorum; in Graeca uero historia mille ferme et trecentos habet ab ipsius Beli principatu, quem regem et ille Aegyptius in eiusdem regni ponit exordio; Persarum autem et Macedonum imperium usque ad ipsum Alexandrum, cui loquebatur, plus quam octo annorum milia ille constituit, cum aput Graecos Macedonum usque ad mortem Alexandri quadringenti octoginta quinque reperiantur, Persarum uero, donec ipsius Alexandri uictoria finiretur, ducenti et triginta tres conputentur. Longe itaque hi numeri annorum illis Aegyptiis sunt minores. nec eis, etiamsi ter tantum conputarentur, aequarent. Perhibentur enim Aegyptii quondam tam breues annos habuisse, ut quaternis mensibus finirentur; unde annus plenior et uerior, qualis nunc et nobis et illis est, tres eorum annos conplectebatur antiquos. Sed ne sic quidem. ut dixi, Graeca Aegyptiae numero temporum concordat historia. Et ideo Graecae potius fides habenda est, quia ueritatem non excedit annorum, qui litteris nostris, quae uere sacrae sunt. continentur. Porro si haec epistula Alexandri, quae maxime innotuit, multum abhorret in spatiis temporum a probabili fide rerum: quanto minus credendum est illis litteris, quas. plenas fabulosis uelut antiquitatibus proferre uoluerint contra auctoritatem notissimorum diuinorumque librorum, quae totum orbem sibi crediturum esse praedixit, et cui totus orbis, sicut ab ea praedictum est, credidit; quae uera se narrasse praeterita ex his, quae futura praenuntiauit, cum tanta ueritate inplentur, ostendit.

### Of Those Who Suppose that This World Indeed is Not Eternal, But that Either There are Numberless Worlds, or that One and the Same World is Perpetually Resolved into Its Elements, and Renewed at the Conclusion of Fixed Cycles.

[¶21] Chapter 11.—Of Those Who Suppose that This World Indeed is Not Eternal, But that Either There are Numberless Worlds, or that One and the Same World is Perpetually Resolved into Its Elements, and Renewed at the Conclusion of Fixed Cycles.

> Latin: Caput XII. De his, qui hunc quidem mundum non sempiternum putant, sed aut innumerabiles aut eundem unum certa conclusione saeculorum semper nasci et resolui opinantur.

[¶22] There are some, again, who, though they do not suppose that this world is eternal, are of opinion either that this is not the only world, but that there are numberless worlds or that indeed it is the only one, but that it dies, and is born again at fixed intervals, and this times without number; but they must acknowledge that the human race existed before there were other men to beget them. For they cannot suppose that, if the whole world perish, some men would be left alive 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 a few then survived whose posterity would renew the population; but as they believe that the world itself is renewed out of its own material, so they must believe that out of its elements the human race was produced, and then that the progeny of mortals sprang like that of other animals from their parents.

> Latin: Alii uero, qui mundum istum non existimant sempiternum, siue non eum solum, sed innumerabiles opinentur. siue solum quidem esse, sed certis saeculorum interuallis innumerabiliter oriri et occidere, necesse est fateantur hominum genus prius sine hominibus gignentibus extitisse. Neque enim ut alluuioibus incendiisque terrarum, quas illi non putant toto prorsus orbe contingere, et ideo paucos homines, ex quibus multitudo pristina reparetur, semper remanere contendunt, ita et hi possunt putare, quod aliquid hominum pereunte mundo relinquatur in mundo; sed sicut ipsum mundum ex materia sua renasci existimant, ita in illo ex elementis eius genus humanum ac deinde a parentibus progeniem pullulare mortalium, sicut aliorum animalium.

## 58. How These Persons are to Be Answered, Who Find Fault with the Creation of Man on the Score of Its Recent Date.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/58/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/58/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 12.—How These Persons are to Be Answered, Who Find Fault with the Creation of Man on the Score of Its Recent Date.

> Latin: Caput XIII. Quid respondendum sit his, qui primam conditionem hominis tardam esse causantur.

[¶1] As to those who are always asking why man was not created during these countless ages of the infinitely extended past, and came into being so lately that, according to Scripture, less than 6000 years have elapsed since He began to be, I would reply to them regarding the creation of man, just as I replied regarding the origin of the world to those who will not believe that it is not eternal, but had a beginning, which even Plato himself most plainly declares, though some think his statement was not consistent with his real opinion. If it offends them that the time that has elapsed since the creation of man is so short, and his years so few according to our authorities, let them take this into consideration, that nothing that has a limit is long, and that all the ages of time being finite, are very little, or indeed nothing at all, when compared to the interminable eternity. Consequently, if there had elapsed since the creation of man, I do not say five or six, but even sixty or six hundred thousand years, or sixty times as many, or six hundred or six hundred thousand times as many, or this sum multiplied until it could no longer be expressed in numbers, the same question could still be put, Why was he not made before? For the past and boundless eternity during which God abstained from creating man is so great, that, compare it with what vast and untold number of ages you please, so long as there is a definite conclusion of this term of time, it is not even as if you compared the minutest drop of water with the ocean that everywhere flows around the globe. For of these two, one indeed is very small, the other incomparably vast, yet both are finite; but that space of time which starts from some beginning, and is limited by some termination, be it of what extent it may, if you compare it with that which has no beginning, I know not whether to say we should count it the very minutest thing, or nothing at all. For, take this limited time, and deduct from the end of it, one by one, the briefest moments (as you might take day by day from a man’s life, beginning at the day in which he now lives, back to that of his birth), and though the number of moments you must subtract in this backward movement be so great that no word can express it, yet this subtraction will sometime carry you to the beginning. But if you take away from a time which has no beginning, I do not say brief moments one by one, nor yet hours, or days, or months, or years even in quantities, but terms of years so vast that they cannot be named by the most skillful arithmeticians,—take away terms of years as vast as that which we have supposed to be gradually consumed by the deduction of moments,—and take them away not once and again repeatedly, but always, and what do you effect, what do you make by your deduction, since you never reach the beginning, which has no existence? Wherefore, that which we now demand after five thousand odd years, our descendants might with like curiosity demand after six hundred thousand years, supposing these dying generations of men continue so long to decay and be renewed, and supposing posterity continues as weak and ignorant as ourselves. The same question might have been asked by those who have lived before us and while man was even newer upon earth. The first man himself in short might the day after or the very day of his creation have asked why he was created no sooner. And no matter at what earlier or later period he had been created, this controversy about the commencement of this world’s history would have had precisely the same difficulties as it has now.

> Latin: Quod autem respondimus, cum de mundi origine quaestio uerteretur, eis, qui nolunt credere non eum semper fuisse, sed esse coepisse, sicut etiam Plato apertissime confitetur, quamuis a nonnullis contra quam loquitur sensisse credatur: hoc etiam de prima hominis conditione responderim, propter eos, qui similiter mouentur, quur homo per innumerabilia adque infinita retro tempora creatus non sit tamque sero sit creatus, ut minus quam sex milia sint annorum, ex quo esse coepisse in sacris litteris inuenitur. Si enim breuitas eos offendit temporis, quod tam pauci eis uidentur anni, ex quo institutus homo in nostris auctoritatibus legitur: considerent nihil esse diuturnum, in quo est aliquid extremum, et omnia saeculorum spatia definita, si aeternitati interminae comparentur, non exigua existimanda esse, sed nulla. Ac per hoc si non quinque uel sex, uerum etiam sexaginta milia siue sescenta, aut sexagiens, aut sescentiens, aut sescentiens miliens dicerentur annorum, aut itidem per totidem totiens multiplicaretur haec summa, ubi iam nullum numeri nomen haberemus, ex quo Deus hominem fecit: similiter quaeri posset, quur ante non fecerit. Dei quippe ab hominis creatione cessatio retrorsus aeterna sine initio tanta est, ut, si ei conferatur quamlibet magna et ineffabilis numerositas temporum, quae tamen fine conclusa certi spatii terminatur, nec saltem tanta uideri debeat, quanta si umoris breuissimam guttam uniuerso mari, etiam quantum oceanus circumfluit, conparemus; quoniam istorum duorum unum quidem perexiguum est, alterum incomparabiliter magnum, sed utrumque finitum; illud uero temporis spatium, quod ab aliquo initio progreditur et aliquo termino cohercetur. magnitudine quantacumque tendatur, conparatum illi, quod initium non habet, nescio utrum pro minimo an potius pro nullo deputandum est. Hinc enim si a fine uel breuissima siugillatim momenta detrahantur, decrescente numero licet tam ingenti, ut uocabulum non inueniat, retrorsum redeundo (tamquam si hominis dies ab illo, in quo nunc uiuit, usque ad illum, in quo natus est, detrahas) quandoque ad initium illa detractio perducetur. Si autem detrahantur retrorsus in spatio, quod a nullo coepit exordio, non dico singillatim minuta momenta uel horarum aut dierum aut mensum aut annorum etiam quantitates, sed tam magna spatia, quanta illa summa conprehendit annorum, quae iam dici a quibuslibet conputatoribus non potest, quae tamen momentorum minutatim detractione consumitur, et detrahantur haec tanta spatia non semel adque iterum saepiusque, sed semper: quid fit, quid agitur, quando numquam ad initium, quod omnino nullum est, peruenitur? Quapropter quod nos modo quaerimus post quinque milia et quod excurrit annorum. possent et posteri etiam post annorum sescentiens miliens eadem curiositate requirere. si in tantum haec mortalitas hominum exoriendo et occubando et inperita perseueraret infirmitas. Potuerunt et qui fuerunt ante nos ipsis recentibus hominis creati temporibus istam mouere quaestionem. Ipse denique primus homo uel postridie uel eodem die postea quam factus est potuit inquirere, quur non ante sit factus; et quandocumque antea factus esset, non uires tunc alias et alias nunc uel etiam postea ista de initio rerum temporalium controuersia reperiret.

### Of the Revolution of the Ages, Which Some Philosophers Believe Will Bring All Things Round Again, After a Certain Fixed Cycle, to the Same Order and Form as at First.

[¶3] Chapter 13.—Of the Revolution of the Ages, Which Some Philosophers Believe Will Bring All Things Round Again, After a Certain Fixed Cycle, to the Same Order and Form as at First.

> Latin: Caput XIV. De reuolutione saeculorum, quibus certo fine conclusis uniuersa semper in eundem ordinem eandemque speciem reditura quidam philosophi crediderunt.

[¶4] This controversy some philosophers have seen no other approved means of solving than by introducing cycles of time, in which there should be a constant renewal and repetition of the order of nature; and they have therefore asserted that these cycles will ceaselessly recur, one passing away and another coming, though they are not agreed as to whether one permanent world shall pass through all these cycles, or whether the world shall at fixed intervals die out, and be renewed so as to exhibit a recurrence of the same phenomena—the things which have been, and those which are to be, coinciding. And from this fantastic vicissitude they exempt not even the immortal soul that has attained wisdom, consigning it to a ceaseless transmigration between delusive blessedness and real misery. For how can that be truly called blessed which has no assurance of being so eternally, and is either in ignorance of 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 forever, then there happens in time a new thing which time shall not end. Why not, then, the world also? Why may not man, too, be a similar thing? So that, by following the straight path of sound doctrine, we escape, I know not what circuitous paths, discovered by deceiving and deceived sages.

> Latin: Hanc autem se philosophi mundi huius non aliter putauerunt posse uel debere dissoluere, nisi ut circuitus temporum inducerent, quibus eadem semper fuisse renouata adque repetita in rerum natura adque ita deinceps fore sine cessatione adseuerarent uolumina uenientium et praetereuntium saeculorum; siue in mundo permanente isti circuitus fierent, siue certis interuallis oriens et occidens mundus eadem semper quasi noua, quae transacta et uentura sunt, exhiberet. A quo ludibrio prorsus inmortalem animam, etiam cum sapientiam perceperit, liberare non possunt, euntem sine cessatione ad falsam beatitudinem et ad ueram miseriam sine cessatione redeuntem. Quo modo enim uera beatitudo est, de cuius numquam aeternitate confiditur, dum anima uenturam miseriam aut inperitissime in ueritate nescit aut infelicissime in beatitudine pertimescit? At si ad miserias numquam ulterius reditura ex his ad beatitudinem pergit: fit ergo aliquid noui in tempore, quod finem non habet temporis. Quur non ergo et mundus? quur non et homo factus in mundo? ut illi nescio qui falsi circuitus a falsis sapientibus fallacibusque conperti in doctrina sana tramite recti itineris euitentur. Nam quidam et illud, quod legitur in libro Salomonis, qui uocatur ecclesiastes: Quid est quod fuit?

[¶5] Some, too, in advocating these recurring cycles that restore all things to their original cite in favor of their supposition what Solomon says in the book of Ecclesiastes: “What is that which hath been? It is that which shall be. And what is that which is done? It is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Who can speak and say, See, this is new? It hath been already of old time, which was before us.” This he said either of those things of which he had just been speaking—the succession of generations, the orbit of the sun, the course of rivers,—or else of all kinds of creatures that 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 differing from one another, and though some are reported as solitary instances, yet resemble one another generally, in so far as they are miraculous and monstrous, and, in this sense, have been, and shall be, and are no new and recent things under the sun. However, some would understand these words as meaning that in the predestination of God all things have already existed, and that thus there is no new thing under the sun. At all events, far be it from any true believer to suppose that by these words of Solomon those cycles are meant, in which, according to those philosophers, the same periods and events of time are repeated; as if, for example, the philosopher Plato, having taught in the school at Athens which is called the Academy, so, numberless ages before, at long but certain intervals, this same Plato and the same school, and the same disciples existed, and so also are to be repeated during the countless cycles that are yet to be,—far be it, I say, from us to believe this. For once Christ died for our sins; and, rising from the dead, He dieth no more. “Death hath no more dominion over Him; and we ourselves after the resurrection shall be “ever with the Lord,” to whom we now say, as the sacred Psalmist dictates, “Thou shall keep us, O Lord, Thou shall preserve us from this generation.” And that too which follows, is, I think, appropriate enough: “The wicked walk in a circle,” not because their life is to recur by means of these circles, which these philosophers imagine, but because the path in which their false doctrine now runs is circuitous.

> Latin: Ipsum quod erit. Et quid est quod factum est? Ipsum quod fiet; et non est omne recens sub sole. Qui loquetur et dicet: Ecce hoc nouum est: iam fuit saeculis quae fuerunt ante nos, propter hos circuitus in eadem redeuntes et in eadem cuncta reuocantes dictum intellegi uolunt; quod ille aut de his rebus dixit, de quibus superius loquebatur, hoc est de generationibus aliis euntibus. aliis uenientibus, de solis anfractibus, de torrentium lapsibus: aut certe de omnium rerum generibus, quae oriuntur adque occidunt. Fuerunt enim homines ante nos, sunt et nobiscum, erunt et post nos: ita quaeque animantia uel arbusta. Monstra quoque ipsa, quae inusitata nascuntur, quamuis inter se diuersa sint et quaedam eorum semel facta narrentur, tamen secundum id, quod generaliter miracula et monstra sunt, utique et fuerunt et erunt. nec recens et nouum est, ut monstrum sub sole nascatur. Quamuis haec uerba quidam sic intellexerint, tamquam in praedestinatione Dei iam facta fuisse omnia sapiens ille uoluisset intellegi, et ideo nihil recens esse sub sole. Absit autem a recta fide, ut his Salomonis uerbis illos circuitus significatos esse credamus, quibus illi putant sic eadem temporum temporaliumque rerum uolumina repeti, ut uerbi gratia, sicut isto saeculo Plato philosophus in urbe Atheniensi et in ea schola, quae Academia dicta est, discipulos docuit, ita per innumerabilia retro saecula multum quidem prolixis interuallis. sed tamen certis, et idem Plato et eadem ciuitas et eadem schola idemque discipuli repetiti et per innumerabilia deinde saecula repetendi sint. Absit, inquam, ut nos ista credamus. Semel enim Christus mortuus est pro peccatis nostris; surgens autem a mortuis iam non moritur, et mors ei ultra non dominabitur; et nos post resurrectionem semper cum Domino erimus, cui modo dicimus, quod sacer admonet psalmus: Tu, Domine, seruabis nos et custodies nos a generatione hac et in aeternum. Satis autem istis existimo conuenire quod sequitur: In circuitu inpii ambulabunt; non quia per circulos, quos opinantur, eorum uita est recursura, sed quia modo talis est erroris eorum uia, id est falsa doctrina.

### Of the Creation of the Human Race in Time, and How This Was Effected Without Any New Design or Change of Purpose on God’s Part.

[¶7] Chapter 14.—Of the Creation of the Human Race in Time, and How This Was Effected Without Any New Design or Change of Purpose on God’s Part.

> Latin: Caput XV. De temporali conditione generis humani, quam Deus nec nouo consilio instituerit nec mutabili uoluntate.

[¶8] What wonder is it if, entangled in these circles, they find neither entrance nor egress? For they know not how the human race, and this mortal condition of ours, took its origin, nor how it will be brought to an end, since they cannot penetrate the inscrutable wisdom of God. For, though Himself eternal, and without beginning, yet He caused time to have a beginning; and man, whom He had not previously made He made in time, not from a new and sudden resolution, but by His unchangeable and eternal design. Who can search out the unsearchable depth of this purpose, who can scrutinize the inscrutable wisdom, wherewith God, without change of will, created man, who had never before been, and gave him an existence in time, and increased the human race from one individual? For the Psalmist himself, when he had first said, “Thou shalt keep us, O Lord, Thou shall preserve us from this generation for ever,” and had then rebuked those whose foolish and impious doctrine preserves for the soul no eternal deliverance and blessedness adds immediately, “The wicked walk in a circle.” Then, as if it were said to him, “What then do you believe, feel, know? Are we to believe that it suddenly occurred to God to create man, whom He had never before made in a past eternity,—God, to whom nothing 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 multiplied the children of men.” Let men, he seems to say, fancy what they please, let them conjecture and dispute as seems good to them, but Thou hast multiplied the children of men according to the depth of thy wisdom, which no man can comprehend. For this is a depth indeed, that God always has been, and that man, whom He had never made before, He willed to make in time, and this without changing His design and will.

> Latin: Quid autem mirum est, si in his circuitibus errantes nec aditum nec exitum inueniunt? quia genus humanum adque ista nostra mortalitas nec quo initio coepta sit sciunt, nec quo fine claudatur; quando quidem altitudinem Dei penetrare non possunt, qua, cum ipse sit aeternus et sine initio, ab aliquo tamen initio exorsus est tempora et hominem, quem numquam antea fecerat, fecit in tempore, non tamen nouo et repentino, sed inmutabili aeternoque consilio. Quis hanc ualeat altitudinem inuestigabilem uestigare et inscrutabilem perscrutari, secundum quam Deus hominem temporalem, ante quem nemo umquam hominum fuit, non mutabili uoluntate in tempore condidit et genus humanum ex uno multiplicauit? Quando quidem psalmus ipse cum praemisisset adque dixisset: Tu, Domine, seruabis nos et custodies nos a generatione hac et in aeternum, ac deinde repercussisset eos, in quorum stulta inpiaque doctrina nulla liberationis et beatitudinis animae seruatur aeternitas, continuo subiciens: In circuitu inpii ambulabunt: tamquam ei diceretur: ‘Quid ergo tu credis, sentis, intellegis? numquidnam existimandum est subito Deo placuisse hominem facere, quem numquam antea infinita retro aeternitate fecisset, cui nihil noui accidere potest, in quo mutabile aliquid non est?’ continuo respondit ad ipsum Deum loquens: Secundum altitudinem tuam multiplicasti filios hominum. Sentiant, inquit, homines quod putant, et quod eis placet opinentur et disputent: Secundum altitudinem tuam, quam nullus potest nosse hominum, multiplicasti filios hominum. Valde quippe altum est et semper fuisse, et hominem, quem numquam fecerat, ex aliquo tempore primum facere uoluisse, nec consilium uoluntatemque mutasse.

### Whether We are to Believe that God, as He Has Always Been Sovereign Lord, Has Always Had Creatures Over Whom He Exercised His Sovereignty; And in What Sense We Can Say that the Creature Has Always Been, and Yet Cannot Say It is Co-Eternal.

[¶10] Chapter 15.—Whether We are to Believe that God, as He Has Always Been Sovereign Lord, Has Always Had Creatures Over Whom He Exercised His Sovereignty; And in What Sense We Can Say that the Creature Has Always Been, and Yet Cannot Say It is Co-Eternal.

> Latin: Caput XVI. An ut Deus semper etiam dominus fuisse intellegatur, credendum sit creaturam quoque numquam defuisse cui dominaretur, et quo modo dicatur semper creatum quod dici non potest coaeternum.

[¶11] For my own part, indeed, as I dare not say that there ever was a time when the Lord God was not Lord, so I ought not to doubt that man had no existence before time, and was first created in time. But when I consider what God could be the Lord of, if there was not always some creature, I shrink from making any assertion, remembering my own insignificance, and that it is written, “What man is he that can know the counsel of God? or who can think what the will of the Lord is? For the thoughts of mortal men are timid, and our devices are but uncertain. For the corruptible body presseth down the soul, and the earthly tabernacle weigheth down the mind that museth upon many things.” Many things certainly do I muse upon in this earthly tabernacle, because the one thing which is true among the many, or beyond the many, I cannot find. If, then, among these many thoughts, I say that there have always been creatures for Him to be Lord of, who is always and ever has been Lord, but that these creatures have not always been the same, but succeeded one another (for we would not seem to say that any is co-eternal with the Creator, an assertion condemned equally by faith and sound reason), I must take care lest I fall into the absurd and ignorant error of maintaining that by these successions and changes mortal creatures have always existed, whereas the immortal creatures had not begun to exist until the date of our own world, when the angels were created; if at least the angels are intended by that light which was first made, or, rather, by that heaven of which it is said, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The angels, at least did not exist before they were created; for if we say that they have always existed, we shall seem to make them co-eternal with the Creator. Again, if I say that the angels were not created in time, but existed before all times, as those over whom God, who has ever been Sovereign, exercised His sovereignty, then I shall be asked whether, if they were created before all time, they, being creatures, could possibly always exist. It may perhaps be replied, Why not always, since that which is in all time may very properly be said to be “always?” Now so true is it that these angels have existed in all time that even before time was they were created; if at least time began with the heavens, and the angels existed before the heavens. And if time was even before the heavenly bodies, not indeed marked by hours, days, months, and years,—for these measures of time’s periods which are commonly and properly called times, did manifestly begin with the motion of the heavenly bodies, and so God said, when He appointed them, “Let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years,”—if, I say, time was before these heavenly bodies by some changing movement, whose parts succeeded one another and could not exist simultaneously, and if there was some such movement among the angels which necessitated the existence of time, and that they from their very creation should be subject to these temporal changes, then they have existed in all time, for time came into being along with them. And who will say that what was in all time, was not always?

> Latin: Ego quidem sicut Dominum Deum aliquando dominum non fuisse dicere non audeo, ita hominem numquam antea fuisse et ex quodam tempore primum hominem creatum esse dubitare non debeo. Sed cum cogito cuius rei dominus semper fuerit, si semper creatura non fuit, adfirmare aliquid pertimesco, quia et me ipsum intueor et scriptum esse recolo: Quis hominum potest scire consilium Dei, aut quis poterit cogitare quid uelit Dominus? Cogitationes enim mortalium timidae et incertae adinuentiones nostrae. Corruptibile enim corpus adgrauat animam, et deprimit terrena inhabitatio sensum multa cogitantem. Ex his igitur, quae in hac terrena inhabitatione multa cogito (ideo utique multa, quia unum, quod ex illis uel praeter illa. quod forte non cogito, uerum est, inuenire non possum), si dixero semper fuisse creaturam, cuius dominus esset. qui semper est dominus nec dominus umquam non fuit; sed nunc illam, nunc aliam per alia adque alia temporum spatia, ne aliquam Creatori coaeternam esse dicamus, quod fides ratioque sana condemnat: cauendum est, ne sit absurdum et a luce ueritatis alienum mortalem quidem per uices temporum semper fuisse creaturam, decedentem aliam, aliam succedentem; inmortalem uero non esse coepisse, nisi cum ad nostrum saeculum uentum est, quando et angeli creati sunt, si eos recte lux illa primum facta significat aut illud potius caelum, de quo dictum est: In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram, cum tamen non fuerint, antequam fierent, ne inmortales, si semper fuisse dicuntur, Deo coaeterni esse credantur. Si autem dixero non in tempore creatos angelos, sed ante omnia tempora et ipsos fuisse, quorum Deus dominus esset, qui numquam nisi dominus fuit: quaeretur a me etiam, si ante omnia tempora facti sunt, utrum semper potuerint esse qui facti sunt. Hic respondendum forte uideatur: Quo modo non semper, cum id. quod est omni tempore, non inconuenienter semper esse dicatur? Usque adeo autem isti omni tempore fuerunt. ut etiam ante omnia tempora facti sint; si tamen a caelo coepta sunt tempora, et illi iam erant ante caelum. At si tempus non a caelo, uerum et ante caelum fuit; non quidem in horis et diebus et mensibus et annis (nam istae dimensiones temporalium spatiorum, quae usitate ac proprie dicuntur tempora, manifestum est quod a motu siderum coeperint; unde et Deus, cum haec institueret, dixit: Et sint in signa et in tempora et in dies et in annos), sed in aliquo mutabili motu, cuius aliud prius, aliud posterius praeterit, eo quod simul esse non possunt; — si ergo ante caelum in angelicis motibus tale aliquid fuit et ideo tempus iam fuit adque angeli, ex quo facti sunt, temporaliter mouebantur: etiam sic omni tempore fuerunt, quando quidem cum illis facta sunt tempora. Quis autem dicat: Non semper fuit, quod omni tempore fuit?

[¶12] 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 they always have been? How even can they be said to have been created, if we are to understand that they have always existed? What shall we reply to this? Shall we say that both statements are true? that they always have been, since they have been in all time, they being created along with time, or time along with them, and yet that also they were created? For, similarly, we will not deny that time itself was created, though no one doubts that time has been in all time; for if it has not been in all time, then there was a time when there was no time. But the most foolish person could not make such an assertion. For we can reasonably say there was a time when Rome was not; there was a time when Jerusalem was not; there was a time when Abraham was not; there was a time when man was not, and so on: in fine, if the world was not made at the commencement of time, but after some time had elapsed, we can say there was a time when the world was not. But to say there was a time when time was not, is as absurd as to say there was a man when there was no man; or, this world was when this world was not. For if we are not referring to the same object, the form of expression may be used, as, there was another man when this man was not. Thus we can reasonably say there was another time when this time was not; but not the merest simpleton could say there was a time when there was no time. As, then, we say that time was created, though we also say that it always has been, since in all time time has been, so it does not follow that if the angels have always been, they were therefore not created. For we say that they have always been, because they have been in all time; and we say they have been in all time, because time itself could no wise be without them. For where there is no creature whose changing movements admit of 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 with the Creator. For He has always existed in unchangeable eternity; while they were created, and are said to have been always, because they have been in all time, time being impossible without the creature. But time passing away by its changefulness, cannot be co-eternal with changeless eternity. And consequently, though the immortality of the angels does not 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; and therefore they cannot be co-eternal with the Creator, in whose movement we cannot say that there has been that which now is not, or shall be that which is not yet. Wherefore, if God always has been Lord, He has always had creatures under His dominion,—creatures, however, not begotten of Him, but created by Him out of nothing; nor co-eternal with Him, for He was before them though at no time without them, because He preceded them, not by the lapse of time, but by His abiding eternity. But if I make this reply to those who demand how He was always Creator, always Lord, if there were not always a subject creation; or how this was created, and not rather co-eternal with its Creator, if it always was, I fear I may be accused of recklessly affirming what I know not, instead of teaching what I know. I return, therefore, to that which our Creator has seen fit that we should know; and those things which He has allowed the abler men to know in this life, or has reserved to be known in the next by the perfected saints, I acknowledge to be beyond my capacity. But I have thought it right to discuss these matters without making positive assertions, that they who read may be warned to abstain from hazardous questions, and may not deem themselves fit for everything. Let them rather endeavor to obey the wholesome injunction of the apostle, when he says, “For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.” For if an infant receive nourishment suited to its strength, it becomes capable, as it grows, of taking more; but if its strength and capacity be overtaxed, it dwines away in place of growing.

> Latin: Sed si hoc respondero, dicetur mihi: Quo modo ergo non coaeterni Creatori, si semper ille, semper illi fuerunt? Quo modo etiam creati dicendi sunt, si semper fuisse intelleguntur? Ad hoc quid respondebitur? An dicendum est et semper eos fuisse, quoniam omni tempore fuerunt, qui cum tempore facti sunt, aut cum quibus facta sunt tempora, et tamen creatos? Neque enim et ipsa tempora creata esse negabimus, quamuis omni tempore tempus fuisse nemo ambigat. Nam si non omni tempore fuit tempus, erat ergo tempus, quando nullum erat tempus. Quis hoc stultissimus dixerit? Possumus enim recte dicere: Erat tempus, quando non erat Roma; erat tempus, quando non erat Hierusalem; erat tempus, quando non erat Abraham; erat tempus, quando non erat homo, et si quid huius modi; postremo si non cum initio temporis, sed post aliquod tempus factus est mundus, possumus dicere: Erat tempus, quando non erat mundus; at uero: Erat tempus, quando nullum erat tempus, tam inconuenienter dicimus, ac si quisquam dicat: Erat homo, quando nullus erat homo, aut: Erat iste mundus, quando iste non erat mundus. Si enim de alio adque alio intellegatur, potest dici aliquo modo, hoc est: Erat alius homo, quando non erat iste homo; sic ergo: Erat aliud tempus, quando non erat hoc tempus, recte possumus dicere; at uero: Erat tempus, quando nullum erat tempus, quis uel insipientissimus dixerit? Sicut ergo dicimus creatum tempus, cum ideo semper fuisse dicatur, quia omni tempore tempus fuit: ita non est consequens, ut, si semper fuerunt angeli, ideo non sint creati, ut propterea semper fuisse dicantur, quia omni tempore fuerunt, et propterea omni tempore fuerunt, quia nullo modo sine his ipsa tempora esse potuerunt. Ubi enim nulla creatura est, cuius mutabilibus motibus tempora peragantur, tempora omnino esse non possunt; ac per hoc etsi semper fuerunt, creati sunt, nec si semper fuerunt, ideo Creatori coaeterni sunt. Ille enim semper fuit aeternitate inmutabili; isti autem facti sunt; sed ideo semper fuisse dicuntur, quia omni tempore fuerunt, sine quibus tempora nullo modo esse potuerunt; tempus autem quoniam mutabilitate transcurrit, aeternitati inmutabili non potest esse coaeternum. Ac per hoc etiamsi inmortalitas angelorum non transit in tempore, nec praeterita est quasi iam non sit, nec futura quasi nondum sit: tamen eorum motus, quibus tempora peraguntur, ex futuro in praeteritum transeunt, et ideo Creatori, in cuius motu dicendum non est uel fuisse quod iam non sit, uel futurum esse quod nondum sit, coaeterni esse non possunt. Quapropter si Deus semper dominus fuit, semper habuit creaturam suo dominatui seruientem; uerum tamen non de ipso genitam, sed ab ipso de nihilo factam nec ei coaeternam; erat quippe ante illam, quamuis nullo tempore sine illa; non eam spatio transcurrente, sed manente perpetuitate praecedens. Sed hoc si respondero eis qui requirunt, quo modo semper creator, semper dominus fuit, si creatura seruiens non semper fuit; aut quo modo creata est et non potius creatori coaeterna est, si semper fuit: uereor ne facilius iudicer adfirmare quod nescio, quam docere quod scio. Redeo igitur ad id, quod creator noster scire nos uoluit; illa uero, quae uel sapientioribus in hac uita scire permisit uel omnino perfectis in alia uita scienda seruauit, ultra uires meas esse’ confiteor. Sed ideo putaui sine adfirmatione tractanda, ut qui haec legunt uideant, a quibus quaestionum periculis debeant temperare, nec ad omnia se idoneos arbitrentur potiusque intellegant quam sit apostolo obtemperandum praecipienti salubriter, ubi ait: Dico autem per gratiam Dei quae data est mihi omnibus qui sunt in uobis, non plus sapere quam oportet sapere, sed sapere ad temperantiam, unicuique sicut Deus partitus est mensuram fidei. Si enim pro uiribus suis alatur infans, fiet, ut crescendo plus capiat; si autem uires suae capacitatis excedat, deficiet antequam crescat.

### How We are to Understand God’s Promise of Life Eternal, Which Was Uttered Before the ‘Eternal Times.’

[¶14] Chapter 16.—How We are to Understand God’s Promise of Life Eternal, Which Was Uttered Before the “Eternal Times.”

> Latin: Caput XVII. Quo modo intellegenda sit promissa homini a Deo uita aeterna ante tempora aeterna.

[¶15] I own that I do not know what ages passed before the human race was created, yet I have no doubt that no created thing is co-eternal with the Creator. But even the apostle speaks of time as eternal, and this with reference, not to the future, but, which is more surprising, to the past. For he says, “In hope of eternal life, which God that cannot lie promised before the eternal times, but hath in due times manifested His word.” You see he says that in the past there have been eternal times, which, however, were not co-eternal with God. And since God before these eternal times not only existed, but also, “promised” life eternal, which He manifested 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 to men, and yet they had no existence before eternal times? Does this not mean that, in His own eternity, and in His co-eternal word, that which was to be in its own time was already predestined and fixed?

> Latin: Quae saecula praeterierint antequam genus institueretur humanum, me fateor ignorare; non tamen dubito nihil omnino creaturae Creatori esse coaeternum. Dicit etiam apostolus tempora aeterna, nec ea futura, sed, quod magis est mirandum, praeterita. Sic enim ait: In spem uitae aeternae, quam promisit non mendax Deus ante tempora aeterna; man i fe s tau ita autem temporibus suis uerbum suum. Ecce dixit retro quod fuerint tempora aeterna, quae tamen non fuerint Deo coaeterna, si quidem ille ante tempora aeterna non solum erat, uerum etiam promisit uitam aeternam, quam manifestauit temporibus suis, id est congruis, quid aliud quam Verbum suum? Hoc est enim uita aeterna. Quo modo autem promisit, cum hominibus utique promiserit, qui nondum erant ante tempora aeterna, nisi quia in eius aeternitate adque in ipso Verbo eius eidem coaeterno iam praedestinatione fixum erat, quod suo tempore futurum erat?

### What Defence is Made by Sound Faith Regarding God’s Unchangeable Counsel and Will, Against the Reasonings of Those Who Hold that the Works of God are Eternally Repeated in Revolving Cycles that Restore All Things as They Were.

[¶17] Chapter 17.—What Defence is Made by Sound Faith Regarding God’s Unchangeable Counsel and Will, Against the Reasonings of Those Who Hold that the Works of God are Eternally Repeated in Revolving Cycles that Restore All Things as They Were.

> Latin: Caput XVIII. Quid de incommutabili consilio ac uoluntate Dei fides sana defendat contra ratiocinationes eorum. qui opera Dei ex aeternitate repetita per eosdem semper uolunt saeculorum redire circuitus.

[¶18] Of this, too, I have no doubt, that before the first man was created, there never had been a man at all, neither this same man himself recurring by I know not what cycles, and having made I know not how many revolutions, nor any other of similar nature. From this belief I am not frightened by philosophical arguments, among which that is reckoned the most acute which is founded on the assertion that the infinite cannot 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 cannot be supposed that His goodness was ever idle; for if it were, there should be ascribed to Him an awakening to activity in time, from a past eternity of inactivity, as if He repented of an idleness that had no beginning, and proceeded, therefore, to make a beginning of work. This being the case, they say it must be that the same things are always repeated, and that as they pass, so they are destined always to return, whether amidst all these changes the world remains the same,—the world which has always been, and yet was created,—or that the world in these revolutions is perpetually dying out and being renewed; otherwise, if we point to a time when the works of God were begun, it would be believed that He considered His past eternal leisure to be inert and indolent, and therefore condemned and altered it as displeasing to Himself. Now if God is supposed to have been indeed always making temporal things, but different from one another, and one after the other, so, that He thus came at last to make man, whom He had never made before, then it may seem that He made man not with knowledge (for they suppose no knowledge can comprehend the infinite succession of creatures), but at the dictate of the hour, as it struck him at the moment, with a sudden and accidental change of mind. On the other hand, say they, if those cycles be admitted, and if we suppose that the same temporal things are repeated, while the world either remains identical through all these rotations, or else dies away and is renewed, then there is ascribed to God neither the slothful ease of a past eternity, nor a rash and unforeseen creation. And if the same things be not thus repeated in cycles, then they cannot by any science or prescience be comprehended in their endless diversity. Even though reason could not refute, faith would smile at these argumentations, with which the godless endeavor to turn our simple piety from the right way, that we may walk with them “in a circle.” But by the help of the Lord our God, even reason, and that readily enough, shatters these revolving circles which conjecture frames. For that which specially leads these men astray to refer their own circles to the straight path of truth, is, that they measure by their own human, changeable, and narrow intellect the divine mind, which is absolutely unchangeable, infinitely capacious, and without succession of thought, counting all things without number. So that saying of the apostle comes true of them, for, “comparing themselves with themselves, they do not understand.” For because they do, in virtue of a new purpose, whatever new thing has occurred to them to be done (their minds being changeable), they conclude it is so with God; and thus compare, not God,—for they cannot conceive God, but think of one like themselves when they think of Him,—not God, but themselves, and not with Him, but with themselves. For our part, we dare not believe that God is affected in one way when He works, in another when He rests. Indeed, to say that He is affected at all, is an abuse of language, since it implies that there comes to be something in His nature which was not there before. For he who is affected is acted upon, and whatever is acted upon is changeable. His leisure, therefore, is no laziness, indolence, inactivity; as in His work is no labor, effort, industry. He can act while He reposes, and repose while He acts. He can begin a new work with (not a new, but) an eternal design; and what He has not made before, He does not now begin to make because He repents of His former repose. But when 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 things created, which formerly did not exist, and subsequently came into existence. But in God the former purpose is not altered and obliterated by the subsequent and different purpose, but by one and the same eternal and unchangeable will He effected regarding the things He created, both that formerly, so long as 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, to those who have eyes for such things, how independent He is of what He makes, and how it is of His own gratuitous goodness He creates, since from eternity He dwelt without creatures in no less perfect a blessedness.

> Latin: Illud quoque non dubito, antequam homo primus creatus esset, numquam quemquam fuisse hominem; nec eundem ipsum nescio quibus circuitibus nescio quotiens reuolutum, nec alium aliquem, natura similem. Neque ab hac fide me philosophorum argumenta deterrent, quorum acutissimum illud putatur, quod dicunt nulla infinita ulla scientia posse conprehendi; ac per hoc Deus, inquiunt, rerum quas facit omnium finitarum omnes finitas aput se rationes habet; bonitas autem eius numquam uacua fuisse credenda est, ne sit temporalis eius operatio, cuius retro fuerit aeterna cessatio, quasi paenituerit eum prioris sine initio uacationis ac propterea sit operis adgressus initium; et ideo necesse est, inquiunt, eadem semper repeti eademque semper repetenda transcurrere, uel manente mundo mutabiliter, qui licet numquam non fuerit et sine initio temporis tamen factus est, uel eius quoque ortu et occasu semper illis circuitibus repetito semperque repetendo; ne uidelicet, si aliquando primum Dei opera coepta dicuntur, priorem suam sine initio uacationem tamquam inertem ac desidiosam et ideo sibi displicentem damnasse quodam modo adque ob hoc mutasse credatur; si autem semper quidem temporalia, sed alia adque alia perhibetur operatus ac sic aliquando etiam ad hominem faciendum, quem numquam antea fecerat, peruenisse, non scientia, qua putant non posse quaecumque infinita conprehendi, sed quasi ad horam, sicut ueniebat in mentem, fortuita quadam inconstantia uideatur fecisse quae fecit. Porro si illi circuitus admittantur, inquiunt, quibus uel manente mundo uel ipso quoque reuolubiles ortus suos et occasus eisdem circuitibus inserente eadem temporalia repetuntur, nec ignauum otium, praesertim tam longae sine initio diuturnitatis, Deo tribuitur, nec inprouida temeritas operum suorum; quoniam si non eadem repetantur, non possunt infinita diuersitate uariata ulla eius scientia uel praescientia conprehendi. Has argumentationes, quibus inpii nostram simplicem pietatem, ut cum illis in circuitu ambulemus, de uia recta conantur auertere, si ratio refutare non posset, fides inridere deberet. Huc accedit, quod in adiutorio Domini Dei nostri hos uolubiles circulos, quos opinio confingit, ratio manifesta confringit. Hinc enim maxime isti errant, ut in circuitu falso ambulare quam uero et recto itinere malint, quod mentem diuinam omnino inmutabilem, cuiuslibet infinitatis capacem et innumera omnia sine cogitationis alternatione numerantem, de sua humana mutabili angustaque metiuntur; et fit illis quod ait apostolus: Conparantes enim semet ipsos sibimet ipsis non intellegunt. Nam quia illis quidquid noui faciendum uenit in mentem, nouo consilio faciunt (mutabiles quippe mentes gerunt): profecto non Deum, quem cogitare non possunt, sed semet ipsos pro illo cogitantes, non illum, sed se ipsos, nec illi, sed sibi conparant. Nobis autem fas non est credere, aliter affici Deum cum uacat, aliter cum operatur; quia nec affici dicendus est, tamquam in eius natura fiat aliquid, quod ante non fuerit. Patitur quippe qui afficitur, et mutabile est omne quod aliquid patitur. Non itaque in eius uacatione cogitetur ignauia desidia inertia, sicut nec in eius opere labor conatus industria. Nouit quiescens agere et agens quiescere. Potest ad opus nouum non nouum, sed sempiternum adhibere consilium; nec paenitendo, quia prius cessauerat, coepit facere quod non fecerat. Sed et si prius cessauit et posterius operatus est (quod nescio quem ad modum ab homine possit intellegi): hoc procul dubio, quod dicitur prius et posterius, in rebus prius non existentibus et posterius existentibus fuit; in illo autem non alteram praecedentem altera subsequens mutauit aut abstulit uoluntatem, sed una eademque sempiterna et inmutabili uoluntate res, quas condidit, et ut prius non essent egit, quamdiu non fuerunt, et ut posterius essent, quando esse coeperunt, hinc eis. qui talia uidere possunt, mirabiliter fortassis ostendens, quam non eis indiguerit, sed eas gratuita bonitate condiderit, cum sine illis ex aeternitate initio carente in non minore beatitate permansit.

### Against Those Who Assert that Things that are Infinite Cannot Be Comprehended by the Knowledge of God.

[¶20] Chapter 18.—Against Those Who Assert that Things that are Infinite Cannot Be Comprehended by the Knowledge of God.

> Latin: Caput XIX. Contra eos, qui dicunt ea, quae infinita sunt, nec - Dei posse scientia conprehendi.

[¶21] As for their other assertion, that God’s knowledge cannot comprehend things infinite, it only remains for them to affirm, in order that they may sound the depths of their impiety, that God does not know all numbers. For it is very certain that they are infinite; since, no matter of what number you suppose an end to be made, this number can 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 rational and scientific expression, it can still be not only doubled, but even multiplied. Moreover, each number is so defined by its own properties, that no two numbers are equal. They are therefore both unequal and different from one another; and while they are simply finite, collectively they are infinite. Does God, therefore, not know numbers on account of this infinity; and does His knowledge extend only to a certain height in numbers, while of the rest He is ignorant? Who is so left to himself as to say so? Yet they can hardly pretend to put numbers out of the question, or maintain that they have nothing to do with the knowledge of God; for Plato, their great authority, represents God as framing the world on numerical principles: and in our books also it is said to God, “Thou hast ordered all things in number, and measure, and weight.” The prophet also says,” Who bringeth out their host by number.” And the Saviour says in the Gospel, “The very hairs of your head are all numbered.” Far be it, then, from us 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 infinite numbers, 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 of him who knows it, then all infinity is in some ineffable way made finite to God, for it is comprehensible by His knowledge. Wherefore, if the infinity of numbers cannot be infinite to the knowledge of God, by which it is comprehended, what are we poor creatures that we should presume to fix limits to His knowledge, and say that unless the same temporal thing be repeated by the same periodic revolutions, God cannot either foreknow His creatures that He may make them, or know them when He has made them? God, whose knowledge is simply manifold, and uniform in its variety, comprehends all incomprehensibles with so incomprehensible a comprehension, that though He willed always to make His later works novel and unlike what went before them, He could not produce them without order and foresight, nor conceive them suddenly, but by His eternal foreknowledge.

> Latin: Illud autem aliud quod dicunt, nec Dei scientia quae infinita sunt posse conprehendi: restat eis, ut dicere audeant adque huic se uoragini profundae inpietatis inmergant, quod non omnes numeros Deus nouerit. Eos quippe infinitos esse, certissimum est; quoniam in quocumque numero finem faciendum putaueris, idem ipse, non dico uno addito augeri, sed quamlibet sit magnus et quamlibet ingentem multitudinem continens, in ipsa ratione adque scientia numerorum non solum duplicari, uerum etiam multiplicari potest. Ita uero suis quisque numerus proprietatibus terminatur, ut nullus eorum par esse cuicumque alteri possit. Ergo et dispares inter se adque diuersi sunt, et singuli quique finiti sunt, et omnes infiniti sunt. Itane numeros propter infinitatem nescit omnes Deus, et usque ad quandam summam numerorum scientia Dei peruenit, ceteros ignorat? Quis hoc etiam dementissimus dixerit? Nec audebunt isti contemnere numeros et eos dicere ad Dei scientiam non pertinere, aput quos Plato Deum magna auctoritate commendat mundum numeris fabricantem. Et aput nos Deo dictum legitur: Omnia in mensura et numero et pondere disposuisti; de quo et propheta dicit: Qui profert numerose saeculum, et Saluator in euangelio: Capilli, inquit, uestri omnes numerati sunt. Absit itaque ut dubitemus, quod ei notus sit omnis numerus, cuius intellegentiae, sicut in psalmo canitur, non est numerus. Infinitas itaque numeri, quamuis infinitorum numerorum nullus sit numerus, non est tamen inconprehensibilis ei, cuius intellegentiae non est numerus. Quapropter si, quidquid scientia conprehenditur, scientis conprehensione finitur: profecto et omnis infinitas quodam ineffabili modo Deo finita est, quia scientiae ipsius inconprehensibilis non est. Quare si infinitas numerorum scientiae Dei, qua conprehenditur, esse non potest infinita: qui tandem nos sumus homunculi, qui eius scientiae limites figere praesumamus, dicentes quod, nisi eisdem circuitibus temporum eadem temporalia repetantur, non potest Deus cuncta quae facit uel praescire ut faciat, uel scire cum fecerit? cuius sapientia simpliciter multiplex et uniformiter multiformis tam inconprehensibili conprehensione omnia inconprehensibilia conprehendit, ut, quaecumque noua et dissimilia consequentia praecedentibus si semper facere uellet, inordinata et inprouisa habere non posset, nec ea prouideret ex proximo tempore, sed aeterna praescientia contineret.

### Of Worlds Without End, or Ages of Ages.

[¶23] Chapter 19.—Of Worlds Without End, or Ages of Ages.

> Latin: Caput XX. De saeculis saeculorum.

[¶24] I do not presume to determine whether God does so, and whether these times which are called “ages of ages” are joined together in a continuous series, and succeed one another with a regulated diversity, and leave exempt from their vicissitudes only those who are freed from their misery, and abide without end in a blessed immortality; or whether these are called “ages of ages,” that we may understand that the ages remain unchangeable in God’s unwavering wisdom, and are the efficient causes, as it were, of those ages which are being spent in time. Possibly “ages” is used for “age,” so that nothing else is meant by “ages of ages” than by “age of age,” as nothing else is meant by “heavens of heavens” than by “heaven of heaven.” For God called the firmament, above which are the waters, “Heaven,” and yet the psalm says, “Let the waters that are above the heavens praise the name of the Lord.” Which of these two meanings we are to attach to “ages of ages,” or whether there is not some other and better meaning still, is a very profound question; and the subject we are at present handling presents no obstacle to our meanwhile deferring the discussion of it, whether we may be able to determine anything about it, or may only be made more cautious by its further treatment, so as to be deterred from making any rash affirmations in a matter of such obscurity. For at present we are disputing the opinion that affirms the existence of those periodic 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 avails nothing for the substantiating of those cycles; for whether the ages 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 any recurrence of misery, or whether the ages of ages be the eternal causes which rule what shall be and is in time, it equally follows, that those cycles which bring round the same things have no existence; and nothing more thoroughly explodes them than the fact of the eternal life of the saints.

> Latin: Quod utrum ita faciat, et continuata sibi conexione copulentur quae appellantur saecula saeculorum. alia tamen adque alia ordinata dissimilitudine procurrentia, eis dumtaxat, qui ex miseria liberantur, in sua beata inmortalitate sine fine manentibus; an ita dicantur saecula saeculorum, ut intellegantur saecula in sapientia Dei inconcussa stabilitate manentia istorum, quae cum tempore transeunt, tamquam efficientia saeculorum, definire non audeo. Fortassis enim possit dici saeculum, quae sunt saecula, ut nihil aliud perhibeatur saeculum saeculi quam saecula saeculorum, sicut nihil aliud dicitur caelum caeli quam caeli caelorum. Nam caelum Deus uocauit firmamentum super quod sunt aquae; et tamen psalmus: Et aquae, inquit, quae super caelos, laudent nomen Domini. Quid ergo istorum duorum sit, an praeter haec duo aliquid aliud de saeculis saeculorum possit intellegi, profundissima quaestio est, neque hoc quod nunc agimus inpedit, si indiscussa interim differatur; siue aliquid in ea definire ualeamus, siue nos faciat cautiores diligentior ipsa tractatio, ne in tanta obscuritate rerum adfirmare temere aliquid audeamus. Nunc enim contra opinionem disputamus, qua illi circuitus adseruntur, quibus semper eadem per interualla temporum necesse esse repeti existimantur. Quaelibet autem illarum sententiarum de saeculis saeculorum uera sit, ad hos circuitus nihil pertinet; quoniam siue saecula saeculorum sint non eadem repetita, sed alterum ex altero conexione ordinatissima procurrentia, liberatorum beatitudine sine ullo recursu miseriarum certissima permanente, siue saecula saeculorum aeterna sint temporalium tamquam dominantia subditorum, circuitus illi eadem reuoluentes locum non habent, quos maxime refellit aeterna uita sanctorum.

## 59. Of the Impiety of Those Who Assert that the Souls Which Enjoy True and Perfect Blessedness, Must Yet Again and Again in These Periodic Revolutions Return to Labor and Misery.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/59/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/59/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 20.—Of the Impiety of Those Who Assert that the Souls Which Enjoy True and Perfect Blessedness, Must Yet Again and Again in These Periodic Revolutions Return to Labor and Misery.

> Latin: Caput XXI. De inpietate eorum, qui adserunt animas summae ueraeque beatitudinis participes iterum adque iterum per circuitus temporum ad easdem miserias laboresque redituras.

[¶1] What pious ears could bear to hear that after a life spent in so many and severe distresses (if, indeed, that should be called a life at all which is rather a death, so utter that the love of this present death makes us fear that death which delivers us from it,) that after evils so disastrous, and miseries of all kinds have at length been expiated and finished by the help of true religion and wisdom, and when we have thus attained to the vision of God, and have entered into bliss by the contemplation of spiritual light and participation in His unchangeable immortality, which we burn to attain,—that we must at some time lose all this, and that they who do lose it are cast down from that eternity, truth, and felicity to infernal mortality and shameful foolishness, and are involved in accursed woes, in which God is lost, truth held in detestation, and happiness sought in iniquitous impurities? and that this will happen endlessly again and again, recurring at fixed intervals, and in regularly returning periods? and that this everlasting and ceaseless revolution of definite cycles, which remove and restore true misery and deceitful bliss in turn, is contrived in order that God may be able to know His own works, since on the one hand He cannot rest from creating and on the other, cannot know the infinite number of His creatures, if He always makes 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 of wisdom not to know them. For if in the future world we shall not remember these things, and by this oblivion be blessed, why should we now increase our misery, already burdensome enough, by the knowledge of them? If, on the other hand, the knowledge of them will be forced upon us hereafter, now at least let us remain in ignorance, that in the present expectation we may enjoy a blessedness which the future reality is not to bestow; since in this life we are expecting to obtain life everlasting, but in the world to come are to discover it to be blessed, but not everlasting.

> Latin: Quorum enim aures piorum ferant post emensam tot tantisque calamitatibus uitam (si tamen uita ista dicenda est, quae potius mors est, ita grauis, ut mors, quae ab hac liberat, mortis huius amore timeatur), post tam magna mala tamque multa et horrenda tandem aliquando per ueram religionem adque sapientiam expiata adque finita ita peruenire ad conspectum Dei adque ita fieri beatum contemplatione incorporeae lucis per participationem inmutabilis inmortalitatis eius, cuius adipiscendae amore flagramus, ut eam quandoque necesse sit deseri et eos, qui deserunt, ab illa aeternitate ueritate felicitate deiectos tartareae mortalitati, turpi stultitiae, miseriis exsecrabilibus inplicari, ubi Deus amittatur, ubi odio ueritas habeatur, ubi per inmundas nequitias beatitudo quaeratur, et hoc itidem adque itidem sine ullo fine priorum et posteriorum certis interuallis et dimensionibus saeculorum factum et futurum; et hoc propterea, ut possint Deo circuitibus definitis euntibus semper adque redeuntibus per nostras falsas beatitudines et ueras miserias alternatim quidem, sed reuolutione incessabili sempiternas nota esse opera sua, quoniam neque a faciendo quiescere neque sciendo potest ea, quae infinita sunt, indagare? Quis haec audiat? quis credat? quis ferat? Quae si uera essent, non solum tacerentur prudentius, uerum etiam (ut quo modo ualeo dicam quod uolo) doctius nescirentur. Nam si haec illic in memoria non habebimus et ideo beati erimus, quur hic per eorum scientiam grauatur amplius nostra miseria? Si autem ibi ea necessario scituri sumus, hic saltem nesciamus, ut hic felicior sit expectatio quam illic adeptio summi boni; quando hic aeterna uita consequenda expectatur; ibi autem beata, sed non aeterna, quandoque amittenda cognoscitur.

[¶2] 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 relieve one another, how do they avow that the more a man loves God, the more readily he attains to blessedness,—they who teach what paralyzes love itself? For who would not be more remiss and lukewarm in his love for a person whom he thinks he shall be forced to abandon, and whose truth and wisdom he shall come to hate; and this, too, after he has quite attained to the utmost and most blissful knowledge of Him that he is capable of? Can any one be faithful in his love, even to a human friend, if he knows that he is destined to become his enemy? God forbid that there be any truth in an opinion which threatens us with a real misery that is never to end, but is often and endlessly to be interrupted by intervals of fallacious happiness. For what happiness can be more fallacious and false than that in whose blaze of truth we yet remain ignorant that we shall be miserable, or in whose most secure citadel we yet fear that we shall be so? For if, on the one hand, we are to be ignorant of coming calamity, then our present misery is not so short-sighted for it is assured of coming bliss. If, on the other hand, the disaster that threatens is not concealed from us in the world to come, then the time of misery which is to be at last exchanged for a state of blessedness, is spent by the soul more happily than its time of happiness, which is to end in a return to misery. And thus our expectation of unhappiness is happy, but of happiness unhappy. And therefore, as we here 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.

> Latin: Si autem dicunt neminem posse ad illam beatitudinem peruenire, nisi hos circuitus, ubi beatitudo et miseria uicissim alternant, in huius uitae eruditione cognouerit: quo modo ergo fatentur, quanto plus quisque amauerit Deum, tanto eum facilius ad beatitudinem peruenturum, qui ea docent, quibus amor ipse torpescat? Nam quis non remissius et tepidius amet eum, quem se cogitat necessario deserturum et contra eius ueritatem sapientiamque sensurum, et hoc cum ad eius plenam pro sua capacitate notitiam beatitudinis perfectione peruenerit? quando nec hominem amicum possit quisque amare fideliter, cui se futurum nouit inimicum. Sed absit ut uera sint, quae nobis minantur ueram miseriam numquam finiendam, sed interpositionibus falsae beatitudinis saepe ac sine fine rumpendam. Quid enim illa beatitudine falsius adque fallacius, ubi nos futuros miseros aut in tanta ueritatis luce nesciamus aut in summa felicitatis arce timeamus? Si enim uenturam calamitatem ignoraturi sumus, peritior est hic nostra miseria, ubi uenturam beatitudinem nouimus; si autem nos illic clades inminens non latebit. beatius tempora transigit anima misera, quibus transactis ad beatitudinem subleuetur, quam beata, quibus transactis in miseriam reuoluatur. Adque ita spes nostrae infelicitatis est felix et felicitatis infelix. Unde fit, ut, quia hic mala praesentia patimur, ibi metuimus inminentia, uerius semper miseri quam beati aliquando esse possimus.

[¶3] But these things are declared to be false by the loud testimony of religion and truth; for religion truthfully promises a true blessedness, of which we shall be eternally assured, and which cannot be interrupted by any disaster. Let us therefore keep to the straight path, which is Christ, and, with Him as our Guide and Saviour, let us turn away in heart and mind from the unreal and futile cycles of the godless. Porphyry, Platonist though he was, abjured the opinion of his school, that in these cycles souls are ceaselessly passing away and returning, either being struck with the extravagance of the idea, or sobered by his knowledge of Christianity. As I mentioned in the tenth book, he preferred saying that the soul, as it had been sent into the world that it might know evil, and be purged and delivered from it, was never again exposed to such an experience after it had once returned to the Father. And if he abjured the tenets of his school, how much more ought we Christians to abominate and avoid an opinion so unfounded and hostile to our faith? But having disposed 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 in nature which, by I know not what cycles, has not at some previous period existed, and is not hereafter to exist again. For if the soul, once delivered, as it never was before, is never to 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 entrance into eternal felicity. And if in an immortal nature there can occur a novelty, which never has been, nor ever shall be, reproduced by any cycle, why is it disputed that the same may occur in mortal natures? If they maintain that blessedness is no new experience to the soul, but only a return to that state 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 new experience. And if this new experience fell out by accident, and was not embraced in the order of things appointed by Divine Providence, then where are those determinate and measured cycles in which no new thing happens, but all things are reproduced as they were before? If, however, this new experience was embraced in that providential order of nature (whether the soul was exposed to the evil of this world for the sake of discipline, or fell into it by sin), then it is possible for new things to happen which never happened before, and which yet are not extraneous to the order of nature. And if the soul is able by its own imprudence to create for itself a new misery, which was not unforeseen by the Divine Providence, but was provided for in the order of nature along with the deliverance from it, how can we, even with all the rashness of human vanity, presume to deny that God can create new things—new to the world, but not to Him—which He never before created, but yet foresaw from all eternity? If they say that it is indeed true that ransomed souls return no more to misery, but that even so no new thing happens, since there always have been, now are, and ever shall be a succession of ransomed souls, they must at least grant that in this case there are new souls to whom the misery and the deliverance from it are new. For if they maintain that those souls out of which new men are daily being made (from whose bodies, if they have lived wisely, they are so delivered that they never return to misery) are not new, but have existed from eternity, they must logically admit that they are infinite. For however great a finite number of souls there were, that would not have sufficed to make perpetually new men from eternity,—men whose souls were to be eternally freed from this mortal state, and never afterwards to return to it. And our philosophers will find it hard to explain how there is an infinite number of souls in an order of nature which they require shall be finite, that it may be known by God.

> Latin: Sed quoniam haec falsa sunt clamante pietate, conuincente ueritate (illa enim nobis ueraciter promittitur uera felicitas, cuius erit semper retinenda et nulla infelicitate rumpenda certa securitas): uiam rectam sequentes, quod nobis est Christus, eo duce ac saluatore a uano et inepto inpiorum circuitu iter fidei mentemque auertamus. Si enim de istis circuitibus et sine cessatione alternantibus itionibus et reditionibus animarum Porphyrius Platonicus suorum opinionem sequi noluit, siue ipsius rei uanitate permotus siue iam tempora Christiana reueritus, et, quod in libro decimo commemoraui, dicere maluit animam propter cognoscenda mala traditam mundo, ut ab eis liberata adque purgata, cum ad Patrem redierit, nihil ulterius tale patiatur: quanto magis nos istam inimicam Christianae fidei falsitatem detestari ac deuitare debemus! His autem circuitibus euacuatis __ adque frustratis nulla necessitas nos conpellit ideo putare non habere initium temporis ex quo esse coeperit genus humanum, quia per nescio quos circuitus nihil sit in rebus noui, quod non et antea certis interuallis temporum fuerit et postea sit futurum. Si enim liberatur anima non reditura ad miserias, sicut numquam antea liberata est, fit in illa aliquid, quod antea numquam factum est, et hoc quidem ualde magnum, id est quae numquam desinat aeterna felicitas. Si autem in natura inmortali fit tanta nouitas nullo repetita, nullo repetenda circuitu, quur in rebus mortalibus fieri non posse contenditur? Si dicunt non fieri in anima beatitudinis nouitatem, quoniam ad eam reuertitur, in qua semper fuit, ipsa certe liberatio noua fit, cum de miseria liberatur in qua numquam fuit, et ipsa miseriae nouitas in ea facta est quae numquam fuit. Haec autem nouitas si non in rerum, quae diuina prouidentia gubernantur, ordinem uenit, sed casu potius euenit, ubi sunt illi determinati dimensique circuitus, in quibus nulla noua fiunt, sed repetuntur eadem quae fuerunt? Si autem et haec nouitas ab ordinatione prouidentiae non excluditur, siue data sit anima siue lapsa sit: possunt fieri noua, quae neque antea facta sint nec tamen a rerum ordine aliena sint. Et si potuit anima per inprudentiam facere sibi nouam miseriam, quae non esset inprouisa diuinae prouidentiae, ut hanc quoque in rerum ordine includeret et ab hac eam non inprouide liberaret: qua tandem temeritate humanae uanitatis audemus negare diuinitatem facere posse res, non sibi, sed mundo nouas, quas neque antea fecerit nec umquam habuerit inprouisas? Si autem dicunt liberatas quidem animas ad miseriam non reuersuras, sed cum hoc fit in rebus nihil noui fieri, quoniam semper aliae adque aliae liberatae sunt et liberantur et liberabuntur: hoc certe concedunt, si ita est, nouas animas fieri, quibus sit et noua miseria et noua liberatio. Nam si antiquas eas esse dicunt et retrorsum sempiternas, ex quibus cottidie noui fiant homines, de quorum corporibus, si sapienter uixerint, ita liberentur, ut numquam ad miserias reuoluantur, consequenter dicturi sunt infinitas. Quantuslibet namque finitus numerus fuisset animarum, infinitis retro saeculis sufficere non ualeret, ut ex illo semper homines fierent, quorum essent animae ab ista semper mortalitate liberandae, numquam ad eam deinceps rediturae. Nec ullo modo explicabunt, quo modo in rebus, quas, ut Deo notae esse possint, finitas uolunt, infinitus sit numerus animarum.

[¶4] And now that we have exploded these cycles which were supposed to bring back the soul at fixed periods to the same miseries, what can seem more in accordance with godly reason than to believe that it is possible for God both to create new things never before created, and in doing so, to preserve His will unaltered? But whether the number of eternally redeemed souls can be continually increased or not, let the philosophers 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 of souls can be indefinitely increased, what reason is there to deny that what had never before been created, could be created? since the number of ransomed souls never existed before, and has yet not only been once made, but will never cease to be anew coming into being. If, on the other hand, it be more suitable 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 cannot increase, and reach the amount it signifies, without having some beginning; and this beginning never before existed. That this beginning, therefore, might be, the first man was created.

> Latin: Quapropter quoniam circuitus illi iam explosi sunt, quibus ad easdem miserias necessario putabatur anima reditura: quid restat conuenientius pietati quam credere non esse inpossibile Deo et ea, quae numquam fecerit, noua facere et ineffabili praescientia uoluntatem mutabilem non habere? Porro autem utrum animarum liberatarum nec ulterius ad miserias rediturarum numerus possit semper augeri, ipsi uiderint, qui de rerum infinitate cohibenda tam subtiliter disputant; nos uero ratiocinationem nostram ex utroque latere terminamus. Si enim potest, quid causae est, ut negetur creari potuisse quod numquam antea creatum esset, si liberatarum animarum numerus, qui numquam antea fuit, non solum factus est semel, sed fieri numquam desinet? Si autem oportet ut certus sit liberatarum aliquis numerus animarum, quae ad miseriam numquam redeant, neque iste numerus ulterius augeatur: etiam ipse sine dubio, quicumque erit, ante utique numquam fuit; qui profecto crescere et ad suae quantitatis terminum peruenire sine aliquo non posset initio; quod initium eo modo antea numquam fuit. Hoc ergo ut esset, creatus est homo, ante quem nullus fuit.

### That There Was Created at First But One Individual, and that the Human Race Was Created in Him.

[¶6] Chapter 21.—That There Was Created at First But One Individual, and that the Human Race Was Created in Him.

> Latin: Caput XXII. De conditione unius primi hominis adque in eo generis humani.

[¶7] Now that we have solved, as well as we could, this very difficult question about the eternal God creating new things, without any novelty of will, it is easy to see how much better it is that God was pleased to produce the human race from the one individual whom He created, than if He had originated it in several men. For as to the other animals, He created some solitary, and naturally seeking lonely places,—as the eagles, kites, lions, wolves, and such like; others gregarious, which herd together, and prefer to live in company,—as pigeons, starlings, stags, and little fallow deer, and the like: but neither class did He cause to be propagated from individuals, but called into being several at once. Man, on the other hand, whose nature was to be a mean between the angelic and bestial, He created in such sort, that if he remained in subjection to His Creator as his rightful Lord, and piously kept His commandments, he should pass into the company of the angels, and obtain, without the intervention of death, a blessed and endless immortality; but if he offended the Lord his God by a proud and disobedient use of his free will, he should become subject to death, and live as the beasts do,—the slave of 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 by this means the unity of society and the bond of concord might be more effectually commended to him, men being bound together not only by similarity of nature, but by family affection. And indeed He did not even create the woman that was to be given him as his wife, as he created the man, but created her out of the man, that the whole human race might derive from one man.

> Latin: Hac igitur quaestione difficillima propter aeternitatem Dei noua creantis sine nouitate aliqua uoluntatis, quantum potuimus, explicata non est arduum uidere multo fuisse melius quod factum est, ut ex uno homine, quem primum condidit, multiplicaret genus humanum, quam si id incohasset a pluribus. Nam cum animantes alias solitarias et quodam modo soliuagas, id est, quae solitudinem magis adpetant, sicuti sunt aquilae milui, leones lupi et quaecumque ita sunt, alias congreges instituerit, quae congregatae adque in gregibus malint uiuere, ut sunt columbi sturni, cerui damulae et cetera huius modi: utrumque tamen genus non ex singulis propagauit, sed plura simul iussit existere. Hominem uero, cuius naturam quodam modo mediam inter angelos bestiasque condebat, ut, si Creatori suo tamquam uero domino subditus praeceptum eius pia oboedientia custodiret, in consortium transiret angelicum, sine morte media beatam inmortalitatem absque ullo termino consecutus; si autem Dominum Deum suum libera uoluntate superbe adque inoboedienter usus offenderet, morti addictus bestialiter uiueret, libidinis seruus aeternoque post mortem supplicio destinatus, unum ac singulum creauit, non utique solum sine humana societate deserendum, sed ut eo modo uehementius ei commendaretur ipsius societatis unitas uinculumque concordiae, si non tantum inter se naturae similitudine, uerum etiam cognationis affectu homines necterentur; quando ne ipsam quidem feminam copulandam uiro sicut ipsum creare illi placuit, sed ex ipso, ut omnino ex homine uno diffunderetur genus humanum.

### That God Foreknew that the First Man Would Sin, and that He at the Same Time Foresaw How Large a Multitude of Godly Persons Would by His Grace Be Translated to the Fellowship of the Angels.

[¶9] Chapter 22.—That God Foreknew that the First Man Would Sin, and that He at the Same Time Foresaw How Large a Multitude of Godly Persons Would by His Grace Be Translated to the Fellowship of the Angels.

> Latin: Caput XXIII. Quod praescierit Deus hominem, quem primum condidit, peccaturum simulque praeuiderit, quantum piorum populum ex eius genere in angelicum consortium sua esset gratia translaturus.

[¶10] And God was not ignorant that man would sin, and that, being himself made subject now to death, he would propagate men doomed to die, and that these mortals would run to such enormities in sin, that even the beasts devoid of rational will, and who were created in numbers from the waters and the earth, would live more securely and peaceably with their own kind than men, who had been propagated from one individual for the very purpose of commending concord. For not even lions or dragons have ever waged with their kind such wars as men have waged with one another. But God foresaw also that by His grace a people would be called to adoption, and that they, being justified by the remission of their sins, would be united by the Holy Ghost to the holy angels in eternal peace, the last enemy, death, being destroyed; and He knew that this people would derive profit from the consideration that God had caused all men to be derived from one, for the sake of showing how highly He prizes unity in a multitude.

> Latin: Nec ignorabat Deus hominem peccaturum et morti iam obnoxium morituros propagaturum eoque progressuros peccandi inmanitate mortales, ut tutius adque pacatius inter se rationalis uoluntatis expertes bestiae sui generis uiuerent, quarum ex aquis et terris plurium pullulauit exordium, quam homines, quorum genus ex uno est ad commendandam concordiam propagatum. Neque enim umquam inter se leones aut inter se dracones, qualia homines, bella gesserunt. Sed praeuidebat etiam gratia sua populum piorum in adoptionem uocandum remissisque peccatis iustificatum Spiritu sancto sanctis angelis in aeterna pace sociandum, nouissima inimica morte destructa; cui populo esset huius rei consideratio profutura, quod ex uno homine Deus ad commendandum hominibus. quam ei grata sit etiam in pluribus unitas, genus instituisset humanum.

### Of the Nature of the Human Soul Created in the Image of God.

[¶12] Chapter 23.—Of the Nature of the Human Soul Created in the Image of God.

> Latin: Caput XXIV. De natura humanae animae creatae ad imaginem Dei.

[¶13] God, then, made man in His own image. For He created for him a soul endowed with reason and intelligence, so that he might excel all the creatures of earth, air, and sea, which were not so gifted. And when He had formed the man out of the dust of the earth, and had willed that his soul should be such as I have said,—whether He had already made it, and now by breathing imparted it to man, or rather made it by breathing, so that that breath which God made by breathing (for what else is “to breathe” than to make breath?) is the soul,—He made also a wife for him, to aid him in the work of generating his kind, and her He formed of a bone taken 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 their hands, and material furnished to them, that by their artistic skill they may fashion some material object. God’s hand is God’s power; and He, working invisibly, effects visible results. But this seems fabulous rather than true to men, who measure by customary and everyday works the power and wisdom of God, whereby He understands and produces without seeds even seeds themselves; and because they cannot understand the things which at the beginning were created, they are sceptical regarding them—as if the very things which they do 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 attributed by many rather to physical and natural causes than to the work of the divine mind.

> Latin: Fecit ergo Deus hominem ad imaginem suam. Talem quippe illi animam creauit, qua per rationem adque intellegentiam omnibus esset praestantior animalibus terrestribus et natatilibus et uolatilibus, quae mentem huius modi non haberent. Et cum uirum terreno formasset ex puluere eique animam qualem dixi siue quam iam fecerat sufflando indidisset siue potius sufflando fecisset eumque flatum, quem sufflando fecit (nam quid est aliud sufflare quam flatum facere?), animam hominis esse uoluisset, etiam coniugem illi in adiutorium generandi ex eius latere osse detracto fecit, ut Deus. Neque enim haec carnali consuetudine cogitanda sunt, ut uidere solemus opifices ex materia quacumque terrena corporalibus membris. quod artis industria potuerint, fabricantes. Manus Dei potentia Dei est, qui etiam uisibilia inuisibiliter operatur. Sed haec fabulosa potius quam uera esse arbitrantur, qui uirtutem ac sapientiam Dei, qua nouit et potest etiam sine seminibus ipsa certe facere semina, ex his usitatis et cottidianis metiuntur operibus; ea uero, quae primitus instituta sunt, quoniam non nouerunt, infideliter cogitant; quasi non haec ipsa, quae nouerunt de humanis conceptibus adque partubus, si inexpertis narrarentur, incredibiliora uiderentur; quamuis et ea ipsa plerique magis naturae corporalibus causis quam operibus diuinae mentis adsignent.

### Whether the Angels Can Be Said to Be the Creators of Any, Even the Least Creature.

[¶15] Chapter 24.—Whether the Angels Can Be Said to Be the Creators of Any, Even the Least Creature.

> Latin: Caput XXV. An ullius uel minimae creaturae possint dici angeli creatores.

[¶16] But in this book we have nothing to do with those who do not believe that the divine mind made or cares for this world. As for those who believe their own Plato, that all mortal animals—among whom man holds the pre-eminent place, and is near to the gods themselves—were created not by that most high God who made the world, but by other lesser gods created by the Supreme, and exercising a delegated power under His control,—if only those persons be delivered from the superstition which prompts them to seek a plausible reason for paying divine honors and sacrificing to these gods as their creators, they will easily be disentangled also from this their error. For it is blasphemy to believe or to say (even before it can be understood) that any other than God is creator of any nature, be it never so small and mortal. And as for the angels, whom those Platonists prefer to call gods, although they do, so far as they are permitted and commissioned, aid in the production of the things around us, yet not on that account are we to call them creators, any more than we call gardeners the creators of fruits and trees.

> Latin: Sed cum his nullum nobis est in his libris negotium, qui diuinam mentem facere uel curare ista non credunt. Illi autem qui Platoni suo credunt non ab illo summo Deo, qui fabricatus est mundum, sed ab aliis minoribus, quos quidem ipse creauerit, permissu siue iussu eius animalia facta esse cuncta mortalia, in quibus homo praecipuum disque ipsis cognatum teneret locum, si superstitione careant, qua quaerunt unde iuste uideantur sacra et sacrificia facere quasi conditoribus suis, facile carebunt etiam huius opinionis errore. Neque enim fas est ullius naturae quamlibet minimae mortalisque creatorem nisi Deum credere ac dicere, et antequam possit intellegi. Angeli autem, quos illi deos libentius appellant, etiamsi adhibent uel iussi uel permissi operationem suam rebus quae gignuntur in mundo, tam non eos dicimus creatores animalium, quam nec agricolas frugum adque arborum.

### That God Alone is the Creator of Every Kind of Creature, Whatever Its Nature or Form.

[¶18] Chapter 25.—That God Alone is the Creator of Every Kind of Creature, Whatever Its Nature or Form.

> Latin: Caput XXVI. Omnem naturam et omnem speciem uniuersae creaturae non nisi opere Dei fieri adque formari.

[¶19] For whereas there is one form which is given from without to every bodily substance,—such as the form which is constructed by potters and smiths, and that class of artists who paint 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 bodily forms, but even the life itself of the living creatures, and which proceeds from the secret and hidden choice of an intelligent and living nature,—let that first-mentioned form be attributed to every artificer, but this latter to one only, God, the Creator and Originator who made the world itself and the angels, without the help of world or angels. For the same divine and, so to speak, creative energy, which cannot be made, but makes, and which gave to the earth and sky their roundness,—this same divine, effective, and creative energy gave their roundness to the eye and to the apple; and the other natural objects which we anywhere see, received also their form, not from without, but from the secret and profound might of the Creator, who said, “Do not I fill heaven and earth?” and whose wisdom it is that “reacheth from one end to another mightily; and sweetly doth she order all things.” Wherefore I know not what kind of aid the angels, themselves created first, afforded to the Creator in making other things. I cannot ascribe to them what perhaps they cannot do, neither ought I to deny them such faculty as they have. But, by their leave, I attribute the creating and originating work which gave being to all natures to God, to whom they themselves thankfully ascribe their existence. We do not call gardeners the creators of their fruits, for we read, “Neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase.” Nay, not even the earth itself do we call a creator, though she seems to be the prolific mother of all things which she aids in germinating and bursting forth from the seed, and which she keeps rooted in her own breast; for we likewise read, “God giveth it a body, as it hath pleased Him, and to every seed his own body.” We ought not even to call a woman the creatress of her own offspring; for He rather is its creator who said to His servant, “Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee.” And although the various mental emotions of a pregnant woman do produce in the fruit of her womb similar qualities,—as Jacob with his peeled wands caused piebald sheep to be produced,—yet the mother as little creates her offspring as she created herself. Whatever bodily or seminal causes, then, may be used for the production of things, either by the cooperation of angels, men, or the lower animals, or by sexual generation; and whatever power the desires and mental emotions of the mother have to produce in the tender and plastic fœtus corresponding lineaments and colors; yet the natures themselves, which are thus variously affected, are the production of none but the most high God. It is His occult power which pervades all things, and is present in all without being contaminated, which gives being to all that is, and modifies and limits its existence; so that without Him it would not be thus, or thus, nor would have any being at all. If, then, in regard to that outward form which the workman’s hand imposes on his work, we do not say that Rome and Alexandria were built by masons and architects, but by the kings by whose will, plan, and resources they were built, so that the one has Romulus, the other Alexander, for its founder; with how much greater reason ought we to say that God alone is the Author of all natures, since He neither uses for His work any material which was not made by Him, nor any workmen who were not also made by Him, and since, if He were, so to speak, to withdraw from created things His creative power, they would straightway relapse into the nothingness in which they were before they were created? “Before,” I mean, in respect of eternity, not of time. For what other creator could there be of time, than He who created those things whose movements make time?

> Latin: Cum enim alia sit species, quae adhibetur extrinsecus cuicumque materiae corporali, sicut operantur homines figuli et fabri adque id genus opifices, qui etiam pingunt et effingunt formas similes corporibus animalium; alia uero, quae intrinsecus efficientes causas habet de secreto et occulto naturae uiuentis adque intellegentis arbitrio, quae non solum naturales corporum species, uerum etiam ipsas animantium animas, dum non fit, facit: supra dicta illa species artificibus quibusque tribuatur; haec autem altera non nisi uni artifici, creatori et conditori Deo, qui mundum ipsum et angelos sine ullo mundo et sine ullis angelis fecit. Qua enim ui diuina et, ut ita dicam, effectiua, quae fieri nescit, sed facere, accepit speciem, cum mundus fieret, rutunditas caeli et rutunditas solis: eadem ui diuina et effectiua, quae fieri nescit, sed facere, accepit speciem rutunditas oculi et rutunditas pomi et ceterae figurae naturales, quas uidemus in rebus quibusque nascentibus non extrinsecus adhiberi, sed intima Creatoris potentia, qui dixit: Caelum et terram ego inpleo, et cuius sapientia est, quae adtingit a fine usque ad finem fortiter et disponit omnia suauiter. Proinde facti primitus angeli cuius modi ministerium praebuerint Creatori cetera facienti nescio; nec tribuere illis audeo quod forte non possunt, nec debeo derogare quod possunt. Creationem tamen conditionemque omnium naturarum, qua fit ut omnino naturae sint, eis quoque fauentibus illi Deo tribuo, cui se etiam ipsi debere quod sunt cum gratiarum actione nouerunt. Non solum igitur agricolas non dicimus fructuum quorumque creatores, cum legamus: Neque qui plantat est aliquid neque qui rigat, sed qui incrementum dat Deus; sed ne ipsam quidem terram, quamuis mater omnium fecunda uideatur, quae germinibus erumpentia promouet et fixa radicibus continet, cum itidem legamus: Deus illi dat corpus quo modo uoluerit et unicuique seminum proprium corpus. Ita nec feminam sui puerperii creatricem appellare debemus, sed potius illum qui cuidam famulo suo dixit: Priusquam te formarem in utero, noui te. Et quamuis anima sic uel sic affecta praegnantis ualeat aliquibus uelut induere qualitatibus fetum, sicut de uirgis uariatis fecit Iacob, ut pecora colore uaria gignerentur: naturam tamen illam, quae gignitur, tam ipsa non fecit, quam nec ipsa se fecit. Quaelibet igitur corporales uel seminales causae gignendis rebus adhibeantur, siue operationibus angelorum aut hominum aut quorumque animalium siue marium feminarumque mixtionibus; quaelibet etiam desideria motusue animae matris ualeant aliquid liniamentorum aut colorum aspergere teneris mollibusque conceptibus: ipsas omnino naturas, quae sic uel sic in suo genere afficiantur, non facit nisi summus Deus, cuius occulta potentia cuncta penetrans incontaminabili praesentia facit esse quidquid aliquo modo est, in quantumcumque est; quia nisi faciente illo non tale uel tale esset, sed prorsus esse non posset. Quapropter si in illa specie, quam forinsecus corporalibus opifices rebus inponunt, urbem Romam et urbem Alexandriam non fabros et architectos, sed reges, quorum uoluntate consilio imperio fabricatae sunt, illam Romulum, illam Alexandrum habuisse dicimus conditores: quanto potius non nisi Deum debemus conditorem dicere naturarum, qui neque ex ea materia facit aliquid, quam ipse non fecerit, nec operarios habet, nisi quos ipse creauerit; et si potentiam suam, ut ita dicam, fabricatoriam rebus subtrahat, ita non erunt, sicut ante quam fierent non fuerunt. Sed ante dico aeternitate, non tempore. Quis enim alius creator est temporum, nisi qui fecit ea, quorum motibus currerent tempora?

### Of that Opinion of the Platonists, that the Angels Were Themselves Indeed Created by God, But that Afterwards They Created Man’s Body.

[¶21] Chapter 26.—Of that Opinion of the Platonists, that the Angels Were Themselves Indeed Created by God, But that Afterwards They Created Man’s Body.

> Latin: Caput XXVII. De Platonicorum opinione, qua putauerunt angelos quidem a Deo conditos, sed ipsos esse h’umanorum corporum conditores.

[¶22] It is obvious, that in attributing the creation of the other animals to those inferior gods who were made by the Supreme, he meant it to be understood that the immortal part was taken from God Himself, and that these minor creators added the mortal part; that is to say, he meant them to be considered the creators of our bodies, but not of our souls. But since Porphyry maintains that if the soul is to be purified all entanglement with a body must be escaped from; and at the same time agrees with Plato and the Platonistsin thinking that those who have not spent a temperate and honorable life return to mortal bodies as their punishment (to bodies of brutes in Plato’s opinion, to human bodies in Porphyry’s); it follows that those whom they would have us worship as our parents and authors, that they may plausibly call them gods, are, after all, but the forgers of our fetters and chains,—not our creators, but our jailers and turnkeys, who lock us up in the most bitter and melancholy house of correction. Let the Platonists, then, either cease menacing us with our bodies as the punishment of our souls, or preaching that we are to worship as gods those whose work upon us they exhort us by all means in our power to avoid and escape from. But, indeed, both opinions are quite false. It is false that souls return again to this life to be punished; and it is false that there is any other creator of anything in heaven or earth, than He who made the heaven and the earth. For if we live in a body only to expiate our sins, how says Plato in another place, that the world could not have been the most beautiful and good, had it not been filled with all kinds of creatures, mortal and immortal? But if our creation even as mortals be a divine benefit, how is it a punishment to be restored to a body, that is, to a divine benefit? And if God, as Plato continually maintains, embraced in His eternal intelligence the ideas both of the universe and of all the animals, how, then, should He not with His own hand make them all? Could He be unwilling to be the constructor of works, the idea and plan of which called for His ineffable and ineffably to be praised intelligence?

> Latin: Ita sane Plato minores et a summo Deo factos deos effectores esse uoluit animalium ceterorum, ut inmortalem partem ab ipso sumerent, ipsi uero mortalem adtexerent. Proinde animarum nostrarum eos creatores noluit esse, sed corporum. Unde quoniam Porphyrius propter animae purgationem dicit corpus omne fugiendum simulque cum suo Platone aliisque Platonicis sentit eos, qui inmoderate adque inhoneste uixerint, propter luendas poenas ad corpora redire mortalia, Plato quidem etiam bestiarum, Porphyrius tantummodo ad hominum: sequitur eos, ut dicant deos istos, quos a nobis uolunt quasi parentes et conditores nostros coli, nihil esse aliud quam fabros conpedum carcerumue nostrorum, nec institutores, sed inclusores adligatoresque nostros ergastulis aerumnosis et grauissimis uinculis. Aut ergo desinant Platonici poenas animarum ex istis corporibus comminari, aut eos nobis deos colendos non praedicent, quorum in nobis operationem, ut quantum possumus fugiamus et euadamus, hortantur, cum tamen sit utrumque falsissimum. Nam neque ita luunt poenas animae, cum ad istam uitam denuo reuoluuntur, et omnium uiuentium siue in caelo siue in terra nullus est conditor, nisi a quo facta sunt caelum et terra. Nam si nulla causa est uiuendi in hoc corpore nisi propter pendenda supplicia: quo modo dicit idem Plato aliter mundum fieri non potuisse pulcherrimum adque optimum, nisi omnium animalium, id est et inmortalium et mortalium, generibus inpleretur? Si autem nostra institutio, qua uel mortales conditi sumus, diuinum munus est: quo modo poena est ‘ad ista corpora, id est ad diuina beneficia, remeare? Et si Deus, quod adsidue Plato commemorat, sicut mundi uniuersi, ita omnium animalium species aeterna intellegentia continebat: quo modo non ipse cuncta condebat? An aliquorum esse artifex nollet, quorum efficiendorum artem ineffabilis eius et ineffabiliter laudabilis mens haberet?

## 60. 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 Honored and Rewarded, and that Which Was to Be Condemned and Punished.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/60/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/60/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 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 Honored and Rewarded, and that Which Was to Be Condemned and Punished.

> Latin: Caput XXVIII. In primo homine exortam fuisse omnem plenitudinem generis humani, in qua praeuiderit Deus, quae pars honoranda esset praemio, quae damnanda supplicio.

[¶1] With good cause, therefore, does the true religion recognize and proclaim that the same God who created the universal cosmos, created also all the animals, souls as well as bodies. Among the terrestrial animals man was made by Him in His own image, and, for the reason I have given, was made one individual, though he was not left solitary. For there is nothing so social by nature, so unsocial by its corruption, as this 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 of us all, whom God was pleased to create alone, that all men might be derived from one, and that they might thus be admonished to preserve unity among their whole multitude. But from the fact that the woman was made for him from his side, it was plainly meant that we should learn how dear the bond between man and wife should be. These works of God do certainly seem extraordinary, because they are the first works. They who do not believe them, ought not to believe any prodigies; for these would not be called prodigies did they not happen out of the ordinary course of nature. But, is it possible that anything should happen in vain, however hidden be its cause, in so grand a government of divine providence? One of the sacred Psalmists says, “Come, behold the works of the Lord, what prodigies He hath wrought in the earth.” Why God made woman out of man’s side, and what this first prodigy prefigured, I shall, with God’s help, tell in another place. But at present, since this book must be concluded, let us merely say that in this first man, who was created in the beginning, there was laid the foundation, not indeed evidently, but in God’s foreknowledge, of these two cities or societies, so far as regards the human race. For from that man all men were to be derived—some of them to be associated with the good angels in their reward, others with the wicked in punishment; all being ordered by the secret yet just judgment of God. For since it is written, “All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth,” neither can His grace be unjust, nor His justice cruel.

> Latin: Merito igitur uera religio, quem mundi uniuersi, eum animalium quoque uniuersorum, hoc est et animarum et corpo’ rum, conditorem agnoscit et praedicat. In quibus terrenis praecipuus ab illo ad eius imaginem homo propter eam causam, quam dixi, et si qua forte alia maior latet, factus est unus, sed non relictus est solus. Nihil enim est quam hoc genus tam discordiosum uitio, tam sociale natura. Neque commodius contra uitium discordiae uel cauendum ne existeret, uel sanandum cum extitisset, natura loqueretur humana, quam recordationem illius parentis, quem propterea Deus creare uoluit unum, de quo multitudo propagaretur, ut hac admonitione etiam in multis concors unitas seruaretur. Quod uero femina illi ex eius latere facta est, etiam hic satis significatum est quam cara mariti et uxoris debeat esse coniunctio. Haec opera Dei propterea sunt utique inusitata, quia prima. Qui autem ista non credunt, nulla facta prodigia debent credere; neque enim et ipsa, si usitato naturae curriculo gignerentur, prodigia dicerentur. Quid autem sub tanta gubernatione diuinae prouidentiae, quamuis eius causa lateat, frustra gignitur? Ait quidam psalmus sacer: Venite et uidete opera Domini, quae posuit prodigia super terram. Quur ergo ex latere uiri femina facta sit, et hoc primum quodam modo prodigium quid praefigurauerit, dicetur alio loco, quantum me Deus adiuuerit. Nunc quoniam liber iste claudendus est, in hoc [primo] homine, qui primitus factus est, nondum quidem secundum euidentiam, iam tamen secundum Dei praescientiam exortas fuisse existimemus in genere humano societates tamquam ciuitates duas. Ex illo enim futuri erant homines, alii malis angelis in supplicio, alii bonis in praemio sociandi, quamuis occulto Dei iudicio, sed tamen iusto. Cum enim scriptum sit: Uniuersae uiae Domini misericordia et ueritas: nec iniusta eius gratia nec crudelis potest esse iustitia.

### That death is penal, and had its origin in Adam’s sin.

[¶3] Book XIII.

> Latin: Liber XIII

[¶4] Argument—In this book it is taught that death is penal, and had its origin in Adam’s sin.

### Of the Fall of the First Man, Through Which Mortality Has Been Contracted.

[¶6] Chapter 1.—Of the Fall of the First Man, Through Which Mortality Has Been Contracted.

> Latin: Caput I. De lapsu primorum hominum, per quem est contracta mortalitas.

[¶7] Having disposed of the very difficult questions concerning the origin of our world and the beginning of the human race, the natural order requires that we now discuss the fall of the first man (we may say of the first men), and of the origin and propagation of human death. For God had not made man like the angels, in such a condition that, even though they had sinned, they could none the more die. He had so made them, that if they discharged the obligations of obedience, an angelic immortality and a blessed eternity might ensue, without the intervention of death; but if they disobeyed, death should be visited on them with just sentence—which, too, has been spoken to in the preceding book.

> Latin: Expeditis de nostri saeculi exortu et de initio generis humani difficillimis quaestionibus nunc iam de lapsu primi hominis, immo primorum hominum, et de origine ac propagine mortis humanae disputationem a nobis institutam rerum ordo deposcit. Non enim eo modo, quo angelos, condiderat Deus homines, ut etiam si peccassent mori omnino non possent; sed ita ut perfunctos oboedientiae munere sine interuentu mortis angelica inmortalitas et beata aeternitas sequeretur; inoboedientes autem mors plecteret damnatione iustissima; quod etiam in libro superiore iam diximus.

### Of that Death Which Can Affect an Immortal Soul, and of that to Which the Body is Subject.

[¶9] Chapter 2.—Of that Death Which Can Affect an Immortal Soul, and of that to Which the Body is Subject.

> Latin: Caput II. De ea morte, quae animae semper utcumque uicturae accidere potest, et ea, cui corpus obnoxium est.

[¶10] But I see I must speak a little more carefully of the nature of death. For although the human soul is truly affirmed to be immortal, yet it also has a certain death of its own. For it is therefore called immortal, because, in a sense, it does not cease to live and to feel; while the body is called mortal, because it can be forsaken of all life, and cannot by itself live at all. The death, then, of the soul takes place when God forsakes it, as the death of the body when the soul forsakes it. Therefore the death of both—that is, of the whole man—occurs when the soul, forsaken by God, forsakes the body. For, in this case, neither is God the life of the soul, nor the soul the life of the body. And this death of the whole man is followed by that which, on the authority of the divine oracles, we call the second death. This the Saviour referred to when He said, “Fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” And since this does not happen before the soul is so joined to its body that they cannot be separated at all, it may be matter of wonder how the body can be said to be killed by that death in which it is not forsaken by the soul, but, being animated and rendered sensitive by it, is tormented. For in that penal and everlasting punishment, of which in its own place we are to speak more at large, the soul is justly said to die, because it does not live in connection with God; but how can we say that the body is dead, seeing that it lives by the soul? For it could not otherwise feel the bodily torments which are to follow the resurrection. Is it because life of every kind is good, and pain an evil, that we decline to say that that body lives, 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 cannot live well unless by God working in it what is good; and the body lives by the soul when the soul lives in the body, whether itself be living by God or no. For the wicked man’s life in the body is a life not of the soul, but of the body, which even dead souls—that is, souls forsaken of God—can confer upon bodies, how little so-ever of their own proper life, by which they are immortal, they retain. But in the last damnation, though man does not cease to feel, yet because this feeling of his is neither sweet with pleasure nor wholesome with repose, but painfully penal, it is not without reason called death rather than life. And it is called the second death because it follows the first, which sunders the two cohering essences, whether these be God and the soul, or the 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.

> Latin: Sed de ipso genere mortis uideo mihi paulo diligentius disserendum. Quamuis enim anima humana ueraciter inmortalis perhibeatur, habet tamen quandam etiam ipsa mortem suam. Nam ideo dicitur inmortalis, quia modo quodam quantulocumque non desinit uiuere adque sentire; corpus autem ideo mortale, quoniam deseri omni uita potest nec per se ipsum aliquatenus uiuit. Mors igitur animae fit, cum eam deserit Deus, sicut corporis, cum id deserit anima. Ergo utriusque rei, id est totius hominis, mors est, cum anima Deo deserta deserit corpus. Ita enim nec ex Deo uiuit ipsa nec corpus ex ipsa. Huius modi autem totius hominis mortem illa sequitur, quam secundam mortem diuinorum eloquiorum appellat auctoritas. Hanc Saluator significauit, ubi ait: Eum timete, qui habet potestatem et corpus et animam perdere in gehennam. Quod cum ante non fiat, quam cum anima corpori sic fuerit copulata, ut nulla diremtione separentur: mirum uideri potest quo modo corpus ea morte dicatur occidi, qua non anima deseritur, sed animatum sentiensque cruciatur. Nam in illa ultima poena ac sempiterna, de qua suo loco diligentius disserendum est, recte mors animae dicitur, quia non uiuit ex Deo; mors autem corporis quonam modo, cum uiuat ex anima? Non enim aliter potest ipsa corporalia, quae post resurrectionem futura sunt, sentire tormenta. An quia uita qualiscumque aliquod bonum est, dolor autem malum, ideo nec uiuere corpus dicendum est, in quo anima non uiuendi causa est, sed dolendi? Viuit itaque anima ex Deo, cum uiuit bene; non enim potest bene uiuere nisi Deo in se operante quod bonum est; uiuit autem corpus ex anima, cum anima uiuit in corpore, seu uiuat ipsa seu non uiuat ex Deo. Inpiorum namque in corporibus uita non animarum, sed corporum uita est; quam possunt eis animae etiam mortuae, hoc est Deo deserente, quantulacumque propria uita, ex qua et inmortales sunt, non desistente, conferre. Verum in damnatione nouissima quamuis homo sentire non desinat, tamen, quia sensus ipse nec uoluptate suauis nec quiete salubris, sed dolore poenalis est, non inmerito mors est potius appellata quam uita. Ideo autem secunda, quia post illam primam est, qua fit cohaerentium diremtio naturarum, siue Dei et animae siue animae et corporis. De prima igitur corporis morte dici potest, quod bonis bona sit, malis mala; secunda uero sine dubio sicut nullorum bonorum est, ita nulli bona.

### Whether Death, Which by the Sin of Our First Parents Has Passed Upon All Men, is the Punishment of Sin, Even to the Good.

[¶12] Chapter 3.—Whether Death, Which by the Sin of Our First Parents Has Passed Upon All Men, is the Punishment of Sin, Even to the Good.

> Latin: Caput III. Utrum mors, quae per peccatum primorum hominum in omnes homines pertransiit, etiam in sanctis poena peccati sit.

[¶13] But a question not to be shirked arises: Whether in very truth death, which separates soul and body, is good to the good? For if it be, how has it come to pass that such a thing should be the punishment of sin? For the first men would not have suffered death had they not sinned. How, then, can that be good to the good, which could not have happened except to the evil? Then, again, if it could only happen to the evil, to the good it ought not to be good, but non-existent. For why should there be any punishment where there is nothing to punish? Wherefore we must say that the first 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, that whatsoever sprang from their stock should also be punished with the same death. For nothing else could be born of them than that which they themselves had been. Their nature was deteriorated in proportion to the greatness of the condemnation of their sin, so that what existed as punishment in those who first sinned, became a natural consequence in their children. For man is not produced by man, as he was from the dust. For dust was the material out of which man was made: man is the parent by whom man is begotten. Wherefore earth and flesh are not the same thing, though flesh be made of earth. But as man the parent is, such is man the offspring. In the first man, therefore, there existed the whole human nature, which was to be transmitted by the woman to posterity, when that conjugal union received the divine sentence of its own condemnation; and what man was made, not when created, but when he sinned and was punished, this he 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 body and mind which we see in children. For God ordained that infants should begin the world as the young of beasts begin it, since their parents had fallen to the level of the beasts in the fashion of their life and of their death; as it is written, “Man when he was in honor understood not; he became like the beasts that have no understanding.” Nay more, infants, we see, are even feebler in the use and movement of their limbs, and more infirm to choose and refuse, than the most tender offspring of other animals; as if the force that dwells in human nature were destined to surpass all other living things so much the more eminently, as its energy has been longer restrained, and the time of its exercise delayed, just as an arrow flies the higher the further back it has been drawn. To this infantine imbecility the first man did not fall by his lawless presumption and just sentence; but human nature was in his person vitiated and altered to such an extent, 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 this bondage of sin by the Redeemer’s grace, they can suffer only this death which separates soul and body; but being redeemed from the obligation of sin, they do not pass to that second endless and penal death.

> Latin: Non autem dissimulanda nascitur quaestio, utrum re uera mors, qua separantur anima et corpus, bonis sit bona; quia si ita est, quo modo poterit obtineri, quod etiam ipsa sit poena peccati? Hanc enim primi homines, nisi peccauissent, perpessi utique non fuissent. Quo pacto igitur bona esse possit bonis, quae accidere non posset nisi malis? Et rursus si non nisi malis posset accidere, non deberet bonis bona esse, sed nulla. Quur enim esset ulla poena in quibus non essent ulla punienda? Quapropter fatendum est primos quidem homines ita fuisse institutos, ut, si non peccassent, nullum mortis experirentur genus; sed eosdem primos peccatores ita fuisse morte multatos, ut etiam quidquid de eorum stirpe esset exortum eadem poena teneretur obnoxium. Non enim aliud ex eis, quam quod ipsi fuerant, nasceretur. Pro magnitudine quippe culpae illius naturam damnatio mutauit in peius, ut, quod poenaliter praecessit in peccantibus hominibus primis, etiam naturaliter sequeretur in nascentibus ceteris. Neque enim ita homo ex homine, sicut homo ex puluere. Puluis namque homini faciendo materies fuit, homo. autem homini gignendo parens. Proinde quod est terra, non hoc est caro, quamuis ex terra facta sit caro; quod est autem parens homo, hoc est et proles homo. In primo igitur homine per feminam in progeniem transiturum uniuersum genus humanum fuit. quando illa coniugum copula diuinam sententiam suae damnationis excepit; et quod homo factus est, non cum crearetur, sed cum peccaret et puniretur, hoc genuit, quantum quidem adtinet ad peccati et mortis originem. Non enim ad infantilem hebetudinem et infirmitatem animi et corporis, quam uidemus in paruulis, peccato uel poena ille redactus est (quae Deus uoluit esse tamquam primordia catulorum, quorum parentes in bestialem uitam mortemque deiecerat; sicut enim scriptum est: Homo in honore cum esset, non intellexit; conparatus est pecoribus non intellegentibus et similis factus est illis; nisi quod infantes infirmiores etiam cernimus in usu motuque membrorum et sensu adpetendi adque uitandi, quam sunt aliorum tenerrimi fetus animalium; tamquam se tanto adtollat excellentius supra cetera animantia uis humana, quanto magis inpetum suum, uelut sagitta cum arcus extenditur, retrorsum reducta distulerit); — non ergo ad ista infantilia rudimenta praesumtione inlicita et damnatione iusta prolapsus uel inpulsus est primus homo; sed hactenus in eo natura humana uitiata adque mutata est, ut repugnantem pateretur in membris inoboedientiam concupiscedi et obstringeretur necessitate moriendi, adque ita id, quod uitio poenaque factus est, id eat obnoxios peccato mortique generaret. A quo peccati uinculo si per Mediatoris Christi gratiam soluuntur infantes, hanc solam mortem perpeti possunt, quae animam seiungit a corpore; in secundam uero illam sine fine poenalem liberati a peccati obligatione non transeunt.

### Why Death, the Punishment of Sin, is Not Withheld from Those Who by the Grace of Regeneration are Absolved from Sin.

[¶15] Chapter 4.—Why Death, the Punishment of Sin, is Not Withheld from Those Who by the Grace of Regeneration are Absolved from Sin.

> Latin: Caput IV. Quur ab his, qui per gratiam regenerationis absoluti sunt a peccato, non auferatur mors, id est poena peccati.

[¶16] If, moreover, any one is solicitous about this point, how, if death be the very punishment of sin, they whose guilt is cancelled by grace do yet suffer death, this difficulty has already been handled and solved in our other work which we have written on the baptism of infants. There it was said that the parting of soul and body was left, though its connection with sin was removed, for this reason, that if the immortality of the body followed immediately upon the sacrament of regeneration, faith itself would be thereby enervated. For faith is then only faith when it waits in hope for what is not yet seen in substance. And by the vigor and conflict of faith, at least in times past, was the fear of death overcome. Specially was this conspicuous in the holy martyrs, who could have had no victory, no glory, to whom there could not even have been any conflict, if, after the layer of regeneration, saints could not suffer bodily death. Who would not, then, in company with the infants presented for baptism, run to the grace of Christ, that so he might not be dismissed from the body? And thus faith would not be tested with an unseen reward; and so would not 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 turned to the service of righteousness. For then it was proclaimed to man, “If thou sinnest, thou shall die;” now it is said to the martyr, “Die, that thou sin not.” Then it was said, “If ye trangress 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 men might 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 armor of virtue, and the penalty of the sinner becomes the reward of the righteous. For then death was incurred by sinning, now righteousness is fulfilled by dying. In the case of the holy martyrs it is so; for to them the persecutor proposes the alternative, apostasy or death. For the righteous prefer by believing to suffer what the first transgressors suffered by not believing. For unless they had sinned, they would not have died; but the martyrs sin if they do not die. The one died because they sinned, the others 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 to faith this grace, that death, which is the admitted opposite to life, should become the instrument by which life is reached.

> Latin: Si quem uero mouet, quur uel ipsam patiantur, si et ipsa peccati poena est, quorum per gratiam reatus aboletur: iam ista quaestio in alio nostro opere, quod scripsimus de baptismo paruulorum, tractata ac soluta est; ubi dictum est ad hoc relinqui animae experimentum separationis a corpore, quamuis ablato iam criminis nexu, quoniam, si regenerationis sacramentum continuo sequeretur inmortalitas corporis, ipsa fides eneruaretur, quae tunc est fides, quando expectatur in spe, quod in re nondum uidetur. Fidei autem robore adque certamine, in maioribus dumtaxat aetatibus, etiam mortis fuerat superandus timor, quod in sanctis martyribus maxime eminuit; cuius profecto certaminis esset nulla uictoria, nulla gloria (quia nec ipsum omnino posset esse certamen), si post lauacrum regenerationis iam sancti non possent mortem perpeti corporalem. Cum paruulis autem baptizandis quis non ad Christi gratiam propterea potius curreret, ne a corpore solueretur? Adque ita non inuisibili praemio probaretur fides, sed iam nec fides esset, confestim sui operis quaerendo et sumendo mercedem. Nunc uero maiore et mirabiliore gratia Saluatoris in usus iustitiae peccati poena conuersa est. Tunc enim dictum est homini: Morieris, si peccaueris: nunc dicitur martyri: Morere, ne pecces. Tunc dictum est: Si mandatum transgressi fueritis, morte moriemini; nunc dicitur: Si mortem recusaueritis, mandatum transgrediemini. Quod tunc timendum fuerat, ut non peccaretur, nunc suscipiendum est, ne peccetur. Sic per ineffabilem Dei misericordiam et ipsa poena uitiorum transit in arma uirtutis, et fit iusti meritum etiam supplicium peccatoris. Tunc enim mors est adquisita peccando, nunc inpletur iustitia moriendo. Verum hoc in sanctis martyribus, quibus alterutrum a persecutore proponitur, ut aut deserant fidem aut sufferant mortem. Iusti enim malunt credendo perpeti, quod sunt primi iniqui non credendo perpessi. Nisi enim peccassent illi, non morerentur; peccabunt autem isti, nisi moriantur. Mortui ergo sunt illi, quia peccauerunt; non peccant isti, quia moriuntur. Factum est per illorum culpam, ut ueniretur in poenam; fit per istorum poenam, ne ueniatur in. culpam; non quia mors bonum aliquod facta est, quae antea malum fuit; sed tantam Deus fidei praestitit gratiam, ut mors, quam uitae constat esse contrariam, instrumentum fieret, per quod transiretur ad uitam.

### As the Wicked Make an Ill Use of the Law, Which is Good, So the Good Make a Good Use of Death, Which is an Ill.

[¶18] Chapter 5.—As the Wicked Make an Ill Use of the Law, Which is Good, So the Good Make a Good Use of Death, Which is an Ill.

> Latin: Caput V. Quod sicut iniqui male utuntur lege, quae bona est, ita iusti bene utantur morte, quae mala est.

[¶19] The apostle, wishing to show how hurtful a thing sin is, when grace does not aid us, has not hesitated to say that the strength 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.” Most certainly true; for prohibition increases the desire of illicit action, if righteousness is not so loved that the desire of sin is conquered by that love. But unless divine grace aid us, we cannot love nor delight in true righteousness. But lest the law should be thought to be an evil, since it is called the strength of sin, the apostle, when treating a similar question in another place, says, “The law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is holy made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.” Exceeding, he says, because the transgression is more heinous when through the increasing lust of sin the law itself also is despised. Why have we thought it worth while to mention this? For this reason, because, as the law is not an evil when it increases the lust of those who sin, so neither is death a good thing when it increases the glory of those who suffer it, since either the former is abandoned wickedly, and makes transgressors, or the latter is embraced, for the truth’s sake, and makes martyrs. And thus the law is indeed good, because it is prohibition of sin, and death is evil because it is the wages of sin; but as wicked men make an evil use not only of evil, but also of good things, so the righteous make a good use not only of good, but also of evil things. Whence it comes to pass that the wicked make an ill use of the law, though the law is good; and that the good die well, though death is an evil.

> Latin: Apostolus cum uellet ostendere, quantum peccatum gratia non subueniente ad nocendum ualeret, etiam ipsam legem, qua prohibetur peccatum, non dubitauit dicere uirtutem esse peccati. Aculeus, inquit, mortis est peccatum, uirtus autem peccati lex. Verissime omnino. Auget enim prohibitio desiderium operis inliciti, quando iustitia non sic diligitur, ut peccandi cupiditas eius delectatione uincatur. Ut autem diligatur et delectet uera iustitia, non nisi diuina subuenit gratia. Sed ne propterea lex putaretur malum, quoniam uirtus est dicta peccati: ideo ipse alio loco uersans huius modi quaestionem: Itaque, inquit, lex quidem sancta et mandatum sanctum et iustum et bonum. Quod ergo bonum est, inquit, mihi factum est mors? Absit. Sed peccatum, ut appareat peccatum, per bonum mihi operatum est mortem, ut fiat super modum peccator aut peccatum per mandatum. Super modum dixit, quia etiam praeuaricatio additur, cum peccandi aucta libidine etiam lex ipsa contemnitur. Quur hoc commemorandum putauimus? Quia scilicet, sicut lex non est malum, quando auget peccantium concupiscentiam, ita nec mors bonum est, quando auget patientium gloriam, cum uel illa pro iniquitate deseritur et efficit praeuaricatores, uel ista pro ueritate suscipitur et efficit martyres. Ac per hoc lex quidem bona est, quia prohibitio est peccati; mors autem mala, quia stipendium est peccati; sed quem ad modum iniustitia male utitur non tantum malis, uerum etiam bonis: ita iustitia bene non tantum bonis, sed etiam malis. Hinc fit, ut et mali male lege utantur, quamuis sit lex bonum, et boni bene moriantur, quamuis sit mors malum.

### Of the Evil of Death in General, Considered as the Separation of Soul and Body.

[¶21] Chapter 6.—Of the Evil of Death in General, Considered as the Separation of Soul and Body.

> Latin: Caput VI. De generali mortis malo, quo animae et corporis societas separatur.

[¶22] Wherefore, as regards bodily death, that is, the separation of the soul from the body, it is good unto none while it is being endured by those whom we say are in the article of death. For the very violence with which body and soul are wrenched asunder, which in the living had been conjoined and closely intertwined, brings with it a harsh experience, jarring horridly on nature so long as it continues, till there comes a total loss of sensation, which arose from the very interpenetration of spirit and flesh. And all this anguish is sometimes forestalled by one stroke of the body or sudden flitting of the soul, the swiftness of which prevents it from being felt. But whatever that may be in the dying which with violently painful sensation robs of all sensation, yet, when it is piously and faithfully borne, it increases the merit of patience, but does not make the name of punishment inapplicable. Death, proceeding by ordinary generation from the first man, is the punishment of all who are born of him, yet, if it be endured for righteousness’ sake, it becomes the glory of those who are born again; and though death be the award of sin, it sometimes secures that nothing be awarded to sin.

> Latin: Quapropter quod adtinet ad corporis mortem, id est separationem animae a corpore, cum eam patiuntur, qui morientes appellantur, nulli bona est. Habet enim asperum sensum et contra naturam uis ipsa, qua utrumque diuellitur, quod fuerat in uiuente coniunctum adque consertum, quamdiu moratur, donec omnis adimatur sensus, qui ex ipso inerat animae carnisque conplexu. Quam totam molestiam nonnumquam unus ictus corporis uel animae raptus intercipit nec eam sentiri praeueniente celeritate permittit. Quidquid tamen illud est in morientibus, quod cum graui sensu adimit sensum, pie fideliterque tolerando auget meritum patientiae, non aufert uocabulum poenae. Ita cum ex hominis primi perpetuata propagine procul dubio sit mors poena nascentis. tamen si pro pietate iustitiaque pendatur, fit gloria renascentis; et cum sit mors peccati retributio, aliquando inpetrat, ut nihil retribuatur peccato.

## 61. Of the Death Which the Unbaptized Suffer for the Confession of Christ.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/61/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/61/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 7.—Of the Death Which the Unbaptized Suffer for the Confession of Christ.

> Latin: Caput VII. De morte, quam quidam non regenerati pro Christi confessione suscipiunt.

[¶1] For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who 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 favor, in that other sentence where He no less 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 my sake, shall find it.” And this explains the verse, “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.” For what is more precious than a death by which a man’s sins are all forgiven, and his merits increased an hundredfold? For those who have been baptized when they could no longer escape death, and have departed this life with all their sins blotted out have not equal merit with those who did not defer death, though it was in their power to do so, but preferred to end their life by confessing Christ, rather than by denying Him to secure an opportunity of baptism. And even had they denied Him under pressure of the fear of death, this too would have been forgiven them in that baptism, in which was remitted even the enormous wickedness of those who had slain Christ. But how abundant in these men must have been the grace of the Spirit, who breathes where He listeth, seeing that they so dearly loved Christ as to be unable to deny Him even in so sore an emergency, and with so sure a hope of pardon! Precious, therefore, is the death of the saints, to whom the grace of Christ has been applied with such gracious effects, that they do not hesitate to meet death themselves, if so be they might meet Him. And precious is it, also, because it has proved that what was originally ordained for the punishment of the sinner, has been used for the production of a richer harvest of righteousness. But not on this account should we look upon death as a good thing, for it is diverted to such useful purposes, not by any virtue of its own, but by the divine interference. Death was originally proposed as an object of dread, that sin might not be committed; now it must be undergone that sin may not be committed, or, if committed, be remitted, and the award of righteousness bestowed on him whose victory has earned it.

> Latin: Nam quicumque etiam non percepto regenerationis lauacro pro Christi confessione moriuntur, tantum eis ualet ad dimittenda peccata, quantum si abluerentur sacro fonte baptismatis. Qui enim dixit: Si quis non renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu, non intrabit in regnum caelorum, alia sententia istos fecit exceptos, ubi non minus generaliter ait: Qui me confessus fuerit coram hominibus confitebor [et ego] eum coram Patre meo qui in caelis est; et alio loco: Qui perdiderit animam suam propter me, inueniet eam. Hinc -est quod scriptum est: Pretiosa in conspectu Domini mors sanctorum eius. Quid enim pretiosius quam mors, per quam fit ut et delicta omnia dimittantur et merita cumulatius augeantur? Neque enim tanti sunt meriti, qui, cum mortem differre non possent, baptizati sunt deletisque omnibus peccatis ex hac uita emigrarunt, quanti sunt hi, qui mortem, cum possent, ideo non distulerunt, quia maluerunt Christum confitendo finire uitam quam eum negando ad eius baptismum peruenire. Quod utique si fecissent, etiam hoc eis in illo lauacro dimitteretur, quod timore mortis negauerant Christum, in quo lauacro et illis facinus tam inmane dimissum est, qui occiderant Christum. Sed quando sine abundantia gratiae Spiritus illius, qui ubi uult spirat, tantum Christum amare possent, ut eum in tanto uitae discrimine sub tanta spe ueniae negare non possent? Mors igitur pretiosa sanctorum, quibus cum tanta gratia est praemissa et praerogata mors Christi, ut ad eum adquirendum suam non cunctarentur inpendere, in eos usus redactum esse monstrauit, quod ad poenam peccati antea fuerat constitutum, ut inde iustitiae fructus uberior nasceretur. Mors ergo non ideo bonum uideri debet, quia in tantam utilitatem non ui sua, sed diuina opitulatione conuersa est, ut, quae tunc metuenda proposita est, ne peccatum committeretur, nunc suscipienda proponatur, ut peccatum non committatur commissumque deleatur magnaeque uictoriae debita iustitiae palma reddatur.

### That the Saints, by Suffering the First Death for the Truth’s Sake, are Freed from the Second.

[¶3] Chapter 8.—That the Saints, by Suffering the First Death for the Truth’s Sake, are Freed from the Second.

> Latin: Caput VIII. Quod in sanctis primae mortis pro ueritate susceptio secundae sit mortis abolitio.

[¶4] For if we look at the matter a little more carefully, we shall see that even when a man dies faithfully and laudably for the truth’s sake, it is still death he is avoiding. For he submits to some part of death, for the very purpose of avoiding the whole, and the second and eternal death over and above. He submits to the separation of soul and body, lest the soul be separated both from God and from the body, and so the whole first death be completed, and the second death receive him everlastingly. Wherefore death is indeed, as I said, good to none while it is being actually suffered, and while it is subduing the dying to its power; but it is meritoriously endured for the sake of retaining or winning what is good. And regarding what happens after death, it is no absurdity to say that death is good to the good, and evil to the evil. For the disembodied spirits of the just are at rest; but those of the wicked suffer punishment till their bodies rise again,—those of the just to life everlasting, and of the others to death eternal, which is called the second death.

> Latin: Si enim diligentius consideremus, etiam cum quisque pro ueritate fideliter et laudabiliter moritur, mors cauetur. Ideo quippe aliquid eius suscipitur, ne tota contingat et secunda insuper, quae numquam finiatur, accedat. Suscipitur enim animae a corpore separatio, ne Deo ab anima separato etiam ipsa separetur a corpore, ac sic totius hominis prima morte conpleta secunda excipiat sempiterna. Quocirca mors quidem, ut dixi, cum eam morientes patiuntur cumque in eis ut moriantur facit, nemini bona est, sed laudabiliter toleraretur pro tenendo uel adipiscendo bono; cum uero in ea sunt, qui iam mortui nuncupantur, non absurde dicitur et malis mala et bonis bona. In requie sunt enim animae piorum a corpore separatae, inpiorum autem poenas luunt, donec istarum ad aeternam uitam, illarum uero ad aeternam mortem, quae secunda dicitur, corpora reuiuescant.

### Whether We Should Say that The Moment of Death, in Which Sensation Ceases, Occurs in the Experience of the Dying or in that of the Dead.

[¶6] Chapter 9.—Whether We Should Say that The Moment of Death, in Which Sensation Ceases, Occurs in the Experience of the Dying or in that of the Dead.

> Latin: Caput IX. Tempus mortis, quo uitae sensus aufertur, in morientibus an in mortuis esse dicendum sit.

[¶7] The point of time in which the souls of the good and evil are separated from the body, are we to say it is after death, or in death rather? If it is after death, then it is not death which is good or evil, since death is done with and past, but it is the life which the soul has now entered on. Death was an evil when it was present, that is to say, when it was being suffered by the dying; for to them it brought with it a severe and grievous experience, which the good make a good use of. But when death is past, how can that which no longer is be either good or evil? Still further, if we examine the matter more closely, we shall see that even that sore and grievous pain which the dying experience is not death itself. For so long as they have any sensation, they are certainly still alive; and, if still alive, must rather be said to be in a state previous to death than in death. For when death actually comes, it robs us of all bodily sensation, which, while death is only approaching is painful. And thus it is difficult to explain how we speak of those who are not yet dead, but are agonized in their last and mortal extremity, as being in the article of death. 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 last extremity of life, and, as we say, giving up the ghost, yet lives. The same person is therefore at once dying and living, but drawing near to death, departing from life; yet in life, because his spirit yet abides in the body; not yet in death, because not yet has his spirit forsaken the body. But if, when it has forsaken 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 one can be called dying, if a man cannot be dying and living at the same time; and as long as the soul is in the body, we cannot deny that he is living. On the other hand, if the man who is approaching death be rather called dying, I know not who is living.

> Latin: Sed id tempus, quo animae a corpore separatae aut in bonis sunt aut in malis, utrum post mortem potius an in morte dicendum est? Si enim post mortem est, iam non ipsa mors. quae transacta adque praeterita est, sed post eam uita praesens animae bona seu mala est. Mors autem tunc eis mala erat, quando erat, hoc est quando eam patiebantur, cum morerentur, quoniam grauis et molestus eius inerat sensus; quo malo bene utuntur boni. Peracta autem mors quonam modo uel bona uel mala est, quae iam non est? Porro si adhuc diligentius adtendamus, nec illa mors esse apparebit, cuius grauem ac molestum in morientibus diximus sensum. Quamdiu enim sentiunt, adhuc utique uiuunt, et si adhuc uiuunt, ante mortem quam in morte potius esse dicendi sunt; quia illa, cum uenerit, aufert omnem corporis sensum, qui ea propinquante molestus est. Ac per hoc quo modo morientes dicamus eos, qui nondum mortui sunt, sed inminente morte iam extrema et mortifera adflictione iactantur, explicare difficile est, etiamsi recte isti appellantur morientes, quia, cum mors quae iam inpendet aduenerit, non morientes, sed mortui nuncupantur. Nullus est ergo moriens nisi uiuens, quoniam, cum in tanta est extremitate uitae, in quanta sunt quos agere animam dicimus, profecto qui nondum anima caruit adhuc uiuit. Idem ipse igitur simul et moriens est et uiuens, sed morti accedens, uita cedens; adhuc tamen in uita, quia inest anima corpori; nondum autem in morte, quia nondum abscessit a corpore. Sed si, cum abscesserit, nec tunc in morte, sed post mortem potius erit: quando sit in morte quis dixerit? Nam neque ullus moriens erit, si moriens et uiuens simul esse nullus potest. Quamdiu quippe anima in corpore est, non possumus negare uiuentem. Aut si moriens potius dicendus est, in cuius iam corpore agitur ut moriatur, nec simul quisquam potest esse uiuens et moriens: nescio quando sit uiuens.

### Of the Life of Mortals, Which is Rather to Be Called Death Than Life.

[¶9] Chapter 10.—Of the Life of Mortals, Which is Rather to Be Called Death Than Life.

> Latin: Caput X. An uita mortalium mors potius quam uita dicenda sit.

[¶10] For no sooner do we begin to live in this dying body, than we begin to move ceaselessly towards death. For in the whole course of this life (if life we must call it) its mutability tends towards death. Certainly there is no one who is not nearer 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 live is deducted from our whole term of life, and that which remains is daily becoming less and less; so that our whole life is nothing but a race towards death, in which no one is allowed to stand still for a little space, or to go somewhat more slowly, but all are driven forwards with an impartial movement, and with equal rapidity. For he whose life is short spends a day no more swiftly than he whose life is longer. But while the equal moments are impartially snatched from both, the one has a nearer and the other a more remote goal to reach with this their equal speed. It is one thing to make a longer journey, and another to walk more slowly. He, therefore, who spends longer time on his way to death does not proceed at a more leisurely pace, but goes over more ground. Further, if every man begins to die, that is, is in death, as soon as death has begun to show itself in him (by taking away life, to wit; for when life is all taken away, the man will be then not in death, but after death), then he begins to die so soon as he begins to live. For what else is going on in all his days, hours, and moments, until this slow-working death is fully consummated? And then comes the time after death, instead of that in which life was being withdrawn, and which we called being in death. Man, then, is never in life from the moment he dwells in this dying rather than living body,—if, at least, he cannot be in life and death at once. Or rather, shall we say, he is in both?—in life, namely, which he lives till all is consumed; but in death also, which he dies as his life is consumed? For if he is not in life, what is it which is consumed till all be gone? And if he is not in death, what is this consumption itself? For when the whole of life has been consumed, the expression “after death” would be meaningless, had that consumption not been death. And if, when it has all been consumed, a man is not in death but after death, when is he in death unless when life is being consumed away?

> Latin: Ex - quo enim quisque in isto corpore morituro esse coeperit, numquam in eo non agitur ut mors ueniat. Hoc enim agit eius mutabilitas toto tempore uitae huius (si tamen uita dicenda est), ut ueniatur in mortem. Nemo quippe est, qui non ei post annum sit, quam ante annum fuit, et cras quam hodie, et hodie quam heri, et paulo post quam nunc, et nunc quam paulo ante propinquior; quoniam, quidquid temporis uiuitur, de spatio uiuendi demitur, et cottidie fit minus minusque quod restat, ut omnino nihil sit aliud tempus uitae huius, quam cursus ad mortem, in quo nemo uel paululum stare uel aliquanto tardius ire permittitur; sed urgentur omnes pari motu nec diuerso inpelluntur accessu. Neque enim, cui uita breuior fuit, celerius diem duxit quam ille, cui longior; sed cum aequaliter et aequalia momenta raperentur ambobus, alter habuit propius, alter remotius, quo non inpari uelocitate ambo currebant. Aliud est autem amplius uiae peregisse, aliud tardius ambulasse. Qui ergo usque ad mortem productiora spatia temporis agit, non lentius pergit, sed plus itineris conficit. Porro si ex illo quisque incipit mori, hoc est esse in morte, ex quo in illo agi coeperit ipsa mors, id est uitae detractio (quia, cum detrahendo finita fuerit, post mortem iam erit, non in morte): profecto, ex quo esse incipit in hoc corpore, in morte est. Quid enim aliud diebus horis momentisque singulis agitur, donec ea consumta mors, quae agebatur, inpleatur, et incipiat iam tempus esse post mortem, quod, cum uita detraheretur, erat in morte? Numquam igitur in uita homo est, ex quo est in isto corpore moriente potius quam uiuente, si et in uita et in morte simul non potest esse. An potius et in uita et in morte simul est; in uita scilicet, in qua uiuit, donec tota detrahatur; in morte autem, quia iam moritur, cum uita detrahitur? Si enim non est in uita, quid est quod detrahitur, donec eius fiat perfecta consumtio? Si autem non est in morte, quid est uitae ipsa detractio? Non enim frustra, cum uita fuerit corpori tota detracta, post mortem iam dicitur, nisi quia mors erat, cum detraheretur. Nam si ea detracta non est homo in morte, sed post mortem: quando, nisi cum detrahitur, erit in morte?

### Whether One Can Both Be Living and Dead at the Same Time.

[¶12] Chapter 11.—Whether One Can Both Be Living and Dead at the Same Time.

> Latin: Caput XI. An quisquam simul et uiuens esse possit et mortuus.

[¶13] But if it is absurd to say that a man is in death before he reaches death (for to what is his course running as he passes through life, if already he is in death?), and if it outrage common usage to speak of a man being at once alive and dead, as much as it does so to speak of him as at once asleep and awake, it remains to be asked when a man is dying? For, before death comes, he is not dying but living; and when death has come, he is not dying but dead. The one is before, the other after death. When, then, is he in death so that we can say he is dying? For as there are three times, before death, in death, after death, so there are three states corresponding, living, dying, dead. And it is very hard to define when a man is in death or dying, when he is neither living, which is before death, nor dead, which is after death, but dying, which is in death. For so long as the soul is in the body, especially if consciousness remain, the man certainly lives; 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 bodily sensation 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 ceased to live, death is past. Never, then, is he dying, that is, comprehended in the state of death. So also in the passing of time,—you try to lay your finger on the present, and cannot find it, because the present occupies no space, but is only the transition of time from the future to the past. Must we then 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 one can be in it? Since, indeed, if there is yet life, death is not yet; for this state is before death, not in death: and if life has already ceased, death is not present; for this state is after death, not in death. On the other hand, if there is no death before or after, what do we mean when we say “after death,” or “before death?” This is a foolish way of speaking if there is no death. And would that we had lived so well in Paradise that in very truth there were now no death! But not only does it now exist, but so grievous a thing is it, that no skill is sufficient either to explain or to escape it.

> Latin: Si autem absurdum est, ut hominem, antequam ad mortem perueniat, iam esse dicamus in morte (cui enim propinquat peragendo uitae suae tempora, si iam in illa est?), maxime quia nimis est insolens, ut simul et uiuens esse dicatur et moriens, cum uigilans et dormiens simul esse non possit: quaerendum est quando erit moriens. Etenim antequam mors ueniat, non est moriens, sed uiuens; cum uero mors uenerit, mortuus erit, non moriens. Illud ergo est adhuc ante mortem, hoc iam post mortem. Quando ergo in morte? Tunc enim est moriens, ut, quem ad modum tria sunt cum dicimus ante mortem, in morte, post mortem’, ita tria singulis singula ‘uiuens, moriens mortuusque reddantur. Quando itaque sit moriens, id est in morte, ubi neque sit uiuens, quod est ante mortem, neque mortuus, quod est post mortem, sed moriens, id est in morte, difficillime definitur. Quamdiu quippe est anima in corpore, maxime si etiam sensus adsit, procul dubio uiuit homo, qui constat ex anima et corpore, ac per hoc adhuc ante mortem, non in morte esse dicendus est; cum uero anima abscesserit omnemque abstulerit corporis sensum, iam post mortem mortuusque perhibetur. Perit igitur inter utrumque, quo moriens uel in morte sit; quoniam si adhuc uiuit, ante mortem est; si uiuere destitit, iam post mortem est. Numquam ergo moriens, id est in morte, esse conprehenditur. Ita etiam in transcursu temporum quaeritur praesens, nec inuenitur, quia sine ullo spatio est, per quod transitur ex futuro in praeteritum. Nonne ergo uidendum est, ne ista ratione mors corporis nulla esse dicatur? Si enim est, quando est, quae in ullo et in qua ullus esse non potest? Quando quidem si uiuitur, adhuc non est, quia hoc ante mortem, non in morte; si autem uiuere iam cessatum est, iam non est, quia et hoc post mortem est, non in morte. Sed rursus si nulla mors est ante quid uel post, quid est quod dicitur ante mortem siue post mortem? Nam et hoc inaniter dicitur, si mors nulla est. Adque utinam in paradiso bene uiuendo egissemus, ut re uera nulla mors esset. Nunc autem non solum est, uerum etiam tam molesta est, ut nec ulla explicari locutione possit nec ulla ratione uitari.

[¶14] Let us, then, speak in the customary way,—no man ought to speak otherwise,—and let us call the time before death come, “before death;” as it is written, “Praise no man before his death.” And when it has happened, let us say that “after death” this or that took place. And of the present time let us speak as best we can, as when we say, “He, when dying, made his will, and left this or that to such and such persons,”—though, of course, he could not do so unless he were living, and did this rather before death than in death. And let us use the same phraseology as Scripture uses; for it makes no scruple of saying that the dead are not after but in death. So that verse, “For in death there is no remembrance of thee.” For until the resurrection men are justly said to be in death; as every one is said to be in sleep till he awakes. However, though we can say of persons in sleep that they are sleeping, we cannot speak in this way of the dead, and say they are dying. For, so far as regards the death of the body, of which we are now speaking, one cannot say that those who are already separated from their bodies continue 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 in death. For how can they be after death if they be in death, especially when we do not even call them dying, as we call those in sleep, sleeping; and those in languor, languishing; and those in grief, grieving; and those in life, living? And yet the dead, until they rise again, are said to be in death, but cannot be called dying.

> Latin: Loquamur ergo secundum consuetudinem (non enim aliter debemus) et dicamus (ante mortem’, priusquam mors accidat; sicut scriptum est: Ante mortem ne laudes hominem quemquam. Dicamus etiam cum acciderit: Post mortem illius uel illius factum est illud aut illud. Dicamus et de praesenti tempore ut possumus, uelut cum ita loquimur: Moriens ille testatus est, et: Illis adque illis illud adque illud moriens dereliquit; quamuis hoc nisi uiuens omnino facere non posset et potius hoc ante mortem fecerit, non in morte. Loquamur etiam sicut loquitur scriptura diuina, quae mortuos quoque non post mortem, sed in morte esse non dubitat dicere. Hinc enim est illud: Quoniam non est in morte, qui memor sit tui. Donec enim reuiuescant, recte esse dicuntur in morte, sicut in somno esse quisque, donec euigilet, dicitur; quamuis in somno positos dicamus dormientes, nec tamen eo modo possumus dicere eos, qui iam sunt mortui, morientes. Non enim adhuc moriuntur, qui, quantum adtinet ad corporis mortem, de qua nunc disserimus, iam sunt a corporibus separati. Sed hoc est, quod dixi explicari aliqua locutione non posse. quonam modo uel morientes dicantur uiuere uel iam mortui etiam post mortem adhuc esse dicantur in morte. Quo modo enim post mortem, si adhuc in morte? praesertim cum eos nec morientes dicamus, sicuti eos, qui in somno sunt, dicimus dormientes, et qui in languore, languentes, et qui in dolore, utique dolentes, et qui in uita, uiuentes; at uero mortui, priusquam resurgant, esse dicuntur in morte, nec tamen possunt appellari morientes.

[¶15] 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 word moritur cannot be declined by the grammarians according to the rule followed by similar words. For oritur gives the form ortus est for the perfect; and all similar verbs form this tense from their perfect participles. But if we ask the perfect of moritur, we get the regular answer mortuus est, with a double u. For thus mortuus is pronounced, like fatuus, arduus, conspicuus, and similar words, which are not perfect participles but adjectives, and are declined without regard to tense. But mortuus, though in form an adjective, is used as perfect participle, as if that were to be declined which cannot be declined; and thus it has suitably come to pass that, as the thing itself cannot in point of fact be declined, so neither can the word significant of the act be declined. Yet, by the aid of our Redeemer’s grace, we may manage at least to decline the second. For that is more grievous still, and, indeed, of all evils the worst, since it consists not in the separation of soul and body, but in the uniting of both in death eternal. And there, in striking contrast to our present conditions, men will not be before or after death, but always in death; and thus never living, never dead, but endlessly dying. And never can a man be more disastrously in death than when death itself shall be deathless.

> Latin: Unde non inportune neque incongrue arbitror accidisse, etsi non humana industria, iudicio fortasse diuino, ut hoc uerbum, quod est moritur, in Latina lingua nec grammatici declinare potuerint, ea regula qua cetera talia declinantur. Namque ab eo quod est oritur, fit uerbum praeteriti temporis ‘ortus est’; et si qua similia sunt, per temporis praeteriti participia declinantur. Ab eo uero, quod est moritur, si quaeramus praeteriti temporis uerbum, responderi adsolet ‘mortuus est>, u littera geminata. Sic enim dicitur mortuus, quo modo fatuus, arduus, [carduus], conspicuus et si qua similia, quae non sunt praeteriti temporis, sed quoniam nomina sunt, sine tempore declinantur. Illud autem, quasi ut declinetur, quod declinari non potest, pro participio praeteriti temporis ponitur nomen. Conuenienter itaque factum est, ut, quem ad modum id quod significat non potest agendo, ita ipsum uerbum non posset loquendo declinari. Agi tamen potest in adiutorio gratiae Redemtoris nostri, ut saltem secundam mortem declinare possimus. Illa est enim grauior et omnium malorum pessima, quae non fit separatione animae et corporis, sed in aeternam poenam potius utriusque conplexu. Ibi e contrario non erunt homines ante mortem adque post mortem, sed semper in morte; ac per hoc numquam uiuentes, numquam mortui, sed sine fine morientes. Numquam enim erit homini peius in morte, quam ubi erit mors ipsa sine morte.

### What Death God Intended, When He Threatened Our First Parents with Death If They Should Disobey His Commandment.

[¶17] Chapter 12.—What Death God Intended, When He Threatened Our First Parents with Death If They Should Disobey His Commandment.

> Latin: Caput XII. Quam mortem primis hominibus Deus, si mandatum eius transgrederentur, fuerit comminatus.

[¶18] When, therefore, it is asked what death it was with which God threatened our first parents if they should transgress the commandment they had received from Him, and should fail to preserve their obedience,—whether it was the death of soul, or of body, or of the whole man, or that which is called second death,—we must answer, It is all. For the first consists of two; the second is the complete death, which consists of all. For, as the whole earth consists of many lands, and the Church universal of many churches, so death universal consists of all deaths. The first consists of two, one of the body, and another of the soul. So that the first death is a death of the whole man, since the soul without God and without the body suffers punishment for a time; but the second is when the soul, without God but with the body, suffers punishment everlasting. When, therefore, God said to that first man whom he had placed in Paradise, referring to the forbidden fruit, “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” that threatening included not only the first part of the first death, by which the soul is deprived of God; nor only the subsequent part of the first death, by which the body is deprived of the soul; nor only the whole first death itself, by which the soul is punished in separation from God and from the body;—but it includes whatever of death there is, even to that final death which is called second, and to which none is subsequent.

> Latin: Cum ergo requiritur, quam mortem Deus primis hominibus fuerit comminatus, si ab eo mandatum transgrederentur acceptum nec oboedientiam custodirent, utrum animae an corporis an totius hominis an illam quae appellatur secunda: respondendum est: Omnes. Prima enim constat ex duabus, [secunda] ex omnibus tota. Sicut enim uniuersa terra ex multis terris et uniuersa ecclesia ex multis constat ecclesiis: sic uniuersa mors ex omnibus. Quoniam prima constat ex duabus, una animae, altera corporis; ut sit prima totius hominis mors, cum anima sine Deo et sine corpore ad tempus poenas luit; secunda uero, ubi anima sine Deo cum corpore poenas aeternas luit. Quando ergo dixit Deus primo illi homini, quem in paradiso constituerat, de cibo uetito: Quacumque die ederitis ex illo, morte moriemini: non tantum primae mortis partem priorem, ubi anima priuatur Deo, nec tantum posteriorem, ubi corpus priuatur anima, nec solam ipsam totam primam, ubi anima et a Deo et a corpore separata punitur; sed quidquid mortis est usque ad nouissimam, quae secunda dicitur, qua est nulla posterior, comminatio illa conplexa est.

### What Was the First Punishment of the Transgression of Our First Parents.

[¶20] Chapter 13.—What Was the First Punishment of the Transgression of Our First Parents.

> Latin: Caput XIII. Praeuaricatio primorum hominum quam primam senserit poenam.

[¶21] 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 took fig-leaves (which were possibly the first that came to hand in their troubled state of mind), and covered their shame; for though their members remained the same, they had shame now where they had none before. They experienced a new motion of their flesh, which had become disobedient to them, in strict retribution of their own disobedience to God. For the soul, revelling in its own liberty, and scorning to serve God, was itself deprived of the command it had formerly maintained over the body. And because it had willfully deserted its superior Lord, it no longer held its own inferior servant; neither could it hold the flesh subject, as it would always have been able to do had it remained itself subject to God. Then began the flesh to lust against the Spirit, in which strife we are born, deriving from the first transgression a seed of death, and bearing in our members, and in our vitiated nature, the contest or even victory of the flesh.

> Latin: Nam postea quam praecepti facta transgressio est, confestim gratia deserente diuina de corporum suorum nuditate confusi sunt. Unde etiam foliis ficulneis, quae forte a perturbatis prima conperta sunt, pudenda texerunt; quae prius eadem membra erant, sed pudenda non erant. Senserunt ergo nouum motum inoboedientis carnis suae, tamquam reciprocam poenam inboedientiae suae. Iam quippe anima libertate in peruersum propria delectata et Deo dedignata seruire pristino corporis seruitio destituebatur, et quia superiorem dominum suo arbitrio deseruerat, inferiorem famulum ad suum arbitrium non tenebat, nec omni modo habebat subditam carnem, sicut semper habere potuisset, si Deo subdita ipsa mansisset. Tunc ergo coepit caro concupiscere aduersus spiritum, cum qua controuersia nati sumus, trahentes originem mortis et in membris nostris uitiataque natura contentionem eius siue uictoriam de prima praeuaricatione gestantes.

### In What State Man Was Made by God, and into What Estate He Fell by the Choice of His Own Will.

[¶23] Chapter 14.—In What State Man Was Made by God, and into What Estate He Fell by the Choice of His Own Will.

> Latin: Caput XIV. Qualis homo sit factus a Deo et in quam sortem deciderit suae uoluntatis arbitrio.

[¶24] For God, the author of natures, not of vices, created man upright; but man, being of his own will corrupted, and justly condemned, begot corrupted and condemned children. For we all were in that one man, since we all were that one man, who fell into sin by the woman who was made from him before the sin. For not yet was the particular form created and distributed to us, in which we as individuals were to live, but already the seminal nature was there from which we were to be propagated; and this being vitiated by sin, and bound by the chain of death, and justly condemned, man could not be born of man in any other state. And thus, from the bad use of free will, there originated the whole train of evil, which, with its concatenation of miseries, convoys the human race from its depraved origin, as from a corrupt root, on to the destruction of the second death, which has no end, those only being excepted who are freed by the grace of God.

> Latin: Deus enim creauit hominem rectum, naturarum auctor, non utique uitiorum; sed sponte deprauatus iusteque damnatus deprauatos damnatosque generauit. Omnes enim fuimus in illo uno, quando omnes fuimus ille unus, qui per feminam lapsus est in peccatum, quae de illo facta est ante peccatum. Nondum erat nobis singillatim creata et distributa forma, in qua singuli uiueremus; sed iam erat natura seminalis, ex qua propagaremur; qua scilicet propter peccatum uitiata et uinculo mortis obstricta iusteque damnata non alterius condicionis homo ex homine nasceretur. Ac per hoc a liberi arbitrii malo usu series calamitatis huius exorta est, quae humanum genus origine deprauata, uelut radice corrupta, usque ad secundae mortis exitium, quae non habet finem, solis eis exceptis qui per Dei gratiam liberantur, miseriarum conexione perducit.

## 62. That Adam in His Sin Forsook God Ere God Forsook Him, and that His Falling Away From God Was the First Death of the Soul.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/62/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/62/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 15.—That Adam in His Sin Forsook God Ere God Forsook Him, and that His Falling Away From God Was the First Death of the Soul.

> Latin: Caput XV. Quod Adam peccaturus prius ipse reliquerit Deum, quam relinqueretur a Deo, et primam fuisse animae mortem a Deo recessisse.

[¶1] It may perhaps be supposed that because God said, “Ye shall die the death,” and not “deaths,” we should understand only that death which occurs when the soul is deserted by God, who is its life; for it was not deserted by God, and so deserted Him, but deserted Him, and so was deserted by Him. For its own will was the originator of its evil, as God was the originator of its motions towards good, both in making it when it was not, and in remaking it when it had fallen and perished. But though we suppose that God meant only this death, and that the words, “In the day ye eat of it ye shall die the death,” should be understood as meaning, “In the day ye desert me in disobedience, I will desert you in justice,” yet assuredly in this death the other deaths also were threatened, which were its inevitable consequence. For in the first stirring of the disobedient motion which was felt in the flesh of the disobedient soul, and which caused our first parents to cover their 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 by fear, had hid himself, “Adam, where art thou?”—words which He used not in ignorance of inquiry, but warning him to consider where he was, since God was not with him.) But when the soul itself forsook the body, corrupted and decayed with age, the other death was experienced of which God had spoken in pronouncing man’s sentence, “Earth thou art, and unto earth shall thou return.” And of these two deaths that first death of the whole man is composed. And this first death is finally followed by the second, unless man be freed by grace. For the body would not return to the earth from which it was made, save only by the death proper to itself, which occurs when it is forsaken of the soul, its life. And therefore it is agreed among all Christians who truthfully hold the catholic faith, that we are subject to the death of the body, not by the law of nature, by which God ordained no death for man, but by His righteous infliction on account of sin; for God, taking vengeance on sin, said to the man, in whom we all then were, “Dust thou art, and unto dust shall thou return.”

> Latin: Quam obrem etiamsi in eo quod dictum est: Morte moriemini, quoniam non est dictum: Mortibus, eam solam intellegamus, quae fit cum anima deseritur sua uita, quod illi Deus est (non enim deserta est ut desereret, sed ut desereretur deseruit; ad malum quippe eius prior est uoluntas eius; ad bonum uero eius prior est uoluntas Creatoris eius; siue ut eam faceret, quae nulla erat, siue ut reficiat, quia lapsa perierat), — etiamsi ergo hanc intellegamus Deum denuntiasse mortem in eo quod ait: Qua die ederitis ex illo, morte moriemini, tamquam diceret: Qua die me deserueritis per inoboedientiam, deseram uos per iustitiam: profecto in ea morte etiam ceterae denuntiatae sunt, quae procul dubio fuerant secuturae. Nam in eo, quod inoboediens motus in carne animae inoboedientis exortus est, propter quem pudenda texerunt, sensa est mors una, in qua deseruit animam Deus. Ea significata est uerbis eius, quando timore dementi sese abscondenti homini dixit: Adam, ubi es? non utique ignorando quaerens, sed increpando admonens, ut adtenderet ubi esset, in quo Deus non esset. Cum uero corpus anima ipsa deseruit aetate corruptum et senectute confectum, uenit in experimentum mors altera, de qua Deus peccatum adhuc puniens homini dixerat: Terra es et in terram ibis; ut ex his duabus mors illa prima, quae totius est hominis, conpleretur, quam secunda in ultimo sequitur, nisi homo per gratiam liberetur. Neque enim corpus, quod de terra est, rediret in terram nisi sua morte, quae illi accidit, cum deseritur sua uita, id est anima. Unde constat inter Christianos ueraciter catholicam tenentes fidem etiam ipsam nobis corporis mortem non lege naturae, qua nullam mortem homini Deus fecit, sed merito inflictam esse peccati, quoniam peccatum uindicans Deus dixit homini, in quo tunc omnes eramus: Terra es et in terram ibis.

### Concerning the Philosophers Who Think that the Separation of Soul and Body is Not Penal, Though Plato Represents the Supreme Deity as Promising to the Inferior Gods that They Shall Never Be Dismissed from Their Bodies.

[¶3] Chapter 16.—Concerning the Philosophers Who Think that the Separation of Soul and Body is Not Penal, Though Plato Represents the Supreme Deity as Promising to the Inferior Gods that They Shall Never Be Dismissed from Their Bodies.

> Latin: Caput XVI. De philosophis, qui animae separationem a corpore non putant esse poenalem, cum Plato inducat summum deum dis minoribus promittentem, quod numquam sint corporibus exuendi. a

[¶4] But the philosophers against whom we are defending the city of God, that is, His Church seem to themselves to have good cause to deride us, because we say that the separation of the soul from the body is to be held as part of man’s punishment. For they suppose that the blessedness of the soul then only is complete, when it is quite denuded of the body, and returns to God a pure and simple, and, as it were, naked soul. On this point, if I should find nothing in their own literature to refute this opinion, I should be forced laboriously to demonstrate that it is not the body, but the corruptibility of the body, which is a burden to the soul. Hence that sentence of Scripture we quoted in a foregoing book, “For the corruptible body presseth down the soul.” The word corruptible is added to show that the soul is burdened, not by any body whatsoever, but by the body such as it has become in consequence of sin. And even though the word had not been added, we could understand nothing else. But when Plato most expressly declares that the gods who are made by the Supreme have immortal bodies, and when he introduces their Maker himself, promising them as a great boon that they should abide in their bodies eternally, and never by any death be loosed from them, why do these adversaries of ours, for the sake of troubling the Christian faith, feign to be ignorant of what they quite well know, and even prefer to contradict themselves rather than lose an opportunity of contradicting us? Here are Plato’s words, as Cicero has translated them, in which he introduces the Supreme addressing the gods He had made, and saying, “Ye who are sprung from a divine stock, consider of what works I am the parent and author. These (your bodies) are indestructible so long as I will it; although all that is composed can be destroyed. But it is wicked to dissolve what reason has compacted. But, seeing that ye have been born, ye cannot indeed be immortal and indestructible; yet ye shall by no means be destroyed, nor shall any fates consign you to death, and prove superior to my will, which is a stronger assurance of your perpetuity than those bodies to which ye were joined when ye were born.” Plato, you see, says that the gods are both mortal by the connection of the body and soul, and yet are 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 if they were afraid of death, that is, of the separation, of soul and body? Why does He seek to reassure them by promising them immortality, not in virtue of their nature, which is composite and not simple, but by virtue of His invincible will, whereby He can effect that neither things born die, nor things compounded be dissolved, but preserved eternally?

> Latin: Sed philosophi, contra quorum calumnias defendimus ciuitatem Dei, hoc est eius ecclesiam, sapienter sibi uidentur inridere, quod dicimus animae a corpore separationem inter poenas eius esse deputandam, quia uidelicet eius perfectam beatitudinem tunc illi fieri existimant, cum omni prorsus corpore exuta ad Deum simplex et sola et quodam modo nuda redierit. Ubi si nihil, quo ista refelleretur opinio, in eorum litteris inuenirem, operosius mihi disputandum esset, quo demonstrarem non corpus esse animae, sed corruptibile corpus onerosum. Unde illud est quod de scripturis nostris in superiore libro commemorauimus: Corpus enim corruptibile adgrauat animam. Addendo utique corruptibile non qualicumque corpore, sed quale factum est ex peccato consequente uindicta, animam perhibuit adgrauari. Quod etiamsi non addidisset, nihil aliud intellegere deberemus. Sed cum apertissime Plato deos a summo Deo factos habere inmortalia corpora praedicet eisque ipsum Deum, a quo facti sunt, inducat pro magno beneficio pollicentem, quod in aeternum cum suis corporibus permanebunt nec ab eis ulla morte soluentur: quid est quod isti ad exagitandam Christianam fidem fingunt se nescire quod sciunt, aut etiam sibi repugnantes aduersum se ipsos malunt dicere, dum nobis non desinant contradicere? Nempe Platonis haec uerba sunt, sicut ea Cicero in Latinum uertit, quibus inducit summum deum deos quos fecit adloquentem ac dicentem: Vos, qui deorum satu orti estis, adtendite: quorum operum ego parens effectorque sum, haec sunt indissolubilia me inuito, quamquam omne conligatum solui potest; sed haudquaquam bonum est ratione uinctum uelle dissoluere. Sed quoniam estis orti, inmortales uos quidem esse et indissolubiles non potestis; ne utiquam tamen dissoluemini, neque uos ulla mortis fata periment, nec erunt ualentiora quam consilium meum, quod maius est uinculum ad perpetuitatem uestram, quam illa quibus estis [tum, cum gignebamini,] conligati). Ecce deos Plato dicit et corporis animaeque conligatione mortales, et tamen inmortales dei a quo facti sunt uoluntate adque consilio. Si ergo animae poena est in qualicumque corpore conligari, quid est quod eos adloquens deus tamquam sollicitos, ne forte moriantur, id est dissoluantur a corpore, de sua facit inmortalitate securos; non propter eorum naturam, quae sit conpacta, non simplex, sed propter suam inuictissimam uoluntatem, qua potens est facere, ut nec orta occidant nec conexa soluantur, sed incorruptibiliter perseuerent?

[¶5] Whether this opinion of Plato’s about the stars is true or not, is another question. For we cannot at once grant to him that these luminous bodies or globes, which by day and night shine on the earth with the light of their bodily substance, have also intellectual and blessed souls which animate each its own body, as he confidently affirms of the universe itself, as if it were one huge animal, in which all other animals were contained. But this, as I said, is another question, which we have not undertaken to discuss at present. This much only I deemed right to bring forward, in opposition to those who so pride themselves on being, or on being called Platonists, that they blush to be Christians, and who cannot brook to be called by a name which the common people also bear, lest they vulgarize the philosophers’ coterie, which is proud in proportion to its exclusiveness. These men, seeking a weak point in the Christian doctrine, select for attack the eternity of the body, as if it were a contradiction to contend for the blessedness of the soul, and to wish it to be always resident in the body, bound, as it were, in a lamentable chain; and this although Plato, their own founder and master, affirms that it was granted by the Supreme as a boon to the gods He had made, that they should not die, that is, should not be separated from the bodies with which He had connected them.

> Latin: Et hoc quidem utrum Plato uerum de sideribus dicat, alia quaestio est. Neque enim ei continuo concedendum est globos istos luminum siue orbiculos luce corporea super terras seu die seu nocte fulgentes suis quibusdam propriis animis uiuere eisque intellectualibus et beatis, quod etiam de ipso uniuerso mundo, tamquam uno animali maximo, quo cuncta cetera continerentur animalia, instanter adfirmat. Sed haec, ut dixi, alia quaestio est, quam nunc discutiendam non suscepimus. Hoc tantum contra istos commemorandum putaui, qui se Platonicos uocari uel esse gloriantur, cuius superbia nominis erubescunt esse Christiani, ne commune illis cum uulgo uocabulum uilem faciat palliatorum tanto magis inflatam, quanto magis exiguam paucitatem; et quaerentes, quid in doctrina Christiana reprehendant, exagitant aeternitatem corporum, tamquam haec sint inter se contraria, ut et beatitudinem quaeramus animae et eam semper esse uelimus in corpore, uelut aerumnoso uinculo conligatam; cum eorum auctor et magister Plato donum a deo summo dis ab illo factis dicat esse concessum, ne aliquando moriantur, id est a corporibus, quibus eos conexuit, separentur.

### Against Those Who Affirm that Earthly Bodies Cannot Be Made Incorruptible and Eternal.

[¶7] Chapter 17.—Against Those Who Affirm that Earthly Bodies Cannot Be Made Incorruptible and Eternal.

> Latin: Caput XVII. Contra eos, qui adserunt corpora terrena in cor. ruptibilia fieri et aeterna non posse.

[¶8] These same philosophers further contend that terrestrial bodies cannot be eternal though they make no doubt that the whole earth, which is itself the central member of their god,—not, indeed, of the greatest, but yet of a great god, that is, of this whole world,—is eternal. Since, then, the Supreme made for them another god, that is, this world, superior to the other gods beneath Him; and since they suppose that this god is an animal, having, as they affirm, a rational or intellectual soul enclosed in the huge mass of its body, and having, as the fitly situated and adjusted members of its body, the four elements, whose union they wish to be indissoluble and eternal, lest perchance this great god of theirs might some day perish; what reason is there that the earth, which is the central member in the body of a greater creature, should be eternal, and the bodies of other terrestrial creatures should not possibly be eternal if God should so will it? But earth, say they, must return to earth, out of which the terrestrial bodies of the animals have been taken. For this, they say, is the reason of the necessity of their death and dissolution, and this the manner of their restoration to the solid and eternal earth whence they came. But if any one says the same thing of fire, holding that the bodies which are derived from it to make celestial beings must be restored to the universal fire, does not the immortality which Plato represents these gods as receiving from the Supreme evanesce in the heat of this dispute? Or does this not happen with those celestials because God, whose will, as Plato says, overpowers all powers, has willed it should not be so? What, then, hinders God from ordaining the same of terrestrial bodies? And since, indeed, Plato acknowledges that God can prevent things that are born from dying, and things that are joined from being sundered, and things that are composed from being dissolved, and can ordain that the souls once allotted to their bodies should never abandon them, but enjoy along with them immortality and everlasting bliss, why may He not also effect that terrestrial bodies die not? Is God powerless to do everything that is special to the Christian’s creed, but powerful to effect everything the Platonists desire? The philosophers, forsooth, have been admitted to a knowledge of the divine purposes and power which has been denied to the prophets! The truth is, that the Spirit of God taught His prophets so much of His will as He thought fit to reveal, but the philosophers, in their efforts to discover it, were deceived by human conjecture.

> Latin: Contendunt etiam isti terrestria corpora sempiterna esse non posse, cum ipsam uniuersam terram dei sui, non quidem summi, sed tamen magni, id est totius huius mundi, membrum in medio positum et sempiternum esse non dubitent. Cum ergo deus ille summus fecerit eis alterum quem putant deum, id est istum mundum, ceteris dis, qui infra eum sunt, praeferendum, eundemque esse existiment animantem, anima scilicet, sicut adserunt, rationali uel intellectuali in tam magna mole corporis eius inclusa, ipsiusque corporis tamquam membra locis suis posita adque digesta quattuor constituerit elementa, quorum iuncturam, ne umquam deus eorum tam magnus moriatur, insolubilem ac sempiternam uelint: quid causae est, ut in corpore maioris animantis tamquam medium membrum aeterna sit terra, et aliorum animantium terrestrium corpora, si Deus sicut illud uelit, aeterna esse non possint? Sed terrae, inquiunt, terra reddenda est, unde animalium terrestria sumta sunt corpora; ex quo fit, inquiunt, ut ea sit necesse dissolui et emori et eo modo terrae stabili ac sempiternae, unde fuerant sumta, restitui. Si quis hoc etiam de igne similiter adfirmet et dicat reddenda esse uniuerso igni corpora, quae inde sumta sunt, ut caelestia fierent animalia: nonne inmortalitas, quam talibus dis, uelut deo summo loquente, promisit Plato, tamquam uiolentia disputationis huius intercidet? An ibi propterea non fit, quia Deus non uult, cuius uoluntatem, ut ait Plato, nulla uis uincit? Quid ergo prohibet, ut hoc etiam de terrestribus corporibus Deus possit efficere, quandoquidem, ut nec ea quae orta sunt occidant nec ea quae sunt uincta soluantur nec ea quae sunt ex elementis sumta reddantur adque ut animae in corporibus constitutae nec umquam ea deserant et cum eis inmortalitate ac sempiterna beatitudine perfruantur, posse Deum facere confitetur Plato? Quur ergo non possit, ut nec terrestria moriantur? An Deus non est potens quo usque Christiani credunt, sed quo usque Platonici uolunt? Nimirum quippe consilium Dei et potestatem potuerunt philosophi, nec potuerunt nosse prophetae; cum potius e contrario Dei prophetas ad enuntiandam eius, quantum dignatus est, uoluntatem Spiritus eius docuerit, philosophos autem in ea cognoscenda coniectura humana deceperit.

[¶9] But they should not have been so led astray, I will not say by their ignorance, but by their obstinacy, as to contradict themselves so frequently; for they maintain, with all their vaunted might, that in order to the happiness of the soul, it must abandon not only its earthly body, but every kind of body. And yet they hold that the gods, whose souls are most blessed, are bound to everlasting bodies, the celestials to fiery bodies, and the soul of Jove himself (or this world, as they would have us believe) to all the physical elements which compose this entire mass reaching from earth to heaven. For this soul Plato believes to be extended and diffused by musical numbers, from the middle of the inside of the earth, which geometricians call the centre, outwards through all its parts to the utmost heights and extremities of the heavens; so that this world is a very great and blessed immortal animal, whose soul has both the perfect blessedness of wisdom, and never leaves its own body and whose body has life everlasting from the soul, and by no means clogs or hinders it, though itself be not a simple body, but compacted of so many and so huge materials. Since, therefore, they allow so much to their own conjectures, why do they refuse to believe that by the divine will and power immortality can be conferred on earthly bodies, in which the souls would be neither oppressed with the burden of them, nor separated from them by any death, but live eternally and blessedly? Do they not assert that their own gods so live in bodies of fire, and that Jove himself, their king, so lives in the physical elements? If, in order to its blessedness, the soul must quit every kind of body, let their gods flit from the starry spheres, and Jupiter from earth to sky; or, if they cannot do so, let them be pronounced miserable. But neither alternative will these men adopt. For, on the one hand, they dare not ascribe to their own gods a departure from the body, lest they should seem to worship mortals; 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 of body, but only the corruptible, cumbersome, painful, dying,—not such bodies as the goodness of God contrived for the first man, but such only as man’s sin entailed.

> Latin: Verum non usque adeo decipi debuerunt, non solum ignorantia, uerum etiam peruicacia, ut et sibi apertissime refragentur magnis disputationum uiribus adserentes animae, ut beata esse possit, non terrenum tantum, sed omne corpus esse fugiendum, et deos rursus dicentes habere beatissimas animas et tamen aeternis corporibus inligatas, caelestes quidem igneis, Iouis autem ipsius animam, quem mundum istum uolunt, omnibus omnino corporeis elementis, quibus haec tota moles a terra in caelum surgit, inclusam. Hanc enim animam Plato ab intimo terrae medio, quod geometrae centron uocant, per omnes partes eius usque ad caeli summa et extrema diffundi et extendi per numeros musicos opinatur, ut sit iste mundus animal maximum beatissimum sempiternum, cuius anima et perfectam sapientiae felicitatem teneret et corpus proprium non relinqueret, cuiusque corpus et in aeternum ex illa uiueret et eam quamuis non simplex, sed tot corporibus tantisque conpactum hebetare adque tardare non posset. Cum igitur suspicionibus suis ista permittant, quur nolunt credere, diuina uoluntate adque potentia inmortalia corpora fieri posse terrena, in quibus animae nulla ab eis morte separatae, nullis eorum oneribus adgrauatae sempiterne ac feliciter uiuant, quod deos suos posse adserunt in corporibus igneis Iouemque ipsum eorum regem in omnibus corporeis elementis? Nam si animae, ut beata sit, corpus est omne fugiendum, fugiant di eorum de globis siderum, fugiat Iuppiter de caelo et terra; aut si non possunt, miseri iudicentur. Sed neutrum isti uolunt, qui neque a corporibus separationem audent dare dis suis, ne illos mortales colere uideantur, nec beatitudinis priuationem, ne infelices eos esse fateantur. Non ergo ad beatitudinem consequendam omnia fugienda sunt corpora; sed corruptibilia molesta, grauia moribunda; non qualia fecit primis hominibus bonitas Dei, sed qualia esse conpulit poena peccati.

### Of Earthly Bodies, Which the Philosophers Affirm Cannot Be in Heavenly Places, Because Whatever is of Earth is by Its Natural Weight Attracted to Earth.

[¶11] Chapter 18.—Of Earthly Bodies, Which the Philosophers Affirm Cannot Be in Heavenly Places, Because Whatever is of Earth is by Its Natural Weight Attracted to Earth.

> Latin: Caput XVIII. De terrenis corporibus, quae philosophi adfirmant in caelestibus esse non posse, quia, quod terrenum est, naturali pondere reuocetur ad terram.

[¶12] But it is necessary, they say, that the natural weight of earthly bodies either keeps them on earth or draws them to it; and therefore they cannot be in heaven. Our first parents were indeed on earth, in a well-wooded and fruitful spot, which has been named Paradise. But let our adversaries a little more carefully consider this subject of earthly weight, because it has important bearings, both on the ascension of the body of Christ, and also on the resurrection body of the saints. If human skill can by some contrivance fabricate vessels that float, out of metals which sink as soon as they are placed on the water, how much more credible is it that God, by some occult mode of operation, should even more certainly effect that these earthy masses be emancipated from the downward pressure of their weight? This cannot be impossible to that God by whose almighty will, according to Plato, neither things born perish, nor things composed dissolve, especially since it is much more wonderful that spiritual and bodily essences be conjoined than that bodies be adjusted to other material substances. Can we not also easily believe that souls, being made perfectly blessed, should be endowed with the power of moving their earthy but incorruptible bodies as they please, with almost spontaneous movement, and of placing them where they please with the readiest action? If the angels transport whatever terrestrial creatures they please from any place they please, and convey them whither they please, is it to be believed that they cannot do so without toil and the feeling of burden? Why, then, may we not believe that the spirits of the saints, made perfect and blessed by divine grace, can carry their own bodies where they please, and set them where they will? For, though we have been accustomed to notice, in bearing weights, that the larger 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 less difficulty when they are massive with health, than in sickness when they are wasted. And though the hale and strong man feels heavier to other men carrying him than the lank and sickly, yet the man himself moves and carries his own body with less feeling of burden when he has the greater bulk of vigorous health, than when his frame is reduced to a minimum by hunger or disease. Of such consequence, in estimating the weight of earthly bodies, even while yet corruptible and mortal, is the consideration not of dead weight, but of the healthy equilibrium 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 our faith with arguments from the weight of bodies; for I don’t care to inquire why they cannot believe an earthly body can be in heaven, while the whole earth is suspended on nothing. For perhaps the world keeps its central place by the same law that attracts to its centre all heavy bodies. But this I say, if the lesser gods, to whom Plato committed the creation of man and the other terrestrial creatures, were able, as he affirms, to withdraw from the fire its quality of burning, while they left it that of lighting, so that it should shine through the eyes; and if to the supreme God Plato also concedes the power of preserving from death things that have been born, and of preserving from dissolution things that are composed of parts so different as body and spirit;—are we to hesitate to concede to this same God the power to operate on the flesh of him 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? But concerning our belief in the resurrection of the dead, and concerning their immortal bodies, we shall speak more at large, God willing, in the end of this work.

> Latin: Sed necesse est, inquiunt, ut terrena corpora naturale pondus uel in terra teneat uel cogat ad terram et ideo in caelo esse non possint. Primi quidem illi homines in terra erant nemorosa adque fructuosa, quae paradisi nomen obtinuit; sed quia et ad hoc respondendum est uel propter Christi corpus cum quo ascendit in caelum uel propter sanctorum qualia in resurrectione futura sunt, intueantur paulo adtentius pondera ipsa terrena. Si enim ars humana efficit, ut ex metallis, quae in aquis posita continuo submerguntur, quibusdam modis uasa fabricata etiam natare possint: quanto credibilius et efficacius occultus aliquis modus operationis Dei, cuius omnipotentissima uoluntate Plato dicit nec orta interire nec conligata posse dissolui, cum multo mirabilius incorporea corporeis quam quaecumque corpora quibuscumque corporibus copulentur, potest molibus praestare terrenis, ut nullo in ima pondere deprimantur, ipsisque animis perfectissime beatis, ut quamuis terrena, tamen incorruptibilia iam corpora ubi uolunt ponant et quo uolunt agant, situ motuque facillimo! An uero si hoc angeli faciant et quaelibet animalia terrestria rapiant unde libet constituantque ubi libet, aut eos non posse aut onera sentire credendum est? Quur ergo sanctorum perfectos et beatos diuino munere spiritus sine ulla difficultate posse ferre quo uoluerint et sistere ubi uoluerint sua corpora non credamus? Nam cum terrenorum corporum, sicut onera in gestando sentire consueuimus, quanto maior est quantitas, tanto sit maior et grauitas, ita ut plura pondo quam pauciora plus premant: membra tamen suae carnis leuiora portat anima, cum in sanitate robusta sunt quam in languore cum macra sunt. Et cum aliis gestantibus onerosior sit saluus et ualidus quam exilis et morbidus, ipse tamen ad suum corpus mouendum adque portandum agilior est, cum in bona ualetudine plus habet molis, quam cum in peste uel fame minimum roboris. Tantum ualet in habendis etiam terrenis corporibus, quamuis adhuc corruptibilibus adque mortalibus, non quantitatis pondus, sed temperationis modus. Et quis uerbis explicat, quantum distet inter praesentem quam dicimus sanitatem et inmortalitatem futuram? Non itaque nostram fidem redarguunt philosophi de ponderibus corporum. Nolo enim quaerere, quur non credant terrenum esse posse corpus in caelo, cum terra uniuersa libretur in nihilo. Fortassis enim de ipso medio mundi loco, eo quod in eum coeant quaeque grauiora, etiam argumentatio ueri similior habeatur. Illud dico: Si di minores, quibus inter animalia terrestria cetera etiam hominem faciendum commisit Plato, potuerunt, sicut dicit, ab igne remouere urendi qualitatem, lucendi relinquere quae per oculos emicaret: itane Deo summo concedere dubitabimus, cuius ille uoluntati potestatique concessit, ne moriantur quae orta sint, et tam diuersa, tam dissimilia, id est corporea et incorporea, sibimet conexa nulla possint dissolutione seiungi, ut de carne hominis, cui donat inmortalitatem, corruptionem auferat, naturam relinquat, congruentiam figurae membrorumque detineat, detrahat ponderis tarditatem? Sed de fide resurrectionis mortuorum et de corporibus eorum inmortalibus diligentius, si Deus uoluerit, in fine huius operis disserendum est.

### Against the Opinion of Those Who Do Not Believe that the Primitive Men Would Have Been Immortal If They Had Not Sinned.

[¶14] Chapter 19.—Against the Opinion of Those Who Do Not Believe that the Primitive Men Would Have Been Immortal If They Had Not Sinned.

> Latin: Caput XIX. Contra eorum dogmata, qui primos homines, si non peccassent, inmortales futuros fuisse non credunt, aeternitatem animarum uolunt carere corpori bus.

[¶15] At present let us go on, as we have begun, to give some explanation regarding the bodies of our first parents. I say then, that, except as the just consequence of sin, they would not have been subjected even to this death, which is good to the good,—this death, which is not exclusively known and believed in by a few, but is known to all, by which soul and body are separated, and by which the body of an animal which was but now visibly living is now visibly dead. For though there can be no manner of doubt that the souls of the just and holy dead live in peaceful rest, yet so much better would it be for them to be alive in healthy, well-conditioned bodies, that even those who hold the tenet that it is most blessed to be quit of every kind of body, condemn this opinion in spite of themselves. For no one will dare to set wise men, whether yet to die or already dead,—in other words, whether already quit of the body, or shortly to be so,—above the immortal gods, to whom the Supreme, in Plato, promises as a munificent gift life indissoluble, or in eternal union with their bodies. But this same Plato thinks that nothing better can happen to men than that they pass through life piously and justly, and, being separated from their bodies, be received into the bosom of the gods, who never abandon theirs; “that, oblivious of the past, they may revisit the upper air, and conceive the longing to return again to the body.” Virgil is applauded for borrowing this from the Platonic system. Assuredly Plato thinks that the souls of mortals cannot always be in their bodies, but must necessarily be dismissed by death; and, on the other hand, he thinks that without bodies they cannot endure for ever, but with ceaseless alternation pass from life to death, and from death to life. This difference, however, he sets between wise men and the rest, that they are carried after death to the stars, that each man may repose for a while in a star suitable for him, and may thence return to the labors and miseries of mortals when he has become oblivious of his former misery, and possessed with the desire of being embodied. Those, again, who have lived foolishly transmigrate into bodies fit for them, whether human or bestial. Thus he has appointed even the good and wise souls to a very hard lot indeed, since they do not receive such bodies as they might always and even immortally inhabit, but such only as they can neither permanently retain nor enjoy eternal purity without. Of this notion of Plato’s, we have in a former book already said that Porphyry was ashamed in the light of these Christian times, so that he not only emancipated human souls from a destiny in the bodies of beasts but also contended for the liberation of the souls of the wise from all bodily ties, so that, escaping from all flesh, they might, as bare and blessed souls, dwell with the Father time without end. And that he might not seem to be outbid by Christ’s promise of life everlasting to His saints, he also established purified souls in endless felicity, without return to their former woes; but, that he might contradict Christ, he denies the resurrection of incorruptible bodies, and maintains that these souls will live eternally, not only without earthly bodies, but without any bodies at all. And yet, whatever he meant by this teaching, he at least did not teach that these souls should offer no religious observance to the gods who dwelt in bodies. And why did he not, unless because he did not believe that the souls, even though separate from the body, were superior to those gods? Wherefore, if these philosophers will not dare (as I think they will not) to set human souls above the gods who are most blessed, and yet are tied eternally to their bodies, why do they find that absurd which the Christian faith preaches, namely, that our first parents were so created that, if they had not sinned, they would not have been dismissed from their bodies by any death, but would have been endowed with immortality as the reward of their obedience, and would have lived eternally with their bodies; and further, that the saints will in the resurrection inhabit those very bodies in which they have here toiled, but in such sort that neither shall any corruption or unwieldiness be suffered to attach to their flesh, nor any grief or trouble to cloud their felicity?

> Latin: Nunc de corporibus primorum hominum quod instituimus explicemus; quoniam nec mors ista, quae bona perhibetur bonis nec tantum paucis intellegentibus siue credentibus, sed omnibus nota est, qua fit animae a corpore separatio, qua certe corpus animantis, quod euidenter uiuebat, euidenter emoritur, eis potuisset accidere, nisi peccati meritum sequeretur. Licet enim iustorum ac piorum animae defunctorum quod in requie uiuant dubitare fas non sit, usque adeo tamen eis melius esset cum suis corporibus bene ualentibus uiuere, ut etiam illi, qui omni modo esse sine corpore beatissimum existimant, hanc opinionem suam sententia repugnante conuincant. Neque enim quisquam audebit illorum sapientes homines, siue morituros siue iam mortuos, id est aut carentes corporibus aut corpora relicturos, dis inmortalibus anteponere. quibus Deus summus aput Platonem munus ingens, indissolubilem scilicet uitam, id est aeternum cum suis corporibus consortium, pollicetur. Optime autem cum hominibus agi arbitratur idem Plato, si tamen hanc uitam pie iusteque peregerint, ut a suis corporibus separati in ipsorum deorum, qui sua corpora numquam deserunt, recipiantur sinum,. Scilicet inmemores supera ut conuexa reuisant Rursus et incipiant in corpora uelle reuerti; quod Vergilius ex Platonico dogmate dixisse laudatur. Ita quippe animas mortalium nec in suis corporibus semper esse posse existimat, sed mortis necessitate dissolui, nec sine corporibus durare perpetuo, sed alternantibus uicibus indesinenter uiuos ex mortuis et ex uiuis mortuos fieri putat; ut a ceteris hominibus hoc uideantur differre sapientes, quod post mortem feruntur ad sidera, ut aliquanto diutius in astro sibi congruo quisque requiescat adque inde rursus miseriae pristinae oblitus et cupiditate habendi corporis uictus redeat ad labores aerumnasque mortalium; illi uero, qui stultam duxerint uitam, ad corpora suis meritis debita siue hominum siue bestiarum de proximo reuoluantur. In hac itaque durissima condicione constituit etiam bonas adque sapientes animas, quibus non talia corpora distributa sunt, cum quibus semper adque inmortaliter uiuerent, ut neque in corporibus permanere neque sine his possint in aeterna puritate durare. De quo Platonico dogmate iam in libris superioribus diximus Christiano tempori erubuisse Porphyrium et non solum ab animis humanis remouisse corpora bestiarum, uerum etiam sapientium animas ita uoluisse de corporeis nexibus liberari, ut corpus omne fugientes beatae aput Patrem sine fine teneantur. Itaque ne a Christo uinci uideretur uitam sanctis pollicente perpetuam, etiam ipse purgatas animas sine ullo ad miserias pristinas reditu in aeterna felicitate constituit; et ut Christo aduersaretur, resurrectionem incorruptibilium corporum negans non solum sine terrenis, sed sine ullis omnino corporibus eas adseruit in sempiternum esse uicturas. Nec tamen ista qualicumque opinione praecepit saltem ne dis corporatis religionis obsequio subderentur. Quid ita, nisi quia eas, quamuis nulli corpori sociatas, non credidit illis esse meliores? Quapropter, si non audebunt isti, sicut eos ausuros esse non arbitror, dis beatissimis et tamen in aeternis corporibus constitutis humanas animas anteponere: quur eis uidetur absurdum, quod fides Christiana praedicat, et primos homines ita fuisse conditos, ut, si non peccassent, nulla morte a suis corporibus soluerentur, sed pro meritis oboedientiae custoditae inmortalitate donati cum eis uiuerent in aeternum; et talia sanctos in resurrectione habituros ea ipsa, in quibus hic laborauerunt, corpora, ut nec eorum carni aliquid corruptionis uel difficultatis nec eorum beatitudini aliquid doloris et infelicitatis possit accidere?

### That the Flesh Now Resting in Peace Shall Be Raised to a Perfection Not Enjoyed by the Flesh of Our First Parents.

[¶17] Chapter 20.—That the Flesh Now Resting in Peace Shall Be Raised to a Perfection Not Enjoyed by the Flesh of Our First Parents.

> Latin: Caput XX. Quod caro sanctorum, quae nunc requiescit in spe, in meliorem reparanda sit qualitatem, quam fuit primorum hominum ante peccatum.

[¶18] Thus the souls of departed saints are not affected by the death which dismisses them from their bodies, because their flesh rests in hope, no matter what indignities it receives after sensation is gone. For they do not desire that their bodies be forgotten, as Plato thinks fit, but rather, because they remember what has been promised by Him who deceives no man, and who gave them security for the safe keeping even of the hairs of their head, they with a longing patience wait in hope of the resurrection of their bodies, in which they have suffered many hardships, and are now to suffer never again. For if they did not “hate their own flesh,” when it, with its native infirmity, opposed their will, and had to be constrained by the spiritual law, how much more shall they love it, when it shall even itself have become spiritual! For as, when the spirit serves the flesh, it is fitly called carnal, so, when the flesh serves the spirit, it will justly be called spiritual. Not that it is converted into spirit, as some fancy from the words, “It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption,” but because it is subject to the spirit with a perfect and marvellous readiness of obedience, and responds in all things to the will that has entered on immortality,— all reluctance, all corruption, and all slowness being removed. For the body will not only be better than it was here in its best estate of health, but it will surpass the bodies of our first parents ere they sinned. For, though they were not to die unless they should sin, yet they used food as men do now, their bodies not being as yet spiritual, but animal only. And though they decayed not with years, nor drew nearer to death,—a condition secured to them in God’s marvellous grace by the tree of life, which grew along with the forbidden tree in the midst of Paradise,—yet they took other nourishment, 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 virtue of 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 animal bodies might not suffer the discomfort of hunger or thirst; but they tasted the tree of life, that death might not steal upon them from any quarter, and that they might not, spent with age, decay. Other fruits were, so to speak, their nourishment, but this their sacrament. So that the tree of life would seem to have been in the terrestrial Paradise what the wisdom of God is in the spiritual, of which it is written, “She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her.”

> Latin: Proinde nunc sanctorum animae defunctorum ideo non habent grauem mortem, qua separatae sunt a corporibus suis, quia caro eorum requiescit in spe. quaslibet sine ullo iam sensu contumelias accepisse uideatur. Non enim, sicut Platoni uisum est, corpora obliuione desiderant, sed potius, quia meminerunt quid sibi ab eo sit promissum, qui neminem fallit, qui eis etiam de capillorum suorum integritate securitatem dedit, resurrectionem corporum, in quibus multa dura perpessi sunt, nihil in eis ulterius tale sensuri desiderabiliter et patienter expectant. Si enim carnem suam non oderant, quando eam suae menti infirmitate resistentem spiritali iure cohercebant, quanto magis eam diligunt etiam ipsam spiritalem futuram! Sicut enim spiritus carni seruiens non incongrue carnalis, ita caro spiritui seruiens recte appellabitur spiritalis, non quia in spiritum conuertetur, sicut nonnulli putant ex eo quod scriptum est: Seminatur corpus animale, surget corpus spiritale, sed quia spiritui summa et mirabili obtemperandi facilitate subdetur usque ad inplendam inmortalitatis indissolubilis securissimam uoluntatem, omni molestiae sensu, omni corruptibilitate et tarditate detracta. Non solum enim non erit tale, quale nunc est in quauis optima ualetudine, sed nec tale quidem, quale fuit in primis hominibus ante peccatum, qui licet morituri non essent, nisi peccassent, alimentis tamen ut homines utebantur, nondum spiritalia, sed adhuc animalia corpora terrena gestantes. Quae licet senio non ueterescerent, ut necessitate perducerentur ad mortem (qui status eis de ligno uitae, quod in medio paradiso cum arbore uetita simul erat, mirabili Dei gratia praestabatur), tamen et alios sumebant cibos praeter unam arborem, quae fuerat interdicta, non quia ipsa erat malum, sed propter commendandum purae et simplicis oboedientiae bonum, quae magna uirtus est rationalis creaturae sub Creatore Domino constitutae. Nam ubi nullum malum tangebatur, profecto, si prohibitum tangeretur, sola inoboedientia peccabatur. Agebatur ergo aliis quae sumebant, ne animalia corpora molestiae aliquid esuriendo ac sitiendo sentirent; de ligno autem uitae propterea gustabatur, ne mors eis undecumque subreperet uel senectute confecta decursis temporum spatiis interirent; tamquam cetera essent alimento, illud sacramento; ut sic fuisse accipiatur lignum uitae in paradiso corporali, sicut in spiritali, hoc est intellegibili, paradiso sapientia Dei, de qua scriptum est: Lignum uitae est amplectentibus eam.

### Of Paradise, that It Can Be Understood in a Spiritual Sense Without Sacrificing the Historic Truth of the Narrative Regarding The Real Place.

[¶20] Chapter 21.—Of Paradise, that It Can Be Understood in a Spiritual Sense Without Sacrificing the Historic Truth of the Narrative Regarding The Real Place.

> Latin: Caput XXI. De paradiso, in quo primi homines fuerunt, quod recte per significationem eius spiritale aliquid intellegatur, salua ueritate narrationis historicae de corporali loco.

[¶21] On this account some allegorize all that concerns Paradise itself, where the first men, the parents of the human race, are, according to the truth of holy Scripture, recorded to have been; and they understand all its trees and fruit-bearing plants as virtues and habits of life, as if they had no existence in the external world, but were only so spoken of or related for the sake of spiritual meanings. As if there could not be a real terrestrial Paradise! As if there never existed these two women, Sarah and Hagar, nor the two sons who were born to Abraham, the one of the bond woman, the other of the free, because the apostle says that in them the two covenants were prefigured; or as if water never flowed from the rock when Moses struck it, because therein Christ can be seen in a figure, as the same apostle says, “Now that rock was Christ!” No one, then, denies that Paradise may signify the life of the blessed; its four rivers, the four virtues, prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice; its trees, all useful knowledge; its fruits, the customs of the godly; its tree of life, wisdom herself, the mother of all good; and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the experience of a broken commandment. The punishment which God appointed was in itself, a just, and therefore a good thing; but man’s experience of it is not good.

> Latin: Unde nonnulli totum ipsum paradisum, ubi primi homines parentes generis humani sanctae scripturae ueritate fuisse narrantur, ad intellegibilia referunt arboresque illas et ligna fructifera in uirtutes uitae moresque conuertunt; tamquam uisibilia et corporalia illa non fuerint, sed intellegibilium significandorum causa eo modo dicta uel scripta sint. Quasi ‘propterea non potuerit esse paradisus corporalis, quia potest etiam spiritalis intellegi; tamquam ideo non fuerint duae mulieres, Agar et Sarra, et ex eis duo filii Abrahae, unus de ancilla, alius de libera. quia duo testamenta in eis figurata dicit apostolus; aut ideo de nulla petra Moyse percutiente aqua defluxerit, quia potest illic figurata significatione etiam Christus intellegi, eodem apostolo dicente: Petra autem erat Christus. Nemo itaque prohibet intellegere paradisum uitam beatorum, quattuor eius flumina quattuor uirtutes, prudentiam, fortitudinem, temperantiam adque iustitiam, et ligna eius omnes utiles disciplinas, et lignorum fructus mores piorum, et lignum uitae ipsam bonorum omnium matrem sapientiam, et lignum scientiae boni et mali transgressi mandati experimentum. Poenam enim peccatoribus bene utique, quoniam iuste, constituit Deus, sed non suo bono experitur homo.

[¶22] These things can also and more profitably be understood of the Church, so that they become prophetic foreshadowings of things to come. Thus Paradise is the Church, as it is called in the Canticles; the four rivers of Paradise are the four gospels; the fruit-trees the saints, and the fruit their works; the tree of life is the holy of holies, Christ; the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the will’s free choice. For if man despise the will of God, he can only destroy himself; and so he learns the difference between consecrating himself to the common good and revelling in his own. For he who loves himself is abandoned to himself, in order that, being overwhelmed with fears and sorrows, he may cry, if there be yet soul in him to feel his ills, in the words of the psalm, “My soul is cast down within me,” and when chastened, may say,” Because of his strength I will wait upon Thee.” These and similar allegorical interpretations may be suitably put upon Paradise without giving offence to any one, while yet we believe the strict truth of the history, confirmed by its circumstantial narrative of facts.

> Latin: Possunt haec etiam in ecclesia intellegi, ut ea melius accipiamus tamquam prophetica indicia praecedentia futurorum; paradisum scilicet ipsam ecclesiam, sicut de illa legitur in cantico canticorum; quattuor autem paradisi flumina quattuor euangelia, ligna fructifera sanctos, fructus autem eorum opera eorum, lignum uitae sanctum sanctorum utique Christum, lignum scientiae boni et mali proprium uoluntatis arbitrium. Nec se ipso quippe homo diuina uoluntate contemta nisi perniciose uti potest, adque ita discit, quid intersit, utrum inhaereat communi omnibus bono an proprio delectetur. Se quippe amans donatur sibi, ut inde timoribus maeroribusque conpletus cantet in psalmo, si tamen mala sua sentit: Ad me ipsum turbata est anima mea; correctusque iam dicat: Fortitudinem meam ad te custodiam. Haec et si qua alia commodius dici possunt de intellegendo spiritaliter paradiso nemine prohibente dicantur, dum tamen et illius historiae ueritas fidelissima rerum gestarum narratione commendata credatur.

## 63. That the Bodies of the Saints Shall After the Resurrection Be Spiritual, and Yet Flesh Shall Not Be Changed into Spirit.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/63/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/63/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 22.—That the Bodies of the Saints Shall After the Resurrection Be Spiritual, and Yet Flesh Shall Not Be Changed into Spirit.

> Latin: Caput XXII. De corporibus sanctorum post resurrectionem, quae sic spiritalia erunt, ut non in spiritum caro uertatur.

[¶1] The bodies of the righteous, then, such as they shall be in the resurrection, shall need neither any fruit to preserve them from dying of disease or the wasting decay of old age, nor any other physical nourishment to allay the cravings of hunger or of thirst; for they shall be invested with so sure and every way inviolable an immortality, that they shall not eat save when they choose, nor be under the necessity of eating, while they enjoy the power of doing so. For so also was it with the angels who presented themselves to the eye and touch of men, not because they could do no otherwise, but because they were able and desirous to suit themselves to men by a kind of manhood ministry. For neither are we to suppose, when men receive them as guests, that the angels eat only in appearance, though to any who did not know them to be angels they might seem to eat from the same necessity as ourselves. So these words spoken in the Book of Tobit, “You saw me eat, but you saw it but in vision;” that is, you thought I took food as you do for the sake of refreshing my body. But if in the case of the angels another opinion seems more capable of defence, certainly our faith leaves no room to doubt regarding our Lord Himself, that even after His resurrection, and when now in spiritual but yet real flesh, He ate and drank with His disciples; for not the power, but the need, of eating and drinking is taken from these bodies. And so they will be spiritual, not because they shall cease to be bodies, but because they shall subsist by the quickening spirit.

> Latin: Corpora ergo iustorum, quae in resurrectione futura sunt, neque ullo ligno indigebunt, quo fiat ut nullo morbo uel senectute inueterata moriantur, neque ullis aliis corporalibus alimentis, quibus esuriendi ac sitiendi qualiscumque molestia deuitetur; quoniam certo et omni modo inuiolabili munere inmortalitatis induentur, ut non nisi uelint, possibilitate, non necessitate uescantur. Quod angeli quoque uisibiliter et tractabiliter apparentes, non quia indigebant, sed quia uolebant et poterant, ut hominibus congruerent sui ministerii quadam humanitate, fecerunt. Neque enim in phantasmate angelos edisse credendum est, quando eos homines hospitio susceperunt, quamuis utrum angeli essent ignorantibus simili nobis indigentia uesci uiderentur. Unde est quod ait angelus in libro Tobiae: Videbatis me manducare, sed uisu ueatro uidebatis; id est necessitate reficiendi corporis, sicut uos facitis, me cibum sumere putabatis. Sed si forte de angelis aliud credibilius disputari potest, certe fides Christiana de ipso Saluatore non dubitat, quod etiam post resurrectionem, iam quidem in spiritali carne, sed tamen uera, cibum ac potum cum discipulis sumsit. Non enim potestas, sed egestas edendi ac bibendi talibus corporibus auferetur. Unde et spiritalia erunt, -non quia corpora esse desistent, sed quia spiritu uiuificante subsistent.

### What We are to Understand by the Animal and Spiritual Body; Or of Those Who Die in Adam, And of Those Who are Made Alive in Christ.

[¶3] Chapter 23.—What We are to Understand by the Animal and Spiritual Body; Or of Those Who Die in Adam, And of Those Who are Made Alive in Christ.

> Latin: Caput XXIII. Quid intellegendum sit de corpore animali et de corpore spiritali, et qui moriantur in Adam, qui uero uiuificentur in Christo.

[¶4] For as those bodies of ours, that have a living soul, though not as yet a quickening spirit, are called soul-informed bodies, and yet are not souls but bodies, so also those bodies are called spiritual,—yet God forbid we should therefore suppose them to be spirits and not bodies,—which, being quickened by the Spirit, have the substance, but not the unwieldiness and corruption of flesh. Man will then be not earthly but heavenly,—not because the body will not be that very body which was made of earth, but because by its heavenly endowment it will be a fit inhabitant of heaven, and this not by losing its nature, but by changing its quality. The first man, of the earth earthy, was made a living soul, not a quickening spirit,—which rank was reserved for him as the reward of obedience. And therefore his body, which required meat and drink to satisfy hunger and thirst, and which had no absolute and indestructible immortality, but by means of the tree of life warded off the necessity of dying, and was thus maintained in the flower of youth,—this body, I say, was doubtless not spiritual, but animal; and yet it would not have died but that it provoked God’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 of time, at least in respect of that life which, had he not sinned, he might have retained perpetually in Paradise, though only in an animal body, till such time as it became spiritual in acknowledgment of his obedience.

> Latin: Nam sicut ista, quae habent animam uiuentem, nondum spiritum uiuificantem, animalia dicuntur corpora, nec tamen animae sunt, sed corpora: ita illa spiritalia uocantur corpora; absit tamen ut spiritus ea credamus futura, sed corpora carnis habitura substantiam, sed nullam tarditatem corruptionemque carnalem spiritu uiuificante passura. Tunc iam non terrenus, sed caelestis homo erit; non quia corpus, quod de terra factum est, non ipsum erit; sed quia dono caelesti iam tale erit, ut etiam caelo incolendo non amissa natura, sed mutata qualitate conueniat. Primus autem homo de terra terrenus in animam uiuentem factus est, non in spiritum uiuificantem, quod ei post oboedientiae meritum seruabatur. Ideo corpus eius, quod cibo ac potu egebat, : ne fame adficeretur ac siti, et non inmortalitate illa absoluta adque indissolubili, sed ligno uitae a mortis necessitate prohibebatur adque in iuuentutis flore tenebatur, non spiritale, sed animale fuisse non dubium est, nequaquam tamen moriturum, nisi in Dei praedicentis minantisque sententiam delinquendo conruisset et alimentis quidem etiam extra paradisum non negatis, a ligno tamen uitae prohibitus traditus esset tempori uetustatique finiendus, in ea dumtaxat uita, quam in corpore licet animali, donec spiritale oboedientiae merito fieret, posset in paradiso nisi peccasset habere perpetuam.

[¶5] Wherefore, although we understand that this manifest death, which consists in the separation of soul and body, was also signified by God when He said, “In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” it ought not on that account to seem absurd that they were not dismissed from the body on that very day on which they took the forbidden and death-bringing fruit. For certainly on that very day their nature was altered for the worse and vitiated, and by their most just banishment from the tree of life they were involved in the necessity even of bodily death, in which necessity we are born. And therefore the apostle does not say, “The body indeed is doomed to die on account of sin,” but he says, “The body indeed is dead because of sin.” Then he adds, “But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you.” Then accordingly shall the body become a quickening spirit which is now a living soul; and yet the apostle calls it “dead,” because already it lies under the necessity of dying. But in Paradise it was so made a living soul, though not a quickening spirit, that it could not properly be called dead, for, save through the commission of sin, it could not come under the power of death. Now, since God by the words, “Adam, where art thou?” pointed to the death of the soul, which results when He abandons it, and since in the words, “Earth thou art, and unto earth shalt thou return,” He signified the death of the body, which results when the soul departs from it, we are led, therefore, to believe that He said nothing of the second death, wishing it to be kept hidden, and reserving it for the New Testament dispensation, in which it is most plainly revealed. And this He did in order that, first of all, it might be evident that this first death, which is common to all, was the result of that sin which in one man became common to all. But the second death is not common to all, those being excepted who were “called according to His purpose. For whom He did foreknow, He also did pre destinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren.” Those the grace of God has, by a Mediator, delivered from the second death.

> Latin: Quapropter etiamsi mortem istam manifestam, qua fit animae a corpore separatio, intellegamus simul significatam in eo quod Deus dixerat: Qua die ederitis ex illo, morte moriemini: non ideo debet absurdum uideri, quia non eo prorsus die a corpore sunt soluti, quo cibum interdictum mortiferumque sumserunt. Eo quippe die mutata in deterius uitiataque natura adque a ligno uitae separatione iustissima mortis in eis etiam corporalis necessitas facta est, cum qua nos necessitate nati sumus. Propter quod apostolus non ait: Corpus quidem moriturum est propter peccatum, sed ait: Corpus quidem mortuum est. propter peccatum, spiritus autem uita est propter iustitiam. Deinde subiunxit: Si autem spiritus eius, qui suscitauit Christum a mortuis, habitat in uobis: qui suscitauit Christum a mortuis uiuificabit et mortalia corpora uestra per inhabitantem spiritum eius in uobis. Tunc ergo erit corpus in spiritum uiuificantem, quod nunc est in animam uiuentem; et tamen mortuum dicit apostolus, quia iam moriendi necessitate constrictum est. Tunc autem ita erat in, animam uiuentem, quamuis non in spiritum uiuificantem, ut tamen mortuum dici non recte posset, quia nisi perpetratione peccati necessitatem moriendi habere non posset. Cum uero Deus et dicendo: Adam, ubi es? mortem significauerit animae, quae facta est illo deserente, et dicendo: Terra es et in terram ibis mortem significauerit corporis, quae illi fit anima discedente: propterea de morte secunda nihil dixisse credendus est, quia occultam esse uoluit propter dispensationem testamenti noui, ubi secunda mors apertissime declaratur; ut prius ista mors prima, quae communis est omnibus, proderetur ex illo uenisse peccato, quod in uno commune factum est omnibus; mors uero secunda non utique communis est omnibus propter eos, qui secundum propositum uocati sunt, quos ante praesciuit et praedestinauit, sicut ait apostolus, conformes imaginis filii sui, ut sit ipse primogenitus in multis fratribus, quos a secunda morte per Mediatorem Dei gratia liberauit. In corpore ergo animali primum hominem factum sic apostolus loquitur.

[¶6] Thus the apostle states that the first man was made in an animal body. For, wishing to distinguish the animal body which now is from the spiritual, which is to be in the resurrection, he says, “It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption: it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power: it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.” Then, to prove this, he goes on, “There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.” And to show what the animated body is, he says, “Thus it was written, The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.” He wished thus to show what the animated body is, though Scripture did not say of the first man Adam, when his soul was created by the breath of God, “Man was made in an animated body,” but “Man was made a living soul.” By these 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 he shows when he adds, “But the last Adam was made a quickening spirit,” plainly referring to Christ, who has so risen from the dead that He cannot die any more. He then goes on to say, “But that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.” And here he much more clearly asserts that he referred to the animal body when he said that the first man was made a living soul, and to the spiritual when he said that the last man was made a quickening spirit. The animal body is the first, being such as the first Adam had, and which would not have died had he not sinned, being such also as we now have, its nature being changed and vitiated by sin to the extent of bringing us under the necessity of death, and being such as even Christ condescended first of all to assume, not indeed of necessity, but of choice; but afterwards comes the spiritual body, which already is worn by anticipation by Christ as our head, and will be worn by His members in the resurrection of the dead.

> Latin: Volens enim ab spiritali, quod in resurrectione futurum est, hoc quod nunc est animale discernere: Seminatur, inquit, in corruptione, surget in in corruptione; seminatur in contumelia, surget in gloria; seminatur in infirmitate, surget in uirtute; seminatur corpus animale, surget corpus spiritale. Deinde ut hoc probaret: Si est, inquit, corpus animale, est et spiritale. Et ut quid esset animale corpus ostenderet: Sic, inquit, scriptum est: Factus est primus homo in animam uiuentem. Isto igitur modo uoluit ostendere quid sit corpus animale, quamuis scriptura non dixerit de homine primo, qui est appellatus Adam, quando illi anima flatu Dei creata est: Et factus est homo in corpore animali; sed: Factus est homo in animam uiuentem. In eo ergo quod scriptum est: Factus est primus homo in animam uiuentem, uoluit apostolus intellegi corpus hominis animale. Spiritale autem quem ad modum intellegendum esset, ostendit addendo: Nouissimus Adam in spiritum uiuificantem, procul dubio Christum significans, qui iam ex mortuis ita resurrexit, ut mori deinceps omnino non possit. Denique sequitur et dicit: Sed non primum quod spiritale est, sed quod animale, postea spiritale. Ubi multo apertius declarauit se animale corpus insinuasse in eo quod scriptum est factum esse primum hominem in animam uiuentem, spiritale autem in eo quod ait: Nouissimus Adam in spiritum uiuificantem. Prius est enim animale corpus, quale habuit primus Adam, quamuis non moriturum, nisi peccasset; quale nunc habemus et nos, hactenus eius mutata uitiataque natura, quatenus in illo, postea quam peccauit, effectum est, unde haberet iam moriendi necessitatem; tale pro nobis etiam Christus primitus habere dignatus est, non quidem necessitate, sed potestate; postea uero spiritale, quale iam praecessit in Christo tamquam in capite nostro, secuturum est autem in membris eius ultima resurrectione mortuorum. Adiungit deinde apostolus duorum istorum hominum euidentis simam differentiam dicens: Primus homo de terra terrenus, secundus homo de caelo caelestis.

[¶7] Then the apostle subjoins a notable difference between these two men, saying, “The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy, and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.” So he elsewhere says, “As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ;” but in very deed this shall be accomplished when that which is animal in us by our birth shall have become spiritual in our resurrection. For, to use his words again,” We are saved by hope.” Now 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 of pardon and life eternal, which regeneration confers upon us through the Mediator of God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. And He is the heavenly Man of Paul’s passage, because He came 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 become His members, that, together with them, He may become one Christ, as head and body. In the same epistle he puts this yet more clearly: “Since by man came death, by Man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive,”—that is to say, in a spiritual body which shall be made a quickening spirit. Not that all who die in Adam shall be members of Christ,—for the great majority shall be punished in eternal death,—but he uses the word “all” in both clauses, because, as no one dies in an animal body except in Adam, so no one is quickened a spiritual body save in Christ. We are not, then, by any means to suppose that we shall in the resurrection have such a body as the first man had before he sinned, nor that the words, “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 before he fell, and that, in punishment of his sin, it was changed into an animal body. If this be thought, small heed has been given to the words of so great a teacher, who says, “There is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body; as it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul.” Was it after sin he was made so? or was not this the primal condition of man from which the blessed apostle selects his testimony to show what the animal body is?

> Latin: Qualis terrenus, tales et terreni; qualis caelestis, tales et caelestes. Et quo modo induimus imaginem terreni, induamus et imaginem eius, qui de caelo est. Hoc apostolus ita posuit, ut nunc quidem in nobis secundum sacramentum regenerationis fiat, sicut alibi dicit: Quotquot in Christo baptizati estis, Christum induistis; re autem ipsa tunc perficietur, cum et in nobis, quod est animale nascendo, spiritale factum fuerit resurgendo. Ut enim eius itidem uerbis utar: Spe salui facti sumus. Induimus autem imaginem terreni hominis propagatione prae. uaricationis et mortis, quam nobis intulit generatio; sed induimus imaginem caelestis hominis gratia indulgentiae uitaeque perpetuae, quod nobis praestat regeneratio, non nisi per mediatorem Dei et hominum, hominem Christum Iesum; quem caelestem hominem uult intellegi, quia de caelo uenit, ut terrenae mortalitatis corpore uestiretur, quod caelesti inmortalitate uestiret. Caelestes uero ideo appellat et alios, quia fiunt per gratiam membra eius, ut cum illis sit unus Christus, uelut caput et corpus. Hoc in, eadem epistula euidentius ita ponit: Per hominem mors, et per hominem resurrectio mortuorum. Sicut enim in Adam omnes moriuntur, sic et in Christo omnes uiuificabuntur; iam utique in corpore spiritali quod erit in spiritum uiuificantem; non quia omnes, qui in Adam moriuntur, membra erunt Christi (ex illis enim multo plures secunda in aeternum morte plectentur); sed ideo dictum est omnes adque omnes, quia, sicut nemo corpore animali nisi in Adam moritur, ita nemo corpore spiritali nisi in Christo uiuificatur. Proinde nequaquam putandum est nos in resurrectione tale corpus habituros, quale habuit homo primus ante peccatum; nec illud, quod dictum est: Qualis terrenus, tales et terreni, secundum id intellegendum, quod factum est admissione peccati. Non enim existimandum est eum prius, quam peccasset, spiritale corpus habuisse et peccati merito in animale mutatum. Ut enim hoc putetur, parum adtenduntur tanti uerba doctoris, qui ait: Si est corpus animale, est et spiritale; sic et scriptum est: Factus est primus homo Adam in animam uiuentem. Numquid hoc post peccatum factum est, cum sit ista hominis prima conditio, de qua beatissimus £aulus ad corpus animale monstrandum hoc testimonium legis adsumsit?

### How We Must Understand that Breathing of God by Which ‘The First Man Was Made a Living Soul,’ And that Also by Which the Lord Conveyed His Spirit to His Disciples When He Said, ‘Receive Ye the Holy Ghost.’

[¶9] Chapter 24.—How We Must Understand that Breathing of God by Which “The First Man Was Made a Living Soul,” And that Also by Which the Lord Conveyed His Spirit to His Disciples When He Said, “Receive Ye the Holy Ghost.”

> Latin: Caput XXIV. Qualiter accipienda sit uel illa insufflatio Dei, qua primus homo factus est in animam uiuentem, uel illa, quam Dominus fecit dicens discipulis - suis: Accipite Spiritum sanctum.

[¶10] Some have hastily supposed from the words, “God breathed into Adam’s nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul,” that a soul was not then first given to man, but that the soul already given was quickened by the Holy Ghost. They are encouraged in this supposition by the fact that the Lord Jesus after His resurrection breathed on His disciples, and said, “Receive ye the Holy Spirit.” From this they suppose that the same thing was effected in either case, as if the evangelist had gone on to say, And they became living souls. But if he had made this addition, we should only understand that the Spirit is in some way the life of souls, and that without Him reasonable souls must be accounted dead, though their bodies seem to live before our eyes. But that this was not what happened when man was created, the very words of the narrative sufficiently show: “And God made man dust of the earth;” which some have thought to render more clearly by the words, “And God formed man of the clay of the earth.” For it had before been said that “there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground,” in order that the reference to clay, formed of this moisture and dust, might be understood. For on this verse there immediately follows the announcement, “And God created man dust of the earth;” so those Greek manuscripts have it from which this passage has been translated into Latin. But whether one prefers to read “created” or “formed,” where the Greek reads ἔπλασεν, is of little importance; yet “formed” is the better rendering. But those who preferred “created” thought they thus avoided the ambiguity arising from the fact, that in the Latin language the usage obtains that those are said to form a thing who frame some feigned and fictitious thing. This man, then, who was created of the dust of the earth, or of the moistened dust or clay,—this “dust of the earth” (that I may use the express words of Scripture) was made, as the apostle teaches, an animated body when he received a soul. This man, he says, “was made a living soul;” that is, this fashioned dust was made a living soul.

> Latin: Unde et illud parum considerate quibusdam uisum est, in eo quod legitur: Inspirauit Deus in faciem eius spiritum uitae, et factus est homo in animam uiuentem, non tunc animam primo homini datam, sed eam, quae iam inerat, Spiritu sancto uiuificatam. Mouet enim eos, quod Dominus Iesus, postea quam resurrexit a mortuis, insufflauit dicens discipulis suis: Accipite Spiritum sanctum. Unde tale aliquid factum existimant, quale tunc factum est, quasi et hic secutus euangelista dixerit: Et facti sunt in animam uiuentem. Quod quidem si dictum esset, hoc intellegeremus, quod animarum quaedam uita sit Spiritus Dei, sine quo animae rationales mortuae deputandae sunt, quamuis earum praesentia uiuere corpora uideantur. Sed non ita factum, quando est conditus homo, satis ipsa libri uerba testantur, quae ita se habent: Et formauit Deus hominem puluerem de terra. Quod quidam planius interpretandum putantes dixerunt: Et finxit Deus hominem de limo terrae, quoniam superius dictum fuerat: Fons autem ascendebat de terra et inrigabat omnem faciem terrae; ut ex hoc limus intellegendus uideretur, umore scilicet terraque concretus. Ubi enim hoc dictum est, continuo sequitur: Et formauit Deus hominem puluerem de terra, sicut Graeci codices habent, unde in Latinam linguam scriptura ipsa conuersa est. Siue autem formauit siue finxit quis dicere uoluerit, quod Graece dicitur licXaasv, ad rem nihil interest; magis tamen proprie dicitur finxit. Sed ambiguitas uisa est deuitanda eis, qui formauit dicere maluerunt, eo quod in Latina lingua illud magis obtinuit consuetudo, ut hi dicantur fingere, qui aliquid mendacio simulante conponunt. Hunc igitur formatum hominem de terrae puluere siue limo (erat enim puluis umectus) — hunc, inquam, ut expressius dicam, sicut scriptura locuta est, puluerem de terra animale corpus factum esse docet apostolus, cum animam accepit: Et factus est iste homo in animam uiuentem’, id est, formatus iste puluis factus est in animam uiuentem.

[¶11] They say, Already he had a soul, else he would not be called a man; for man is not a body alone, nor a soul alone, but a being composed of both. This, indeed, is true, that the soul is not the whole man, but the better part of man; the body not the whole, but the inferior part of man; and that then, when both are joined, they receive the name of man, which, however, they do not severally lose even when we speak of them singly. For who is prohibited from saying, in colloquial usage, “That man is dead, and is now at rest or in torment,” though this can be spoken only of the soul; or “He is buried in such and such a place,” though this refers only to the body? Will they say that Scripture follows no such usage? On the contrary, it so thoroughly adopts it, that even while a man is alive, and body and soul are united, it calls each of them singly by the name “man,” speaking of the soul as the “inward man,” and of the body as the “outward man,” as if there were two men, though both together are indeed but one. But we must understand in what sense man is said to be in the image of God, and is yet dust, and to return to the dust. The former is spoken of the rational soul, which God by His breathing, or, to speak more appropriately, by His inspiration, conveyed to man, that is, to his body; but the latter refers to his body, which God formed of the dust, and to which a soul was given, that it might become a living body, that is, that man might become a living soul.

> Latin: Iam, inquiunt, habebat animam, alioquin non appellaretur homo, quoniam homo non est corpus solum uel anima sola, sed qui et anima constat et corpore. Hoc quidem uerum est, quod non totus homo, sed pars melior hominis anima est; nec totus homo corpus, sed inferior hominis pars est; sed cum est utrumque coniunctum simul, habet hominis nomen; quod tamen et singula non amittunt, etiam cum de singulis loquimur. Quis enim dicere prohibetur cottidiani quadam lege sermonis: Homo ille defunctus est et nunc in requie est uel in poenis. cum de anima sola possit hoc dici, et: Illo aut illo loco homo ille sepultus est, cum hoc nisi de solo corpore non possit intellegi? An dicturi sunt sic loqui scripturam non solere diuinam? Immo uero illa ita nobis in hoc adtestatur, ut etiam cum duo ista coniuncta sunt et uiuit homo, tamen etiam singula hominis uocabulo appellet, animam scilicet interiorem hominem, corpus autem exteriorem hominem uocans, tamquam duo sint homines, cum simul utrumque sit homo unus. Sed intellegendum est, secundum quid dicatur homo ad imaginem Dei et homo terra adque iturus in terram. Illud enim secundum animam rationalem dicitur, qualem Deus insufflando uel, si commodius dicitur, inspirando indidit homini, id est hominis corpori; hoc autem secundum corpus, qualem hominem Deus finxit ex puluere, cui data est anima, ut fieret corpus animale, id est homo in animam uiuentem.

[¶12] Wherefore, when our Lord breathed on His disciples, and said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” He certainly wished it to be understood that the Holy Ghost was not only the Spirit of the Father, but of the only begotten Son Himself. For the same Spirit is, indeed, the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, making with them the trinity of Father, Son, and Spirit, not a creature, but the Creator. For neither was that material breath which proceeded from the mouth of His flesh the very substance and nature of the Holy Spirit, but rather the intimation, as I said, that the Holy Spirit was common to the Father and to the Son; for they have not each a separate Spirit, but both one and the same. Now this Spirit is always spoken of in sacred Scripture by the Greek word πνεῦμα, as the Lord, too, named Him in the place cited when He gave Him to His disciples, and intimated the gift by the breathing of His lips; and there does not occur to me any place in the whole Scriptures where He is otherwise named. But in this passage where it is said, “And the Lord formed man dust of the earth, and breathed, or inspired, into his face the breath of life;” the Greek has not πνεῦμα, the usual word for the Holy Spirit, but πνοή, a word more frequently used of the creature than of the Creator; and for this reason some Latin interpreters have preferred to render it by “breath” rather than “spirit.” For this word occurs also in the Greek in Isaiah chapter vii, verse 16 where God says, “I have made all breath,” meaning, doubtless, all souls. Accordingly, this word πνοή is sometimes rendered “breath,” sometimes “spirit,” sometimes “inspiration,” sometimes “aspiration,” sometimes “soul,” even when it is used of God. Πνεῦμα, on the other hand, is uniformly rendered “spirit,” whether of man, of whom the apostle says, “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?” or of beast, as in the book of Solomon, “Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?” or of that physical spirit which is called wind, for so the Psalmist calls it: “Fire and hail; snow and vapors; stormy wind;” or of the uncreated Creator Spirit, of whom the Lord said in the gospel, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” indicating the gift by the breathing of His mouth; and when He says, “Go ye and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” words which very expressly and excellently commend the Trinity; and where it is said, “God is a Spirit;” and in very many other places of the sacred writings. In all these quotations from Scripture we do not find in the Greek the word πνοή used, but πνεῦμα, 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 breath of life,” even though the Greek had not used πνοή (as it has) but πνεῦμα, it would not on that account necessarily follow that the Creator Spirit, who in the Trinity is distinctively called the Holy Ghost, was meant, since, as has been said, it is plain that πνεῦμα is used not only of the Creator, but also of the creature.

> Latin: Quapropter in eo, quod Dominus fecit, quando insufflauit dicens: Accipite Spiritum sanctum, nimirum hoc intellegi uoluit, quod Spiritus sanctus non tantum sit Patris, uerum etiam ipsius Unigeniti Spiritus. Idem ipse est quippe Spiritus. et Patris et Filii, cum quo est trinitas Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, non creatura, sed Creator. Neque enim flatus ille corporeus de carnis ore procedens substantia erat Spiritus sancti adque natura, sed potius significatio, qua intellegeremus, ut dixi, Spiritum sanctum Patri esse Filioque communem, quia non sunt eis singulis singuli, sed unus amborum est. Semper autem iste Spiritus in scripturis sanctis Graeco uocabulo rcveufia dicitur, sicut eum et hoc loco Iesus appellauit, quando eum corporalis sui oris flatu significans discipulis dedit; et locis omnibus diuinorum eloquiorum non mihi aliter umquam nuncupatus occurrit. Hic uero, ubi legitur: Et finxit Deus hominem puluerem de terra et insufflauit siue inspirauit in faciem eius spiritum uitae, non ait Graecus rcveofta, quod solet dici Spiritus sanctus, sed 7cvoVjv, quod nomen in creatura quam in Creatore frequentius legitur; unde nonnulli etiam Latini propter differentiam hoc uocabulum non spiritum, sed flatum appellare maluerunt. Hoc enim est in Graeco etiam illo loco aput Esaiam, ubi Deus dicit: Omnem flatum ego feci, omnem animam sine dubitatione significans. Quod itaque Graece nvoifj dicitur, nostri aliquando flatum, aliquando spiritum, aliquando inspirationem uel aspirationem, quando etiam Dei dicitur, interpretati sunt; Trveufjia uero numquam nisi spiritum, siue hominis (de quo ait apostolus: Quis enim scit hominum quae sunt hominis, nisi spiritus hominis qui in ipso est?) siue pecoris (sicut in Salomonis libro scriptum est: Quis scit si spiritus hominis ascendat sursum in caelum et spiritus pecoris descendat deorsum in terram?) siue istum corporeum, qui etiam uentus dicitur, (nam eius hoc nomen est, ubi in psalmo canitur: Ignis, grando, nix, glacies spiritus tempestatis) siue iam non creatum, sed Creatorem, sicut est de quo dicit Dominus in euangelio: Accipite Spiritum sanctum, eum corporei sui oris flatu significans, et ubi ait: Ite, baptizate[omnes] gentes in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, ubi ipsa trinitas excellentissime et euidentissime commendata est, et ubi legitur: Deus spiritus est, et aliis plurimis sacrarum litterarum locis. In his quippe omnibus testimoniis scripturarum, quantum ad Graecos adtinet, non TWOTJV uidemus scriptum esse, sed πνεῡμα; quantum autem ad Latinos, non flatum, sed spiritum.

[¶13] But, say they, when the Scripture used the word “spirit,” it would not have added “of life” unless it meant us to understand the Holy Spirit; nor, when it said, “Man became a soul,” would it also have inserted the word “living” unless that life of the soul were signified which is imparted to it from above by the gift of God. For, seeing that the soul by itself has a proper life of its own, what need, they ask, was there of adding living, save only to show that the life which is given it by the Holy Spirit was meant? What is this but to fight strenuously for their own conjectures, while they carelessly neglect the teaching of Scripture? Without troubling themselves much, they might have found in a preceding page of this very book of Genesis the words, “Let the earth bring forth the living soul,” when all the terrestrial animals were created. Then at a slight interval, but still in the same book, was it impossible for them to notice this verse, “All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died,” by which it was signified that all the animals which lived on the earth had perished in the deluge? If, then, we find that Scripture is accustomed to speak both of the “living soul” and the “spirit of life” even in reference to beasts; and if in this place, where it is said, “All things which have the spirit of life,” the word πνοή, not πνεῦμα, is used; why may we not say, What need was there to add “living,” since the soul 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 it speaks of animals, that is, animated bodies, in which the soul serves as the residence of sensation; but when man is spoken of, we forget the ordinary and established usage of Scripture, whereby it signifies that man received a rational soul, which was not produced out of the waters and the earth like the other living creatures, but was created by the breath of God. Yet this creation was ordered that the human soul should live in an animal body, like those other animals of which the Scripture said, “Let the earth produce every living soul,” and regarding which it again says that in them is the breath of life, where the word πνοή and not πνεῦμα is used in the Greek, and where certainly not the Holy Spirit, but their spirit, is signified under that name.

> Latin: Quapropter in eo, quod scriptum est: Inspirauit, uel si magis proprie dicendum est: Insufflauit in faciem eius spiritum uitae, si Graecus non irvoVjv, sicut ibi legitur, sed πνεῡμα; posuisset, nec sic esset consequens, ut Creatorem Spiritum, qui proprie dicitur in trinitate Spiritus sanctus, intellegere cogeremur; quando quidem πνεῡμα, ut dictum est, non solum de Creatore, sed etiam de creatura dici solere manifestum est. Sed cum dixisset, inquiunt, spiritum, non adderet uitae, nisi illum sanctum Spiritum uellet intellegi; et cum dixisset: Factus est homo in animam, non adderet uiuentem,. nisi animae uitam significaret, quae illi diuinitus inpertitur dono Spiritus Dei. Cum enim uiuat anima, inquiunt, proprio suae uitae modo, quid opus erat addere uiuentem, nisi ut ea uita intellegeretur, quae illi per sanctum Spiritum datur? Hoc quid est aliud nisi diligenter pro humana suspicione contendere et scripturas sanctas neglegenter adtendere? Quid enim magnum erat non ire longius, sed in eodem ipso libro paulo superius legere: Producat terra animam uiuentem, quando animalia terrestria cuncta creata sunt? Deinde aliquantis interpositis, in eodem tamen ipso libro quid magnum erat aduertere quod scriptum est: Et omnia, quae habent spiritum uitae, et omnis, qui erat super aridam, mortuus est, cum insinuaret omnia quae uiuebant in terra perisse diluuio? Si ergo et animam uiuentem et spiritum uitae etiam in pecoribus inuenimus, sicut loqui diuina scriptura consueuit, et cum hoc quoque loco, ubi legitur: Omnia quae habent spiritum uitae, non Graecus πνεῡμα, sed πνοην dixerit: quur non dicimus: Quid opus erat ut adderet uiuentem, cum anima nisi uiuat esse non possit? aut quid opus erat ut adderet uitae, cum dixisset spiritum? Sed intellegimus animam uiuentem et spiritum uitae scripturam suo more dixisse, cum animalia, id eat animata corpora, uellet intellegi, quibus inesset per animam perspicuus iste etiam corporis sensus. In hominis autem conditione obliuiscimur, quem ad modum loqui scriptura consueuerit, cum suo prorsus more locuta sit, quo insinuaret hominem etiam rationali anima accepta, quam non sicut aliarum carnium aquis et terra producentibus, sed Deo flante creatam uoluit intellegi, sic tamen factum, ut in corpore animali, quod fit anima in eo uiuente, sicut illa animalia uiueret, de quibus dixit: Producat terra animam uiuentem, et quae itidem dixit habuisse in se spiritum uitae; ubi etiam in Graeco non dixit πνεῡμα, sed ffvoVjv; non utique Spiritum sanctum, sed eorum animam tali exprimens nomine.

[¶14] But, again, they object that breath is understood to have been emitted from the mouth of God; and if we believe that is the soul, we must consequently acknowledge it to be of the same substance, and equal to that wisdom, which says, “I come out of the mouth of the Most High.” Wisdom, indeed, does not say it was breathed out of the mouth of God, but proceeded out of it. But as we are able, when we breathe, to make a breath, not of our own human nature, but of the surrounding air, which we inhale and exhale as we draw our breath and breathe again, so almighty God was able to make breath, not of His own nature, nor of the creature beneath Him, but even of nothing; and this breath, when He communicated it to man’s body, He is most appropriately said to have breathed or inspired,—the Immaterial breathing it also immaterial, but the Immutable not also the immutable; for it was created, He uncreated. Yet that these persons who are forward to quote Scripture, and yet know not the usages of its language, may know that not only what is equal and consubstantial with God is said to proceed out of His mouth, let them hear or read what God says: “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”

> Latin: Sed enim Dei flatus, inquiunt, Dei ore exisse intellegitur, quem si animam crediderimus, consequens erit, ut eiusdem fateamur esse substantiae paremque illius sapientiae, quae dicit: Ego ex ore Altissimi prodii. Non quidem dixit sapientia ore Dei efflatam se fuisse, sed ex eius ore prodisse. Sicut autem nos possumus non de nostra natura, qua homines sumus, sed de isto aere circumfuso, quem spirando ac respil’ando ducimus ac reddimus, flatum facere cum sufflamus: ita omnipotens Deus non de sua natura neque subiacenti creatura, sed etiam de nihilo potuit facere flatum, quem corpori hominis inserendo inspirasse uel insufflasse conuenientissime dictus est, incorporeus incorporeum, sed inmutabilis mutabilem, quia non creatus creatum. Verum tamen ut sciant isti, qui de scripturis loqui uolunt et scripturarum locutiones non aduertunt, non hoc solum dici exire ex ore Dei, quod est aequalis eiusdemque naturae, audiant uel legant quod Deo dicente scriptum est: Quoniam tepidus es et neque calidus neque frigidus, incipiam te reicere ex ore meo.

[¶15] There is no ground, then, for our objecting, when the apostle so expressly distinguishes the animal body from the spiritual—that is to say, the body in which we now are from that in which we are to be. He says, “It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.” Of all which words of his we have previously spoken. The animal body, accordingly, in which the apostle says that the first man Adam was made, was not so made that it could not die at all, but so that it should not die unless he should have sinned. That body, indeed, which shall be made spiritual and immortal by the quickening Spirit shall not be able to die at all; as the soul has been created immortal, and therefore, although by sin it may be said to die, and does lose a certain life of its own, namely, the Spirit of God, by whom it was enabled to live wisely and blessedly, yet it does not cease living a kind of life, though a miserable, because it is immortal by creation. So, too, the rebellious angels, though by sinning they did in a sense die, because they forsook God, the Fountain of life, which while they drank they were able to live wisely and well, yet they could not so die as to utterly cease living and feeling, for they are immortals by creation. And so, after the final judgment, they shall be hurled into the second death, and not even there be deprived of life or of sensation, but shall suffer torment. But those men who have been embraced by God’s grace, and are become the fellow-citizens of the holy angels who have continued in bliss, shall never more either sin or die, being endued with spiritual bodies; yet, being clothed with immortality, such as the angels enjoy, of which they cannot be divested even by sinning, the nature of their flesh shall continue the same, but all carnal corruption and unwieldiness shall be removed.

> Latin: Nulla itaque causa est, quur apertissime loquenti resistamus apostolo, ubi ab spiritali corpore corpus animale discernens, id est ab illo in quo futuri sumus hoc in quo nunc sumus, ait: Seminatur corpus animale, surget corpus spiritale; si est corpus animale, est et spiritale; sic et scriptum est: Factus est primus homo Adam in animam uiuentem, nouissimus Adam in spiritum uiuificantem. Sed non primum quod spiritale est, sed quod animale, postea spiritale. Primus homo de terra terrenus, secundus homo de caelo caelestis. Qualis terrenus, tales et terreni, et qualis caelestis, tales et caelestes. Et quo modo induimus imaginem terreni, induamus et imaginem eius qui de caelo est. De quibus omnibus apostolicis uerbis superius locuti sumus. Corpus igitur animale, in quo primum hominem Adam factum esse dicit apostolus, sic erat factum, non ut mori omnino non posset, sed ut non moreretur, nisi homo peccasset. Nam illud, quod spiritu uiuificante spiritale erit et inmortale, mori omnino non poterit, sicut anima creata est inmortalis, quae licet peccato mortua perhibeatur carens quaiam uita sua, hoc est dei Spiritu, quo etiam sapienter et beate uiuere poterat, tamen propria quadam, licet misera, uita sua non desinit uiuere, quia inmortalis est creata; sicut etiam desertores angeli, licet secundum quendam modum mortui sint peccando, quia fontem uitae deseruerunt, qui Deus est, quem potando sapienter et beate poterant uiuere, tamen non sic mori potuerunt, ut omni modo desisterent uiuere adque sentire, quoniam inmortales creati sunt; adque ita in secundam mortem post ultimum praecipitabuntur iudicium, ut nec illic uita careant, quando quidem etiam sensu, cum in doloribus futuri sunt, nori’carebunt. Sed homines ad Dei gratiam pertinentes, ciues sanctorum angelorum in beata uita manentium, ita spiritalibus corporibus induentur, ut neque peccent amplius neque. moriantur; ea tamen inmortalitate uestiti, quae. sicut angelerum, nec peccato possit auferri; natura quidem manente ca s, sed nulla omnino carnali corruptibilitate uel tarditate remanente.

[¶16] There remains a question which must be discussed, and, by the help of the Lord God of truth, solved: If the motion of concupiscence in the unruly members of our first parents arose out of their sin, and only when the divine grace deserted them; and if it was on that occasion that their eyes were opened to see, or, more exactly, notice their nakedness, and that they covered their shame because the shameless motion of their members was not subject to their will,—how, then, would they have begotten children had they remained sinless as they were created? But as this book must be concluded, and so large a question cannot be summarily disposed of, we may relegate it to the following book, in which it will be more conveniently treated.

> Latin: Sequitur autem quaestio necessario pertractanda et Domino Deo ueritatis adiuuante soluenda: Si libido membrorum inoboedientium ex peccato inoboedientiae in illis primis hominibus, cum illos diuina gratia deseruisset, exorta est; unde in suam nuditatem oculos aperuerunt, id est eam curiosius aduerterunt, et quia inpudens motus uoluntatis arbitrio resistebat, pudenda texerunt: quo modo essent filios propagaturi. si, ut creati fuerant, sine praeuaricatione mansissent. Sed quia et liber iste claudendus est nec tanta quaestio in sermonis angustias coartanda, in eum qui sequitur commodiore dispositione differtur.

### Of the punishment and results of man’s first sin, and of the propagation of man without lust.

[¶18] Book XIV.

> Latin: Liber XIV

[¶19] Argument—Augustin again treats of the sin of the first man, and teaches that it is the cause of the carnal life and vicious affections of man. Especially he proves that the shame which accompanies lust is the just punishment of that disobedience, and inquires how man, if he had not sinned, would have been able without lust to propagate his kind.

### That the Disobedience of the First Man Would Have Plunged All Men into the Endless Misery of the Second Death, Had Not the Grace of God Rescued Many.

[¶21] Chapter 1.—That the Disobedience of the First Man Would Have Plunged All Men into the Endless Misery of the Second Death, Had Not the Grace of God Rescued Many.

> Latin: Caput I. Per inoboedientiam primi hominis omnes in secundae mortis perpetuitatem ruituros fuisse, nisi multos Dei gratia liberaret.

[¶22] We have already stated in the preceding books that God, desiring not only that the human race might be able by their similarity of nature to associate with one another, but also that they might be bound together in harmony and peace by the ties of relationship, was pleased to derive all men from one individual, and created man with such a nature that the members of the race should not have died, had not the two first (of whom the one was created out of nothing, and the other out of him) merited this by their disobedience; for by them so great a sin was committed, that by it the human nature was altered for the worse, and was transmitted also to their posterity, liable to sin and subject to death. And the kingdom of death so reigned over men, that the deserved penalty of sin would have hurled all headlong even into the second death, of which there is no end, had not the undeserved grace of God saved some therefrom. And thus it has come to pass, that though there are very many and great nations all over the earth, whose rites and customs, speech, arms, and dress, are distinguished by marked differences, yet there are no more than two kinds of human society, which we may justly call two cities, according to the language of our Scriptures. The one consists of those who wish to live after the flesh, the other of those who wish to live after the spirit; and when they severally achieve what they wish, they live in peace, each after their kind.

> Latin: Diximus iam superioribus libris ad humanum genus non solum naturae similitudine sociandum, uerum etiam quadam cognationis necessitudine in unitatem concordem pacis uinculo conligandum ex homine uno Deum uoluisse homines instituere, neque hoc genus fuisse in singulis quibusque moriturum, nisi duo primi, quorum creatus est unus ex nullo, altera ex illo, id inoboedientia meruissent, a quibus admissum est tam grande peccatum, ut in deterius eo natura mutaretur humana, etiam in posteros obligatione peccati et mortis necessitate transmissa. Mortis autem regnum in homines usque adeo dominatum est, ut omnes in secundam quoque mortem, cuius nullus est finis, poena debita praecipites ageret, nisi inde quosdam indebita Dei gratia liberaret. Ac per hoc factum est, ut, cum tot tantaeque gentes per terrarum orbem diuersis ritibus moribusque uiuentes multiplici linguarum armorum uestium sint uarietate distinctae, non tamen amplius quam duo quaedam genera humanae societatis existerent, quas ciuitates duas secundum scripturas nostras merito appellare possemus. Una quippe est hominum secundum carnem, altera secundum spiritum uiuere in - sui cuiusque generis pace uolentium et, cum id quod expetunt adsequuntur, in sui cuiusque generis pace uiuentium.

## 64. Of Carnal Life, Which is to Be Understood Not Only of Living in Bodily Indulgence, But Also of Living in the Vices of the Inner Man.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/64/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/64/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 2.—Of Carnal Life, Which is to Be Understood Not Only of Living in Bodily Indulgence, But Also of Living in the Vices of the Inner Man.

> Latin: Caput II. De uita carnali, quae non ex corporis tantum, sed etiam ex animi intellegenda sit uitiis:

[¶1] First, we must see what it is to live after the flesh, and what to live after the spirit. For any one who either does not recollect, or does not sufficiently weigh, the language of sacred Scripture, may, on first hearing what we have said, suppose that the Epicurean philosophers live after the flesh, because they place man’s highest good in bodily pleasure; and that those others do so who have been of opinion that in some form or other bodily good is man’s supreme good; and that the mass of men do so who, without dogmatizing or philosophizing on the subject, are so prone to lust that they cannot delight in any pleasure save such as they receive from bodily sensations: and he may suppose that the Stoics, who place the supreme good of men in the soul, live after the spirit; for what is man’s soul, if not spirit? But in the sense of the divine Scripture both are proved to live after the flesh. For by flesh it means not only the body of a terrestrial and mortal animal, as when it says, “All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, another of birds,” but it uses this word in many other significations; and among these various usages, a frequent one is to use flesh for man himself, the nature of man taking the part for the whole, as in the words, “By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified;” for what does he mean here by “no flesh” but “no man?” And this, indeed, he shortly after says more plainly: “No man shall be justified by the law;” and in the Epistle to the Galatians, “Knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law.” And so we understand the words, “And the Word was made flesh,”—that is, man, which some not accepting in its right sense, have supposed that Christ had not a human soul. For as the whole is used for the part in the words of Mary Magdalene in the Gospel, “They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him,” by which she meant only the flesh of Christ, which she supposed had been taken from the tomb where it had been buried, so the part is used for the whole, flesh being named, while man is referred to, as in the quotations above cited.

> Latin: Prius ergo uidendum est, quid sit secundum carnem, quid secundum spiritum uiuere. Quisquis enim hoc quod diximus prima fronte inspicit, uel non recolens uel minus aduertens quem ad modum scripturae sanctae loquantur, potest putare philosophos quidem Epicureos secundum carnem uiuere, quia summum bonum hominis in corporis uoluptate posuerunt, et si qui alii sunt, qui quoquo modo corporis bonum summum bonum esse hominis opinati sunt, et eorum omne uulgus, qui non aliquo dogmate uel eo modo philosophantur, sed procliues ad libidinem nisi ex uoluptatibus, quas corporeis sensibus capiunt, gaudere nesciunt; Stoicos autem, qui summum bonum hominis in animo ponunt, secundum spiritum uiuere, quia et hominis animus quid est nisi spiritus? Sed sicut loquitur scriptura diuina, secundum carnem uiuere utrique monstrantur. Carnem quippe appellat non solum corpus terreni adque mortalis aninr.antis (ueluti cum dicit: Non omnis caro eadem caro; alia quidem hominis, alia autem caro pecoris, alia uolucrum, alia piscium), sed et aliis multis modis significatione huius nominis utitur, inter quos uarios locutionis modos saepe etiam ipsum hominem, id est naturam hominis, carnem nuncupat, modo locutionis a parte totum, quale est: Ex operibus legis non iustificabitur omnis caro. Quid enim uoluit intellegi nisi omnis homo? Quod apertius paulo post ait: In lege nemo iustificatur, et ad Galatas: Scientes autem quia non iustificatur homo exoperibuslegis. Secundum hoc intellegitur: Et Verbum caro factum est, id est homo; quod non recte accipientes quidam putauerunt Christo humanam animam defuisse. Sicut enim a toto pars accipitur, ubi Mariae Magdalenae uerba in euangelio leguntur dicentis: Tulerant Dominum meum et nescio ubi posuerunt eum, cum de sola Christi carne loqueretur, quam sepultam de monumento putabat ablatam: ita et a parte totum carne nominata intellegitur homo, sicuti ea sunt quae supra commemorauimus.

[¶2] Since, then, Scripture uses the word flesh in many ways, which there is not time to collect and investigate, if we are to ascertain what it is to live after the flesh (which is certainly evil, though the nature of flesh is not itself evil), we must carefully examine that passage of the epistle which the Apostle Paul wrote to the Galatians, in which he says, “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” This whole passage of the apostolic epistle being considered, so far as it bears on the matter in hand, will be sufficient to answer the question, what it is to live after the flesh. For among the works of the flesh which he said were manifest, and which he cited for condemnation, we find not only those which concern the pleasure of the flesh, as fornications, uncleanness, lasciviousness, drunkenness, revellings, but also those which, though they be remote from fleshly pleasure, reveal the vices of the soul. For who does not see that idolatries, witchcrafts, hatreds, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, heresies, envyings, are vices rather of the soul than of the flesh? For it is quite possible for a man to abstain from fleshly pleasures for the sake of idolatry or some heretical error; and yet, even when he does so, he is proved by this apostolic authority to be living after the flesh; and in abstaining from fleshly pleasure, he is proved to be practising damnable works of the flesh. Who that has enmity has it not in his soul? or who would say to his enemy, or to the man he thinks his enemy, You have a bad flesh towards me, and not rather, You have a bad spirit towards me? In fine, if any one heard of what I may call “carnalities,” he would not fail to attribute them to the carnal part of man; so no one doubts that “animosities” belong to the soul of man. Why then does the doctor of the Gentiles in faith and verity call all these and similar things works of the flesh, unless because, by that mode of speech whereby the part is used for the whole, he means us to understand by the word flesh the man himself?

> Latin: Cum igitur multis modis, quos perscrutari et colligere longum est, diuina scriptura nuncupet carnem: quid sit secundum carnem uiuere (quod profecto malum est, cum ipsa carnis natura non sit malum) ut indagare possimus, inspiciamus diligenter illum locum epistulae Pauli apostoli quam scripsit ad Galatas, ubi ait: Manifesta autem sunt opera carnis, quae sunt fornicationes, inmunditiae, luxuria, idolorum seruitus, ueneficia, inimicitiae, contentiones, aemulationes, animositates, dissensiones, haereses, inuidiae, ebrietates, comisationes et his similia; quae praedico uobis, sicut praedixi, quoniam qui talia agunt regnum Dei non possidebunt. Iste totus epistulae apostolicae locus, quantum ad + rem praesentem satis esse uidebitur, consideratus poterit hanc dissoluere quaestionem, quid sit secundum carnem uiuere. In operibus namque carnis, quae manifesta esse dixit eaque commemorata damnauit, non illa tantum inuenimus, quae ad uoluptatem pertinent camis, sicuti sunt fornicationes, inmunditiae, luxuria, ebrietates, comisationes; uerum etiam illa, quibus animi uitia demonstrantur a uoluptate carnis aliena. Quis enim seruitutem, quae idolis exhibetur, ueneficia, inimicitias, contentiones, aemulationes, animositates, dissensiones, haereses, inuidias non potius intellegat animi uitia esse quam carnis? Quando quidem fieri potest, ut propter idololatriam uel haeresis alicuius errorem a uoluptatibus corporis tempe-. retur; et tamen etiam tunc homo, quamuis carnis libidines continere adque cohibere uideatur, secundum carnem uiuere hac apostolica auctoritate conuincitur, et in eo, quod abstinet a uoluptatibus carnis, damnabilia opera carnis agere demonstratur. Quis inimicitias non in animo habeat? aut quis ita loquatur, ut inimico suo uel quem putat inimicum dicat: ‘Malam carnem,’ ac non potius: ‘Malum animum habes aduersus me’? Postremo sicut carnalitates, ut ita dicam. si quis audisset, non dubitaret carni tribuere, ita nemo dubitat animositates ad animum pertinere. Quur ergo haec omnia et his similia doctor gentium in fide et ueritate opera carnis appellat, nisi quia eo locutionis modo, quo totum significatur a parte, ipsum hominem uult nomine carnis intellegi?

## 65. That the Sin is Caused Not by the Flesh, But by the Soul, and that the Corruption Contracted from Sin is Not Sin But Sin’s Punishment.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/65/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/65/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 3.—That the Sin is Caused Not by the Flesh, But by the Soul, and that the Corruption Contracted from Sin is Not Sin But Sin’s Punishment.

> Latin: Caput III. Peccati causam ex anima, non ex carne prodisse, et corruptionem ex peccato contractam non peccatum esse, sed poenam.

[¶1] But if any one says that the flesh is the cause of all vices and ill conduct, inasmuch as the soul lives wickedly only because it is moved by the flesh, it is certain he has not carefully considered the whole nature of man. For “the corruptible body, indeed, weigheth down the soul.” Whence, too, the apostle, speaking of this corruptible body, of which he had shortly before said, “though our outward man perish,” says, “We know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: if so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up in life.” We are then burdened with this corruptible body; but knowing that the cause of this burdensomeness is not the nature and substance of the body, but its corruption, we do not desire to be deprived of the body, but to be clothed with its immortality. For then, also, there will be a body, but it shall no longer be a burden, being no longer corruptible. At present, then, “the corruptible body presseth down the soul, and the earthly tabernacle weigheth down the mind that museth upon many things,” nevertheless they are in error who suppose that all the evils of the soul proceed from the body.

> Latin: Quod si quisquam dicit carnem causam esse in malis moribus quorumcumque uitiorum, eo quod anima carne adfecta sic uiuit, profecto non uniuersam hominis naturam diligenter aduertit. Nam (cs o rpu s quidem corruptibile adgrauat animam). Unde etiam idem apostolus agens de hoc corruptibili corpore, de quo paulo ante dixerat: Etsi exterior homo noster corrumpitur: Scimus, inquit, quia, terrena nostra domus habitationis resoluatur, aedificationem habemus ex Deo, domum non manu factam aeternam in caelis. Etenim in hoc ingemescimus, habitaculum nostrum quod de caelo est superindui cupientes; si tamen et induti, non nudi inueniamur. Etenim qui sumus in hac habitatione, ingemescimus grauati, in quo nolumus exspoliari, sed superuestiri, ut absorbeatur mortale a uita. Et adgrauamur ergo corruptibili corpore, et ipsius adgrauationis causam non naturam substantiamque corporis, sed eius corruptionem scientes nolumus corpore spoliari, sed eius inmortalitate uestiri. Et tunc enim erit, sed quia corruptibile non erit, non grauabit. Adgrauat ergo nunc animam corpus corruptibile, et deprimit terrena inhabitatio sensum multa cogitantem. Verum tamen qui omnia mala animae ex corpore putant accidisse, in errore sunt.

[¶2] Virgil, indeed, seems to express the sentiments of Plato in the beautiful lines, where he says,—

[¶3] “A fiery strength inspires their lives,

[¶4] An essence that from heaven derives,

[¶5] Though clogged in part by limbs of clay

[¶6] And the dull ’vesture of decay;’”

> Latin: Quamuis enim Vergilius Platonicam uideatur luculentis uersibus explicare sententiam dicens: Igneus est illis uigor et caelestis origo Seminibus, quantum non noxia corpora tardant Terrenique hebetant artus moribundaque membra, omnesque illas notissimas quattuor animi perturbationes, cupiditatem timorem, laetitiam tristitiam, quasi origines omnium peccatorum adque uitiorum uolens intellegi ex corpore accidere subiungat et dicat: Hinc metuunt cupiuntque, dolent gaudentque, nec auras Suspiciunt, clausae tenebris et carcere caeco: tamen aliter se habet fides nostra.

[¶7] but though he goes on to mention the four most common mental emotions,—desire, fear, joy, sorrow,—with the intention of showing that the body is the origin of all sins and vices, saying,—

[¶8] “Hence wild desires and grovelling fears,

[¶9] And human laughter, human tears,

[¶10] Immured in dungeon-seeming nights

[¶11] They look abroad, yet see no light,”

[¶12] yet we believe quite otherwise. For the corruption of the body, which weighs down the soul, is not the cause but the punishment of the first sin; and it was not the corruptible flesh that made the soul sinful, but the sinful soul that made the flesh corruptible. And though from this corruption of the flesh there arise certain incitements to vice, and indeed vicious desires, yet we must not attribute to the flesh all the vices of a wicked life, in case we thereby clear the devil of all these, for he has no flesh. For though we cannot call the devil a fornicator or drunkard, or ascribe to him any sensual indulgence (though he is the secret instigator and prompter of those who sin in these ways), yet he is exceedingly proud and envious. And this viciousness has so possessed him, that on account of it he is reserved in chains of darkness to everlasting punishment. Now these vices, which have dominion over the devil, the apostle attributes to the flesh, which certainly the devil has not. For he says “hatred, variance, emulations, strife, envying” are the works of the flesh; and of all these evils pride is the origin and head, and it rules in the devil though he has no flesh. For who shows more hatred to the saints? who is more at variance with them? who more envious, bitter, and jealous? And since he exhibits all these works, though he has no flesh, how are they works of the flesh, unless because they are the works of man, who is, as I said, spoken of under the name of flesh? For it is not by having flesh, which the devil has not, but by living according to himself,—that is, according to man,—that man became like the devil. For the devil too, wished to live according to himself when he did not abide in the truth; so that when he lied, this was not of God, but of himself, who is not only a liar, but the father of lies, he being the first who lied, and the originator of lying as of sin.

> Latin: Nam corruptio corporis, quae adgrauat animam, non peccati primi est causa, sed poena; nec caro corruptibilis animam peccatricem, sed anima peccatrix fecit esse corruptibilem carnem. Ex qua corruptione carnis licet existant quaedam incitamenta uitiorum et ipsa desideria uitiosa, non tamen omnia uitae iniquae uitia tribuenda sunt carni, ne ab his omnibus purgemus diabolum, qui non habet carnem. Etsi enim diabolus fornicator uel ebriosus uel si quid huius modi mali est, quod ad carnis pertinet uoluptates, non potest dici, cum sit etiam talium peccatorum suasor et instigator occultus: est tamen maxime superbus adque inuidus. Quae illum uitiositas sic obtinuit, ut propter hanc esset in carceribus caliginosi huius aeris aeterno supplicio destinatus. Haec autem uitia, quae tenent in diabolo principatum, carni tribuit apostolus, quam certum est diabolum non habere. Dicit enim inimicitias, contentiones, aemulationes, animositates, inuidias opera esse carnis; quorum omnium malorum caput adque origo superbia est, quae sine carne regnat in diabolo. Quis autem illo est inimicior sanctis? Quis aduersus eos contentiosior, animosior et magis aemulus adque inuidus inuenitur? At haec omnia cum habeat sine carne, quo modo sunt ista opera carnis, nisi quia opera sunt hominis, quem, sicut dixi, nomine carnis appellat? Non enim habendo carnem, quam non habet diabolus, sed uiuendo secundum se ipsum, hoc est secundum hominem, factus est homo similis diabolo; quia et ille secundum se ipsum uiuere uoluit, quando in ueritate non stetit, ut non de Dei, sed de suo mendacium loqueretur, qui non solum mendax, uerum etiam mendacii pater est. Primus est quippe mentitus, et a quo peccatum, ab illo coepit esse mendacium.

### What It is to Live According to Man, and What to Live According to God.

[¶14] Chapter 4.—What It is to Live According to Man, and What to Live According to God.

> Latin: Caput IV. Quid sit secundum hominem, quid autem secundum Deum uiuere.

[¶15] When, therefore, man lives according to man, not according to God, he is like the devil. Because not even an angel might live according to an angel, but only according to God, if he was to abide in the truth, and speak God’s truth and not his own lie. And of man, too, the same apostle says in another place, “If the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie;”—“my lie,” he said, and “God’s truth.” When, then, a man lives according to the truth, he lives not according to himself, but according to God; for He was God who said, “I am the truth.” When, therefore, man lives according to himself,—that is, according to man, not according to God,—assuredly he lives according to a lie; not that man himself is a lie, for God is his author and creator, who is certainly not the author and creator of a lie, but because man was made upright, that he might not live according to himself, but according to Him that made him,—in other words, that he might do His will and not his own; and not to live as he was made to live, that is a lie. For he certainly desires to be blessed even by not living so that he may be blessed. And what is a lie if this desire be not? Wherefore it is not without meaning said that all sin is a lie. For no sin is committed save by that desire or will by which we desire that it be well with us, and shrink from it being ill with us. That, therefore, is a lie which we do in order that it may be well with us, but which makes us more miserable than we were. And why is this, but because the source of man’s happiness lies only in God, whom he abandons when he sins, and not in himself, by living according to whom he sins?

> Latin: Cum ergo uiuit homo secundum hominem, non secundum Deum, similis est diabolo; quia nec angelo secundum angelum, sed secundum Deum uiuendum fuit, ut staret in ueritate et ueritatem de illius, non de suo mendacium loqueretur. Nam et de homine alio loco idem apostolus ait: Si autem ueritas Dei in meo mendacio abundauit. Nostrum dixit mendacium, ueritatem Dei. Cum itaque uiuit homo secundum ueritatem, non uiuit secundum se ipsum, sed secundum Deum. Deus est enim qui dixit: Ego sum ueritas. Cum uero uiuit secundum se ipsum, hoc est secundum hominem, non secundum Deum, profecto secundum mendacium uiuit; non quia homo ipse mendacium est, cum sit eius auctor et creator Deus, qui non est utique auctor creatorque mendacii, sed quia homo ita factus est rectus, ut non secundum se ipsum, sed secundum eum, a quo factus est, uiueret, id est illius potius quam suam faceret uoluntatem: non ita uiuere, quem ad modum est factus ut uiueret, hoc est mendacium. Beatus quippe uult esse etiam non sic uiuendo ut possit esse. Quid est ista uoluntate mendacius? Unde non frustra dici potest omne peccatum esse mendacium. Non enim fit peccatum nisi ea uoluntate, qua uolumus ut bene sit nobis uel nolumus ut male sit nobis. Ergo mendacium est, quod, cum fiat ut bene sit nobis, hinc potius male est nobis, uel cum fiat ut melius sit nobis, hinc potius peius est nobis. Unde hoc, nisi quia de Deo potest bene esse homini, quem delinquendo deserit, non de se ipso, secundum quem uiuendo delinquit?

[¶16] In enunciating this proposition of ours, then, that because some live according to the flesh and others according to the spirit, there have arisen two diverse and conflicting cities, we might equally well have said, “because some live according to man, others according to God.” For Paul says very plainly to the Corinthians, “For whereas there is among you envying and strife, are ye not carnal, and walk according to man?” So that to walk according to man and to be carnal are the same; for by flesh, that is, by a part of man, man is meant. For before he said that those same persons were animal whom afterwards he calls carnal, saying, “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things which are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the animal man perceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him.” It is to men of this kind, then, that is, to animal men, he shortly after says, “And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal.” And this is to be interpreted by the same usage, a part being taken for the whole. For both the soul and the flesh, the component parts of man, can be used to signify the whole man; and so the animal man and the carnal man are not two different things, but one and the same thing, viz., man living according to man. In the same way it is nothing else than men that are meant either in the words, “By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified;” or in the words, “Seventy-five souls went down into Egypt with Jacob.” In the one passage, “no flesh” signifies “no man;” and in the other, by “seventy-five souls” seventy-five men are meant. And the expression, “not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth” might equally be “not in words which fleshly wisdom teacheth;” and the expression, “ye walk according to man,” might be “according to the flesh.” And this is still more apparent in the words which followed: “For while one saith, I am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollos, are ye not men?” The same thing which he had before expressed by “ye are animal,” “ye are carnal, he now expresses by “ye are men;” that is, ye live according to man, not according to God, for if you lived according to Him, you should be gods.

> Latin: Quod itaque diximus, hinc extitisse duas ciuitates diuersas inter se adque contrarias, quod alii secundum carnem, alii secundum spiritum uiuerent: potest etiam isto modo dici quod alii secundum hominem, alii secundum Deum uiuant Apertissime quippe <Paulus) ad Corinthios dicit: Cum enim sint inter uos aemulatio et contentio, nonne carnales estis et secundum hominem ambulatis? Quod ergo est ambulare secundum hominem, hoc est esse carnalem, quod a carne, id est a parte hominis, intellegitur homo. Eosdem ipsos quippe dixit superius animales, quos postea carnales, ita loquens: Quis enim scit, inquit, hominum, quae sunt hominis, nisi spiritus hominis, qui in ipso est? Sic et quae Dei sunt, nemo scit nisi spiritus Dei. Nos autem, inquit, non spiritum huius mundi accepimus, sed spiritum qui ex Deo est, ut sciamus quae a Deo donata sunt nobis; quae et loquimur, non in sapientiae humanae doctis uerbis, sed doctis spiritu, spiritalibus spiritalia conparantes. Animalis autem homo non percipit quae sunt a spiritus Dei; stultitia est enim illi. Talibus igitur, id est animalibus, paulo post dicit: Et ego, fratres, non potui loqui uobis quasi spiritalibus, sed quasi carnalibus; et illud et hoc eodem loquendi modo, id est a parte totum. Et ab anima namque et a carne, quae sunt partes hominis, potest totum significari, quod est homo; adque ita non est aliud animalis homo, aliud carnalis, sed idem ipsum est utrumque, id est secundum hominem uiuens homo; sicut non aliud quam homines significantur, siue ubi legitur: Ei operibus legis non iustificabitur omnis caro, siue quod scriptum est: Septuaginta quinque animae descenderunt cum Iacob in Aegyptum. Et ibi enim per omnem carnem omnis homo, et ibi per septuaginta quinque animas septuaginta quinque homines intelleguntur. Et quod dictum est: Non in sapientiae humanae doctis uerbis, potuit dici: (Non in sapientiae carnalis’; sicut quod dictum est: Secundum hominem ambulatis, potuit dici: ‘Secundum carnem em). Magis autem hoc apparuit in his quae subiunxit: Cum enim quis dicat: Ego quidem sum Pauli, alius autem: Ego Apollo, nonne homines estis? Quod dicebat: Animales estis, et: Carnales estis, expressius dixit: Homines estis, quod est: ‘Secundum hominem uiuitis, non secundum Deum, secundum quem si uiueretis, di essetis.’

## 66. That the Opinion of the Platonists Regarding the Nature of Body and Soul is Not So Censurable as that of the Manichæans, But that Even It is Objectionable, Because It Ascribes the Origin of Vices to the Nature of The Flesh.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/66/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/66/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 5.—That the Opinion of the Platonists Regarding the Nature of Body and Soul is Not So Censurable as that of the Manichæans, But that Even It is Objectionable, Because It Ascribes the Origin of Vices to the Nature of The Flesh.

> Latin: Caput V. Quod de corporis animaeque natura tolerabilior quidem Platonicorum quam Manichaeorum sit opinio, sed et ipsa reprobanda, quoniam uitiorum omnium causas naturae carnis adscribunt.

[¶1] There is no need, therefore, that in our sins and vices we accuse the nature of the flesh to the injury of the Creator, for in its own kind and degree the flesh is good; but to desert the Creator good, and live according to the created good, is not good, whether a man choose to live according to the flesh, or according to the soul, or according to the whole human nature, which is composed of flesh and soul, and which is therefore spoken of either by the name flesh alone, or by the name soul alone. For he who extols the nature of the soul as the chief good, and condemns the nature of the flesh as if it were evil, assuredly is fleshly both in his love of the soul and hatred of the flesh; for these his feelings arise from human fancy, not from divine truth. The Platonists, indeed, are not so foolish as, with the Manichæans, to detest our present bodies as an evil nature; for they attribute all the elements of which this visible and tangible world is compacted, with all their qualities, to God their Creator. Nevertheless, from the death-infected members and earthly construction of the body they believe the soul is so affected, that there are thus originated in it the diseases of desires, and fears, and joy, and sorrow, under which four perturbations, as Cicero calls them, or passions, as most prefer to name them with the Greeks, is included the whole viciousness of human life. But if this be so, how is it that Æneas in Virgil, when he had heard from his father in Hades that the souls should return to bodies, expresses surprise at this declaration, and exclaims:

> Latin: Non igitur opus est in peccatis uitiisque nostris ad Creatoris iniuriam carnis accusare naturam, quae in genere adque ordine suo bona est; sed deserto Creatore bono uiuere secundum creatum bonum non est bonum, siue quisque secundum carnem siue secundum animam siue secundum totum hominem, qui ex anima constat et carne (unde et nomine solius animae et nomine solius carnis significari potest) eligat uiuere. Nam qui uelut summum bonum laudat animae naturam et tamquam malum naturam carnis accusat, profecto et animam carnaliter adpetit et carnem carnaliter fugit, quoniam id uanitate sentit humana, non ueritate diuina. Non quidem Platonici sicut Manichaei desipiunt, ut tamquam mali naturam terrena corpora detestentur, cum omnia elementa, quibus iste mundus uisibilis contrectabilisque conpactus est, qualitatesque eorum Deo artifici tribuant; uerum tamen ex terrenis artubus moribundisque membris sic adfici animas opinantur, ut hinc eis sint morbi cupiditatum et timorum et laetitiae siue tristitiae; quibus quattuor uel perturbationibus, ut Cicero appellat, uel passionibus, ut plerique uerbum e uerbo Graeco exprimunt, omnis humanorum morum uitiositas continetur. Quod si ita est, quid est quod Aeneas aput Vergilium, cum audisset a patre aput inferos animas rursus ad corpora redituras, hanc opinionem miratur exclamans: O pater, anne aliquas ad caelum hinc ire putandum est Sublimes animas iterumque ad tarda reuerti Corpora?

[¶2] “O father! and can thought conceive

[¶3] That happy souls this realm would leave,

[¶4] And seek the upper sky,

[¶5] With sluggish clay to reunite?

[¶6] This direful longing for the light,

[¶7] Whence comes it, say, and why?”

> Latin: Quae lucis miseris tam dira cupido?

[¶8] This direful longing, then, does it still exist even in that boasted purity of the disembodied spirits, and does it still proceed from the death-infected members and earthly limbs? Does he not assert that, when they begin to long to return to the body, they have already been delivered from all these so-called pestilences of the body? From which we gather that, were this endlessly alternating purification and defilement of departing and returning souls as true as it is most certainly false, yet it could not be averred that all culpable and vicious motions of the soul originate in the earthly body; for, on their own showing, “this direful longing,” to use the words of their noble exponent, is so extraneous to the body, that it moves the soul that is purged of all bodily taint, and is existing apart from any body whatever, and moves it, moreover, to be embodied again. So that even they themselves acknowledge that the soul is not only moved to desire, fear, joy, sorrow, by the flesh, but that it can also be agitated with these emotions at its own instance.

> Latin: Numquidnam haec tam dira cupido ex terrenis artubus moribundisque membris adhuc inest animarum illi praedicatissimae puritati? Nonne ab huius modi corporeis, ut dicit, pestibus omnibus eas adserit esse purgatas, cum rursus incipiunt in corpora uelle reuerti? Unde colligitur, etiamsi ita se haberet, quod est omnino uanissimum, uicissim alternans incessabiliter euntium adque redeuntium animarum mundatio et inquinatio, non potuisse ueraciter dici omnes culpabiles adque uitiosos motus animarum eis ex terrenis corporibus inolescere, si quidem secundum ipsos illa, ut locutor nobilis ait, dira cupido usque adeo non est ex corpore, ut ab omni corporea peste purgatam et extra omne corpus animam constitutam ipsam esse conpellat in corpore. Unde etiam illis fatentibus non ex carne tantum adficitur anima, ut cupiat metuat, laetetur aegrescat, uerum etiam ex se ipsa his potest motibus agitari.

### Of the Character of the Human Will Which Makes the Affections of the Soul Right or Wrong.

[¶10] Chapter 6.—Of the Character of the Human Will Which Makes the Affections of the Soul Right or Wrong.

> Latin: Caput VI. De qualitate uoluntatis humanae, sub cuius iudicio adfectiones animi aut prauae habentur aut rectae.

[¶11] But the character of the human will is of moment; because, if it is wrong, these motions of the soul will be wrong, but if it is right, they will be not merely blameless, but even praiseworthy. For the will is in them all; yea, none of them is anything else than will. For what are desire and joy but a volition of consent to the things we wish? And what are fear and sadness but a volition of aversion from the things which we do not wish? But when consent takes the form of seeking to possess the things we wish, this is called desire; and when consent takes the form of enjoying the things we wish, this is called joy. In like manner, when we turn with aversion from that which we do not wish to happen, this volition is termed fear; and when we turn away from that which has happened against our will, this act of will is called sorrow. And generally in respect of all that we seek or shun, as a man’s will is attracted or repelled, so it is changed and turned into these different affections. Wherefore the man who lives according to God, and not according to man, ought to be a lover of good, and therefore a hater of evil. And since no one is evil by nature, but whoever is evil is evil by vice, he who lives according to God ought to cherish towards evil men a perfect hatred, so that he shall neither hate the man because of his vice, nor love the vice because of the man, but hate the vice and love the man. For the vice being cursed, all that ought to be loved, and nothing that ought to be hated, will remain.

> Latin: Interest autem qualis sit uoluntas hominis; quia si peruersa est, peruersos habebit hos motus; si autem recta est, non solum inculpabiles, uerum etiam laudalibes erunt. Voluntas est quippe in omnibus; immo omnes nihil aliud quam uoluntates sunt. Nam quid est cupiditas et laetitia nisi uoluntas in eorum consensione quae uolumus? Et quid est metus adque tristitia nisi uoluntas in dissensione ab his quae nolumus? Sed cum consentimus adpetendo ea quae uolumus, cupiditas; cum autem consentimus fruendo his quae uolumus, laetitia uocatur. Itemque cum dissentimus ab eo quod accidere nolumus, talis uoluntas metus est; cum autem dissentimus ab eo quod nolentibus accidit, talis uoluntas tristitia est. Et omnino pro uarietate rerum, quae adpetuntur adque fugiuntur, sicut adlicitur uel offenditur uoluntas hominis, ita in hos uel illos adfectus mutatur et uertitur. Quapropter homo, qui secundum Deum, non secundum hominem uiuit, oportet ut sit amator boni; unde fit consequens ut malum oderit. Et quoniam nemo natura, sed quisquis malus est, uitio malus est: perfectum odium debet malis, qui secundum Deum uiuit, ut nec propter uitium oderit hominem nec amet uitium propter hominem, sed oderit uitium, amet hominem. Sanato enim uitio totum quod amare, nihil autem quod debeat odisse remanebit.

### That the Words Love and Regard (Amor and Dilectio) are in Scripture Used Indifferently of Good and Evil Affection.

[¶13] Chapter 7.—That the Words Love and Regard (Amor and Dilectio) are in Scripture Used Indifferently of Good and Evil Affection.

> Latin: Caput VII. Amorem et dilectionem indifferenter et in bono et in malo aput sacras litteras inueniri.

[¶14] He who resolves to love God, and to love his neighbor as himself, not according to man but according to God, is on account of this love said to be of a good will; and this is in Scripture more commonly called charity, but it is also, even in the same books, called love. For the apostle says that the man to be elected as a ruler of the people must be a lover of good. And when the Lord Himself had asked Peter, “Hast thou a regard for me (diligis) more than these?” Peter replied, “Lord, Thou knowest that I love (amo) Thee.” And again a second time the Lord asked not whether Peter loved (amaret) Him, but whether he had a regard (diligeret)for Him, and, he again answered, “Lord, Thou knowest that I love (amo) Thee.” But on the third interrogation the Lord Himself no longer says, “Hast thou a regard (diligis) for me,”but “Lovest thou (amas) me?” And then the evangelist adds, “Peter was grieved because He said unto him the third time, “Lovest thou (amas) me?” though the Lord had not said three times but only once, “Lovest thou (amas) me?” and twice “Diligis me ?” from which we gather that, even when the Lord said “diligis,” He used an equivalent for “amas.” Peter, too, throughout used one word for the one thing, and the third time also replied, “Lord, Thou knowest all things, Thou knowest that I love (amo) Thee.”

> Latin: Nam cuius propositum est amare Deum et non secundum hominem, sed secundum Deum amare proximum, sicut etiam se ipsum: procul dubio propter hunc amorem dicitur uoluntatis bonae, quae usitatius in scripturis sanctis caritas appellatur; sed amor quoque secundum easdem sacras litteras dicitur. Nam et amatorem boni apostolus dicit esse debere, quem regendo populo praecipit eligendum, et ipse Dominus Petrum apostolum interrogans cum dixisset: Diligis me plus his? ille respondit: Domine, tu scis quia amo te; et iterum Dominus quaesiuit, non utrum amaret, sed utrum diligeret eum Petrus; at ille respondit iterum: Domine, tu scis quia amo te; tertia uero interrogatione et ipse Iesus non ait: Diligis me?’ sed: Amas me? ubi secutus ait euangelista: Contristatus est Petrus, quia dixit ei tertio: Amas me? cum Dominus non tertio, sed semel dixerit: Amas me? bis autem dixerit: Diligis me? Unde intellegimus, quod etiam cum dicebat Dominus: Diligis me? nihil aliud dicebat quam: Amas me? Petrus autem non mutauit huius unius rei uerbum, sed etiam tertio: Domine, inquit, tu omnia scis, tu scis quia amo te.

[¶15] I have judged it right to mention this, because some are of opinion that charity or regard (dilectio) is one thing, love (amor) another. They say that dilectio is used of a good affection, amor of an evil love. But it is very certain that even secular literature knows no such distinction. However, it is for the philosophers to determine whether and how they differ, though their own writings sufficiently testify that they make great account of love (amor) placed on good objects, and even on God Himself. But we wished to show that the Scriptures of our religion, whose authority we prefer to all writings whatsoever, make no distinction between amor, dilectio, and caritas; and we have already shown that amor is used in a good connection. And if any one fancy that amor is no doubt used both of good and bad loves, but that dilectio is reserved for the good only, let him remember what the psalm says, “He that loveth (diligit) iniquity hateth his own soul;” and the words of the Apostle John, “If any man love (diligere) the world, the love (dilectio) of the Father is not in him.” Here you have in one passage dilectio used both in a good and a bad sense. And if any one demands an instance of amor being used in a bad sense (for we have already shown its use in a good sense), let him read the words, “For men shall be lovers (amantes) of their own selves, lovers (amatores) of money.”

> Latin: Hoc propterea commemorandum putaui, quia nonnulli arbitrantur aliud esse dilectionem siue caritatem, aliud amorem. Dicunt enim dilectionem accipiendam esse in bono, amorem in malo. Sic autem nec ipsos auctores saecularium litterarum locutos esse certissimum est. Sed uiderint philosophi utrum uel qua ratione ista discernant; amorem tamen eos in bonis rebus et erga ipsum Deum magni pendere, libri eorum satis loquuntur. Sed scripturas religionis nostrae, quarum auctoritatem ceteris omnibus litteris anteponimus, non aliud dicere amorem, aliud dilectionem uel caritatem, insinuandum fuit. Nam et amorem in bono dici iam ostendimus. Sed ne quis existimet amorem quidem et in malo et in bono, dilectionem autem non nisi in bono esse dicendam, illud adtendat quod in psalmo scriptum est: Qui autem diligit iniquitatem, odit animam suam, et illud apostoli Iohannis: Si quis dilexerit mundum, non est dilectio Patris in illo. Ecce uno loco dilectio et in bono et in malo. Amorem autem in malo (quia in bono iam ostendimus) ne quisquam flagitet, legat quod scriptum est: Erunt enim homines se ipsos amantes, amatores pecuniae.

[¶16] The right will is, therefore, well-directed love, and the wrong will is ill-directed love. Love, then, yearning to have what is loved, is desire; and having and enjoying it, is joy; fleeing what is opposed to it, it is fear; and feeling what is opposed to it, when it has befallen it, it is sadness. Now these motions are evil if the love is evil; good if the love is good. What we assert let us prove from Scripture. The apostle “desires to depart, and to be with Christ.” And, “My soul desired to long for Thy judgments;” or if it is more appropriate to say, “My soul longed to desire Thy judgments.” And, “The desire of wisdom bringeth to a kingdom.” Yet there has always obtained the usage of understanding desire and concupiscence in a bad sense if the object be not defined. But joy is used in a good sense: “Be glad in the Lord, and rejoice, ye righteous.” And, “Thou hast put gladness in my heart.” And, “Thou wilt fill me with joy with Thy countenance.” Fear is used in a good sense by the apostle when he says, “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” And, “Be not high-minded, but fear.” And, “I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” But with respect to sadness, which Cicero prefer to calls sickness (œgritudo), and Virgil pain (dolor) (as he says, “Dolent gaudentque”), but which I prefer to call sorrow, because sickness and pain are more commonly used to express bodily suffering,—with respect to this emotion, I say, the question whether it can be used in a good sense is more difficult.

> Latin: Recta itaque uoluntas est bonus amor, et uoluntas peruersa malus amor. Amor ergo inhians habere quod amatur, cupiditas est, id autem habens eoque fruens laetitia; fugiens quod ei aduersatur, timor est, idque si acciderit sentiens tristitia est. Proinde mala sunt ista, si malus amor est; bona, si bonus. Quod dicimus, de scripturis probemus. Concupiscit apostolus dissolui et esse cum Christo; et: Concupiuit anima mea desiderare iudicia tua, uel si adcommodatius dicitur: Desiderauit anima mea concupiscere iudicia tua; et: Concupiscentia sapientiae perducit ad regnum. Hoc tamen loquendi obtinuit consuetudo, ut, si […] ditas uel concupiscentia dicatur nec addatur cuius rei sit, non nisi in malo possit intellegi. Laetitia in bono est: Laetamini in Domino et exultate iusti; et: Dedisti laetitiam in cor meum; et: Adinplebis me laetitia cum uultu tuo. Timor in bono est aput apostolum, ubi ait: Cum timore et tremore uestram ipsorum salutem operamini; et: Noli altum sapere, sed time; et: Timeo autem, ne, sicut serpens Euam seduxit astutia sua. sic et uestrae mentes corrumpantur a castitate, quae est in Christo. De tristitia uero, quam Cicero magis aegritudinem appellat, dolorem autem Vergilius, ubi ait: (dolent gaudentque’, (sed ideo malui tristitiam dicere, quia aegritudo uel dolor usitatius in corporibus dicitur) scrupulosior quaestio est, utrum inueniri possit in bono.

### Of the Three Perturbations, Which the Stoics Admitted in the Soul of the Wise Man to the Exclusion of Grief or Sadness, Which the Manly Mind Ought Not to Experience.

[¶18] Chapter 8.—Of the Three Perturbations, Which the Stoics Admitted in the Soul of the Wise Man to the Exclusion of Grief or Sadness, Which the Manly Mind Ought Not to Experience.

> Latin: Caput VIII. De tribus perturbationibus, quas in animo sapientis Stoici esse uoluerunt, excluso dolore siue tristitia, quam uirtus animi sentire non debeat.

[¶19] Those emotions which the Greeks call εὐπαθείαι, and which Cicero calls constantiœ, the Stoics would restrict to three; and, instead of three “perturbations” in the soul of the wise man, they substituted severally, in place of desire, will; in place of joy, contentment; and for fear, caution; and as to sickness or pain, which we, to avoid ambiguity, preferred to call sorrow, they denied that it could exist in the mind of a wise man. Will, they say, seeks the good, for this the wise man does. Contentment has its object in good that is possessed, and this the wise man continually possesses. Caution avoids evil, and this the wise man ought to avoid. But sorrow arises from evil that has already happened; and as they suppose that no evil can happen to the wise man, there can be no representative of sorrow in his mind. According to them, therefore, none but the wise man wills, is contented, uses caution; and that the fool can do no more than desire, rejoice, fear, be sad. The former three affections Cicero calls constantiœ, the last four perturbationes. Many, however, calls these last passions; and, as I have said, the Greeks call the former εὐπαθείαι, and the latter πάθη. And when I made a careful examination of Scripture to find whether this terminology was sanctioned by it, I came upon this saying of the prophet: “There is no contentment to the wicked, saith the Lord;” as if the wicked might more properly rejoice than be contented regarding evils, for contentment is the property of the good and godly. I found also that verse in the Gospel: “Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them?” which seems to imply that evil or shameful things may be the object of desire, but not of will. Indeed, some interpreters have added “good things,” to make the expression more in conformity with customary usage, and have given this meaning, “Whatsoever good deeds that ye would that men should do unto you.” For they thought that this would prevent any one from wishing other men to provide him with unseemly, not to say shameful gratifications,—luxurious banquets, for example,—on the supposition that if he returned the like to them he would be fulfilling this precept. In the Greek Gospel, however, from which the Latin is translated, “good” does not occur, but only, “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them,” and, as I believe, because “good” is already included in the word “would;” for He does not say “desire.”

> Latin: Quas enim Graeci appellant eDrcadetac, Latine autem Cicero constantias nominauit, Stoici tres esse uoluerunt pro tribus perturbationibus in animo sapientis, pro cupiditate uoluntatem, pro laetitia gaudium, pro metu cautionem; pro aegritudine uero uel dolore, quam nos uitandae ambiguitatis gratia tristitiam maluimus dicere, negauerunt esse posse aliquid in animo sapientis. Voluntas quippe, inquiunt, adpetit bonum, quod facit sapiens: gaudium de bono adepto est, quod ubique adipiscitur sapiens; cautio deuitat malum, quod debet sapiens deuitare; tristitia porro quia de malo est, quod iam accidit, nullum autem malum existimant posse accidere sapienti, nihil in eius animo pro illa esse posse dixerunt. Sic ergo illi loquuntur, ut uelle gaudere cauere negent nisi sapientem; stultum autem non nisi cupere laetari, metuere contristari; et illas tres esse constantias, has autem quattuor perturbationes secundum Ciceronem, secundum autem plurimos passiones. Graece autem illae tres, sicut dixi, appellantur eorcatetai; istae autem quattuor πάθη. Haec locutio utrum scripturis sanctis congruat, cum quaererem quantum potui diligenter, illud inueni quod ait propheta: Non est gaudere inpiis, dicit Dominus; tamquam inpii laetari possint potius quam gaudere de malis, quia gaudium proprie bonorum et piorum est. Item illud in euangelio: Quaecumque uultis ut faciant uobis homines, haec et uos facite illis, ita dictum uidetur, tamquam nemo possit aliquid male uel turpiter uelle, sed cupere. Denique propter consuetudinem locutionis nonnulli interpretes addiderunt ‘bona et ita interpretati sunt: ‘Quaecumque uultis ut faciant uobis homines bona.’ Cauendum enim putauerunt, ne quisquam inhonesta uelit sibi fieri ab hominibus, ut de turpioribus taceam, certe luxuriosa conuiuia, in quibus se, si et ipse illis faciat, hoc praeceptum existimet iupleturum. Sed in Graeco euangelio, unde in Latinum translatum est, non legitur […] sed: Quaecumque uultis ut faciant uobis homines, haec et uos facite illis; credo propterea, quia in eo quod dixit uultis, iam uoluit intellegi ‘bona. Non enim ait ‘cupitis).

[¶20] Yet though we may sometimes avail ourselves of these precise proprieties of language, we are not to be always bridled by them; and when we read those writers against whose authority it is unlawful to reclaim, we must accept the meanings above mentioned in passages where a right sense can be educed by no other interpretation, as in those instances we adduced partly from the prophet, partly from the Gospel. For who does not know that the wicked exult with joy? Yet “there is no contentment for the wicked, saith the Lord.” And how so, unless because contentment, when the word is used in its proper and distinctive significance, means something different from joy? In like manner, who would deny that it were wrong to enjoin upon men that whatever they desire others to do to them they should themselves do to others, lest they should mutually please one another by shameful and illicit pleasure? And yet the precept, “Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them,” is very wholesome and just. And how is this, unless because the will is in this place used strictly, and signifies that will which cannot have evil for its object? But ordinary phraseology would not have allowed the saying, “Be unwilling to make any manner of lie,” had there not been also an evil will, whose wickedness separates if from that which the angels celebrated, “Peace on earth, of good will to men.” For “good” is superfluous if there is no other kind of will but good will. And why should the apostle have mentioned it among the praises of charity as a great thing, that “it rejoices not in iniquity,” unless because wickedness does so rejoice? For even with secular writers these words are used indifferently. For Cicero, that most fertile of orators, says, “I desire, conscript fathers, to be merciful.” And who would be so pedantic as to say that he should have said “I will” rather than “I desire,” because the word is used in a good connection? Again, in Terence, the profligate youth, burning with wild lust, says, “I will nothing else than Philumena.” That this “will” was lust is sufficiently indicated by the answer of his old servant which is there introduced: “How much better were it to try and banish that love from your heart, than to speak so as uselessly to inflame your passion still more!” And that contentment was used by secular writers in a bad sense that verse of Virgil testifies, in which he most succinctly comprehends these four perturbations,—

> Latin: Non tamen semper his proprietatibus locutio nostra frenanda est, sed interdum his utendum est; et cum legimus eos, quorum auctoritati resultare fas non est, ibi sunt intellegendae, ubi rectus sensus alium exitum non potest inuenire; sicut ista sunt, quae exempli gratia partim ex propheta, partim ex euangelio commemorauimus. Quis enim nescit inpios exultare laetitia? et tamen: Non est gaudere inpiis, dicit Dominus. Unde, nisi quia gaudere aliud est, quando proprie signateque hoc uerbum ponitur? Item quis negauerit non recte praecipi hominibus, ut quaecumque ab aliis sibi fieri cupiunt, haec eis et ipsi faciant; ne se inuicem turpitudine inlicitae uoluptatis oblectent? et tamen saluberl’imum uerissimumque praeceptum est: Quaecumque uultis ut faciant uobis homines, eadem et uos facite illis. Et hoc unde, nisi quia hoc loco modo quodam proprio uoluntas posita est, quae in malo accipi non potest? Locutione uero usitatiore, quam frequentat maxime consuetudo sermonis, non utique diceretur: Noli uelle mentiri omne mendacium, nisi esset et uoluntas mala, a cuius prauitate illa distinguitur, quam praedicauerunt angeli dicentes: Pax in terra hominibus bonae uoluntatis. Nam ex abundanti additum est (bon.ae si esse non potest nisi bona. Quid autem magnum in caritatis laudibus dixisset apostolus, quod non gaudeat super iniquitate, nisi quia ita malignitas gaudet? Et aput auctores saecularium litterarum talis istorum uerborum indifferentia reperitur. Ait enim Cicero orator amplissimus: (Cupio, patres conscripti, me esse clementem.) Quia id uerbum in bono posuit. quis tam peruerse doctus existat, qui non eum […] sed ‘Volo potius dicere debuisse contendat? Porro aput Terentium flagitiosus adulescens insana flagrans cupidine:. Nihil nolo aliud, inquit, nisi Philumenam. Quam uoluntatem fuisse libidinem responsio, quae ibi serui eius sanioris inducitur, satis indicat. Ait namque domino suo: Quanto satius est, Te id dare operam, qui istum amorem ex animo amoueas tuo, Quam id loqui, quo magis libido frustra accendatur tua? Gaudium uero eos et in malo posuisse ille ipse Vergilianus testis est uersus, ubi has quattuor perturbationes summa breuitate conplexus est: Hinc metuunt cupiuntque, dolent gaudentque.

[¶21] “Hence they fear and desire, grieve and are content”

[¶22] The same author had also used the expression, “the evil contentments of the mind.” So that good and bad men alike will, are cautious, and contented; or, to say the same thing in other words, good and bad men alike desire, fear, rejoice, but the former in a good, the latter in a bad fashion, according as the will is right or wrong. Sorrow itself, too, which the Stoics would not allow to be represented in the mind of the wise man, is used in a good sense, and especially in our writings. For the apostle praises the Corinthians because they had a godly sorrow. But possibly some one may say that the apostle congratulated them because they were penitently sorry, and that such sorrow can exist only in those who have sinned. For these are his words: “For I perceive that the same epistle hath made you sorry, though it were but for a season. Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance; for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of, but the sorrow of the world worketh death. For, behold, this selfsame thing that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you!” Consequently the Stoics may defend themselves by replying, that sorrow is indeed useful for repentance of sin, but that this can have no place in the mind of the wise man, inasmuch as no sin attaches to him of which he could sorrowfully repent, nor any other evil the endurance or experience of which could make him sorrowful. For they say that Alcibiades (if my memory does not deceive me), who believed himself happy, shed tears when Socrates argued with him, and demonstrated that he was miserable because he was foolish. In his case, therefore, folly was the cause of this useful and desirable sorrow, wherewith a man mourns that he is what he ought not to be. But the Stoics maintain not that the fool, but that the wise man, cannot be sorrowful.

> Latin: Dixit etiam idem auctor: Mala mentis gaudia. Proinde uolunt cauent gaudent et boni et mali; adque ut eadem aliis uerbis enuntiemus, cupiunt timent laetantur et boni et mali; sed illi bene, isti male, sicut hominibus seu recta seu peruersa uoluntas est. Ipsa quoque tristitia, pro qua Stoici nihil in animo sapientis inueniri posse putauerunt, reperitur in bono et maxime aput nostros. Nam laudat apostolus Corinthios, quod contristati fuerint secundum Deum. Sed fortasse quis dixerit illis apostolum fuisse congratulatum, quod contristati fuerint paenitendo, qualis tristitia, nisi eorum qui peccauerint, esse non potest. Ita enim dicit: Video quod epistula illa, etsi ad horam, contristauit uos; nunc gaudeo, non quia contristati estis, sed quia contristati estis in paenitentiam. Contristati enim estis secundum Deum, ut in nullo detrimentum patiamini ex nobis. Quae enim secundum Deum est tristitia, paenitentiam in salutem inpaenitendam operatur; mundi autem tristitia mortem operatur. Ecce enim id ipsum secundum Deum contristari quantam perfecit in uobis industriam. Ac per hoc possunt Stoici pro suis partibus respondere, ad hoc uideri utilem esse tristitiam, ut peccasse paeniteat; in animo autem sapientis ideo esse non posse, quia nec peccatum in eum cadit, cuius paenitentia contristetur, nec ullum aliud malum, quod perpetiendo et sentiendo sit tristis. Nam et Alcibiadem ferunt (si me de nomine hominis memoria non fallit), cum sibi beatus uideretur, Socrate disputante et ei quam miser esset, quoniam stultus esset, demonstrante fleuisse. Huic ergo stultitia fuit causa etiam huius utilis optandaeque tristitiae, qua homo esse se dolet, quod esse non debet. Stoici autem non stultum, sed sapientem aiunt tristem esse non posse.

## 67. Of the Perturbations of the Soul Which Appear as Right Affections in the Life of the Righteous.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/67/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/67/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 9.—Of the Perturbations of the Soul Which Appear as Right Affections in the Life of the Righteous.

> Latin: Caput IX. De perturbationibus animi, quarum adfectus rectos habet uita iustorum.

[¶1] But so far as regards this question of mental perturbations, we have answered these philosophers in the ninth book of this work, showing that it is rather a verbal than a real dispute, and that they seek contention rather than truth. Among ourselves, according to the sacred Scriptures and sound doctrine, the citizens of the holy city of God, who live according to God in the pilgrimage of this life, both fear and desire, and grieve and rejoice. And because their love is rightly placed, all these affections of theirs are right. They fear eternal punishment, they desire eternal life; they grieve because they themselves groan within themselves, waiting for the adoption, the redemption of their body; they rejoice in hope, because there “shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.” In like manner they fear to sin, they desire to persevere; they grieve in sin, they rejoice in good works. They fear to sin, because they hear that “because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.” They desire to persevere, because they hear that it is written, “He that endureth to the end shall be saved.” They grieve for sin, hearing that “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” They rejoice in good works, because they hear that “the Lord loveth a cheerful giver.” In like manner, according as they are strong or weak, they fear or desire to be tempted, grieve or rejoice in temptation. They fear to be tempted, because they hear the injunction, “If a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” They desire to be tempted, because they hear one of the heroes of the city of God saying, “Examine me, O Lord, and tempt me: try my reins and my heart.” They grieve in temptations, because they see Peter weeping; they rejoice in temptations, because they hear James saying, “My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations.”

> Latin: Verum his philosophis, quod ad istam quaestionem de animi perturbationibus adtinet, iam respondimus in nono huius operis libro, ostendentes eos non tam de rebus, quam de uerbis cupidiores esse contentionis quam ueritatis. Aput nos autem iuxta scripturas sanctas sanamque doctrinam ciues sanctae ciuitatis Dei in huius uitae peregrinatione secundum Deum uiuentes metuunt cupiuntque, dolent gaudentque, et quia rectus est amor eorum, istas omnes adfectiones rectas habent. Metuunt poenam aeternam, cupiunt uitam aeternam; dolent in re, quia ipsi in semet ipsis adhuc ingemescunt adoptionem, expectantes redemtionem corporis sui; gaudent in spe, quia fiet sermo, qui scriptus est: Absorpta est mors in uictoriam. Item metuunt peccare, cupiunt perseuerare; dolent in peccatis, gaudent in operibus bonis. Ut enim metuant peccare, audiunt: Quoniam abundabit iniquitas, refrigescet caritas multorum; ut cupiant perseuerare, audiunt quod scriptum est: Qui perseuerauerit usque in finem, hic saluus erit; ut doleant in peccatis, audiunt: Si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus, et ueritas in nobis non est; ut gaudeant in operibus bonis, audiunt: Hilarem datorem diligit Deus. Item sicuti se infirmitas eorum firmitasque habuerit, metuunt tentari, cupiunt tentari; dolent in tentationibus, gaudent in tentationibus. Ut enim metuant tentari, audiunt: Si quis praeoccupatus fuerit in aliquo delicto, uos, qui spiritales estis, instruite huius modi in spiritu mansuetudinis, intendens te ipsum. ne et tu tenteris; ut autem cupiant tentari, audiunt quendam uirum fortem ciuitatis Dei dicentem: Proba me, Domine, et tenta me; ure renes meos et cor meum; ut doleant in tentationibus, uident Petrum flentem; ut gaudeant in tentationibus, audiunt Iacobum dicentem: Omne gaudium existimate, fratres mei, cum in tentationes uarias incideritis.

[¶2] And not only on their own account do they experience these emotions, but also on account of those whose deliverance they desire and whose perdition they fear, and whose loss or salvation affects them with grief or with joy. For if we who have come into the Church from among the Gentiles may suitably instance that noble and mighty hero who glories in his infirmities, the teacher (doctor) of the nations in faith and truth, who also labored more than all his fellow-apostles, and instructed the tribes of God’s people by his epistles, which edified not only those of his own time, but all those who were to be gathered in,—that hero, I say, and athlete of Christ, instructed by Him, anointed of His Spirit, crucified with Him, glorious in Him, lawfully maintaining a great conflict on the theatre of this world, and being made a spectacle to angels and men, and pressing onwards for the prize of his high calling,—very joyfully do we with the eyes of faith behold him rejoicing with them that rejoice, and weeping with them that weep; though hampered by fightings without and fears within; desiring to depart and to be with Christ; longing to see the Romans, that he might have some fruit among them as among other Gentiles; being jealous over the Corinthians, and fearing in that jealousy lest their minds should be corrupted from the chastity that is in Christ; having great heaviness and continual sorrow of heart for the Israelites, because they, being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God; and expressing not only his sorrow, but bitter lamentation over some who had formally sinned and had not repented of their uncleanness and fornications.

> Latin: Non solum autem propter se ipsos his mouentur adfectibus, uerum etiam propter eos, quos liberari cupiunt et ne pereant metuunt, et dolent si pereunt et gaudent si liberantur. Illum quippe optimum et fortissimum uirum, qui in suis infirmitatibus gloriatur, ut eum potissimum commemoremus, qui in ecclesiam Christi ex gentibus uenimus, doctorem gentium in fide et ueritate, qui et plus omnibus suis coapostolis laborauit et pluribus epistulis populos Dei, non eos tantum, qui praesentes ab illo uidebantur, uerum etiam illos, qui futuri praeuidebantur, instruxit; illum, inquam, uirum, athletam Christi, doctum ab illo, unctum de illo, crucifixum cum illo, gloriosum in illo, in theatro huius mundi, cui spectaculum factus est et angelis et hominibus, legitime magnum agonem certantem et palmam supernae uocationis in anteriora sectantem, oculis fidei libentissime spectant gaudere cum gaudentibus, flere cum flentibus, foris habentem pugnas, intus timores, cupientem dissolui et esse cum Christo, desiderantem uidere Romanos, ut aliquem fructum habeat et in illis sicut et in ceteris gentibus, aemulantem Corinthios et ipsa aemulatione metuentem, ne seducantur eorum mentes a castitate, quae in Christo est, magnam tristitiam et continuum dolorem cordis de Israelitis habentem, quod ignorantes Dei iustitiam et suam uolentes constituere iustitiae Dei non essent subiecti; nec solum dolorem, uerum etiam luctum suum denuntiantem quibusdam, qui ante peccauerunt et non egerunt paenitentiam super inmunditia et fornicationibus suis.

[¶3] If these emotions and affections, arising as they do from the love of what is good and from a holy charity, are to be called vices, then let us allow these emotions which are truly vices to pass under the name of virtues. But since these affections, when they are exercised in a becoming way, follow the guidance of right reason, who will dare to say that they are diseases or vicious passions? Wherefore even the Lord Himself, when He condescended to lead a human life in the form of a slave, had no sin whatever, and yet exercised these emotions where He judged they should be exercised. For as there was in Him a true human body and a true human soul, so was there also a true human emotion. When, therefore, we read in the Gospel that the hard-heartedness of the Jews moved Him to sorrowful indignation, that He said, “I am glad for your sakes, to the intent ye may believe,” that when about to raise Lazarus He even shed tears, that He earnestly desired to eat the passover with His disciples, that as His passion drew near His soul was sorrowful, these emotions are certainly not falsely ascribed to Him. But as He became man when it pleased Him, so, in the grace of His definite purpose, when it pleased Him He experienced those emotions in His human soul.

> Latin: Hi motus, hi adfectus de amore boni et de sancta caritate uenientes si uitia uocanda sunt, sinamus, ut ea, quae uere uitia sunt, uirtutes uocentur. Sed cum rectam rationem sequantur istae adfectiones, quando ubi oportet adhibentur, quis eas tunc morbos seu uitiosas passiones audeat dicere? Quam ob rem etiam ipse Dominus in forma serui agere uitam dignatus humanam, sed nullum habens omnino peccatum adhibuit eas, ubi adhibendas esse iudicauit. Neque enim, in quo uerum erat hominis corpus et uerus hominis animus, falsus erat humanus adfectus. Cum ergo eius in euangelio ista referuntur, quod super duritia cordis Iudaeorum cum ira contristatus sit, quod dixerit: Gaudeo propter uos, ut credatis, quod Lazarum suscitaturus etiam lacrimas fuderit, quod concupiuerit cum discipulis suis manducare pascha, quod propinquante passione tristis fuerit anima eius: non falso utique referuntur. Verum ille hos motus certae dispensationis gratia ita cum uoluit suscepit animo humano, ut cum uoluit factus est homo.

[¶4] But we must further make the admission, that even when these affections are well regulated, and according to God’s will, they are peculiar to this life, not to that future life we look for, and that often we yield to them against our will. And thus sometimes we weep in spite of ourselves, being carried beyond ourselves, not indeed by culpable desire; but by praiseworthy charity. In us, therefore, these affections arise from human infirmity; but it was not so with the Lord Jesus, for even His infirmity was the consequence of His power. But so long as we wear the infirmity of this life, we are rather worse men than better if we have none of these emotions at all. For the apostle vituperated and abominated some who, as he said, were “without natural affection.” The sacred Psalmist also found fault with those of whom he said, “I looked for some to lament with me, and there was none.” For to be quite free from pain while we are in this place of misery is only purchased, as one of this world’s literati perceived and remarked, at the price of blunted sensibilities both of mind and body. And therefore that which the Greeks call ἀπαθεια, and what the Latins would call, if their language would allow them, “impassibilitas,” if it be taken to mean an impassibility of spirit and not of body, or, in other words, a freedom from those emotions which are contrary to reason and disturb the mind, then it is obviously a good and most desirable quality, but it is not one which is attainable in this life. For the words of the apostle are the confession, not of the common herd, but of the eminently pious, just, and holy men: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” When there shall be no sin in a man, then there shall be this απάθεια. At present it is enough if we live without crime; and he who thinks he lives without sin puts aside not sin, but pardon. And if that is to be called apathy, where the mind is the subject of no emotion, then who would not consider this insensibility to be worse than all vices? It may, indeed, reasonably be maintained that the perfect blessedness we hope for shall be free from all sting of fear or sadness; but who that is not quite lost to truth would say that neither love nor joy shall be experienced there? But if by apathy a condition be meant in which no fear terrifies nor any pain annoys, we must in this life renounce such a state if we would live according to God’s will, but may hope to enjoy it in that blessedness which is promised as our eternal condition.

> Latin: Proinde, quod fatendum est, etiam cum rectas et secundum Deum habemus has adfectiones, huius uitae sunt, non illius, quam futuram speramus, et saepe illis etiam inuiti cedimus. Itaque aliquando, quamuis non culpabili cupiditate, sed laudabili caritate moueamur, etiam dum nolumus flemus. Habemus ergo eas ex humanae condicionis infirmitate; non autem ita Dominus Iesus, cuius et infirmitas fuit ex potestate. Sed dum uitae huius infirmitatem gerimus, si eas omnino nullas habeamus, tunc potius non recte uiuimus. Vituperabat enim et detestabatur apostolus quosdam, quos etiam esse dixit sine adfectione. Culpauit etiam illos sacer psalmus, de quibus ait: Sustinui qui simul contristaretur, et non fuit. Nam omnino non dolere, dum sumus in hoc loco miseriae, profecto, sicut quidam etiam aput saeculi huius litteratos sensit et dixit, non sine magna mercede contingit inmanitatis in animo, stuporis in corpore. Quocirca illa, quae arcflKteia Graece dicitur (quae si Latine posset inpassibilitas diceretur), si ita intellegenda est (in animo quippe, non in corpore accipitur), ut sine his adfectionibus uiuatur, quae contra rationem accidunt mentemque perturbant, bona plane et maxime optanda est, sed nec ipsa huius est uitae. Non enim qualiumcumque hominum uox est, sed maxime piorum multumque iustorum adque sanctorum: Si dixerimus, quoniam peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus et ueritas in nobis non est. Tunc itaque andfeia. ista erit, quando peccatum in homine nullum erit. Nunc uero satis bene uiuitur, si sine crimine; sine peccato autem qui se uiuere existimat, non id agit, ut peccatum non habeat, sed ut ueniam non accipiat. Porro, si ajcofhta illa dicenda est, cum animum contingere omnino non potest ullus adfectus, quis hunc stuporem non omnibus uitiis iudicet esse peiorem? Potest ergo non absurde dici perfectam beatitudinem sine stimulo timoris et sine ulla tristitia futuram; non ibi autem futurum amorem gaudiumque quis dixerit, nisi omni modo a ueritate seclusus? Si autem ducadeux illa est, ubi nec metus ullus exterret nec angit dolor, auersanda est in hac uita, si recte, hoc est secundum Deum, uiuere uolumus; in illa uero beata, quae sempiterna promittitur, plane speranda est.

[¶5] For that fear of which the Apostle John says, “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear, because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love,”—that fear is not of the same kind as the Apostle Paul felt lest the Corinthians should be seduced by the subtlety of the serpent; for love is susceptible of this fear, yea, love alone is capable of it. But the fear which is not in love is of that kind of which Paul himself says, “For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear.” But as for that “clean fear which endureth for ever,” if it is to exist in the world to come (and how else can it be said to endure for ever?), it is not a fear deterring us from evil which may happen, but preserving us in the good which cannot be lost. For where the love of acquired good is unchangeable, there certainly the fear that avoids evil is, if I may say so, free from anxiety. For under the name of “clean fear” David signifies that will by which we shall necessarily shrink from sin, and guard against it, not with the anxiety of weakness, which fears that we may strongly sin, but with the tranquillity of perfect love. Or if no kind of fear at all shall exist in that most imperturbable security of perpetual and blissful delights, then the expression, “The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever,” must be taken in the same sense as that other, “The patience of the poor shall not perish for ever.” For patience, which is necessary only where ills are to be borne, shall not be eternal, but that which patience leads us to will be eternal. So perhaps this “clean fear” is said to endure for ever, because that to which fear leads shall endure.

> Latin: Timor namque ille, de quo dicit apostolus Iohannes: Timor non est in caritate, sed perfecta caritas foras mittit timorem, quia timor poenam habet; qui autem timet, non est perfectus in caritate, non est eius generis timor, cuius ille, quo timebat apostolus Paulus, ne Corinthii serpentina seducerentur astutia; hunc enim timorem habet caritas, immo non habet nisi caritas; sed illius generis est timor, qui non est in caritate, de quo ipse apostolus Paulus ait: Non enim accepistis spiritum seruitutis iterum in timore. Timor uero ille castus permanens in saeculum saeculi, si erit et in futuro saeculo, (nam quo alio modo potest intellegi permanere in saeculum saeculi?) non est timor exterrens a malo quod accidere potest, sed tenens in bono quod amitti non potest. Ubi enim boni adepti amor inmutabilis est, profecto, si dici potest, mali cauendi timor securus est. Timoris quippe casti nomine ea uoluntas significata est, qua nos necesse erit nolle peccare, et non sollicitudine infirmitatis, ne forte peccemus, sed tranquillitate caritatis cauere peccatum. Aut si nullius omnino generis timor esse poterit in illa certissima securitate perpetuorum feliciumque gaudiorum, sic est dictum: Timor Domini castus permanens in saeculum saeculi, quem ad modum dictum est: Patientia pauperum non peribit in aeternum. Neque enim aeterna erit ipsa patientia, quae necessaria non est, nisi ubi toleranda sunt mala; sed aeternum erit, quo per patientiam peruenitur. Ita fortasse timor castus in saeculum saeculi dictus est permanere, quia id permanebit, quo timor ipse perducit.

[¶6] And since this is so,—since we must live a good life in order to attain to a blessed life, a good life has all these affections right, a bad life has them wrong. But in the blessed life eternal there will be love and joy, not only right, but also assured; but fear and grief there will be none. Whence it already appears in some sort what manner of persons the citizens of the city of God must be in this their pilgrimage, who live after the spirit, not after the flesh,—that is to say, according to God, not according to man,—and what manner of persons they shall be also in that immortality whither they are journeying. And the city or society of the wicked, who live not according to God, but according to man, and who accept the doctrines of men or devils in the worship of a false and contempt of the true divinity, is shaken with those wicked emotions as by diseases and disturbances. And if there be some of its citizens who seem to restrain and, as it were, temper those passions, they are so elated with ungodly pride, that their disease is as much greater as their pain is less. And if some, with a vanity monstrous in proportion to its rarity, have become enamored of themselves because they can be stimulated and excited by no emotion, moved or bent by no affection, such persons rather lose all humanity than obtain true tranquillity. For a thing is not necessarily right because it is inflexible, nor healthy because it is insensible.

> Latin: Quae cum ita sint, quoniam recta uita ducenda est, qua perueniendum sit ad beatam, omnes adfectus istos uita recta rectos habet, peruersa peruersos. Beata uero eademque aeterna amorem habebit et gaudium non solum rectum, uerum etiam -certum; timorem autem ac dolorem nullum. Unde iam apparet utcumque, quales esse debeant in hac peregrinatione ciues ciuitatis Dei, uiuentes secundum spiritum, non secundum carnem, hoc est secundum Deum, non secundum hominem, et quales in illa, quo tendunt, inmortalitate futuri sint. Ciuitas porro, id est societas, inpiorum non secundum Deum, sed secundum hominem uiuentium et in ipso cultu falsae contemtuque uerae diuinitatis doctrinas hominum daemonumue sectantium his adfectibus prauis tamquam morbis et perturbationibus quatitur. Et si quos ciues habet, qui moderari talibus motibus et eos quasi temperare uideantur, sic inpietate superbi et elati sunt, ut hoc ipso sint in eis maiores tumores, quo minores dolores. Et si nonnulli tanto inmaniore, quanto rariore uanitate hoc in se ipsis adamauerint, ut nullo prorsus erigantur et excitentur, nullo flectantur adque inclinentur adfectu: humanitatem totam potius amittunt, quam ueram adsequuntur tranquillitatem. Non enim quia durum aliquid, ideo rectum, aut quia stupidum est, ideo sanum.

### Whether It is to Be Believed that Our First Parents in Paradise, Before They Sinned, Were Free from All Perturbation.

[¶8] Chapter 10.—Whether It is to Be Believed that Our First Parents in Paradise, Before They Sinned, Were Free from All Perturbation.

> Latin: Caput X. An primos homines in paradiso constitutos ullis perturbationibus, priusquam delinquerent, adfectos fuisse credendum sit.

[¶9] But it is a fair question, whether our first parent or first parents (for there was a marriage of two), before they sinned, experienced in their animal body such emotions as we shall not experience in the spiritual body when sin has been purged and finally abolished. For if they did, then how were they blessed in that boasted place of bliss, Paradise? For who that is affected by fear or grief can be called absolutely blessed? And what could those persons fear or suffer in such affluence of blessings, where neither death nor ill-health was feared, and where nothing was wanting which a good will could desire, and nothing present which could interrupt man’s mental or bodily enjoyment? Their love to God was unclouded, and their mutual affection was that of faithful and sincere marriage; and from this love flowed a wonderful delight, because they always enjoyed what was loved. Their avoidance of sin was tranquil; and, so long as it was maintained, no other ill at all could invade them and bring sorrow. Or did they perhaps desire to touch and eat the forbidden fruit, yet feared to die; and thus both fear and desire already, even in that blissful place, preyed upon those first of mankind? Away with the thought that such could be the case where there was no sin! And, indeed, this is already sin, to desire those things which the law of God forbids, and to abstain from them through fear of punishment, not through love of righteousness. Away, I say, with the thought, that before there was any sin, there should already have been committed regarding that fruit the very sin which our Lord warns us against regarding a woman: “Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” As happy, then, as were these our first parents, who were agitated by no mental perturbations, and annoyed by no bodily discomforts, so happy should the whole human race have been, had they not introduced that evil which they have transmitted to their posterity, and had none of their descendants committed iniquity worthy of damnation; but this original blessedness continuing until, in virtue of that benediction which said, “Increase and multiply,” the number of the predestined saints should have been completed, there would then have been bestowed that higher felicity which is enjoyed by the most blessed angels,—a blessedness in which there should have been a secure assurance that no one would sin, and no one die; and so should the saints have lived, after no taste of labor, pain, or death, as now they shall live in the resurrection, after they have endured all these things.

> Latin: Sed utrum primus homo uel primi homines (duorum erat quippe coniugium) habebant istos adfectus in corpore animali ante peccatum, quales in corpore spiritali non habebimus omni purgato finitoque peccato, non inmerito quaeritur. Si enim habebant, quo modo erant beati in illo memorabili beatitudinis loco, id est paradiso? Quis tandem absolute dici beatus potest, qui timore adficitur uel dolore? Quid autem timere aut dolere poterant illi homines in tantorum tanta afluentia bonorum, ubi nec mors metuebatur nec ulla corporis mala ualetudo, nec aberat quicquam, quod bona uoluntas adipisceretur, nec inerat quod carnem animumue hominis feliciter uiuentis offenderet? Amor erat inperturbatus in Deum adque inter se coniugum fida et sincera societate uiuentium, et ex hoc amore grande gaudium, non desistente quod amabatur ad fruendum. Erat deuitatio tranquilla peccati, qua manente nullum omnino alicunde malum, quod contristaret, inruebat. An forte cupiebant prohibitum lignum ad uescendum contingere, sed mori metuebant, ac per hoc et cupiditas et metus iam tunc illos homines etiam in illo perturbabat loco? Absit ut hoc existimemus fuisse, ubi nullum erat omnino peccatum. Neque enim nullum peccatum est ea quae lex Dei prohibet concupiscere adque ab his abstinere timore poenae, non amore iustitiae. Absit, inquam, ut ante omne peccatum iam ibi fuerit tale peccatum, ut hoc de ligno admitterent, quod de muliere Dominus ait: Si quis uiderit mulierem ad concupiscendum eam, iam moechatus est eam in corde suo. Quam igitur felices erant et nullis agitabantur perturbationibus animorum, nullis corporum laedebantur incommodis: tam felix uniuersa societas esset humana, si nec illi malum, quod etiam in posteros traicerent, nec quisquam ex eorum stirpe iniquitate committeret, quod damnationem reciperet; adque ista permanente felicitate, donec per illam benedictionem, qua dictum est: Crescite et multiplicamini, praedestinatorum sanctorum numerus conpleretur, alia maior daretur, quae beatissimis angelis data est, ubi iam esset certa securitas peccaturum neminem neminemque moriturum, et talis esset uita sanctorum post nullum laboris doloris mortis experimentum, qualis erit post haec omnia in incorruptione corporum reddita resurrectione mortuorum.

### Of the Fall of the First Man, in Whom Nature Was Created Good, and Can Be Restored Only by Its Author.

[¶11] Chapter 11.—Of the Fall of the First Man, in Whom Nature Was Created Good, and Can Be Restored Only by Its Author.

> Latin: Caput XI. De lapsu primi hominis, in quo bene condita natura uitiata est, nec potest nisi a suo auctore reparari.

[¶12] But because God foresaw all things, and was therefore not ignorant that man also would fall, we ought to consider this holy city in connection with what God foresaw and ordained, and not according to our own ideas, which do not embrace God’s ordination. For man, by his sin, could not disturb the divine counsel, nor compel God to change what He had decreed; for God’s foreknowledge had anticipated both,—that is to say, both how evil the man whom He had created good should become, and what good He Himself should even thus derive from him. For though God is said to change His determinations (so that in a tropical sense the Holy Scripture says even that God repented), this is said with reference to man’s expectation, or the order of natural causes, and not with reference to that which the Almighty had foreknown that He would do. Accordingly God, as it is written, made man upright, and consequently with a good will. For if he had not had a good will, he could not have been upright. The good will, then, is the work of God; for God created him with it. But the first evil will, which preceded all man’s evil acts, was rather a kind of falling away from the work of God to its own works than any positive work. And therefore the acts resulting were evil, not having God, but the will itself for their end; so that the will or the man himself, so far as his will is bad, was as it were the evil tree bringing forth evil fruit. Moreover, the bad will, though it be not in harmony with, but opposed to nature, inasmuch as it is a vice or blemish, yet it is true of it as of all vice, that it cannot exist except in a nature, and only in a nature created out of nothing, and not in that which the Creator has begotten of Himself, as He begot the Word, by whom all things were made. For though God formed man of the dust of the earth, yet the earth itself, and every earthly material, is absolutely created out of nothing; and man’s soul, too, God created out of nothing, and joined to the body, when He made man. But evils are so thoroughly overcome by good, that though they are permitted to exist, for the sake of demonstrating how the most righteous foresight of God can make a good use even of them, yet good can exist without evil, as in the true and supreme God Himself, and as in every invisible and visible celestial creature that exists above this murky atmosphere; but evil cannot exist without good, because the natures in which evil exists, in so far as they are natures, are good. And evil is removed, not by removing any nature, or part of a nature, which had been introduced by the evil, but by healing and correcting that which had been vitiated and depraved. The will, therefore, is then truly free, when it is not the slave of vices and sins. Such was it given us by God; and this being lost by its own fault, can only be restored by Him who was able at first to give it. And therefore the truth says, “If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed;” which is equivalent to saying, If the Son shall save you, ye shall be saved indeed. For He is our Liberator, inasmuch as He is our Saviour.

> Latin: Sed quia Deus cuncta praesciuit et ideo quoque hominem peccaturum ignorare non potuit: secundum id, quod praesciuit adque disposuit, ciuitatem sanctam debemus adserere, non secundum illud, quod in nostram cognitionem peruenire non potuit, quia in Dei dispositione non fuit. Neque enim homo peccato suo diuinum potuit perturbare consilium, quasi Deum quod statuerat mutare conpulerit; cum Deus praesciendo utrumque praeuenerit, id est, et homo, quem bonum ipse creauit, quam malus esset futurus, et quid boni etiam sic de illo esset ipse facturus. Deus enim etsi dicitur statuta mutare (unde tropica locutione in scripturis etiam paenituisse legitur Deum), iuxta id dicitur, quod homo sperauerat uel naturalium causarum ordo gestabat, non iuxta id, quod se Omnipotens facturum esse praesciuerat. Fecit itaque Deus, sicut scriptum est, hominem rectum ac per hoc uoluntatis bonae. Non enim rectus esset bonam non habens uoluntatem. Bona igitur uoluntas opus est Dei; cum ea quippe ab illo factus est homo. Mala uero uoluntas prima, quoniam omnia opera mala praecessit in homine, defectus potius fuit quidam ab opere Dei ad sua opera quam opus ullum, et ideo mala opera, quia secundum se, non secundum Deum; ut eorum operum tamquam fructuum malorum uoluntas ipsa esset uelut arbor mala aut ipse homo in quantum malae uoluntatis. Porro mala uoluntas quamuis non sit secundum naturam, sed contra naturam, quia uitium est, tamen eius naturae est, cuius est uitium, quod nisi in natura non potest esse; sed in ea, quam creauit ex nihilo, non quam genuit Creator de semet ipso, sicut genuit Verbum, per quod facta sunt omnia; quia, etsi de terrae puluere Deus finxit hominem, eadem terra omnisque terrena materies omnino de nihilo est, animamque de nihilo factam dedit corpori, cum factus est homo. Usque adeo autem mala uincuntur a bonis, ut, quamuis sinantur esse ad demonstrandum quam possit et ipsis bene uti iustitia prouidentissima Creatoris, bona tamen sine malis esse possint, sicut Deus ipse uerus et summus, sicut omnis super istum caliginosum aerem caelestis inuisibilis uisibilisque creatura; mala uero sine bonis esse non possint, quoniam naturae, in quibus sunt, in quantum naturae sunt, utique bonae sunt. Detrahitur porro malum non aliqua natura, quae accesserat, uel ulla eius parte sublata, sed ea, quae uitiata ac deprauata fuerat, sanata adque correcta. Arbitrium igitur uoluntatis tunc est uere liberum, cum uitiis peccatisque non seruit. Tale datum est a Deo; quod amissum proprio uitio, nisi a quo dari potuit, reddi non potest. Unde Veritas dicit: Si uos Filius liberauerit, tunc uere liberi eritis.

[¶13] Man then lived with God for his rule in a paradise at once physical and spiritual. For neither was it a paradise only physical for the advantage of the body, and not also spiritual for the advantage of the mind; nor was it only spiritual to afford enjoyment to man by his internal sensations, and not also physical to afford him enjoyment through his external senses. But obviously it was both for both ends. But after that proud and therefore envious angel (of whose fall I have said as much as I was able in the eleventh and twelfth books of this work, as well as that of his fellows, who, from being God’s angels, became his angels), preferring to rule with a kind of pomp of empire rather than to be another’s subject, fell from the spiritual Paradise, and essaying to insinuate his persuasive guile into the mind of man, whose unfallen condition provoked him to envy now that himself was fallen, he chose the serpent as his mouthpiece in that bodily Paradise in which it and all the other earthly animals were living with those two human beings, the man and his wife, subject to them, and harmless; and he chose the serpent because, being slippery, and moving in tortuous windings, it was suitable for his purpose. And this animal being subdued to his wicked ends by the presence and superior force of his angelic nature, he abused as his instrument, and first tried his deceit upon the woman, making his assault upon the weaker part of that human alliance, that he might gradually gain the whole, and not supposing that the man would readily give ear to him, or be deceived, but that he might yield to the error of the woman. For as Aaron was not induced to agree with the people when they blindly wished him to make an idol, and yet yielded to constraint; and as it is not credible that Solomon was so blind as to suppose that idols should be worshipped, but was drawn over to such sacrilege by the blandishments of women; so we cannot believe that Adam was deceived, and supposed the devil’s word to be truth, and therefore transgressed God’s law, but that he by the drawings of kindred yielded to the woman, the husband to the wife, the one human being to the only other human being. For not without significance did the apostle say, “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression;” but he speaks thus, because the woman accepted as true what the serpent told her, but the man could not bear to be severed from his only companion, even though this involved a partnership in sin. He was not on this account less culpable, but sinned with his eyes open. And so the apostle does not say, “He did not sin,” but “He was not deceived.” For he shows that he sinned when he says, “By one man sin entered into the world,” and immediately after more distinctly, “In the likeness of Adam’s transgression.” But he meant that those are deceived who do not judge that which they do to be sin; but he knew. Otherwise how were it true “Adam was not deceived?” But having as yet no experience of the divine severity, he was possibly deceived in so far as he thought his sin venial. And consequently he was not deceived as the woman was deceived, but he was deceived as to the judgment which would be passed on his apology: “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me, and I did eat.” What need of saying more? Although they were not both deceived by credulity, yet both were entangled in the snares of the devil, and taken by sin.

> Latin: Id ipsum est autem, ac si diceret: (Si uos Filius saluos fecerit, tunc uere salui eritis.’ Inde quippe liberator, unde saluator. Viuebat itaque homo secundum Deum in paradiso et corporali et spiritali. Neque enim erat paradisus corporalis propter corporis bona et propter mentis non erat spiritalis; aut uero erat spiritalis quo per interiores, et non erat corporalis quo per exteriores sensus homo frueretur. Erat plane utrumque propter utrumque. Postea uero quam superbus ille angelus ac per hoc inuidus per eandem superbiam a Deo ad semet ipsum conuersus et quodam quasi tyrannico fastu gaudere subditis quam esse subditus eligens de spiritali paradiso cecidit (de cuius lapsu sociorumque eius, qui ex angelis Dei angeli eius effecti sunt, in libris undecimo et duodecimo huius operis satis, quantum potui, disputaui), malesuada uersutia in hominis sensum serpere adfectans, cui utique stanti, quoniam ipse ceciderat, inuidebat, colubrum in paradiso corporali, ubi cum duobus illis hominibus, masculo et femina, animalia etiam terrestria cetera subdita et innoxia uersabantur, animal scilicet lubricum et tortuosis anfractibus mobile, operi suo congruum, per quem loqueretur, elegit; eoque per angelicam praesentiam praestantioremque naturam spiritali nequitia sibi subiecto et tamquam instrumento abutens fallacia sermocinatus est feminae, a parte scilicet inferiore illius humanae copulae incipiens, ut gradatim perueniret ad totum, non existimans uirum facile credulum nec errando posse decipi, sed dum alieno cedit errori. Sicut enim Aaron erranti populo ad idolum fabricandum non consensit inductus, sed cessit obstrictus, nec Salomonem credibile est errore putasse idolis esse seruiendum, sed blanditiis femineis ad illa sacrilegia fuisse conpulsum: ita credendum est illum uirum suae feminae, uni unum. hominem homini, coniugem coniugi, ad Dei legem transgrediendam non tamquam uerum loquenti credidisse seductum, sed sociali necessitudine paruisse. Non enim frustra dixit apostolus: Adam non est seductus, mulier autem seducta est, nisi quia illa quod ei serpens locutus est, tamquam uerum esset, accepit, ille autem ab unico noluit consortio dirimi nec in communione peccati; nec ideo minus reus, si sciens prudensque peccauit. Unde et apostolus non ait: ‘Non peccauit sed: Non est seductus; nam utique ipsum ostendit, ubi dicit: Per unum hominem peccatum intrauit in mundum, et paulo post apertius: In similitudine, inquit, praeuaricationis Adae. Hos autem seductos intellegi uoluit, qui id, quod faciunt, non putant esse peccatum; ille autem sciuit. Alioquin quo modo uerum erit: Adam non est seductus? Sed inexpertus diuinae seueritatis in eo falli potuit, ut ueniale crederet esse commissum. Ac per hoc in eo quidem, quo mulier seducta est, non est ille seductus, sed eum fefellit, quo modo fuerat iudicandum quod erat dicturus: Mulier. quam dedisti mecum, ipsa mihi dedit, et manducaui. Quid ergo pluribus? Etsi credendo non sunt ambo decepti, peccando tamen ambo sunt capti et diaboli laqueis inplicati.

### Of the Nature of Man’s First Sin.

[¶15] Chapter 12.—Of the Nature of Man’s First Sin.

> Latin: Caput XII. De qualitate peccati a primis hominibus admissi.

[¶16] If any one finds a difficulty in understanding why other sins do not alter human nature as it was altered by the transgression of those first human beings, so that on account of it this nature is subject to the great corruption we feel and see, and to death, and is distracted and tossed with so many furious and contending emotions, and is certainly far different from what it was before sin, even though it were then lodged in an animal body,—if, I say, any one is moved by this, he ought not to think that that sin was a small and light one because it was committed about food, and that not bad nor noxious, except because it was forbidden; for in that spot of singular felicity God could not have created and planted any evil thing. But by the precept He gave, God commended obedience, which is, in a sort, the mother and guardian of all the virtues in the reasonable creature, which was so created that submission is advantageous to it, while the fulfillment of its own will in preference to the Creator’s is destruction. And as this commandment enjoining abstinence from one kind of food in the midst of great abundance of other kinds was so easy to keep,—so light a burden to the memory,—and, above all, found no resistance to its observance in lust, which only afterwards sprung up as the penal consequence of sin, the iniquity of violating it was all the greater in proportion to the ease with which it might have been kept.

> Latin: Si quem uero mouet. quur aliis peccatis sic natura non mutetur humana. quem ad modum illa duorum primorum hominum praeuaricatione mutata est, ut tantae corruptioni, quantam uidemus adque sentimus, et per hanc subiaceret et morti ac tot et tantis tamque inter se contrariis perturbaretur et fluctuaret adfectibus, qualis in paradiso ante peccatum, licet in corpore animali esset, utique non fuit — si quis hoc mouetur, ut dixi, non ideo debet existimare leue ac paruum illud fuisse commissum, quia in esca factum est, non quidem mala nec noxia, nisi quia prohibita; neque enim quidquam mali Deus in illo tantae felicitatis loco crearet adque plantaret. Sed oboedientia commendata est in praecepto, quae uirtus in creatura rationali mater quodam modo est omnium custosque uirtutum; quando quidem ita facta est, ut ei subditam esse sit utile; perniciosum autem suam, non eius a quo creata est facere uoluntatem. Hoc itaque de uno cibi genere non edendo, ubi aliorum tanta copia subiacebat, tam leue praeceptum ad obseruandum, tam breue ad memoria retinendum, ubi praesertim nondum uoluntati cupiditas resistebat, quod de poena transgressionis postea subsecutum est, tanto maiore iniustitia uiolatum est, quanto faciliore posset obseruantia custodiri.

### That in Adam’s Sin an Evil Will Preceded the Evil Act.

[¶18] Chapter 13.—That in Adam’s Sin an Evil Will Preceded the Evil Act.

> Latin: Caput XIII. Quod in praeuaricatione Adae opus malum uoluntas praecesserit mala.

[¶19] Our first parents fell into open disobedience because already they were secretly corrupted; for the evil act had never been done had not an evil will preceded it. And what is the origin of our evil will but pride? For “pride is the beginning of sin.” And what is pride but the craving for undue exaltation? And this is undue exaltation, when the soul abandons Him to whom it ought to cleave as its end, and becomes a kind of end to itself. This happens when it becomes its own satisfaction. And it does so when it falls away from that unchangeable good which ought to satisfy it more than itself. This falling away is spontaneous; for if the will had remained steadfast in the love of that higher and changeless good by which it was illumined to intelligence and kindled into love, it would not have turned away to find satisfaction in itself, and so become frigid and benighted; the woman would not have believed the serpent spoke the truth, nor would the man have preferred the request of his wife to the command of God, nor have supposed that it was a venial trangression to cleave to the partner of his life even in a partnership of sin. The wicked deed, then,—that is to say, the trangression of eating the forbidden fruit,—was committed by persons who were already wicked. That “evil fruit” could be brought forth only by “a corrupt tree.” But that the tree was evil was not the result of nature; for certainly it could become so only by the vice of the will, and vice is contrary to nature. Now, nature could not have been depraved by vice had it not been made out of nothing. Consequently, that it is a nature, this is because it is made by God; but that it falls away from Him, this is because it is made out of nothing. But man did not so fall away as to become absolutely nothing; but being turned towards himself, his being became more contracted than it was when he clave to Him who supremely is. Accordingly, to exist in himself, that is, to be his own satisfaction after abandoning God, is not quite to become a nonentity, but to approximate to that. And therefore the holy Scriptures designate the proud by another name, “self-pleasers.” For it is good to have the heart lifted up, yet not to one’s self, for this is proud, but to the Lord, for this is obedient, and can be the act only of the humble. There is, therefore, something in humility which, strangely enough, exalts the heart, and something in pride which debases it. This seems, indeed, to be contradictory, that loftiness should debase and lowliness exalt. But pious humility enables us to submit to what is above us; and nothing is more exalted above us than God; and therefore humility, by making us subject to God, exalts us. But pride, being a defect of nature, by the very act of refusing subjection and revolting from Him who is supreme, falls to a low condition; and then comes to pass what is written: “Thou castedst them down when they lifted up themselves.” For he does not say, “when they had been lifted up,” as if first they were exalted, and then afterwards cast down; but “when they lifted up themselves” even then they were cast down,—that is to say, the very lifting up was already a fall. And therefore it is that humility is specially recommended to the city of God as it sojourns in this world, and is specially exhibited in the city of God, and in the person of Christ its King; while the contrary vice of pride, according to the testimony of the sacred writings, specially rules his adversary the devil. And certainly this is the great difference which distinguishes the two cities of which we speak, the one being the society of the godly men, the other of the ungodly, each associated with the angels that adhere to their party, and the one guided and fashioned by love of self, the other by love of God.

> Latin: In occulto autem mali esse coeperunt, ut in apertam inoboedientiam laberentur. Non enim ad malum. opus perueniretur, nisi praecessisset uoluntas mala. Porro malae uoluntatis initium quae potuit esse nisi superbia? Initium enim omnis peccati superbia est. Quid est autem superbia nisi peruersae celsitudinis adpetitus? Peruersa enim est celsitudo deserto eo, cui debet animus inhaerere, principio sibi quodam modo fieri adque esse principium. Hoc fit, cum sibi nimis placet. Sibi uero ita placet, cum ab illo bono inmutabili deficit, quod ei magis placere debuit quam ipse sibi. Spontaneus est autem iste defectus, quoniam, si uoluntas in amore superioris inmutabilis boni, a quo inlustrabatur ut uideret et accendebatur ut amaret, stabilis permaneret, non inde ad sibi placendum auerteretur et ex hoc tenebresceret et frigesceret, ut uel illa crederet uerum dixisse serpentem, uel ille Dei mandato uxoris praeponeret uoluntatem putaretque se uenialiter transgressorem esse praecepti, si uitae suae sociam non desereret etiam in societate peccati. Non ergo malum opus factum est, id est illa transgressio ut cibo prohibito uescerentur, nisi ab eis qui iam mali erant. Neque enim fieret ille fructus malus nisi ab arbore mala. Ut autem esset arbor mala, centra naturam factum est, quia nisi uitio uoluntatis, quod contra naturam est, non utique fieret. Sed uitio deprauari nisi ex nihilo facta natura non posset. Ac per hoc ut natura sit, ex eo habet quod a Deo facta est; ut autem ab eo quod est deficiat, ex hoc quod de nihilo facta est. Nec sic defecit homo, ut omnino nihil esset, sed ut inclinatus ad se ipsum minus esset, quam erat, cum ei qui summe est inhaerebat. Relicto itaque Deo esse in semet ipso, hoc est sibi placere, non iam nihil esse est, sed nihilo propinquare. Unde superbi secundum scripturas sanctas alio nomine appellantur sibi placentes. Bonum est enim sursum habere cor; non tamen ad se ipsum, quod est superbiae, sed ad Dominum, quod est oboedientiae, quae nisi humilium non potest esse. Est igitur aliquid humilitatis miro modo quod sursum faciat cor, et est aliquid elationis quod deorsum faciat cor. Hoc quidem quasi contrarium uidetur, ut elatio sit deorsum et humilitas sursum. Sed pia humilitas facit subditum superiori; nihil est autem superius Deo; et ideo exaltat humilitas, quae facit subditum Deo. Elatio autem, quae in uitio est, eo ipso respuit subiectionem et cadit ab illo, quo non est quidquam superius, et ex hoc erit inferius et fit quod scriptum est: Deiecisti eos, cum extollerentur. Non enim ait: ‘Cum elati fuissent ut prius extollerentur et postea deicerentur; sed cum extollerentur, tunc deiecti sunt. Ipsum quippe extolli iam deici est. Quapropter quod nunc in ciuitate Dei et ciuitati Dei in hoc peregrinanti saeculo maxime commendatur humilitas et. in eius rege, qui est Christus, maxime praedicatur contrariumque huic uirtuti elationis uitium in eius aduersario, qui est diabolus, maxime dominari sacris litteris edocetur: profecto ista est magna differentia, qua ciuitas, unde loquimur, utraque discernitur, una scilicet societas piorum hominum, altera inpiorum, singula quaeque cum angelis ad se pertinentibus, in quibus praecessit hac amor Dei, hac amor sui.

[¶20] The devil, then, would not have ensnared man in the open and manifest sin of doing what God had forbidden, had man not already begun to live for himself. It was this that made him listen with pleasure to the words, “Ye shall be as gods,” which they would much more readily have accomplished by obediently adhering to their supreme and true end than by proudly living to themselves. For created gods are gods not by virtue of what is in themselves, but by a participation of the true God. By craving to be more, man becomes less; and by aspiring to be self-sufficing, he fell away from Him who truly suffices him. Accordingly, this wicked desire which prompts man to please himself as if he were himself light, and which thus turns him away from that light by which, had he followed it, he would himself have become light,—this wicked desire, I say, already secretly existed in him, and the open sin was but its consequence. For that is true which is written, “Pride goeth before destruction, and before honor is humility;” that is to say, secret ruin precedes open ruin, while the former is not counted ruin. For who counts exaltation ruin, though no sooner is the Highest forsaken than a fall is begun? But who does not recognize it as ruin, when there occurs an evident and indubitable transgression of the commandment? And consequently, God’s prohibition had reference to such an act as, when committed, could not be defended on any pretense of doing what was righteous. And I make bold to say that it is useful for the proud to fall into an open and indisputable transgression, and so displease themselves, as already, by pleasing themselves, they had fallen. For Peter was in a healthier condition when he wept and was dissatisfied with himself, than when he boldly presumed and satisfied himself. And this is averred by the sacred Psalmist when he says, “Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek Thy name, O Lord;” that is, that they who have pleased themselves in seeking their own glory may be pleased and satisfied with Thee in seeking Thy glory.

> Latin: Manifesto ergo apertoque peccato, ubi factum est quod Deus fieri prohibuerat, diabolus hominem non cepisset, nisi iam ille sibi ipsi placere coepisset. Hinc enim et delectauit quod dictum est: Eritis sicut di. Quod melius esse possent summo ueroque principio cohaerendo per oboedientiam, non suum sibi existendo principium per superbiam. Di enim creati non sua ueritate, sed Dei ueri participatione sunt di. Plus autem adpetendo minus est, qui, dum sibi sufficere deligit, ab illo, qui ei uere sufficit, deficit. Illud itaque malum, quo, cum sibi homo placet, tamquam sit et ipse lumen, auertitur ab eo lumine, quod ei si placeat et ipse fit lumen — illud, inquam, malum praecessit in abdito, ut sequeretur hoc malum quod perpetratum est in aperto. Verum est enim quod scriptum est: Ante ruinam exaltatur cor et ante gloriam humiliatur. Illa prorsus ruina, quae fit in occulto, praecedit ruinam, quae fit in manifesto, dum illa ruina esse non putatur. Quis enim exaltationem ruinam putat, cum iam ibi sit defectus, quo est relictus Excelsus? Quis autem ruinam esse non uideat, quando fit mandati euidens adque indubitata transgressio? Propter hoc Deus illud prohibuit, quod cum esset admissum, nulla defendi posset imaginatione iustitiae. Et audeo dicere superbis esse utile cadere in aliquod apertum manifestumque peccatum, unde sibi displiceant, qui iam sibi placendo ceciderant. Salubrius enim Petrus sibi displicuit, quando fleuit, quam sibi placuit, quando praesumsit. Hoc dicit et sacer psalmus: Inple facies eorum ignominia, et quaerent nomen tuum, Domine, id est, ut tu eis placeas quaerentibus nomen tuum, qui sibi placuerant quaerendo suum.

### Of the Pride in the Sin, Which Was Worse Than the Sin Itself.

[¶22] Chapter 14.—Of the Pride in the Sin, Which Was Worse Than the Sin Itself.

> Latin: Caput XIV. De superbia transgressoris, quae ipsa fuit transgressione deterior,

[¶23] But it is a worse and more damnable pride which casts about for the shelter of an excuse even in manifest sins, as these our first parents did, of whom the woman said, “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat;” and the man said, “The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” Here there is no word of begging pardon, no word of entreaty for healing. For though they do not, like Cain, deny that they have perpetrated the deed, yet their pride seeks to refer its wickedness to another,—the woman’s pride to the serpent, the man’s to the woman. But where there is a plain trangression of a divine commandment, this is rather to accuse than to excuse oneself. For the fact that the woman sinned on the serpent’s persuasion, and the man at the woman’s offer, did not make the transgression less, as if there were any one whom we ought rather to believe or yield to than God.

> Latin: Sed est peior damnabiliorque superbia, qua etiam in peccatis manifestis suffugium excusationis inquiritur; sicut illi primi homines, quorum et illa dixit: Serpens seduxit me, et manducaui, et ille dixit: Mulier, quam dedisti mecum, haec mihi dedit a ligno, et edi. Nusquam hic sonat petitio ueniae, nusquam inploratio medicinae. Nam licet isti non sicut Cain quod commiserunt negent, adhuc tamen superbia in aliud quaerit referre quod perperam fecit: superbia mulieris in serpentem, superbia uiri in mulierem. Sed accusatio potius quam excusatio uera est, ubi mandati diuini est aperta transgressio. Neque enim hoc propterea non fecerunt, quia id mulier serpente suadente, uir muliere inpertiente commisit, quasi quidquam Deo, cui uel crederetur uel cederetur, anteponendam fuit.

## 68. Of the Justice of the Punishment with Which Our First Parents Were Visited for Their Disobedience.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/68/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/68/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 15.—Of the Justice of the Punishment with Which Our First Parents Were Visited for Their Disobedience.

> Latin: Caput XV. De iustitia retributionis, quam primi homines pro sua inoboedientia receperunt.

[¶1] Therefore, because the sin was a despising of the authority of God,—who had created man; who had made him in His own image; who had set him above the other animals; who had placed him in Paradise; who had enriched him with abundance of every kind and of safety; who had laid upon him neither many, nor great, nor difficult commandments, but, in order to make a wholesome obedience easy to him, had given him a single very brief and very light precept by which He reminded that creature whose service was to be free that He was Lord,—it was just that condemnation followed, and condemnation such that man, who by keeping the commandments should have been spiritual even in his flesh, became fleshly even in his spirit; and as in his pride he had sought to be his own satisfaction, God in His justice abandoned him to himself, not to live in the absolute independence he affected, but instead of the liberty he desired, to live dissatisfied with himself in a hard and miserable bondage to him to whom by sinning he had yielded himself, doomed in spite of himself to die in body as he had willingly become dead in spirit, condemned even to eternal death (had not the grace of God delivered him) because he had forsaken eternal life. Whoever thinks such punishment either excessive or unjust shows his inability to measure the great iniquity of sinning where sin might so easily have been avoided. For as Abraham’s obedience is with justice pronounced to be great, because the thing commanded, to kill his son, was very difficult, so in Paradise the disobedience was the greater, because the difficulty of that which was commanded was imperceptible. And as the obedience of the second Man was the more laudable because He became obedient even “unto death,” so the disobedience of the first man was the more detestable because he became disobedient even unto death. For where the penalty annexed to disobedience is great, and the thing commanded by the Creator is easy, who can sufficiently estimate how great a wickedness it is, in a matter so easy, not to obey the authority of so great a power, even when that power deters with so terrible a penalty?

> Latin: Quia ergo contemtus est Deus iubens, qui creauerat, qui ad suam imaginem fecerat, qui ceteris animalibus praeposuerat, qui in paradiso constituerat, qui rerum omnium copiam salutisque praestiterat, qui praeceptis nec pluribus nec grandibus nec difficilibus onerauerat, sed uno breuissimo adque leuissimo ad oboedientiae salubritatem adminiculauerat, quo eam creaturam, cui libera seruitus expediret, se esse Dominum commonebat: iusta damnatio subsecuta est, talisque damnatio, ut homo, qui custodiendo mandatum futurus fuerat etiam carne spiritalis, fieret etiam mente carnalis et, qui sua superbia sibi placuerat, Dei iustitia sibi donaretur; nec sic, ut in sua esset omnimodis potestate, sed a se ipse quoque dissentiens sub illo, cui peccando consensit, pro libertate, quam concupiuit, duram miseramque ageret seruitutem, mortuus spiritu uolens et corpore moriturus inuitus, desertor aeternae uitae etiam aeterna, nisi gratia liberaret, morte damnatus. Quisquis huius modi damnationem uel nimiam uel iniustam putat, metiri profecto nescit, quanta fuerit iniquitas in peccando, ubi tanta erat non peccandi facilitas. Sicut enim Abrahae non inmerito magna oboedientia praedicatur, quia, ut occideret filium, res difficillima est imperata: ita in paradiso tanto maior inboedientia fuit, quanto id, quod prae-. ceptum est, nullius difficultatis fuit. Et sicut oboedientia secundi hominis eo praedicabilior, quo factus est oboediens usque ad mortem: ita inoboedientia primi hominis eo detestabilior, quo factus est inoboediens usque ad mortem. Ubi enim magna est inoboedientiae poena proposita et res a Creatore facilis imperata, quisnam satis explicet, quantum malum sit non oboedire in re facili et tantae potestatis imperio et tanto terrente supplicio?

[¶2] In short, to say all in a word, what but disobedience was the punishment of disobedience in that sin? For what else is man’s misery but his own disobedience to himself, so that in consequence of his not being willing to do what he could do, he now wills to do what he cannot? For though he could not do all things in Paradise before he sinned, yet he wished to do only what he could do, and therefore he could do all things he wished. But now, as we recognize in his offspring, and as divine Scripture testifies, “Man is like to vanity.” For who can count how many things he wishes which he cannot do, so long as he is disobedient to himself, that is, so long as his mind and his flesh do not obey his will? For in spite of himself his mind is both frequently disturbed, and his flesh suffers, and grows old, and dies; and in spite of ourselves we suffer whatever else we suffer, and which we would not suffer if our nature absolutely and in all its parts obeyed our will. But is it not the infirmities of the flesh which hamper it in its service? Yet what does it matter how its service is hampered, so long as the fact remains, that by the just retribution of the sovereign God whom we refused to be subject to and serve, our flesh, which was subjected to us, now torments us by insubordination, although our disobedience brought trouble on ourselves, not upon God? For He is not in need of our service as we of our body’s; and therefore what we did was no punishment to Him, but what we receive is so to us. And the pains which are called bodily are pains of the soul in and from the body. For what pain or desire can the flesh feel by itself and without the soul? But when the flesh is said to desire or to suffer, it is meant, as we have explained, that the man does so, or some part of the soul which is affected by the sensation of the flesh, whether a harsh sensation causing pain, or gentle, causing pleasure. But pain in the flesh is only a discomfort of the soul arising from the flesh, and a kind of shrinking from its suffering, as the pain of the soul which is called sadness is a shrinking from those things which have happened to us in spite of ourselves. But sadness is frequently preceded by fear, which is itself in the soul, not in the flesh; while bodily pain is not preceded by any kind of fear of the flesh, which can be felt in the flesh before the pain. But pleasure is preceded by a certain appetite which is felt in the flesh like a craving, as hunger and thirst and that generative appetite which is most commonly identified with the name” lust,” though this is the generic word for all desires. For anger itself was defined by the ancients as nothing else than the lust of revenge; although sometimes a man is angry even at inanimate objects which cannot feel his vengeance, as when one breaks a pen, or crushes a quill that writes badly. Yet even this, though less reasonable, is in its way a lust of revenge, and is, so to speak, a mysterious kind of shadow of [the great law of] retribution, that they who do evil should suffer evil. There is therefore a lust for revenge, which is called anger; there is a lust of money, which goes by the name of avarice; there is a lust of conquering, no matter by what means, which is called opinionativeness; there is a lust of applause, which is named boasting. There are many and various lusts, of which some have names of their own, while others have not. For who could readily give a name to the lust of ruling, which yet has a powerful influence in the soul of tyrants, as civil wars bear witness?

> Latin: Denique, ut breuiter dicatur, in illius peccati poena quid inoboedientiae nisi inoboedientia retributa est? Nam quae hominis est alia miseria nisi aduersus eum ipsum inoboedientia eius ipsius, ut, quoniam noluit quod potuit, quod non potest uelit? In paradiso enim etiamsi non omnia poterat ante peccatum, quidquid tamen non poterat, non nolebat, et ideo poterat omnia quae uolebat; nunc uero sicut in eius stirpe cognoscimus et diurna scriptura testatur: Homo uanitati similis factus est. Quis enim enumerat, quam multa quae non potest uelit, dum sibi ipse, id est uoluntati eius ipse animus eius eoque inferior caro eius, non obtemperat? Ipso namque inuito et animus plerumque turbatur et caro dolet et ueterescit et moritur, et quidquid aliud patimur, quod non pateremur inuiti, si uoluntati nostrae nostra natura omni modo adque ex omnibus partibus oboediret. At enim aliquid caro patitur, quo seruire non sinitur. Quid interest unde, dum tamen per iustitiam dominantis Dei, cui subditi seruire noluimus, caro nostra nobis, quae subdita fuerat, non seruiendo molesta sit, quamuis nos Deo non seruiendo molesti nobis potuerimus esse, non illi? Neque enim sic ille nostro, ut nos seruitio corporis indigemus, et ideo nostra est quod recipimus, non illius poena quod fecimus. Dolores porro, qui dicuntur carnis, animae sunt in carne et ex carne. Quid enim caro per se ipsam sine anima uel dolet uel concupiscit? Sed quod concupiscere caro dicitur uel dolere, aut ipse homo est, sicut disseruimus, aut aliquid animae, quod carnis adficit passio, uel aspera, ut faciat dolorem, uel lenis, ut uoluptatem. Sed dolor carnis tantum modo offensio est animae ex carne et quaedam ab eius passione. dissensio, sicut animi dolor, quae tristitia nuncupatur, dissensio est ab his rebus, quae nobis nolentibus acciderunt. Sed tristitiam plerumque praecedit metus, qui et ipse in anima est, non in carne. Dolorem autem carnis non praecedit ullus quasi metus carnis, qui ante dolorem in carne sentiatur. Voluptatem uero praecedit adpetitus quidam, qui sentitur in carne quasi cupiditas eius, sicut fames et sitis et ea, quae in genitalibus usitatius libido nominatur, cum hoc sit generale uocabulum omnis cupiditatis. Nam et ipsam iram nihil aliud esse quam ulciscendi libidinem ueteres definierunt; quamuis nonnumquam homo, ubi uindictae nullus est sensus, etiam rebus inanimis irascatur, et male scribentem stilum conlidat uel calamum frangat iratus. Verum et ista licet inrationabilior, tamen quaedam ulciscendi libido est, ut nescio qua, ut ita dixerim, quasi umbra retributionis, ut qui male faciunt, mala patiantur. Est igitur libido ulciscendi, quae ira dicitur; est libido habendi pecuniam, quae auaritia; est libido quomodocumque uincendi, quae peruicacia; est libido gloriandi, quae iactantia nuncupatur. Sunt multae uariaeque libidines, quarum nonnullae habent etiam uocabula propria, quaedam uero non habent. Quis enim facile dixerit, quid uocetur libido dominandi, quam tamen plurimum ualere in tyrannorum animis etiam ciuilia bella testantur?

### Of the Evil of Lust,—A Word Which, Though Applicable to Many Vices, is Specially Appropriated to Sexual Uncleanness.

[¶4] Chapter 16.—Of the Evil of Lust,—A Word Which, Though Applicable to Many Vices, is Specially Appropriated to Sexual Uncleanness.

> Latin: Caput XVI. De libidinis malo, cuius nomen cum multis uitiis congruat, proprie tamen motibus obsceni caloris adscribitur.

[¶5] Although, therefore, lust may have many objects, yet when no object is specified, the word lust usually suggests to the mind the lustful excitement of the organs of generation. And this lust not only takes possession of the whole body and outward members, but also makes itself felt within, and moves the whole man with a passion in which mental emotion is mingled with bodily appetite, so that the pleasure which results is the greatest of all bodily pleasures. So possessing indeed is this pleasure, that at the moment of time in which it is consummated, all mental activity is suspended. What friend of wisdom and holy joys, who, being married, but knowing, as the apostle says, “how to possess his vessel in santification and honor, not in the disease of desire, as the Gentiles who know not God,” would not prefer, if this were possi ble, to beget children without this lust, so that in this function of begetting offspring the members created for this purpose should not be stimulated by the heat of lust, but should be actuated by his volition, in the same way as his other members serve him for their respective ends? But even those who delight in this pleasure are not moved to it at their own will, whether they confine themselves to lawful or transgress to unlawful pleasures; but sometimes this lust importunes them in spite of themselves, and sometimes fails them when they desire to feel it, so that though lust rages in the mind, it stirs not in the body. Thus, strangely enough, this emotion not only fails to obey the legitimate desire to beget offspring, but also refuses to serve lascivious lust; and though it often opposes its whole combined energy to the soul that resists it, sometimes also it is divided against itself, and while it moves the soul, leaves the body unmoved.

> Latin: Cum igitur sint multarum libidines rerum, tamen, cum libido dicitur neque cuius rei libido sit additur, non fere adsolet animo occurrere nisi illa, qua obscenae partes corporis excitantur. Haec autem sibi non solum totum corpus nec solum extrinsecus, uerum etiam intrinsecus uindicat totumque commouet hominem animi simul adfectu cum carnis adpetitu coniuncto adque permixto, ut ea uoluptas sequatur, qua maior in corporis uoluptatibus nulla est; ita ut momento ipso temporis, quo ad eius peruenitur extremum, paene omnis acies et quasi uigilia cogitationis obruatur. Quis autem amicus sapientiae sanctorumque gaudiorum coniugalem agens uitam, sed, sicut apostolus monuit, sciens suum uas possidere in sanctificatione et honore, non in morbo desiderii, sicut et gentes, quae ignorant Deum, non mallet, si posset, sine hac libidine filios procreare, ut etiam in hoc serendae prolis officio sic eius menti ea, quae ad hoc opus creata sunt, quem ad modum cetera suis quaeque operibus distributa membra seruirent, nutu uoluntatis acta, non aestu libidinis incitata? Sed neque ipsi amatores huius uoluptatis siue ad concubitus coniugales siue ad inmunditias flagitiorum cum uoluerint commouentur; sed aliquando inportunus est ille motus poscente nullo, aliquando autem destituit inhiantem, et cum in animo concupiscentia ferueat, friget in corpore; adque ita mirum in modum non solum generandi uoluntati, uerum etiam lasciuiendi libidini libido non seruit, et cum tota plerumque menti cohibenti aduersetur, nonnumquam et aduersus se ipsam diuiditur commotoque animo in commouendo corpore se ipsa non sequitur.

### Of the Nakedness of Our First Parents, Which They Saw After Their Base and Shameful Sin.

[¶7] Chapter 17.—Of the Nakedness of Our First Parents, Which They Saw After Their Base and Shameful Sin.

> Latin: Caput XVII. De nuditate primorum hominum, quam post peccatum turpem pudendamque uiderunt.

[¶8] Justly is shame very specially connected with this lust; justly, too, these members themselves, being moved and restrained not at our will, but by a certain independent autocracy, so to speak, are called “shameful.” Their condition was different before sin. For as it is written, “They were naked and were not ashamed,”—not that their nakedness was unknown to them, but because nakedness was not yet shameful, because not yet did lust move those members without the will’s consent; not yet did the flesh by its disobedience testify against the disobedience of man. For they were not created blind, as the unenlightened vulgar fancy; for Adam saw the animals to whom he gave names, and of Eve we read, “The woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes.” Their eyes, therefore were open, but were not open to this, that is to say, were not observant so as to recognize what was conferred upon them by the garment of grace, for they had no consciousness of their members warring against their will. But when they were stripped of this grace, that their disobedience might be punished by fit retribution, there began in the movement of their bodily members a shameless novelty which made nakedness indecent: it at once made them observant and made them ashamed. And therefore, after they violated God’s command by open transgression, it is written: “And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” “The eyes of them both were opened,” not to see, for already they saw, but to discern between the good they had lost and the evil into which they had fallen. And therefore also the tree itself which they were forbidden to touch was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil from this circumstance, that if they ate of it it would impart to them this knowledge. For the discomfort of sickness reveals the pleasure of health. “They knew,” therefore, “that they were naked,”—naked of that grace which prevented them from being ashamed of bodily nakedness while the law of sin offered no resistance to their mind. And thus they obtained a knowledge which they would have lived in blissful ignorance of, had they, in trustful obedience to God, declined to commit that offence which involved them in the experience of the hurtful effects of unfaithfulness and disobedience. And therefore, being ashamed of the disobedience of their own flesh, which witnessed to their disobedience while it punished it, “they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons,” that is, cinctures for their privy parts; for some interpreters have rendered the word by succinctoria. Campestria is, indeed, a Latin word, but it is used of the drawers or aprons used for a similar purpose by the young men who stripped for exercise in the campus; hence those who were so girt were commonly called campestrati. Shame modestly covered that which lust disobediently moved in opposition to the will, which was thus punished for its own disobedience. Consequently all nations, being propagated from that one stock, have so strong an instinct to cover the shameful parts, that some barbarians do not uncover them even in the bath, but wash with their drawers on. In the dark solitudes of India also, though some philosophers go naked, and are therefore called gymnosophists, yet they make an exception in the case of these members and cover them.

> Latin: Merito huius libidinis maxime pudet, merito et ipsa membra, quae suo quodam, ut ita dixerim, iure, non omni modo ad arbitrium nostrum mouet aut non mouet, pudenda dicuntur, quod ante peccatum hominis non fuerunt. Nam sicut scriptum est: Nudi erant, et non confundebantur, non quod eis sua nuditas esset incognita, sed turpis nuditas nondum erat, quia nondum libido membra illa praeter arbitrium commouebat, nondum ad hominis inoboedientiam redarguendam sua inoboedientia caro quodam modo testimonium perhibebat. Neque enim caeci creati erant, ut inperitum uulgus opinatur; quando quidem et ille uidit animalia, quibus nomina inposuit, et de illa legitur: Vidit mulier quia bonum lignum in escam et quia placet oculis ad uidendum. Patebant ergo oculi eorum, sed ad hoc non erant aperti, hoc est non adtenti, ut cognoscerent quid eis indumento gratiae praestaretur, quando membra eorum uoluntati repugnare nesciebant. Qua gratia remota, ut poena reciproca inoboedientia plecteretur, extitit in motu corporis quaedam inpudens nouitas, unde esset indecens nuditas, et fecit adtentos reddiditque confusos. Hinc est quod, postea quam mandatum Dei aperta transgressione uiolarunt, scriptum est de illis: Et aperti sunt oculi amborum et agnouerunt quia nudi erant, et consuerunt folia fici et fecerunt sibi campestria. Aperti sunt, inquit, oculi amborum, non ad uidendum, nam et antea uidebant, sed ad discernendum inter bonum quod amiserant et malum quo ceciderant. Unde et ipsum lignum, eo quod istam faceret dignoscentiam, si ad uescendum contra uetitum tangeretur, ex ea re nomen accepit, ut appellaretur lignum sciendi boni et mali. Experta enim morbi molestia euidentior fit etiam iucunditas sanitatis. Cognouerunt ergo quia nudi erant, nudati scilicet ea gratia, qua fiebat ut nuditas corporis nulla eos lege peccati menti eorum repugnante confunderet. Hoc itaque cognouerunt, quod felicius ignorarent, si Deo credentes et oboedientes non committerent, quod eos cogeret experiri infidelitas et inoboedientia quid noceret. Proinde confusi inoboedientia carnis suae, tamquam teste poena inoboedientiae suae, consuerunt folia fici et fecerunt sibi campestria, id est succinctoria genitalium. Nam quidam interpretes […] posuerunt. Porro autem […] latinum quidem uerbum est, sed ex eo dictum, quod iuuenes, qui nudi exercebantur in campo, pudenda operiebant; unde qui ita succincti sunt, campestratos uulgus appellat. Quod itaque aduersus damnatam culpa inoboedientiae uoluntatem libido inoboedienter mouebat, uerecundia pudenter tegebat. Ex hoc omnes gentes, quoniam ab illa stirpe procreatae sunt, usque adeo tenent insitum pudenda uelare, ut quidam barbari illas corporis partes nec in balneis nudas habeant, sed cum earum tegimentis lauent. Per opacas quoque Indiae solitudines, cum quidam nudi philosophentur, unde gymnosophistae nominantur, adhibent tamen genitalibus tegmina, quibus per cetera membrorum carent.

### Of the Shame Which Attends All Sexual Intercourse.

[¶10] Chapter 18.—Of the Shame Which Attends All Sexual Intercourse.

> Latin: Caput XVIII. De pudore concubitus non solum uulgaris, sed etiam coniugalis.

[¶11] Lust requires for its consummation darkness and secrecy; and this not only when un lawful intercourse is desired, but even such fornication as the earthly city has legalized. Where there is no fear of punishment, these permitted pleasures still shrink from the public eye. Even where provision is made for this lust, secrecy also is provided; and while lust found it easy to remove the prohibitions of law, shamelessness found it impossible to lay aside the veil of retirement. For even shameless men call this shameful; and though they love the pleasure, dare not display it. What! does not even conjugal intercourse, sanctioned as it is by law for the propagation of children, legitimate and honorable though it be, does it not seek retirement from every eye? Before the bridegroom fondles his bride, does he not exclude the attendants, and even the paranymphs, and such friends as the closest ties have admitted to the bridal chamber? The greatest master of Roman eloquence says, that all right actions wish to be set in the light, i.e., desire to be known. This right action, however, has such a desire to be known, that yet it blushes to be seen. Who does not know what passes between husband and wife that children may be born? Is it not for this purpose that wives are married with such ceremony? And yet, when this well-understood act is gone about for the procreation of children, not even the children themselves, who may already have been born to them, are suffered to be witnesses. This right action seeks the light, in so far as it seeks to be known, but yet dreads being seen. And why so, if not because that which is by nature fitting and decent is so done as to be accompanied with a shame-begetting penalty of sin?

> Latin: Opus uero ipsum, quod libidine tali peragitur, non solum in quibusque stupris, ubi latebrae ad subterfugienda humana iudicia requiruntur, uerum etiam in usu scortorum, quam terrena ciuitas licitam turpitudinem fecit, quamuis id agatur, quod eius ciuitatis nulla lex uindicat, deuitat tamen publicum etiam permissa adque inpunita libido conspectum, et uerecundia naturali habent prouisum lupanaria ipsa secretum faciliusque potuit inpudicitia non habere uincla prohibitionis, quam inpudentia remouere latibula illius foeditatis. Sed hanc etiam ipsi turpes turpitudinem uocant, cuius licet sint amatores, ostentatores esse non audent. Quid? concubitus coniugalis, qui secundum matrimonialium praescripta tabularum procreandorum fit causa liberorum, nonne et ipse quamquam sit licitus et honestus, remotum ab arbitris cubile conquirit? Nonne omnes famulos adque ipsos etiam paranymphos et quoscumque ingredi quaelibet necessitudo permiserat, ante mittit foras, quam uel blandiri coniux coniugi incipiat? Et quoniam, sicut ait etiam quidam ‘Romani maximus auctor eloquii’, omnia recte facta in luce se conlocari uolunt, id est adpetunt sciri: hoc recte factum sic adpetit sciri, ut tamen erubescat uideri. Quis enim nescit, ut filii procreentur, quid inter se coniuges agant? quando quidem ut id agatur, tanta celebritate ducuntur uxores; et tamen cum agitur, unde filii nascantur, nec ipsi filii, si qui inde iam nati sunt, testes fieri permittuntur. Sic enim hoc recte factum ad sui notitiam lucem adpetit animorum, ut tamen refugiat oculorum. Unde hoc, nisi quia sic geritur quod deceat ex natura, ut etiam quod pudeat comitetur ex poena?

### That It is Now Necessary, as It Was Not Before Man Sinned, to Bridle Anger and Lust by the Restraining Influence of Wisdom.

[¶13] Chapter 19.—That It is Now Necessary, as It Was Not Before Man Sinned, to Bridle Anger and Lust by the Restraining Influence of Wisdom.

> Latin: Caput XIX. Quod partes irae adque libidinis, quae in homine tam uitiose mouentur, ut eas necesse sit frenis sapientiae cohiberi, in illa ante peccatum naturae sanitate non fuerint.

[¶14] Hence it is that even the philosophers who have approximated to the truth have avowed that anger and lust are vicious mental emotions, because, even when exercised towards objects which wisdom does not prohibit, they are moved in an ungoverned and inordinate manner, and consequently need the regulation of mind and reason. And they assert that this third part of the mind is posted as it were in a kind of citadel, to give rule to these other parts, so that, while it rules and they serve, man’s righteousness is preserved without a breach. These parts, then, which they acknowledge to be vicious even in a wise and temperate man, so that the mind, by its composing and restraining influence, must bridle and recall them from those objects towards which they are unlawfully moved, and give them access to those which the law of wisdom sanctions,—that anger, e.g., may be allowed for the enforcement of a just authority, and lust for the duty of propagating offspring,—these parts, I say, were not vicious in Paradise before sin, for they were never moved in opposition to a holy will towards any object from which it was necessary that they should be withheld by the restraining bridle of reason. For though now they are moved in this way, and are regulated by a bridling and restraining power, which those who live temperately, justly, and godly exercise, sometimes with ease, and sometimes with greater difficulty, this is not the sound health of nature, but the weakness which results from sin. And how is it that shame does not hide the acts and words dictated by anger or other emotions, as it covers the motions of lust, unless because the members of the body which we employ for accomplishing them are moved, not by the emotions themselves, but by the authority of the consenting will? For he who in his anger rails at or even strikes some one, could not do so were not his tongue and hand moved by the authority of the will, as also they are moved when there is no anger. But the organs of generation are so subjected to the rule of lust, that they have no motion but what it communicates. It is this we are ashamed of; it is this which blushingly hides from the eyes of onlookers. And rather will a man endure a crowd of witnesses when he is unjustly venting his anger on some one, than the eye of one man when he innocently copulates with his wife.

> Latin: Hinc est quod et illi philosophi, qui ueritati propius accesserunt, iram adque libidinem uitiosas animi partes esse confessi sunt, eo quod turbide adque inordinate mouerentur ad ea etiam, quae sapientia perpetrari uetat, ac per hoc opus habere moderatrice mente adque ratione. Quam partem animi tertiam uelut in arce quadam ad istas regendas perhibent conlocatam, ut illa imperante, istis seruientibus possit in homine iustitia ex omni animi parte seruari. Hae igitur partes, quas et in homine sapiente ac temperante fatentur esse uitiosas, ut eas ab his rebus, ad quas iniuste mouentur, mens conpescendo et cohibendo refrenet ac reuocet adque ad ea permittat, quae sapientiae lege concessa sunt (sicut iram ad exercendam iustam cohercitionem, sicut libidinem ad propagandae prolis officium) — hae, inquam, partes in paradiso ante peccatum uitiosae non erant. Non enim contra rectam uoluntatem ad aliquid mouebantur, unde necesse esset eas rationis tamquam frenis regentibus abstinere. Nam quod nunc ita mouentur et ab eis, qui temperanter et iuste et pie uiuunt, alias facilius, alias difficilius, tamen cohibendo et repugnando modificantur, non est utique sanitas ex natura, sed languor ex culpa. Quod autem irae opera aliarumque adfectionum in quibusque dictis adque factis non sic abscondit uerecundia, ut opera libidinis, quae fiunt genitalibus membris, quid causae est, nisi quia in ceteris membra corporis non ipsae adfectiones, sed, cum eis consenserit, uoluntas mouet, quae in usu eorum omnino dominatur? Nam quisquis uerbum emittit iratus uel etiam quemquam percutit, non posset hoc facere, nisi lingua et manus iubente quodam modo uoluntate mouerentur; quae membra, etiam cum ira nulla est, mouentur eadem uoluntate. At uero genitales corporis partes ita libido suo iuri quodam modo mancipauit, ut moueri non ualeant, si ipsa defuerit et nisi ipsa uel ultro uel excitata surrexerit. Hoc est quod pudet, hoc est quod intuentium oculos erubescendo deuitat; magisque fert homo spectantium multitudinem, quando iniuste irascitur homini, quam uel unius aspectum et quando iuste miscetur uxori.

### Of the Foolish Beastliness of the Cynics.

[¶16] Chapter 20.—Of the Foolish Beastliness of the Cynics.

> Latin: Caput XX. De uanissima turpitudine Cynicorum.

[¶17] It is this which those canine or cynic philosophers have overlooked, when they have, in violation of the modest instincts of men, boastfully proclaimed their unclean and shameless opinion, worthy indeed of dogs, viz., that as the matrimonial act is legitimate, no one should be ashamed to perform it openly, in the street or in any public place. Instinctive shame has overborne this wild fancy. For though it is related that Diogenes once dared to put his opinion in practice, under the impression that his sect would be all the more famous if his egregious shamelessness were deeply graven in the memory of mankind, yet this example was not afterwards followed. Shame had more influence with them, to make them blush before men, than error to make them affect a resemblance to dogs. And possibly, even in the case of Diogenes, and those who did imitate him, there was but an appearance and pretence of copulation, and not the reality. Even at this day there are still Cynic philosophers to be seen; for these are Cynics who are not content with being clad in the pallium, but also carry a club; yet no one of them dares to do this that we speak of. If they did, they would be spat upon, not to say stoned, by the mob. Human nature, then, is without doubt ashamed of this lust; and justly so, for the insubordination of these members, and their defiance of the will, are the clear testimony of the punishment of man’s first sin. And it was fitting that this should appear specially in those parts by which is generated that nature which has been altered for the worse by that first and great sin,—that sin from whose evil connection no one can escape, unless God’s grace expiate in him individually that which was perpetrated to the destruction of all in common, when all were in one man, and which was avenged by God’s justice.

> Latin: Hoc illi canini philosophi, hoc est Cynici, non uiderunt, proferentes contra humanam uerecundiam quid aliud quam caninam, hoc est inmundam inpudentemque sententiam? ut scilicet, quoniam iustum est quod fit in uxore, palam non pudeat id agere nec in uico aut platea qualibet coniugalem concubitum deuitare. Vicit tamen pudor naturalis opinionem huius erroris. Nam etsi perhibent, hoc aliquando gloriabundum fecisse Diogenem, ita putantem sectam suam nobiliorem futuram, si in hominum memoria insignior eius inpudentia figeretur, postea tamen a Cynicis fieri cessatum est, plusque ualuit pudor, ut erubescerent homines hominibus, quam error, ut homines canibus esse similes adfectarent. Unde et illum uel illos, qui hoc fecisse referuntur, potius arbitror concumbentium motus dedisse oculis hominum nescientium quid sub pallio gereretur, quam humano premente conspectu potuisse illam peragi uoluptatem. Ibi enim philosophi non erubescebant uideri se uelle concumbere, ubi libido ipsa erubesceret surgere. Et nunc uidemus adhuc esse philosophos Cynicos; hi enim sunt, qui non solum amiciuntur pallio, uerum etiam clauam ferunt; nemo tamen eorum audet hoc facere, quod si aliqui ausi essent, ut non dicam ictibus lapidantium, certe conspuentium saliuis obruerentur. Pudet igitur huius libidinis humanam sine ulla dubitatione naturam, et merito pudet. In eius quippe inoboedientia, quae genitalia corporis membra solis suis motibus subdidit et potestati uoluntatis eripuit, satis ostenditur, quid sit hominis illi primae inoboedientiae retributum; quod in ea parte maxime oportuit apparere, qua generatur ipsa natura, quae illo primo et magno in deterius est mutata peccato; a cuius nexu nullus eruitur, nisi id quod, cum omnes in uno essent, in communem perniciem perpetratum est et Dei iustitia uindicatum, Dei gratia in singulis expietur.

### That Man’s Transgression Did Not Annul the Blessing of Fecundity Pronounced Upon Man Before He Sinned But Infected It with the Disease of Lust.

[¶19] Chapter 21.—That Man’s Transgression Did Not Annul the Blessing of Fecundity Pronounced Upon Man Before He Sinned But Infected It with the Disease of Lust.

> Latin: Caput XXI. De benedictione multiplicandae fecunditatis humanae ante peccatum data, quam praeuaricatio non ademerit et cui libidinis morbus accesserit.

[¶20] Far be it, then, from us to suppose that our first parents in Paradise felt that lust which caused them afterwards to blush and hide their nakedness, or that by its means they should have fulfilled the benediction of God, “Increase and multiply and replenish the earth;” for it was after sin that lust began. It was after sin that our nature, having lost the power it had over the whole body, but not having lost all shame, perceived, noticed, blushed at, and covered it. But that blessing upon marriage, which encouraged them to increase and multiply and replenish the earth, though it continued even after they had sinned, was yet given before they sinned, in order that the procreation of children might be recognized as part of the glory of marriage, and not of the punishment of sin. But now, men being ignorant of the blessedness of Paradise, suppose that children could not have been begotten there in any other way than they know them to be begotten now, i.e., by lust, at which even honorable marriage blushes; some not simply rejecting, but sceptically deriding the divine Scriptures, in which we read that our first parents, after they sinned, were ashamed of their nakedness, and covered it; while others, though they accept and honor Scripture, yet conceive that this expression, “Increase and multiply,” refers not to carnal fecundity, because a similar expression is used of the soul in the words, “Thou wilt multiply me with strength in my soul;” and so, too, in the words which follow in Genesis, “And replenish the earth, and subdue it,” they understand by the earth the body which the soul fills with its presence, and which it rules over when it is multiplied in strength. And they hold that children could no more then than now be begotten without lust, which, after sin, was kindled, observed, blushed for, and covered; and even that children would not have been born in Paradise, but only outside of it, as in fact it turned out. For it was after they were expelled from it that they came together to beget children, and begot them.

> Latin: Absit itaque, ut credamus illos coniuges in paradiso constitutos per hanc libidinem, de qua erubescendo eadem membra texerunt, inpleturos fuisse quod in sua benedictione Deus dixit: Crescite et multiplicamini et replete terram. Post peccatum quippe orta est haec libido; post peccatum eam natura non inpudens amissa potestate, cui corpus ex omni parte seruiebat, sensit adtendit, erubuit ciuitate. Illa uero benedictio nuptiarum, ut coniugati crescerent et multiplicarentur et inplerent terram, quamuis et in delinquentibus manserit, tamen antequam delinquerent data est, ut cognosceretur procreationem filiorum ad gloriam conubii. non ad poenam pertinere peccati. Sed nunc homines, profecto illius quae in paradiso fuit felicitatis ignari, nisi per hoc, quod experti sunt, id est per libidinem, de qua uidemus etiam ipsam honestatem erubescere nuptiarum, non potuisse gigni filios opinantur, alii scripturas diuinas, ubi legitur post peccatum puduisse nuditatis et pudenda esse contecta, prorsus non accipientes, sed infideliter inridentes; alii uero quamuis eas accipiant et honorent, illud tamen quod dictum est: Crescite et multiplicamini, non secundum carnalem fecunditatem uolunt intellegi, quia et secundum animam legitur tale aliquid dictum: Multiplicabis me in anima mea in uirtute, ut id, quod in genesi sequitur: Et inplete terram et dominamini eius, terram intellegant carnem, quam praesentia sua inplet anima eiusque maxime dominatur, cum in uirtute multiplicatur; carnales autem fetus sine libidine, quae post peccatum exorta inspecta, confusa uelata est, nec tunc nasci potuisse, sicut neque nunc possunt, nec in paradiso futuros fuisse, sed foris, sicut et factum est. Nam postea quam inde dimissi sunt, ad gignendos filios coierunt eosque genuerunt.

### Of the Conjugal Union as It Was Originally Instituted and Blessed by God.

[¶22] Chapter 22.—Of the Conjugal Union as It Was Originally Instituted and Blessed by God.

> Latin: Caput XXII. De copula coniugali a Deo primitus instituta adque benedicta.

[¶23] But we, for our part, have no manner of doubt that to increase and multiply and replenish the earth in virtue of the blessing of God, is a gift of marriage as God instituted it from the beginning before man sinned, when He created them male and female,—in other words, two sexes manifestly distinct. And it was this work of God on which His blessing was pronounced. For no sooner had Scripture said, “Male and female created He them,” than it immediately continues, “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Increase, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it,” etc. And though all these things may not unsuitably be interpreted in a spiritual sense, yet “male and female” cannot be understood of two things in one man, as if there were in him one thing which rules, another which is ruled; but it is quite clear that they were created male and female, with bodies of different sexes, for the very purpose of begetting offspring, and so increasing, multiplying, and replenishing the earth; and it is great folly to oppose so plain a fact. It was not of the spirit which commands and the body which obeys, nor of the rational soul which rules and the irrational desire which is ruled, nor of the contemplative virtue which is supreme and the active which is subject, nor of the understanding of the mind and the sense of the body, but plainly of the matrimonial union by which the sexes are mutually bound together, that our Lord, when asked whether it were lawful for any cause to put away one’s wife (for on account of the hardness of the hearts of the Israelites Moses permitted a bill of divorcement to be given), answered and said, “Have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” It is certain, then, that from the first men were created, as we see and know them to be now, of two sexes, male and female, and that they are called one, either on account of the matrimonial union, or on account of the origin of the woman, who was created from the side of the man. And it is by this original example, which God Himself instituted, that the apostle admonishes all husbands to love their own wives in particular.

> Latin: Nos autem nullo modo dubitamus secundum benedictionem Dei crescere et multiplicari et inplere terram donum esse nuptiarum, quas Deus ante peccatum hominis ab initio constituit, creando masculum et feminam, qui sexus euidens utique in carne est. Huic quippe operi Dei etiam benedictio ipsa subiuncta est. Nam cum scriptura dixisset: Masculum et feminam fecit eos, continuo subdidit: Et benedixit eos Deus dicens: Crescite et multiplicamini et inplete terram et dominamini eius, et cetera. Quae omnia quamquam non inconuenienter possint etiam ad intellectum spiritalem referri, masculum tamen et feminam non sicut simile aliquid etiam in homine uno intellegi potest, quia uidelicet in eo aliud est quod regit, aliud quod regitur; sed sicut euidentissime apparet in diuersi sexus corporibus, masculum et feminam ita creatos, ut prolem generando crescerent et multiplicarentur et inplerent terram, magnae absurditatis est reluctari. Neque enim de spiritu qui imperat et carne quae obtemperat, aut de animo rationali qui regit et inrationali cupiditate quae regitur, aut de uirtute contemplatiua quae excellit et de actiua quae subditur, aut de intellectu mentis et sensu corporis, sed aperte de uinculo coniugali, quo inuicem sibi uterque sexus obstringitur, Dominus interrogatus utrum liceret quacumque causa dimittere uxorem, quoniam propter duritiam cordis Israelitarum Moyses dari permisit libellum repudii, respondit adque ait: Non legistis, quia, qui fecit ab initio, masculum et feminam fecit eos et dixit: Propter hoc dimittet homo patrem et matrem et adhaerebit uxori suae, et erunt duo in carne una? Itaque iam non sunt duo, sed una caro. Quod ergo Deus coniunxit, homo non separet. Certum est igitur masculum et feminam ita primitus institutos, ut nunc homines duos diuersi sexus uidemus et nouimus, unum autem dici uel propter coniunctionem uel propter originem feminae, quae de masculi latere creata est. Nam et apostolus per hoc primum, quod Deo instituente praecessit, exemplum singulos quosque admonet, ut uiri uxores suas diligant.

## 69. Whether Generation Should Have Taken Place Even in Paradise Had Man Not Sinned, or Whether There Should Have Been Any Contention There Between Chastity and Lust.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/69/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/69/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 23.—Whether Generation Should Have Taken Place Even in Paradise Had Man Not Sinned, or Whether There Should Have Been Any Contention There Between Chastity and Lust.

> Latin: Caput XXIII. an etiam in paradiso generandum fuisset, si nemo peccasset, uel utrum contra aestum libidinis pugnatura illic fuisset ratio castitatis.

[¶1] But he who says that there should have been neither copulation nor generation but for sin, virtually says that man’s sin was necessary to complete the number of the saints. For if these two by not sinning should have continued to live alone, because, as is supposed, they could not have begotten children had they not sinned, then certainly sin was necessary in order that there might be not only two but many righteous men. And if this cannot be maintained without absurdity, we must rather believe that the number of the saints fit to complete this most blessed city would have been as great though no one had sinned, as it is now that the grace of God gathers its citizens out of the multitude of sinners, so long as the children of this world generate and are generated.

> Latin: Quisquis autem dicit non fuisse coituros nec generaturos, nisi peccassent, quid dicit, nisi propter numerositatem sanctorum necessarium hominis fuisse peccatum? Si enim non peccando soli remanerent, quia, sicut putant, nisi peccassent, generare non possent: profecto ut non soli duo iusti homines possent esse, sed multi, necessarium peccatum fuit. Quod si credere absurdum est, illud potius est credendum, quod sanctorum numerus quantus conplendae illi sufficit beatissimae ciuitati, tantus existeret, etsi nemo peccasset, quantus nunc per Dei gratiam de multitudine colligitur peccatorum, quo usque filii saeculi huius generant et generantur.

[¶2] And therefore that marriage, worthy of the happiness of Paradise, should have had desirable fruit without the shame of lust, had there been no sin. But how that could be, there is now no example to teach us. Nevertheless, it ought not to seem incredible that one member might serve the will without lust then, since so many serve it now. Do we now move our feet and hands when we will to do the things we would by means of these members? do we meet with no resistance in them, but perceive that they are ready servants of the will, both in our own case and in that of others, and especially of artisans employed in mechanical operations, by which the weakness and clumsiness of nature become, through industrious exercise, wonderfully dexterous? and shall we not believe that, like as all those members obediently serve the will, so also should the members have discharged the function of generation, though lust, the award of disobedience, had been awanting? Did not Cicero, in discussing the difference of governments in his De Republica, adopt a simile from human nature, and say that we command our bodily members as children, they are so obedient; but that the vicious parts of the soul must be treated as slaves, and be coerced with a more stringent authority? And no doubt, in the order of nature, the soul is more excellent than the body; and yet the soul commands the body more easily than itself. Nevertheless this lust, of which we at present speak, is the more shameful on this account, because the soul is therein neither master of itself, so as not to lust at all, nor of the body, so as to keep the members under the control of the will; for if they were thus ruled, there should be no shame. But now the soul is ashamed that the body, which by nature is inferior and subject to it, should resist its authority. For in the resistance experienced by the soul in the other emotions there is less shame, because the resistance is from itself, and thus, when it is conquered by itself, itself is the conqueror, although the conquest is inordinate and vicious, because accomplished by those parts of the soul which ought to be subject to reason, yet, being accomplished by its own parts and energies, the conquest is, as I say, its own. For when the soul conquers itself to a due subordination, so that its unreasonable motions are controlled by reason, while it again is subject to God, this is a conquest virtuous and praiseworthy. Yet there is less shame when the soul is resisted by its own vicious parts than when its will and order are resisted by the body, which is distinct from and inferior to it, and dependent on it for life itself.

> Latin: Et ideo illae nuptiae dignae felicitate paradisi, si peccatum non fuisset, et diligendam prolem gignerent et pudendam libidinem non haberent. Sed quo modo id fieri posset, nunc non est quo demonstretur exemplo. Nec ideo tamen incredibile debet uideri etiam illud unum sine ista libidine uoluntati potuisse seruire, cui tot membra nunc seruiunt. An uero manus et pedes mouemus, cum uolumus, ad ea quae his membris agenda sunt, sine ullo renisu, tanta facilitate, quanta et in nobis et in aliis uidemus, maxime in artificibus quorumque operum corporalium, ubi ad exercendam infirmiorem tardioremque naturam agilior accessit industria; et non credimus ad opus generationis filiorum, si libido non fuisset, quae peccato inoboedientiae retributa est, oboedienter hominibus ad uoluntatis nutum similiter ut cetera potuisse illa membra seruire? Nonne Cicero in libris de re publica, cum de imperiorum differentia disputaret et huius rei similitudinem ex natura hominis adsumeret, ut filiis dixit imperari corporis membris propter oboediendi facilitatem; uitiosas uero animi partes ut seruos asperiore imperio coherceri? Et utique ordine naturali animus anteponitur corpori, et tamen ipse animus imperat corpori facilius quam sibi. Verum tamen haec libido, de qua nunc disserimus, eo magis erubescenda extitit, quod animus in ea nec sibi efficaciter imperat, ut omnino non libeat, nec omni modo corpori, ut pudenda membra uoluntas potius quam libido commoueat; quod si ita esset, pudenda non essent. Nunc uero pudet animum resisti sibi a corpore, quod ei natura inferiore subiectum est. In aliis quippe adfectionibus cum sibi resistit, ideo minus pudet, quia, cum a se ipso uincitur, ipse se uincit; etsi inordinate adque uitiose, quia ex his partibus, quae rationi subici debent, tamen a partibus suis ac per hoc, ut dictum est, a se ipso uincitur. Nam cum ordinate se animus uincit, ut inrationabiles motus eius menti rationique subdantur, si tamen et illa Deo subdita est, laudis adque uirtutis est. Minus tamen pudet, cum sibi animus ex uitiosis suis partibus non obtemperat, quam cum ei corpus, quod alterum ab illo est adque infra illum est et cuius sine illo natura non uiuit, uolenti iubentique non cedit.

[¶3] But so long as the will retains under its authority the other members, without which the members excited by lust to resist the will cannot accomplish what they seek, chastity is preserved, and the delight of sin foregone. And certainly, had not culpable disobedience been visited with penal disobedience, the marriage of Paradise should have been ignorant of this struggle and rebellion, this quarrel between will and lust, that the will may be satisfied and lust restrained, but those members, like all the rest, should have obeyed the will. The field of generation should have been sown by the organ created for this purpose, as the earth is sown by the hand. And whereas now, as we essay to investigate this subject more exactly, modesty hinders us, and compels us to ask pardon of chaste ears, there would have been no cause to do so, but we could have discoursed freely, and without fear of seeming obscene, upon all those points which occur to one who meditates on the subject. There would not have been even words which could be called obscene, but all that might be said of these members would have been as pure as what is said of the other parts of the body. Whoever, then, comes to the perusal of these pages with unchaste mind, let him blame his disposition, not his nature; let him brand the actings of his own impurity, not the words which necessity forces us to use, and for which every pure and pious reader or hearer will very readily pardon me, while I expose the folly of that scepticism which argues solely on the ground of its own experience, and has no faith in anything beyond. He who is not scandalized at the apostle’s censure of the horrible wickedness of the women who “changed the natural use into that which is against nature,” will read all this without being shocked, especially as we are not, like Paul, citing and censuring a damnable uncleanness, but are explaining, so far as we can, human generation, while with Paul we avoid all obscenity of language.

> Latin: Sed cum alia membra retinentur uoluntatis imperio, sine quibus illa, quae contra uoluntatem libidine concitantur, id quod adpetunt inplere non possunt, pudicitia custoditur, non amissa, sed non permissa delectatione peccati. Hunc renisum, hanc repugnantiam, hanc uoluntatis et libidinis rixam uel certe ad uoluntatis sufficientiam libidinis indigentiam procul dubio, nisi culpabilis inoboedientia poenali inoboedientia plecteretur, in paradiso nuptiae non haberent, sed uoluntati membra, ut cetera, ita cuncta seruirent. Ita genitale aruum uas in hoc opus creatum seminaret, ut nunc terram manus, et quod modo de hac re nobis uolentibus diligentius disputare uerecundia resistit et conpellit ueniam honore praefato a pudicis auribus poscere, quur id fieret nulla causa esset, sed in omnia, quae de huius modi membris sensum cogitantis adtingerent, sine ullo timore obscenitatis liber sermo ferretur. nec ipsa uerba essent, quae uocarentur obscena, sed quidquid inde diceretur, tam honestum esset, quam de aliis cum loquimur corporis partibus. Quisquis ergo ad has litteras inpudicus accedit, culpam refugiat, non naturam; facta denotet suae turpitudinis, non uerba nostrae necessitatis; in quibus mihi facillime pudicus et religiosus lector uel auditor ignoscit, donec infidelitatem refellam, non de fide rerum inexpertarum, sed de sensu expertarum argumentantem. Legit enim haec sine offensione, qui non exhorret apostolum horrenda feminarum flagitia reprehendentem, quae inmutauerunt naturalem usum in eum usum, qui est contra naturam, praecipue quia nos non damnabilem obscenitatem nunc, sicut ille, commemoramus adque reprehendimus, sed in explicandis, quantum possumus, humanae generationis effectibus uerba tamen, sicut ille, obscena uitamus.

### That If Men Had Remained Innocent and Obedient in Paradise, the Generative Organs Should Have Been in Subjection to the Will as the Other Members are.

[¶5] Chapter 24.—That If Men Had Remained Innocent and Obedient in Paradise, the Generative Organs Should Have Been in Subjection to the Will as the Other Members are.

> Latin: Caput XXIV. Quod insontes homines et merito oboedientiae in paradiso permanentes ita genitalibus membris usuri fuissent ad generationem prolis, sicut ceteris ad arbitrium uoluntatis.

[¶6] The man, then, would have sown the seed, and the woman received it, as need required, the generative organs being moved by the will, not excited by lust. For we move at will not only those members which are furnished with joints of solid bone, as the hands, feet, and fingers, but we move also at will those which are composed of slack and soft nerves: we can put them in motion, or stretch them out, or bend and twist them, or contract and stiffen them, as we do with the muscles of the mouth and face. The lungs, which are the very tenderest of the viscera except the brain, and are therefore carefully sheltered in the cavity of the chest, yet for all purposes of inhaling and exhaling the breath, and of uttering and modulating the voice, are obedient to the will when we breathe, exhale, speak, shout, or sing, just as the bellows obey the smith or the organist. I will not press the fact that some animals have a natural power to move a single spot of the skin with which their whole body is covered, if they have felt on it anything they wish to drive off,—a power so great, that by this shivering tremor of the skin they can not only shake off flies that have settled on them, but even spears that have fixed in their flesh. Man, it is true, has not this power; but is this any reason for supposing that God could not give it to such creatures as He wished to possess it? And therefore man himself also might very well have enjoyed absolute power over his members had he not forfeited it by his disobedience; for it was not difficult for God to form him so that what is now moved in his body only by lust should have been moved only at will.

> Latin: Seminaret igitur prolem uir, susciperet femina genitalibus membris, quando id opus esset et quantum opus esset, uoluntate motis, non libidine concitatis. Neque enim ea sola membra mouemus ad nutum, quae conpactis articulata sunt ossibus, sicut manus et pedes et digitos, uerum etiam illa, quae mollibus remissa sunt neruis, cum uolumus, mouemus agitando et porrigendo producimus et torquendo flectimus et constringendo duramus, sicut ea sunt, quae in ore ac facie, quantum potest, uoluntas mouet. Pulmones denique ipsi omnium, nisi medullarum, mollissimi uiscerum et ob hoc antro pectoris communiti, ad spiritum ducendum ac remittendum uocemque emittendam seu modificandam, sicut folles fabrorum uel organorum, flantis, respirantis, loquentis, clamantis, cantantis seruiunt uoluntati. Omitto quod animalibus quibusdam naturaliter inditum est, ut tegmen, quo corpus omne uestitur, si quid in quocumque loco eius senserint abigendum, ibi tantum moueant, ubi sentiunt, nec solum insidentes muscas, uerum etiam haerentes hastas cutis tremore discutiant. Numquid quia id non potest homo, ideo Creator quibus uoluit animantibus donare non potuit? Sic ergo et ipse homo potuit oboedientiam etiam inferiorum habere membrorum, quam sua inoboedientia perdidit. Neque enim Deo difficile fuit sic illum condere, ut in eius carne etiam illud non nisi eius uoluntate moueretur, quod nunc nisi libidine non mouetur.

[¶7] We know, too, that some men are differently constituted from others, and have some rare and remarkable faculty of doing with their body what other men can by no effort do, and, indeed, scarcely believe when they hear of others doing. There are persons who can move their ears, either one at a time, or both together. There are some who, without moving the head, can bring the hair down upon the forehead, and move the whole scalp backwards and forwards at pleasure. Some, by lightly pressing their stomach, bring up an incredible quantity and variety of things they have swallowed, and produce whatever they please, quite whole, as if out of a bag. Some so accurately mimic the voices of birds and beasts and other men, that, unless they are seen, the difference cannot be told. Some have such command of their bowels, that they can break wind continuously at pleasure, so as to produce the effect of singing. I myself have known a man who was accustomed to sweat whenever he wished. It is well known that some weep when they please, and shed a flood of tears. But far more incredible is that which some of our brethren saw quite recently. There was a presbyter called Restitutus, in the parish of the Calamensian Church, who, as often as he pleased (and he was asked to do this by those who desired to witness so remarkable a phenomenon), on some one imitating the wailings of mourners, became so insensible, and lay in a state so like death, that not only had he no feeling when they pinched and pricked him, but even when fire was applied to him, and he was burned by it, he had no sense of pain except afterwards from the wound. And that his body remained motionless, not by reason of his self-command, but because he was insensible, was proved by the fact that he breathed no more than a dead man; and yet he said that, when any one spoke with more than ordinary distinctness, he heard the voice, but as if it were a long way off. Seeing, then, that even in this mortal and miserable life the body serves some men by many remarkable movements and moods beyond the ordinary course of nature, what reason is there for doubting that, before man was involved by his sin in this weak and corruptible condition, his members might have served his will for the propagation of offspring without lust? Man has been given over to himself because he abandoned God, while he sought to be self-satisfying; and disobeying God, he could not obey even himself. Hence it is that he is involved in the obvious misery of being unable to live as he wishes. For if he lived as he wished, he would think himself blessed; but he could not be so if he lived wickedly.

> Latin: Nam et hominum quorundam naturas nouimus multum ceteris dispares et ipsa raritate mirabiles nonnulla ut uolunt de corpore facientium, quae alii nullo modo possunt et audita uix credunt. Sunt enim, qui et aures moueant uel singulas uel ambas simul. Sunt qui totam caesariem capite inmoto, quantum capilli occupant, deponunt ad frontem reuocantque cum uolunt. Sunt qui eorum quae uoratterint incredibiliter plurima et uaria paululum praecordiis contrectatis tamquam de sacculo quod placuerit integerimum proferunt. Quidam uoces auium pecorumque et aliorum quorumlibet hominum sic imitantur adque exprimunt, ut, nisi uideantur, discerni omnino non possint. Nonnulli ab imo sine putore ullo ita numerosos pro arbitrio sonitus edunt, ut ex illa etiam parte cantare uideantur. Ipse sum expertus sudare hominem solere, cum uellet. Notum est quosdam flere, cum uolunt, adque ubertim lacrimas fundere. Iam illud multo est incredibilius, quod plerique fratres memoria recentissima experti sunt. Presbyter fuit quidam Restitutus nomine ifl paroecia Calamensis ecclesiae. Quando ei placebat (rogabatur autem ut hoc faceret ab eis, qui rem mirabilem coram scire cupiebant), ad imitatas quasi lamentantis cuiuslibet hominis uoces ita se auferebat a sensibus et iacebat simillimus mortuo, ut non solum uellicantes adque pungentes minime sentiret, sed aliquando etiam igne ureretur admoto sine ullo doloris sensu nisi postmodum ex uulnere; non autem obnitendo, sed non sentiendo non mouere corpus eo probabatur, quod tamquam in defuncto nullus inueniebatur anhelitus; hominum tamen uoces, si - clarius loquerentur, tamquam de longinquo se audire postea referebat. Cum itaque corpus etiam nunc quibusdam, licet in carne corruptibili hanc aerumnosam ducentibus uitam, ita in plerisque motionibus et adfectionibus extra usitatum naturae modum mirabiliter seruiat: quid causae est, ut non credamus ante inoboedientiae peccatum corruptionisque supplicium ad propagandam prolem sine ulla libidine seruire uoluntati humanae humana membra potuisse? Donatus est itaque homo sibi, quia deseruit Deum placendo sibi, et non oboediens Deo non potuit oboedire nec sibi. Hinc euidentior miseria, qua homo non uiuit ut uult. Nam si ut uellet uiueret, beatum se putaret; sed nec sic tamen esset, si turpiter uiueret.

### Of True Blessedness, Which This Present Life Cannot Enjoy.

[¶9] Chapter 25.—Of True Blessedness, Which This Present Life Cannot Enjoy.

> Latin: Caput XXV. De uera beatitudine, quam temporalis uita non obtinet.

[¶10] However, if we look at this a little more closely, we see that no one lives as he wishes but the blessed, and that no one is blessed but the righteous. But even the righteous himself does not live as he wishes, until he has arrived where he cannot die, be deceived, or injured, and until he is assured that this shall be his eternal condition. For this nature demands; and nature is not fully and perfectly blessed till it attains what it seeks. But what man is at present able to live as he wishes, when it is not in his power so much as to live? He wishes to live, he is compelled to die. How, then, does he live as he wishes who does not live as long as he wishes? or if he wishes to die, how can he live as he wishes, since he does not wish even to live? Or if he wishes to die, not because he dislikes life, but that after death he may live better, still he is not yet living as he wishes, but only has the prospect of so living when, through death, he reaches that which he wishes. But admit that he lives as he wishes, because he has done violence to himself, and forced himself not to wish what he cannot obtain, and to wish only what he can (as Terence has it, “Since you cannot do what you will, will what you can”), is he therefore blessed because he is patiently wretched? For a blessed life is possessed only by the man who loves it. If it is loved and possessed, it must necessarily be more ardently loved than all besides; for whatever else is loved must be loved for the sake of the blessed life. And if it is loved as it deserves to be,—and the man is not blessed who does not love the blessed life as it deserves,—then he who so loves it cannot but wish it to be eternal. Therefore it shall then only be blessed when it is eternal.

> Latin: Quamquam si diligentius adtendamus, nisi beatus non uiuit ut uult, et nullus beatus nisi iustus. Sed etiam ipse iustus non uiuet ut uult, nisi eo peruenerit, ubi mori falli offendi omnino non possit eique sit certum ita semper futurum. Hoc enim natura expetit, nec plene adque perfecte beata erit nisi adepta quod expetit. Nunc uero quis hominum potest ut uult uiuere, quando ipsum uiuere non est in potestate? Viuere enim uult, mori cogitur. Quo modo ergo uiuit ut uult, qui non uiuit quamdiu uult? Quod si mori uoluerit, quo modo potest ut uult uiuere, qui non uult uiuere? Et si ideo mori uelit, non quo nolit uiuere, sed ut post mortem melius uiuat: nondum ergo ut uult uiuit, sed cum ad id quod uult moriendo peruenerit. Verum ecce uiuat ut uult, quoniam sibi extorsit sibique imperauit non uelle quod non potest, adque hoc uelle quod potest, sicut ait Terentius: Quoniam non potest id fieri quod uis, Id uelis quod possis: num ideo beatus est, quia patienter miser est? Beata quippe uita si non amatur, non habetur. Porro si amatur et habetur, ceteris omnibus rebus excellentius necesse est ametur, quoniam propter hanc amandum est quidquid aliud amatur. Porro si tantum amatur, quantum amari digna est (non enim beatus est, a quo ipsa beata uita non amatur ut digna est): fieri non potest, ut eam, qui sic amat, non aeternam uelit. Tunc igitur beata erit, quando aeterna erit. -

### That We are to Believe that in Paradise Our First Parents Begat Offspring Without Blushing.

[¶12] Chapter 26.—That We are to Believe that in Paradise Our First Parents Begat Offspring Without Blushing.

> Latin: Caput XXVI. Quod felicitas in paradiso uiuentium sine erubescendo adpetitu generandi officium credenda sit inplere potuisse.

[¶13] In Paradise, then, man lived as he desired so long as he desired what God had commanded. He lived in the enjoyment of God, and was good by God’s goodness; he lived without any want, and had it in his power so to live eternally. He had food that he might not hunger, drink that he might not thirst, the tree of life that old age might not waste him. There was in his body no corruption, nor seed of corruption, which could produce in him any unpleasant sensation. He feared no inward disease, no outward accident. Soundest health blessed his body, absolute tranquillity his soul. As in Paradise there was no excessive heat or cold, so its inhabitants were exempt from the vicissitudes of fear and desire. No sadness of any kind was there, nor any foolish joy; true gladness ceaselessly flowed from the presence of God, who was loved “out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned.” The honest love of husband and wife made a sure harmony between them. Body and spirit worked harmoniously together, and the commandment was kept without labor. No languor made their leisure wearisome; no sleepiness interrupted their desire to labor. In tanta facilitate rerum et felicitate hominum, absit ut suspicemur, non potuisse prolem seri sine libidinis morbo: sed eo voluntatis nutu moverentur illa membra qua cætera, et sine ardoris illecebroso stimulo cum tranquillitate animi et corporis nulla corruptione integritatis infunderetur gremio maritus uxoris. Neque enim quia experientia probari non potest, ideo credendum non est; quando illas corporis partes non ageret turbidus calor, sed spontanea potestas, sicut opus esset, adhiberet; ita tunc potuisse utero conjugis salva integritate feminei genitalis virile semen immitti, sicut nunc potest eadem integritate salva ex utero virginis fluxus menstrui cruoris emitti. Eadem quippe via posset illud injici, qua hoc potest ejici. Ut enim ad pariendum non doloris gemitus, sed maturitatis impulsus feminea viscera relaxaret: sic ad fœtandum et concipiendum non libidinis appetitus, sed voluntarius usus naturam utramque conjungeret. We speak of things which are now shameful, and although we try, as well as we are able, to conceive them as they were before they became shameful, yet necessity compels us rather to limit our discussion to the bounds set by modesty than to extend it as our moderate faculty of discourse might suggest. For since that which I have been speaking of was not experienced even by those who might have experienced it,—I mean our first parents (for sin and its merited banishment from Paradise anticipated this passionless generation on their part),—when sexual intercourse is spoken of now, it suggests to men’s thoughts not such a placid obedience to the will as is conceivable in our first parents, but such violent acting of lust as they themselves have experienced. And therefore modesty shuts my mouth, although my mind conceives the matter clearly. But Almighty God, the supreme and supremely good Creator of all natures, who aids and rewards good wills, while He abandons and condemns the bad, and rules both, was not destitute of a plan by which He might people His city with the fixed number of citizens which His wisdom had foreordained even out of the condemned human race, discriminating them not now by merits, since the whole mass was condemned as if in a vitiated root, but by grace, and showing, not only in the case of the redeemed, but also in those who were not delivered, how much grace He has bestowed upon them. For every one acknowledges that he has been rescued from evil, not by deserved, but by gratuitous goodness, when he is singled out from the company of those with whom he might justly have borne a common punishment, and is allowed to go scathless. Why, then, should God not have created those whom He foresaw would sin, since He was able to show in and by them both what their guilt merited, and what His grace bestowed, and since, under His creating and disposing hand, even the perverse disorder of the wicked could not pervert the right order of things?

> Latin: Viuebat itaque homo in paradiso sicut uolebat, quamdiu hoc uolebat quod Deus iusserat; uiuebat fruens Deo, ex quo bono erat bonus; uiuebat sine ulla egestate, ita semper uiuere habens in potestate. Cibus aderat ne esuriret, potus ne sitiret, lignum uitae ne illum senecta dissolueret. Nihil corruptionis in corpore uel ex corpore ullas molestias ullis eius sensibus ingerebat. Nullus intrinsecus morbus, nullus ictus metuebatur extrinsecus. Summa in carne sanitas, in animo tota tranquillitas. Sicut in paradiso nullus aestus aut frigus, sic in eius habitatore nulla ex cupiditate uel timore accidebat bonae uoluntatis offensio. Nihil omnino triste, nihil erat inaniter laetum. Gaudium uerum perpetuabatur ex Deo, in quem flagrabat caritas de corde puro et conscientia bona et fide non ficta, adque inter se coniugum fida ex honesto amore societas, concors mentis corporisque uigilia et mandati sine labore custodia. Non lassitudo fatigabat otiosum, non somnus premebat inuitum. In tanta facilitate rerum et felicitate hominum absit ut suspicemur non potuisse prolem seri sine libidinis morbo, sed eo uoluntatis nutu mouerentur membra illa quo cetera, et sine ardoris inlecebroso stimulo cum tranquillitate animi et corporis nulla corruptione integritatis infunderetur gremio maritus uxoris. Neque enim quia experientia probari non potest, ideo credendum non est, quando illas corporis partes non ageret turbidus calor, sed spontanea potestas, sicut opus esset, adhiberet, ita tunc potuisse utero coniugis salua integritate feminei genitalis uirile semen inmitti, sicut nunc potest eadem integritate salua ex utero uirginis fluxus menstrui cruoris emitti. Eadem quippe uia posset illud inici, qua hoc potest eici. Ut enim ad pariendum non doloris gemitus, sed maturitatis inpulsus feminea uiscera relaxaret, sic ad fetandum et concipiendum non libidinis adpetitus, sed uoluntarius usus naturam utramque coniungeret. De rebus loquimur nunc pudendis et ideo, quamuis, antequam earum puderet, quales esse potuissent coniciamus ut possumus, tamen necesse est, ut nostra disputatio magis frenetur ea, quae nos reuocat, uerecundia, quam eloquentia, quae nobis parum subpetit, adiuuetur. Nam cum id quod dico nec ipsi experti fuerint, qui experiri potuerunt (quoniam praeoccupante peccato exilium de paradiso ante meruerunt, quam sibi in opere serendae propaginis tranquillo arbitrio conuenirent), quo modo nunc, cum ista commemorantur, sensibus occurrit humanis nisi experientia libidinis turbidae, non coniectura placidae uoluntatis? Hinc est quod inpedit loquentem pudor, etsi non deficiat ratio cogitantem. Verum tamen urnnipotenti Deo, summo ac summe bono creatori omnium naturarum, uoluntatum autem bonarum adiutori et remuneratori. malarum autem relictori et damnatori, utrarumque ordinatori, non defuit utique consilium, quo certum numerum ciuium in sua sapientia praedestinatum etiam ex damnato genere humano suae ciuitatis inpleret, non eos iam meritis, quando quidem uniuersa massa tamquam in uitiata radice damnata est, sed gratia discernens et liberatis non solum de ipsis, uerum etiam de non liberatis, quid eis largiatur, ostendens. Non enim debita, sed gratuita bonitate tunc se quisque agnoscit erutum malis, cum ab eorum hominum consortio fit inmunis, cum quibus illi iusta esset poena communis. Quur ergo non crearet Deus, quos peccaturos esse praesciuit, quando quidem in eis et ex eis, et quid eorum culpa mereretur, et quid sua gratia donaretur, posset ostendere, nec sub illo creatore ac dispositore peruersa inordinatio delinquentium rectum peruerteret ordinem rerum?

### Of the Angels and Men Who Sinned, and that Their Wickedness Did Not Disturb the Order of God’s Providence.

[¶15] Chapter 27.—Of the Angels and Men Who Sinned, and that Their Wickedness Did Not Disturb the Order of God’s Providence.

> Latin: Caput XXVII. De peccatoribus, et angelis et hominibus, quorum peruersitas non perturbat prouidentiam.

[¶16] The sins of men and angels do nothing to impede the “great works of the Lord which accomplish His will.” For He who by His providence and omnipotence distributes to every one his own portion, is able to make good use not only of the good, but also of the wicked. And thus making a good use of the wicked angel, who, in punishment of his first wicked volition, was doomed to an obduracy that prevents him now from willing any good, why should not God have permitted him to tempt the first man, who had been created upright, that is to say, with a good will? For he had been so constituted, that if he looked to God for help, man’s goodness should defeat the angel’s wickedness; but if by proud self-pleasing he abandoned God, his Creator and Sustainer, he should be conquered. If his will remained upright, through leaning on God’s help, he should be rewarded; if it became wicked, by forsaking God, he should be punished. But even this trusting in God’s help could not itself be accomplished without God’s help, although man had it in his own power to relinquish the benefits of divine grace by pleasing himself. For as it is not in our power to live in this world without sustaining ourselves by food, while it is in our power to refuse this nourishment and cease to live, as those do who kill themselves, so it was not in man’s power, even in Paradise, to live as he ought without God’s help; but it was in his power to live wickedly, though thus he should cut short his happiness, and incur very just punishment. Since, then, God was not ignorant that man would fall, why should He not have suffered him to be tempted by an angel who hated and envied him? It was not, indeed, that He was unaware that he should be conquered. but because He foresaw that by the man’s seed, aided by divine grace, this same devil himself should be conquered, to the greater glory of the saints. All was brought about in such a manner, that neither did any future event escape God’s foreknowledge, nor did His foreknowledge compel any one to sin, and so as to demonstrate in the experience of the intelligent creation, human and angelic, how great a difference there is between the private presumption of the creature and the Creator’s protection. For who will dare to believe or say that it was not in God’s power to prevent both angels and men from sinning? But God preferred to leave this in their power, and thus to show both what evil could be wrought by their pride, and what good by His grace.

> Latin: Proinde peccatores, et angeli et homines, nihil agunt, quo inpediantur magna opera Domini, exquisita in omnes uoluntates eius, quoniam qui prouidenter adque omnipotenter sua cuique distribuit, non solum bonis, uerum etiam malis bene uti nouit. Ac per hoc propter meritum primae malae uoluntatis ita damnato adque obdurato angelo malo, ut iam bonam uoluntatem ulterius non haberet, bene utens Deus quur non permitteret, ut ab illo primus homo, qui rectus, hoc est bonae uoluntatis, creatus fuerat, tentaretur? Quando quidem sic erat institutus, ut, si de adiutorio Dei fideret bonus homo, malum angelum uinceret; si autem creatorem adque adiutorem Deum superbe sibi placendo de’ sereret, uinceretur; meritum bonum habens in adiuta diuinitus uoluntate recta, malum uero in deserente Deum uoluntate peruersa. Quia et ipsum fidere de adiutorio Dei non quidem posset sine adiutorio Dei, nec tamen ideo ab his diuinae gratiae beneficiis sibi placendo recedere non habebat in potestate. Nam sicut in hac carne uiuere sine adiumentis alimentorum in potestate non est, non autem in ea uiuere in potestate est, quod faciunt qui se ipsos necant: ita bene uiuere sine adiutorio Dei etiam in paradiso non erat in potestate; erat autem in potestate male uiuere, sed beatitudine non permansura et poena iustissima secutura. Cum igitur huius futuri casus humani Deus non esset ignarus, quur eum non sineret inuidi angeli malignitate tentari? nullo modo quidem quod uinceretur incertus, sed nihilo minus praescius quod ab eius semine adiuto sua gratia idem ipse diabolus fuerat sanctorum gloria maiore uincendus. Ita factum est, ut nec Deum aliquid futurorum lateret, nec praesciendo quemquam peccare conpelleret et, quid interesset inter propriam cuiusque praesumtionem et suam tuitionem, angelicae et humanae rationali creaturae consequenti experientia demonstraret. Quis enim audeat credere aut dicere, ut neque angelus neque homo caderet, in Dei potestate non fuisse? Sed hoc eorum potestati maluit non auferre adque ita, et quantum mali eorum superbia et quantum boni sua gratia ualeret, ostendere.

### Of the Nature of the Two Cities, the Earthly and the Heavenly.

[¶18] Chapter 28.—Of the Nature of the Two Cities, the Earthly and the Heavenly.

[¶19] Accordingly, two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by the love of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self. The former, in a word, glories in itself, the latter in the Lord. For the one seeks glory from men; but the greatest glory of the other is God, the witness of conscience. The one lifts up its head in its own glory; the other says to its God, “Thou art my glory, and the lifter up of mine head.” In the one, the princes and the nations it subdues are ruled by the love of ruling; in the other, the princes and the subjects serve one another in love, the latter obeying, while the former take thought for all. The one delights in its own strength, represented in the persons of its rulers; the other says to its God, “I will love Thee, O Lord, my strength.” And therefore the wise men of the one city, living according to man, have sought for profit to their own bodies or souls, or both, and those who have known God “glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened; professing themselves to be wise,”—that is, glorying in their own wisdom, and being possessed by pride,—“they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.” For they were either leaders or followers of the people in adoring images, “and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.” But in the other city there is no human wisdom, but only godliness, which offers due worship to the true God, and looks for its reward in the society of the saints, of holy angels as well as holy men, “that God may be all in all.”

> Latin: Fecerunt itaque ciuitates duas amores duo, terrenam scilicet amor sui usque ad contemtum Dei, caelestem uero amor Dei usque ad contemtum sui. Denique illa in se ipsa, haec in Domino gloriatur. Illa enim quaerit ab hominibus gloriam; huic autem Deus conscientiae testis maxima est gloria. Illa in gloria sua exaltat caput suum; haec dicit Deo suo: Gloria mea et exaltans caput meum. Illi in principibus eius uel in eis quas subiugat nationibus dominandi libido dominatur; in hac seruiunt inuicem in caritate et praepositi consulendo et subditi obtemperando. Illa in suis potentibus diligit uirtutem suam; haec dicit Deo suo: Diligam te, Domine, uirtus mea. Ideoque in illa sapientes eius secundum hominem uiuentes aut corporis aut animi sui bona aut utriusque sectati sunt, aut qui potuerunt cognoscere Deum, non ut Deum honorauerunt aut gratias egerunt, sed euanuerunt in cogitationibus suis, et obscuratum est insipiens cor eorum; dicentes se esse sapientes (id est dominante sibi superbia in sua sapientia sese extollentes) stulti facti sunt et inmutauerunt gloriam incorruptibilis Dei in similitudinem imaginis corruptibilis hominis et uolucrum et quadrupedum et serpentium (ad huiusce modi enim simulacra adoranda uel duces populorum uel sectatores fuerunt), et coluerunt adque seruierunt creaturae potius quam Creatori, qui est benedictus in saecula; in hac autem nulla est hominis sapientia nisi pietas, qua recte colitur uerus Deus, id expectans praemium in societate sanctorum non solum hominum, uerum etiam angelorum, ut sit Deus omnia in omnibus.

### The progress of the earthly and heavenly cities traced by the sacred history.

[¶21] Book XV.

> Latin: Liber XV

[¶22] Argument—Having treated in the four preceding books of the origin of the two cities, the earthly and the heavenly, Augustin explains their growth and progress in the four books which follow; and, in order to do so, he explains the chief passages of the sacred history which bear upon this subject. In this fifteenth book he opens this part of his work by explaining the events recorded in Genesis from the time of Cain and Abel to the deluge.

## 70. Of the Two Lines of the Human Race Which from First to Last Divide It.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/70/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/70/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 1.—Of the Two Lines of the Human Race Which from First to Last Divide It.

> Latin: Caput I. De duobus ordinibus generationis humanae in diuersos fines ab initio procurrentis.

[¶1] Of the bliss of Paradise, of Paradise itself, and of the life of our first parents there, and of their sin and punishment, many have thought much, spoken much, written much. We ourselves, too, have spoken of these things in the foregoing books, and have written either what we read in the Holy Scriptures, or what we could reasonably deduce from them. And were we to enter into a more detailed investigation of these matters, an endless number of endless questions would arise, which would involve us in a larger work than the present occasion admits. We cannot be expected to find room for replying to every question that may be started by unoccupied and captious men, who are ever more ready to ask questions than capable of understanding the answer. Yet I trust we have already done justice to these great and difficult questions regarding the beginning of the world, or of the soul, or of the human race itself. This race we have distributed into two parts, the one consisting of those who live according to man, the other of those who live according to God. And these we also mystically call the two cities, or the two communities of men, of which the one is predestined to reign eternally with God, and the other to suffer eternal punishment with the devil. This, however, is their end, and of it we are to speak afterwards. At present, as we have said enough about their origin, whether among the angels, whose numbers we know not, or in the two first human beings, it seems suitable to attempt an account of their career, from the time when our two first parents began to propagate the race until all human generation shall cease. For this whole time or world-age, in which the dying give place and those who are born succeed, is the career of these two cities concerning which we treat.

> Latin: De felicitate paradisi uel de ipso paradiso et de uita ibi primorum hominum eorumque peccato adque supplicio multi multa senserunt, multa dixerunt, multa litteris mandauerunt. Nos quoque secundum scripturas sanctas uel quod in eis legimus uel quod ex eis intellegere potuimus earum congruentes auctoritati de his rebus in superioribus libris diximus. Enucleatius autem si ista quaerantur, multiplices adque multimodas pariunt disputationes, quae pluribus intexendae sint uoluminibus, quam hoc opus tempusque deposcit, quod non ita largum habemus, ut in omnibus, quae possunt requirere otiosi et scrupulosi, paratiores ad interrogandum quam capaciores ad intellegendum, nos oporteat inmorari. Arbitror tamen satis nos iam fecisse magnis et difficillimis quaestionibus de initio uel mundi uel animae uel ipsius generis humani, quod in duo genera distribuimus, unum eorum, qui secundum hominem, alterum eorum, qui secundum Deum uiuunt; quas etiam mystice appellamus ciuitates duas, hoc est duas societates hominum, quarum est una quae praedestinata est in aeternum regnare cum Deo, altera aeternum supplicium subire cum diabolo. Sed iste finis est earum, de quo post loquendum est. Nunc autem quoniam de exortu earum siue in angelis, quorum numerus ignoratur a nobis, siue in duobus primis hominibus satis dictum est, iam mihi uidetur earum adgrediendus excursus, ex quo illi duo generare coeperunt, donec homines generare cessabunt. Hoc enim uniuerso tempus siue saeculum, in quo cedunt morientes succeduntque nascentes, istarum duarum ciuitatum, de quibus disputamus, excursus est.

[¶2] Of these two first parents of the human race, then, Cain was the first-born, and he belonged to the city of men; after him was born Abel, who belonged to the city of God. For as in the individual the truth of the apostle’s statement is discerned, “that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual,” whence it comes to pass that each man, being derived from a condemned stock, is first of all born of Adam evil and carnal, and becomes good and spiritual only afterwards, when he is grafted into Christ by regeneration: so was it in the human race as a whole. When these two cities began to run their course by a series of deaths and births, the citizen of this world was the first-born, and after him the stranger in this world, the citizen of the city of God, predestinated by grace, elected by grace, by grace a stranger below, and by grace a citizen above. By grace,—for so far as regards himself he is sprung from the same mass, all of which is condemned in its origin; but God, like a potter (for this comparison is introduced by the apostle judiciously, and not without thought), of the same lump made one vessel to honor, another to dishonor. But first the vessel to dishonor was made, and after it another to honor. For in each individual, as I have already said, there is first of all that which is reprobate, that from which we must begin, but in which we need not necessarily remain; afterwards is that which is well-approved, to which we may by advancing attain, and in which, when we have reached it we may abide. Not, indeed, that every wicked man shall be good, but that no one will be good who was not first of all wicked; but the sooner any one becomes a good man, the more speedily does he receive this title, and abolish the old name in the new. Accordingly, it is recorded of Cain that he built a city, but Abel, being a sojourner, built none. For the city of the saints is above, although here below it begets citizens, in whom it sojourns till the time of its reign arrives, when it shall gather together all in the day of the resurrection; and then shall the promised kingdom be given to them, in which they shall reign with their Prince, the King of the ages, time without end.

> Latin: Natus est igitur prior Cain ex illis duobus generis humani parentibus, pertinens ad hominum ciuitatem, posterior Abel, ad ciuitatem Dei. Sicut enim in uno homine, quod dixit apostolus, experimur, quia non primum quod spiritale est, sed quod animale, postea spiritale (unde unusquisque, quoniam ex damnata propagine exoritur, primo sit necesse est ex Adam malus adque carnalis; quod si in Christum renascendo profecerit, post erit bonus et spiritalis): sic in uniuerso genere humano, cum primum duae istae coeperunt nascendo adque moriendo procurrere ciuitates, prior est natus ciuis huius saeculi, posterius autem isto peregrinus in saeculo et pertinens ad ciuitatem Dei, gratia praedestinatus gratia electus, gratia peregrinus deorsum gratia cinis sursum. Nam quantum ad ipsum adtinet, ex eadem massa oritur, quae originaliter est tota damnata; sed tamquam figulus Deus (hanc enim similitudinem non inpudenter, sed prudenter introducit apostolus) ex eadem massa fecit aliud uas in honorem, aliud in contumeliam. Prius autem factum est uas in contumeliam, post uero alterum in honorem, quia et in ipso uno, sicut iam dixi, homine prius est reprobum, unde necesse est incipiamus et ubi non est necesse ut remaneamus, posterius uero probum, quo proficientes ueniamus et quo peruenientes maneamus. Proinde non quidem omnis homo malus erit bonus, nemo tamen erit bonus qui non erat malus; sed quanto quisque citius mutatur in melius, hoc in se facit nominari quod adprehendit celerius, et posteriore cooperit uocabulum prius. Scriptum est itaque de Cain, quod condiderit ciuitatem; Abel antem tamquam peregrinus non condidit. Superna est enim sanctorum ciuitas, quamuis hic pariat ciues, in quibus peregrinatur, donec regni eius tempus adueniat, cum congregatura est omnes in suis corporibus resurgentes, quando eis promis sum dabitur regnum, ubi cum suo principe rege saeculorum sine ullo temporis fine regnabunt.

### Of the Children of the Flesh and the Children of the Promise.

[¶4] Chapter 2.—Of the Children of the Flesh and the Children of the Promise.

> Latin: Caput II. De filiis carnis et filiis promissionis.

[¶5] There was indeed on earth, so long as it was needed, a symbol and foreshadowing image of this city, which served the purpose of reminding men that such a city was to be rather than of making it present; and this image was itself called the holy city, as a symbol of the future city, though not itself the reality. Of this city which served as an image, and of that free city it typified, Paul writes to the Galatians in these terms: “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond maid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bond woman was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not, for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless, what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bond woman and her son: for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. And we, brethren, are not children of the bond woman, but of the free, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free.” This interpretation of the passage, handed down to us with apostolic authority, shows how we ought to understand the Scriptures of the two covenants—the old and the new. One portion of the earthly city became an image of the heavenly city, not having a significance of its own, but signifying another city, and therefore serving, or “being in bondage.” For it was founded not for its own sake, but to prefigure another city; and this shadow of a city was also itself foreshadowed by another preceding figure. For Sarah’s handmaid Agar, and her son, were an image of this image. And as the shadows were to pass away when the full light came, Sarah, the free woman, who prefigured the free city (which again was also prefigured in another way by that shadow of a city Jerusalem), therefore said, “Cast out the bond woman and her son; for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac,” or, as the apostle says, “with the son of the free woman.” In the earthly city, then, we find two things—its own obvious presence, and its symbolic presentation of the heavenly city. Now citizens are begotten to the earthly city by nature vitiated by sin, but to the heavenly city by grace freeing nature from sin; whence the former are called “vessels of wrath,” the latter “vessels of mercy.” And this was typified in the two sons of Abraham,—Ishmael, the son of Agar the handmaid, being born according to the flesh, while Isaac was born of the free woman Sarah, according to the promise. Both, indeed, were of Abraham’s seed; but the one was begotten by natural law, the other was given by gracious promise. In the one birth, human action is revealed; in the other, a divine kindness comes to light.

> Latin: Umbra sane quaedam ciuitatis huius et imago prophetica ei significandae potius quam praesentandae seruiuit in terris, quo eam tempore demonstrari oportebat, et dicta est etiam ipsa ciuitas sancta merito significantis imaginis, non expressae, sicut futura est, ueritatis. De hac imagine seruiente et de illa, quam significat, libera ciuitate sic apostolus ad Galatas loquitur: Dicite mihi, inquit, sub lege uolentes esse legem non audistis? Scriptum est enim, quod Abraham duos filios habuit, unum de ancilla et unum de libera. Sed ille quidem, qui de ancilla, secundum carnem natus est; qui autem de libera, per repromissionem; quae sunt in allegoria. Haec enim sunt duo testamenta, unum quidem a monte Sina in seruitutem generans, quod est Agar; Sina enim mons est in Arabia, quae coniuncta est huic quae nunc est Hierusalem; seruit enim cum filiis suis. Quae autem sursum est Hierusalem. libera est, quae est mater nostra. Scriptum est enim: Laetare sterilis, quae non paris, erumpeetexclama, quae non parturis; quoniam multi filii desertae, magis quam eius quae habet uirum. Nos autem, fratres, secundum Isaac promissionis filii sumus. Sed sicut tunc, qui secundum carnem natus fuerat, persequebatur eum, qui secundum spiritum: ita et nunc. Sed quid dicit scriptura? Eice ancillam et filium eius; non enim heres erit filius ancillae cum filio liberae. Nos autem, fratres, non sumus ancillae filii, sed liberae, qua libertate Christus nos liberauit. Haec forma intellegendi de apostolica auctoritate descendens locum nobis aperit, quem ad modum scripturas duorum testamentorum, ueteris et noui, accipere debeamus. Pars enim quaedam terrenae ciuitatis imago caelestis ciuitatis effecta est, non se significando, sed alteram, et ideo seruiens. Non enim propter se ipsam, sed propter aliam significandam est instituta, et praecedente alia significatione et ipsa praefigurans praefigurata est. Namque Agar ancilla Sarrae eiusque filius imago quaedam huius imaginis fuit; et quoniam transiturae erant umbrae luce ueniente, ideo dixit libera Sarra, quae significabat liberam ciuitatem, cui rursus alio modo significandae etiam illa umbra seruiebat: Eice ancillam et filium eius; non enim heres erit filius ancillae cum filio meo Isaac, quod ait apostolus: Cum filio liberae. Inuenimus ergo in terrena ciuitate duas formas, unam suam praesentiam demonstrantem, alteram caelesti ciuitati significandae sua praesentia seruientem. Parit autem ciues terrenae ciuitatis peccato uitiata natura, caelestis uero ciuitatis ciues parit a peccato naturam liberans gratia unde illa uocantur uasa irae, ista uasa misericordiae. Significatum est hoc etiam in duobus filiis Abrahae, quod unus de ancilla, quae dicebatur Agar, secundum carnem natus est Ismael, alter est autem de Sarra libera secundum repromissionem natus Isaac. Uterque quidem de semine Abrahae; sed illum genuit demonstrans consuetudo naturam, illum uero dedit promissio significans gratiam; ibi humanus usus ostenditur, hic diuinum beneficium commendatur.

### That Sarah’s Barrenness was Made Productive by God’s Grace.

[¶7] Chapter 3.—That Sarah’s Barrenness was Made Productive by God’s Grace.

> Latin: Caput III. De sterilitate Sarrae, quam Dei gratia fecundauit.

[¶8] Sarah, in fact, was barren; and, despairing of offspring, and being resolved that she would have at least through her handmaid that blessing she saw she could not in her own person procure, she gave her handmaid to her husband, to whom she herself had been unable to bear children. From him she required this conjugal duty, exercising her own right in another’s womb. And thus Ishmael was born according to the common law of human generation, by sexual intercourse. Therefore it is said that he was born “according to the flesh,”—not because such births are not the gifts of God, nor His handiwork, whose creative wisdom “reaches,” as it is written, “from one end to another mightily, and sweetly doth she order all things,” but because, in a case in which the gift of God, which was not due to men and was the gratuitous largess of grace, was to be conspicuous, it was requisite that a son be given in a way which no effort of nature could compass. Nature denies children to persons of the age which Abraham and Sarah had now reached; besides that, in Sarah’s case, she was barren even in her prime. This nature, so constituted that offspring could not be looked for, symbolized the nature of the human race vitiated by sin and by just consequence condemned, which deserves no future felicity. Fitly, therefore, does Isaac, the child of promise, typify the children of grace, the citizens of the free city, who dwell together in everlasting peace, in which self-love and self-will have no place, but a ministering love that rejoices in the common joy of all, of many hearts makes one, that is to say, secures a perfect concord.

> Latin: Sarra quippe sterilis erat et desperatione prolis saltem de ancilla sua concupiscens habere, quod de se ipsa non se posse cernebat, dedit eam fetandam uiro, de quo parere uoluerat nec potuerat. Exegit itaque etiam sic debitum de marito utens iure suo in utero alieno. Natus est ergo Ismael, sicut nascuntur homines, permixtione sexus utriusque, usitata lege naturae. Ideo dictum est: Secundum carnem; non quod ista beneficia Dei non sint aut non illa operetur Deus, cuius opifex sapientia adtingit, sicut scriptum est, a fine usque in finem fortiter et disponit omnia suauiter; sed ubi significandum fuerat Dei donum, quod indebitum hominibus gratia largiretur, sic oportuit dari filium, quem ad modum naturae non debebatur excursibus. Negat enim natura iam filios tali commixtioni maris et feminae, qualis esse poterat Abrahae et Sarrae in illa iam aetate, etiam mulieris accedente sterilitate, quae nec tunc parere potuit, quando non aetas fecunditati, sed aetati fecunditas defuit. Quod ergo naturae sic adfectae fructus posteritatis non debebatur, significat quod natura generis humani peccato uitiata ac per hoc iure damnata nihil uerae felicitatis in posterum merebatur. Recte igitur significat Isaac, per repromissionem natus, filios gratiae, ciues ciuitatis liberae, socios pacis aeternae, ubi sit non amor propriae ac priuatae quodam modo uoluntatis, sed communi eodemque inimitabili bono gaudens adque ex multis unum cor faciens, id est perfecte concors oboedientia caritatis.

### Of the Conflict and Peace of the Earthly City.

[¶10] Chapter 4.—Of the Conflict and Peace of the Earthly City.

> Latin: Caput IV. De terrenae ciuitatis uel concertatione uel pace.

[¶11] But the earthly city, which shall not be everlasting (for it will no longer be a city when it has been committed to the extreme penalty), has its good in this world, and rejoices in it with such joy as such things can afford. But as this is not a good which can discharge its devotees of all distresses, this city is often divided against itself by litigations, wars, quarrels, and such victories as are either life-destroying or short-lived. For each part of it that arms against another part of it seeks to triumph over the nations through itself in bondage to vice. If, when it has conquered, it is inflated with pride, its victory is life-destroying; but if it turns its thoughts upon the common casualties of our mortal condition, and is rather anxious concerning the disasters that may befall it than elated with the successes already achieved, this victory, though of a higher kind, is still only short-lived; for it cannot abidingly rule over those whom it has victoriously subjugated. But the things which this city desires cannot justly be said to be evil, for it is itself, in its own kind, better than all other human good. For it desires earthly peace for the sake of enjoying earthly goods, and it makes war in order to attain to this peace; since, if it has conquered, and there remains no one to resist it, it enjoys a peace which it had not while there were opposing parties who contested for the enjoyment of those things which were too small to satisfy both. This peace is purchased by toilsome wars; it is obtained by what they style a glorious victory. Now, when victory remains with the party which had the juster cause, who hesitates to congratulate the victor, and style it a desirable peace? These things, then, are good things, and without doubt the gifts of God. But if they neglect the better things of the heavenly city, which are secured by eternal victory and peace never-ending, and so inordinately covet these present good things that they believe them to be the only desirable things, or love them better than those things which are believed to be better,—if this be so, then it is necessary that misery follow and ever increase.

> Latin: Terrena porro ciuitas, quae sempiterna non erit (neque enim, cum extremo supplicio damnata fuerit, iam ciuitas erit), hic habet bonum suum, cuius societate laetatur, qualis esse de talibus laetitia rebus potest. Et quoniam non est tale bonum, ut nullas angustias faciat amatoribus suis, ideo ciuitas ista aduersus se ipsam plerumque diuiditur litigando, bellando adque pugnando et aut mortiferas aut certe mortales uictorias requirendo. Nam ex quacumque sui parte aduersus alteram sui partem bellando surrexerit, quaerit esse uictrix gentium, cum sit captiua uitiorum; et si quidem, cum uicerit, superbius extollitur, etiam mortifera; si uero condicionem cogitans casusque communes magis quae accidere possunt aduersis angitur, quam eis quae prouenerunt secundis rebus inflatur, tantummodo mortalis est ista uictoria. Neque enim semper dominari poterit permanendo eis, quos potuerit subiugare uincendo. Non autem recte dicitur ea bona non esse, quae concupiscit haec ciuitas, quando est et ipsa in suo humano genere melior. Concupiscit enim terrenam quandam pro rebus infimis pacem; ad eam namque desiderat peruenire bellando; quoniam si uicerit et qui resistat non fuerit, pax erit, quam non habebant partes in uicem aduersantes et pro bis rebus, quas simul habere non poterant, infelici egestate certantes. Hanc pacem requirunt laboriosa bella, hanc adipiscitur quae putatur gloriosa uictoria. Quando autem uincunt qui causa iustiore pugnabant, quis dubitet gratulandam esse uictoriam et prouenisse optabilem pacem? Haec bona sunt et sine dubio Dei dona. sunt. Sed si neglectis melioribus, quae ad supernam pertinent ciuitatem, ubi erit uictoria in aeterna et summa pace secura, bona ista sic concupiscuntur, ut uel sola esse credantur uel his, quae meliora creduntur, amplius diligantur: necesse est miseria consequatur et quae inerat augeatur.

### Of the Fratricidal Act of the Founder of the Earthly City, and the Corresponding Crime of the Founder of Rome.

[¶13] Chapter 5.—Of the Fratricidal Act of the Founder of the Earthly City, and the Corresponding Crime of the Founder of Rome.

> Latin: Caput V. De primo terrenae ciuitatis auctore fratricida, cuius inpietati Romanae urbis conditor germani caede responderit.

[¶14] Thus the founder of the earthly city was a fratricide. Overcome with envy, he slew his own brother, a citizen of the eternal city, and a sojourner on earth. So that we cannot be surprised that this first specimen, or, as the Greeks say, archetype of crime, should, long afterwards, find a corresponding crime at the foundation of that city which was destined to reign over so many nations, and be the head of this earthly city of which we speak. For of that city also, as one of their poets has mentioned, “the first walls were stained with a brother’s blood,” or, as Roman history records, Remus was slain by his brother Romulus. And thus there is no difference between the foundation of this city and of the earthly city, unless it be that Romulus and Remus were both citizens of the earthly city. Both desired to have the glory of founding the Roman republic, but both could not have as much glory as if one only claimed it; for he who wished to have the glory of ruling would certainly rule less if his power were shared by a living consort. In order, therefore, that the whole glory might be enjoyed by one, his consort was removed; and by this crime the empire was made larger indeed, but inferior, while otherwise it would have been less, but better. Now these brothers, Cain and Abel, were not both animated by the same earthly desires, nor did the murderer envy the other because he feared that, by both ruling, his own dominion would be curtailed,—for Abel was not solicitous to rule in that city which his brother built,—he was moved by that diabolical, envious hatred with which the evil regard the good, for no other reason than because they are good while themselves are evil. For the possession of goodness is by no means diminished by being shared with a partner either permanent or temporarily assumed; on the contrary, the possession of goodness is increased in proportion to the concord and charity of each of those who share it. In short, he who is unwilling to share this possession cannot have it; and he who is most willing to admit others to a share of it will have the greatest abundance to himself. The quarrel, then, between Romulus and Remus shows how the earthly city is divided against itself; that which fell out between Cain and Abel illustrated the hatred that subsists between the two cities, that of God and that of men. The wicked war with the wicked; the good also war with the wicked. But with the good, good men, or at least perfectly good men, cannot war; though, while only going on towards perfection, they war to this extent, that every good man resists others in those points in which he resists himself. And in each individual “the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh.” This spiritual lusting, therefore, can be at war with the carnal lust of another man; or carnal lust may be at war with the spiritual desires of another, in some such way as good and wicked men are at war; or, still more certainly, the carnal lusts of two men, good but not yet perfect, contend together, just as the wicked contend with the wicked, until the health of those who are under the treatment of grace attains final victory.

> Latin: Primus itaque fuit terrenae ciuitatis conditor fratricida; nam suum fratrem ciuem ciuitatis aeternae in hac terra peregrinantem inuidentia uictus occidit. Unde mirandum non est, quod tanto post in ea ciuitate condenda, quae fuerat huius terrenae ciuitatis, de qua loquimur, caput futura et tam multis gentibus regnatura, huic primo exemplo et, ut Graeci appellant, apxetoTttj) quaedam sui generis imago respondit. Nam et illic, sicut ipsum facinus quidam poeta commemorauit illorum, Fraterno primi maduerunt sanguine muri. Sic enim condita est Roma, quando occisum Remum a fratre Romulo Romana testatur historia; nisi quod isti terrenae ciuitatis ambo ciues erant. Ambo gloriam de Romanae rei publicae institutione quaerebant, sed ambo eam tantam, quantam, ni unus esset,- habere non poterant. Qui enim uolebat dominando gloriari, minus utique dominaretur, si eius potestas uiuo consorte minueretur. Ut ergo totam dominationem haberet unus, ablatus est socius, et scelere creuit in peius, quod innocentia minus esset et melius. Hi autem fratres Cain et Abel non habebant ambo inter se similem rerum terrenarum cupiditatem, nec in hoc alter alteri inuidit, quod eius dominatus fieret angustior, qui alterum occidit, si ambo dominarentur (Abel quippe non quaerebat dominationem in ea ciuitate, quae condebatur a fratre), sed inuidentia illa diabolica, qua inuident bonis mali, nulla alia causa, nisi quia illi boni sunt, illi mali. Nullo enim modo fit minor accedente seu permanente consorte possessio bonitatis, immo possessio bonitas, quam tanto latius, quanto concordius indiuidua sociorum possidet caritas. Non habebit denique istam possessionem, qui eam noluerit habere communem, et tanto eam reperiet ampliorem, quanto amplius ibi potuerit amare consortem. Illud igitur, quod inter Remum et Romulum exortum est, quem ad modum aduersus se ipsam terrena ciuitas diuidatur, ostendit; quod autem inter Cain et Abel, inter duas ipsas ciuitates, Dei -et hominum, inimicitias demonstrallit. Pugnant ergo inter se mali et mali; item pugnant inter se mali et boni: boni uero et boni, si perfecti sunt, inter se pugnare non possunt. Proficientes autem nondumque perfecti ita possunt, ut bonus quisque ex ea parte pugnet contra alterum, qua etiam contra semet ipsum; et in uno quippe homine caro concupiscit aduersus spiritum et spiritus aduersus carnem. Concupiscentia ergo spiritalis contra alterius potest pugnare carnalem uel concupiscentia carnalis contra alterius spiritalem, sicut inter se pugnant boni et mali; uel certe ipsae concupiscentiae carnales inter se duorum bonorum, nondum utique perfectorum, sicut inter se pugnant mali et mali, donec eorum, qui curantur, ad ultimam uictoriam sanitas perducatur.

### Of the Weaknesses Which Even the Citizens of the City of God Suffer During This Earthly Pilgrimage in Punishment of Sin, and of Which They are Healed by God’s Care.

[¶16] Chapter 6.—Of the Weaknesses Which Even the Citizens of the City of God Suffer During This Earthly Pilgrimage in Punishment of Sin, and of Which They are Healed by God’s Care.

> Latin: Caput VI. De languoribus, quos ex poena peccati etiam ciues ciuitatis Dei in huius uitae peregrinatione patiuntur et a quibus Deo medente sanantur.

[¶17] This sickliness—that is to say, that disobedience of which we spoke in the fourteenth book—is the punishment of the first disobedience. It is therefore not nature, but vice; and therefore it is said to the good who are growing in grace, and living in this pilgrimage by faith, “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” In like manner it is said elsewhere, “Warn them that are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the weak, be patient toward all men. See that none render evil for evil unto any man.” And in another place, “If a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” And elsewhere, “Let not the sun go down upon your wrath.” And in the Gospel, “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone.” So too of sins which may create scandal the apostle says, “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.” For this purpose, and that we may keep that peace without which no man can see the Lord, many precepts are given which carefully inculcate mutual forgiveness; among which we may number that terrible word in which the servant is ordered to pay his formerly remitted debt of ten thousand talents, because he did not remit to his fellow-servant his debt of two hundred pence. To which parable the Lord Jesus added the words, “So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother.” It is thus the citizens of the city of God are healed while still they sojourn in this earth and sigh for the peace of their heavenly country. The Holy Spirit, too, works within, that the medicine externally applied may have some good result. Otherwise, even though God Himself make use of the creatures that are subject to Him, and in some human form address our human senses, whether we receive those impressions in sleep or in some external appearance, still, if He does not by His own inward grace sway and act upon the mind, no preaching of the truth is of any avail. But this God does, distinguishing between the vessels of wrath and the vessels of mercy, by His own very secret but very just providence. When He Himself aids the soul in His own hidden and wonderful ways, and the sin which dwells in our members, and is, as the apostle teaches, rather the punishment of sin, does not reign in our mortal body to obey the lusts of it, and when we no longer yield our members as instruments of unrighteousness, then the soul is converted from its own evil and selfish desires, and, God possessing it, it possesses itself in peace even in this life, and afterwards, with perfected health and endowed with im mortality, will reign without sin in peace everlasting.

> Latin: Languor est quippe iste, id est illa inoboedientia, de qua in libro quarto decimo disseruimus, primae inoboedientiae supplicium, et ideo non natura, sed uitium; propter quod dicitur proficientibus bonis et ex fide in hac peregrinatione uiuentibus: In uicem onera uestra portate, et sic adinplebitis legem Christi; item alibi dicitur: Corripite inquietos, consolamini pusillanimes, suscipite infirmos, patientes estote ad omnes; uidete ne quis malum pro malo alicui reddat; item alio loco: Si praeoccupatus fuerit homo in aliquo delicto, nos, qui spiritales estis, instruite huius modi in spiritu mansuetudinis, intendens te ipsum, ne et tu tenteris; et alibi: Sol non occidat super iracundiam uestram; et in euangelio: Si peccauerit in te frater tuus, corripe eum inter te et ipsum; item de peccatis, in quibus multorum cauetur offensio, apostolus dicit: Peccantes coram omnibus argue, ut ceteri timorem habeant. Propter hoc et de uenia in uicem danda multa praecipiuntur et magna cura propter tenendam pacem, sine qua nemo poterit uidere Deum; ubi ille terror, quando iubetur seruus decem milium talentorum reddere debita, quae illi fuerant relaxata, quoniam debitum denariorum centum conseruo suo non relaxauit; qua similitudine proposita Dominus Iesus adiecit adque ait: Sic et uobis faciet Pater uester caelestis. si non dimiseritis unusquisque fratri suo de cordibus uestris. Hoc modo curantur ciues ciuitatis Dei in hac terra peregrinantes et paci supernae patriae suspirantes. Spiritus autem sanctus operatur intrinsecus, ut ualeat aliquid medicina, quae adhibetur extrinsecus. Alioquin etiamsi Deus ipse utens creatura sibi subdita in aliqua specie humana sensus adloquatur humanos, siue istos corporis siue illos, quos istis simillimos habemus in somnis, nec interiore gratia mentem regat adque agat, nihil prodest homini omnis praedicatio ueritatis. Facit autem hoc Deus a uasis misericordiae irae uasa discernens, dispensatione qua ipse nouit multum occulta, sed tamen iusta. Ipso quippe adiuuante mirabilibus et latentibus modis, cum peccatum quod habitat in membris nostris, quae potius iam poena peccati est, sicut apostolus praecipit, non regnat in nostro mortali corpore ad oboediendum desideriis eius nec ei membra nostra uelut iniquitatis arma exhibemus, conuertitur ad mentem non sibi ad mala, Deo regente, consentientem et eam regentem tranquillius nunc habebit, postea sanitate perfecta adque inmortalitate percepta homo sine ullo peccato in aeterna pace regnabit.

### Of the Cause of Cain’s Crime and His Obstinacy, Which Not Even the Word of God Could Subdue.

[¶19] Chapter 7.—Of the Cause of Cain’s Crime and His Obstinacy, Which Not Even the Word of God Could Subdue.

> Latin: Caput VII. De causa et pertinacia sceleris Cain, quem a facinore concepto nec Dei sermo reuocauit.

[¶20] But though God made use of this very mode of address which we have been endeavoring to explain, and spoke to Cain in that form by which He was wont to accommodate Himself to our first parents and converse with them as a companion, what good influence had it on Cain? Did he not fulfill his wicked intention of killing his brother even after he was warned by God’s voice? For when God had made a distinction between their sacrifices, neglecting Cain’s, regarding Abel’s, which was doubtless intimated by some visible sign to that effect; and when God had done so because the works of the one were evil but those of his brother good, Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. For thus it is written: “And the Lord said unto Cain, Why are thou wroth, and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou offerest rightly, but dost not rightly distinguish, hast thou not sinned? Fret not thyself, for unto thee shall be his turning, and thou shalt rule over him.” In this admonition administered by God to Cain, that clause indeed, “If thou offerest rightly, but dost not rightly distinguish, hast thou not sinned?” is obscure, inasmuch as it is not apparent for what reason or purpose it was spoken, and many meanings have been put upon it, as each one who discusses it attempts to interpret it according to the rule of faith. The truth is, that a sacrifice is “rightly offered” when it is offered to the true God, to whom alone we must sacrifice. And it is “not rightly distinguished” when we do not rightly distinguish the places or seasons or materials of the offering, or the person offering, or the person to whom it is presented, or those to whom it is distributed for food after the oblation. Distinguishing is here used for discriminating,—whether when an offering is made in a place where it ought not or of a material which ought to be offered not there but elsewhere; or when an offering is made at a wrong time, or of a material suitable not then but at some other time; or when that is offered which in no place nor any time ought to be offered; or when a man keeps to himself choicer specimens of the same kind than he offers to God; or when he or any other who may not lawfully partake profanely eats of the oblation. In which of these particulars Cain displeased God, it is difficult to determine. But the Apostle John, speaking of these brothers, says, “Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.” He thus gives us to understand that God did not respect his offering because it was not rightly “distinguished” in this, that he gave to God something of his own but kept himself to himself. For this all do who follow not God’s will but their own, who live not with an upright but a crooked heart, and yet offer to God such gifts as they suppose will procure from Him that He aid them not by healing but by gratifying their evil passions. And this is the characteristic of the earthly city, that it worships God or gods who may aid it in reigning victoriously and peacefully on earth not through love of doing good, but through lust of rule. The good use the world that they may enjoy God: the wicked, on the contrary, that they may enjoy the world would fain use God,—those of them, at least, who have attained to the belief that He is and takes an interest in human affairs. For they who have not yet attained even to this belief are still at a much lower level. Cain, then, when he saw that God had respect to his brother’s sacrifice, but not to his own, should have humbly chosen his good brother as his example, and not proudly counted him his rival. But he was wroth, and his countenance fell. This angry regret for another person’s goodness, even his brother’s, was charged upon him by God as a great sin. And He accused him of it in the interrogation, “Why are thou wroth, and why is thy countenance fallen?” For God saw that he envied his brother, and of this He accused him. For to men, from whom the heart of their fellow is hid, it might be doubtful and quite uncertain whether that sadness bewailed his own wickedness by which, as he had learned, he had displeased God, or his brother’s goodness, which had pleased God, and won His favorable regard to his sacrifice. But God, in giving the reason why He refused to accept Cain’s offering and why Cain should rather have been displeased at himself than at his brother, shows him that though he was unjust in “not rightly distinguishing,” that is, not rightly living and being unworthy to have his offering received, he was more unjust by far in hating his just brother without a cause.

> Latin: M Sed hoc ipsum, quod sicut potuimus exposuimus, cum Deus locutus esset ad Cain eo more, quo cum primis hominibus per creaturam subiectam uelut eorum socius forma congrua loquebatur, quid ei profuit? Nonne conceptum scelus in necando fratre etiam post uerbum diuinae admonitionis ao inpleuit? Nam cum sacrificia discreuisset amborum, in illius respiciens, huius despiciens, quod non dubitandum est potuisse cognosci signo aliquo adtestante uisibili, et hoc ideo fecisset Deus, quia mala erant opera huius, fratris uero eius bona: contristatus est Cain ualde et concidit facies eius. Sic enim scriptum est: Et dixit Dominus ad Cain: Quare tristis factus es et quare concidit facies tua? Nonne si recte offeras, recte autem non diuidas, peccasti? Quiesce; ad te enim conuersio eius, et tu dominaberis illius. In hac admonitione uel monitu, quem Deus protulit ad Cain, illud quidem quod dictum est: Nonne si recte offeras, recte autem non diuidas, peccasti? quia non elucet quur uel unde sit dictum, multos sensus peperit eius obscuritas, cum diuinarum scripturarum quisque tractator secundum fidei regulam id conatur exponere. Recte quippe offertur sacrificium, cum offertur Deo uero, cui uni tantummodo sacrificandum est. Non autem recte diuiditur, dum non discernuntur recte uel loca uel tempora uel res ipsae quae offeruntur uel qui offert et cui offertur uel hi, quibus ad uescendum distribuitur quod oblatum est, ut diuisionem hic discretionem intellegamus; siue cum offertur ubi non oportet, aut quod non ibi sed alibi oportet, siue cum offertur quando non oportet, aut quod non tunc sed alias oportet, siue cum id offertur, quod nusquam et numquam penitus debuit, siue cum electiora sibi eiusdem generis rerum tenet homo, quam sunt ea, quae offert Deo, siue eius rei. quae oblata est, fit particeps profanus aut quilibet quem fas non est fieri. In quo autem horum Deo displicuerit Cain, facile non potest inueniri. Sed quoniam Iohannes apostolus, cum de his fratribus loqueretur: Non sicut Cain, inquit, ex maligno erat et occidit fratrem suum; et cuius rei gratia occidit? Quia opera illius maligna fuerunt, fratris autem eius iusta: datur intellegi propterea Deum non respexisse in munus eius, quia hoc ipso male diuidebat, dans Deo aliquid suum, sibi autem se ipsum. Quod omnes faciunt, qui non Dei, sed suam sectantes uoluntatem, id est non recto, sed peruerso corde uiuentes, offerunt tamen Deo munus, quo putant eum redimi, ut eorum non opituletur sanandis prauis cupiditatibus, sed explendis. Et hoc est terrenae proprium ciuitatis, Deum uel deos colere, quibus adiuuantibus regnet in uictoriis et pace terrena, non caritate consulendi, sed dominandi cupiditate. Boni quippe ad hoc utuntur mundo, ut fruantur Deo; mali autem contra, ut fruantur mundo, uti uolunt Deo; qui tamen eum uel esse uel res humanas curare iam credunt. Sunt enim multo deteriores, qui ne hoc quidem credunt. Cognito itaque Cain quod super eius germani sacrificium, nec super suum respexerat Deus, utique fratrem bonum mutatus imitari, non elatus debuit aemulari. Sed contristatus est et concidit facies eius. Hoc peccatum maxime arguit Deus, tristitiam de alterius bonitate, et hoc fratris. Hoc quippe arguendo interrogauit dicens: Quare contristatus es, et quare concidit facies tua? Quia enim fratri inuidebat, Deus uidebat et hoc arguebat. Nam hominibus, quibus absconditum est cor alterius, esse posset ambiguum et prorsus incertum, utrum illa tristitia malignitatem suam, in qua se Deo displicuisse didicerat, an fratris doluerit bonitatem, quae Deo placuit, cum in sacrificium eius adspexit. Sed rationem reddens Deus, quur eius oblationem accipere noluerit, ut sibi ipse potius merito quam ei frater inmerito displiceret, cum esset iniustus non recte diuidendo, hoc est non recte uiuendo, et indignus cuius adprobaretur oblatio, quam esset iniustior, quod fratrem iustum gratis odisset, ostendit.

[¶21] Yet He does not dismiss him without counsel, holy, just, and good. “Fret not thyself,” He says, “for unto thee shall be his turning, and thou shall rule over him.” Over his brother, does He mean? Most certainly not. Over what, then, but sin? For He had said, “Thou hast sinned,” and then He added, “Fret not thyself, for to thee shall be its turning, and thou shall rule over it.” And the “turning” of sin to the man can be understood of his conviction that the guilt of sin can be laid at no other man’s door but his own. For this is the health-giving medicine of penitence, and the fit plea for pardon; so that, when it is said, “To thee its turning,” we must not supply “shall be,” but we must read, “To thee let its turning be,” understanding it as a command, not as a prediction. For then shall a man rule over his sin when he does not prefer it to himself and defend it, but subjects it by repentance; otherwise he that becomes protector of it shall surely become its prisoner. But if we understand this sin to be that carnal concupiscence of which the apostle says, “The flesh lusteth against the spirit,” among the fruits of which lust he names envy, by which assuredly Cain was stung and excited to destroy his brother, then we may properly supply the words “shall be,” and read, “To thee shall be its turning, and thou shalt rule over it.” For when the carnal part which the apostle calls sin, in that place where he says, “It is not I who do it, but sin that dwelleth in me,” that part which the philosophers also call vicious, and which ought not to lead the mind, but which the mind ought to rule and restrain by reason from illicit motions,—when, then, this part has been moved to perpetrate any wickedness, if it be curbed and if it obey the word of the apostle, “Yield not your members instruments of unrighteousness unto sin,” it is turned towards the mind and subdued and conquered by it, so that reason rules over it as a subject. It was this which God enjoined on him who was kindled with the fire of envy against his brother, so that he sought to put out of the way him whom he should have set as an example. “Fret not thyself,” or compose thyself, He says: withhold thy hand from crime; let not sin reign in your mortal body to fulfill it in the lusts thereof, nor yield your members instruments of unrighteousness unto sin. “For to thee shall be its turning,” so long as you do not encourage it by giving it the rein, but bridle it by quenching its fire. “And thou shalt rule over it;” for when it is not allowed any external actings, it yields itself to the rule of the governing mind and righteous will, and ceases from even internal motions. There is something similar said in the same divine book of the woman, when God questioned and judged them after their sin, and pronounced sentence on them all,—the devil in the form of the serpent, the woman and her husband in their own persons. For when He had said to her, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow shall thou bring forth children,” then He added, “and thy turning shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” What is said to Cain about his sin, or about the vicious concupiscence of his flesh, is here said of the woman who had sinned; and we are to understand that the husband is to rule his wife as the soul rules the flesh. And therefore, says the apostle, “He that loveth his wife, loveth himself; for no man ever yet hated his own flesh.” This flesh, then, is to be healed, because it belongs to ourselves: is not to be abandoned to destruction as if it were alien to our nature. But Cain received that counsel of God in the spirit of one who did not wish to amend. In fact, the vice of envy grew stronger in him; and, having entrapped his brother, he slew him. Such was the founder of the earthly city. He was also a figure of the Jews who slew Christ the Shepherd of the flock of men, prefigured by Abel the shepherd of sheep: but as this is an allegorical and prophetical matter, I forbear to explain it now; besides, I remember that I have made some remarks upon it in writing against Faustus the Manichæan.

> Latin: Non tamen eum dimittens sine mandato sancto, iusto et bono: Quiesce, inquit; ad te enim conuersio eius, et tu dominaberis illius. Numquid fratris? Absit. Cuius igitur, nisi peccati? Dixerat enim: Peccasti, tum deinde addidit: Quiesce; ad te enim conuersio eius, et tu dominaberis illius. Potest quidem ita intellegi ad ipsum hominem conuersionem esse debere peccati, ut nulli alii quam sibi sciat tribuere debere quod peccat. Haec est enim salubris paenitentiae medicina et ueniae petitio non incongrua, ut, ubi ait: Ad te enim conuersio eius, non subaudiatur […] sed (sit); praecipientis uidelicet, non praedicentis modo. Tunc enim dominabitur quisque peccato, si id sibi non defendendo praeposuerit, sed paenitendo subiecerit; alioquin et illi seruiet dominanti, si patrocinium adhibuerit accidenti. Sed ut peccatum intellegatur concupiscentia ipsa carnalis, de qua dicit apostolus: Caro concupiscit aduersus spiritum, in cuius carnis fructibus et inuidiam commemorat, qua utique Cain stimulabatur et accendebatur in fratris exitium: bene subauditur […] id est: Ad te enim conuersio eius erit, et tu dominaberis illius. Cum enim commota fuerit pars ipsa carnalis, quam peccatum appellat apostolus, ubi dicit: Non ego operor illud, sed quod habitat in me peccatum (quam partem animi etiam philosophi dicunt esse uitiosam, non quae mentem debeat trahere, sed cui mens debeat imperare eamque ab inlicitis operibus ratione cohibere); — cum ergo commota fuerit ad aliquid perperam committendum, si quiescatur et obtemperetur dicenti apostolo: Nec exhibueritis membra uestra arma iniquitatis peccato, ad mentem domita et uicta conuertitur, ut subditae ratio dominetur. Hoc praecepit Deus huic, qui facibus inuidiae inflammabatur in fratrem et, quem debuerat imitari, cupiebat auferri. Quiesce, inquit; manus ab scelere contine, non regnet peccatum in tuo mortali corpore ad oboediendum desideriis eius, nec exhibeas membra tua iniquitatis arma peccato. Ad te enim conuersio eius, dum non adiuuatur relaxando, sed quiescendo frenatur; et tu dominaberis illius, ut, cum forinsecus non permittitur operari, sub potestate mentis regentis et beneuolentis adsuescat etiam intrinsecus non moueri. Dictum est tale aliquid in eodem diuino libro et de muliere, quando post peccatum Deo interrogante adque iudicante damnationis sententias acceperunt, in serpente diabolus et in se ipsis illa et maritus. Cum enim dixisset ei: Multiplicans multiplicabo tristitias tuas et gemitum tuum, et in tristitiis paries filios, deinde addidit: Et ad uirum tuum conuersio tua, et ipse tui dominabitur. Quod dictum est ad Cain de peccato uel de uitiosa carnis concupiscentia, hoc isto loco de peccatrice femina; ubi intellegendum est uirum ad regendam uxorem animo carnem regenti similem esse oportere. Propter quod dicit apostolus: Qui diligit uxorem suam, se ipsum diligit; nemo enim umquam carnem suam odio habuit. Sananda sunt enim haec sicut nostra, non sicut aliena damnanda. Sed illud Dei praeceptum Cain sicut praeuaricator accepit. Inualescente quippe inuidentiae uitio fratrem insidiatus occidit. Talis erat terrenae conditor ciuitatis. Quo modo autem significauerit etiam Iudaeos, a quibus Christus occisus est pastor ouium hominum, quem pastor ouium pecorum praefigurabat Abel, quia in allegoria prophetica res est, parco nunc dicere, et quaedam hinc aduersus Faustum Manichaeum dixisse me recolo.

## 71. What Cain’s Reason Was for Building a City So Early in the History of the Human Race.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/71/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/71/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 8.—What Cain’s Reason Was for Building a City So Early in the History of the Human Race.

> Latin: Caput VIII. Quae ratio fuerit, ut Cain inter principia generis humani conderet ciuitatem.

[¶1] At present it is the history which I aim at defending, that Scripture may not be reckoned incredible when it relates that one man built a city at a time in which there seem to have been but four men upon earth, or rather indeed but three, after one brother slew the other,—to wit, the first man the father of all, and Cain himself, and his son Enoch, by whose name the city was itself called. But they who are moved by this consideration forget to take into account that the writer of the sacred history does not necessarily mention all the men who might be alive at that time, but those only whom the scope of his work required him to name. The design of that writer (who in this matter was the instrument of the Holy Ghost) was to descend to Abraham through the successions of ascertained generations propagated from one man, and then to pass from Abraham’s seed to the people of God, in whom, separated as they were from other nations, was prefigured and predicted all that relates to the city whose reign is eternal, and to its king and founder Christ, which things were foreseen in the Spirit as destined to come; yet neither is this object so effected as that nothing is said of the other society of men which we call the earthly city, but mention is made of it so far as seemed needful to enhance the glory of the heavenly city by contrast to its opposite. Accordingly, when the divine Scripture, in mentioning the number of years which those men lived, concludes its account of each man of whom it speaks, with the words, “And he begat sons and daughters, and all his days were so and so, and he died,” are we to understand that, because it does not name those sons and daughters, therefore, during that long term of years over which one lifetime extended in those early days, there might not have been born very many men, by whose united numbers not one but several cities might have been built? But it suited the purpose of God, by whose inspiration these histories were composed, to arrange and distinguish from the first these two societies in their several generations,—that on the one side the generations of men, that is to say, of those who live according to man, and on the other side the generations of the sons of God, that is to say, of men living according to God, might be traced down together and yet apart from one another as far as the deluge, at which point their dissociation and association are exhibited: their dissociation, inasmuch as the generations of both lines are recorded in separate tables, the one line descending from the fratricide Cain, the other from Seth, who had been born to Adam instead of him whom his brother slew; their association, inasmuch as the good so deteriorated that the whole race became of such a character that it was swept away by the deluge, with the exception of one just man, whose name was Noah, and his wife and three sons and three daughters-in-law, which eight persons were alone deemed worthy to escape from that desolating visitation which destroyed all men.

> Latin: Nunc autem defendenda mihi uidetur historia, ne sit scriptura incredibilis, quae dicit aedificatam ab uno homine ciui tatem eo tempore, quo non plus quam uiri quattuor uel potius tres, postea quam fratrem frater occidit, fuisse uidentur in terra, id est primus homo pater omnium et ipse Cain et eius filius Enoch, ex cuius nomine ipsa ciuitas nuncupata est. Sed hoc quos mouet, parum considerant non omnes homines, qui tunc esse potuerunt, scriptorem sacrae huius historiae necesse habuisse nominare, sed eos solos, quos operis suscepti ratio postulabat. Propositum quippe scriptoris illius fuit, per quem sanctus Spiritus id agebat, per successiones certarum generationum ex uno homine propagatarum peruenire ad Abraham ac deinde ex eius semine ad populum Dei, in quo distincto a ceteris gentibus praefigurarentur et praenuntiarentur omnia, quae de ciuitate, cuius aeternum erit regnum, et de rege eius eodemque conditore Christo in Spiritu praeuidebantur esse uentura; ita ut nec de altera societate hominum taceretur, quam terrenam dicimus ciuitatem, quantum ei commemorandae satis esset, ut ciuitas Dei etiam suae aduersariae conparatione clarescat. Cum igitur scriptura diuina, ubi et numerum annorum, quos illi homines uixerunt, commemorat, ita concludat, ut dicat de illo, de quo loquebatur: Et genuit filios et filias, et fuerunt omnes dies illius uel illius quos uixit anni tot, et mortuus est: numquid quia eosdem filios et filias non nominat, ideo intellegere non debernus per tam multos annos, quibus tunc in saeculi huius prima aetate uiuebant, nasci potuisse plurimos homines, quorum coetibus condi possent etiam plurimae ‘ciuitates? Sed pertinuit ad Deum, quo ista inspirante conscripta sunt, has duas societates suis diuersis generationibus primitus digerere adque distinguere, ut seorsum hominum, hoc est secundum hominem uiuentium, seorsum autem filiorum Dei, id est hominum secundum Deum uiuentium, generationes contexerentur usque diluuium, ubi ambarum societatum discretio concretioque narratur; discretio quidem, quod ambarum separatim generationes commemorantur, unius fratricidae Cain, alterius autem qui uocabatur Seth; natus quippe fuerat et ipse de Adam pro illo, quem frater occidit; concretio autem, quia bonis in deterius declinantibus tales uniuersi facti fuerant, ut diluuio delerentur, excepto uno iusto, cui nomen erat Noe, et eius coniuge et tribus filiis totidemque nuribus, qui homines octo ex illa omnium uastatione mortalium per arcam euadere meruerunt.

[¶2] Therefore, although it is written, “And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bare Enoch, and he builded a city and called the name of the city after the name of his son Enoch,” it does not follow that we are to believe this to have been his first-born; for we cannot suppose that this is proved by the expression “he knew his wife,” as if then for the first time he had had intercourse with her. For in the case of Adam, the father of all, this expression is used not only when Cain, who seems to have been his first-born, was conceived, but also afterwards the same Scripture says, “Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived, and bare a son, and called his name Seth.” Whence it is obvious that Scripture employs this expression neither always when a birth is recorded nor then only when the birth of a first-born is mentioned. Neither is it necessary to suppose that Enoch was Cain’s first-born because he named his city after him. For it is quite possible that though he had other sons, yet for some reason the father loved him more than the rest. Judah was not the first-born, though he gives his name to Judæa and the Jews. But even though Enoch was the first-born of the city’s founder, that is no reason for supposing that the father named the city after him as soon as he was born; for at that time he, being but a solitary man, could not have founded a civic community, which is nothing else than a multitude of men bound together by some associating tie. But when his family increased to such numbers that he had quite a population, then it became possible to him both to build a city, and give it, when founded, the name of his son. For so long was the life of those antediluvians, that he who lived the shortest time of those whose years are mentioned in Scripture attained to the age of 753 years. And though no one attained the age of a thousand years, several exceeded the age of nine hundred. Who then can doubt that during the lifetime of one man the human race might be so multiplied that there would be a population to build and occupy not one but several cities? And this might very readily be conjectured from the fact that from one man, Abraham, in not much more than four hundred years, the numbers of the Hebrew race so increased, that in the exodus of that people from Egypt there are recorded to have been six hundred thousand men capable of bearing arms, and this over and above the Idumæans, who, though not numbered with Israel’s descendants, were yet sprung from his brother, also a grandson of Abraham; and over and above the other nations which were of the same stock of Abraham, though not through Sarah,—that is, his descendants by Hagar and Keturah, the Ishmaelites, Midianites, etc.

> Latin: Quod igitur scriptum est: Et cognouit Cain uxorem. suam, et concipiens peperit Enoch; et erat aedificans" ciuitatem in nomine filii sui Enoch: non est quidem consequens, ut istum primum filium genuisse credatur. Neque enim hoc ex eo putandum est, quia dictus est cognouisse uxorem suam, quasi tunc se illi primitus concumbendo miscuisset. Nam et de ipso patre omnium Adam non tunc solum hoc dictum est, quando conceptus est Cain, quem primogenitum uidetur habuisse: uerum etiam posterius eadem scriptura: Cognouit, inquit, Adam Euam uxorem suam, et concepit et peperit filium, et nominauit nomen illius Seth. Unde intellegitur ita solere illam scripturam loqui, quamuis non semper cum in ea legitur factos hominum fuisse conceptus, non tamen solum cum primum sibi sexus uterque miscetur. Nec illud necessario est argumento, ut primogenitum patri existimemus Enoch, quod eius nomine illa ciuitas nuncupata est. Non enim ab re est, ut propter aliquam causam, cum et alios haberet, diligeret eum pater ceteris amplius. Neque enim et ludas primogenitus fuit, a quo Iudaea cognominata est et Iudaei. Sed etiamsi conditori ciuitatis illius iste filius primus est natus, non ideo putandum est tunc a patre conditae ciuitati nomen eius inpositum, quando natus est, quia nec constitui tunc ab uno poterat ciuitas, quae nihil est aliud quam hominum multitudo aliquo societatis uinculo conligata; sed cum illius hominis familia tanta numerositate cresceret, ut haberet iam populi quantitatem, tunc potuit utique fieri, ut et constitueret et nomen primogeniti sui constitutae inponeret ciuitati. Tam longa quippe uita illorum hominum fuit, ut illic memoratorum, quorum et anni taciti non sunt, qui uixit minimum ante diluuium, ad septingentos quinquaginta tres perueniret. Nam plures nongentos annos etiam transierunt, quamuis nemo ad mille peruenerit. Quis itaque dubitauerit per unius hominis aetatem tantum multiplicari potuisse genus humanum, ut esset unde constituerentur non una, sed plurimae ciuitates? Quod ex hoc conici facillime potest, quia ex uno Abraham non multo amplius quadringentis annis numerositas Hebraeae gentis tanta procreata est, ut in exitu eiusdem populi ex Aegypto sescenta hominum milia fuisse referantur bellicae iuuentutis: ut omittamus gentem Idumaeorum non pertinentem ad populum Israel, quam genuit frater eius Esau, nepos Abrahae, et alias natas ex semine ipsius Abrahae non per Sarram coniugem procreato.

### Of the Long Life and Greater Stature of the Antediluvians.

[¶4] Chapter 9.—Of the Long Life and Greater Stature of the Antediluvians.

> Latin: Caput IX. De longa uita hominum, quae fuit ante diluuium et de ampliore humanorum corporum forma.

[¶5] Wherefore no one who considerately weighs facts will doubt that Cain might have built a city, and that a large one, when it is observed how prolonged were the lives of men, unless perhaps some sceptic take exception to this very length of years which our authors ascribe to the antediluvians and deny that this is credible. And so, too, they do not believe that the size of men’s bodies was larger then than now, though the most esteemed of their own poets, Virgil, asserts the same, when he speaks of that huge stone which had been fixed as a landmark, and which a strong man of those ancient times snatched up as he fought, and ran, and hurled, and cast it,—

> Latin: Quam ob rem nullus prudens rerum existimator dubitauerit Cain non solum aliquam, uerum etiam magnam potuisse condere ciuitatem, quando in tam longum tempus protendebatur uita mortalium; nisi forte infidelium quispiam ex ipsa numerositate annorum nobis ingerat quaestionem, qua uixisse tunc homines scriptum est in auctoritatibus nostris, et hoc neget esse credendum. Ita quippe non credunt etiam magnitudines corporum longe ampliores tunc fuisse quam nunc sunt.

[¶6] “Scarce twelve strong men of later mould

> Latin: Unde et nobilissimus eorum poeta Vergilius de ingenti lapide, quem in agrorum limite infixum uir fortis illorum temporum pugnans et rapuit et cucurrit et intorsit et misit: Vix illum — inquit — lecti bis sex ceruice subirent, Qualia nunc hominum producit corpora tellus, significans maiora tunc corpora producere solere tellurem.

[¶7] That weight could on their necks uphold.”

[¶8] thus declaring his opinion that the earth then produced mightier men. And if in the more recent times, how much more in the ages before the world-renowned deluge? But the large size of the primitive human body is often proved to the incredulous by the exposure of sepulchres, either through the wear of time or the violence of torrents or some accident, and in which bones of incredible size have been found or have rolled out. I myself, along with some others, saw on the shore at Utica a man’s molar tooth of such a size, that if it were cut down into teeth such as we have, a hundred, I fancy, could have been made out of it. But that, I believe, belonged to some giant. For though the bodies of ordinary men were then larger than ours, the giants surpassed all in stature. And neither in our own age nor any other have there been altogether wanting instances of gigantic stature, though they may be few. The younger Pliny, a most learned man, maintains that the older the world becomes, the smaller will be the bodies of men. And he mentions that Homer in his poems often lamented the same decline; and this he does not laugh at as a poetical figment, but in his character of a recorder of natural wonders accepts it as historically true. But, as I said, the bones which are from time to time discovered prove the size of the bodies of the ancients, and will do so to future ages, for they are slow to decay. But the length of an antediluvian’s life cannot now be proved by any such monumental evidence. But we are not on this account to withhold our faith from the sacred history, whose statements of past fact we are the more inexcusable in discrediting, as we see the accuracy of its prediction of what was future. And even that same Pliny tells us that there is still a nation in which men live 200 years. If, then, in places unknown to us, men are believed to have a length of days which is quite beyond our own experience, why should we not believe the same of times distant from our own? Or are we to believe that in other places there is what is not here, while we do not believe that in other times there has been anything but what is now?

> Latin: Quanto magis igitur temporibus recentioribus mundi ante illud nobile diffamatumque diluuium! Sed de corporum magnitudine plerumque incredulos nudata per uetustatem siue per uim fluminum uariosque casus sepulcra conuincunt, ubi apparuerunt uel unde ceciderunt incredibilis magnitudinis ossa mortuorum. Vidi ipse non solus, sed aliquot mecum in Uticensi litore, molarem hominis dentem tam ingentem, ut, si in nostrorum dentium modulos minutatim concideretur, centum nobis uideretur facere potuisse. Sed illum gigantis alicuius fuisse crediderim. Nam praeter quod erant omnium multo quam nostra maiora tunc corpora, gigantes longe ceteris anteibant; sicut aliis deinde nostrisque temporibus rara quidem, sed numquam ferme defuerunt; quae modum aliorum plurimum excederent. Plinius Secundus. doctissimus homo. quanto magis magisque praeterit saeculi excursus, minora corpora naturam ferre testatur; quod etiam Homerum commemorat saepe carmine fuisse conquestum, non haec uelut poetica figmenta deridens, sed in liistoricam fidem tamquam miraculorum naturalium scriptor adsumens. Verum, ut dixi, antiquorum magnitudines corporum inuenta plerumque ossa, quoniam diuturna sunt, etiam multo posterioribus saeculis produnt. Annorum autem numerositas cuiusque hominis, quae temporibus illis fuit, nullis nunc talibus documentis uenire in experimentum potest. Nec tamen ideo fides sacrae huic historiae deroganda est, cuius tanto inpudentius narrata non credimus, quanto inpleri certius praenuntiata conspicimus. Dicit tamen etiam idem Plinius esse adhuc gentem, ubi ducentos annos uiuitur. Si ergo humanarum uitarum diuturnitates, quas experti non sumus, hodie habere creduntur incognita nobis loca, quur non habuisse credantur et tempora? An uero credibile est alicubi esse quod hic non est, et incredibile est aliquando fuisse quod nunc non est?

### Of the Different Computation of the Ages of the Antediluvians, Given by the Hebrew Manuscripts and by Our Own.

[¶10] Chapter 10.—Of the Different Computation of the Ages of the Antediluvians, Given by the Hebrew Manuscripts and by Our Own.

> Latin: Caput X. De differentia. qua inter Hebraeos et nostros codices uidentur annorum numeri dissonare.

[¶11] Wherefore, although there is a discrepancy for which I cannot account between our manuscripts and the Hebrew, in the very number of years assigned to the antediluvians, yet the discrepancy is not so great that they do not agree about their longevity. For the very first man, Adam, before he begot his son Seth, is in our manuscripts found to have lived 230 years, but in the Hebrew mss. 130. But after he begot Seth, our copies read that he lived 700 years, while the Hebrew give 800. And thus, when the two periods are taken together, the sum agrees. And so throughout the succeeding generations, the period before the father begets a son is always made shorter by 100 years in the Hebrew, but the period after his son is begotten is longer by 100 years in the Hebrew than in our copies. And thus, taking the two periods together, the result is the same in both. And in the sixth generation there is no discrepancy at all. In the seventh, however, of which Enoch is the representative, who is recorded to have been translated without death because he pleased God, there is the same discrepancy as in the first five generations, 100 years more being ascribed to him by our mss. before he begat a son. But still the result agrees; for according to both documents he lived before he was translated 365 years. In the eighth generation the discrepancy is less than in the others, and of a different kind. For Methuselah, whom Enoch begat, lived, before he begat his successor, not 100 years less, but 100 years more, according to the Hebrew reading; and in our mss. again these years are added to the period after he begat his son; so that in this case also the sum-total is the same. And it is only in the ninth generation, that is, in the age of Lamech, Methuselah’s son and Noah’s father, that there is a discrepancy in the sum total; and even in this case it is slight. For the Hebrew mss. represent him as living twenty-four years more than ours assign to him. For before he begat his son, who was called Noah, six years fewer are given to him by the Hebrew mss. than by ours; but after he begat this son, they give him thirty years more than ours; so that, deducting the former six, there remains, as we said, a surplus of twenty-four.

> Latin: Quocirca etsi inter Hebraeos et nostros codices de ipso numero annorum nonnulla uidetur esse distantia, quod ignoro qua ratione sit factum: non tamen tanta est, ut illos homines tam longaeuos fuisse dissentiant. Nam ipse homo primus Adam, antequam gigneret filium, qui est appellatus Seth, ducentos triginta uixisse annos reperitur in codicibus nostris, in Hebraeis autem centum triginta perhibetur; sed postea quam eum genuit, septingentos uixisse legitur in nostris, octingentos uero in illis; adque ita in utrisque uniuersitatis summa concordat. Ac deinde per consequentes generationes antequam gignatur, qui gigni commemoratur, minus uixisse aput Hebraeos pater eius inuenitur centum annos; sed postea quam est genitus idem ipse, centum minus quam in Hebraeis inueniuntur in nostris; adque ita et hinc et inde numeri uniuersitas consonat. In sexta autem generatione nusquam utrique codices discrepant. In septima uero, ubi ille qui natus est Enoch non mortuus, sed quod Deo placuerit translatus esse narratur, eadem dissonantia est, quae in superioribus quinque de centum annis antequam gigneret eum, qui ibi commemoratus est, filium, adque in summa similis consonantia. Vixit enim annos, antequam transferretur, secundum utrosque codices trecentos sexaginta quinque. Octaua generatio habet quidem nonnullam diuersitatem, sed minorem ac dissimilem ceteris. Mathusalam quippe, quem genuit Enoch, antequam gigneret eum, qui in ipso ordine sequitur, secundum Hebraeos non centum minus, sed uiginti amplius uixit annos; qui rursus in nostris, postea quam eum genuit, reperiuntur additi, et in utrisque sibi summa uniuersi numeri occurrit. In sola nona generatione, id est in annis Lamech, filii Mathusalae, patris autem Noe, summa uniuersitatis discrepat, sed non plurimum. Viginti enim et quattuor annos plus uixisse in Hebraeis quam in nostris codicibus inuenitur. Namque antequam gigneret filium, qui uocatus est Noe, sex minus habet in Hebraeis quam in nostris; postea uero quam eum genuit, triginta amplius in eisdem quam in nostris. Unde sex illis detractis restant uiginti quattuor, ut dictum est.

### Of Methuselah’s Age, Which Seems to Extend Fourteen Years Beyond the Deluge.

[¶13] Chapter 11.—Of Methuselah’s Age, Which Seems to Extend Fourteen Years Beyond the Deluge.

> Latin: Caput XI. De annis Mathusalae, cuius aetas quattuordecim annis diluuium uidetur excedere.

[¶14] From this discrepancy between the Hebrew books and our own arises the well-known question as to the age of Methuselah; for it is computed that he lived for fourteen years after the deluge, though Scripture relates that of all who were then upon the earth only the eight souls in the ark escaped destruction by the flood, and of these Methuselah was not one. For, according to our books, Methuselah, before he begat the son whom he called Lamech, lived 167 years; then Lamech himself, before his son Noah was born, lived 188 years, which together make 355 years. Add to these the age of Noah at the date of the deluge, 600 years, and this gives a total of 955 from the birth of Methuselah to the year of the flood. Now all the years of the life of Methuselah are computed to be 969; for when he had lived 167 years, and had begotten his son Lamech, he then lived after this 802 years, which makes a total, as we said, of 969 years. From this, if we deduct 955 years from the birth of Methuselah to the flood, there remains fourteen years, which he is supposed to have lived after the flood. And therefore some suppose that, though he was not on earth (in which it is agreed that every living thing which could not naturally live in water perished), he was for a time with his father, who had been translated, and that he lived there till the flood had passed away. This hypothesis they adopt, that they may not cast a slight on the trustworthiness of versions which the Church has received into a position of high authority, and because they believe that the Jewish mss. rather than our own are in error. For they do not admit that this is a mistake of the translators, but maintain that there is a falsified statement in the original, from which, through the Greek, the Scripture has been translated into our own tongue. They say that it is not credible that the seventy translators, who simultaneously and unanimously produced one rendering, could have erred, or, in a case in which no interest of theirs was involved, could have falsified their translation; but that the Jews, envying us our translation of their Law and Prophets, have made alterations in their texts so as to undermine the authority of ours. This opinion or suspicion let each man adopt according to his own judgment. Certain it is that Methuselah did not survive the flood, but died in the very year it occurred, if the numbers given in the Hebrew mss. are true. My own opinion regarding the seventy translators I will, with God’s help, state more carefully in its own place, when I have come down (following the order which this work requires) to that period in which their translation was executed. For the present question, it is enough that, according to our versions, the men of that age had lives so long as to make it quite possible that, during the lifetime of the first-born of the two sole parents then on earth, the human race multiplied sufficiently to form a community.

> Latin: Per hanc autem discrepantiam Hebraeorum codicum adque nostrorum exoritur illa famosissima quaestio, ubi Mathusalam quattuordecim annos uixisse post diluuium conputatur, cum scriptura ex omnibus, qui in terra tunc fuerant, solos octo homines in arca exitium commemoret euasisse diluuii, in quibus Mathusalam non fuit. Secundum codices enim nostros Mathusalam priusquam gigneret illum, quem uocauit Lamech, uixit annos centum sexaginta septem; deinde ipse Lamech, antequam ex illo natus esset Noe, uixit annos centum octoginta octo, qui fiunt simul trecenti quinquaginta quinque; his adduntur sescenti Noe, quoto eius anno diluuium factum est: qui fiunt nongenti quinquaginta quinque, ex quo Mathusalam natus est usque ad annum diluuii. Omnes enim anni uitae Mathusalam nongenti sexaginta nouem conputantur, quia, cum uixisset annos centum sexaginta septem et genuisset filium, qui est appellatus Lamech, post eum genitum uixit annos octingentos duo; qui omnes, ut diximus. nongenti sexaginta nouem fiunt. Unde detractis nongentis quinquaginta quinque ab ortu Mathusalae usque ad diluuium remanent quattuordecim, quibus uixisse creditur post diluuium. Propter quod eum nonnulli, etsi non in terra, ubi omnem carnem, quam uiuere in aquis natura non sinit, constat fuisse deletam,. cum patre suo qui translatus fuerat aliquantum fuisse adque ibi, donec diluuium praeteriret, uixisse arbitrantur, nolentes derogare fidem codicibus, quos in auctoritatem celebriorem suscepit ecclesia, et credentes Iudaeorum potius quam istos non habere quod uerum est. Non enim admittunt, quod magis hic esse potuerit error interpretum, quam in ea lingua esse falsum, unde in nostram per Graecam scriptura ipsa translata est, sed inquiunt non esse credibile septuaginta interr pretes, qui uno simul tempore unoque sensu interpretati sunt, errare potuisse aut ubi nihil eorum intererat uoluisse mentiri; Iudaeos uero, dum nobis inuident, quod lex et prophetae ad nos interpretando transierint, mutasse quaedam in codicibus suis, ut nostris minueretur auctoritas. Hanc opinionem uel suspicionem accipiat quisque ut putauerit; certum est tamen non uixisse Mathusalam post diluuium, sed eodem anno fuisse defunctum, si uerum est quod de numero annorum in Hebraeis codicibus inuenitur. De illis autem septuaginta interpretibus quid mihi uideatur, suo loco diligentius inserendum est, cum ad ipsa tempora, quantum necessitas huius operis postulat, commemoranda adiuuante Domino uenerimus. Praesenti enim sufficit quaestioni secundum utrosque codices tam longas habuisse uitas illius aeui homines, ut posset aetate unius, qui de duobus, quos solos terra tunc habuit, parentibus primus est natus, ad constituendam etiam ciuitatem multiplicari genus humanum.

### Of the Opinion of Those Who Do Not Believe that in These Primitive Times Men Lived So Long as is Stated.

[¶16] Chapter 12.—Of the Opinion of Those Who Do Not Believe that in These Primitive Times Men Lived So Long as is Stated.

> Latin: Caput XII. De opinione eorum. qui primorum temporum homines tam longaeuos, quam scribitur, fuisse non credunt.

[¶17] For they are by no means to be listened to who suppose that in those times years were differently reckoned, and were so short that one of our years may be supposed to be equal to ten of theirs. So that they say, when we read or hear that some man lived 900 years, we should understand ninety, ten of those years making but one of ours, and ten of ours equalling 100 of theirs. Consequently, as they suppose, Adam was twenty-three years of age when he begat Seth, and Seth himself was twenty years and six months old when his son Enos was born, though the Scripture calls these months 205 years. For, on the hypothesis of those whose opinion we are explaining, it was customary to divide one such year as we have into ten parts, and to call each part a year. And each of these parts was composed of six days squared; because God finished His works in six days, that He might rest the seventh. Of this I disputed according to my ability in the eleventh book. Now six squared, or six times six, gives thirty-six days; and this multiplied by ten amounts to 360 days, or twelve lunar months. As for the five remaining days which are needed to complete the solar year, and for the fourth part of a day, which requires that into every fourth or leap-year a day be added, the ancients added such days as the Romans used to call “intercalary,” in order to complete the number of the years. So that Enos, Seth’s son, was nineteen years old when his son Cainan was born, though Scripture calls these years 190. And so through all the generations in which the ages of the antediluvians are given, we find in our versions that almost no one begat a son at the age of 100 or under, or even at the age of 120 or thereabouts; but the youngest fathers are recorded to have been 160 years old and upwards. And the reason of this, they say, is that no one can beget children when he is ten years old, the age spoken of by those men as 100, but that sixteen is the age of puberty, and competent now to propagate offspring; and this is the age called by them 160. And that it may not be thought incredible that in these days the year was differently computed from our own, they adduce what is recorded by several writers of history, that the Egyptians had a year of four months, the Acarnanians of six, and the Lavinians of thirteen months. The younger Pliny, after mentioning that some writers reported that one man had lived 152 years, another ten more, others 200, others 300, that some had even reached 500 and 600, and a few 800 years of age, gave it as his opinion that all this must be ascribed to mistaken computation. For some, he says, make summer and winter each a year; others make each season a year, like the Arcadians, whose years, he says, were of three months. He added, too, that the Egyptians, of whose little years of four months we have spoken already, sometimes terminated their year at the wane of each moon; so that with them there are produced lifetimes of 1000 years.

> Latin: Neque enim ullo modo audiendi sunt, qui putant aliter annos illis temporibus conputatos, id est tantae breuitatis, ut unus annus noster decem illos habuisse credatur. Quapropter, inquiunt, cum audierit quisque uel legerit nongentos annos quemque uixisse, debet intellegere nonaginta; decem quippe illi anni unus est noster et decem nostri centum illi fuerunt. Ac per hoc, ut putant, uiginti trium annorum fuit Adam, quando genuit Seth, et ipse Seth uiginti agebat et sex menses, quando ex illo natus est Enos, quos appellat scriptura ducentos et quinque annos; quoniam sicut isti suspicantur, quorum exponimus opinionem, unum annum, qualem nunc habemus, in decem partes illi diuidebant et easdem partes annos uocabant; quarum partium habet una quadratum senarium, eo quod sex diebus Deus perfecerit opera sua, ut in septimo requiesceret (de qua re in libro undecimo, sicut potui, disputaui); sexiens autem seni, qui numerus quadratum senarium facit, triginta sex dies sunt; qui multiplicati deciens ad trecentos sexaginta perueniunt, id est duodecim menses lunares. Propter quinque dies enim reliquos, quibus solaris annus inpletur, et diei quadrantem, propter quem quater ductum eo anno, quo bissextum uocant, unus dies adicitur, addebantur a ueteribus postea dies, ut occurreret numerus annorum, quos dies Romani intercalares uocabant. Proinde etiam Enos, quem genuit Seth, decem et nouem agebat annos, quando ex illo natus est filius eius Cainan, quos annos dicit scriptura centum nonaginta. Et deinceps per omnes generationes, in quibus hominum anni commemorantur ante diluuium, nullus fere in nostris codicibus inuenitur, qui, cum esset centum annorum uel infra uel etiam centum uiginti aut non multo amplius, genuerit filium; sed qui minima aetate genuerunt, centum sexaginta, et quod excurrit, fuisse referuntur; quia nemo, inquiunt, decem annorum homo potest gignere filios, qui numerus centum appellabantur anni ab illis hominibus; sed in annis sedecim est matura pubertas et proli iam idonea procreandae, quos centum et sexaginta annos illa tempora nuncupabant. Ut autem aliter annum tunc fuisse conputatum non sit incredibile, adiciunt quod aput plerosque scriptores historiae reperitur, Aegyptios habuisse annum quattuor mensum, Acarnanas sex mensum, Lauinios tredecim mensum. Plinius Secundus cum commemorasset relatum fuisse in litteras quendam uixisse centum quinquaginta duos ⟨annos⟩, aliam decem amplius, alios ducentorum annorum habuisse uitam, alios trecentorum, quosdam ad quingentos, alios ad sescentos, nonnullos ad octingentos etiam peruenisse, haec omnia inscitia temporum accidisse arbitratus est. ‘Alii quippe, inquit, aestate ⟨unum⟩ determinabant annum et alterum hieme, alii quadripertitis temporibus. sicut Arcades, inquit, quorum anni trimenstres fuerunt.’ Adiecit etiam aliquando Aegyptios, quorum paruos annos quaternorum mensum fuisse supra diximus, lunae fine limitasse annum. ‘Itaque aput eos, inquit, et singula milia annorum uixisse produntur.’ His uelut probabilibus argumentis quidam non destruentes fidem sacrae huius historiae, sed adstruere nitentes, ne sit incredibile quod tam multos annos uixisse referuntur antiqui, persuaserunt sibi, nec se suadere inpudenter existimant, tam exiguum spatium temporis tunc annum uocatum, ut illi decem’ sint unus noster et decem nostri centum illorum.

[¶18] By these plausible arguments certain persons, with no desire to weaken the credit of this sacred history, but rather to facilitate belief in it by removing the difficulty of such incredible longevity, have been themselves persuaded, and think they act wisely in persuading others, that in these days the year was so brief that ten of their years equal but one of ours, while ten of ours equal 100 of theirs. But there is the plainest evidence to show that this is quite false. Before producing this evidence, however, it seems right to mention a conjecture which is yet more plausible. From the Hebrew manuscripts we could at once refute this confident statement; for in them Adam is found to have lived not 230 but 130 years before he begat his third son. If, then, this mean thirteen years by our ordinary computation, then he must have begotten his first son when he was only twelve or thereabouts. Who can at this age beget children according to the ordinary and familiar course of nature? But not to mention him, since it is possible he may have been able to beget his like as soon as he was created,—for it is not credible that he was created so little as our infants are,—not to mention him, his son was not 205 years old when he begot Enos, as our versions have it, but 105, and consequently, according to this idea, was not eleven years old. But what shall I say of his son Cainan, who, though by our version 170 years old, was by the Hebrew text seventy when he beget Mahalaleel? If seventy years in those times meant only seven of our years, what man of seven years old begets children?

> Latin: Hoc autem esse falsissimum documento euidentissimo ostenditur. Quod antequam faciam, non mihi tacendum uidetur, quae credibilior possit esse suspicio. Poteramus certe hanc adseuerationem ex Hebraeis codicibus redarguere adque conuincere, ubi Adam non ducentorum tringinta, sed centum triginta annorum fuisse reperitur, quando tertium genuit filium; qui anni si tredecim nostri sunt, procul dubio, primum quando genuit, undecim uel non multo amplius annorum fuit. Quis potest hac aetate generare usitata ista nobisque notissima lege naturae? Sed hunc omittamus, qui fortasse etiam quando creatus est potuit; non enim eum tam paruum, quam infantes nostri sunt, factum fuisse credibile est. Seth filius eius non ducentorum quinque, sicut nos legimus, sed centum quinque fuit, quando genuit Enos; ac per hoc secundum istos nondum habebat undecim annos aetatis. Quid dicam de Cainan eius filio, qui cum aput nos centum septuaginta reperiatur, aput Hebraeos septuaginta legitur fuisse, quando genuit Maleleel? Quis generat homo septennis, si tunc anni septuaginta nuncupabantur qui septem fuerunt?. Ii

### Whether, in Computing Years, We Ought to Follow the Hebrew or the Septuagint.

[¶20] Chapter 13.—Whether, in Computing Years, We Ought to Follow the Hebrew or the Septuagint.

> Latin: Caput XIII. An in dinumeratione annorum Hebraeorum magis quam septuaginta interpretum sit sequenda auctoritas.

[¶21] But if I say this, I shall presently be answered, It is one of the Jews’ lies. This, however, we have disposed of above, showing that it cannot be that men of so just a reputation as the seventy translators should have falsified their version. However, if I ask them which of the two is more credible, that the Jewish nation, scattered far and wide, could have unanimously conspired to forge this lie, and so, through envying others the authority of their Scriptures, have deprived themselves of their verity; or that seventy men, who were also themselves Jews, shut up in one place (for Ptolemy king of Egypt had got them together for this work), should have envied foreign nations that same truth, and by common consent inserted these errors: who does not see which can be more naturally and readily believed? But far be it from any prudent man to believe either that the Jews, however malicious and wrong-headed, could have tampered with so many and so widely-dispersed manuscripts; or that those renowned seventy individuals had any common purpose to grudge the truth to the nations. One must therefore more plausibly maintain, that when first their labors began to be transcribed from the copy in Ptolemy’s library, some such misstatement might find its way into the first copy made, and from it might be disseminated far and wide; and that this might arise from no fraud, but from a mere copyist’s error. This is a sufficiently plausible account of the difficulty regarding Methuselah’s life, and of that other case in which there is a difference in the total of twenty-four years. But in those cases in which there is a methodical resemblance in the falsification, so that uniformly the one version allots to the period before a son and successor is born 100 years more than the other, and to the period subsequent 100 years less, and vice versâ, so that the totals may agree,—and this holds true of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and seventh generations,—in these cases error seems to have, if we may say so, a certain kind of constancy, and savors not of accident, but of design.

> Latin: Sed cum hoc dixero, continuo referetur illud Iudaeorum esse mendacium, de quo superius satis actum est; nam septuaginta interpretes laudabiliter celebratos uiros non potuisse mentiri. Ubi si quaeram, quid sit credibilius, Iudaeorum gentem tam longe lateque diffusam in hoc conscribendum mendacium uno consilio conspirare potuisse et, dum aliis inuident auctoritatem, sibi abstulisse ueritatem, an septuaginta homines, qui etiam ipsi Iudaei erant, uno in loco positos, quoniam rex Aegyptius Ptolomaeus eos ad hoc opus asciuerat, ipsam ueritatem gentibus alienigenis inuidisse et communicato istuc fecisse consilio: quis non uideat quid procliuius faciliusque credatur? Sed absit ut prudens quispiam uel Iudaeos cuiuslibet peruersitatis adque malitiae tantum potuisse credat in codicibus tam multis et tam longe lateque dispersis, uel septuaginta illos memorabiles uiros hoc de inuidenda gentibus so ueritate unum communicasse consilium. Credibilius ergo quis dixerit, cum primum de bibliotheca Ptolomaei describi ista coeperunt, tunc aliquid tale fieri potuisse in codice uno, sed primitus inde descripto, unde iam latius emanaret; ubi potuit quidem accidere etiam scriptoris error. Sed hoc in illa quae1! stione de uita Mathusalae non absurdum est suspicari, et in illo alio, ubi superantibus uiginti quattuor annis summa non conuenit. In his autem, in quibus continuatur ipsius mendositatis similitudo, ita ut ante genitum filium, qui ordini inseritur, alibi supersint centum anni, alibi desint; post genitum autem ubi deerant supersint, ubi supererant desint, ut summa conueniat; et hoc in prima, secunda, tertia, quarta, quinta, septima generatione inuenitur: uidetur habere quandam, si s dici potest, error ipse constantiam nec casum redolet, sed industriam. .

[¶22] Accordingly, that diversity of numbers which distinguishes the Hebrew from the Greek and Latin copies of Scripture, and which consists of a uniform addition and deduction of 100 years in each lifetime for several consecutive generations, is to be attributed neither to the malice of the Jews nor to men so diligent and prudent as the seventy translators, but to the error of the copyist who was first allowed to transcribe the manuscript from the library of the above-mentioned king. For even now, in cases where numbers contribute nothing to the easier comprehension or more satisfactory knowledge of anything, they are both carelessly transcribed, and still more carelessly emended. For who will trouble himself to learn how many thousand men the several tribes of Israel contained? He sees no resulting benefit of such knowledge. Or how many men are there who are aware of the vast advantage that lies hid in this knowledge? But in this case, in which during so many consecutive generations 100 years are added in one manuscript where they are not reckoned in the other, and then, after the birth of the son and successor, the years which were wanting are added, it is obvious that the copyist who contrived this arrangement designed to insinuate that the antediluvians lived an excessive number of years only because each year was excessively brief, and that he tried to draw the attention to this fact by his statement of their age of puberty at which they became able to beget children. For, lest the incredulous might stumble at the difficulty of so long a lifetime, he insinuated that 100 of their years equalled but ten of ours; and this insinuation he conveyed by adding 100 years whenever he found the age below 160 years or thereabouts, deducting these years again from the period after the son’s birth, that the total might harmonize. By this means he intended to ascribe the generation of offspring to a fit age, without diminishing the total sum of years ascribed to the lifetime of the individuals. And the very fact that in the sixth generation he departed from this uniform practice, inclines us all the rather to believe that when the circumstance we have referred to required his alterations, he made them; seeing that when this circumstance did not exist, he made no alteration. For in the same generation he found in the Hebrew ms., that Jared lived before he begat Enoch 162 years, which, according to the short year computation, is sixteen years and somewhat less than two months, an age capable of procreation; and therefore it was not necessary to add 100 short years, and so make the age twenty-six years of the usual length; and of course it was not necessary to deduct, after the son’s birth, years which he had not added before it. And thus it comes to pass that in this instance there is no variation between the two manuscripts.

> Latin: Itaque illa diuersitas numerorum aliter se habentium in codicibus Graecis et Latinis, aliter in Hebraeis, ubi non est ista de centum annis prius adbitis et postea detractis per tot generationes continuata parilitas, nec malitiae Iudaeorum nec diligentiae uel prudentiae septuaginta interpretum, sed scriptoris tribuatur eirori, qui de bibliotheca supradicti regis codicem describendum primus accepit. Nam etiam nunc, ubi numeri non faciunt intentum ad aliquid, quod facile possit intellegi uel quod appareat utiliter disci, et neglegenter describuntur et neglegentius emendantur. Quis enim sibi existimet esse discendum, quot milia hominum tribus Israel singillatim habere potuerunt? quoniam prodesse aliquid non putatur; et quotus quisque hominum est, cui profunditas utilitatis huius appareat? Hic uero, ubi per tot contextas generationes centum anni alibi adsunt, alibi desunt, et post natum, qui commemorandus fuerat, filium desunt ubi adfuerunt, adsunt ubi defuerunt, ut summa concordet: nimirum cum uellet persuadere, qui hoc fecit, ideo numerosissimos annos uixisse antiquos, quod eos breuissimos nuncupabant, et hoc de maturitate pubertatis, qua idonea filii gignerentur, conaretur ostendere, adque ideo in illis centum annis decem nostros insinuandos putaret incredulis, ne homines tamdiu uixisse recipere in fidem nollent, addidit centum, ubi gignendis filiis habilem ao non inuenit aetatem, eosdemque post genitos filios, ut congrueret summa, detraxit. Sic quippe uoluit credibiles facere idonearum generandae proli conuenientias aetatum, ut tamen numero non fraudaret uniuersas aetates uiuentium singulorum. & Quod autem id in sexta generatione non fecit, hoc ipsum est quod magis mouet ideo illum fecisse, cum res, quam dicimus, postulauit, quia non fecit, ubi non postulauit. Inuenit namque in eadem generatione aput Hebraeos uixisse Iared, antequam genuisset Enoch, centum sexaginta duos (aonos), qui secunłU dum illam rationem breuium annorum fiunt anni sedecim et aliquid minus quam menses duo; quae iam aetas apta est ad gignendum, et ideo addere centum annos breues, ut nostri uiginti sex fierent, necesse non fuit, nec post natum Enoch eos detrahere, quos non addiderat ante natum. Sic factum est ut hic nulla esset inter codices utrosque uarietas.

[¶23] This is corroborated still further by the fact that in the eighth generation, while the Hebrew books assign 182 years to Methuselah before Lamech’s birth, ours assign to him twenty less, though usually 100 years are added to this period; then, after Lamech’s birth, the twenty years are restored, so as to equalize the total in the two books. For if his design was that these 170 years be understood as seventeen, so as to suit the age of puberty, as there was no need for him adding anything, so there was none for his subtracting anything; for in this case he found an age fit for the generation of children, for the sake of which he was in the habit of adding those 100 years in cases where he did not find the age already sufficient. This difference of twenty years we might, indeed, have supposed had happened accidentally, had he not taken care to restore them afterwards as he had deducted them from the period before, so that there might be no deficiency in the total. Or are we perhaps to suppose that there was the still more astute design of concealing the deliberate and uniform addition of 100 years to the first period and their deduction from the subsequent period—did he design to conceal this by doing something similar, that is to say, adding and deducting, not indeed a century, but some years, even in a case in which there was no need for his doing so? But whatever may be thought of this, whether it be believed that he did so or not, whether, in fine, it be so or not, I would have no manner of doubt that when any diversity is found in the books, since both cannot be true to fact, we do well to believe in preference that language out of which the translation was made into another by translators. For there are three Greek mss., one Latin, and one Syriac, which agree with one another, and in all of these Methuselah is said to have died six years before the deluge.

> Latin: Sed rursus mouet, quur in octaua generatione, antequam de Mathusalam nasceretur Lamech, cum aput Hebraeos legantur centum octoginta duo anni, uiginti minus inueniuntur in codicibus nostris, ubi potius addi centum solent, et post genitum Lamech conplendam restituuntur ad summam, quae in codicibus utrisque non discrepat. Si enim centum septuaginta annos propter pubertatis maturitatem decem et septem uolebat intellegi, sicut nihil addere, ita nihil detrahere iam debebat, quia inuenerat aetatem idoneam generationi filiorum, propter quam in aliis centum illos annos, ubi eam non inueniebat, addebat. Hoc autem de uiginti annis merito putaremus casu mendositatis accidere potuisse, nisi eos, sicut prius detraxerat, restitaere postea curaret, ut summae conueniret integritas. An forte astutius factum existimandum est, ut illa, qua centum anni prius solent adici et postea detrahi, occultaretur industria, cum et illic, ubi necesse non fuerat, non quidem de centum annis, uerum tamen de quantulocumque numero prius detracto, post reddito, tale aliquid fieret? Sed quomodolibet istuc accipiatur, siue credatur ita esse factum siue non credatur, siue postremo ita siue non ita sit: recte fieri nullo modo dubitauerim, ut, cum diuersum aliquid in utrisque codicibus inuenitur, quando quidem ad fidem rerum gestarum utrumque esse non potest uerum, ei linguae potius credatur, unde est in aliam per interpretes facta translatio. Nam in quibusdam etiam codicibus Graecis tribus et uno Latino et uno etiam Syro inter se consentientibus inuentus est Mathusalam sex annis ante diluuium fuisse defunctus. u

## 72. That the Years in Those Ancient Times Were of the Same Length as Our Own.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/72/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/72/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 14.—That the Years in Those Ancient Times Were of the Same Length as Our Own.

> Latin: Caput XIV. De parilitate annorum, qui eisdem quibus nunc spatiis et in prioribus saeculis cucurrerunt.

[¶1] Let us now see how it can be plainly made out that in the enormously protracted lives of those men the years were not so short that ten of their years were equal to only one of ours, but were of as great length as our own, which are measured by the course of the sun. It is proved by this, that Scripture states that the flood occurred in the six hundredth year of Noah’s life. But why in the same place is it also written, “The waters of the flood were upon the earth in the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the twenty-seventh day of the month,” if that very brief year (of which it took ten to make one of ours) consisted of thirty-six days? For so scant a year, if the ancient usage dignified it with the name of year, either has not months, or this month must be three days, so that it may have twelve of them. How then was it here said, “In the six hundredth year, the second month, the twenty-seventh day of the month,” unless the months then were of the same length as the months now? For how else could it be said that the flood began on the twenty-seventh day of the second month? Then afterwards, at the end of the flood, it is thus written: “And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the eleventh month: on the first day of the month were the tops of the mountains seen.” But if the months were such as we have, then so were the years. And certainly months of three days each could not have a twenty-seventh day. Or if every measure of time was diminished in proportion, and a thirtieth part of three days was then called a day, then that great deluge, which is recorded to have lasted forty days and forty nights, was really over in less than four of our days. Who can away with such foolishness and absurdity? Far be this error from us,—an error which seeks to build up our faith in the divine Scriptures on false conjecture only to demolish our faith at another point. It is plain that the day then was what it now is, a space of four-and-twenty hours, determined by the lapse of day and night; the month then equal to the month now, which is defined by the rise and completion of one moon; the year then equal to the year now, which is completed by twelve lunar months, with the addition of five days and a fourth to adjust it with the course of the sun. It was a year of this length which was reckoned the six hundredth of Noah’s life, and in the second month, the twenty-seventh day of the month, the flood began,—a flood which, as is recorded, was caused by heavy rains continuing for forty days, which days had not only two hours and a little more, but four-and-twenty hours, completing a night and a day. And consequently those antediluvians lived more than 900 years, which were years as long as those which afterwards Abraham lived 175 of, and after him his son Isaac 180, and his son Jacob nearly 150, and some time after, Moses 120, and men now seventy or eighty, or not much longer, of which years it is said, “their strength is labor and sorrow.”

> Latin: Nunc iam uideamus quonam modo euidenter possit ostendi. non tam breues, ut illi decem unus esset noster, sed tantae prolixitatis annos, quantae nunc habemus (quos utique circuitus conficit solis), in illorum hominum uita prolixissima conputatos. Sescentensimo nempe anno uitae Noe scriptum est factum esse diluuium. Quur ergo ibi legitur : Et aqua diluuii facta est super terram sescentensimo anno in uita Noe, secundi mensis, septima et uicensima mensis, si annus ille minimus, quales decem faciunt unum ‘nostrum, triginta sex habebat dies? Tantillus quippe annus, si antiquo more hoc nomen accepit, aut non habet menses, aut mensis eius est triduum, ut habeat duodecim menses. Quo modo igitur hic dictum est: Sescentensimo anno, secundi mensis, septima et uicensima mensis, nisi quia tales, quales nunc sunt, etiam tunc erant menses? Nam quo pacto aliter uicensimo et septimo die secundi mensis diceretur coeptum esse diluuium? Deinde postea in fine diluuii ita legitur: Et sedit arca in mense septimo, septima et uicensima mensis, super montes Ararat. Aqua autem minuebatur usque ad undecimum mensem; in undecimo autem mense prima die mensis paruerunt capita montium. Si igitur tales menses erant, tales profecto et anni erant, quales nunc habemus. Menses quippe illi triduani uiginti et septem dies habere non poterant. Aut si pars tricensima tridui tunc appellabatur dies, ut omnia proportione minuantur: ergo nec toto quadriduo nostro factum est illud tam grande diluuium, quod memoratur factum quadraginta diebus et noctibus. Quis hanc absurditatem et uanitatem ferat? Proinde remoueatur hic error, qui coniectura falsa ita uult adstruere scripturarum nostrarum fidem, ut alibi destruat. Prorsus tantus etiam tunc dies fuit. quantus et nunc est, quem uiginti quattuor horae diurno curriculo nocturnoque determinant; tantus mensis, quantus et nunc est, quem luna coepta et finita concludit; tantus annus, quantus et nunc est, quem duodecim menses lunares additis propter cursum solarem quinque diebus et quadrante consummant, quanti anni sescentensimi uitae Noe secundus erat mensis eiusque mensis uicensimus et septimus dies, quando coepit esse diluuium, in quo dies quadraginta continuatae ingentes pluuiae memorantur, qui dies non binas ac paulo amplius horas habebant, sed uicenas et quaternas die noctuque transactas. Ac per hoc tam magnos annos uixerunt illi antiqui usque amplius quam nongentos, quantos postea uixit Abraham centum septuaginta et post eum filius eius Isaac centum octoginta et filius eius Iacob prope centum quinquaginta, et quantos interposita aliquanta aetate Moyses centum uiginti, et quantos etiam nunc uiuunt homines septuaginta uel octoginta uel non multo amplius, de quibus dictum est: Et amplius eis labor et dolor.

[¶2] But that discrepancy of numbers which is found to exist between our own and the Hebrew text does not touch the longevity of the ancients; and if there is any diversity so great that both versions cannot be true, we must take our ideas of the real facts from that text out of which our own version has been translated. However, though any one who pleases has it in his power to correct this version, yet it is not unimportant to observe that no one has presumed to emend the Septuagint from the Hebrew text in the many places where they seem to disagree. For this difference has not been reckoned a falsification; and for my own part I am persuaded it ought not to be reckoned so. But where the difference is not a mere copyist’s error, and where the sense is agreeable to truth and illustrative of truth, we must believe that the divine Spirit prompted them to give a varying version, not in their function of translators, but in the liberty of prophesying. And therefore we find that the apostles justly sanction the Septuagint, by quoting it as well as the Hebrew when they adduce proofs from the Scriptures. But as I have promised to treat this subject more carefully, if God help me, in a more fitting place, I will now go on with the matter in hand. For there can be no doubt that, the lives of men being so long, the first-born of the first man could have built a city,—a city, however, which was earthly, and not that which is called the city of God, to describe which we have taken in hand this great work.

> Latin: Illa uero numerorum uarietas, quae inter codices Hebraeos inuenitur et nostros, neque de hac antiquorum longaeuitate dissentit, et si quid habet ita diuersum, ut uerum esse utrumque non possit, rerum gestarum fides ab ea lingua repetenda est, ex qua interpretatum est quod habemus. Quae facultas cum uolentibus ubique gentium praesto sit, non tamen uacat, quod septuaginta interpretes in plurimis, quae diuersa dicere uidentur, ex Hebraeis codicibus emendare ausus est nemo. Non enim est illa diuersitas putata mendositas; nec ego ullo modo putandam existimo: sed ubi non est scriptoris error, aliquid eos diuino spiritu, ubi sensus esset consentaneus ueritati et praedicans ueritatem, non interpretantium munere, sed prophetantium libertate aliter dicere uoluisse credendum est. Unde merito non solum Hebraeis, uerum etiam ipsis, cum adhibet testimonia de scripturis, uti apostolica inuenitur auctoritas. Sed hinc me opportuniore loco, si Deus adiuuerit, - promisi diligentius locuturum; nunc quod instat expediam. Non enim ambigendum est ab homine, qui ex primo homine primus est natus, quando tamdiu uiuebant, potuisse constitui ciuitatem, sane terrenam, non illam, quae dicitur ciuitas Dei, de qua ut scriberemus, laborem tanti huius operis in manus sumsimus.

### Whether It is Credible that the Men of the Primitive Age Abstained from Sexual Intercourse Until that Date at Which It is Recorded that They Begat Children.

[¶4] Chapter 15.—Whether It is Credible that the Men of the Primitive Age Abstained from Sexual Intercourse Until that Date at Which It is Recorded that They Begat Children.

> Latin: Caput XV. An credibile sit primi saeculi uiros usque ad eam aetatem, qua filios generasse referuntur, a concubitu continuisse.

[¶5] Some one, then, will say, Is it to be believed that a man who intended to beget children, and had no intention of continence, abstained from sexual intercourse a hundred years and more, or even, according to the Hebrew version, only a little less, say eighty, seventy, or sixty years; or, if he did not abstain, was unable to beget offspring? This question admits of two solutions. For either puberty was so much later as the whole life was longer, or, which seems to me more likely, it is not the first-born sons that are here mentioned, but those whose names were required to fill up the series until Noah was reached, from whom again we see that the succession is continued to Abraham, and after him down to that point of time until which it was needful to mark by pedigree the course of the most glorious city, which sojourns as a stranger in this world, and seeks the heavenly country. That which is undeniable is that Cain was the first who was born of man and woman. For had he not been the first who was added by birth to the two unborn persons, Adam could not have said what he is recorded to have said, “I have gotten a man by the Lord.” He was followed by Abel, whom the elder brother slew, and who was the first to show by a kind of foreshadowing of the sojourning city of God, what iniquitous persecutions that city would suffer at the hands of wicked and, as it were, earth-born men, who love their earthly origin, and delight in the earthly happiness of the earthly city. But how old Adam was when he begat these sons does not appear. After this the generations diverge, the one branch deriving from Cain, the other from him whom Adam begot in the room of Abel slain by his brother, and whom he called Seth, saying, as it is written, “For God hath raised me up another seed for Abel whom Cain slew.” These two series of generations accordingly, the one of Cain, the other of Seth, represent the two cities in their distinctive ranks, the one the heavenly city, which sojourns on earth, the other the earthly, which gapes after earthly joys, and grovels in them as if they were the only joys. But though eight generations, including Adam, are registered before the flood, no man of Cain’s line has his age recorded at which the son who succeeded him was begotten. For the Spirit of God refused to mark the times before the flood in the generations of the earthly city, but preferred to do so in the heavenly line, as if it were more worthy of being remembered. Further, when Seth was born, the age of his father is mentioned; but already he had begotten other sons, and who will presume to say that Cain and Abel were the only ones previously begotten? For it does not follow that they alone had been begotten of Adam, because they alone were named in order to continue the series of generations which it was desirable to mention. For though the names of all the rest are buried in silence, yet it is said that Adam begot sons and daughters; and who that cares to be free from the charge of temerity will dare to say how many his offspring numbered? It was possible enough that Adam was divinely prompted to say, after Seth was born, “For God hath raised up to me another seed for Abel,” because that son was to be capable of representing Abel’s holiness, not because he was born first after him in point of time. Then because it is written, “And Seth lived 205 years,” or, according to the Hebrew reading, “105 years, and begat Enos,” who but a rash man could affirm that this was his first-born? Will any man do so to excite our wonder, and cause us to inquire how for so many years he remained free from sexual intercourse, though without any purpose of continuing so, or how, if he did not abstain, he yet had no children? Will any man do so when it is written of him, “And he begat sons and daughters, and all the days of Seth were 912 years, and he died?” And similarly regarding those whose years are afterwards mentioned, it is not disguised that they begat sons and daughters.

> Latin: Dicet ergo aliquis: Itane credendum est hominem filios generaturum nec habentem propositum continentiae centum et amplius, uel secundum Hebraeos non multo minus, id est octoginta, septuaginta, sexaginta annos a concumbendi opere uacuisse, aut si non uacaret, nihil prolis gignere potuisse?’ Haec quaestio duobus modis soluitur. Aut enim tanto serior fuit proportione pubertas, quanto uitae totius maior annositas; aut, quod magis uideo esse credibile, non hic primogeniti filii commemorati sunt, sed quos successionis ordo poscebat, ut perueniretur ad Noe, a quo rursus ad Abraham uidemus esse peruentum, ac deinde usque ad certum articulum temporis, quantum oportebat signari etiam generationibus commemoratis cursum gloriosissimae ciuitatis in hoc mundo peregrinantis et supernam patriam requirentis. Quod enim negari non potest, prior omnibus Cain ex coniunctione maris et feminae natus est. Neque enim illo nato dixisset Adam, quod dixisse legitur: Adquisiui hominem per Deum, nisi illis duobus ipse fuisset homo nascendo additus primus. Hunc secutus Abel, quem maior frater occidit, praefigurationem quandam peregrinantis ciuitatis Dei, quod ab inpiis et quodam modo terrigenis, id est terrenam originem diligentibus et. terrenae ciuitatis terrena felicitate gaudentibus, persecutiones iniquas passura fuerat, primus ostendit. Sed quot annorum erat Adam, cum eos genuit, non apparet. Exinde digeruntur generationes aliae de Cain, aliae de illo, quem genuit Adam in eius successionem, quem frater occidit, et appellauit nomen illius Seth dicens, ut scriptum est: Suscitauit enim mihi Deus semen aliud pro Abel, quem occidit Cain. Cum itaque istae duae series generationum, una de Seth, altera de Cain, has duas, de quibus agimus, distinctis ordinibus insinuent ciuitates, unam caelestem in terris peregrinantem, alteram terrenam terrenis tamquam sola sint gaudiis inhiantem uel inhaerentem: nullus de progenie Cain, cum dinumerata sit connumerato Adam usque ad octauam generationem, quot annorum fuisset expressus est, quando genuit eum, qui commemoratur post eum. Noluit enim Spiritus Dei in terrenae ciuitatis generationibus tempora notare ante diluuium, sed in caelestis maluit, tamquam essent memoria digniores. Porro autem Seth quando natus est, non quidem taciti sunt anni patris eius, sed iam genuerat alios; et utrum solos Cain et Abel, adfirmare quis audeat? Non enim quia soli nominati sunt propter ordines generationum quas commemorare oportebat, ideo consequens uideri debet solos fuisse tunc generatos ex Adam. Cum enim silentio coopertis omnium nominibus ceterorum legatur eum genuisse filios et filias: quota fuerit ista proles eius, quis praesumat adserere, si culpam temeritatis euitat? Potuit quippe Adam diuinitus admonitus dicere, postea quam Seth natus est: Suscitauit enim mihi Deus semen aliud pro Abel, quoniam talis erat futurus, qui inpleret illius sanctitatem, non quod ipse prior post eum temporis ordine nasceretur. Deinde quod scriptum est: Vixit autem Seth quinque et ducentos annos (uel secundum Hebraeos quinque et centum annos), etgenuitEnos: quis possit nisi inconsideratus adseuerare hunc eius primogenitum fuisse? ut admirantes merito requiramus, quo modo per tot annos inmunis fuerit a conubio sine ullo proposito continentiae uel non genuerit coniugatus; quando quidem etiam de ipso legitur: Et genuit filios et filias, et fuerunt omnes dies Seth duodecim et nongenti anni, et mortuus est. Adque ita deinceps, quorum anni commemorantur, nec filios filiasque genuisse reticentur.

[¶6] Consequently it does not at all appear whether he who is named as the son was himself the first begotten. Nay, since it is incredible that those fathers were either so long in attaining puberty, or could not get wives, or could not impregnate them, it is also incredible that those sons were their first-born. But as the writer of the sacred history designed to descend by well-marked intervals through a series of generations to the birth and life of Noah, in whose time the flood occurred, he mentioned not those sons who were first begotten, but those by whom the succession was handed down.

> Latin: Ac per hoc non apparet omnino, utrum, qui nominatur genitus, ipse fuerit primogenitus; immo uero, quoniam credibile non est patres illos aetate tam longa aut inpuberes fuisse aut coniugibus caruisse uel fetibus, nec illos eorum filios primos eis natos fuisse credibile est. Sed cum sacrae scriptor historiae ad ortum uitamque Noe, cuius tempore diluuium factum est, per successiones generationum notatis temporibus intenderet peruenire, eas utique commemorauit, non quae primae suis parentibus fuerint, sed quae in propagationis ordinem uenerint.

[¶7] Let me make this clearer by here inserting an example, in regard to which no one can have any doubt that what I am asserting is true. The evangelist Matthew, where he designs to commit to our memories the generation of the Lord’s flesh by a series of parents, beginning from Abraham and intending to reach David, says, “Abraham begat Isaac;” why did he not say Ishmael, whom he first begat? Then “Isaac begat Jacob;” why did he not say Esau, who was the first-born? Simply because these sons would not have helped him to reach David. Then follows, “And Jacob begat Judah and his brethren:” was Judah the first begotten? “Judah,” he says, “begat Pharez and Zara;” yet neither were these twins the first-born of Judah, but before them he had begotten three other sons. And so in the order of the generations he retained those by whom he might reach David, so as to proceed onwards to the end he had in view. And from this we may understand that the antediluvians who are mentioned were not the first-born, but those through whom the order of the succeeding generations might be carried on to the patriarch Noah. We need not, therefore, weary ourselves with discussing the needless and obscure question as to their lateness of reaching puberty.

> Latin: Exempli gratia, quo id fiat apertius, aliquid interponam, unde nullus ambigat fieri potuisse quod dico. Euangelista Matthaeus generationem dominicae carnis per seriem parentum uolens commendare memoriae, ordiens a patre Abraham adque ad Dauid primitus ut perueniret intendens: Abraham, inquit, genuit Isaac; quur non dixit Ismael, quem primitus genuit? Isaac autem, inquit, genuit lacob; quur non dixit Esau, qui eius primogenitus fuit? Quia scilicet per illos ad Dauid peruenire non posset. Deinde sequitur: Iacob autem genuit ludam et fratres eius; numquid ludas primogenitus fuit? ludas, inquit, genuit Phar-es et Zarat; nec istorum geminorum aliquis fuit primogenitus Iudae, sed ante illos iam tres genuerat. Eos itaque tenuit in ordine generationum, per quos ad Dauid adque inde quo intenderat perueniret. Ex quo intellegi potest, ueteres quoque homines ante diluuium non primogenitos, sed eos fuisse commemoratos, per quos ordo succedentium generationum ad Noe patriarcham duceretur, ne serae pubertatis illorum obscura et non necessaria quaestio nos fatiget.

### Of Marriage Between Blood-Relations, in Regard to Which the Present Law Could Not Bind the Men of the Earliest Ages.

[¶9] Chapter 16.—Of Marriage Between Blood-Relations, in Regard to Which the Present Law Could Not Bind the Men of the Earliest Ages.

> Latin: Caput XVI. De iure coniugiorum, quod dissimile a subsequentibus matrimoniis habuerint prima conubia.

[¶10] As, therefore, the human race, subsequently to the first marriage of the man who was made of dust, and his wife who was made out of his side, required the union of males and females in order that it might multiply, and as there were no human beings except those who had been born of these two, men took their sisters for wives,—an act which was as certainly dictated by necessity in these ancient days as afterwards it was condemned by the prohibitions of religion. For it is very reasonable and just that men, among whom concord is honorable and useful, should be bound together by various relationships; and one man should not himself sustain many relationships, but that the various relationships should be distributed among several, and should thus serve to bind together the greatest number in the same social interests. “Father” and “father-in-law” are the names of two relationships. When, therefore, a man has one person for his father, another for his father-in-law, friendship extends itself to a larger number. But Adam in his single person was obliged to hold both relations to his sons and daughters, for brothers and sisters were united in marriage. So too Eve his wife was both mother and mother-in-law to her children of both sexes; while, had there been two women, one the mother, the other the mother-in-law, the family affection would have had a wider field. Then the sister herself by becoming a wife sustained in her single person two relationships, which, had they been distributed among individuals, one being sister, and another being wife, the family tie would have embraced a greater number of persons. But there was then no material for effecting this, since there were no human beings but the brothers and sisters born of those two first parents. Therefore, when an abundant population made it possible, men ought to choose for wives women who were not already their sisters; for not only would there then be no necessity for marrying sisters, but, were it done, it would be most abominable. For if the grandchildren of the first pair, being now able to choose their cousins for wives, married their sisters, then it would no longer be only two but three relationships that were held by one man, while each of these relationships ought to have been held by a separate individual, so as to bind together by family affection a larger number. For one man would in that case be both father, and father-in-law, and uncle to his own children (brother and sister now man and wife); and his wife would be mother, aunt, and mother-in-law to them; and they themselves would be not only brother and sister, and man and wife, but cousins also, being the children of brother and sister. Now, all these relationships, which combined three men into one, would have embraced nine persons had each relationship been held by one individual, so that a man had one person for his sister, another his wife, another his cousin, another his father, another his uncle, another his father-in-law, another his mother, another his aunt, another his mother-in-law; and thus the social bond would not have been tightened to bind a few, but loosened to embrace a larger number of relations.

> Latin: Cum igitur genus humanum post primam copulam uiri facti ex puluere et coniugis eius ex uiri latere manum feminarumque coniunctione opus haberet, ut gignendo multiplicaretur, nec essent ulli homines, nisi qui ex illis duobus nati fuissent: uiri sorores suas coniuges acceperunt; quod profecto quanto est antiquius conpellente necessitate, tanto postea factum est damnabilius religione prohibente. Habita est enim ratio rectissima caritatis, ut homines, quibus esset utilis adque honesta concordia, diuersarum necessitudinum uinculis necterentur, nec unus in uno multas haberet, sed singulae spargerentur in singulos ac sic ad socialem uitam diligentius conligandam plurimae plurimos obtinerent. Pater quippe et socer duarum sunt necessitudinum nomina. Ut ergo alium quisque habeat patrem, alium socerum, numerosius se caritas porrigit. Utrumque autem unus Adam esse cogebatur et filiis et filiabus suis, quando fratres sororesque conubio iungebantur. Sic et Eua uxor eius utrique sexui filiorum fuit et socrus et mater; quae si duae feminae fuissent, mater altera et socrus altera, copiosius se socialis dilectio conligaret. Ipsa denique iam soror, quod etiam uxor fiebat, duas tenebat una necessitudines; quibus per singulas distributis, ut altera esset soror, altera uxor, hominum numero socialis propinquitas augeretur. Sed hoc unde fieret tunc non erat, quando nisi fratres et sorores ex illis duobus primis nulli homines erant. Fieri ergo debuit quando potuit, ut existente copia inde ducerentur uxores, quae non erant iam sorores, et non solum illud ut fieret nulla necessitas esset, uerum etiam si fieret nefas esset. Nam si et nepotes primorum hominum, qui iam consobrinas poterant accipere coniuges, sororibus matrimonio iungerentur, non iam duae, sed tres in homine uno necessitudines fierent, quae propter caritatem numerosiore propinquitate nectendam disseminari per singulos singulae debuerunt. Esset enim unus homo filiis suis, fratri scilicet sororique coniugibus, et pater et socer et auunculus; ita et uxor eius eisdem communibus filiis et mater et amita et socrus; idemque inter se filii eorum non solum essent fratres adque coniuges, uerum etiam consobrini, quia et fratrum filii. Omnes autem istae necessitudines, quae uni homini tres homines conectebant, nouem conecterent, si essent in singulis singulae, ut unus homo haberet alteram sororem, alteram uxorem, alteram consobrinam, alterum patrem, alterum auunculum, alterum socerum, alteram matrem, alteram amitam, alteram socrum; adque ita se non in paucitate coartatum, sed latius adque numerosius propinquitatibus crebris uinculum sociale diffunderet.

[¶11] And we see that, since the human race has increased and multiplied, this is so strictly observed even among the profane worshippers of many and false gods, that though their laws perversely allow a brother to marry his sister, yet custom, with a finer morality, prefers to forego this license; and though it was quite allowable in the earliest ages of the human race to marry one’s sister, it is now abhorred as a thing which no circumstances could justify. For custom has very great power either to attract or to shock human feeling. And in this matter, while it restrains concupiscence within due bounds, the man who neglects and disobeys it is justly branded as abominable. For if it is iniquitous to plough beyond our own boundaries through the greed of gain, is it not much more iniquitous to transgress the recognized boundaries of morals through sexual lust? And with regard to marriage in the next degree of consanguinity, marriage between cousins, we have observed that in our own time the customary morality has prevented this from being frequent, though the law allows it. It was not prohibited by divine law, nor as yet had human law prohibited it; nevertheless, though legitimate, people shrank from it, because it lay so close to what was illegitimate, and in marrying a cousin seemed almost to marry a sister,—for cousins are so closely related that they are called brothers and sisters, and are almost really so. But the ancient fathers, fearing that near relationship might gradually in the course of generations diverge, and become distant relationship, or cease to be relationship at all, religiously endeavored to limit it by the bond of marriage before it became distant, and thus, as it were, to call it back when it was escaping them. And on this account, even when the world was full of people, though they did not choose wives from among their sisters or half-sisters, yet they preferred them to be of the same stock as themselves. But who doubts that the modern prohibition of the marriage even of cousins is the more seemly regulation—not merely on account of the reason we have been urging, the multiplying of relationships, so that one person might not absorb two, which might be distributed to two persons, and so increase the number of people bound together as a family, but also because there is in human nature I know not what natural and praiseworthy shamefacedness which restrains us from desiring that connection which, though for propagation, is yet lustful and which even conjugal modesty blushes over, with any one to whom consanguinity bids us render respect?

> Latin: Quod humano genere crescente et multiplicato etiam inter inpios deorum multorum falsorumque cultores sic obseruari cernimus, ut, etiamsi peruersis legibus permittantur fraterna coniugia, melior tamen consuetudo ipsam malit exhorrere licentiam, et cum sorores accipere in matrimonium primis humani generis temporibus omnino licuerit, sic auersetur, quasi numquam licere potuerit. Ad humanum enim sensum uel adliciendum uel offendendum mos ualet plurimum; qui cum in hac causa inmoderationem concupiscentiae coherceat, eum dissignari adque corrumpi merito esse nefarium iudicatur. Si enim est iniquum auiditate possidendi transgredi limitem agrorum, quanto est iniquius libidine concumbendi subuertere limitem morum! Experti autem sumus in conubiis consobrinarum etiam nostris temporibus propter gradum propinquitatis fraterno gradui proximum quam raro per mores fiebat, quod fieri per leges licebat, quia id nec diuina prohibuit et nondum prohibuerat lex humana. Verum tamen factum etiam licitum propter uicinitatem horrebatur inliciti et, quod fiebat cum consobrina, paene cum sorore fieri uidebatur; quia et ipsi inter se propter tam propinquam consanguinitatem fratres uocantur et paene germani sunt. Fuit autem antiquis patribus religiosae curae, ne ipsa propinquitas se paulatim propaginum ordinibus dirimens longius abiret et propinquitas esse desisteret, eam nondum longe positam rursus matrimonii uinculo conligare et quodam modo reuocare fugientem. Unde iam pleno hominibus orbe terrarum, non quidem sorores ex patre uel matre uel ex ambobus suis parentibus natas, sed tamen amabant de suo genere ducere uxores. Verum quis dubitet honestius hoc tempore etiam consobrinorum prohibita esse coniugia? non solum secundum ea, quae disputauimus, propter multiplicandas adfinitates, ne habeat duas necessitudines una persona, cum duae possint eas habere et numerus propinquitatis augeri; sed etiam quia nescio quo modo inest humanae uerecundiae quiddam naturale adque laudabile, ut, cui debet causa propinquitatis reuerendum honorem, ab ea contineat, quamuis generatricem, tamen libidinem, de qua erubescere uidemus et ipsam pudicitiam coniugalem.

[¶12] The sexual intercourse of man and woman, then, is in the case of mortals a kind of seed-bed of the city; but while the earthly city needs for its population only generation, the heavenly needs also regeneration to rid it of the taint of generation. Whether before the deluge there was any bodily or visible sign of regeneration, such as was afterwards enjoined upon Abraham when he was circumcised, or what kind of sign it was, the sacred history does not inform us. But it does inform us that even these earliest of mankind sacrificed to God, as appeared also in the case of the two first brothers; Noah, too, is said to have offered sacrifices to God when he had come forth from the ark after the deluge. And concerning this subject we have already said in the foregoing books that the devils arrogate to themselves divinity, and require sacrifice that they may be esteemed gods, and delight in these honors on no other account than this, because they know that true sacrifice is due to the true God.

> Latin: Copulatio igitur maris et feminae, quantum adtinet ad genus mortalium, quoddam seminarium est ciuitatis; sed terrena ciuitas generatione tantummodo, caelestis autem etiam regeneratione opus habet, ut noxam generationis euadat. Utrum autem aliquod fuerit, uel si fuit, quale fuerit corporale adque uisibile regenerationis signum ante diluuium, sicut Abrahae circumcisio postea est imperata, sacra historia tacet. Sacrificasse tamen Deo etiam illos antiquissimos homines non tacet; quod et in duobus primis fratribus claruit, et Noe post diluuium, cum de arca fuisset egressus, hostias Deo legitur immolasse. De qua re in praecedentibus libris iam diximus, non ob aliud daemones adrogantes sibi diuinitatem deosque se credi cupientes sibi expetere sacrificium et gaudere huius modi honoribus, nisi quia uerum sacrificium uero Deo deberi sciunt.

### Of the Two Fathers and Leaders Who Sprang from One Progenitor.

[¶14] Chapter 17.—Of the Two Fathers and Leaders Who Sprang from One Progenitor.

> Latin: Caput XVII. De duobus ex uno genitore procreatis patribus adque principibus.

[¶15] Since, then, Adam was the father of both lines,—the father, that is to say, both of the line which belonged to the earthly, and of that which belonged to the heavenly city,—when Abel was slain, and by his death exhibited a marvellous mystery, there were henceforth two lines proceeding from two fathers, Cain and Seth, and in those sons of theirs, whom it behoved to register, the tokens of these two cities began to appear more distinctly. For Cain begat Enoch, in whose name he built a city, an earthly one, which was not from home in this world, but rested satisfied with its temporal peace and happiness. Cain, too, means “possession;” wherefore at his birth either his father or mother said,” I have gotten a man through God.” Then Enoch means “dedication;” for the earthly city is dedicated in this world in which it is built, for in this world it finds the end towards which it aims and aspires. Further, Seth signifies “resurrection,” and Enos his son signifies “man,” not as Adam, which also signifies man, but is used in Hebrew indifferently for man and woman, as it is written, “Male and female created He them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam,” leaving no room to doubt that though the woman was distinctively called Eve, yet the name Adam, meaning man, was common to both. But Enos means man in so restricted a sense, that Hebrew linguists tell us it cannot be applied to woman: it is the equivalent of the “child of the resurrection,” when they neither marry nor are given in marriage. For there shall be no generation in that place to which regeneration shall have brought us. Wherefore I think it not immaterial to observe that in those generations which are propagated from him who is called Seth, although daughters as well as sons are said to have been begotten, no woman is expressly registered by name; but in those which sprang from Cain at the very termination to which the line runs, the last person named as begotten is a woman. For we read, “Methusael begat Lamech. And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of the shepherds that dwell in tents. And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-cain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.” Here terminate all the generations of Cain, being eight in number, including Adam,—to wit, seven from Adam to Lamech, who married two wives, and whose children, among whom a woman also is named, form the eighth generation. Whereby it is elegantly signified that the earthly city shall to its termination have carnal generations proceeding from the intercourse of males and females. And therefore the wives themselves of the man who is the last named father of Cain’s line, are registered in their own names,—a practice nowhere followed before the deluge save in Eve’s case. Now as Cain, signifying possession, the founder of the earthly city, and his son Enoch, meaning dedication, in whose name it was founded, indicate that this city is earthly both in its beginning and in its end,—a city in which nothing more is hoped for than can be seen in this world,—so Seth, meaning resurrection, and being the father of generations registered apart from the others, we must consider what this sacred history says of his son.

> Latin: Cum ergo esset Adam utriusque generis pater, id est et cuius series ad terrenam, et cuius series ad caelestem pertinet ciuitatem, occiso Abel adque in eius interfectione commendato mirabili sacramento facti sunt duo patres singulorum generum, Cain et Seth, in quorum filiis, quos commemorari oportebat, duarum istarum ciuitatum in genere mortalium euidentius indicia clarere coeperunt. Cain quippe genuit Enoch, in cuius nomine condidit ciuitatem, terrenam scilicet, non peregrinantem in hoc mundo, sed in eius temporali pace ac felicitate quiescentem. Cain autem interpretatur possessio; unde dictum est, quando natus est, siue a patre siue a matre eius: Adquisiui hominem per Deum. Enoch uero dedicatio; hic enim dedicatur terrena ciuitas, ubi conditur, quoniam hic habet eum, quem intendit et adpetit, finem. Porro ille Seth interpretatur resurrectio et Enos filius eius interpretatur homo; non sicut Adam. Et ipsum enim nomen homo interpretatur; sed commune perhibetur esse in illa lingua, id est Hebraea, masculo et feminae. Nam sic de illo scriptum est: Masculum et feminam fecit illos et benedixit illos et cognominauit nomen eorum Adam. Unde non ambigitur sic appellatam fuisse feminam Euam proprio nomine, ut tamen Adam, quod interpretatur homo, nomen esset amborum. Enos autem sic interpretatur homo, ut hoc non posse feminam nuncupari periti linguae illius adseuerent, tamquam filius resurrectionis, ubi non nubent neque uxores ducent. Non enim erit ibi generatio, cum illuc perduxerit regeneratio. Quare et hoc non incassum notandum arbitror, quod in eis generationibus, quae propagantur ex illo qui est appellatus Seth, cum genuisse filios filiasque dicantur, nulla ibi genita nominatim femina expressa est; in his autem, quae propagantur ex Cain, in ipso fine, quo usque, pertendunt, nouissima femina genita nominatur. Sic enim legitur: Mathusael genuit Lamech; et sumsit sibi Lamech duas uxores, nomen uni Ada et nomen secundae Sella, et peperit Ada Iobel; hic erat pater habitantium in tabernaculis pecuariorum. Et nomen fratris eius Iobal; hic fuit qui ostendit psalterium et citharam. Sella autem peperit et ipsa Tobel; et erat malleator aerarius aeramenti et ferri. Soror autem Tobel Noemma. Huc usque porrectae sunt generationes ex Cain, quae sunt omnes ab Adam octo adnumerato ipso Adam, septem scilicet usque ad Lamech, qui duarum maritus uxorum fuit, et octaua est generatio in filiis eius, in quibus commemoratur et femina. Ubi eleganter significatum est terrenam ciuitatem usque in sui finem carnales habituram generationes, quae marium feminarumque coniunctione proueniunt. Unde et ipsae, quod praeter Euam nusquam reperitur ante diluuium, nominibus propriis exprimuntur uxores illius hominis, qui nominatur hic nouissimus pater. Sicut autem Cain, quod interpretatur possessio, terrenae conditor ciuitatis, et filius eius, in cuius nomine condita est, Enoch, quod interpretatur dedicatio, indicat istam ciuitatem et initium et finem habere terrenum, ubi nihil speratur amplius, quam in hoc saeculo cerni potest: ita Seth, quod interpretatur resurrectio, cum sit generationum seorsus commemoratarum pater, quid de filio eius sacra haec historia dicat, intuendum est.

### The Significance of Abel, Seth, and Enos to Christ and His Body the Church.

[¶17] Chapter 18.—The Significance of Abel, Seth, and Enos to Christ and His Body the Church.

> Latin: Caput XVIII. Quid significatum sit in Abel et Seth et Enos, quod appareat ad Christum et corpus eius, id est ecclesiam, pertinere.

[¶18] “And to Seth,” it is said, “there was born a son, and he called his name Enos: he hoped to call on the name of the Lord God.” Here we have a loud testimony to the truth. Man, then, the son of the resurrection, lives in hope: he lives in hope as long as the city of God, which is begotten by faith in the resurrection, sojourns in this world. For in these two men, Abel, signifying “grief,” and his brother Seth, signifying “resurrection,” the death of Christ and His life from the dead are prefigured. And by faith in these is begotten in this world the city of God, that is to say, the man who has hoped to call on the name of the Lord. “For by hope,” says the apostle, “we are saved: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.” Who can avoid referring this to a profound mystery? For did not Abel hope to call upon the name of the Lord God when his sacrifice is mentioned in Scripture as having been accepted by God? Did not Seth himself hope to call on the name of the Lord God, of whom it was said, “For God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel?” Why then is this which is found to be common to all the godly specially attributed to Enos, unless because it was fit that in him, who is mentioned as the first-born of the father of those generations which were separated to the better part of the heavenly city, there should be a type of the man, or society of men, who live not according to man in contentment with earthly felicity, but according to God in hope of everlasting felicity? And it was not said, “He hoped in the Lord God,” nor “He called on the name of the Lord God,” but “He hoped to call on the name of the Lord God.” And what does this “hoped to call” mean, unless it is a prophecy that a people should arise who, according to the election of grace, would call on the name of the Lord God? It is this which has been said by another prophet, and which the apostle interprets of the people who belong to the grace of God: “And it shall be that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” For these two expressions, “And he called his name Enos, which means man,” and “He hoped to call on the name of the Lord God,” are sufficient proof that man ought not to rest his hopes in himself; as it is elsewhere written, “Cursed is the man that trusteth in man.” Consequently no one ought to trust in himself that he shall become a citizen of that other city which is not dedicated in the name of Cain’s son in this present time, that is to say, in the fleeting course of this mortal world, but in the immortality of perpetual blessedness.

> Latin: Et Seth, inquit, natus est filius, et nominauit nomen eius Enos; hic sperauit inuocare nomen Domini Dei. Nempe clamat adtestatio ueritatis. In spe igitur uiuit homo filius resurrectionis; in spe uiuit, quamdiu peregrinatur hic, ciuitas Dei, quae gignitur ex fide resurrectionis Christi. Ex duobus namque illis hominibus, Abel, quod interpretatur luctus, et eius fratre Seth, quod interpretatur resurrectio. mors Christi et uita eius ex mortuis figuratur. Ex qua fide gignitur hic ciuitas Dei, id est homo, qui sperauit inuocare nomen Domini Dei. Spe enim salui facti sumus, ait apostolus. Spes autem quae uidetur, non est spes. Quod enim uidet quis, quid sperat? Si autem quod non uidemus speramus, per patientiam exspectamus. Nam quis uacare hoc existimet ab altitudine sacramenti? Numquid enim Abel non sperauit inuocare nomen Domini Dei, cuius sacrificium scriptura tam acceptum Deo fuisse commemorat? Numquid ipse Seth non sperauit inuocare nomen Domini Dei, de quo dictum est: Suscitauit enim mihi Deus semen aliud pro Abel? Quur ergo huic proprie tribuitur, quod piorum omnium intellegitur esse commune, nisi quia oportebat in eo, qui de patre generationum in meliorem partem, hoc est supernae ciuitatis, separatarum, primus commemoratur exortus, praefigurari hominem, id est hominum societatem, quae non secundum hominem in re felicitatis terrenae, sed secundum Deum uiuit in spe felicitatis aeternae? Nec dictum est: <Hic sperauit in Dominum Deum’, aut: ‘Hic inuocauit nomen Domini Dei’, sed: sperauit, inquit, inuocare nomen Domini Dei. Quid sibi hoc uult: Sperauit inuocare, nisi quia prophetia est exorturum populum, qui secundum electionem gratiae inuocaret nomen Domini Dei? Hoc est, quod per alium prophetam dictum apostolus de hoc populo intel- • legit ad Dei gratiam pertinente: Et erit, omnis qui inuocauerit nomen Domini saluus erit. Hoc ipsum enim quod dicitur: Et nominauit nomen eius Enos, quod interpretatur homo, ac deinde additur: Hic sperauit inuocare nomen Domini Dei, satis ostenditur, quod non in se ipso spem ponere debeat homo; maledictus enim omnis (sicut alibi legitur), qui spem suam ponit in homine, ac per hoc nec in se, ut sit ciuis alterius ciuitatis, quae non secundum filium Cain dedicatur hoc tempore, id est mortalis huius saeculi labente transcursu, sed in illa inmortali tate beatitudinis sempiternae.

### The Significance Of Enoch’s Translation.

[¶20] Chapter 19.—The Significance Of Enoch’s Translation.

> Latin: Caput XIX. De significatione, quae in Enoch translatione monstratur.

[¶21] For that line also of which Seth is the father has the name “Dedication” in the seventh generation from Adam, counting Adam. For the seventh from him is Enoch, that is, Dedication. But this is that man who was translated because he pleased God, and who held in the order of the generations a remarkable place, being the seventh from Adam, a number signalized by the consecration of the Sabbath. But, counting from the diverging point of the two lines, or from Seth, he was the sixth. Now it was on the sixth day God made man, and consummated His works. But the translation of Enoch prefigured our deferred dedication; for though it is indeed already accomplished in Christ our Head, who so rose again that He shall die no more, and who was Himself also translated, yet there remains another dedication of the whole house, of which Christ Himself is the foundation, and this dedication is deferred till the end, when all shall rise again to die no more. And whether it is the house of God, or the temple of God, or the city of God, that is said to be dedicated, it is all the same, and equally in accordance with the usage of the Latin language. For Virgil himself calls the city of widest empire “the house of Assaracus,” meaning the Romans, who were descended through the Trojans from Assaracus. He also calls them the house of Æneas, because Rome was built by those Trojans who had come to Italy under Æneas. For that poet imitated the sacred writings, in which the Hebrew nation, though so numerous, is called the house of Jacob.

> Latin: Nam et ista propago, cuius est pater Seth, in ea generatione habet dedicationis nomen, quae septima est ex Adam adnumerato Adam. Septimus enim ab illo natus est Enoch, quod interpretatur dedicatio. Sed ipse est ille translatus, quoniam placuit Deo, et insigni numero in ordine generationum, quo sabbatum consecratum est, septimo scilicet ab Adam. Ab ipso autem patre istarum generationum, quae discernuntur a progenie Cain, id est a Seth, sextus est; quoto die factus est homo et consummauit Deus omnia opera sua. Sed huius Enoch translatio nostrae dedicationis est praefigurata dilatio. Quae quidem iam facta est in Christo capite nostro, qui sic resurrexit, ut non moriatur ulterius, sed etiam ipse translatus est; restat autem altera dedicatio uniuersae domus, cuius ipse Christus est fundamentum, quae differtur in finem, quando erit omnium resurrectio non moriturorum amplius. Siue autem domus Dei dicatur siue templum Dei siue ciuitas Dei, id ipsum est nec abhorret a Latini eloquii consuetudine. Nam et Vergilius imperiosissimam ciuitatem domum appellat Assaraci, Romanos uolens intellegi, qui de Assaraco per Troianos originem ducunt; et domum Aeneae eosdem ipsos, quia eo duce Troiani cum Italiam uenissent ab eis condita est Roma. Imitatus namque est poeta ille litteras sacras, in quibus dicitur domus Iacob iam ingens populus Hebraeorum.

## 73. How It is that Cain’s Line Terminates in the Eighth Generation, While Noah, Though Descended from the Same Father, Adam, is Found to Be the Tenth from Him.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/73/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/73/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 20.—How It is that Cain’s Line Terminates in the Eighth Generation, While Noah, Though Descended from the Same Father, Adam, is Found to Be the Tenth from Him.

> Latin: Caput XX. De eo, quod Cain successio in octo ab Adam generationes clauditur, et in posteris ab eodem patre Adam Noe decimus inuenitur.

[¶1] Some one will say, If the writer of this history intended, in enumerating the generations from Adam through his son Seth, to descend through them to Noah, in whose time the deluge occurred, and from him again to trace the connected generations down to Abraham, with whom Matthew begins the pedigree of Christ the eternal King of the city of God, what did he intend by enumerating the generations from Cain, and to what terminus did he mean to trace them? We reply, To the deluge, by which the whole stock of the earthly city was destroyed, but repaired by the sons of Noah. For the earthly city and community of men who live after the flesh will never fail until the end of this world, of which our Lord says, “The children of this world generate, and are generated.” But the city of God, which sojourns in this world, is conducted by regeneration to the world to come, of which the children neither generate nor are generated. In this world generation is common to both cities; though even now the city of God has many thousand citizens who abstain from the act of generation; yet the other city also has some citizens who imitate these, though erroneously. For to that city belong also those who have erred from the faith, and introduced divers heresies; for they live according to man, not according to God. And the Indian gymnosophists, who are said to philosophize in the solitudes of India in a state of nudity, are its citizens; and they abstain from marriage. For continence is not a good thing, except when it is practised in the faith of the highest good, that is, God. Yet no one is found to have practised it before the deluge; for indeed even Enoch himself, the seventh from Adam, who is said to have been translated without dying, begat sons and daughters before he was translated, and among these was Methuselah, by whom the succession of the recorded generations is maintained.

> Latin: Dicet aliquis: Si hoc intendebat scriptor huius historiae Ie. in commemorandis generationibus ex Adam per filium eius Seth, ut per illas perueniret ad Noe, sub quo factum est diluuium, a quo rursus contexeretur ordo nascentium, quo perueniret ad Abraham, a quo Matthaeus euangelista incipit generationes, quibus ad Christum peruenit aeternum regem ciuitatis Dei: quid intendebat in generationibus ex Cain et quo eas perducere uolebat? Respondetur: Usque ad diluuium, quo totum illud genus terrenae ciuitatis absumtum est, sed reparatum est ex filiis Noe. Neque enim deesse poterit haec terrena ciuitas societasque hominum secundum hominem uiuentium usque ad huius saeculi finem, de quo Dominus ait: Filii saeculi huius generant et generantur. Ciuitatem uero Dei peregrinantem in hoc saeculo regeneratio perducit ad alterum saeculum, cuius filii nec generant nec generantur. Hic ergo generari et generare ciuitati utrique commune est; quamuis Dei ciuitas habeat etiam hic multa ciuium milia, quae ab opere generandi se abstineant; sed habet etiam illa ex imitatione quadam, licet errantium. Ad eam namque pertinent etiam, qui deuiantes ab huius fide diuersas haereses condiderunt; secundum hominem quippe uiuunt, non secundum Deum. Et Indorum gymnosophistae, qui nudi perhibentur philosophari in solitudinibus Indiae, cibi esu ot a generando se cohibent. Non est enim hoc bonum, nisi cum fit secundum fidem summi boni, qui Deus est. Hoc tamen nemo fecisse ante diluuium reperitur; quando quidem etiam ipse Enoch septimus ab Adam, qui translatus refertur esse non mortuus, genuit filios et filias antequam transferretur; in quibus fuit Mathusalam, per quem generationum memorandarum ordo transcurrit.

[¶2] Why, then, is so small a number of Cain’s generations registered, if it was proper to trace them to the deluge, and if there was no such delay of the date of puberty as to preclude the hope of offspring for a hundred or more years? For if the author of this book had not in view some one to whom he might rigidly trace the series of generations, as he designed in those which sprang from Seth’s seed to descend to Noah, and thence to start again by a rigid order, what need was there of omitting the first-born sons for the sake of descending to Lamech, in whose sons that line terminates,—that is to say, in the eighth generation from Adam, or the seventh from Cain,—as if from this point he had wished to pass on to another series, by which he might reach either the Israelitish people, among whom the earthly Jerusalem presented a prophetic figure of the heavenly city, or to Jesus Christ, “according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever,” the Maker and Ruler of the heavenly city? What, I say, was the need of this, seeing that the whole of Cain’s posterity were destroyed in the deluge? From this it is manifest that they are the first-born sons who are registered in this genealogy. Why, then, are there so few of them? Their numbers in the period before the deluge must have been greater, if the date of puberty bore no proportion to their longevity, and they had children before they were a hundred years old. For supposing they were on an average thirty years old when they began to beget children, then, as there are eight generations, including Adam and Lamech’s children, 8 times 30 gives 240 years; did they then produce no more children in all the rest of the time before the deluge? With what intention, then, did he who wrote this record make no mention of subsequent generations? For from Adam to the deluge there are reckoned, according to our copies of Scripture, 2262 years, and according to the He brew text, 1656 years. Supposing, then, the smaller number to be the true one, and subtracting from 1656 years 240, is it credible that during the remaining 1400 and odd years until the deluge the posterity of Cain begat no children?

> Latin: Quur ergo tanta paucitas successionum commemoratur in generationibus ex Cain, si eas usque ad diluuium perduci oportebat, nec erat diuturna aetas praeueniens pubertatem, quae centum uel amplius annos uacaret a fetibus? Nam si non intendebat auctor libri huius aliquem, ad quem necessario perduceret seriem generationum, sicut in illis, quae ueniunt de semine Seth, intendebat peruenire ad Noe, a quo rursus ordo necessarius sequeretur: quid opus erat praetermittere primogenitos filios, ut perueniretur ad Lamech, in cuius filiis finitur illa contextio, octaua generatione scilicet ex Adam, septima ex Cain, quasi esset inde aliquid deinceps conectendum, unde perueniretur uel ad Israeliticum populum, in quo caelesti ciuitati etiam terrena Hierusalem figuram propheticam praebuit, uel ad Christum secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula, supernae Hierusalem fabricator adque regnator, cum tota progenies Cain diluuio sit deleta? Unde uideri potest in eodem ordine generationum primogenitos fuisse commemoratos. Quur ergo tam pauci sunt? Non enim usque ad diluuium tot esse potuerunt, non uacantibus usque ad centenariam pubertatem patribus ab officio generandi, si non erat tunc proportione longaeuitatis illius etiam sera pubertas. Ut enim peraeque triginta annorum fuerint, cum filios generare coeperunt, octiens triceni (quoniam octo sunt generationes cum Adam et cum eis quos genuit Lamech) ducenti et quadraginta sunt anni: num itaque toto deinde tempore usque ad diluuium non generauerunt? Qua tandem causa, qui haec scripsit, generationes commemorare noluit quae sequuntur? Nam ex Adam usque ad diluuium conputantur anni secundum codices nostros duo milia ducenti sexaginta duo; secundum Hebraeos autem mille sescenti quinquaginta sex. Ut ergo istum numerum minorem credamus esse ueriorem, de mille sescentis quinquaginta sex annis ducenti quadraginta detrahantur: numquid credibile est per mille quadringentos, et quod excurrit, annos, qui restant usque diluuium, progeniem Cain a generationibus uacare potuisse?

[¶3] But let any one who is moved by this call to mind that when I discussed the question, how it is credible that those primitive men could abstain for so many years from begetting children, two modes of solution were found,—either a puberty late in proportion to their longevity, or that the sons registered in the genealogies were not the first-born, but those through whom the author of the book intended to reach the point aimed at, as he intended to reach Noah by the generations of Seth. So that, if in the generations of Cain there occurs no one whom the writer could make it his object to reach by omitting the first-born and inserting those who would serve such a purpose, then we must have recourse to the supposition of late puberty, and say that only at some age beyond a hundred years they became capable of begetting children, so that the order of the generations ran through the first-born, and filled up even the whole period before the deluge, long though it was. It is, however, possible that, for some more secret reason which escapes me, this city, which we say is earthly, is exhibited in all its generations down to Lamech and his sons, and that then the writer withholds from recording the rest which may have existed before the deluge. And without supposing so late a puberty in these men, there might be another reason for tracing the generations by sons who were not first-born, viz., that the same city which Cain built, and named after his son Enoch, may have had a widely extended dominion and many kings, not reigning simultaneously, but successively, the reigning king begetting always his successor. Cain himself would be the first of these kings; his son Enoch, in whose name the city in which he reigned was built, would be the second; the third Irad, whom Enoch begat; the fourth Mehujael, whom Irad begat; the fifth Methusael, whom Mehujael begat; the sixth Lamech, whom Methusael begat, and who is the seventh from Adam through Cain. But it was not necessary that the first-born should succeed their fathers in the kingdom, but those would succeed who were recommended by the possession of some virtue useful to the earthly city, or who were chosen by lot, or the son who was best liked by his father would succeed by a kind of hereditary right to the throne. And the deluge may have happened during the lifetime and reign of Lamech, and may have destroyed him along with all other men, save those who were in the ark. For we cannot be surprised that, during so long a period from Adam to the deluge, and with the ages of individuals varying as they did, there should not be an equal number of generations in both lines, but seven in Cain’s, and ten in Seth’s; for as I have already said, Lamech is the seventh from Adam, Noah the tenth; and in Lamech’s case not one son only is registered, as in the former instances, but more, because it was uncertain which of them would have succeeded when he died, if there had intervened any time to reign between his death and the deluge.

> Latin: Sed qui ex hoc mouetur, meminerit, cum quaererem, quo modo credendum sit antiquos illos homines per tam multos annos a gignendis filiis cessare potuisse, duobus modis istam solutam esse quaestionem: aut de sera pubertate, proportione tam longae uitae, aut de filiis qui commemorantur in generationibus, quod non fuerint primogeniti, sed hi, per quos ad eum, quem intendebat auctor libri, poterat perueniri, sicut ad Noe in generationibus Seth. Proinde in generationibus Cain, si non occurrit qui deberet intendi, ad quem praetermissis primogenitis per eos, qui commemorati sunt, perueniri oportebat, sera pubertas intellegenda restabit, ut aliquanto post centum annos puberes habilesque ad gignendum facti fuerint, ut ordo generationum per primogenitos curreret et usque diluuium ad numerum annorum tantae quantitatis occurreret. Quamuis fieri possit, ut propter aliquam secretiorem causam, quae me latet, usque ad Lamech et eius filios generationum perueniente contextu commendaretur haec ciuitas, quam dicimus esse terrenam, ac deinde cessaret scriptor libri commemorare ceteras, quae usque ad diluuium esse potuerunt. Potest et illa esse causa, quur non ordo generationum per primogenitos duceretur, ut necesse non sit in illis hominibus tam seram credere pubertatem, quod scilicet eadem ciuitas, quam Cain in nomine Enoch filii sui condidit, longe lateque regnare potuerit et reges habere non simul plures, sed suis aetatibus singulos, quos genuissent sibi successuros quicumque regnassent. Horum regum primus esse potuit ipse Cain, secundus filius eius Enoch, in cuius nomine, ubi regnaretur, condita est ciuitas; tertius Gaidad, quem genuit Enoch; quartus Meuia, quem genuit Gaidad; quintus Mathusael, quem genuit Meuia; sextus Lamech, quem genuit Mathusael, qui est septimus ab Adam per Cain. Non autem erat consequens, ut primogeniti regum regnantibus succederent patribus, sed quos regnandi meritum propter uirtutem terrenae utilem ciuitati. uel sors aliqua reperiret, uel ille potissimum succederet patri hereditario quodam iure regnandi, quem prae ceteris filiis dilexisset. Potuit autem uiuente adhuc Lamech adque regnante fieri diluuium, ut ipsum cum aliis omnibus hominibus, exceptis qui in arca fuerunt, quem perderet inueniret. Neque enim mirandum est, si uaria quantitate numerositatis annorum interposita per tam longam aetatem ab Adam usque diluuium non aequalis numeri generationes habuit utraque progenies, sed per Cain septem, per Seth autem decem; septimus est enim, ut iam dixi, ab Adam Lamech, decimus Noe; et ideo non unus filius Lamech, sicut in ceteris superius, sed plures commemorati sunt, quia incertum erat quis ei fuisset mortuo successurus, si regnandi tempus inter ipsum et diluuium remansisset.

[¶4] But in whatever manner the generations of Cain’s line are traced downwards, whether it be by first-born sons or by the heirs to the throne, it seems to me that I must by no means omit to notice that, when Lamech had been set down as the seventh from Adam, there were named, in addition, as many of his children as made up this number to eleven, which is the number signifying sin; for three sons and one daughter are added. The wives of Lamech have another signification, different from that which I am now pressing. For at present I am speaking of the children, and not of those by whom the children were begotten. Since, then, the law is symbolized by the number ten,—whence that memorable Decalogue,—there is no doubt that the number eleven, which goes beyond ten, symbolizes the transgression of the law, and consequently sin. For this reason, eleven veils of goat’s skin were ordered to be hung in the tabernacle of the testimony, which served in the wanderings of God’s people as an ambulatory temple. And in that haircloth there was a reminder of sins, because the goats were to be set on the left hand of the Judge; and therefore, when we confess our sins, we prostrate ourselves in haircloth, as if we were saying what is written in the psalm, “My sin is ever before me.” The progeny of Adam, then, by Cain the murderer, is completed in the number eleven, which symbolizes sin; and this number itself is made up by a woman, as it was by the same sex that beginning was made of sin by which we all die. And it was committed that the pleasure of the flesh, which resists the spirit, might follow; and so Naamah, the daughter of Lamech, means “pleasure.” But from Adam to Noah, in the line of Seth, there are ten generations. And to Noah three sons are added, of whom, while one fell into sin, two were blessed by their father; so that, if you deduct the reprobate and add the gracious sons to the number, you get twelve,—a number signalized in the case of the patriarchs and of the apostles, and made up of the parts of the number seven multiplied into one another,—for three times four, or four times three, give twelve. These things being so, I see that I must consider and mention how these two lines, which by their separate genealogies depict the two cities, one of earth-born, the other of regenerated persons, became afterwards so mixed and confused, that the whole human race, with the exception of eight persons, deserved to perish in the deluge.

> Latin: Sed quoquo modo se habeat siue per primogenitos siue per reges ex Cain generationum ordo decurrens, illud mihi nullo pacto praetereundum silentio uidetur, quod, cum Lamech septimus ab Adam fuisset inuentus, tot eius adnumerati sunt filii, donec undenarius numerus inpleretur, quo significatur peccatum. Adduntur enim tres filii et una filia. Uxores autem aliud possunt significare, non hoc quod nunc commendandum uidetur. Nunc enim de generationibus loquimur; illae uero unde sint genitae, tacitum est. Quoniam ergo lex denario numero praedicatur, unde est memorabilis ille decalogus, profecto numerus undenarius, quoniam transgreditur denarium, transgressionem legis ac per hoc peccatum significat. Hinc est quod in tabernaculo testimonii, quod erat in itinere populi Dei uelut templum ambulatorium, undecim uela cilicina fieri praecepta sunt. In cilicio quippe recordatio est peccatorum propter haedos ad sinistram futuros; quod confitentes in cilicio prosternimur tamquam dicentes quod in psalmo scriptum est: Et peccatum meum ante me est semper. Progenies ergo ex Adam per Cain sceleratum undenario numero finitur, quo peccatum significatur; et ipse numerus femina clauditur, a quo sexu initium factum est peccati, per quod omnes morimur. Commissum est autem, ut et uoluptas camis, quae spiritui resisteret,. sequeretur. Nam et ipsa filia Lamech Noemma uoluptas interpretatur. Per Seth autem ab Adam usque ad Noe denarius insinuatur legitimus numerus. Cui Noe tres adiciuntur filii, unde uno lapso duo benedicuntur a patre, ut remoto reprobo et probatis filiis ad numerum additis etiam duodenarius numerus intimetur, qui et in patriarcharum et in apostolorum numero insignis est, propter septenarii partes alteram per alteram multiplicatas. Nam ter quaterni uel quater terni ipsum faciunt. His ita se habentibus uideo considerandum et commemorandum, ista utraque progenies, quae distinctis generationibus duas insinuat ciuitates, unam terrigenarum, alteram regeneratorum, quo modo postea sic commixta fuerit adque confusa, ut uniuersum genus humanum exceptis octo hominibus diluuio perire mereretur.

### Why It is That, as Soon as Cain’s Son Enoch Has Been Named, the Genealogy is Forthwith Continued as Far as the Deluge, While After the Mention of Enos, Seth’s Son, the Narrative Returns Again to the Creation of Man.

[¶6] Chapter 21.—Why It is That, as Soon as Cain’s Son Enoch Has Been Named, the Genealogy is Forthwith Continued as Far as the Deluge, While After the Mention of Enos, Seth’s Son, the Narrative Returns Again to the Creation of Man.

> Latin: Caput XXI. Qua ratione commemorato Enoch, qui fuit filius Cain, totius generationis eius usque ad diluuium sit continuata narratio; commemorato autem Enos, qui fuit filius Seth, ad conditionis humanae principium sit reditum.

[¶7] We must first see why, in the enumeration of Cain’s posterity, after Enoch, in whose name the city was built, has been first of all mentioned, the rest are at once enumerated down to that terminus of which I have spoken, and at which that race and the whole line was destroyed in the deluge; while, after Enos the son of Seth, has been mentioned, the rest are not at once named down to the deluge, but a clause is inserted to the following effect: “This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him; male and female created He them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” This seems to me to be inserted for this purpose, that here again the reckoning of the times may start from Adam himself—a purpose which the writer had not in view in speaking of the earthly city, as if God mentioned it, but did not take account of its duration. But why does he return to this recapitulation after mentioning the son of Seth, the man who hoped to call on the name of the Lord God, unless because it was fit thus to present these two cities, the one beginning with a murderer and ending in a murderer (for Lamech, too, acknowledges to his two wives that he had committed murder), the other built up by him who hoped to call upon the name of the Lord God? For the highest and complete terrestrial duty of the city of God, which is a stranger in this world, is that which was exemplified in the individual who was begotten by him who typified the resurrection of the murdered Abel. That one man is the unity of the whole heavenly city, not yet indeed complete, but to be completed, as this prophetic figure foreshows. The son of Cain, therefore, that is, the son of possession (and of what but an earthly possession?), may have a name in the earthly city which was built in his name. It is of such the Psalmist says, “They call their lands after their own names.” Wherefore they incur what is written in another psalm: “Thou, O Lord, in Thy city wilt despise their image.” But as for the son of Seth, the son of the resurrection, let him hope to call on the name of the Lord God. For he prefigures that society of men which says, “But I am like a green olive-tree in the house of God: I have trusted in the mercy of God.” But let him not seek the empty honors of a famous name upon earth, for “Blessed is the man that maketh the name of the Lord his trust, and respecteth not vanities nor lying follies.” After having presented the two cities, the one founded in the material good of this world, the other in hope in God, but both starting from a common gate opened in Adam into this mortal state, and both running on and running out to their proper and merited ends, Scripture begins to reckon the times, and in this reckoning includes other generations, making a recapitulation from Adam, out of whose condemned seed, as out of one mass handed over to merited damnation, God made some vessels of wrath to dishonor and others vessels of mercy to honor; in punishment rendering to the former what is due, in grace giving to the latter what is not due: in order that by the very comparison of itself with the vessels of wrath, the heavenly city, which sojourns on earth, may learn not to put confidence in the liberty of its own will, but may hope to call on the name of the Lord God. For will, being a nature which was made good by the good God, but mutable by the immutable, because it was made out of nothing, can both decline from good to do evil, which takes place when it freely chooses, and can also escape the evil and do good, which takes place only by divine assistance.

> Latin: Primo autem intuendum est, quem ad modum, cum ex Cain generationes enumerarentur, commemorato ante ceteros posteros eius illo, in cuius nomine condita est ciuitas, id est Enoch, contexti sunt ceteri usque ad illum finem, de qua locutus sum, donec illud genus adque uniuersa propago diluuio deleretur; cum uero filius Seth unus commemoratus fuisset Enos, nondum usque ad diluuium additis ceteris articulus quidam interponitur et dicitur: Hic liber natiuitatis hominum, qua die fecit Deus Adam, ad imaginem Dei fecit illum. Masculum et feminam fecit illos, et benedixit illos, et cognominauit nomen eorum Adam, qua die fecit illos. Quod mihi uidetur ad hoc interpositum, ut hinc rursus inciperet ab ipso Adam dinumeratio temporum, quam noluit facere, qui haec scripsit, in ciuitate terrena; tamquam eum Deus sic commoneret, ut non conputaret. Sed quare hinc reditur ad istam recapitulationem, postea quam commemoratus est filius Seth, homo qui sperauit inuocare nomen Domini Dei, nisi quia sic oportebat istas duas proponere ciuitates, unam per homicidam usque ad homicidam (nam et Lamech duabus uxoribus suis se perpetrasse homicidium confitetur), alteram per eum, qui sperauit inuocare nomen Domini Dei? Hoc est quippe in hoc mundo peregrinantis ciuitatis Dei totum adque summum in hac mortalitate negotium, quod per unum hominem, quem sane occisi resurrectio genuit, commendandum fuit. Homo quippe ille unus totius supernae ciuitatis est unitas, nondum quidem conpleta, sed praemissa ista prophetica praefiguratione conplenda. Filius ergo Cain, hoc est filius possessionis, (cuius nisi terrenae?) habeat nomen in ciuitate terrena, quia in eius nomine condita est. De his est enim, de quibus cantatur in psalmo: lnuocabunt nomina eorum in terris ipsorum; propter quod sequitur eos quod in alio psalmo scriptum est: Domine, in ciuitate tua imaginem eorum ad nihilum redige. Filius autem Seth, hoc est filius resurrectionis, speret inuocare nomen Domini Dei; eam quippe societatem hominum praefigurat quae dicit: Ego autem sicut oliua fructifera in domo Dei speraui in misericordia Dei; uanas autem glorias famosi in terra nominis non requirat; beatus est enim uir, cuius est nomen Domini spes eius, et non respexit in uanitates et insanias mendaces. Propositis itaque duabus ciuitatibus, una in re huius saeculi, altera in spe Dei, tamquam ex communi, quae aperta est in Adam, ianua mortalitatis egressis, ut procurrant et excurrant ad discretos proprios ac debitos fines, incipit dinumeratio temporum; in qua et aliae generationes adiciuntur, facta recapitulatione ex Adam, ex cuius origine damnata, ueluti massa una meritae damnationi tradita, facit Deus alia in contumeliam uasa irae, alia in honorem uasa misericordiae, illis reddens quod debetur in poena, istis donans quod non debetur in gratia; ut ex ipsa etiam conparatione uasorum irae superna ciuitas discat, quae peregrinatur in terris, non fidere libertate arbitrii sui, sed speret inuocare nomen Domini Dei. Quoniam uoluntas in natura, quae facta est bona a Deo bono, sed mutabilis ab inmutabili, quia ex nihilo, et a bono potest declinare, ut faciat malum, quod fit libero arbitrio, et a malo, ut faciat bonum, quod non fit sine diuino adiutorio.

### Of the Fall of the Sons of God Who Were Captivated by the Daughters of Men, Whereby All, with the Exception of Eight Persons, Deservedly Perished in the Deluge.

[¶9] Chapter 22.—Of the Fall of the Sons of God Who Were Captivated by the Daughters of Men, Whereby All, with the Exception of Eight Persons, Deservedly Perished in the Deluge.

> Latin: Caput XXII. De lapsu filiorum Dei alienigenarum mulierum amore captorum, unde et omnes exceptis octo hominibus diluuio perire meruerunt.

[¶10] When the human race, in the exercise of this freedom of will, increased and advanced, there arose a mixture and confusion of the two cities by their participation in a common iniquity. And this calamity, as well as the first, was occasioned by woman, though not in the same way; for these women were not themselves betrayed, neither did they persuade the men to sin, but having belonged to the earthly city and society of the earthly, they had been of corrupt manners from the first, and were loved for their bodily beauty by the sons of God, or the citizens of the other city which sojourns in this world. Beauty is indeed a good gift of God; but that the good may not think it a great good, God dispenses it even to the wicked. And thus, when the good that is great and proper to the good was abandoned by the sons of God, they fell to a paltry good which is not peculiar to the good, but common to the good and the evil; and when they were captivated by the daughters of men, they adopted the manners of the earthly to win them as their brides, and forsook the godly ways they had followed in their own holy society. And thus beauty, which is indeed God’s handiwork, but only a temporal, carnal, and lower kind of good, is not fitly loved in preference to God, the eternal, spiritual, and unchangeable good. When the miser prefers his gold to justice, it is through no fault of the gold, but of the man; and so with every created thing. For though it be good, it may be loved with an evil as well as with a good love: it is loved rightly when it is loved ordinately; evilly, when inordinately. It is this which some one has briefly said in these verses in praise of the Creator: “These are Thine, they are good, because Thou art good who didst create them. There is in them nothing of ours, unless the sin we commit when we forget the order of things, and instead of Thee love that which Thou hast made.”

> Latin: Hoc itaque libero uoluntatis arbitrio genere humano progrediente adque crescente facta est permixtio et iniquitate participata quaedam utriusque confusio ciuitatis. Quod malum a sexu femineo causam rursus inuenit; non quidem illo modo quo ab initio (non enim cuiusquam etiam tunc fallacia seductae illae feminae persuaserunt peccatum uiris); sed ab initio quae prauis moribus fuerant in terrena ciuitate, id est in terrigenarum societate, amatae sunt a filiis Dei, ciuibus scilicet peregrinantis in hoc saeculo alterius ciuitatis, propter pulchritudinem corporis. Quod bonum Dei quidem donum est; sed propterea id largitur etiam malis, ne magnum bonum uideatur bonis. Deserto itaque bono magno et bonorum proprio lapsus est factus ad bonum minimum, non bonis proprium, sed bonis malisque commune; ac sic filii Dei filiarum hominum amore sunt capti, adque ut eis coniugibus fruerentur, in mores societatis terrigenae defluxerunt, deserta pietate, quam in sancta societate seruabant. Sic enim corporis pulchritudo, a Deo quidem factum, sed temporale carnale infimum bonum, male amatur postposito Deo, aeterno interno sempiterno bono, quem ad modum iustitia deserta et aurum amatur ab auaris, nullo peccato auri, sed hominis. Ita se habet omnis creatura. Cum enim bona sit, et bene amari potest et male: bene scilicet ordine custodito, male ordine perturbato. Quod in laude quadam Cerei breuiter uersibus dixi: Haec tua sunt, bona sunt, quia tu bonus ista creasti. Nil nostrum est in eis, nisi quod peccamus amantes Ordine neglecto pro te, quod conditur abs te.

[¶11] But if the Creator is truly loved, that is, if He Himself is loved and not another thing in His stead, He cannot be evilly loved; for love itself is to be ordinately loved, because we do well to love that which, when we love it, makes us live well and virtuously. So that it seems to me that it is a brief but true definition of virtue to say, it is the order of love; and on this account, in the Canticles, the bride of Christ, the city of God, sings, “Order love within me.” It was the order of this love, then, this charity or attachment, which the sons of God disturbed when they forsook God, and were enamored of the daughters of men. And by these two names (sons of God and daughters of men) the two cities are sufficiently distinguished. For though the former were by nature children of men, they had come into possession of another name by grace. For in the same Scripture in which the sons of God are said to have loved the daughters of men, they are also called angels of God; whence many suppose that they were not men but angels.

> Latin: Creator autem si ueraciter ametur, hoc est si ipse, non aliud pro illo quod non est ipse, ametur, male amari non potest. Nam et amor ipse ordinate amandus est, quo bene amatur quod amandum est, ut sit in nobis metus qua uiuitur bene. Unde mihi uidetur, quod definitio breuis et uera uirtutis ordo est amoris; propter quod in sancto cantico canticorum cantat sponsa Christi, ciuitas Dei: Ordinate in me caritatem. Huius igitur caritatis, hoc est dilectionis et amoris, ordine perturbato Deum filii Dei neglexerunt et filias hominum dilexerunt. Quibus duobus nominibus satis ciuitas utraque discernitur. Neque enim et illi non erant filii hominum per naturam; sed aliud nomen coeperant habere per gratiam. Nam in eadem scriptura, ubi dicti sunt dilexisse filias hominum filii Dei, idem dicti sunt etiam angeli Dei. Unde illos multi putant non homines fuisse, sed angelos.

### Whether We are to Believe that Angels, Who are of a Spiritual Substance, Fell in Love with the Beauty of Women, and Sought Them in Marriage, and that from This Connection Giants Were Born.

[¶13] Chapter 23.—Whether We are to Believe that Angels, Who are of a Spiritual Substance, Fell in Love with the Beauty of Women, and Sought Them in Marriage, and that from This Connection Giants Were Born.

> Latin: Caput XXIII. An credendum sit angelos substantiae spiritalis amore speciosarum mulierum captos earundem inisse coniugia, ex quibus gigantes sint creati.

[¶14] In the third book of this work (c. 5) we made a passing reference to this question, but did not decide whether angels, inasmuch as they are spirits, could have bodily intercourse with women. For it is written, “Who maketh His angels spirits,” that is, He makes those who are by nature spirits His angels by appointing them to the duty of bearing His messages. For the Greek word ἄγγελος, which in Latin appears as “angelus,” means a messenger. But whether the Psalmist speaks of their bodies when he adds, “and His ministers a flaming fire,” or means that God’s ministers ought to blaze with love as with a spiritual fire, is doubtful. However, the same trustworthy Scripture testifies that angels have appeared to men in such bodies as could not only be seen, but also touched. There is, too, a very general rumor, which many have verified by their own experience, or which trustworthy persons who have heard the experience of others corroborate, that sylvans and fauns, who are commonly called “incubi,” had often made wicked assaults upon women, and satisfied their lust upon them; and that certain devils, called Duses by the Gauls, are constantly attempting and effecting this impurity is so generally affirmed, that it were impudent to deny it. From these assertions, indeed, I dare not determine whether there be some spirits embodied in an aerial substance (for this element, even when agitated by a fan, is sensibly felt by the body), and who are capable of lust and of mingling sensibly with women; but certainly I could by no means believe that God’s holy angels could at that time have so fallen, nor can I think that it is of them the Apostle Peter said, “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.” I think he rather speaks of these who first apostatized from God, along with their chief the devil, who enviously deceived the first man under the form of a serpent. But the same holy Scripture affords the most ample testimony that even godly men have been called angels; for of John it is written: “Behold, I send my messenger (angel) before Thy face, who shall prepare Thy way.” And the prophet Malachi, by a peculiar grace specially communicated to him, was called an angel.

> Latin: Quam quaestionem nos transeunter commemoratam in tertio huius operis libro reliquimus insolutam, utrum possint angeli, cum spiritus sint, corporaliter coire cum feminis. Scriptum est enim: Qui facit angelos suos spiritus, id est eos, qui natura spiritus sunt, facit esse angelos suos, iniungendo eis officium nuntiandi. Qui enim Graece dicitur SyyeXoi, quod nomen Latina declinatione angelus perhibetur, Latina lingua nuntius interpretatur. Sed utrum eorum corpora consequenter adiunxerit dicendo: Et ministros suos ignem ardentem, an quod caritate tamquam igne spiritali feruere debeant ministri eius, ambiguum est. Apparuisse tamen hominibus angelos in talibus corporibus, ut non solum uideri, uerum etiam tangi possent, eadem ueracissima scriptura testatur. Et quoniam creberrima fama est multique se expertos uel ab eis, qui experti essent, de quorum fide dubitandum non esset, audisse confirmant, Siluanos et Panes, quos uulgo incubos uocant, inprobos saepe extitisse mulieribus et earum adpetisse ac peregisse concubitum; et quosdam daemones, quos Dusios Galli nuncupant, adsidue hanc inmunditiam et tentare et efficere, plures talesque adseuerant, ut hoc negare inpudentiae uideatur: non hinc aliquid audeo definire, utrum aliqui spiritus elemento aerio corporati (nam hoc elementum etiam cum agitatur flabello sensu corporis tactuque sentitur) possint hanc etiam pati libidinem, ut, quo modo possunt, sentientibus feminis misceantur. Dei tamen angelos sanctos nullo modo illo tempore sic labi potuisse crediderim; nec de his dixisse apostolum Petrum: Si enim Deus angelis peccantibus non pepercit, sed carceribus caliginis inferi retrudens tradidit in iudicio puniendos reseruari; sed potius de illis, qui primum apostatantes a Deo cum diabolo suo principe ceciderunt, qui primum hominem per inuidiam serpentina fraude deiecit. Angelos autem fuisse etiam Dei homines nuncupatos eadem scriptura sancta locupletissima testis est.

[¶15] But some are moved by the fact that we have read that the fruit of the connection between those who are called angels of God and the women they loved were not men like our own breed, but giants; just as if there were not born even in our own time (as I have mentioned above) men of much greater size than the ordinary stature. Was there not at Rome a few years ago, when the destruction of the city now accomplished by the Goths was drawing near, a woman, with her father and mother, who by her gigantic size over-topped all others? Surprising crowds from all quarters came to see her, and that which struck them most was the circumstance that neither of her parents were quite up to the tallest ordinary stature. Giants therefore might well be born, even before the sons of God, who are also called angels of God, formed a connection with the daughters of men, or of those living according to men, that is to say, before the sons of Seth formed a connection with the daughters of Cain. For thus speaks even the canonical Scripture itself in the book in which we read of this; its words are: “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair [good]; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became the giants, men of renown.” These words of the divine book sufficiently indicate that already there were giants in the earth in those days, in which the sons of God took wives of the children of men, when they loved them because they were good, that is, fair. For it is the custom of this Scripture to call those who are beautiful in appearance “good.” But after this connection had been formed, then too were giants born. For the words are: “There were giants in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men.” Therefore there were giants both before, “in those days,” and “also after that.” And the words, “they bare children to them,” show plainly enough that before the sons of God fell in this fashion they begat children to God, not to themselves,—that is to say, not moved by the lust of sexual intercourse, but discharging the duty of propagation, intending to produce not a family to gratify their own pride, but citizens to people the city of God; and to these they as God’s angels would bear the message, that they should place their hope in God, like him who was born of Seth, the son of resurrection, and who hoped to call on the name of the Lord God, in which hope they and their offspring would be co-heirs of eternal blessings, and brethren in the family of which God is the Father.

> Latin: Nam et de Iohanne scriptum est: Ecce mitto angelum meum ante faciem tuam, qui praeparabit uiam tuam, et Malachiel propheta propria quadam, id est proprie sibi inpertita gratia dictus est angelus. Verum hoc mouet quosdam, quod ex illis, qui dicti sunt angeli Dei, et ex mulieribus, quas amauerunt, non quasi homines generis nostri, sed gigantes legimus esse natos. Quasi uero corpora hominum modum nostrum longe excedentia, quod etiam supra commemoraui, non etiam nostris temporibus nata sunt. Nonne ante paucos annos, cum Romanae urbis quod a Gothis factum est adpropinquaret excidium, Romae fuit femina cum suo patre et sua matre, quae corpore quodam modo giganteo longe ceteris praemineret? Ad quam uisendam mirabilis fiebat usquequaque concursus. Et hoc erat maxime admirationi, quod ambo parentes eius nec saltem tam longi homines erant, quam longissimos uidere consueuimus. Potuerunt igitur gigantes nasci, et prius quam filii Dei, qui et angeli Dei dicti sunt, filiabus hominum, hoc est secundum hominem uiuentium, miscerentur; filii scilicet Seth filiis Cain. Nam et canonica scriptura sic loquitur, in quo libro haec legimus, cuius uerba ista sunt: Et factum est, postquam coeperunt homines multi fieri super terram, et filiae natae sunt illis; uidentes autem angeli Dei filias hominum, quia bonae sunt, sumserunt sibi uxores ex omnibus quas elegerunt. Et dixit Dominus Deus: Non permanebit spiritus meus in hominibus his in aeternum, propter quod caro sunt. Erunt autem dies eorum centum uiginti anni. Gigantes autem erant super terram in diebus illis et post illud, cum intrarent filii Dei ad filias hominum, et generabant sibi; illi erant gigantes a saeculo homines nominati. Haec libri uerba diuini satis indicant iam illis diebus fuisse gigantes super terram, quando filii Dei acceperunt uxores filias hominum, cum eas amarent bonas, id est pulchras. Consuetudo quippe scripturae huius est, etiam speciosos corpore bonos uocare. Sed et postquam hoc factum est, nati sunt gigantes. Sic enim ait: Gigantes autem erant super terram in diebus illis et post illud, cum intrarent filii Dei ad filias hominum. Ergo et ante in illis diebus et post illud. Quod autem ait: Et. generabant sibi, satis ostendit, quod prius, antequam sic caderent filii Dei, Deo generabant, non sibi, id est non dominante libidine coeundi, sed seruiente officio propagandi; non familiam fastus sui, sed ciues ciuitatis Dei. quibus adnuntiarent tamquam angeli Dei, ut ponerent in Deo spem suam, similes illius, qui natus est de Seth, filius resurrectionis, et sperauit inuocare nomen Domini Dei; in qua spe essent cum suis posteris coheredes aeternorum bonorum et sub Deo patre fratres filiorum.

[¶16] But that those angels were not angels in the sense of not being men, as some suppose, Scripture itself decides, which unambiguously declares that they were men. For when it had first been stated that “the angels of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and they took them wives of all which they chose,” it was immediately added, “And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall not always strive with these men, for that they also are flesh.” For by the Spirit of God they had been made angels of God, and sons of God; but declining towards lower things, they are called men, a name of nature, not of grace; and they are called flesh, as deserters of the Spirit, and by their desertion deserted [by Him]. The Septuagint indeed calls them both angels of God and sons of God, though all the copies do not show this, some having only the name” sons of God.” And Aquila, whom the Jews prefer to the other interpreters, has translated neither angels of God nor sons of God, but sons of gods. But both are correct. For they were both sons of God, and thus brothers of their own fathers, who were children of the same God; and they were sons of gods, because begotten by gods, together with whom they themselves also were gods, according to that expression of the psalm: “I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High.” For the Septuagint translators are justly believed to have received the Spirit of prophecy; so that, if they made any alterations under His authority, and did not adhere to a strict translation, we could not doubt that this was divinely dictated. However, the Hebrew word may be said to be ambiguous, and to be susceptible of either translation, “sons of God,” or “sons of gods.”

> Latin: Non autem illos ita fuisse angelos Dei, ut homines non essent, sicut quidam putant, sed homines procul dubio fuisse, scriptura ipsa sine ulla ambiguitate declarat. Cum enim praemissum esset, quod uidentes angeli Dei filias hominum, quia bonae sunt, sumserunt sibi uxores ex omnibus quas elegerunt, mox adiunctum est: Et dixit Dominus Deus: Non permanebit spiritus meus in hominibus his in aeternum, propter quod caro sunt. Spiritu Dei quippe fuerant facti angeli Dei et filii Dei, sed declinando ad inferiora dicuntur homines nomine naturae, non gratiae; dicuntur et caro, desertores spiritus et deserendo deserti. Et septuaginta quidem interpretes et angelos Dei dixerunt istos et filios Dei; quod quidem non omnes codices habent, nam quidam nisi filios Dei non habent. Aquila autem, quem interpretem Iudaei ceteris anteponunt, non angelos Dei, nec filios Dei, sed filios deorum interpretatus est. Utrumque autem uerum est. Nam et filii Dei erant, sub quo patre suorum patrum etiam fratres erant; et filii deorum, quoniam dis geniti erant, cum quibus et ipsi di erant iuxta illud psalmi: Ego dixi: Di estis et filii Excelsi omnes. Merito enim creduntur septuaginta interpretes accepisse propheticum spiritum, ut, si quid eius auctoritate mutarent adque aliter quam erat quod interpretabantur dicerent, neque hoc diuinitus dictum esse dubitaretur.

[¶17] Let us omit, then, the fables of those scriptures which are called apocryphal, because their obscure origin was unknown to the fathers from whom the authority of the true Scriptures has been transmitted to us by a most certain and well-ascertained succession. For though there is some truth in these apocryphal writings, yet they contain so many false statements, that they have no canonical authority. We cannot deny that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, left some divine writings, for this is asserted by the Apostle Jude in his canonical epistle. But it is not without reason that these writings have no place in that canon of Scripture which was preserved in the temple of the Hebrew people by the diligence of successive priests; for their antiquity brought them under suspicion, and it was impossible to ascertain whether these were his genuine writings, and they were not brought forward as genuine by the persons who were found to have carefully preserved the canonical books by a successive transmission. So that the writings which are produced under his name, and which contain these fables about the giants, saying that their fathers were not men, are properly judged by prudent men to be not genuine; just as many writings are produced by heretics under the names both of other prophets, and more recently, under the names of the apostles, all of which, after careful examination, have been set apart from canonical authority under the title of Apocrypha. There is therefore no doubt that, according to the Hebrew and Christian canonical Scriptures, there were many giants before the deluge, and that these were citizens of the earthly society of men, and that the sons of God, who were according to the flesh the sons of Seth, sunk into this community when they forsook righteousness. Nor need we wonder that giants should be born even from these. For all of their children were not giants; but there were more then than in the remaining periods since the deluge. And it pleased the Creator to produce them, that it might thus be demonstrated that neither beauty, nor yet size and strength, are of much moment to the wise man, whose blessedness lies in spiritual and immortal blessings, in far better and more enduring gifts, in the good things that are the peculiar property of the good, and are not shared by good and bad alike. It is this which another prophet confirms when he says, “These were the giants, famous from the beginning, that were of so great stature, and so expert in war. Those did not the Lord choose, neither gave He the way of knowledge unto them; but they were destroyed because they had no wisdom, and perished through their own foolishness.”

> Latin: Quamuis hoc in Hebraeo esse perhibeatur ambiguum, ut et filii Dei et filii deorum posset interpretari. Omittamus igitur earum scripturarum fabulas, quae apocryphae nuncupantur, eo quod earum occulta origo non claruit patribus, a quibus usque ad nos auctoritas ueracium scripturarum certissima et notissima successione peruenit. In his autem apocryphis etsi inuenitur aliqua ueritas, tamen propter multa falsa nulla est canonica auctoritas. Scripsisse quidem nonnulla diuine illum Enoch, septimum ab Adam, negare non possumus, cum hoc in epistula canonica ludas apostolus dicat. Sed non frustra non sunt in eo canone scripturarum, qui seruabatur in templo Hebraei populi succedentium diligentia sacerdotum, nisi quia ob antiquitatem suspectae fidei iudicata sunt, nec utrum haec essent, quae ille scripsisset, poterat inueniri, non talibus proferentibus, qui ea per seriem successionis reperirentur rite seruasse. Unde illa, quae sub eius nomine proferuntur et continent istas de gigantibus fabulas, quod non habuerint homines patres, recte a prudentibus iudicantur non ipsius esse credenda; sicut multa sub nominibus et aliorum prophetarum et recentiora sub nominibus apostolorum ab haereticis proferuntur, quae omnia nomine apocryphorum ab auctoritate canonica diligenti exami. natione remota sunt. Igitur secundum scripturas canonicas Hebraeas adque Christianas multos gigantes ante diluuium fuisse non dubium est, et hos fuisse ciues terrigenae societatis hominum; Dei autem filios, qui secundum carnem de Seth propagati sunt, in hanc societatem deserta iustitia declinasse. Nec mirandum est, quod etiam de ipsis gigantes nasci potuerunt. Neque enim omnes gigantes, sed magis multi utique tunc fuerunt, quam post diluuium temporibus ceteris. Quos propterea creare placuit Creatori, ut etiam hinc ostenderetur non solum pulchritudines, uerum etiam magnitudines et fortitudines corporum non magni pendendas esse sapienti, qui spiritalibus adque inmortalibus longe melioribus adque firmioribus et bonorum propriis, non bonorum malorumque communibus beatificatur bonis. Quam rem alius propheta commendans ait: Ibi fuerunt gigantes illi nominati, qui ab initio fuerunt staturosi, scientes proelium. Non hos elegit Dominus, nec uiam scientiae dedit illis; sed interierunt, quia non habuerunt sapientiam, perierunt propter inconsiderantiam.

### How We are to Understand This Which the Lord Said to Those Who Were to Perish in the Flood:  ‘Their Days Shall Be 120 Years.’

[¶19] Chapter 24.—How We are to Understand This Which the Lord Said to Those Who Were to Perish in the Flood: “Their Days Shall Be 120 Years.”

> Latin: Caput XXIV. Quo modo intellegendum sit, quod de eis, qui diluuio perdendi erant, Dominus dixerit: Erunt dies eorum centum uiginti anni.

[¶20] But that which God said, “Their days shall be a hundred and twenty years,” is not to be understood as a prediction that henceforth men should not live longer than 120 years,—for even after the deluge we find that they lived more than 500 years,—but we are to understand that God said this when Noah had nearly completed his fifth century, that is, had lived 480 years, which Scripture, as it frequently uses the name of the whole of the largest part, calls 500 years. Now the deluge came in the 600th year of Noah’s life, the second month; and thus 120 years were predicted as being the remaining span of those who were doomed, which years being spent, they should be destroyed by the deluge. And it is not unreasonably believed that the deluge came as it did, because already there were not found upon earth any who were not worthy of sharing a death so manifestly judicial,—not that a good man, who must die some time, would be a jot the worse of such a death after it was past. Nevertheless there died in the deluge none of those mentioned in the sacred Scripture as descended from Seth. But here is the divine account of the cause of the deluge: “The Lord God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth; both man and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air: for I am angry that I have made them.”

> Latin: Quod autem dixit Deus: Erunt dies eorum centum uiginti anni, non sic accipiendum est, quasi praenuntiatum sit post haec homines centum uiginti annos uiuendo non transgredi, cum et post diluuium etiam quingentos excessisse inueniamus; sed intellegendum est hoc Deum dixisse, cum circa finem quingentorum annorum esset Noe, id est quadringentos octoginta uitae annos ageret, quos more suo scriptura quingentos uocat, nomine totius maximam partem plerumque significans; sescentensimo quippe anno uitae Noe, secundo mense factum est diluuium; ac sic centum uiginti anni praedicti sunt futuri uitae hominum periturorum, quibus transactis diluuio delerentur. Nec frustra creditur sic factum esse diluuium, iam non inuentis in terra qui non erant digni tali morte defungi, qua in inpios uindicatum est; non quo […] quam bonis quandoque morituris tale genus mortis faciat aliquid, quod eis possit obesse post mortem; uerum tamen nullus eorum diluuio mortuus est, quos de semine Seth propagatos sancta scriptura commemorat. Sic autem diuinitus diluuii causa narratur: Videns, inquit, Dominus Deus, quia multiplicatae sunt malitiae hominum super terram, et omnis quisque cogitat in corde suo diligenter super maligna omnes dies, et cogitauit Deus, quia fecit hominem super terram, et recogitauit, et dixit Deus: Deleam hominem, quem feci, a facie terrae, ab homine usque ad pecus et a repentibus usque ad uolatilia caeli, quia iratus sum, quoniam feci eos.

### Of the Anger of God, Which Does Not Inflame His Mind, Nor Disturb His Unchangeable Tranquillity.

[¶22] Chapter 25.—Of the Anger of God, Which Does Not Inflame His Mind, Nor Disturb His Unchangeable Tranquillity.

> Latin: Caput XXV. De ira Dei, quae incommutabilem tranquillitatem nulla inflammatione perturbat.

[¶23] The anger of God is not a disturbing emotion of His mind, but a judgment by which punishment is inflicted upon sin. His thought and reconsideration also are the unchangeable reason which changes things; for He does not, like man, repent of anything He has done, because in all matters His decision is as inflexible as His prescience is certain. But if Scripture were not to use such expressions as the above, it would not familiarly insinuate itself into the minds of all classes of men, whom it seeks access to for their good, that it may alarm the proud, arouse the careless, exercise the inquisitive, and satisfy the intelligent; and this it could not do, did it not first stoop, and in a manner descend, to them where they lie. But its denouncing death on all the animals of earth and air is a declaration of the vastness of the disaster that was approaching: not that it threatens destruction to the irrational animals as if they too had incurred it by sin.

> Latin: Ira Dei non perturbatio animi eius est, sed iudicium quo inrogatur poena peccato. Cogitatio uero eius et recogitatio mutandarum rerum est inmutabilis ratio. Neque enim sicut hominem, ita Deum cuiusquam facti sui paenitet, cuius est de omnibus omnino rebus tam fixa sententia quam certa praescientia. Sed si non utatur scriptura talibus uerbis, non se quodam modo familiarius insinuabit omni generi hominum, quibus uult esse consultum, ut et perterreat superbientes et excitet neglegentes, et exerceat quaerentes et alat intellegentes; quod non faceret, si non se prius inclinaret et quodam modo descenderet ad iacentes. Quod autem etiam interitum omnium animalium terrenorum uolatiliumque denuntiat: magnitudinem futurae cladis effatur, non animantibus rationis expertibus, tamquam et ipsa peccauerint, minatur exitium.

## 74. That the Ark Which Noah Was Ordered to Make Figures In Every Respect Christ and the Church.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/74/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/74/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 26.—That the Ark Which Noah Was Ordered to Make Figures In Every Respect Christ and the Church.

> Latin: Caput XXVI. Quod arca, quam Noe iussus est facere, in omnibus Christum ecclesiamque significet.

[¶1] Moreover, inasmuch as God commanded Noah, a just man, and, as the truthful Scripture says, a man perfect in his generation,—not indeed with the perfection of the citizens of the city of God in that immortal condition in which they equal the angels, but in so far as they can be perfect in their sojourn in this world,—inasmuch as God commanded him, I say, to make an ark, in which he might be rescued from the destruction of the flood, along with his family, i.e., his wife, sons, and daughters-in-law, and along with the animals who, in obedience to God’s command, came to him into the ark: this is certainly a figure of the city of God sojourning in this world; that is to say, of the church, which is rescued by the wood on which hung the Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus. For even its very dimensions, in length, breadth, and height, represent the human body in which He came, as it had been foretold. For the length of the human body, from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot, is six times its breadth from side to side, and ten times its depth or thickness, measuring from back to front: that is to say, if you measure a man as he lies on his back or on his face, he is six times as long from head to foot as he is broad from side to side, and ten times as long as he is high from the ground. And therefore the ark was made 300 cubits in length, 50 in breadth, and 30 in height. And its having a door made in the side of it certainly signified the wound which was made when the side of the Crucified was pierced with the spear; for by this those who come to Him enter; for thence flowed the sacraments by which those who believe are initiated. And the fact that it was ordered to be made of squared timbers, signifies the immoveable steadiness of the life of the saints; for however you turn a cube, it still stands. And the other peculiarities of the ark’s construction are signs of features of the church.

> Latin: Iam uero quod Noe homini iusto et, sicut de illo scriptura ueridica loquitur, in sua generatione perfecto (non utique sicut perficiendi sunt ciues ciuitatis Dei in illa inmortalitate, qua aequabuntur angelis Dei, sed sicut esse possunt in hac peregrinatione perfecti) imperat Deus, ut arcam faciat, in qua cum suis, id est uxore, filiis et nuribus, et cum animalibus, quae ad illum ex Dei praecepto in arcam ingressa sunt, liberaretur a diluuii uastitate: procul dubio figura est peregrinantis in hoc saeculo ciuitatis Dei, hoc est ecclesiae, quae fit salua per lignum, in quo pependit mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus. Nam et mensurae ipsae/longitudinis et altitudinis et latitudinis eius significant corpus humanum, in cuius ueritate ad homines praenuntiatus est uenturus et uenit. Humani quippe corporis longitudo a uertice usque ad uestigia sexiens tantum habet quam latitudo, quae est ab uno latere ad alterum latus, et deciens tantum quam altitudo, cuius altitudinis mensura est in latere a dorso ad uentrem; uelut si iacentem hominem metiaris supinum seu pronum, sexiens tantum longus est a capite ad pedes, quam latus a dextra in sinistram uel a sinistra in dextram, et deciens. quam altus a terra. Unde facta est arca trecentorum in longitudine cubitorum et quinquaginta in latitudine et triginta in altitudine. Et quod ostium in latere accepit, profecto illud est uulnus, quando latus crucifixi lancea perforatum est; hac quippe ad illum uenientes ingrediuntur, quia inde sacramenta manarunt, quibus credentes initiantur. Et quod de lignis quadratis fieri iubetur, undique stabilem uitam sanctorum significat: quacumque enim uerteris quadratum, stabit; et cetera, quae in eiusdem arcae constructione dicuntur, ecclesiasticarum signa sunt rerum.

[¶2] But we have not now time to pursue this subject; and, indeed, we have already dwelt upon it in the work we wrote against Faustus the Manichean, who denies that there is anything prophesied of Christ in the Hebrew books. It may be that one man’s exposition excels another’s, and that ours is not the best; but all that is said must be referred to this city of God we speak of, which sojourns in this wicked world as in a deluge, at least if the expositor would not widely miss the meaning of the author. For example, the interpretation I have given in the work against Faustus, of the words, “with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it,” is, that because the church is gathered out of all nations, it is said to have two stories, to represent the two kinds of men,—the circumcision, to wit, and the uncircumcision, or, as the apostle otherwise calls them, Jews and Gentiles; and to have three stories, because all the nations were replenished from the three sons of Noah. Now any one may object to this interpretation, and may give another which harmonizes with the rule of faith. For as the ark was to have rooms not only on the lower, but also on the upper stories, which were called “third stories,” that there might be a habitable space on the third floor from the basement, some one may interpret these to mean the three graces commended by the apostle.—faith, hope, and charity. Or even more suitably they may be supposed to represent those three harvests in the gospel, thirty-fold, sixty-fold, an hundred-fold,—chaste marriage dwelling in the ground floor, chaste widowhood in the upper, and chaste virginity in the top story. Or any better interpretation may be given, so long as the reference to this city is maintained. And the same statement I would make of all the remaining particulars in this passage which require exposition, viz., that although different explanations are given, yet they must all agree with the one harmonious catholic faith.

> Latin: Sed ea nunc persequi longum est; et hoc iam fecimus in opere, quod aduersus Faustum Manichaeum scripsimus, negantem in Hebraeorum libris aliquid de Christo esse prophetatum. Et fieri quidem potest, ut et nobis quispiam et alius alio exponat haec aptius, dum tamen ea, quae dicuntur, ad hanc de qua loquimur Dei ciuitatem in hoc saeculo maligno tamquam in diluuio peregrinantem omnia referantur. si ab eius sensu. qui ista conscripsit, non uult longe aberrare, qui exponit. Exempli gratia, uelut si quispiam, quod hic scriptum est: Inferiora bicamerata et tricamerata facies eam, non quod ego in illo opere dixi uelit intellegi, quia ex omnibus gentibus ecclesia congregatur, bicameratam dictam propter duo genera hominum, circumcisionem scilicet et praeputium, quos apostolus et alio modo dicit Iudaeos et Graecos; tricameratam uero eo, quod omnes gentes de tribus filiis Noe post diluuium reparatae sunt; sed aliud dicat aliquid, quod a fidei regula non sit alienum. Nam quoniam non solas in inferioribus mansiones habere arcam uoluit, uerum etiam in superioribus (et haec dixit bicamerata) et in superioribus superiorum (et haec appellauit tricamerata), ut ab imo sursum uersus tertia consurgeret habitatio: possunt hic intellegi et tria illa, quae commendat apostolus, fides, spes, caritas; possunt etiam multo conuenientius tres illae ubertates euangelicae, tricena, sexagena, centena, ut in infimo habitet pudicitia coniugalis, supra uidualis adque hac superior uirginalis, et si quid melius secundum fidem ciuitatis huius intellegi et dici potest. Hoc etiam de ceteris, quae hic exponenda sunt, dixerim, quia, etsi non uno disseruntur modo, ad unam tamen catholicae fidei concordiam reuocanda sunt.

### Of the Ark and the Deluge, and that We Cannot Agree with Those Who Receive the Bare History, But Reject the Allegorical Interpretation, Nor with Those Who Maintain the Figurative and Not the Historical Meaning.

[¶4] Chapter 27.—Of the Ark and the Deluge, and that We Cannot Agree with Those Who Receive the Bare History, But Reject the Allegorical Interpretation, Nor with Those Who Maintain the Figurative and Not the Historical Meaning.

> Latin: Caput XXVII. De arca adque diluuio nec illis esse consentiendum, qui solam historiam recipiunt sine allegorica significatione, nec illis, qui solas figuras defendunt repudiata historica ueritate.

[¶5] Yet no one ought to suppose either that these things were written for no purpose, or that we should study only the historical truth, apart from any allegorical meanings; or, on the contrary, that they are only allegories, and that there were no such facts at all, or that, whether it be so or no, there is here no prophecy of the church. For what right-minded man will contend that books so religiously preserved during thousands of years, and transmitted by so orderly a succession, were written without an object, or that only the bare historical facts are to be considered when we read them? For, not to mention other instances, if the number of the animals entailed the construction of an ark of great size, where was the necessity of sending into it two unclean and seven clean animals of each species, when both could have been preserved in equal numbers? Or could not God, who ordered them to be preserved in order to replenish the race, restore them in the same way He had created them?

> Latin: Non tamen quisquam putare debet aut frustra haec esse conscripta, aut tantummodo rerum gestarum ueritatem sine ullis allegoricis significationibus hic esse quaerendam, aut e contrario haec omnino gesta non esse, sed solas esse uerborum figuras, aut quidquid illud est nequaquam ad prophetiam ecclesiae pertinere. Quis enim nisi mente peruersus inaniter scriptos esse contendat libros per annorum milia tanta religione et tam ordinatae successionis obseruantia custoditos, aut solas res gestas illic intuendas, ubi certe, ut alia omittam, si numerositas animalium cogebat arcae tantam fieri magnitudinem, inmunda bina et munda septena intromitti animalia quid cogebat, cum aequalis numeri possent utraque seruari? Aut uero Deus, qui propter genus reparandum seruanda praecepit, eo modo illa, quo instituerat, restituere non ualebat?

[¶6] But they who contend that these things never happened, but are only figures setting forth other things, in the first place suppose that there could not be a flood so great that the water should rise fifteen cubits above the highest mountains, because it is said that clouds cannot rise above the top of Mount Olympus, because it reaches the sky where there is none of that thicker atmosphere in which winds, clouds, and rains have their origin. They do not reflect that the densest element of all, earth, can exist there; or perhaps they deny that the top of the mountain is earth. Why, then, do these measurers and weighers of the elements contend that earth can be raised to those aerial altitudes, and that water cannot, while they admit that water is lighter, and liker to ascend than earth? What reason do they adduce why earth, the heavier and lower element, has for so many ages scaled to the tranquil ether, while water, the lighter, and more likely to ascend, is not suffered to do the same even for a brief space of time?

> Latin: Qui uero non esse gesta, sed solas rerum significandarum figuras esse contendunt, primum opinantur tam magnum fieri non potuisse diluuium, ut altissimos montes quindecim cubitis aqua crescendo transcenderet, propter Olympi uerticem montis, supra quem perhibentur nubes non posse concrescere, quod tam sublime iam caelum sit, ut non ibi sit aer iste crassior, ubi uenti nebulae imbresque gignuntur; nec adtendunt omnium elementorum crassissimam terram ibi esse potuisse. An forte negant esse terram uerticem montis? Quur igitur usque ad illa caeli spatia terris exaltari licuisse, et aquis exaltari non licuisse contendunt, cum isti mens ores et pensores elementorum aquas terris perhibeant superiores adque leuiores? Quid itaque rationis adferunt, quare terra grauior et inferior locum caeli tranquillioris inuaserit per uolumina tot annorum, et aqua leuior ac superior permissa non sit hoc facere saltem ad tempus exiguum?

[¶7] They say, too, that the area of that ark could not contain so many kinds of animals of both sexes, two of the unclean and seven of the clean. But they seem to me to reckon only one area of 300 cubits long and 50 broad, and not to remember that there was another similar in the story above, and yet another as large in the story above that again; and that there was consequently an area of 900 cubits by 150. And if we accept what Origen has with some appropriateness suggested, that Moses the man of God, being, as it is written, “learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians,” who delighted in geometry, may have meant geometrical cubits, of which they say that one is equal to six of our cubits, then who does not see what a capacity these dimensions give to the ark? For as to their objection that an ark of such size could not be built, it is a very silly calumny; for they are aware that huge cities have been built, and they should remember that the ark was an hundred years in building. Or, perhaps, though stone can adhere to stone when cemented with nothing but lime, so that a wall of several miles may be constructed, yet plank cannot be riveted to plank by mortices, bolts, nails, and pitch-glue, so as to construct an ark which was not made with curved ribs but straight timbers, which was not to be launched by its builders, but to be lifted by the natural pressure of the water when it reached it, and which was to be preserved from shipwreck as it floated about rather by divine oversight than by human skill.

> Latin: Dicunt etiam non potuisse capere arcae illius quantitatem animalium genera tam multa in utroque sexu, bina de inmundis, septena de mundis. Qui mihi uidentur non conputare nisi trecenta cubita longitudinis et latitudinis quinquaginta, nec cogitare aliud tantum esse in superioribus itemque aliud tantum in superioribus superiorum, ac per hoc ter ducta illa cubita fieri nongenta super centum quinquaginta. Si autem cogitemus quod Origenes non ineleganter adstruxit, Moysen scilicet hominem Dei eruditum, sicut scriptum est, omni sapientia Aegyptiorum, qui geometricam dilexerunt, geometrica cubita significare potuisse, ubi unum quantum sex nostra ualere adseuerant, quis non uideat quantum rerum capere illa potuit magnitudo? Nam illud quod disputant tantae magnitudinis arcam non potuisse conpingi, ineptissime calumniantur, cum sciant inmensas urbes fuisse constructas, nec adtendunt centum annos, quibus arca illa est fabricata; nisi forte lapis lapidi adhaerere potest sola calce coniunctus, ut murus per tot milia circumagatur, et lignum ligno per suscudines, epiros, clauos, gluten bituminis non potest adhaerere, ut fabricetur arca non curuis, sed rectis lineis longe lateque porrecta, quam nullus in mare mittat conatus hominum, sed leuet unda, cum uenerit, naturali ordine ponderum, magisque diuina prouidentia quam humana prudentia natantem gubernet, ne incurrat ubicumque naufragium.

[¶8] As to another customary inquiry of the scrupulous about the very minute creatures, not only such as mice and lizards, but also locusts, beetles, flies, fleas, and so forth, whether there were not in the ark a larger number of them than was determined by God in His command, those persons who are moved by this difficulty are to be reminded that the words “every creeping thing of the earth” only indicate that it was not needful to preserve in the ark the animals that can live in the water, whether the fishes that live submerged in it, or the sea-birds that swim on its surface. Then, when it is said “male and female,” no doubt reference is made to the repairing of the races, and consequently there was no need for those creatures being in the ark which are born without the union of the sexes from inanimate things, or from their corruption; or if they were in the ark, they might be there as they commonly are in houses, not in any determinate numbers; or if it was necessary that there should be a definite number of all those animals that cannot naturally live in the water, that so the most sacred mystery which was being enacted might be bodied forth and perfectly figured in actual realities, still this was not the care of Noah or his sons, but of God. For Noah did not catch the animals and put them into the ark, but gave them entrance as they came seeking it. For this is the force of the words, “They shall come unto thee,”—not, that is to say, by man’s effort, but by God’s will. But certainly we are not required to believe that those which have no sex also came; for it is expressly and definitely said, “They shall be male and female.” For there are some animals which are born out of corruption, but yet afterwards they themselves copulate and produce offspring, as flies; but others, which have no sex, like bees. Then, as to those animals which have sex, but without ability to propagate their kind, like mules and she-mules, it is probable that they were not in the ark, but that it was counted sufficient to preserve their parents, to wit, the horse and the ass; and this applies to all hybrids. Yet, if it was necessary for the completeness of the mystery, they were there; for even this species has “male and female.”

> Latin: Quod autem scrupulosissime quaeri solet de minutissimis bestiolis, non solum quales sunt mures et stelliones, uerum etiam quales lucustae, scarabei, muscae denique et pulices, utrum non amplioris numeri in arca illa fuerint, quam qui est definitus, cum hoc imperaret Deus, prius admonendi sunt, quos haec mouent, sic accipiendum esse quod dictum est: Quae repunt super terram, ut necesse non fuerit conseruari in arca, quae possunt in aquis uiuere, non solum mersa, sicut pisces, uerum etiam supernatantia, sicut multae alites. Deinde cum dicitur: Masculus et femina erunt, profecto intellegitur ad reparandum genus dici; ac per hoc nec illa necesse fuerat ibi esse, quae possunt sine concubitu de quibusque rebus uel rerum corruptionibus nasci; uel si fuerunt, sicut in domibus esse consuerunt, sine ullo numero definito esse potuisse; aut si mysterium sacratissimum, quod agebatur, et tantae rei figura etiam ueritate facti aliter non posset inpleri, nisi ut omnia ibi certo illo numero essent, quae uiuere in aquis natura prohibente non possent, non fuit ista cura illius hominis uel illorum hominum, sed diuina. Non enim ea Noe capta intromittebat, sed uenientia et intrantia permittebat. Ad hoc enim ualet quod dictum est: Intrabunt ad te; non scilicet hominis actu, sed Dei nutu; ita sane, ut non illic fuisse credenda sint, quae sexu carent. Praescriptum enim adque definitum est: Masculus et femina erunt. Alia sunt quippe quae de quibusque rebus sine concubitu ita nascuntur, ut postea concumbant et generent, sicut muscae; alia uero in quibus nihil sit maris et feminae, sicut apes. Ea porro quae sic habent sexum, ut non habeant fetum, sicut muli et mutae, mirum si fuerunt ibi, ac non potius parentes eorum ibi fuisse suffecerit, equinum uidelicet adque asininum genus; et si qua alia sunt, quae commixtione diuersi generis genus aliquod gignunt. Sed si et hoc ad mysterium pertinebat, ibi erant.

[¶9] Another question is commonly raised regarding the food of the carnivorous animals,—whether, without transgressing the command which fixed the number to be preserved, there were necessarily others included in the ark for their sustenance; or, as is more probable, there might be some food which was not flesh, and which yet suited all. For we know how many animals whose food is flesh eat also vegetable products and fruits, especially figs and chestnuts. What wonder is it, therefore, if that wise and just man was instructed by God what would suit each, so that without flesh he prepared and stored provision fit for every species? And what is there which hunger would not make animals eat? Or what could not be made sweet and wholesome by God, who, with a divine facility, might have enabled them to do without food at all, had it not been requisite to the completeness of so great a mystery that they should be fed? But none but a contentious man can suppose that there was no prefiguring of the church in so manifold and circumstantial a detail. For the nations have already so filled the church, and are comprehended in the framework of its unity, the clean and unclean together, until the appointed end, that this one very manifest fulfillment leaves no doubt how we should interpret even those others which are somewhat more obscure, and which cannot so readily be discerned. And since this is so, if not even the most audacious will presume to assert that these things were written without a purpose, or that though the events really happened they mean nothing, or that they did not really happen, but are only allegory, or that at all events they are far from having any figurative reference to the church; if it has been made out that, on the other hand, we must rather believe that there was a wise purpose in their being committed to memory and to writing, and that they did happen, and have a significance, and that this significance has a prophetic reference to the church, then this book, having served this purpose, may now be closed, that we may go on to trace in the history subsequent to the deluge the courses of the two cities,—the earthly, that lives according to men, and the heavenly, that lives according to God.

> Latin: Habet enim et hoc genus masculum et feminam. Solet etiam mouere nonnullos, genera escarum, quae illic habere poterant animalia, quae non nisi carne uesci putantur, utrum praeter numerum ibi fuerint sine transgressione mandati, quae aliorum alendorum necessitas illic coegisset includi; an uero, quod potius est credendum, praeter carnes aliqua alimenta esse potuerint, quae omnibus conuenirent. Nouimus enim quam multa animalia, quibus caro cibus est, frugibus pomisque uescantur et maxime fico adque castaneis. Quid ergo mirum, si uir ille sapiens et iustus, etiam diuinitus admonitus quid cuique congrueret, sine carnibus aptam cuique generi alimoniam praeparauit et condidit? Quid est autem, quo uesci non cogeret fames? aut quid non suaue ac salubre facere posset Deus, qui etiam, ut sine cibo uiuerent. diuina facilitate donaret, nisi ut pascerentur etiam hoc inplendae figurae tanti mysterii conueniret? Non autem ad praefigurandam ecclesiam pertinere tam multiplicia rerum signa gestarum, nisi fuerit. contentiosus, nemo permittitur opinari. Iam enim gentes ita ecclesiam repleuerunt, mundique et inmundi, donec certum ueniatur ad finem, ita eius unitatis quadam conpagine continentur, ut ex hoc uno manifestissimo etiam de ceteris, quae obscurius aliquanto dicta sunt et difficilius agnosci queunt, dubitare fas non sit. Quae cum ita sint, sic nec inaniter ista esse conscripta putare quisquam uel durus audebit, nec nihil significare cum gesta sint, nec sola dicta esse significatiua non facta, nec aliena esse ab ecclesia significanda probabiliter dici potest; sed magis credendum est et sapienter esse memoriae litterisque mandata, et gesta esse, et significare aliquid, et ipsum aliquid ad praefigurandam ecclesiam pertinere. Iam usque ad hunc articulum perductus liber iste claudendus est, ut ambarum ciuitatum cursus, terrenae scilicet secundum hominem uiuentis et caelestis secundum Deum, post diluuium et deinceps in rebus consequentibus requiratur.

### The history of the city of God from Noah to the time of the kings of Israel.

[¶11] Book XVI.

> Latin: Liber XVI

[¶12] Argument—In the former part of this book, from the first to the twelfth chapter, the progress of the two cities, the earthly and the heavenly, from Noah to Abraham, is exhibited from Holy Scripture: In the latter part, the progress of the heavenly alone, from Abraham to the kings of Israel, is the subject.

### Whether, After the Deluge, from Noah to Abraham, Any Families Can Be Found Who Lived According to God.

[¶14] Chapter 1.—Whether, After the Deluge, from Noah to Abraham, Any Families Can Be Found Who Lived According to God.

> Latin: Caput I. An post diluuium a Noe usque ad Abraham aliquae familiae secundum Deum uiuentium reperiantur.

[¶15] It is difficult to discover from Scripture, whether, after the deluge, traces of the holy city are continuous, or are so interrupted by intervening seasons of godlessness, that not a single worshipper of the one true God was found among men; because from Noah, who, with his wife, three sons, and as many daughters-in-law, achieved deliverance in the ark from the destruction of the deluge, down to Abraham, we do not find in the canonical books that the piety of any one is celebrated by express divine testimony, unless it be in the case of Noah, who commends with a prophetic benediction his two sons Shem and Japheth, while he beheld and foresaw what was long afterwards to happen. It was also by this prophetic spirit that, when his middle son—that is, the son who was younger than the first and older than the last born—had sinned against him, he cursed him not in his own person, but in his son’s (his own grandson’s), in the words, “Cursed be the lad Canaan; a servant shall he be unto his brethren.” Now Canaan was born of Ham, who, so far from covering his sleeping father’s nakedness, had divulged it. For the same reason also he subjoins the blessing on his two other sons, the oldest and youngest, saying, “Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall gladden Japheth, and he shall dwell in the houses of Shem.” And so, too, the planting of the vine by Noah, and his intoxication by its fruit, and his nakedness while he slept, and the other things done at that time, and recorded, are all of them pregnant with prophetic meanings, and veiled in mysteries.

> Latin: Post diluuium procurrentis sanctae uestigia ciuitatis utrum continuata sint an intercurrentibus inpietatis interrupta temporibus, ita ut nullus hominum ueri unius Dei cultor existeret, ad liquidum scripturis loquentibus inuenire difficile est, propterea quia in canonicis libris post Noe, qui cum coniuge ac tribus filiis totidemque nuribus suis meruit per arcam uastatione diluuii liberari, non inuenimus usque Abraham cuiusquam pietatem euidenti diuino eloquio praedicatam, nisi quod Noe duos filios suos Sem et lapheth prophetica benedictione commendat, intuens et praeuidens quod longe fuerat post futurum. Unde factum est etiam illud, ut filium suum medium, hoc est primogenito iuniorem ultimoque maiorem, qui peccauerat in patrem, non in ipso, sed in filio eius suo nepote maledicerethis uerbis: Maledictus Chanaan puer, famulus erit fratribus suis. Chanaan porro natus fuerat ex Cham, qui patris dormientis nec texerat, sed potius prodiderat nuditatem. Unde etiam quod secutus adiunxit benedictionem duorum maximi et minimi filiorum dicens: Benedictus Dominus Deus Sem, et erit Chanaan puer illius; latificet Deus Iapheth, et habitet in domibus Sem, sicut ipsa eiusdem Noe et uineae plantatio et ex eius fructu inebriatio et dormientis enudatio, et quae ibi cetera facta adque conscripta sunt, propheticis sunt grauidata sensibus et uelata tegminibus.

### What Was Prophetically Prefigured in the Sons of Noah.

[¶17] Chapter 2.—What Was Prophetically Prefigured in the Sons of Noah.

> Latin: Caput II. Quid in filiis Noe prophetice fuerit praefiguratum.

[¶18] The things which then were hidden are now sufficiently revealed by the actual events which have followed. For who can carefully and intelligently consider these things without recognizing them accomplished in Christ? Shem, of whom Christ was born in the flesh, means “named.” And what is of greater name than Christ, the fragrance of whose name is now everywhere perceived, so that even prophecy sings of it beforehand, comparing it in the Song of Songs, to ointment poured forth? Is it not also in the houses of Christ, that is, in the churches, that the “enlargement” of the nations dwells? For Japheth means “enlargement.” And Ham (i.e., hot), who was the middle son of Noah, and, as it were, separated himself from both, and remained between them, neither belonging to the first-fruits of Israel nor to the fullness of the Gentiles, what does he signify but the tribe of heretics, hot with the spirit, not of patience, but of impatience, with which the breasts of heretics are wont to blaze, and with which they disturb the peace of the saints? But even the heretics yield an advantage to those that make proficiency, according to the apostle’s saying, “There must also be heresies, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” Whence, too, it is elsewhere said, “The son that receives instruction will be wise, and he uses the foolish as his servant.” For while the hot restlessness of heretics stirs questions about many articles of the catholic faith, the necessity of defending them forces us both to investigate them more accurately, to understand them more clearly, and to proclaim them more earnestly; and the question mooted by an adversary becomes the occasion of instruction. However, not only those who are openly separated from the church, but also all who glory in the Christian name, and at the same time lead abandoned lives, may without absurdity seem to be figured by Noah’s middle son: for the passion of Christ, which was signified by that man’s nakedness, is at once proclaimed by their profession, and dishonored by their wicked conduct. Of such, therefore, it has been said, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” And therefore was Ham cursed in his son, he being, as it were, his fruit. So, too, this son of his, Canaan, is fitly interpreted “their movement,” which is nothing else than their work. But Shem and Japheth, that is to say, the circumcision and uncircumcision, or, as the apostle otherwise calls them, the Jews and Greeks, but called and justified, having somehow discovered the nakedness of their father (which signifies the Saviour’s passion), took a garment and laid it upon their backs, and entered backwards and covered their father’s nakedness, without their seeing what their reverence hid. For we both honor the passion of Christ as accomplished for us, and we hate the crime of the Jews who crucified Him. The garment signifies the sacrament, their backs the memory of things past: for the church celebrates the passion of Christ as already accomplished, and no longer to be looked forward to, now that Japheth already dwells in the habitations of Shem, and their wicked brother between them.

> Latin: ‘Sed nunc rerum effectu iam in posteris consecuto, quae operta fuerant, satis aperta sunt. Quis enim haec diligenter et intellegenter aduertens non agnoscat in Christo? Sem quippe, de cuius semine in carne natus est Christus, interpretatur nominatus. Quid autem nominatius Christo, cuius nomen ubique iam fragrat, ita ut in cantico canticorum etiam ipsa praecedente prophetia unguento conparetur effuso; in cuius domibus, id est ecclesiis, habitat gentium latitudo? Nam Iapheth latitudo interpretatur. Cham porro, quod interpretatur calidus, medius Noe filius, tamquam se ab utroque discernens et inter utrumque remanens, nec in primitiis Israelitarum nec in plenitudine gentium, quid significat nisi haereticorum genus calidum, non spiritu sapientiae, sed inpatientiae, quo solent haereticorum feruere praecordia et pacem perturbare sanctorum ? Sed haec in usum cedunt proficientium, iuxta illud apostoli: Oportet et haereses esse, ut probati manifesti fiant in uobis. Unde etiam scriptum est: Filius eruditus sapiens erit, inprudente autem ministro utetur. Multa quippe ad fidem catholicam pertinentia, dum haereticorum calida inquietudine exagitantur, ut aduersus eos defendi possint, et considerantur diligentius et intelleguntur clarius et instantius praedicantur, et ab aduersario mota quaestio discendi existit occasio. Quamuis non solum qui sunt apertissime separati, uerum omnes, qui Christiano uocabulo gloriantur et perdite uiuunt, non absurde possunt uideri medio Noe filio figurati; passionem quippe Christi, quae illius hominis nuditate significata est, et adnuntiant profitendo, et male agendo exhonorant. De talibus ergo dictum est: Ex fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos. Ideo Cham in filio suo maledictus est, tamquam in fructu suo, id est in opere suo. Unde conuenienter et ipse filius eius Chanaan interpretatur motus eorum; quod aliud quid est quam opus eorum? Sem uero et Iapheth tamquam circumcisio et praeputium, uel sicut alio modo eos appellat apostolus, ludaei et Graeci, sed uocati et iustificati, cognita quoquo modo nuditate patris, qua significabatur passio Saluatoris, sumentes uestimentum posuerunt supra dorsa sua et intrauerunt auersi et operuerunt nuditatem patris sui, nec uiderunt quod reuerendo texerunt. Quodam enim modo in passione Christi et quod pro nobis factum est honoramus et Iudaeorum facinus auersamur. Yestimentum significat sacramentum, dorsa memoriam praeteritorum, quia passionem Christi eo scilicet iam tempore, quo habitat Iapheth in domibus Sem et malus frater in medio eorum, transactam celebrat ecclesia, non adhuc prospectat futuram. Sed malus frater in filio suo, hoc est in opere suo, puer. id est seruus est fratrum bonorum, cum ad exercitationem patientiae uel ad prouectum sapientiae scienter utuntur malis boni.

[¶19] But the wicked brother is, in the person of his son (i.e., his work), the boy, or slave, of his good brothers, when good men make a skillful use of bad men, either for the exercise of their patience or for their advancement in wisdom. For the apostle testifies that there are some who preach Christ from no pure motives; “but,” says he, “whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.” For it is Christ Himself who planted the vine of which the prophet says, “The vine of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel;” and He drinks of its wine, whether we thus understand that cup of which He says, “Can ye drink of the cup that I shall drink of?” and, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me,” by which He obviously means His passion. Or, as wine is the fruit of the vine, we may prefer to understand that from this vine, that is to say, from the race of Israel, He has assumed flesh and blood that He might suffer; “and he was drunken,” that is, He suffered; “and was naked,” that is, His weakness appeared in His suffering, as the apostle says, “though He was crucified through weakness.” Wherefore the same apostle says, “The weakness of God is stronger than men; and the foolishness of God is wiser than men.” And when to the expression “he was naked” Scripture adds “in his house,” it elegantly intimates that Jesus was to suffer the cross and death at the hands of His own household, His own kith and kin, the Jews. This passion of Christ is only externally and verbally professed by the reprobate, for what they profess, they do not understand. But the elect hold in the inner man this so great mystery, and honor inwardly in the heart this weakness and foolishness of God. And of this there is a figure in Ham going out to proclaim his father’s nakedness; while Shem and Japheth, to cover or honor it, went in, that is to say, did it inwardly.

> Latin: Sunt enim teste apostolo, qui Christum adnuntiant non caste; sed siue occasione, inquit, siue ueritate Christus adnuntietur [in hoc gaudeo, sed et gaudebo]. Ipse quippe plantauit uineam, de qua dicit propheta: Vinea Domini Sabaoth domus Israel est, et bibit de uino eius (siue ille calix hic intellegatur, de quo dicit: Potestis bibere calicem, quem ego bibiturus sum? et: Pater, si fieri potest, transeat calix iste, quo suam sine dubio significat passionem; siue, quia uinum fructus est uineae, hoc potius illo significatum est, quod ex ipsa uinea, hoc est ex genere Israelitarum, carnem pro nobis et sanguinem, ut pati posset, adsumsit), et inebriatus est, idest passus est, et nudatus est; ibi namque nudata est, id est apparuit, eius infirmitas, de qua dicit apostolus: Etsi crucifixu.s est ex infirmitate. Unde idem dicit: Infirmum Dei fortius est hominibus, et stultum Dei sapientius est hominibus. Quod uero cum dictum esset: Et nudatus est, addidit scriptura: In domo sua, eleganter ostendit, quod a suae carnis gente et domesticis sanguinis sui, utique Iudaeis, fuerat crucem mortemque passurus. Hanc passionem Christi foris in sono tantum uocis reprobi adnuntiant; non enim quod adnuntiant intellegunt. Probi autem in interiore homine habent tam grande mysterium adque honorant intus in corde infirmum et stultum Dei, quia fortius et sapientius est hominibus. Huius rei figura est, quod Cham exiens hoc nuntiauit foris; Sem uero et Iapheth, ut hoc uelarent, id est honorarent, ingressi sunt, hoc est interius id egerunt.

[¶20] These secrets of divine Scripture we investigate as well as we can. All will not accept our interpretation with equal confidence, but all hold it certain that these things were neither done nor recorded without some foreshadowing of future events, and that they are to be referred only to Christ and His church, which is the city of God, proclaimed from the very beginning of human history by figures which we now see everywhere accomplished. From the blessing of the two sons of Noah, and the cursing of the middle son, down to Abraham, or for more than a thousand years, there is, as I have said, no mention of any righteous persons who worshipped God. I do not therefore conclude that there were none; but it had been tedious to mention every one, and would have displayed historical accuracy rather than prophetic foresight. The object of the writer of these sacred books, or rather of the Spirit of God in him, is not only to record the past, but to depict the future, so far as it regards the city of God; for whatever is said of those who are not its citizens, is given either for her instruction, or as a foil to enhance her glory. Yet we are not to suppose that all that is recorded has some signification; but those things which have no signification of their own are interwoven for the sake of the things which are significant. It is only the ploughshare that cleaves the soil; but to effect this, other parts of the plough are requisite. It is only the strings in harps and other musical instruments which produce melodious sounds; but that they may do so, there are other parts of the instrument which are not indeed struck by those who sing, but are connected with the strings which are struck, and produce musical notes. So in this prophetic history some things are narrated which have no significance, but are, as it were, the framework to which the significant things are attached.

> Latin: Haec scripturae secreta diuinae indagamus, ut possumus, alius alio magis minusue congruenter, uerum tamen fideliter certum tenentes non ea sine aliqua praefiguratione futurorum gesta adque conscripta neque nisi ad Christum et eius ecclesiam, quae ciuitas Dei est, esse referenda; cuius ab initio generis humani non defuit praedicatio, quam per omnia uidemus inpleri. Benedictis igitur duobus filiis Noe adque uno in medio eorum maledicto deinceps usque ad Abraham de iustorum aliquorum, qui pie Deum colerent, commemoratione silentium est per annos amplius quam mille. Nec eos defuisse crediderim, sed si omnes commemorarentur, nimis longum fieret, et esset haec historica magis diligentia quam prophetica prouidentia. Illa itaque exsequitur litterarum sacrarum scriptor istarum uel potius per eum Dei Spiritus, quibus non solum narrentur praeterita, uerum etiam praenuntientur futura, quae tamen pertinent ad ciuitatem Dei; quia et de hominibus, qui non sunt ciues eius, quidquid hic dicitur, ad hoc dicitur, ut illa ex conparatione contraria uel proficiat uel emineat. Non sane omnia, quae gesta narrantur, aliquid etiam significare putanda sunt; sed propter illa, quae aliquid significant, etiam ea, quae nihil significant, adtexuntur. Solo enim uomere terra proscinditur; sed ut hoc fieri possit, etiam cetera aratri membra sunt necessaria; et soli nerui in citharis adque huius modi uasis musicis aptantur ad cantum; sed ut aptari possint, insunt et cetera in conpagibus organorum, quae non percutiuntur a canentibus, sed ea, quae percussa resonant, his conectuntur. Ita in prophetica historia dicuntur et aliqua, quae nihil significant, sed quibus adhaereant quae significant et quodam modo religentur.

## 75. Of the Generations of the Three Sons of Noah

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/75/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/75/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 3.—Of the Generations of the Three Sons of Noah.

> Latin: Caput III. De generationibus trium filiorum Noe.

[¶1] We must therefore introduce into this work an explanation of the generations of the three sons of Noah, in so far as that may illustrate the progress in time of the two cities. Scripture first mentions that of the youngest son, who is called Japheth: he had eight sons, and by two of these sons seven grandchildren, three by one son, four by the other; in all, fifteen descendants. Ham, Noah’s middle son, had four sons, and by one of them five grandsons, and by one of these two great-grandsons; in all, eleven. After enumerating these, Scripture returns to the first of the sons, and says, “Cush begat Nimrod; he began to be a giant on the earth. He was a giant hunter against the Lord God: wherefore they say, As Nimrod the giant hunter against the Lord. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Out of that land went forth Assur, and built Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah: this was a great city.” Now this Cush, father of the giant Nimrod, is the first-named among the sons of Ham, to whom five sons and two grandsons are ascribed. But he either begat this giant after his grandsons were born, or, which is more credible, Scripture speaks of him separately on account of his eminence; for mention is also made of his kingdom, which began with that magnificent city Babylon, and the other places, whether cities or districts, mentioned along with it. But what is recorded of the land of Shinar which belonged to Nimrod’s kingdom, to wit, that Assur went forth from it and built Nineveh and the other cities mentioned with it, happened long after; but he takes occasion to speak of it here on account of the grandeur of the Assyrian kingdom, which was wonderfully extended by Ninus son of Belus, and founder of the great city Nineveh, which was named after him, Nineveh, from Ninus. But Assur, father of the Assyrian, was not one of the sons of Ham, Noah’s son, but is found among the sons of Shem, his eldest son. Whence it appears that among Shem’s offspring there arose men who afterwards took possession of that giant’s kingdom, and advancing from it, founded other cities, the first of which was called Nineveh, from Ninus. From him Scripture returns to Ham’s other son, Mizraim; and his sons are enumerated, not as seven individuals, but as seven nations. And from the sixth, as if from the sixth son, the race called the Philistines are said to have sprung; so that there are in all eight. Then it returns again to Canaan, in whose person Ham was cursed; and his eleven sons are named. Then the territories they occupied, and some of the cities, are named. And thus, if we count sons and grandsons, there are thirty-one of Ham’s descendants registered.

> Latin: Generationes ergo filiorum Noe deinceps intuendae, et quod de his dicendum uidetur, adtexendum est huic operi, quo ciuitatis utriusque, terrenae scilicet et caelestis, per tempora procursus ostenditur. Coeptae sunt enim commemorari a minimo filio, qui uocatus est Iapheth, cuius filii octo nominati sunt, nepotes autem septem de duobus filiis eius, tres ex uno, quattuor ex altero; fiunt itaque omnes quindecim. Filii autem Cham, hoc est medii filii Noe, quattuor et nepotes quinque ex uno eius filio, pronepotes duo ex nepote uno; fit eorum summa undecim. Quibus enumeratis reditur tamquam ad caput et dicitur: Chus autem genuit Nebroth; hic coepit esse gigans super terram. Hic erat gigans uenator contra Dominum Deum. Propter hoc dicunt: Sicut Nebroth gigans uenator contra Dominum. Et factum est initium regni eius Babylon, Oreg, Archad et Chalemne in terra Sennaar. De terra illa exiuit Assur et aedificauit Nineuen et Roboth ciuitatem et Chalach et Dasem inter medium Nineuae et Chalach: haec ciuitas magna. Iste porro Chus, pater gigantis Nebroth, primus nominatus est in filiis Cham, cuius quinque filii iam fuerant conputati et nepotes duo. Sed istum gigantem aut post nepotes suos natos genuit, aut, quod est credibilius, seorsum de illo propter eius eminentiam scriptura locuta est; quando quidem et regnum eius commemoratum est, cuius initium erat illa nobilissima Babylon ciuitas, et quae iuxta commemoratae sunt siue ciuitates siue regiones. Quod uero dictum est de terra illa, id est de terra Sennaar, quae pertinebat ad regnum Nebroth, exisse Assur et aedificasse Nineuen et alias quas contexuit ciuitates, longe postea factum est, quod ex hac occasione perstrinxit propter nobilitatem regni Assyriorum, quod mirabiliter dilatauit Ninus, Beli filius, conditor Nineuae ciuitatis magnae; cuius ciuitatis nomen ex illius nomine deriuatum est, ut a Nino Nineue uocaretur. Assur autem, unde Assyrii, non fuit in filiis Cham, medii filii Noe, sed in filiis Sem reperitur, qui fuit Noe maximus filius. Unde apparet de progenie Sem. exortos fuisse, qui postea regnum gigantis illius obtinerent et inde procederent adque alias conderent ciuitates, quarum prima est a Nino, appellata Nineue. Hinc reditur ad alium filium Cham, qui uocabatur Mesraim, et commemorantur quos genuit, non tamquam singuli homines, sed nationes septem. Et de sexta, uelut de sexto filio, gens commemoratur exisse, quae appellatur Philistiim; unde fiunt octo. Inde iterum ad Chanaan reditur, in quo filio maledictus est Cham, et quos genuit undecim nominantur. Deinde usque ad quos fines peruenerint commemoratis quibusdam ciuitatibus dicitur.

[¶2] It remains to mention the sons of Shem, Noah’s eldest son; for to him this genealogical narrative gradually ascends from the youngest. But in the commencement of the record of Shem’s sons there is an obscurity which calls for explanation, since it is closely connected with the object of our investigation. For we read, “Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Heber, the brother of Japheth the elder, were children born.” This is the order of the words: And to Shem was born Heber, even to himself, that is, to Shem himself was born Heber, and Shem is the father of all his children. We are intended to understand that Shem is the patriarch of all his posterity who were to be mentioned, whether sons, grandsons, great-grandsons, or descendants at any remove. For Shem did not beget Heber, who was indeed in the fifth generation from him. For Shem begat, among other sons, Arphaxad; Arphaxad begat Cainan, Cainan begat Salah, Salah begat Heber. And it was with good reason that he was named first among Shem’s offspring, taking precedence even of his sons, though only a grandchild of the fifth generation; for from him, as tradition says, the Hebrews derived their name, though the other etymology which derives the name from Abraham (as if Abrahews) may possibly be correct. But there can be little doubt that the former is the right etymology, and that they were called after Heber, Heberews, and then, dropping a letter, Hebrews; and so was their language called Hebrew, which was spoken by none but the people of Israel among whom was the city of God, mysteriously prefigured in all the people, and truly present in the saints. Six of Shem’s sons then are first named, then four grandsons born to one of these sons; then it mentions another son of Shem, who begat a grandson; and his son, again, or Shem’s great-grandson, was Heber. And Heber begat two sons, and called the one Peleg, which means “dividing;” and Scripture subjoins the reason of this name, saying, “for in his days was the earth divided.” What this means will afterwards appear. Heber’s other son begat twelve sons; consequently all Shem’s descendants are twenty-seven. The total number of the progeny of the three sons of Noah is seventy-three, fifteen by Japheth, thirty-one by Ham, twenty-seven by Shem. Then Scripture adds, “These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations.” And so of the whole number “These are the families of the sons of Noah after their generations, in their nations; and by these were the isles of the nations dispersed through the earth after the flood.” From which we gather that the seventy-three (or rather, as I shall presently show, seventy-two) were not individuals, but nations. For in a former passage, when the sons of Japheth were enumerated, it is said in conclusion, “By these were the isles of the nations divided in their lands, every one after his language, in their tribes, and in their nations.”

> Latin: Ac per hoc filiis nepotibusque conputatis de progenie Cham triginta unus geniti referuntur. Restat commemorare filios Sem, maximi filii Noe; ad eum quippe gradatim generationum istarum peruenit a minimo exorta narratio. Sed unde incipiunt commemorari filii Sem, habet quiddam obscuritatis, quod expositione inlustrandum est, quia et multum ad rem pertinet, quam requirimus. Sic enim legitur: Et Sem natus est, et ipsi patri omnium filiorum, Heber, fratri Iapheth maiori. Ordo uerborum est: Et Sem natus est Heber, etiam ipsi, id est ipsi Sem, natus est Heber, qui Sem pater est omnium filiorum. Sem ergo patriarcham intellegi uoluit omnium, qui de stirpe eius exorti sunt, quos commemoraturus est, siue sint filii, siue nepotes et pronepotes et deinceps indidem exorti. Non sane istum Heber genuit Sem, sed ab illo quintus in progenitorum serie reperitur. Sem quippe inter alios filios genuit Arphaxat, Arphaxat genuit Cainan, Cainan genuit Sala, Sala genuit Heber. Non itaque frustra ipse primus est nominatus in progenie ueniente de Sem et praelatus etiam filiis, cum sit quintus nepos, nisi quia uerum est, quod traditur, ex illo Hebraeos esse cognominatos, tamquam Heberaeos; cum et alia possit esse opinio, ut ex Abraham tamquam Abrahaei dicti esse uideantur; sed nimirum hoc uerum est, quod ex Heber Heberaei appellati sunt, ac deinde una detrita littera Hebraei, quam linguam solus Israel populus potuit obtinere, in quo Dei ciuitas et in sanctis peregrinata est et in omnibus sacramento adumbrata. Igitur filii Sem prius sex nominantur, deinde ex uno eorum nati sunt quattuor nepotes eius, itemque alter filiorum Sem genuit eius nepotem, adque ex illo itidem pronepos natus est adque inde abnepos, qui est Heber. Genuit autem Heber duos filios, quorum unum appellauit Phalech, quod interpretatur diuidens. Deinde scriptura subiungens rationemque huius nominis reddens: Quia diebus, inquit, eius diuisa est terra. Hoc autem quid sit, postea apparebit. Alius uero, qui natus est ex Heber, genuit duodecim filios; ac per hoc fiunt omnes progeniti de Sem uiginti septem. In summa igitur omnes progeniti de tribus filiis Noe, id est quindecim de Iapheth, triginta unus de Cham, uiginti septem de Sem fiunt septuaginta tres. Deinde sequitur scriptura dicens: Hi filii Sem in tribubus suis secundum linguas suas in regionibus suis et in gentibus suis; itemque de omnibus: Haec, inquit, tribus filiorum Noe secundum generationes eorum, secundum gentes eorum. Ab his dispersae sunt insulae gentium super terram post diluuium. Unde colligitur septuaginta tres uel potius (quod postea demonstrabitur) septuaginta duas gentes tunc fuisse, non homines. Nam et prius, cum fuissent commemorati filii Iapheth, ita conclusum est: Ex his segregatae sunt insulae gentium in terra sua, unus quisque secundum linguam in tribubus suis et in gentibus suis.

[¶3] But nations are expressly mentioned among the sons of Ham, as I showed above. “Mizraim begat those who are called Ludim;” and so also of the other seven nations. And after enumerating all of them, it concludes, “These are the sons of Ham, in their families, according to their languages, in their territories, and in their nations.” The reason, then, why the children of several of them are not mentioned, is that they belonged by birth to other nations, and did not themselves become nations. Why else is it, that though eight sons are reckoned to Japheth, the sons of only two of these are mentioned; and though four are reckoned to Ham, only three are spoken of as having sons; and though six are reckoned to Shem, the descendants of only two of these are traced? Did the rest remain childless? We cannot suppose so; but they did not produce nations so great as to warrant their being mentioned, but were absorbed in the nations to which they belonged by birth.

> Latin: Iam uero in filiis Cham quodam loco apertius gentes commemoratae sunt, sicut superius ostendi. Mesraim genuit eos, qui dicuntur Ludiim; et eodem modo ceterae usque ad septem gentes. Et enumeratis omnibus postea concludens: Hi filii Cham, inquit, in tribubus suis secundum linguas suas in regionibus suis et in gentibus suis. Propterea ergo multorum filii non sunt commemorati. quia gentibus aliis nascendo accesserunt, ipsi autem gentes facere nequiuerunt. Nam qua alia causa, cum filii Iapheth octo enumerentur, ex duobus eorum tantum filii nati commemorantur, et cum filii Cham quattuor nominentur, ex tribus tantum qui nati sunt adiciuntur, et cum filii Sem nominentur sex, duorum tantum posteritas adtexitur? Numquid ceteri sine filiis remanserunt? Absit hoc credere; sed gentes, propter quas commemorari digni essent, non utique fecerunt, quia, sicut nascebantur, aliis gentibus addebantur.

### Of the Diversity of Languages, and of the Founding of Babylon.

[¶5] Chapter 4.—Of the Diversity of Languages, and of the Founding of Babylon.

> Latin: Caput IV. De diuersitate linguarum principioque Babylonis.

[¶6] But though these nations are said to have been dispersed according to their languages, yet the narrator recurs to that time when all had but one language, and explains how it came to pass that a diversity of languages was introduced. “The whole earth,” he says, “was of one lip, and all had one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and dwelt there. And they said one to another, Come, and let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly. And they had bricks for stone, and slime for mortar. And they said, Come, and let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top shall reach the sky; and let us make us a name, before we be scattered abroad on the face of all the earth. And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the Lord God said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Come, and let us go down, and confound there their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. And God scattered them thence on the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city and the tower. Therefore the name of it is called Confusion; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and the Lord God scattered them thence on the face of all the earth.” This city, which was called Confusion, is the same as Babylon, whose wonderful construction Gentile history also notices. For Babylon means Confusion. Whence we conclude that the giant Nimrod was its founder, as had been hinted a little before, where Scripture, in speaking of him, says that the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, that is, Babylon had a supremacy over the other cities as the metropolis and royal residence; although it did not rise to the grand dimensions designed by its proud and impious founder. The plan was to make it so high that it should reach the sky, whether this was meant of one tower which they intended to build higher than the others, or of all the towers, which might be signified by the singular number, as we speak of “the soldier,” meaning the army, and of the frog or the locust, when we refer to the whole multitude of frogs and locusts in the plagues with which Moses smote the Egyptians. But what did these vain and presumptuous men intend? How did they expect to raise this lofty mass against God, when they had built it above all the mountains and the clouds of the earth’s atmosphere? What injury could any spiritual or material elevation do to God? The safe and true way to heaven is made by humility, which lifts up the heart to the Lord, not against Him; as this giant is said to have been a “hunter against the Lord.” This has been misunderstood by some through the ambiguity of the Greek word, and they have translated it, not “against the Lord,” but “before the Lord;” for ἐναντίον means both “before” and “against.” In the Psalm this word is rendered, “Let us weep before the Lord our Maker.” The same word occurs in the book of Job, where it is written, “Thou hast broken into fury against the Lord.” And so this giant is to be recognized as a “hunter against the Lord.” And what is meant by the term “hunter” but deceiver, oppressor, and destroyer of the animals of the earth? He and his people therefore, erected this tower against the Lord, and so gave expression to their impious pride; and justly was their wicked intention punished by God, even though it was unsuccessful. But what was the nature of the punishment? As the tongue is the instrument of domination, in it pride was punished; so that man, who would not understand God when He issued His commands, should be misunderstood when he himself gave orders. Thus was that conspiracy disbanded, for each man retired from those he could not understand, and associated with those whose speech was intelligible; and the nations were divided according to their languages, and scattered over the earth as seemed good to God, who accomplished this in ways hidden from and incomprehensible to us.

> Latin: Cum ergo in suis linguis istae gentes fuisse referantur, redit tamen narrator ad illud tempus, quando una lingua omnium fuit, et inde iam exponit, quid acciderit, ut linguarum diuersitas nasceretur. Et erat, inquit, omnis terra labium unum et uox una omnibus. Et factum est, cum mouerent ipsi ab Oriente, inuenerunt campum in terra Sennaar, et habitauerunt ibi. Et dixit homo proximo: Venite, faciamus lateres et coquamus illos igni. Et facti sunt illis lateres in lapidem, et bitumen erat illis lutum, et dixerunt: Venite, aedificemus nobismet ipsis ciuitatem et turrem, cuius caput erit usque ad caelum, et faciamus nostrum nomen antequam dispergamur in faciem omnis terrae. Et descendit Dominus uidere ciuitatem et turrem, quam aedificauerunt filii hominum. Et dixit Dominus Deus: Ecce genus unum et labium unum omnium; et hoc inchoauerunt facere, et nunc non deficient ei illis omnia quae conati fuerint facere; uenite, et descendentes, confundamus ibi linguam eorum, ut non audiant unusquisque uocem proximi. Et dispersit eos Dominus inde super faciem omnis terrae, et cessauerunt aedificantes ciuitatem et turrem. Propter hoc appellatum est nomen illius confusio, quia ibi confudit Dominus labia omnis terrae; et inde dispersit illos Dominus Deus super faciem omnis terrae. Ista ciuitas, quae appellata est confusio, ipsa est Babylon, cuius mirabilem constructionem etiam gentium commendat historia. Babylon quippe interpretatur confusio. Unde colligitur, gigantem illum Nebroth fuisse illius conditorem, quod superius breuiter fuerat intimatum, ubi, cum de illo scriptura loqueretur, ait initium regni eius fuisse Babylonem, id est quae ciuitatum ceterarum gereret principatum, ubi esset tamquam in metropoli habitaculum regni; quamuis perfecta non fuerit usque in tantum modum, quantum superba cogitabat inpietas. Nam nimia disponebatur altitudo, quae dicta est usque in caelum, sine unius turris eius, quam praecipuam moliebantur inter alias, siue omnium turrium, quae per numerum singularem ita significatae sunt, ut dicitur miles et intelleguntur milia militum; ut rana, ut lucusta; sic enim appellata est multitudo ranarum ac lucustarum in plagis, quibus Aegyptii percussi sunt per Moysen. Quid autem factura fuerat humana et uana pra«sumtio, si cuiuslibet et quantumlibet in caelum aduersus Deum altitudinem molis extolleret? quando montes transcenderet uniuersos, quando spatium nebulosi aeris huius euaderet? Quid denique noceret Deo quantacumque uel spiritalis uel corporalis elatio? Tutam ueramque in caelum uiam molitur humilitas, sursum leuans cor ad Dominum, non contra Dominum, sicut dictus est gigans iste uenator contra Dominum. Quod non intellegentes nonnulli ambiguo Graeco falsi sunt, ut non interpretarentur contra Dominum, sed ante Dominum; ivavtiov quippe et contra et ante significat. Hoc enim uerbum est in psalmo: Et ploremus ante Dominum qui nos fecit; et hoc uerbum est etiam in libro Iob, ubi scriptum est: In furorem erupisti contra Dominum. Sic ergo intellegendus est gigans iste uenator contra Dominum. Quid autem hic significatur hoc nomine, quod est uenator, nisi animalium terrigenarum deceptor obpressor extinctor ? Erigebat ergo cum suis populis turrem contra Deum, qua est inpia significata superbia. Merito autem malus punitur adfectus, etiam cui non succedit effectus. Genus uero ipsum poenae quale fuit? Quoniam dominatio imperantis in lingua est, ibi est damnata superbia, ut non intellegeretur iubens homini, qui noluit intellegere ut oboediret Deo iubenti. Sic illa conspiratio dissoluta est, cum quisque ab eo, quem non intellegebat, abscederet nec se nisi ei, cum quo loqui poterat, adgregaret; et per linguas diuisae sunt gentes dispersaeque per terras, sicut Deo placuit, qui hoc modis occultis nobisque inconprehensibilibus fecit.

### Of God’s Coming Down to Confound the Languages of the Builders of the City.

[¶8] Chapter 5.—Of God’s Coming Down to Confound the Languages of the Builders of the City.

> Latin: Caput V. De descensione Domini ad confundendam linguam aedificantium turrem.

[¶9] We read, “The Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men built:” it was not the sons of God, but that society which lived in a merely human way, and which we call the earthly city. God, who is always wholly everywhere, does not move locally; but He is said to descend when He does anything in the earth out of the usual course, which, as it were, makes His presence felt. And in the same way, He does not by “seeing” learn some new thing, for He cannot ever be ignorant of anything; but He is said to see and recognize, in time, that which He causes others to see and recognize. And therefore that city was not previously being seen as God made it be seen when He showed how offensive it was to Him. We might, indeed, interpret God’s descending to the city of the descent of His angels in whom He dwells; so that the following words, “And the Lord God said, Behold, they are all one race and of one language,” and also what follows, “Come, and let us go down and confound their speech,” are a recapitulation, explaining how the previously intimated “descent of the Lord” was accomplished. For if He had already gone down, why does He say, “Come, and let us go down and confound?”—words which seem to be addressed to the angels, and to intimate that He who was in the angels descended in their descent. And the words most appropriately are, not, “Go ye down and confound,” but, “Let us confound their speech;” showing that He so works by His servants, that they are themselves also fellow-laborers with God, as the apostle says, “For we are fellow-laborers with God.”

> Latin: Quod enim scriptum est: Et descendit Dominus uidere ciuitatem et turrem, quam aedificauerunt filii hominum, hoc est non filii Dei, sed illa societas secundum hominem uiuens, quam terrenam dicimus ciuitatem: non loco mouetur Deus, qui semper est ubique totus, sed descendere dicitur, cum aliquid facit in terra, quod praeter usitatum naturae cursum mirabiliter factum praesentiam quodam modo eius ostendat; nec uidendo discit ad tempus, qui numquam potest aliquid ignorare, sed ad tempus uidere et cognoscere dicitur, quod uideri et cognosci facit. Non sic ergo uidebatur illa ciuitas, quo modo eam Deus uideri fecit, quando sibi quantum displiceret ostendit. Quamuis possit intellegi Deus ad illam ciuitatem descendisse, quia descenderunt angeli eius in quibus habitat: ut, quod adiunctum est: Et dixit Dominus Deus: Ecce genus unum et labium unum omnium, et cetera, ac deinde additum: Venite et descendentes confundamus ibi linguam eorum, recapitulatio sit, demonstrans quem ad modum factum sit, quod dictum fuerat: Descendit Dominus. Si enim iam descenderat, quid sibi uult: Venite et descendentes confundamus (quod intellegitur angelis dictum), nisi quia per angelos descendebat, qui in angelis descendentibus erat? Et bene non ait: Venite et descendentes confundite,’ sed: Confundamus ibi linguam eorum; ostendens ita se operari per ministros suos. ut sint etiam ipsi cooperatores Dei, sicut apostolus dicit: Dei enim sumus cooperarii.

### What We are to Understand by God’s Speaking to the Angels.

[¶11] Chapter 6.—What We are to Understand by God’s Speaking to the Angels.

> Latin: Caput VI. Qualis intellegenda sit esse locutio, qua Deus angelis loquitur.

[¶12] We might have supposed that the words uttered at the creation of man, “Let us,” and not Let me, “make man,” were addressed to the angels, had He not added “in our image;” but as we cannot believe that man was made in the image of angels, or that the image of God is the same as that of angels, it is proper to refer this expression to the plurality of the Trinity. And yet this Trinity, being one God, even after saying “Let us make,” goes on to say, “And God made man in His image,” and not “Gods made,” or “in their image.” And were there any difficulty in applying to the angels the words, “Come, and let us go down and confound their speech,” we might refer the plural to the Trinity, as if the Father were addressing the Son and the Holy Spirit; but it rather belongs to the angels to approach God by holy movements, that is, by pious thoughts, and thereby to avail themselves of the unchangeable truth which rules in the court of heaven as their eternal law. For they are not themselves the truth; but partaking in the creative truth, they are moved towards it as the fountain of life, that what they have not in themselves they may obtain in it. And this movement of theirs is steady, for they never go back from what they have reached. And to these angels God does not speak, as we speak to one another, or to God, or to angels, or as the angels speak to us, or as God speaks to us through them: He speaks to them in an ineffable manner of His own, and that which He says is conveyed to us in a manner suited to our capacity. For the speaking of God antecedent and superior to all His works, is the immutable reason of His work: it has no noisy and passing sound, but an energy eternally abiding and producing results in time. Thus He speaks to the holy angels; but to us, who are far off, He speaks otherwise. When, however, we hear with the inner ear some part of the speech of God, we approximate to the angels. But in this work I need not labor to give an account of the ways in which God speaks. For either the unchangeable Truth speaks directly to the mind of the rational creature in some indescribable way, or speaks through the changeable creature, either presenting spiritual images to our spirit, or bodily voices to our bodily sense.

> Latin: Poterat et illud, quando factus est homo, de angelis intellegi quod dictum est: Faciamus hominem, quia non dixit: […] sed quia sequitur ad imaginem nostram, nec fas est credere ad imaginem angelorum hominem factum, aut eandem esse imaginem angelorum et Dei: recte illic intellegitur pluralitas trinitatis. Quae tamen trinitas quia unus Deus est, etiam cum dixisLet: cF a c iam us): ‘Et fecit, inquit, Deus hominem adimaginem Dei’, non dixit fecerunt di’ aut ad imaginem deorum). Poterat et hic eadem intellegi trinitas, tamquam Pater dixerit ad Filium et Spiritum sanctum: Venite, et descendentes confundamus ibi linguam eorum, si aliquid esset, quod angelos prohiberet intellegi, quibus potius conuenit uenire ad Deum motibus sanctis, hoc est cogitationibus piis, quibus ab eis consulitur incommutabilis Veritas, tamquam lex aeterna in illa eorum curia superna. Neque enim sibi ipsi sunt ueritas, sed creatricis participes Veritatis ad illam mouentur, tamquam ad fontem uitae, ut, quod non habent ex se ipsis, capiant ex ipsa. Et eorum stabilis est iste motus, quo ueniunt, qui non recedunt Nec sic loquitur angelis Deus, quo modo nos in uicem nobis uel Deo uel angelis uel ipsi angeli nobis siue per illos Deus nobis. sed ineffabili suo modo; nobis autem hoc indicatur nostro modo. Dei quippe sublimior ante suum factum locutio ipsius sui facti est inmutabilis ratio, quae non habet sonum strepentem adque transeuntem, sed uim sempiterne manentem et temporaliter operantem. Hac loquitur angelis sanctis, nobis autem aliter longe positis. Quando autem etiam nos aliquid talis locutionis interioribus auribus capimus, angelis propinquamus. Non itaque mihi adsidue reddenda ratio est in hoc opere de locutionibus Dei. Aut enim Veritas incommutabilis per se ipsam ineffabiliter loquitur rationalis creaturae mentibus, aut per mutabilem creaturam loquitur, siue spiritalibus imaginibus nostro spiritui siue corporalibus uocibus corporis sensui. Illud sane quod dictum est: Et nunc non deficient ex illis omnia, quae conati fuerint facere, non dictum est confirmando, sed tamquam interrogando, sicut solet a comminantibus dici, quem ad modum ait quidam: Non arma expedient totaque ex urbe sequentur?

[¶13] The words, “Nothing will be restrained from them which they have imagined to do,” are assuredly not meant as an affirmation, but as an interrogation, such as is used by persons threatening, as e.g., when Dido exclaims,

> Latin: Sic ergo accipiendum est, tamquam dixerit: ‘Nonne omnia deficient ex illis, quae conati fuerint facere?’ Sed si ita dicatur, non exprimit comminantem.

[¶14] “They will not take arms and pursue?”

[¶15] We are to understand the words as if it had been said, Shall nothing be restrained from them which they have imagined to do? From these three men, therefore, the three sons of Noah we mean, 73, or rather, as the catalogue will show, 72 nations and as many languages were dispersed over the earth, and as they increased filled even the islands. But the nations multiplied much more than the languages. For even in Africa we know several barbarous nations which have but one language; and who can doubt that, as the human race increased, men contrived to pass to the islands in ships?

> Latin: Verum propter tardiusculos addidimus particulam, id est W, ut diceremus […] quoniam uocem pronuntiantis non possumus scribere. Ex illis igitur tribus hominibus, Noe filiis, septuaginta tres, uel potius, ut ratio declaratura est, septuaginta duae gentes totidemque linguae per terras esse coeperunt, quae crescendo et insulas inpleuerunt. Auctus est autem numerus gentium multo amplius quam linguarum. Nam et in Africa barbaras gentes in una lingua plurimas nouimus, et homines quidem multiplicato genere humano ad insulas inhabitandas nauigio transire potuisse, quis ambigat?

### Whether Even the Remotest Islands Received Their Fauna from the Animals Which Were Preserved, Through the Deluge, in the Ark.

[¶17] Chapter 7.—Whether Even the Remotest Islands Received Their Fauna from the Animals Which Were Preserved, Through the Deluge, in the Ark.

> Latin: Caput VII. An omne bestiarum genus etiam remotissimae a terris insulae ex eo numero acceperint, qui in arca a diluuii inundatione seruatus est.

[¶18] There is a question raised about all those kinds of beasts which are not domesticated, nor are produced like frogs from the earth, but are propagated by male and female parents, such as wolves and animals of that kind; and it is asked how they could be found in the islands after the deluge, in which all the animals not in the ark perished, unless the breed was restored from those which were preserved in pairs in the ark. It might, indeed, be said that they crossed to the islands by swimming, but this could only be true of those very near the mainland; whereas there are some so distant, that we fancy no animal could swim to them. But if men caught them and took them across with themselves, and thus propagated these breeds in their new abodes, this would not imply an incredible fondness for the chase. At the same time, it cannot be denied that by the intervention of angels they might be transferred by God’s order or permission. If, however, they were produced out of the earth as at their first creation, when God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature,” this makes it more evident that all kinds of animals were preserved in the ark, not so much for the sake of renewing the stock, as of prefiguring the various nations which were to be saved in the church; this, I say, is more evident, if the earth brought forth many animals in islands to which they could not cross over.

> Latin: Sed quaestio est de omni genere bestiarum, quae sub cura hominum non sunt neque sicuti ranae nascuntur ex terra, sed sola commixtione maris et feminae propagantur, sicut lupi adque huius modi. cetera, quo modo post diluuium, quo ea, quae in arca non erant, cuncta deleta sunt, etiam in insulis esse potuerint, si reparata non sunt nisi ex his, quorum genera in utroque sexu arca seruauit. Possunt quidem credi ad insulas natando transisse, sed proximas. Sunt autem quaedam tam longe positae a continentibus terris, ut ad eas nulla uideatur natare potuisse bestiarum. Quod si homines eas captas secum aduexerunt et eo modo ubi habitabant earum genera instituerunt uenandi studio, fieri potuisse incredibile non est; quamuis iussu Dei siue permissu etiam opere angelorum negandum non sit potuisse transferri. Si uero terra exortae sunt secundum originem primam, quando dixit Deus: Producat terra animam uiuam, multo clarius apparet non tam reparandorum animalium causa quam figurandarum uariarum gentium propter ecclesiae sacramentum in arca fuisse omnia genera, si in insulis, quo transire non possent, multa animalia terra produxit.

### Whether Certain Monstrous Races of Men are Derived from the Stock of Adam or Noah’s Sons.

[¶20] Chapter 8.—Whether Certain Monstrous Races of Men are Derived from the Stock of Adam or Noah’s Sons.

> Latin: Caput VIII. An ex propagine Adam uel filiorum Noe quaedam genera hominum monstrosa prodierint.

[¶21] It is also asked whether we are to believe that certain monstrous races of men, spoken of in secular history, have sprung from Noah’s sons, or rather, I should say, from that one man from whom they themselves were descended. For it is reported that some have one eye in the middle of the forehead; some, feet turned backwards from the heel; some, a double sex, the right breast like a man, the left like a woman, and that they alternately beget and bring forth: others are said to have no mouth, and to breathe only through the nostrils; others are but a cubit high, and are therefore called by the Greeks “Pigmies:” they say that in some places the women conceive in their fifth year, and do not live beyond their eighth. So, too, they tell of a race who have two feet but only one leg, and are of marvellous swiftness, though they do not bend the knee: they are called Skiopodes, because in the hot weather they lie down on their backs and shade themselves with their feet. Others are said to have no head, and their eyes in their shoulders; and other human or quasi-human races are depicted in mosaic in the harbor esplanade of Carthage, on the faith of histories of rarities. What shall I say of the Cynocephali, whose dog-like head and barking proclaim them beasts rather than men? But we are not bound to believe all we hear of these monstrosities. But whoever is anywhere born a man, that is, a rational, mortal animal, no matter what unusual appearance he presents in color, movement, sound, nor how peculiar he is in some power, part, or quality of his nature, no Christian can doubt that he springs from that one protoplast. We can distinguish the common human nature from that which is peculiar, and therefore wonderful.

> Latin: Quaeritur etiam, utrum ex filiis Noe uel potius ex illo uno homine, unde etiam ipsi extiterunt, propagata esse credendum sit quaedam monstrosa hominum genera, quae gentium narrat historia, sicut perhibentur quidam unum habere oculum in fronte media, quibusdam plantas uersas esse post crura, quibusdam utriusque sexus esse naturam et dextram mammam uii-ilem, sinistram muliebrem, uicibusque inter se coeundo et gignere et parere; aliis ora non esse eosque per nares tantummodo halitu uiuere, alios statura esse cubitales, quos Pygmaeos a cubito Graeci uocant, alibi quinquennes concipere feminas et octauum uitae annum non excedere. Item ferunt esse gentem, ubi singula crura in pedibus habent nec poplitem flectunt, et sunt mirabilis celeritatis; quos Sciopodas uocant, quod per aestum in terra iacentes resupini umbra se pedum protegant; quosdam sine ceruice oculos habentes in umeris, et cetera hominum uel quasi hominum genera. quae in maritima platea Carthaginis musiuo picta sunt, ex libris depromta uelut curiosioris historiae. Quid dicam de Cynocephalis, quorum canina capita adque ipse latratus magis bestias quam homines confitetur? Sed omnia genera hominum, quae dicuntur esse, credere non est necesse. Verum quisquis uspiam nascitur homo, id est animal rationale mortale, quamlibet nostris inusitatam sensibus gerat corporis formam seu colorem siue motum siue sonum sine qualibet ui, qualibet parte, qualibet qualitate naturam: ex illo uno protoplasto originem ducere nullus fidelium dubitauerit. Apparet tamen quid in pluribus natura obtinuerit et quid sit ipsa raritate mirabile.

[¶22] The same account which is given of monstrous births in individual cases can be given of monstrous races. For God, the Creator of all, knows where and when each thing ought to be, or to have been created, because He sees the similarities and diversities which can contribute to the beauty of the whole. But He who cannot see the whole is offended by the deformity of the part, because he is blind to that which balances it, and to which it belongs. We know that men are born with more than four fingers on their hands or toes on their feet: this is a smaller matter; but far from us be the folly of supposing that the Creator mistook the number of a man’s fingers, though we cannot account for the difference. And so in cases where the divergence from the rule is greater. He whose works no man justly finds fault with, knows what He has done. At Hippo-Diarrhytus there is a man whose hands are crescent-shaped, and have only two fingers each, and his feet similarly formed. If there were a race like him, it would be added to the history of the curious and wonderful. Shall we therefore deny that this man is descended from that one man who was first created? As for the Androgyni, or Hermaphrodites, as they are called, though they are rare, yet from time to time there appears persons of sex so doubtful, that it remains uncertain from which sex they take their name; though it is customary to give them a masculine name, as the more worthy. For no one ever called them Hermaphroditesses. Some years ago, quite within my own memory, a man was born in the East, double in his upper, but single in his lower half—having two heads, two chests, four hands, but one body and two feet like an ordinary man; and he lived so long that many had an opportunity of seeing him. But who could enumerate all the human births that have differed widely from their ascertained parents? As, therefore, no one will deny that these are all descended from that one man, so all the races which are reported to have diverged in bodily appearance from the usual course which nature generally or almost universally preserves, if they are embraced in that definition of man as rational and mortal animals, unquestionably trace their pedigree to that one first father of all. We are supposing these stories about various races who differ from one another and from us to be true; but possibly they are not: for if we were not aware that apes, and monkeys, and sphinxes are not men, but beasts, those historians would possibly describe them as races of men, and flaunt with impunity their false and vainglorious discoveries. But supposing they are men of whom these marvels are recorded, what if God has seen fit to create some races in this way, that we might not suppose that the monstrous births which appear among ourselves are the failures of that wisdom whereby He fashions the human nature, as we speak of the failure of a less perfect workman? Accordingly, it ought not to seem absurd to us, that as in individual races there are monstrous births, so in the whole race there are monstrous races. Wherefore, to conclude this question cautiously and guardedly, either these things which have been told of some races have no existence at all; or if they do exist, they are not human races; or if they are human, they are descended from Adam.

> Latin: Qualis autem ratio redditur de monstrosis aput nos hominum partubus, talis de monstrosis quibusdam gentibus reddi potest. Deus enim creator est omnium, qui ubi et quando creari quid oporteat uel oportuerit, ipse nouit, sciens uniuersitatis pulchritudinem quarum partium uel similitudine uel diuersitate contexat. Sed qui totum inspicere non potest, tamquam deformitate partis offenditur, quoniam cui congruat et quo referatur ignorat. Pluribus quam quinis digitis in manibus et pedibus nasci homines nouimus; et haec leuior est quam ulla distantia; sed tamen absit, ut quis ita desipiat, ut existimet in numero humanorum digitorum errasse Creatorem, quamuis nesciens quur hoc fecerit. Ita etsi maior diuersitas oriatur, scit ille quid egerit, cuius opera iuste nemo reprehendit. Aput Hipponem Zaritum est homo quasi lunatas habens plantas et in eis binos tantummodo digitos, similes et manus. Si aliqua gens talis esset, illi curiosae adque mirabili adderetur historiae. Num igitur istum propter hoc negabimus ex illo uno, qui primus creatus est, esse propagatum? Androgyni, quos etiam Hermaphroditos nuncupant, quamuis admodum rari sint, difficile est tamen ut temporibus desint, in quibus sic uterque sexus apparet, ut, ex quo potius debeant accipere nomen, incertum sit; a meliore tamen, hoc est a masculino, ut appellarentur, loquendi consuetudo praeualuit. Nam nemo umquam Androgynaecas aut Hermaphroditas nuncupauit. Ante annos aliquot, nostra certe memoria, in Oriente duplex homo natus est superioribus membris, inferioribus simplex. Nam duo erant capita, duo pectora, quattuor manus, uenter autem unus, et pedes duo, sicut uni homini; et tam diu uixit, ut multos ad eum uidendum fama contraheret. Quis autem omnes commemorare possit humanos fetus longe dissimiles his, ex quibus eos natos esse certissimum est? Sicut ergo haec ex illo uno negari non possunt originem ducere, ita quaecumque gentes in diuersitatibus corporum ab usitato naturae cursu, quem plures et prope omnes tenent, uelut exorbitasse traduntur, si definitione illa includuntur, ut rationalia animalia sint adque mortalia, ab eodem ipso uno primo patre omnium stirpem trahere confitendum est, si tamen uera sunt quae de illarum nationum uarietate et tanta inter se adque nobiscum diuersitate traduntur. Nam et simias et cercopithecoB et sphingas si nesciremus non homines esse, sed bestias, possent illi historici de sua curiositate gloriantes uelut gentes aliquas hominum nobis inpunita uanitate mentiri. Sed si homines sunt, de quibus illa mira conscripta sunt: quid, si propterea Deus uoluit etiam nonnullas gentes ita creare, ne in his monstris, quae aput nos oportet ex hominibus nasci, eius sapientiam, qua naturam fingit humanam, uelut artem cuiuspiam minus perfecti opificis, putaremus errasse? Non itaque nobis uideri debet absurdum, ut, quem ad modum in singulis quibusque gentibus quaedam monstra sunt hominum, ita in uniuerso genere humano quaedam monstra sint gentium. Quapropter ut istam quaestionem pedetemtim cauteque concludam: aut illa, quae talia de quibusdam gentibus scripta sunt, omnino nulla sunt; aut si sunt, homines non sunt; aut ex Adam sunt, si homines sunt.

## 76. Whether We are to Believe in the Antipodes.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/76/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/76/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 9.—Whether We are to Believe in the Antipodes.

> Latin: Caput IX. An inferiorem partem terrae; quae nostrae habitationi contraria est, antipodas habere credendum sit.

[¶1] But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part which is beneath must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled. For Scripture, which proves the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, gives no false information; and it is too absurd to say, that some men might have taken ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this side of the world to the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region are descended from that one first man. Wherefore let us seek if we can find the city of God that sojourns on earth among those human races who are catalogued as having been divided into seventy-two nations and as many languages. For it continued down to the deluge and the ark, and is proved to have existed still among the sons of Noah by their blessings, and chiefly in the eldest son Shem; for Japheth received this blessing, that he should dwell in the tents of Shem.

> Latin: Quod uero et antipodas esse fabulantur, id est homines a contraria parte terrae, ubi sol oritur, quando occidit nobis, aduersa pedibus nostris calcare uestigia, nulla ratione credendum est. Neque hoc ulla historica cognitione didicisse se adfirmant, sed quasi ratiocinando coniectant, eo quod intra conuexa caeli terra suspensa sit, eundemque locum mundus habeat et infimum et medium; et ex hoc opinantur alteram terrae partem, quae infra est, habitatione hominum carere non posse. Nec adtendunt, etiamsi figura conglobata et rutunda mundus esse credatur siue aliqua ratione monstretur, non tamen esse consequens, ut etiam ex illa parte ab aquarum congerie nuda sit terra; deinde etiamsi nuda sit, neque hoc statim necesse esse, ut homines habeat. Quoniam nullo modo scriptura ista mentitur, quae narratis praeteritis facit fidem eo, quod eius praedicta conplentur, nimisque absurdum est, ut dicatur aliquos homines ex hac in illam partem, Oceani inmensitate traiecta, nauigare ac peruenire potuisse, ut etiam illic ex uno illo primo homine genus institueretur humanum. Quapropter inter illos tunc hominum populos, qui per septuaginta duas gentes et totidem linguas colliguntur fuisse diuisi, quaeramus, si possumus inuenire, illam in terris peregrinantem ciuitatem Dei, quae usque ad diluuium arcamque perducta est adque in filiis Noe per eorum benedictiones perseuerasse monstratur, maxime in maximo, qui est appellatus Sem, quando quidem Iapheth ita benedictus est, ut in eius, fratris sui, domibus habitaret.

### Of the Genealogy of Shem, in Whose Line the City of God is Preserved Till the Time of Abraham.

[¶3] Chapter 10.—Of the Genealogy of Shem, in Whose Line the City of God is Preserved Till the Time of Abraham.

> Latin: Caput X. De generatione Sem, in cuius progenie tendens ad Abraham ciuitatis Dei ordo dirigitur.

[¶4] It is necessary, therefore, to preserve the series of generations descending from Shem, for the sake of exhibiting the city of God after the flood; as before the flood it was exhibited in the series of generations descending from Seth. And therefore does divine Scripture, after exhibiting the earthly city as Babylon or “Confusion,” revert to the patriarch Shem, and recapitulate the generations from him to Abraham, specifying besides, the year in which each father begat the son that belonged to this line, and how long he lived. And unquestionably it is this which fulfills the promise I made, that it should appear why it is said of the sons of Heber, “The name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided.” For what can we understand by the division of the earth, if not the diversity of languages? And, therefore, omitting the other sons of Shem, who are not concerned in this matter, Scripture gives the genealogy of those by whom the line runs on to Abraham, as before the flood those are given who carried on the line to Noah from Seth. Accordingly this series of generations begins thus: “These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood. And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.” In like manner it registers the rest, naming the year of his life in which each begat the son who belonged to that line which extends to Abraham. It specifies, too, how many years he lived thereafter, begetting sons and daughters, that we may not childishly suppose that the men named were the only men, but may understand how the population increased, and how regions and kingdoms so vast could be populated by the descendants of Shem; especially the kingdom of Assyria, from which Ninus subdued the surrounding nations, reigning with brilliant prosperity, and bequeathing to his descendants a vast but thoroughly consolidated empire, which held together for many centuries.

> Latin: Tenenda est igitur series generationum ab ipso Sem, ut ipsa ostendat post diluuium ciuitatem Dei. sicut eam series generationum ab illo, qui est appellatus Seth, ostendebat ante diluuium. Propter hoc ergo scriptura diuina cum terrenam ciuitatem in Babylone, hoc est in confusione, monstrasset, ad patriarcham Sem recapitulando reuertitur et orditur inde generationes usque ad Abraham, commemorato etiam numero annorum, quanto quisque ad hanc seriem pertinentem filium genuisset quantoque uixisset. Ubi certe agnoscendum est, quod ante promiseram, ut appareat quare sit dictum de filiis Heber: Nomen unius Phalech, quia in diebus eius diuisa est terra. Quid enim aliud intellegendum est terram esse diuisam nisi diuersitate linguarum? Omissis igitur ceteris filiis Sem ad hanc rem non pertinentibus illi conectuntur in ordine generationum, per quos possit ad Abraham perueniri; sicut illi conectebantur ante diluuium, per quos ueniretur ad Noe generationibus, quae propagatae sunt ex illo Adam filio, qui est appellatus Seth. Sic ergo incipit generationum ista contextio: Et hae generationes Sem. Sem filius centum annorum, cum genuit Arphaxat, secundo anno post diluuium. Et uixit Sem, postquam genuit Arphaxat, quingentos annos et genuit filios et filias et mortuus est. Sic exsequitur ceteros dicens, quoto quisque anno uitae suae filium genuerit ad istum generationum ordinem pertinentem, qui pertendit ad Abraham, et quot annos postmodum uixerit, intimans eum filios filiasque genuisse; ut intellegamus unde potuerint populi adcrescere, ne in paucis qui commemorantur hominibus occupati pueriliter haesitemus, unde tanta spatia terrarum adque regnorum repleri potuerint de genere Sem, maxime propter Assyriorum regnum; unde Ninus ille Orientalium domitor usquequaque populorum ingenti prosperitate regnauit et latissimum ac fundatissimum regnum, quod diuturno tempore duceretur, suis posteris propagauit.

[¶5] But to avoid needless prolixity, we shall mention not the number of years each member of this series lived, but only the year of his life in which he begat his heir, that we may thus reckon the number of years from the flood to Abraham, and may at the same time leave room to touch briefly and cursorily upon some other matters necessary to our argument. In the second year, then, after the flood, Shem when he was a hundred years old begat Arphaxad; Arphaxad when he was 135 years old begat Cainan; Cainan when he was 130 years begat Salah. Salah himself, too, was the same age when he begat Eber. Eber lived 134 years, and begat Peleg, in whose days the earth was divided. Peleg himself lived 130 years, and begat Reu; and Reu lived 132 years, and begat Serug; Serug 130, and begat Nahor; and Nahor 79, and begat Terah; and Terah 70, and begat Abram, whose name God afterwards changed into Abraham. There are thus from the flood to Abraham 1072 years, according to the Vulgate or Septuagint versions. In the Hebrew copies far fewer years are given; and for this either no reason or a not very credible one is given.

> Latin: Sed nos, ne diutius quam opus est inmoremur, non quot annos quisque in ista generationum serie uixerit, sed quoto anno uitae suae genuerit filium, hoc ordine memorandum tantummodo ponimus, ut et numerum annorum a transacto diluuio usque ad Abraham colligamus et propter illa, in quibus nos cogit necessitas inmorari, breuiter alia cursimque >’ tangamus. Secundo igitur anno post diluuium Sem genuit Arphaxat; Arphaxat autem, cum esset centum triginta quinque ⟨annorum⟩, genuit Cainan; qui cum esset centum triginta. genuit Sala; porro etiam ipse Sala totidem annorum erat. quando genuit Heber; centum uero et triginta et quattuor agebat annos Heber, cum genuit Phalech, in cuius diebus diuisa est terra; ipse autem Phalech uixit centum triginta, et genuit Ragau; et Ragau centum triginta duo, et genuit Seruch; et Seruch centum triginta, et genuit Nachor; et Nachor septuaginta nouem, et genuit Thara; Thara autem septuaginta, et genuit Abram; quem postea Deus mutato uocabulo nominauit Abraham. Fiunt itaque anni a diluuio usque ad Abraham mille septuaginta et duo secundum uulgatam editionem, hoc est interpretum septuaginta.

[¶6] When, therefore, we look for the city of God in these seventy-two nations, we cannot affirm that while they had but one lip, that is, one language, the human race had departed from the worship of the true God, and that genuine godliness had survived only in those generations which descend from Shem through Arphaxad and reach to Abraham; but from the time when they proudly built a tower to heaven, a symbol of godless exaltation, the city or society of the wicked becomes apparent. Whether it was only disguised before, or non-existent; whether both cities remained after the flood,—the godly in the two sons of Noah who were blessed, and in their posterity, and the ungodly in the cursed son and his descendants, from whom sprang that mighty hunter against the Lord,—is not easily determined. For possibly—and certainly this is more credible—there were despisers of God among the descendants of the two sons, even before Babylon was founded, and worshippers of God among the descendants of Ham. Certainly neither race was ever obliterated from earth. For in both the Psalms in which it is said, “They are all gone aside, they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one,” we read further, “Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the Lord.” There was then a people of God even at that time. And therefore the words, “There is none that doeth good, no, not one,” were said of the sons of men, not of the sons of God. For it had been previously said, “God looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if any understood and sought after God;” and then follow the words which demonstrate that all the sons of men, that is, all who belong to the city which lives according to man, not according to God, are reprobate.

> Latin: Iu Hebraeis autem codicibus longe pauciores annos perhibent inueniri, de quibus rationem aut nullam aut difficillimam reddunt. Cum ergo quaerimus in illis septuaginta duabus gentibus ciuitatem Dei, non possumus adfirmare illo tempore, quo erat eis labium unum, id est loquella una, tunc iam genus humanum alienatum fuisse a cultu ueri Dei, ita ut in solis istis generationibus pietas uera remaneret, quae descendunt de semine Sem per Arphaxat et tendunt ad Abraham; sed ab illa superbia aedificandae turris usque in caelum, qua inpia significatur elatio, apparuit ciuitas, hoc est societas, inpiorum. Utrum itaque ante non fuerit an latuerit, an potius utraque permanserit, pia scilicet in duobus filiis Noe, qui benedicti sunt, eorumque posteris; inpia uero in eo, qui maledictus est, adque eius progenie, ubi etiam exortus est gigans uenator contra Dominum, non est diiudicatio facilis. Fortassis enim, quod profecto est credibilius, et in filiis duorum illorum iam tunc, antequam Babylonia coepisset institui, fuerunt contemtores Dei, et in filiis Cham cultores Dei; utrumque tamen hominum genus terris numquam defuisse credendum est. Si quidem et quando dictum est: Omnes declinauerunt, simul inutiles facti sunt; non est quifaciatbonum, non est usque ad unum, in utroque psalmo, ubi haec uerba sunt, et hoc legitur: Nonne cognoscent omnes, qui operantur iniquitatem, qui deuorant populum meum in cibo panis? Erat ergo etiam tunc populus Dei. Unde illud, quod dictum est: Non est qui faciat bonum, non est usque ad unum, de filiis hominum dictum est, non de filiis Dei. Nam praemissum est: Deus de caelo prospexit super filios hominum, ut uideret si est intellegens aut requirens Deum, ac deinde illa subiuncta, quae omnes filios hominum, id est, ad ciuitatem pertinentes, quae uiuit secundum hominem, non secundum Deum, reprobos esse demonstrant.

### That the Original Language in Use Among Men Was that Which Was Afterwards Called Hebrew, from Heber, in Whose Family It Was Preserved When the Confusion of Tongues Occurred.

[¶8] Chapter 11.—That the Original Language in Use Among Men Was that Which Was Afterwards Called Hebrew, from Heber, in Whose Family It Was Preserved When the Confusion of Tongues Occurred.

> Latin: Caput XI. Quod ea primitus lingua in usu hominum fuerit, quae postea Hebraea ab Heber nomine nuncupata est, et in cuius familia remansit, cum diuersitas esset facta linguarum.

[¶9] Wherefore, as the fact of all using one language did not secure the absence of sin-infected men from the race,—for even before the deluge there was one language, and yet all but the single family of just Noah were found worthy of destruction by the flood,—so when the nations, by a prouder godlessness, earned the punishment of the dispersion and the confusion of tongues, and the city of the godless was called Confusion or Babylon, there was still the house of Heber in which the primitive language of the race survived. And therefore, as I have already mentioned, when an enumeration is made of the sons of Shem, who each founded a nation, Heber is first mentioned, although he was of the fifth generation from Shem. And because, when the other races were divided by their own peculiar languages, his family preserved that language which is not unreasonably believed to have been the common language of the race, it was on this account thenceforth named Hebrew. For it then became necessary to distinguish this language from the rest by a proper name; though, while there was only one, it had no other name than the language of man, or human speech, it alone being spoken by the whole human race. Some one will say: If the earth was divided by languages in the days of Peleg, Heber’s son, that language, which was formerly common to all, should rather have been called after Peleg. But we are to understand that Heber himself gave to his son this name Peleg, which means Division; because he was born when the earth was divided, that is, at the very time of the division, and that this is the meaning of the words, “In his days the earth was divided.” For unless Heber had been still alive when the languages were multiplied, the language which was preserved in his house would not have been called after him. We are induced to believe that this was the primitive and common language, because the multiplication and change of languages was introduced as a punishment, and it is fit to ascribe to the people of God an immunity from this punishment. Nor is it without significance that this is the language which Abraham retained, and that he could not transmit it to all his descendants, but only to those of Jacob’s line, who distinctively and eminently constituted God’s people, and received His covenants, and were Christ’s progenitors according to the flesh. In the same way, Heber himself did not transmit that language to all his posterity, but only to the line from which Abraham sprang. And thus, although it is not expressly stated, that when the wicked were building Babylon there was a godly seed remaining, this indistinctness is intended to stimulate research rather than to elude it. For when we see that originally there was one common language, and that Heber is mentioned before all Shem’s sons, though he belonged to the fifth generation from him, and that the language which the patriarchs and prophets used, not only in their conversation, but in the authoritative language of Scripture, is called Hebrew, when we are asked where that primitive and common language was preserved after the confusion of tongues, certainly, as there can be no doubt that those among whom it was preserved were exempt from the punishment it embodied, what other suggestion can we make, than that it survived in the family of him whose name it took, and that this is no small proof of the righteousness of this family, that the punishment with which the other families were visited did not fall upon it?

> Latin: Quam ob rem sicut lingua una cum esset omnium, non ideo filii pestilentiae defuerunt (nam et ante diluuium una erat lingua, et tamen omnes praeter unam Noe iusti domum deleri diluuio meruerunt): ita, quando merito elatioris inpietatis gentes linguarum diuersitate punitae adque diuisae sunt et ciuitas inpiorum confusionis nomen accepit, hoc est, appellata est Babylon, non defuit domus Heber, ubi ea quae antea fuit omnium lingua remaneret. Unde, sicut supra memoraui, cum coepissent enumerari filii Sem, qui singuli gentes singulas procrearunt, primus est commendatus Heber, cum sit abnepos ipsius, hoc est ab illo quintus inueniatur exortus. Quia ergo in eius familia remansit haec lingua, diuisis per alias linguas ceteris gentibus, quae lingua prius humano generi non inmerito creditur fuisse communis, ideo deinceps Hebraea est nuncupata. Tunc enim opus erat eam distingui ab aliis linguis nomine proprio, sicut aliae quoque uocatae sunt nominibus propriis. Quando autem erat una, nihil aliud quam humana lingua uel humana locutio uocabatur, qua sola uniuersum genus humanum loquebatur. Dixerit aliquis: Si in diebus Phalech filii Heber diuisa est terra per linguas, id est homines, qui tunc erant in terra, ex eius nomine potius debuit appellari lingua illa, quae fuit omnibus ante communis. Sed intellegendum est ipsum Heber propterea tale nomen inposuisse filio suo, ut uocaretur Phalech, quod interpretatur diuisio, quia tunc ei natus est, quando per linguas terra diuisa est, id est ipso tempore, ut hoc sit quod dictum est: In diebus eius diuisa est terra. Nam nisi adhuc Heber uiueret quando linguarum facta est multitudo, non ex eius nomine nomen acciperet lingua, quae aput illum potuit permanere. Et ideo credenda est ipsa fuisse prima illa communis, quoniam de poena uenit illa multiplicatio mutatioque linguarum et utique praeter hanc poenam esse debuit populus Dei. Nec frustra lingua haec est, quam tenuit Abraham, nec in omnes suos filios transmittere potuit, sed in eos tantum, qui propagati per Tacob et insignius adque eminentius in Dei populum coalescentes Dei testamenta et stirpem Christi habere potuerunt. Nec Heber ipse eandem linguam in uniuersam progeniem suam refudit, sed in eam tantum, cuius generationes perducuntur ad Abraham. Quapropter etiamsi non euidenter expressum est fuisse aliquod pium genus hominum, quando ab inpiis Babylonia condebatur, non ad hoc ualuit haec obscuritas, ut quaerentis fraudaretur, sed potius ut exerceretur intentio. Cum enim legitur unam fuisse linguam primitus omnium et ante omnes filios Sem commendatur Heber, quamuis ex illo quintus oriatur, et Hebraea uocatur lingua, quam patriarcharum et prophetarum non solum in sermonibus suis, uerum etiam in litteris sacris custodiuit auctoritas: profecto, cum quaeritur in diuisione linguarum, ubi lingua illa remanere potuerit, quae fuit ante communis (quae sine ulla dubitatione ubi remansit, non ibi fuit illa poena, quae facta est mutatione linguarum), quid aliud occurrit, nisi quod in huius gente remanserit, a cuius nomine nomen accepit, et hoc iustitiae gentis huius non paruum apparuisse uestigium, quod, cum aliae gentes plecterentur mutatione linguarum, ad istam non peruenit tale supplicium ?

[¶10] But yet another question is mooted: How did Heber and his son Peleg each found a nation, if they had but one language? For no doubt the Hebrew nation propagated from Heber through Abraham, and becoming through him a great people, is one nation. How, then, are all the sons of the three branches of Noah’s family enumerated as founding a nation each, if Heber and Peleg did not so? It is very probable that the giant Nimrod founded also his nation, and that Scripture has named him separately on account of the extraordinary dimensions of his empire and of his body, so that the number of seventy-two nations remains. But Peleg was mentioned, not because he founded a nation (for his race and language are Hebrew), but on account of the critical time at which he was born, all the earth being then divided. Nor ought we to be surprised that the giant Nimrod lived to the time in which Babylon was founded and the confusion of tongues occurred, and the consequent division of the earth. For though Heber was in the sixth generation from Noah, and Nimrod in the fourth, it does not follow that they could not be alive at the same time. For when the generations are few, they live longer and are born later; but when they are many, they live a shorter time, and come into the world earlier. We are to understand that, when the earth was divided, the descendants of Noah who are registered as founders of nations were not only already born, but were of an age to have immense families, worthy to be called tribes or nations. And therefore we must by no means suppose that they were born in the order in which they were set down; otherwise, how could the twelve sons of Joktan, another son of Heber’s, and brother of Peleg, have already founded nations, if Joktan was born, as he is registered, after his brother Peleg, since the earth was divided at Peleg’s birth? We are therefore to understand that, though Peleg is named first, he was born long after Joktan, whose twelve sons had already families so large as to admit of their being divided by different languages. There is nothing extraordinary in the last born being first named: of the sons of Noah, the descendants of Japheth are first named; then the sons of Ham, who was the second son; and last the sons of Shem, who was the first and oldest. Of these nations the names have partly survived, so that at this day we can see from whom they have sprung, as the Assyrians from Assur, the Hebrews from Heber, but partly have been altered in the lapse of time, so that the most learned men, by profound research in ancient records, have scarcely been able to discover the origin, I do not say of all, but of some of these nations. There is, for example, nothing in the name Egyptians to show that they are descended from Misraim, Ham’s son, nor in the name Ethiopians to show a connection with Cush, though such is said to be the origin of these nations. And if we take a general survey of the names, we shall find that more have been changed than have remained the same.

> Latin: Sed adhuc illud mouet, quo modo potuerunt singulas gentes facere Heber et filius eius Phalech, si una lingua permansit ambobus. Et certe una est Hebraea gens ex Heber propagata usque ad Abraham et per eum deinceps, donec magnus fieret populus Israel. Quo modo igitur omnes filii, qui commemorati sunt, trium filiorum Noe fecerunt singulas gentes, si Heber et Phalech singulas non fecerunt? Nimirum illud est probabilius, quod gigans ille Nebroth fecerit etiam ipse gentem suam, sed propter excellentiam dominationis et corporis seorsum eminentius nominatus est, ut maneat numerus septuaginta duarum gentium adque linguarum. Phalech autem propterea commemoratus est, non quod gentem fecerit (nam eadem ipsa est eius gens Hebraea eademque lingua), sed propter tempus insigne, quod in diebus eius terra diuisa sit. Nec mouere nos debet, quo modo potuerit gigans Nebroth ad illud aetatis occurrere, quo Babylon condita est et confusio facta linguarum adque ex hoc diuisio gentium. Non enim quia Heber sextus est a Noe, ille autem quartus, ideo non potuerunt ad idem tempus conuenire uiuendo. Hoc enim contigit, cum plus uiuerent ubi pauciores sunt generationes, minus ubi plures; aut serius nati essent ubi pauciores, maturius ubi plures. Sane intellegendum est, quando terra diuisa est, non solum iam natos ceteros filios filiorum Noe, qui commemorantur patres gentium. sed etiam eius aetatis fuisse, ut numerosas familias haberent, quae dignae fuissent nominibus gentium. Unde nequaquam putandum, quod eo fuerint ordine geniti, quo commemorati leguntur. Alioquin duodecim filii Iectan, qui erat alius filius Heber, frater Phalech, quo modo potuerunt iam gentes facere, si post Phalech fratrem suum Iectan natus est, sicut post eum commemoratus est; quando quidem tempore, quo natus est Phalech, diuisa est terra. Proinde intellegendum est priorem quidem nominatum, sed longe post fratrem suum Iectan fuisse natum, cuius Iectan duodecim filii tam grandes iam familias haberent, ut in linguas proprias diuidi possent. Sic enim potuit prior commemorari, qui erat aetate posterior, quem ad modum prius commemorati sunt ex tribus filiis Noe procreati filii Iapheth, qui erat minimus eorum; deinde filii Cham, qui erat medius; postremo filii Sem, qui erat primus et maximus. Illarum autem gentium uocabula partim manserunt, ita ut hodieque appareat unde fuerint deriuata, sicut ex Assur Assyrii et ex Heber Hebraei; partim temporis uetustate mutata sunt. ita ut uix homines doctissimi antiquissimas historias perscrutantes, nec omnium, sed aliquarum ex istis origines gentium potuerint reperire. Nam quod ex filio Cham, qui uocabatur Mesraim, Aegyptii perhibentur exorti, nulla hic resonat origo uocabuli; sicut nec Aethiopum, qui dicuntur ad eum filium Cham pertinere, qui Chus appellatus est. Et si omnia considerentur, plura mutata quam manentia nomina apparent.

### Of the Era in Abraham’s Life from Which a New Period in the Holy Succession Begins.

[¶12] Chapter 12.—Of the Era in Abraham’s Life from Which a New Period in the Holy Succession Begins.

> Latin: Caput XII. De articulo temporis in Abraham, a quo sanctae successionis nouus ordo contexitur.

[¶13] Let us now survey the progress of the city of God from the era of the patriarch Abraham, from whose time it begins to be more conspicuous, and the divine promises which are now fulfilled in Christ are more fully revealed. We learn, then, from the intimations of holy Scripture, that Abraham was born in the country of the Chaldeans, a land belonging to the Assyrian empire. Now, even at that time impious superstitions were rife with the Chaldeans, as with other nations. The family of Terah, to which Abraham belonged, was the only one in which the worship of the true God survived, and the only one, we may suppose, in which the Hebrew language was preserved; although Joshua the son of Nun tells us that even this family served other gods in Mesopotamia. The other descendants of Heber gradually became absorbed in other races and other languages. And thus, as the single family of Noah was preserved through the deluge of water to renew the human race, so, in the deluge of superstition that flooded the whole world, there remained but the one family of Terah in which the seed of God’s city was preserved. And as, when Scripture has enumerated the generations prior to Noah, with their ages, and explained the cause of the flood before God began to speak to Noah about the building of the ark, it is said, “These are the generations of Noah;” so also now, after enumerating the generations from Shem, Noah’s son, down to Abraham, it then signalizes an era by saying, “These are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot. And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees. And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor’s wife Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah.” This Iscah is supposed to be the same as Sarah, Abraham’s wife.

> Latin: Nunc iam uideamus procursum ciuitatis Dei etiam ab illo articulo temporis, qui factus est in patre Abraham, unde incipit esse notitia eius euidentior, et ubi clariora leguntur promissa diuina, quae nunc in Christo uidemus inpleri. Sicut ergo scriptura sancta indicante didicimus, in regione Chaldaeorum natus est Abraham, quae terra ad regnum Assyrium pertinebat. Aput Chaldaeos autem iam etiam tunc superstitiones inpiae praeualebant, quem ad modum per ceteras gentes. Una igitur Tharae domus erat, de quo natus est Abraham, in qua unius ueri Dei cultus et, quantum credibile est, in qua iam sola etiam Hebraea lingua remanserat (quamuis et ipse. sicut iam manifestior Dei populus in Aegypto, ita in Mesopotamia seruisse dis alienis Iesu Naue narrante referatur) ceteris ex progenie illius Heber in linguas paulatim alias et in nationes alias defluentibus. Proinde sicut per aquarum diluuium una domus Noe remanserat ad reparandum genus humanum, sic in diluuio multarum superstitionum per uniuersum mundum una remanserat domus Tharae, in qua custodita est plantatio ciuitatis Dei. Denique sicut illic enumeratis supra generationibus usque ad Noe simul cum annorum numeris et exposita diluuii causa, priusquam Deus inciperet de arca fabricanda loqui ad Noe, dicitur: Hae autem generationes Noe: ita et hic enumeratis generationibus ab illo, qui est appellatus Sem, filio Noe, usque ad Abraham, deinde insignis articulus similiter ponitur ut dicatur: Hae sunt generationes Tharae. Tharagenuit Abram et Nachor et Arran, et Arran genuit Loth. Et mortuus est Arran coram Thara patre suo in terra in qua natus est, in regione Chaldaeorum. Et sumsit Abram et Nachor sibi uxores; nomen mulieris Abram Sara et nomen mulieris Nachor Melcha, filia Arran. Iste Arran pater Melchae fuit et pater Iescae, quae Iesca creditur ipsa esse etiam Sarra uxor Abrahae.

### Why, in the Account of Terah’s Emigration, on His Forsaking the Chaldeans and Passing Over into Mesopotamia, No Mention is Made of His Son Nahor.

[¶15] Chapter 13.—Why, in the Account of Terah’s Emigration, on His Forsaking the Chaldeans and Passing Over into Mesopotamia, No Mention is Made of His Son Nahor.

> Latin: Caput XIII. Quae ratio fecisse uideatur, ut in transmigratione Tharae, qua Chaldaeos deserens in Mesopotamiam transiit. nulla filii eius Nachor facta sit mentio.

[¶16] Next it is related how Terah with his family left the region of the Chaldeans and came into Mesopotamia, and dwelt in Haran. But nothing is said about one of his sons called Nahor, as if he had not taken him along with him. For the narrative runs thus: “And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran, his son’s son, and Sarah his daughter-in-law, his son Abram’s wife, and led them forth out of the region of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan; and he came into Haran, and dwelt there.” Nahor and Milcah his wife are nowhere named here. But afterwards, when Abraham sent his servant to take a wife for his son Isaac, we find it thus written: “And the servant took ten camels of the camels of his lord, and of all the goods of his lord, with him; and arose, and went into Mesopotamia, into the city of Nahor.” This and other testimonies of this sacred history show that Nahor, Abraham’s brother, had also left the region of the Chaldeans, and fixed his abode in Mesopotamia, where Abraham dwelt with his father. Why, then, did the Scripture not mention him, when Terah with his family went forth out of the Chaldean nation and dwelt in Haran, since it mentions that he took with him not only Abraham his son, but also Sarah his daughter-in-law, and Lot his grandson? The only reason we can think of is, that perhaps he had lapsed from the piety of his father and brother, and adhered to the superstition of the Chaldeans, and had afterwards emigrated thence, either through penitence, or because he was persecuted as a suspected person. For in the book called Judith, when Holofernes, the enemy of the Israelites, inquired what kind of nation that might be, and whether war should be made against them, Achior, the leader of the Ammonites, answered him thus: “Let our lord now hear a word from the mouth of thy servant, and I will declare unto thee the truth concerning the people which dwelleth near thee in this hill country, and there shall no lie come out of the mouth of thy servant. For this people is descended from the Chaldeans, and they dwelt heretofore in Mesopotamia, because they would not follow the gods of their fathers, which were glorious in the land of the Chaldeans, but went out of the way of their ancestors, and adored the God of heaven, whom they knew; and they cast them out from the face of their gods, and they fled into Mesopotamia, and dwelt there many days. And their God said to them, that they should depart from their habitation, and go into the land of Canaan; and they dwelt,” etc., as Achior the Ammonite narrates. Whence it is manifest that the house of Terah had suffered persecution from the Chaldeans for the true piety with which they worshipped the one and true God.

> Latin: Deinde narratur quem ad modum Thara cum suis regionem reliquerit Chaldaeorum et uenerit in Mesopotamiam et habitauerit in Charra. Tacetur autem de uno eius filio, qui uocabatur Nachor, tamquam eum non duxerit secum. Nam ita narratur: Et sumsit Thara Abram filium suum et Loth filium Arran, filium filii sui, et Saram nurum suam uxorem Abram filii sui, et eduxit illos de regione Chaldaeorum ire in terram Chanaan; et uenit in Charran et habitauit ibi. Nusquam hic nominatus est Nachor et uxor eius Melcha. Sed inuenimus postea, cum seruum suum mitteret Abraham ad accipiendam uxorem filio suo Isaac, ita scriptum: Et accepit puer decem camelos de camelis domini sui et de omnibus bonis domini sui secum, et exsurgens profectus est in Mesopotamiam in ciuitatem Nachor. Isto et aliis sacrae huius historiae testimoniis ostenditur etiam Nachor frater Abrahae exisse de regione Chaldaeorum sedesque constituisse in Mesopotamia, ubi cum patre suo habitauerat Abraham. Quur ergo eum scriptura non commemorauit, quando ex gente Chaldaea cum suis profectus est Thara et habitauit in Mesopotamia; ubi non solum Abraham filius eius, uerum etiam Sarra nurus et Loth nepos eius commemorantur, quod eos duxerit secum? Quur, putamus, nisi forte quod a paterna et fraterna pietate desciuerat et superstitioni adhaeserat Chaldaeorum et postea inde siue paenitendo siue persecutionem passus, quod suspectus haberetur, et ipse emigrauit? In libro enim qui inscribitur Iudith, cum quaereret Holofernes, hostis Israelitarum, quaenam illa gens esset, utrum aduersus eam bellandum fuisset, sic ei respondit Achior dux Ammanitarum: Audiat dominus noster uerbum de ore pueri sui, et referam tibi ueritatem de populo, qui habitat iuxta te montanam hanc, et non exibit mendacium de ore serui tui. Haec enim progenies populi est Chaldaeorum, et antea habitauerunt Mesopotamiam, quia noluerunt sequi deos patrum suorum, qui fuerunt in terra Chaldaeorum gloriosi, sed declinauerunt de uia parentum suorum et adorauerunt Deum caeli, quem cognouerunt, et proiecerunt eos a facie deorum suorum et fugerunt Mesopotamiam et habitauerunt ibi dies multos. Dixitque illis Deus eorum, ut exirent de habitatione sua et irent in terram Chanaan, et illic habitauerunt, et cetera, quae narrat Achior Ammanites. Unde manifestum est domum Tharae persecutionem passam fuisse a Chaldaeis pro uera pietate, qua unus et uerus ab eis colebatur Deus.

### Of the Years of Terah, Who Completed His Lifetime in Haran.

[¶18] Chapter 14.—Of the Years of Terah, Who Completed His Lifetime in Haran.

> Latin: Caput XIV. De annis Tharae, qui in Charra uitae suae tempus inpleuit.

[¶19] On Terah’s death in Mesopotamia, where he is said to have lived 205 years, the promises of God made to Abraham now begin to be pointed out; for thus it is written: “And the days of Terah in Haran were two hundred and five years, and he died in Haran.” This is not to be taken as if he had spent all his days there, but that he there completed the days of his life, which were two hundred and five years: otherwise it would not be known how many years Terah lived, since it is not said in what year of his life he came into Haran; and it is absurd to suppose that, in this series of generations, where it is carefully recorded how many years each one lived, his age was the only one not put on record. For although some whom the same Scripture mentions have not their age recorded, they are not in this series, in which the reckoning of time is continuously indicated by the death of the parents and the succession of the children. For this series, which is given in order from Adam to Noah, and from him down to Abraham, contains no one without the number of the years of his life.

> Latin: Defuncto autem Thara in Mesopotamia, ubi uixisse perhibetur ducentos et quinque annos, iam incipiunt indicari factae ad Abraham promissiones Dei, quod ita scriptum est: Et fuerunt dies Tharae in Charra quinque et ducenti anni, et mortuus est Thara in Charra. Non sic autem accipiendum est, quasi omnes hos dies ibi egerit, sed quia omnes dies uitae suae, qui fuerunt anni ducenti quinque, ibi conpleuerit; alioquin nescietur quot annos uixerit Thara, quoniam non legitur quoto anno uitae suae in Charran uenent; et absurdum est existimare in ista serie generationum, ubi diligenter commemoratur quot annos quisque uixerit, huius solius numerum annorum uitae non commendatum esse memoriae. Quod enim quorundam, quos eadem scriptura commemorat, tacentur anni, non sunt in hoc ordine, in quo temporum dinumeratio decessione gignentium et genitorum successione contexitur. iste autem ordo, qui dirigitur ab Adam usque ad Noe et inde usque ad Abraham, sine numero annorum uitae suae neminem continet.

### Of the Time of the Migration of Abraham, When, According to the Commandment of God, He Went Out from Haran.

[¶21] Chapter 15.—Of the Time of the Migration of Abraham, When, According to the Commandment of God, He Went Out from Haran.

> Latin: Caput XV. De tempore profectionis Abrahae, qua secundum praeceptum Dei exiit de Charra.

[¶22] When, after the record of the death of Terah, the father of Abraham, we next read, “And the Lord said to Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house,” etc., it is not to be supposed, because this follows in the order of the narrative, that it also followed in the chronological order of events. For if it were so, there would be an insoluble difficulty. For after these words of God which were spoken to Abraham, the Scripture says: “And Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him. Now Abraham was seventy-five years old when he departed out of Haran.” How can this be true if he departed from Haran after his father’s death? For when Terah was seventy years old, as is intimated above, he begat Abraham; and if to this number we add the seventy-five years which Abraham reckoned when he went out of Haran, we get 145 years. Therefore that was the number of the years of Terah, when Abraham departed out of that city of Mesopotamia; for he had reached the seventy-fifth year of his life, and thus his father, who begat him in the seventieth year of his life, had reached, as was said, his 145th. Therefore he did not depart thence after his father’s death, that is, after the 205 years his father lived; but the year of his departure from that place, seeing it was his seventy-fifth, is inferred beyond a doubt to have been the 145th of his father, who begat him in his seventieth year. And thus it is to be understood that the Scripture, according to its custom, has gone back to the time which had already been passed by the narrative; just as above, when it had mentioned the grandsons of Noah, it said that they were in their nations and tongues; and yet afterwards, as if this also had followed in order of time, it says, “And the whole earth was of one lip, and one speech for all.” How, then, could they be said to be in their own nations and according to their own tongues, if there was one for all; except because the narrative goes back to gather up what it had passed over? Here, too, in the same way, after saying, “And the days of Terah in Haran were 205 years, and Terah died in Haran,” the Scripture, going back to what had been passed over in order to complete what had been begun about Terah, says, “And the Lord said to Abram, Get thee out of thy country,” etc. After which words of God it is added, “And Abram departed, as the Lord spake unto him; and Lot went with him. But Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed out of Haran.” Therefore it was done when his father was in the 145th year of his age; for it was then the seventy-fifth of his own. But this question is also solved in another way, that the seventy-five years of Abraham when he departed out of Haran are reckoned from the year in which he was delivered from the fire of the Chaldeans, not from that of his birth, as if he was rather to be held as having been born then.

> Latin: Quod uero commemorata morte Tharae, patris Abraham. deinde legitur: Et dixit Dominus ad Abram: Exi de terra tua et de cognatione tua et de domo patris tui et cetera, non, quia hoc sequitur in sermone libri, hoc etiam in rerum gestarum tempore sequi existimandum est. Erit quippe, si ita est, insolubilis quaestio. Post haec enim uerba Dei, quae ad Abraham facta sunt, scriptura sic loquitur: Et exiit Abram, quem ad modum locutus est ei Dominus, et abiit cum eo Loth. Abram autem erat quinque et septuaginta annorum. cum exiit ex Charra. Quo modo potest hoc esse uerum, si post mortem patris sui exiit de Charra? Cum enim esset Thara septuaginta annorum, sicut supra intimatum est, genuit Abraham; cui numero additis septuaginta quinque annis, quos agebat Abraham, quando egressus est de Charra, fiunt anni centum quadraginta quinque. Tot igitur annorum erat Thara, quando exiit Abraham de illa Mesopotamiae ciuitate; agebat enim annum aetatis suae septuagensimum quintum, ac per hoc pater eius, qui eum septuagensimo anno suo genuerat, agebat, ut dictum est, centensimum quadragensimum et quintum. Non ergo inde post mortem patris, id est post ducentos quinque annos, quibus pater eius uixit, egressus est; sed annus de illo loco profectionis eius, quoniam ipsius septuagensimus quintus erat, procul dubio patris eius, qui eum septuagensimo suo anno genuerat, centensimus quadragensimus quintus fuisse colligitur. Ac per hoc intellegendum est more suo scripturam redisse ad tempus, quod iam narratio illa transierat; sicut superius, cum filios filiorum Noe commemorasset, dixit illos fuisse in linguis et gentibus suis, et tamen postea, quasi hoc etiam in ordine temporum sequeretur: Et erat, inquit, omnis terra labium unum et uox una omnibus. Quo modo ergo secundum suas gentes et secundum suas linguas erant, si una erat omnibus, nisi quia ad illud quod iam transierat recapitulando est reuersa narratio? Sic ergo et hic cum dictum esset: Et fuerunt dies Tharae in Charra quinque et ducenti anni, et mortuus est Thara in Charra, deinde scriptura redeundo ad id, quod ideo praetermiserat, ut prius de Thara id quod incohatum fuerat conpleretur: Et dixit, inquit, Dominus ad Abram: Exi de terra tua et cetera. Post quae Dei uerba subiungitur: Et exiit Abram, quem ad modum locutus est illi Dominus, et abiit cum eo Loth. Abram autem erat quinque et septuaginta annorum, cum exiit ex Charra. Tunc itaque factum est, quando pater eius centensimum quadragensimum et quintum annum agebat aetatis; tunc enim fuit huius septuagensimus quintus. Soluta est autem ista quaestio et aliter, ut septuaginta quinque anni Abrahae, quando egressus est de Charra, ex illo conputarentur, ex quo de igne Chaldaeorum liberatus, non ex quo natus est, tamquam tunc potius natus habendus sit.

[¶23] Now the blessed Stephen, in narrating these things in the Acts of the Apostles, says: “The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran, and said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, and come into the land which I will show thee.” According to these words of Stephen, God spoke to Abraham, not after the death of his father, who certainly died in Haran, where his son also dwelt with him, but before he dwelt in that city, although he was already in Mesopotamia. Therefore he had already departed from the Chaldeans. So that when Stephen adds, “Then Abraham went out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Charran,” this does not point out what took place after God spoke to him (for it was not after these words of God that he went out of the land of the Chaldeans, since he says that God spoke to him in Mesopotamia), but the word “then” which he uses refers to that whole period from his going out of the land of the Chaldeans and dwelling in Haran. Likewise in what follows, “And thenceforth, when his father was dead, he settled him in this land, wherein ye now dwell, and your fathers,” he does not say, after his father was dead he went out from Haran; but thenceforth he settled him here, after his father was dead. It is to be understood, therefore, that God had spoken to Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran; but that he came to Haran with his father, keeping in mind the precept of God, and that he went out thence in his own seventy-fifth year, which was his father’s 145th. But he says that his settlement in the land of Canaan, not his going forth from Haran, took place after his father’s death; because his father was already dead when he purchased the land, and personally entered on possession of it. But when, on his having already settled in Mesopotamia, that is, already gone out of the land of the Chaldeans, God says, “Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house,” this means, not that he should cast out his body from thence, for he had already done that, but that he should tear away his soul. For he had not gone out from thence in mind, if he was held by the hope and desire of returning,—a hope and desire which was to be cut off by God’s command and help, and by his own obedience. It would indeed be no incredible supposition that afterwards, when Nahor followed his father, Abraham then fulfilled the precept of the Lord, that he should depart out of Haran with Sarah his wife and Lot his brother’s son.

> Latin: Sed beatus Stephanus in actibus apostolorum cum ista narraret: Deus, inquit, gloriae apparuit Abrahae patri nostro, cum esset in Mesopotamia, priusquam habitaret in Charra, et ait ad illum: Exi de terra tua et de cognatione tua et de domo patris tui, et ueni in terram, quam tibi demonstrabo. Secundum haec uerba Stephani non post mortem patris eius locutus est Deus Abrahae, qui utique in Charra mortuus est, ubi cum illo et ipse filius habitauit, sed priusquam habitaret in eadem ciuitate, iam tamen cum esset in Mesopotamia. Iam ergo exierat a Chaldaeis. Quod itaque adiungit Stephanus: Tunc Abraham egressus est de terra Chaldaeorum et habitauit in Charra, non quid sit factum, postea quam locutus est illi Deus (neque enim post illa Dei uerba egressus est de terra Chaldaeorum, cum dicat ei locutum Deum cum esset. in Mesopotamia), sed ad totum illud tempus pertinet quod ait: <Tunc, id est, ex quo egressus est a Chaldaeis et habitauit in Charra.’ Item quod sequitur: Et inde postquam mortuus est pater eius, conlocauit illum in terra hac, in qua uos nunc habitatis et patres uestri, non ait: ‘Postquam mortuus est pater eius, exiit de Charra’; sed: ‘Inde hic eum conlocauit, postquam mortuus est pater eius’. Intellegendum est igitur locutum Deum fuisse ad Abraham, cum esset in Mesopotamia, priusquam habitaret in Charra; sed eum in Charram peruenisse cum patre, retento aput se praecepto Dei, et inde exisse septuagensimo et quinto suo. patris autem sui centensimo quadragensimo et quinto anno. Conlocationem uero eius in terra Chanaan, non profectionem de Charra post mortem patris eius factam esse dicit, quia iam mortuus erat pater eius, quando emit terram, cuius ibi iam suae rei coepit esse possessor. Quod autem iam in Mesopotamia constituto, hoc est iam egresso de terra Chaldaeorum, dicit Deus: Exi de terra tua et de cognatione tua et de domo patris tui, non ut corpus inde eiceret, quod iam fecerat, sed ut animum auelleret, dicitur. Non enim exierat inde animo, si spe redeundi et desiderio tenebatur, quae spes et desiderium Deo iubente ac iuuante et illo oboediente fuerat amputandum. Non sane incredibiliter existimatur, cum postea secutus esset Nachor patrem suum, tunc Abraham praeceptum Domini inplesse, ut cum Sarra coniuge sua et Loth filio fratris sui exiret de Charra.

## 77. Of the Order and Nature of the Promises of God Which Were Made to Abraham.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/77/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/77/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 16.—Of the Order and Nature of the Promises of God Which Were Made to Abraham.

> Latin: Caput XVI. De ordine et qualitate promissionum Dei, quae ad Abraham factae sunt.

[¶1] God’s promises made to Abraham are now to be considered; for in these the oracles of our God, that is, of the true God, began to appear more openly concerning the godly people, whom prophetic authority foretold. The first of these reads thus: “And the Lord said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, and go into a land that I will show thee: and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee and magnify thy name; and thou shall be blessed: and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee: and in thee shall all tribes of the earth be blessed.” Now it is to be observed that two things are promised to Abraham, the one, that his seed should possess the land of Canaan, which is intimated when it is said, “Go into a land that I will show thee, and I will make of thee a great nation;” but the other far more excellent, not about the carnal but the spiritual seed, through which he is the father, not of the one Israelite nation, but of all nations who follow the footprints of his faith, which was first promised in these words, “And in thee shall all tribes of the earth be blessed.” Eusebius thought this promise was made in Abraham’s seventy-fifth year, as if soon after it was made Abraham had departed out of Haran because the Scripture cannot be contradicted in which we read, “Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.” But if this promise was made in that year, then of course Abraham was staying in Haran with his father; for he could not depart thence unless he had first dwelt there. Does this, then, contradict what Stephen says, “The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran?” But it is to be understood that the whole took place in the same year,—both the promise of God before Abraham dwelt in Haran, and his dwelling in Haran, and his departure thence,—not only because Eusebius in the Chronicles reckons from the year of this promise, and shows that after 430 years the exodus from Egypt took place, when the law was given, but because the Apostle Paul also mentions it.

> Latin: Iam considerandae sunt promissiones Dei factae ad Abraham. In his enim apertiora Dei nostri, hoc est Dei ueri, oracula apparere coeperunt de populo piorum, quem prophetica praenuntiauit auctoritas. Harum prima ita legitur: Et dixit Dominus ad Abram: Exi de terra tua et de cognatione tua et de domo patris tui [et uade] in terram, quam tibi demonstrauero; et faciam te in gentem magnam et benedicam te et magnificabo nomen tuum, et eris benedictus, et benedicam benedicentes te et maledicentes te maledicam, et benedicentur in te omnes tribus terrae. Aduertendum est igitur duas res promissas Abrahae; unam scilicet, quod terram Chanaan possessurum fuerat semen eius, quod significatur, ubi dictum est: Vade in terram, quam tibi demonstrauero, et faciam te in gentem magnam; aliam uero longe praestantiorem non de carnali, sed de spiritali semine, per quod pater est non unius gentis Israeliticae, sed omnium gentium, quae fidei eius uestigia consequuntur, quod promitti coepit his uerbis: Et benedicentur in te omnes tribus terrae. Hanc promissionem factam arbitratur Eusebius septuagensimo quinto anno aetatis Abrahae, tamquam mox ut facta est de Charra exierit Abraham; quoniam scripturae contradici non potest, ubi legitur: Abraham erat quinque et septuaginta annorum, cum exiit ex Charra. Sed si eo anno facta est ista promissio, iam utique in Charra cum patre suo demorabatur Abraham. Neque enim exire inde posset, nisi prius ibi habitasset. Numquidnam ergo contradicitur Stephano dicenti: Deus gloriae apparuit Abrahae patri nostro, cum esset in Mesopotamia, priusquam habitaret in Charra? Sed intellegendum est, quod eodem anno facta sint omnia, et Dei promissio, antequam in Charra habitaret Abraham, et in Charra habitatio eius et inde profectio; non solum quia Eusebius in chronicis ab anno huius promissionis conputat et ostendit post quadringentos et triginta annos exitum esse de Aegypto, quando lex data est, uerum etiam quia id commemorat apostolus Paulus.

### Of the Three Most Famous Kingdoms of the Nations, of Which One, that is the Assyrian, Was Already Very Eminent When Abraham Was Born.

[¶3] Chapter 17.—Of the Three Most Famous Kingdoms of the Nations, of Which One, that is the Assyrian, Was Already Very Eminent When Abraham Was Born.

> Latin: Caput XVII. De tribus excellentioribus gentium regnis, quorum unum, id est Assyriorum, iam Abraham genito sublimius eminebat.

[¶4] During the same period there were three famous kingdoms of the nations, in which the city of the earth-born, that is, the society of men living according to man under the domination of the fallen angels, chiefly flourished, namely, the three kingdoms of Sicyon, Egypt, and Assyria. Of these, Assyria was much the most powerful and sublime; for that king Ninus, son of Belus, had subdued the people of all Asia except India. By Asia I now mean not that part which is one province of this greater Asia, but what is called Universal Asia, which some set down as the half, but most as the third part of the whole world,—the three being Asia, Europe, and Africa, thereby making an unequal division. For the part called Asia stretches from the south through the east even to the north; Europe from the north even to the west; and Africa from the west even to the south. Thus we see that two, Europe and Africa, contain one half of the world, and Asia alone the other half. And these two parts are made by the circumstance, that there enters between them from the ocean all the Mediterranean water, which makes this great sea of ours. So that, if you divide the world into two parts, the east and the west, Asia will be in the one, and Europe and Africa in the other. So that of the three kingdoms then famous, one, namely Sicyon, was not under the Assyrians, because it was in Europe; but as for Egypt, how could it fail to be subject to the empire which ruled all Asia with the single exception of India? In Assyria, therefore, the dominion of the impious city had the pre-eminence. Its head was Babylon,—an earth-born city, most fitly named, for it means confusion. There Ninus reigned after the death of his father Belus, who first had reigned there sixty-five years. His son Ninus, who, on his father’s death, succeeded to the kingdom, reigned fifty-two years, and had been king forty-three years when Abraham was born, which was about the 1200th year before Rome was founded, as it were another Babylon in the west.

> Latin: Per idem tempus eminentia regna erant gentium, in quibus terrigenarum ciuitas, hoc est societas hominum secundum.. hominem uiuentium, sub dominatu angelorum desertorum insignius excellebat, regna uidelicet tria, Sicyoniorum, Aegyptiorum, Assyriorum. Sed Assyriorum multo erat potentius adque sublimius. Nam rex ille Ninus Beli filius excepta India uniuersae Asiae populos subiugauerat. Asiam nunc dico non illam partem quae huius maioris Asiae una prouincia est, sed eam quae uniuersa Asia nuncupatur, quam quidam in altera duarum, plerique autem in tertia totius orbis parte posuerunt, ut sint omnes Asia, Europa et Africa; quod non aequali diuisione fecerunt. Namque ista, quae Asia nuncupatur, a meridie per orientem usque ad septentrionem peruenit; Europa uero a septentrione usque ad occidentem, adque inde Africa ab occidente usque ad meridiem. Unde uidentur orbem dimidium duae tenere, Europa et Africa, alium uero dimidium sola Asia. Sed ideo illae duae partes factae sunt, quia inter utramque ab Oceano ingreditur, quidquid aquarum terras interluit; et hoc mare magnum nobis facit. Quapropter si in duas partes orbem diuidas, Orientis et Occidentis, Asia erit in una, in altera uero Europa et Africa. Quam ob rem trium regnorum, quae tunc praecellebant, Sicyoniorum non erat sub Assyriis, quia in Europa sunt; Aegyptiorum autem quo modo eis non subiacebat, a quibus tota Asia tenebatur, solis Indis, ut perhibetur, exceptis? In Assyria igitur praeualuerat dominatus inpiae ciuitatis; huius caput erat illa Babylon, cuius terrigenae ciuitatis nomen aptissimum est, id est confusio. Ibi iam Ninus regnabat post mortem patris sui Beli, qui primus illic regnauerat sexaginta quinque annos. Filius uero eius Ninus, qui defuncto patri successit in regnum, quinquaginta duos regnauit annos, et habebat in regno quadraginta tres, quando natus est Abraham, qui erat annus circiter millensimus ducentensimus ante conditam Romam, ueluti alteram in occidente Babyloniam.

### Of the Repeated Address of God to Abraham, in Which He Promised the Land of Canaan to Him and to His Seed.

[¶6] Chapter 18.—Of the Repeated Address of God to Abraham, in Which He Promised the Land of Canaan to Him and to His Seed.

> Latin: Caput XVIII. De iterato adloquio Dei ad Abraham, quo ei et semini eius Chanaan terra promittitur.

[¶7] Abraham, then, having departed out of Haran in the seventy-fifth year of his own age, and in the hundred and forty-fifth of his father’s, went with Lot, his brother’s son, and Sarah his wife, into the land of Canaan, and came even to Sichem, where again he received the divine oracle, of which it is thus written: “And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said unto him, Unto thy seed will I give this land.” Nothing is promised here about that seed in which he is made the father of all nations, but only about that by which he is the father of the one Israelite nation; for by this seed that land was possessed.

> Latin: Egressus ergo Abraham de Charra septuagensimo quinto anno aetatis suae, centensimo autem quadragensimo et quinto patris sui, cum Loth filio fratris et Sarra coniuge perrexit in terram Chanaan et peruenit usque ad Sichem, ubi rursus diuinum accepit oraculum, de quo ita scriptum est: Et apparuit Dominus Abrahae, et dixit illi: Semini tuo dabo terram hanc. Nihil hic de illo semine dictum est, in quo pater factus est omnium gentium, sed de illo solo, de quo pater est unius Israeliticae gentis; ab hoc enim semine terra illa possessa est.

### Of the Divine Preservation of Sarah’s Chastity in Egypt, When Abraham Had Called Her Not His Wife But His Sister.

[¶9] Chapter 19.—Of the Divine Preservation of Sarah’s Chastity in Egypt, When Abraham Had Called Her Not His Wife But His Sister.

> Latin: Caput XIX. De Sarrae pudicitia in Aegypto per Deum custodita, quam Abraham non uxorem suam esse dixerat, sed sororem.

[¶10] Having built an altar there, and called upon God, Abraham proceeded thence and dwelt in the desert, and was compelled by pressure of famine to go on into Egypt. There he called his wife his sister, and told no lie. For she was this also, because she was near of blood; just as Lot, on account of the same nearness, being his brother’s son, is called his brother. Now he did not deny that she was his wife, but held his peace about it, committing to God the defence of his wife’s chastity, and providing as a man against human wiles; because if he had not provided against the danger as much as he could, he would have been tempting God rather than trusting in Him. We have said enough about this matter against the calumnies of Faustus the Manichæan. At last what Abraham had expected the Lord to do took place. For Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who had taken her to him as his wife, restored her to her husband on being severely plagued. And far be it from us to believe that she was defiled by lying with another; because it is much more credible that, by these great afflictions, Pharaoh was not permitted to do this.

> Latin: Deinde aedificato ibi altari et inuocato Deo Abraham profectus est inde et habitauit in eremo adque inde ire in Aegyptum famis necessitate conpulsus est. Ubi uxorem suam dixit sororem, nihil mentitus; erat enim et hoc, quia propinqua erat sanguine; sicut etiam Loth eadem propinquitate. cum fratris eius esset filius, frater eius est dictus. Itaque uxorem tacuit, non negauit, coniugis tuendam pudicitiam committens Deo et humanas insidias cauens ut homo; quoniam, si periculum quantum caueri poterat non caueret, magis tentaret Deum, quam speraret in Deum. De qua re contra calumniantem Faustum Manichaeum satis diximus. Denique factum est, quod de Domitio praesumsit Abraham. Nam Pharao rex Aegypti, qui eam sibi uxorem acceperat, grauiter adflictus marito reddidit. Ubi absit ut credamus alieno concubitu fuisse pollutam, quia multo est credibilius, hoc Pharaonem facere adflictionibus magnis non fuisse permissum.

### Of the Parting of Lot and Abraham, Which They Agreed to Without Breach of Charity.

[¶12] Chapter 20.—Of the Parting of Lot and Abraham, Which They Agreed to Without Breach of Charity.

> Latin: Caput XX. De secessione Loth et Abrahae, quae illis salua caritate conplacuit.

[¶13] On Abraham’s return out of Egypt to the place he had left, Lot, his brother’s son, departed from him into the land of Sodom, without breach of charity. For they had grown rich, and began to have many herdmen of cattle, and when these strove together, they avoided in this way the pugnacious discord of their families. Indeed, as human affairs go, this cause might even have given rise to some strife between themselves. Consequently these are the words of Abraham to Lot, when taking precaution against this evil, “Let there be no strife between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren. Behold, is not the whole land before thee? Separate thyself from me: if thou wilt go to the left hand, I will go to the right; or if thou wilt go to the right hand, I will go to the left.” From this, perhaps, has arisen a pacific custom among men, that when there is any partition of earthly things, the greater should make the division, the less the choice.

> Latin: Reuerso igitur Abraham ex Aegypto in locum unde uenerat, nunc Loth fratris filius ab illo in terram Sodomorum salua caritate discessit. Diuites quippe facti erant pastoresque multos pecorum habere coeperant, quibus inter se rixantibus eo modo familiarum suarum pugnacem discordiam uitauerunt. Poterat quippe hinc, ut sunt humana, etiam inter ipsos aliqua rixa consurgere. Proinde hoc malum praecauentis Abrahae uerba ista sunt ad Loth: Non sit rixa inter me et te, et inter pastores meos et inter pastores tuos, quia homines fratres nos sumus. Nonne ecce tota terra ante te est? Discede a me; si tu in sinistram. ego in dextram; uel si tu in dextram, ego in sinistram. Hinc fortassis effecta est inter homines pacifica consuetudo, ut, quando terrenorum aliquid partiendum est, maior diuidat, minor eligat.

### Of the Third Promise of God, by Which He Assured the Land of Canaan to Abraham and His Seed in Perpetuity.

[¶15] Chapter 21.—Of the Third Promise of God, by Which He Assured the Land of Canaan to Abraham and His Seed in Perpetuity.

> Latin: Caput XXI. De tertia promissione Dei, qua terram Chanaan Abrahae et semini eius in perpetuum pollicetur.

[¶16] Now, when Abraham and Lot had separated, and dwelt apart, owing to the necessity of supporting their families, and not to vile discord, and Abraham was in the land of Canaan, but Lot in Sodom, the Lord said to Abraham in a third oracle, “Lift up thine eyes, and look from the place where thou now art, to the north, and to Africa, and to the east, and to the sea; for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: if any one can number the dust of the earth, thy seed shall also be numbered. Arise, and walk through the land, in the length of it, and in the breadth of it; for unto thee will I give it.” It does not clearly appear whether in this promise that also is contained by which he is made the father of all nations. For the clause, “And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth,” may seem to refer to this, being spoken by that figure the Greeks call hyperbole, which indeed is figurative, not literal. But no person of understanding can doubt in what manner the Scripture uses this and other figures. For that figure (that is, way of speaking) is used when what is said is far larger than what is meant by it; for who does not see how incomparably larger the number of the dust must be than that of all men can be from Adam himself down to the end of the world? How much greater, then, must it be than the seed of Abraham,—not only that pertaining to the nation of Israel, but also that which is and shall be according to the imitation of faith in all nations of the whole wide world! For that seed is indeed very small in comparison with the multitude of the wicked, although even those few of themselves make an innumerable multitude, which by a hyperbole is compared to the dust of the earth. Truly that multitude which was promised to Abraham is not innumerable to God, although to man; but to God not even the dust of the earth is so. Further, the promise here made may be understood not only of the nation of Israel, but of the whole seed of Abraham, which may be fitly compared to the dust for multitude, because regarding it also there is the promise of many children, not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit. But we have therefore said that this does not clearly appear, because the multitude even of that one nation, which was born according to the flesh of Abraham through his grandson Jacob, has increased so much as to fill almost all parts of the world. Consequently, even it might by hyperbole be compared to the dust for multitude, because even it alone is innumerable by man. Certainly no one questions that only that land is meant which is called Canaan. But that saying, “To thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever,” may move some, if by “for ever” they understand “to eternity.” But if in this passage they take “for ever” thus, as we firmly hold it means that the beginning of the world to come is to be ordered from the end of the present, there is still no difficulty, because, although the Israelites are expelled from Jerusalem, they still remain in other cities in the land of Canaan, and shall remain even to the end; and when that whole land is inhabited by Christians, they also are the very seed of Abraham.

> Latin: Cum ergo digressi essent separatimque habitarent Abraham et Loth necessitate sustentandae familiae, non foeditate discordiae, et Abraham in terra Chanaan, Loth autem esset in Sodomis, oraculo tertio dixit Dominus ad Abraham: Respiciens oculis tuis uide a loco, in quo nunc tu es, ad aquilonem et Africum et orientem et mare, quia omnem terram, quam tu uides, tibi dabo eam et semini tuo usque in saeculum, et faciam semen tuum tamquam harenam terrae. Si potest aliquis dinumerare harenam terrae, et semen tuum dinumerabitur. Surgens perambula terram in longitudinem eius et in latitudinem, quia tibi dabo eam. In hac promissione utrum sit etiam illa, qua pater factus est omnium gentium, non euidenter apparet. Potest enim uideri ad hoc pertinere: Et faciam semen tuum tamquam harenam terrae, quod ea locutione dictum est. quam Graeci uocant hyperbolen; quae utique tropica est, non propria. Quo tamen modo, ut ceteris tropis, uti solere scripturam, nullus qui eam didicit ambigit. Iste autem tropus. id est modus locutionis, fit, quando id quod dicitur longe est amplius, quam quod eo dicto significatur. Quis enim non uideat. quam sit incomparabiliter amplior harenae numerus, quam potest esse hominum omnium ab ipso Adam usque ad terminum saeculi? Quanto ergo magis quam semen Abrahae, non solum quod pertinet ad Israeliticam gentem, uerum etiam quod est et futurum est secundum imitationem fidei toto orbe terrarum in omnibus gentibus! Quod semen in conparatione multitudinis inpiorum profecto in paucis est; quamuis et ipsi pauci faciant innumerabilem multitudinem suam, quae significata est secundum hyperbolen per harenam terrae. Sane ista multitudo, quae promittitur Abrahae, non Deo est innumerabilis, sed hominibus; Deo autem nec harena terrae. Proinde quia non tantum gens Israelitica, sed uniuersum semen Abrahae, ubi est et promissio non secundum carnem, sed secundum spiritum plurium filiorum, congruentius harenae multitudini conparatur: potest hic intellegi utriusque rei facta promissio. Sed ideo diximus, quod non euidenter appareat, quia et illius gentis unius multitudo, quae secundum carnem nata est ex Abraham per eius nepotem Iacob, in tantum creuit, ut paene omnes partes orbis inpleuerit. Et ideo potuit et ipsa secundum hyperbolen harenae multitudini conparari, quia et haec sola innumera est homini. Terram certe illam solam significatam, quae appellata est Chanaan, ambigit nemo. Sed quod dictum est: Tibi dabo eam et semini tuo usque in saeculum, potest mouere nonnullos, si usque in saeculum intellegant (in aeternum. Si autem in saeculum hoc loco sic accipiant, quem ad modum fideliter tenemus initium futuri saeculi a fine praesentis ordiri, nihil eos mouebit; quia, etsi expulsi sunt Israelitae de Hierosolymis, manent tamen in aliis ciuitatibus terrae Chanaan, et usque in finem manebunt; et uniuersa terra illa cum a Christianis inhabitatur, etiam ipsum semen est Abrahae.

### Of Abraham’s Overcoming the Enemies of Sodom, When He Delivered Lot from Captivity and Was Blessed by Melchizedek the Priest.

[¶18] Chapter 22.—Of Abraham’s Overcoming the Enemies of Sodom, When He Delivered Lot from Captivity and Was Blessed by Melchizedek the Priest.

> Latin: Caput XXII. De superatis ab Abraham hostibus Sodomorum. quando et Loth de captiuitate eripuit, et a Melchisedech sacerdote benedictus est.

[¶19] Having received this oracle of promise, Abraham migrated, and remained in another place of the same land, that is, beside the oak of Mamre, which was Hebron. Then on the invasion of Sodom, when five kings carried on war against four, and Lot was taken captive with the conquered Sodomites, Abraham delivered him from the enemy, leading with him to battle three hundred and eighteen of his home-born servants, and won the victory for the kings of Sodom, but would take nothing of the spoils when offered by the king for whom he had won them. He was then openly blessed by Melchizedek, who was priest of God Most High, about whom many and great things are written in the epistle which is inscribed to the Hebrews, which most say is by the Apostle Paul, though some deny this. For then first appeared the sacrifice which is now offered to God by Christians in the whole wide world, and that is fulfilled which long after the event was said by the prophet to Christ, who was yet to come in the flesh, “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek,”—that is to say, not after the order of Aaron, for that order was to be taken away when the things shone forth which were intimated beforehand by these shadows.

> Latin: Hoc responso promissionis accepto migrauit Abraham et mansit in alio eiusdem terrae loco, iuxta quercum Mambre, quae erat Chebron. Deinde ab hostibus, qui Sodomis inruerant, cum quinque reges aduersus quattuor bellum gererent et uictis Sodomitis etiam Loth captus esset, liberauit eum Abraham adductis secum in proelium trecentis decem et octo uernaculis suis et uictoriam fecit regibus Sodomorum nihilque spoliorum auferre uoluit, cum rex cui uicerat obtulisset. Sed plane tunc benedictus est a Melchisedech, qui erat sacerdos Dei excelsi; de quo in epistula, quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos, quam plures Pauli apostoli esse dicunt, quidam uero negant, multa et magna conscripta sunt. Ibi quippe primum apparuit sacrificium, quod nunc a Christianis offertur Deo toto orbe terrarum, inpleturque illud, quod longe post hoc factum per prophetiam dicitur ad Christum, qui fuerat adhuc uenturus in carne: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech; non scilicet secundum ordinem Aaron, qui ordo fuerat auferendus inlucescentibus rebus. quae illis umbris praenotabantur.

### Of the Word of the Lord to Abraham, by Which It Was Promised to Him that His Posterity Should Be Multiplied According to the Multitude of the Stars; On Believing Which He Was Declared Justified While Yet in Uncircumcision.

[¶21] Chapter 23.—Of the Word of the Lord to Abraham, by Which It Was Promised to Him that His Posterity Should Be Multiplied According to the Multitude of the Stars; On Believing Which He Was Declared Justified While Yet in Uncircumcision.

> Latin: Caput XXIII. De uerbo Domini ad Abraham, quo ei promittitur secundum multitudinem stellarum multiplicanda posteritas; quod credens iustificatus est adhuc in praeputio constitutus.

[¶22] The word of the Lord came to Abraham in a vision also. For when God promised him protection and exceeding great reward, he, being solicitous about posterity, said that a certain Eliezer of Damascus, born in his house, would be his heir. Immediately he was promised an heir, not that house-born servant, but one who was to come forth of Abraham himself; and again a seed innumerable, not as the dust of the earth, but as the stars of heaven,—which rather seems to me a promise of a posterity exalted in celestial felicity. For, so far as multitude is concerned, what are the stars of heaven to the dust of the earth, unless one should say the comparison is like inasmuch as the stars also cannot be numbered? For it is not to be believed that all of them can be seen. For the more keenly one observes them, the more does he see. So that it is to be supposed some remain concealed from the keenest observers, to say nothing of those stars which are said to rise and set in another part of the world most remote from us. Finally, the authority of this book condemns those like Aratus or Eudoxus, or any others who boast that they have found out and written down the complete number of the stars. Here, indeed, is set down that sentence which the apostle quotes in order to commend the grace of God, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness;” lest the circumcision should glory, and be unwilling to receive the uncircumcised nations to the faith of Christ. For at the time when he believed, and his faith was counted to him for righteousness, Abraham had not yet been circumcised.

> Latin: Etiam tunc factum est uerbum Domini ad Abraham in uisu. Qui cum ei protectionem mercedemque promitteret ualde multam, ille de posteritate sollicitus quendam Eliezer uernaculum suum futurum sibi dixit heredem, continuoque illi promissus est heres, non ille uernaculus, sed qui de ipso Abraham fuerat exiturus, rursusque semen innumerabile, non sicut harena terrae, sed sicut stellae caeli; ubi mihi magis uidetur promissa posteritas caelesti felicitate sublimis. Nam quantum ad multitudinem pertinet, quid sunt stellae caeli ad harenam terrae? nisi quis et istam conparationem in tantum esse similem dicat, in quantum etiam stellae dinumerari non ualent, quia nec omnes eas uideri posse credendum est. Nam quanto quisque acutius intuetur, tanto plures uidet. Unde et acerrime cernentibus aliquas occultas esse merito existimatur, exceptis eis sideribus, quae in alia parte orbis a nobis remotissima oriri et occidere perhibentur. Postremo quicumque uniuersum stellarum numerum conprehendisse et conscripsisse iactantur, sicut Aratus uel Eudoxus uel si qui alii sunt, eos libri huius contemnit auctoritas. Hic sane illa sententia ponitur, cuius apostolus meminit propter Dei gratiam commendandam: Credidit Abraham Deo, et deputatum est illi ad iustitiam; ne circumcisio gloriaretur gentesque incircumcisas ad fidem Christi nollet admitti. Hoc enim quando factum est, ut credenti Abrahae deputaretur fides ad iustitiam, nondum fuerat circumcisus.

## 78. Of the Meaning of the Sacrifice Abraham Was Commanded to Offer When He Supplicated to Be Taught About Those Things He Had Believed.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/78/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/78/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 24.—Of the Meaning of the Sacrifice Abraham Was Commanded to Offer When He Supplicated to Be Taught About Those Things He Had Believed.

> Latin: Caput XXIV. De significatione sacrificii, quod Abraham offerre praeceptus est, cum poposcisset, ut de his quae crediderat doceretur.

[¶1] In the same vision, God in speaking to him also says, “I am God that brought thee out of the region of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.” And when Abram asked whereby he might know that he should inherit it, God said to him, “Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she-goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtle-dove, and a pigeon. And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another; but the birds divided he not. And the fowls came down,” as it is written, “on the carcasses, and Abram sat down by them. But about the going down of the sun, great fear fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him. And He said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land not theirs, and they shall reduce them to servitude and shall afflict them four hundred years: but the nation whom they shall serve will I judge; and afterward shall they come out hither with great substance. And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; kept in a good old age. But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. And when the sun was setting, there was a flame, and a smoking furnace, and lamps of fire, that passed through between those pieces. In that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed will I give this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river Euphrates: the Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Hivites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.”

> Latin: In eodem uisu cum loqueretur ei Deus, etiam hoc ait ad illum: Ego Deus, qui eduxi te de regione Chaldaeorum, ut dem tibi terram hanc, ut heres sis eius. Ubi cum interrogasset Abraham secundum quid sciret, quod heres eius erit, dixit illi Deus: Accipe mihi iuuencam trimam et capram trimam et arietem trimum et turturem et columbam. Accepit autem illi haec omnia et diuisit illa media et posuit ea contra faciem alterum alteri; aues autem non diuisit. Et descenderunt, sicut scriptum est, aues supra corpora quae diuisa erant, et consedit illis Abram. Circa solis autem occasum pauor inruit super Abram, et ecce timor tenebrosus magnus incidit ei; et dictum est ad Abram: Sciendo scies, quia peregrinum erit semen tuum in terra non propria, et in seruitutem redigent eos et adfligent eos quadringentis annis; gentem autem, cui seruierint. iudicabo ego. Post haec uero exibunt hoc cum supellectili multa. Tu autem ibis ad patres tuos cum pace nutritus in senecta bona. Quarta uero generatione conuertent se hoc. Nondum enim inpleta sunt peccata Amorrhaeorum usque adhuc. Cum autem iam sol erat ad occasum, flamma facta est, et ecce fornax fumabunda et lampades ignis, quae pertransierunt per media diuisa illa. In die illa disposuit Dominus Deus testamentum ad Abram, dicens: Semini tuo dabo terram hanc, a flumine Aegypti usque ad flumen magnum flumen Euphraten, Cenaeos et Cenezaeos et Cedmonaeos et Chettaeos et Pherezaeos et Raphaim et Amorrhaeos et Chananaeos et Euaeos et Gergesaeos et Iebusaeos.

[¶2] All these things were said and done in a vision from God; but it would take long, and would exceed the scope of this work, to treat of them exactly in detail. It is enough that we should know that, after it was said Abram believed in God, and it was counted to him for righteousness, he did not fail in faith in saying, “Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?” for the inheritance of that land was promised to him. Now he does not say, How shall I know, as if he did not yet believe; but he says, “Whereby shall I know,” meaning that some sign might be given by which he might know the manner of those things which he had believed, just as it is not for lack of faith the Virgin Mary says, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” for she inquired as to the way in which that should take place which she was certain would come to pass. And when she asked this, she was told, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.” Here also, in fine, a symbol was given, consisting of three animals, a heifer, a she-goat, and a ram, and two birds, a turtle-dove and pigeon, that he might know that the things which he had not doubted should come to pass were to happen in accordance with this symbol. Whether, therefore, the heifer was a sign that the people should be put under the law, the she-goat that the same people was to become sinful, the ram that they should reign (and these animals are said to be of three years old for this reason, that there are three remarkable divisions of time, from Adam to Noah, and from him to Abraham, and from him to David, who, on the rejection of Saul, was first established by the will of the Lord in the kingdom of the Israelite nation: in this third division, which extends from Abraham to David, that people grew up as if passing through the third age of life), or whether they had some other more suitable meaning, still I have no doubt whatever that spiritual things were prefigured by them as well as by the turtle-dove and pigeon. And it is said, “But the birds divided he not,” because carnal men are divided among themselves, but the spiritual not at all, whether they seclude themselves from the busy conversation of men, like the turtle-dove, or dwell among them, like the pigeon; for both birds are simple and harmless, signifying that even in the Israelite people, to which that land was to be given, there would be individuals who were children of the promise, and heirs of the kingdom that is to remain in eternal felicity. But the fowls coming down on the divided carcasses represent nothing good, but the spirits of this air, seeking some food for themselves in the division of carnal men. But that Abraham sat down with them, signifies that even amid these divisions of the carnal, true believers shall persevere to the end. And that about the going down of the sun great fear fell upon Abraham and a horror of great darkness, signifies that about the end of this world believers shall be in great perturbation and tribulation, of which the Lord said in the gospel, “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not from the beginning.”

> Latin: Haec omnia in uisu facta diuinitus adque dicta sunt, de quibus singulis enucleate disserere longum est et intentionem operis huius excedit. Quod ergo satis est nosse debemus. Postea quam dictum est credidisse Abraham Deo et deputatum illi ad iustitiam, non eum in fide defecisse, ut diceret: Dominator Domine, secundum quid sciam, quia heres eius ero? (terrae quippe illius promissa erat hereditas) — non enim ait: ‘Unde sciam?’ quasi adhuc non crederet; sed ait: Secundum quid sciam? ut ei rei, quam crediderat, aliqua similitudo adhiberetur, qua eius modus agnosceretur; sicut non est uirginis Mariae diffidentia quod ait: Quo modo fiet istud, quoniam uirum non cognosco? quod enim futurum esset, certa erat; modum quo fieret inquirebat, et hoc cum quaesisset, audiuit —: denique et hic similitudo data est de animalibus, iuuenca et capra et ariete et duabus uolucribus, turture et columba, ut secundum haec futurum sciret, quod futurum esse iam non ambigeret. Siue ergo per iunencam significata sit plebs posita sub iugo legis, per capram eadem plebs peccatrix futura, per arietem eadem plebs etiam regnatura ( quae animalia propterea trima dicuntur. quia, cum sint insignes articuli temporum ab Adam usque ad Noe et inde usque ad Abraham et inde usque ad Dauid, qui reprobato Saule primus in regno gentis Israeliticae Domini est uoluntate fundatus, in hoc ordine tertio, qui tenditur ex Abraham usque ad Dauid, tamquam tertiam aetatem gerens ille populus adoleuit), siue aliquid aliud conuenientius ista significent: nullo modo tamen dubitauerim spiritales in ea praefiguratos additamento turturis et columbae. Et ideo dictum est: Aues autem non diuisit, quoniam carnales inter se diuiduntur, spiritales autem nullo modo, siue a negotiosis conuersationibus hominum se remoueant, sicut turtur, siue inter illas degant, sicut columba; utraque tamen auis est simplex et innoxia, significans et in ipso Israelitico populo. cui terra illa danda erat, futuros indiuiduos filios promissionis et heredes regni in aeterna felicitate mansuri. Aues autem descendentes supra corpora, quae diuisa erant, non boni aliquid, sed spiritus indicant aeris huius, pastum quendam suum de carnalium diuisione quaerentes. Quod autem illis consedit Abraham, significat etiam inter illas carnalium diuisiones ueros usque in finem perseueraturos fideles. Et circa solis occasum quod pauor inruit in Abraham et timor tenebrosus magnus significat circa huius saeculi finem magnam perturbationem ac tribulationem futuram fidelium, de qua Dominus dicit in euangelio: Erit enim tunc tribulatio magna, qualis non fuit ab initio.

[¶3] But what is said to Abraham, “Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land not theirs, and they shall reduce them to servitude, and shall afflict them 400 years,” is most clearly a prophecy about the people of Israel which was to be in servitude in Egypt. Not that this people was to be in that servitude under the oppressive Egyptians for 400 years, but it is foretold that this should take place in the course of those 400 years. For as it is written of Terah the father of Abraham, “And the days of Terah in Haran were 205 years,” not because they were all spent there, but because they were completed there, so it is said here also, “And they shall reduce them to servitude, and shall afflict them 400 years,” for this reason, because that number was completed, not because it was all spent in that affliction. The years are said to be 400 in round numbers, although they were a little more,—whether you reckon from this time, when these things were promised to Abraham, or from the birth of Isaac, as the seed of Abraham, of which these things are predicted. For, as we have already said above, from the seventy-fifth year of Abraham, when the first promise was made to him, down to the exodus of Israel from Egypt, there are reckoned 430 years, which the apostle thus mentions: “And this I say, that the covenant confirmed by God, the law, which was made 430 years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.” So then these 430 years might be called 400, because they are not much more, especially since part even of that number had already gone by when these things were shown and said to Abraham in vision, or when Isaac was born in his father’s 100th year, twenty-five years after the first promise, when of these 430 years there now remained 405, which God was pleased to call 400. No one will doubt that the other things which follow in the prophetic words of God pertain to the people of Israel.

> Latin: Quod uero dictum est ad Abraham: Sciendo scies, quia peregrinum erit semen tuum in terra non propria, et in seruitutem redigent eos et adfligent eos quadringentis annis, de populo Israel, qui fuerat in Aegypto seruiturus, apertissime prophetatum est; non quod in eadem seruitute sub Aegyptiis adfligentibus quadringentos annos ille populus fuerat peracturus, sed in ipsis quadringentis annis praenuntiatum est hoc futurum. Quem ad modum enim scriptum est de Thara patre Abrahae: Et fuerunt dies Tharae in Charra quinque et ducenti anni, non quia ibi omnes acti sunt, sed quia ibi conpleti sunt: ita et hic propterea interpositum est: Et in seruitutem redigent eos et adfligent eos quadringentis annis, quoniam iste numerus in eadem adflictione conpletus est, non quia ibi uniuersus peractus est. Quadringenti sane dicuntur anni propter numeri plenitudinem, quamuis aliquanto amplius sint, siue ex hoc tempore conputentur, quo ista promittebantur Abrahae, siue ex quo natus est Isaac, propter semen Abrahae, de quo ista praedicuntur. Conputantur enim, sicut superius iam diximus, ab anno septuagensimo et quinto Abrahae, quando ad eum facta est prima promissio, usque ad exitum Israel ex Aegypto quadringenti et triginta anni; quorum apostolus ita meminit: Hoc autem dico, inquit: testamentum confirmatum a Deo post quadringentos triginta annos facta lex non infirmat ad euacuandam promissionem. Iam ergo isti quadringenti et triginta anni quadringenti poterant nuncupari, quia non sunt multo amplius: quanto magis cum aliquot iam ex isto numero praeterissent, quando illa in uisu demonstrata et dicta sunt Abrahae, uel quando Isaac natus est centenario patri suo, a prima promissione post uiginti quinque annos, cum iam ex istis quadringentis triginta quadringenti et quinque remanerent, quos Deus quadringentos uoluit nominare.

[¶4] When it is added, “And when the sun was now setting there was a flame, and lo, a smoking furnace, and lamps of fire, which passed through between those pieces,” this signifies that at the end of the world the carnal shall be judged by fire. For just as the affliction of the city of God, such as never was before, which is expected to take place under Antichrist, was signified by Abraham’s horror of great darkness about the going down of the sun, that is, when the end of the world draws nigh,—so at the going down of the sun, that is, at the very end of the world, there is signified by that fire the day of judgment, which separates the carnal who are to be saved by fire from those who are to be condemned in the fire. And then the covenant made with Abraham particularly sets forth the land of Canaan, and names eleven tribes in it from the river of Egypt even to the great river Euphrates. It is not then from the great river of Egypt, that is, the Nile, but from a small one which separates Egypt from Palestine, where the city of Rhinocorura is.

> Latin: Et cetera, quae sequuntur in uerbis praenuntiantis Dei, nullus dubitauerit ad Israeliticum populum pertinere. Quod uero adiungitur: Cum autem iam sol erat ad occasum, flamma facta est, et ecce fornax fumabunda et lampades ignis, quae pertransierunt per media diuisa illa, significat iam in fine saeculi per ignem iudicandos esse carnales. Sicut enim adflictio ciuitatis Dei, qualis antea numquam fuit, quae sub Antichristo futura speratur, significatur tenebroso timore Abrahae circa solis occasum, id est propinquante iam fine saeculi: sic ad solis occasum. id est ad ipsum iam finem, significatur isto igne dies iudicii dirimens carnales per ignem saluandos et igne damnandos. Deinde testamentum factum ad Abraham terram Chanaan proprie manifestat et nominat in ea undecim gentes a flumine Aegypti usque ad flumen magnum Euphraten. Non ergo a flumine magno Aegypti, hoc est Nilo, sed a paruo, quod diuidit inter Aegyptum et Palaestinam, ubi est ciuitas Rhinocorura.

### Of Sarah’s Handmaid, Hagar, Whom She Herself Wished to Be Abraham’s Concubine.

[¶6] Chapter 25.—Of Sarah’s Handmaid, Hagar, Whom She Herself Wished to Be Abraham’s Concubine.

> Latin: Caput XXV. De Agar ancilla Sanae, quam eadem Sarra Abrahae uoluit esse concubinam.

[¶7] And here follow the times of Abraham’s sons, the one by Hagar the bond maid, the other by Sarah the free woman, about whom we have already spoken in the previous book. As regards this transaction, Abraham is in no way to be branded as guilty concerning this concubine, for he used her for the begetting of progeny, not for the gratification of lust; and not to insult, but rather to obey his wife, who supposed it would be solace of her barrenness if she could make use of the fruitful womb of her handmaid to supply the defect of her own nature, and by that law of which the apostle says, “Likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife,” could, as a wife, make use of him for childbearing by another, when she could not do so in her own person. Here there is no wanton lust, no filthy lewdness. The handmaid is delivered to the husband by the wife for the sake of progeny, and is received by the husband for the sake of progeny, each seeking, not guilty excess, but natural fruit. And when the pregnant bond woman despised her barren mistress, and Sarah, with womanly jealousy, rather laid the blame of this on her husband, even then Abraham showed that he was not a slavish lover, but a free begetter of children, and that in using Hagar he had guarded the chastity of Sarah his wife, and had gratified her will and not his own,—had received her without seeking, had gone in to her without being attached, had impregnated without loving her,—for he says, “Behold thy maid is in thy hands: do to her as it pleaseth thee;” a man able to use women as a man should,—his wife temperately, his handmaid compliantly, neither intemperately!

> Latin: Iam hinc tempora consequuntur filiorum Abrahae, unius de Agar ancilla, alterius de Sarra libera, de quibus in libro superiore iam diximus. Quod autem adtinet ad rem gestam, nullo modo est inurendum de hac concubina crimen Abrahae. Usus est ea quippe ad generandam prolem, non ad explendam libidinem, nec insultans, sed potius oboediens coniugi, quae suae sterilitatis credidit esse solacium, si fecundum ancillae uterum, quoniam natura non poterat, uoluntate faceret suum, et eo iure, quo dicit apostolus: Similiter et uir non habet potestatem corporis sui, sed mulier, uteretur mulier ad pariendum ex altera, quod non poterat ex se ipsa. Nulla est hic cupido lasciuiae, nulla nequitiae turpitudo. Ab uxore causa prolis ancilla marito traditur, a marito causa prolis accipitur; ab utroque non culpae luxus, sed naturae fructus exquiritur. Denique cum ancilla grauida dominae sterili superbiret et hoc Sarra suspicione muliebri uiro potius inputaret, etiam ibi demonstrauit Abraham non se amatorem seruum, sed liberum fuisse genitorem et in Agar Sarrae coniugii. pudicitiam custodisse nec uoluptatem suam, sed uoluntatem illius inpleuisse; accepisse nec petisse, accessisse nec haesisse, seminasse nec amasse. Ait enim: Ecce ancilla tua in manibus tuis, utere ea quo modo tibi placuerit.s o uirum uiriliter utentem feminis, coniuge temperanter, ancilla obtemperanter, nulla intemperanter!

### Of God’s Attestation to Abraham, by Which He Assures Him, When Now Old, of a Son by the Barren Sarah, and Appoints Him the Father of the Nations, and Seals His Faith in the Promise by the Sacrament of Circumcision.

[¶9] Chapter 26.—Of God’s Attestation to Abraham, by Which He Assures Him, When Now Old, of a Son by the Barren Sarah, and Appoints Him the Father of the Nations, and Seals His Faith in the Promise by the Sacrament of Circumcision.

> Latin: Caput XXVI. De testificatione Dei ad Abraham, qua eidem seni de sterili Sarra filium spondet patremque eum gentium statuit et promissi fidem sacramento circumcisionis obsignat.

[¶10] After these things Ishmael was born of Hagar; and Abraham might think that in him was fulfilled what God had promised him, saying, when he wished to adopt his home-born servant, “This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth of thee, he shall be thine heir.” Therefore, lest he should think that what was promised was fulfilled in the handmaid’s son, “when Abram was ninety years old and nine, God appeared to him, and said unto him, I am God; be well-pleasing in my sight, and be without complaint, and I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will fill thee exceedingly.”

> Latin: Post haec natus est Ismael ex Agar, in. quo putare posset inpletum, quod ei promissum fuerat, cum sibi uernaculum suum adoptare uoluisset. Deo dicente: Non erit heres tuus hic; sed qui exiet de te, ille erit heres tuus. Hoc ergo promissum ne in ancillae filio putaret inpletum, iam cum esset annorum nonaginta et nouem, apparuit ei Dominus et dixit illi: Ego sum Deus, place in conspectu meo et esto sine querella, et ponam testamentum meum inter me et inter te et inplebo te ualde. Et procidit Abraham in faciem suam. Et locutus est illi Deus dicens: Et ego, ecce testamentum meum tecum, et eris pater multitudinis gentium; et non appellabitur adhuc nomen tuum Abram, sed erit nomen tuum Abraham, quia patrem multarum gentium posui te; et augeam te ualde ualde et ponam te in gentes, et reges ex te exibunt: et statuam testamentum meum inter me et [inter] te et inter semen tuum post te in generationes eorum in testamentum aeternum, ut sim tibi Deus et semini tuo post te.

[¶11] Here there are more distinct promises about the calling of the nations in Isaac, that is, in the son of the promise, by which grace is signified, and not nature; for the son is promised from an old man and a barren old woman. For although God effects even the natural course of procreation, yet where the agency of God is manifest, through the decay or failure of nature, grace is more plainly discerned. And because this was to be brought about, not by generation, but by regeneration, circumcision was enjoined now, when a son was promised of Sarah. And by ordering all, not only sons, but also home-born and purchased servants to be circumcised, he testifies that this grace pertains to all. For what else does circumcision signify than a nature renewed on the putting off of the old? And what else does the eighth day mean than Christ, who rose again when the week was completed, that is, after the Sabbath? The very names of the parents are changed: all things proclaim newness, and the new covenant is shadowed forth in the old. For what does the term old covenant imply but the concealing of the new? And what does the term new covenant imply but the revealing of the old? The laughter of Abraham is the exultation of one who rejoices, not the scornful laughter of one who mistrusts. And those words of his in his heart, “Shall a son be born to me that am an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?” are not the words of doubt, but of wonder. And when it is said, “And I will give to thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land in which thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession,” if it troubles any one whether this is to be held as fulfilled, or whether its fulfilment may still be looked for, since no kind of earthly possession can be everlasting for any nation whatever, let him know that the word translated everlasting, by our writers is what the Greeks term αἰώ·νιον, which is derived from αἰὼ·ν, the Greek for sæculum, an age. But the Latins have not ventured to translate this by secular, lest they should change the meaning into something widely different. For many things are called secular which so happen in this world as to pass away even in a short time; but what is termed αἰω·νιον either has no end, or lasts to the very end of this world.

> Latin: Et dabo tibi et semini tuo post te terram, in qua incola es, omnem terram Chanaan in possessionem aeternam, et ero illis Deus. Et dixit Deus ad Abraham: Tu autem testamentum meum conseruabis, tu et semen tuum post te in progenies suas. Et hoc est testamentum, quod conseruabis inter me et uos et inter semen tuum post te in generationes suas: Circumcidetur uestrum omne masculinum, et circumcidemini carnem praeputii uestri, et erit in signo testamenti inter me et uos. Etpueroctodierumcircumcidetur, uestrum omne masculinum in progenies uestras. Yernaculus et emticius ab omni filio alieno, qui non est de semine tuo, circumcisione circumcidetur uernaculus domus tuae et emticius. Et erit testamentum meum in carne uestra in testamento aeterno. Et qui non fuerit circumcisus masculus, qui non circumcidetur carnem praeputii sui octauo die, interibit anima illa de genere eius, quia testamentum meum dissipauit. Et dixit Deus ad Abraham: Sara uxor tua, non appellabitur nomen eius Sara, sed Sarra erit nomen eius. Benedicam autem illam et dabo tibi ex ea filium, et benedicam illum, et erit in nationes, et reges gentium ex eo erunt. Et procidit Abraham super faciem suam et risit et dixit in animo suo dicens: Si mihi centum annos habenti nascetur [filius], et si Sarra annorum nonaginta pariet? Dixit autem Abraham ad Deum: Ismael hic uiuat in conspectu tuo. Dixit autem Deus ad Abraham: Ita, ecce Sarra uxor tua pariet tibi filium, et uocabis nomen eius Isaac; et statuam testamentum meum ad illum in testamentum aeternum, esse illi Deus et semini eius post illum. De Ismael autem ecce exaudiui te; ecce benedixi eum et ampliabo illum et multiplicabo eum ualde. Duodecim gentes generabit, et dabo illum in magnam gentem. Testamentum autem meum statuam ad Isaac, quem pariet tibi Sarra in tempore hoc ad annum sequentem. Hic apertiora promissa sunt de uocatione gentium in Isaac, id est in filio promissionis, quo significatur gratia, non natura, quia de sene et anu sterili promittitur filius. Quamuis enim et naturalem procreationis excursum Deus operetur: ubi tamen euidens opus Dei est uitiata et cessante natura, ibi euidentius intellegitur gratia. Et quia hoc non per generationem, sed per regenerationem futurum erat, ideo nunc imperata est circumcisio, quando de Sarra promissus est filius. Et quod omnes non solum filios, uerum etiam seruos uernaculos et emticios circumcidi iubet, ad omnes istam gratiam pertinere testatur. Quid enim aliud circumcisio significat quam naturam exuta uetustate renouatam? Et quid aliud quam Christum octauus dies, qui hebdomade conpleta. hoc est post sabbatum, resurrexit? Parentum mutantur et nomina: omnia resonant nouitatem, et in testamento uetere obumbratur nouum. Quid est enim quod dicitur testamentum uetus nisi noui occultatio? Et quid est aliud quod dicitur nouum nisi ueteris reuelatio? Risus Abrahae exultatio est gratulantis, non inrisio diffidentis. Verba quoque eius illa in animo suo: Si mihi centum annos habenti nascetur filius et si Sarra annorum nonaginta pariet, non sunt dubitantis, sed admirantis. Si quem uero monet quod dictum est: Et dabo tibi et semini tuo post te terram, in qua tu incola es, omnem terram Chanaan in possessionem aeternam, quo modo accipiatur inpletum siue adhuc expectetur inplendum, cum possessio quaecumque terrena aeterna cuilibet genti esse non possit: sciat aeternum a nostris interpretari, quod Graeci appellant ahóvtOv, quod a saeculo deriuatum est; alwv quippe Graece saeculum nuncupatur. Sed non sunt ausi Latini hoc dicere saeculare, ne longe in aliud mitterent sensum. Saecularia quippe dicuntur multa, quae in hoc saeculo sic aguntur. ut breui etiam tempore transeant: altoviov autem quod dicitur. aut non habet finem aut usque in huius saeculi tenditur finem.

### Of the Male, Who Was to Lose His Soul If He Was Not Circumcised on the Eighth Day, Because He Had Broken God’s Covenant.

[¶13] Chapter 27.—Of the Male, Who Was to Lose His Soul If He Was Not Circumcised on the Eighth Day, Because He Had Broken God’s Covenant.

> Latin: Caput XXVII. De masculo, qui si octauo die non fuerit circumcisus, perit anima eius, quia testamentum Dei dissipauit.

[¶14] When it is said, “The male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people, because he hath broken my covenant,” some may be troubled how that ought to be understood, since it can be no fault of the infant whose life it is said must perish; nor has the covenant of God been broken by him, but by his parents, who have not taken care to circumcise him. But even the infants, not personally in their own life, but according to the common origin of the human race, have all broken God’s covenant in that one in whom all have sinned. Now there are many things called God’s covenants besides those two great ones, the old and the new, which any one who pleases may read and know. For the first covenant, which was made with the first man, is just this: “In the day ye eat thereof, ye shall surely die.” Whence it is written in the book called Ecclesiasticus, “All flesh waxeth old as doth a garment. For the covenant from the beginning is, Thou shall die the death.” Now, as the law was more plainly given afterward, and the apostle says, “Where no law is, there is no prevarication,” on what supposition is what is said in the psalm true, “I accounted all the sinners of the earth prevaricators,” except that all who are held liable for any sin are accused of dealing deceitfully (prevaricating) with some law? If on this account, then, even the infants are, according to the true belief, born in sin, not actual but original, so that we confess they have need of grace for the remission of sins, certainly it must be acknowledged that in the same sense in which they are sinners they are also prevaricators of that law which was given in Paradise, according to the truth of both scriptures, “I accounted all the sinners of the earth prevaricators,” and “Where no law is, there is no prevarication.” And thus, be cause circumcision was the sign of regeneration, and the infant, on account of the original sin by which God’s covenant was first broken, was not undeservedly to lose his generation unless delivered by regeneration, these divine words are to be understood as if it had been said, Whoever is not born again, that soul shall perish from his people, because he hath broken my covenant, since he also has sinned in Adam with all others. For had He said, Because he hath broken this my covenant, He would have compelled us to understand by it only this of circumcision; but since He has not expressly said what covenant the infant has broken, we are free to understand Him as speaking of that covenant of which the breach can be ascribed to an infant. Yet if any one contends that it is said of nothing else than circumcision, that in it the infant has broken the covenant of God because, he is not circumcised, he must seek some method of explanation by which it may be understood without absurdity (such as this) that he has broken the covenant, because it has been broken in him although not by him. Yet in this case also it is to be observed that the soul of the infant, being guilty of no sin of neglect against itself, would perish unjustly, unless original sin rendered it obnoxious to punishment.

> Latin: Item potest mouere, quo modo intellegi oporteat quod hic dictum est: Masculus, qui non circumcidetur carnem praeputii sui octauo die, interibii anima illa de genere eius, quia testamentum meum dissipauit, cum haec nulla culpa sit paruuli, cuius dixit animam perituram, nec ipse dissipauerit testamentum Dei, sed maiores, qui eum circumcidere non curarunt; nisi quia etiam paruuli, non secundum suae uitae proprietatem, sed secundum communem generis humani originem omnes in illo uno testamentum Dei dissipauerunt, in quo omnes peccauerunt. Multa quippe appellantur testamenta Dei exceptis illis duobus magnis, uetere et nouo, quod licet cuique legendo cognoscere. Testamentum autem primum, quod factum est ad hominem primum, profecto illud est: Qua die ederitis, morte moriemini. Unde scriptum est in libro, qui ecclesiasticus appellatur: Omnis caro sicut uestis ueterescit. Testamentum enim a saeculo: Morte morieris. Cum enim lex euidentior postea data sit, et dicat apostolus: Ubi autem non est lex, nec praeuaricatio, quo pacto in psalmo quod legitur uerum est: Praeuaricatores aestimaui omnes peccatores terrae, nisi quia omnes legis alicuius praeuaricatae sunt rei, qui aliquo peccato tenentur obstricti? Quam ob rem. si etiam paruuli, quod uera fides habet, nascuntur non proprie, sed originaliter peccatores, unde illis gratiam remissionis peccatorum necessariam confitemur: profecto eo modo, quo sunt peccatores, etiam praeuaricatores legis illius, quae in paradiso data est, agnoscuntur; ut uerum sit utrumque, quod scriptum est, et: Praeuaricatores aestimaui omnes peccatores terrae, et: Ubi lex non est, nec praeuaricatio. Ac per hoc, quia circumcisio signum regenerationis fuit et non inmerito paruulum propter originale peccatum, quo primum Dei dissipatum est testamentum, generatio disperdet, nisi regeneratio liberet: sic intellegenda sunt haec uerba diuina, tamquam dictum sit: ‘Qui non fuerit regeneratus, interibit anima illa de genere eius’, quia testamentum Dei dissipauit, quando in Adam cum omnibus etiam ipse peccauit. Si enim dixisset: (Quia hoc testamentum meum dissipauit’, non nisi de ista circumcisione intellegi cogeret; nunc uero, quoniam non expressit cuius modi testamentum paruulus dissipauerit, liberum est intellegere de illo testamento dictum, cuius dissipatio pertinere posset ad paruulum. Si autem hoc quisquam non nisi de ista circumcisione dictum esse contendit, quod in ea testamentum Dei, quoniam non est circumcisus, dissipauerit paruulus: quaerat locutionis aliquem modum, quo non absurde possit intellegi, ideo dissipasse testamentum, quia licet non ab illo, tamen in illo est dissipatum. Verum sic quoque animaduertendum est nulla in se neglegentia sua iniuste interire incircumcisi animam paruuli nisi originalis obligatione peccati.

### Of the Change of Name in Abraham and Sarah, Who Received the Gift of Fecundity When They Were Incapable of Regeneration Owing to the Barrenness of One, and the Old Age of Both.

[¶16] Chapter 28.—Of the Change of Name in Abraham and Sarah, Who Received the Gift of Fecundity When They Were Incapable of Regeneration Owing to the Barrenness of One, and the Old Age of Both.

> Latin: Caput XXVIII. De commutatione nominum Abrahae et Sarrae, qui cum ob unius sterilitatem, ob utriusque autem senectutem generare non possent, munus fecunditatis indepti sunt.

[¶17] Now when a promise so great and clear was made to Abraham, in which it was so plainly said to him, “I have made thee a father of many nations, and I will increase thee exceedingly, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall go forth of thee. And I will give thee a son of Sarah; and I will bless him, and he shall become nations, and kings of nations shall be of him,”—a promise which we now see fulfilled in Christ,—from that time forward this couple are not called in Scripture, as formerly, Abram and Sarai, but Abraham and Sarah, as we have called them from the first, for every one does so now. The reason why the name of Abraham was changed is given: “For,” He says, “I have made thee a father of many nations.” This, then, is to be understood to be the meaning of Abraham; but Abram, as he was formerly called, means “exalted father.” The reason of the change of Sarah’s name is not given; but as those say who have written interpretations of the Hebrew names contained in these books, Sarah means “my princess,” and Sarai “strength.” Whence it is written in the Epistle to the Hebrews, “Through faith also Sarah herself received strength to conceive seed.” For both were old, as the Scripture testifies; but she was also barren, and had ceased to menstruate, so that she could no longer bear children even if she had not been barren. Further, if a woman is advanced in years, yet still retains the custom of women, she can bear children to a young man, but not to an old man, although that same old man can beget, but only of a young woman; as after Sarah’s death Abraham could of Keturah, because he met with her in her lively age. This, then, is what the apostle mentions as wonderful, saying, besides, that Abraham’s body was now dead; because at that age he was no longer able to beget children of any woman who retained now only a small part of her natural vigor. Of course we must understand that his body was dead only to some purposes, not to all; for if it was so to all, it would no longer be the aged body of a living man, but the corpse of a dead one. Although that question, how Abraham begot children of Keturah, is usually solved in this way, that the gift of begetting which he received from the Lord, remained even after the death of his wife, yet I think that solution of the question which I have followed is preferable, because, although in our days an old man of a hundred years can beget children of no woman, it was not so then, when men still lived so long that a hundred years did not yet bring on them the decrepitude of old age.

> Latin: Facta igitur promissione tam magna tamque dilucida ad Abraham, cui euidentissime dictum est: Patrem multarum gentium posui te; et augeam te ualde ualde et ponam te in gentes, et reges ex te exibunt. Et dabo tibi ex Sarra filium, et benedicam illum, et erit in nationes, et reges gentium ex eo erunt (quam promissionem nunc in Christo cernimus reddi), ex illo deinceps illi coniuges non uocantur in scripturis, sicut antea uocabantur, Abram et Sara, sed sicut eos nos ab initio uocauimus, quoniam sic iam uocantur ab omnibus, Abraham et Sarra. Quur autem mutatum sit nomen Abrahae, reddita est ratio: Quia patrem, inquit, multarum gentium posui te. Hoc ergo significare intellegendum est [Abraham]; Abram uero, quod ante uocabatur, interpretatur pater excelsus. De nomine autem mutato Sanae non est reddita ratio; sed, sicut aiunt, qui scripserunt interpretationes nominum Hebraeorum, quae his sacris litteris continentur, Sara interpretatur princeps mea, Sarra autem uirtus. Unde scriptum est in epistula ad Hebraeos: Fide et ipsa Sarra uirtutem accepit ad emissionem seminis. Ambo enim seniores erant, sicut scriptura testatur; sed illa etiam sterilis et cruore menstruo iam destituta, propter quod iam parere non posset, etiam si sterilis non fuisset. Porro si femina ita sit prouectioris aetatis, ut ei solita mulierum adhuc fluant, de iuuene parere potest, de seniore non potest; quamuis adhuc possit ille senior, sed de adulescentula gignere, sicut Abraham post mortem Sanae de Cettura potuit, quia uiuidam eius inuenit aetatem. Hoc ergo est, quod mirum commendat apostolus, et ad hoc dicit Abrahae iam fuisse corpus emortuum, quoniam non ex omni femina, cui adhuc esset aliquod pariendi tempus extremum, generare ipse in illa aetate adhuc posset. Ad aliquid enim emortuum corpus intellegere debemus, non ad omnia. Nam si ad omnia, non iam senectus uiui, sed cadauer est mortui. Quamuis etiam sic solui soleat ista quaestio, quod de Cettura postea genuit Abraham, quia donum gignendi, quod a Domino accepit, etiam post obitum mansit uxoris. Sed propterea mihi uidetur illa, quam secuti sumus, huius quaestionis solutio praeferenda, quia centenarius quidem senex, sed temporis nostri, de nulla potest femina gignere; non tunc, quando adhuc tamdiu uiuebant, ut centum anni nondum facerent hominem decrepitae senectutis.

### Of the Three Men or Angels, in Whom the Lord is Related to Have Appeared to Abraham at the Oak of Mamre.

[¶19] Chapter 29.—Of the Three Men or Angels, in Whom the Lord is Related to Have Appeared to Abraham at the Oak of Mamre.

> Latin: Caput XXIX. De tribus uiris uel angelis, in quibus ad quercum Mambre apparuisse Abrahae Dominus indicatur.

[¶20] God appeared again to Abraham at the oak of Mamre in three men, who it is not to be doubted were angels, although some think that one of them was Christ, and assert that He was visible before He put on flesh. Now it belongs to the divine power, and invisible, incorporeal, and incommutable nature, without changing itself at all, to appear even to mortal men, not by what it is, but by what is subject to it. And what is not subject to it? Yet if they try to establish that one of these three was Christ by the fact that, although he saw three, he addressed the Lord in the singular, as it is written, “And, lo, three men stood by him: and, when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent-door, and worshipped toward the ground, and said, Lord, if I have found favor before thee,” etc.; why do they not advert to this also, that when two of them came to destroy the Sodomites, while Abraham still spoke to one, calling him Lord, and interceding that he would not destroy the righteous along with the wicked in Sodom, Lot received these two in such a way that he too in his conversation with them addressed the Lord in the singular? For after saying to them in the plural, “Behold, my lords, turn aside into your servant’s house,” etc., yet it is afterwards said, “And the angels laid hold upon his hand, and the hand of his wife, and the hands of his two daughters, because the Lord was merciful unto him. And it came to pass, whenever they had led him forth abroad, that they said, Save thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all this region: save thyself in the mountain, lest thou be caught. And Lot said unto them, I pray thee, Lord, since thy servant hath found grace in thy sight,” etc. And then after these words the Lord also answered him in the singular, although He was in two angels, saying, “See, I have accepted thy face,” etc. This makes it much more credible that both Abraham in the three men and Lot in the two recognized the Lord, addressing Him in the singular number, even when they were addressing men; for they received them as they did for no other reason than that they might minister human refection to them as men who needed it. Yet there was about them something so excellent, that those who showed them hospitality as men could not doubt that God was in them as He was wont to be in the prophets, and therefore sometimes addressed them in the plural, and sometimes God in them in the singular. But that they were angels the Scripture testifies, not only in this book of Genesis, in which these transactions are related, but also in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where in praising hospitality it is said, “For thereby some have entertained angels unawares.” By these three men, then, when a son Isaac was again promised to Abraham by Sarah, such a divine oracle was also given that it was said, “Abraham shall become a great and numerous nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him.” And here these two things, are promised with the utmost brevity and fullness,—the nation of Israel according to the flesh, and all nations according to faith.

> Latin: Item Deus apparuit Abrahae ad quercum Mambre in tribus uiris, quos dubitandum non est angelos fuisse; quamuis quidam existiment unum in eis fuisse Dominum Christum, adserentes eum etiam ante indumentum carnis fuisse uisibilem. Est quidem diuinae potestatis et inuisibilis, incorporalis inmu: tabilisque naturae, sine ulla sui mutatione etiam mortalibus adspectibus apparere, non per id quod est, sed per aliquid quod sibi subditum est; quid autem illi subditum non est? Verum tamen si propterea confirmant horum trium aliquem fuisse Christum, quia, cum tres uidisset, ad Dominum singulariter est locutus (sic enim scriptum est: Et ecce tres uiri stabant super eum, et uidens procucurrit in obuiam illis ab ostio tabernaculi sui, et adorauit super terram et dixit: Domine, si inueni gratiam ante te, et cetera): quur non et illud aduertunt, duos ex eis uenisse, ut Sodomitae delerentur, cum adhuc Abraham ad unum loqueretur, Dominum appellans et intercedens, ne simul iustum cum inpio in Sodomis perderet? Illos autem duos sic suscepit Loth, ut etiam ipse in conloquio cum illis suo singulariter Dominum appellet. Nam cum eis pluraliter dixisset: Ecce, domini, declinate in domum pueri uestri, et cetera quae ibi dicuntur, postea tamen ita legitur: Et tenuerunt angeli manum eius et manum uxoris eius et manus duarum filiarum eius, ip eo quod parceret Dominus ipsi. Et factum est, mox ut eduxerunt illum foras, et dixerunt: Saluam fac animam tuam, ne […] retro, nec steteris in tota regione; in monte saluum te fac, ne quando conprehendaris. Dixit autem Loth ad illos: Oro, Domine, quia inuenit puer tuus misericordiam ante te, et ‘quae sequuntur. Deinde post haec uerba singulariter illi respondet et Dominus, cum in duobus angelis esset, dicens: Ecce miratus sum faciem tuam, et cetera. Unde multo est credibilius, quod et Abraham in tribus et Loth in duobus uiris Dominum agnoscebant, cui per singularem numerum loquebantur, etiam cum eos homines esse arbitrarentur; neque enim aliam ob causam sic eos susceperunt, ut tamquam mortalibus et humana refectione indigentibus ministrarent; sed erat profecto aliquid, quo ita excellebant, licet tamquam homines, ut in eis esse Dominum, sicut esse adsolet in prophetis, hi, qui hospitalitatem illis exhibebant, dubitare non possent; adque ideo et ipsos aliquando pluraliter et in eis Dominum aliquando singulariter appellabant. Angelos autem fuisse scriptura testatur, non solum in hoc genesis libro, ubi haec gesta narrantur, uerum etiam in epistula ad Hebraeos, ubi, cum hospitalitas laudaretur: Per hanc. inquit, etiam quidam nescientes hospitio receperunt angelos. Per illos igitur tres uiros, cum rursus filius Isaac de Sarra promitteretur Abrahae, diuinum datum est etiam tale responsum, ut diceretur: Abraham erit in magnam gentem et multam, et benedicentur in eo omnes gentes terrae. Et hic duo illa breuissime plenissimeque promissa sunt, gens Israel secundum carnem et omnes gentes secundum fidem.

### Of Lot’s Deliverance from Sodom, and Its Consumption by Fire from Heaven; And of Abimelech, Whose Lust Could Not Harm Sarah’s Chastity.

[¶22] Chapter 30.—Of Lot’s Deliverance from Sodom, and Its Consumption by Fire from Heaven; And of Abimelech, Whose Lust Could Not Harm Sarah’s Chastity.

> Latin: Caput XXX. De Loth a Sodomis liberato adque eisdem caelesti igne consumtis et de Abimelech, cuius concupiscentia castitati Sarrae nocere non potuit.

[¶23] After this promise Lot was delivered out of Sodom, and a fiery rain from heaven turned into ashes that whole region of the impious city, where custom had made sodomy as prevalent as laws have elsewhere made other kinds of wickedness. But this punishment of theirs was a specimen of the divine judgment to come. For what is meant by the angels forbidding those who were delivered to look back, but that we are not to look back in heart to the old life which, being regenerated through grace, we have put off, if we think to escape the last judgment? Lot’s wife, indeed, when she looked back, remained, and, being turned into salt, furnished to believing men a condiment by which to savor somewhat the warning to be drawn from that example. Then Abraham did again at Gerar, with Abimelech the king of that city, what he had done in Egypt about his wife, and received her back untouched in the same way. On this occasion, when the king rebuked Abraham for not saying she was his wife, and calling her his sister, he explained what he had been afraid of, and added this further, “And yet indeed she is my sister by the father’s side, but not by the mother’s; for she was Abraham’s sister by his own father, and so near of kin. But her beauty was so great, that even at that advanced age she could be fallen in love with.

> Latin: Post hanc promissionem liberato de Sodomis Loth et ueniente igneo imbre de caelo tota illa regio inpiae ciuitatis in cinerem uersa est, ubi stupra in masculos in tantam consuetudinem conualuerant, quantam leges solent aliorum factorum praebere licentiam. Verum et hoc eorum supplicium specimen futuri iudicii diuini fuit. Nam quo pertinet quod prohibiti sunt qui liberabantur ab angelis retro respicere, nisi quia non est animo redeundum ad ueterem uitam, qua per gratiam regeneratus exuitur, si ultimum euadere indicium cogitamus? Denique uxor Loth, ubi respexit, remansit et in salem conuersa hominibus fidelibus quoddam praestitit condimentum, quo sapiant aliquid, unde illud caueatur exemplum. Inde rursus Abraham fecit in Geraris aput regem ciuitatis illius Abimelech, quod in Aegypto de coniuge fecerat, eique intacta similiter reddita est. Ubi sane Abraham obiurganti regi, quur tacuisset uxorem sororemque dixisset, aperiens quid timuerit etiam hoc addidit: Etenim uere soror mea est de patre, sed non de matre, quia de patre suo soror erat Abrahae, de quo propinqua eius erat. Tantae autem pulchritudinis fuit, ut etiam in illa aetate posset adamari.

## 79. Of Isaac, Who Was Born According to the Promise, Whose Name Was Given on Account of the Laughter of Both Parents.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/79/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/79/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 31.—Of Isaac, Who Was Born According to the Promise, Whose Name Was Given on Account of the Laughter of Both Parents.

> Latin: Caput XXXI. De Isaac secundum promissionem nato, cui nomen ex risu utriusque parentis est inditum.

[¶1] After these things a son was born to Abraham, according to God’s promise, of Sarah, and was called Isaac, which means laughter. For his father had laughed when he was promised to him, in wondering delight, and his mother, when he was again promised by those three men, had laughed, doubting for joy; yet she was blamed by the angel because that laughter, although it was for joy, yet was not full of faith. Afterwards she was confirmed in faith by the same angel. From this, then, the boy got his name. For when Isaac was born and called by that name, Sarah showed that her laughter was not that of scornful reproach, but that of joyful praise; for she said, “God hath made me to laugh, so that every one who hears will laugh with me.” Then in a little while the bond maid was cast out of the house with her son; and, according to the apostle, these two women signify the old and new covenants,—Sarah representing that of the Jerusalem which is above, that is, the city of God.

> Latin: Post haec natus est Abrahae secundum promissionem Dei de Sarra filius, eumque nominauit Isaac, quod interpretatur risus. Riserat enim et pater, quando ei promissus est, admirans in gaudio; riserat et mater, quando per illos tres uiros iterum promissus est, dubitans in gaudio; quamuis exprobrante angelo, quod risus ille, etiamsi gaudii fuit, tamen plenae fidei non fuit, post ab eodem angelo in fide etiam confirmata est. Ex hoc ergo puer nomen accepit. Nam quod risus ille non ad inridendum obprobrium, sed ad celebrandum gaudium pertinebat, nato Isaac et eo nomine uocato Sarra monstrauit; ait quippe: Risum mihi fecit Dominus; quicumque enim audierit, congaudebit mihi. Sed post aliquantulum tempus ancilla de domo eicitur cum filio suo, et duo illa secundum apostolum testamenta significantur, uetus et nonum, ubi Sarra illa supernae Hierusalem, hoc est ciuitatis Dei, figuram gerit.

### Of Abraham’s Obedience and Faith, Which Were Proved by the Offering Up, of His Son in Sacrifice, and of Sarah’s Death.

[¶3] Chapter 32.—Of Abraham’s Obedience and Faith, Which Were Proved by the Offering Up, of His Son in Sacrifice, and of Sarah’s Death.

> Latin: Caput XXXII. De oboedientia et fideAbrahae, quaperoblationem immolandi probatus est filii, et de morte Sarrae.

[¶4] Among other things, of which it would take too long time to mention the whole, Abraham was tempted about the offering up of his well-beloved son Isaac, to prove his pious obedience, and so make it known to the world, not to God. Now every temptation is not blame-worthy; it may even be praise-worthy, because it furnishes probation. And, for the most part, the human mind cannot attain to self-knowledge otherwise than by making trial of its powers through temptation, by some kind of experimental and not merely verbal self-interrogation; when, if it has acknowledged the gift of God, it is pious, and is consolidated by steadfast grace and not puffed up by vain boasting. Of course Abraham could never believe that God delighted in human sacrifices; yet when the divine commandment thundered, it was to be obeyed, not disputed. Yet Abraham is worthy of praise, because he all along believed that his son, on being offered up, would rise again; for God had said to him, when he was unwilling to fulfill his wife’s pleasure by casting out the bond maid and her son, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” No doubt He then goes on to say, “And as for the son of this bond woman, I will make him a great nation, because he is thy seed.” How then is it said “In Isaac shall thy seed be called,” when God calls Ishmael also his seed? The apostle, in explaining this, says, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called, that is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” In order, then, that the children of the promise may be the seed of Abraham, they are called in Isaac, that is, are gathered together in Christ by the call of grace. Therefore the father, holding fast from the first the promise which behoved to be fulfilled through this son whom God had ordered him to slay, did not doubt that he whom he once thought it hopeless he should ever receive would be restored to him when he had offered him up. It is in this way the passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews is also to be understood and explained. “By faith,” he says, “Abraham overcame, when tempted about Isaac: and he who had received the promise offered up his only son, to whom it was said, In Isaac shall thy seed be called: thinking that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead;” therefore he has added, “from whence also he received him in a similitude.” In whose similitude but His of whom the apostle says, “He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all?” And on this account Isaac also himself carried to the place of sacrifice the wood on which he was to be offered up, just as the Lord Himself carried His own cross. Finally, since Isaac was not to be slain, after his father was forbidden to smite him, who was that ram by the offering of which that sacrifice was completed with typical blood? For when Abraham saw him, he was caught by the horns in a thicket. What, then, did he represent but Jesus, who, before He was offered up, was crowned with thorns by the Jews?

> Latin: Inter haec, quae omnia commemorare nimis longum est, tentatur Abraham de immolando dilectissimo filio ipso Isaac, ut pia eius oboedientia probaretur, saeculis in notitiam proferenda, non Deo. Neque enim omnis est culpanda tentatio, quia et gratulanda est, qua fit probatio. Et plerumque aliter animus humanus sibi ipsi innotescere non potest, nisi uires suas sibi non uerbo, sed experimento tentatione quodam modo interrogante respondeat; ubi si Dei munus agnouerit, tunc pius est, tunc solidatur firmitate gratiae, non inflatur inanitate iactantiae. Numquam sane crederet Abraham, quod uictimis Deus delectaretur humanis; quamuis diuino intonante praecepto oboediendum sit, non disputandum; uerum tamen Abraham confestim filium, cum fuisset immolatus, resurrecturum credidisse laudandus est. Dixerat namque illi Deus, cum de ancilla et filio eius foras eiciendis uoluntatem coniugis nollet inplere: In Isaac uocabitur tibi semen. Et certe ibi sequitur ac dicitur: Et filium autem ancillae huius in magnam gentem faciam illum, quia semen tuum est. Quo modo ergo dictum est: In Isaac uocabitur tibi semen, cum et Ismaelem Deus semen eius uocauerit? Exponens autem apostolus quid sit: In Isaac uocabitur tibi semen: Id est, inquit, non qui filii carnis, hi filii Dei, sed filii promissionis deputantur in semine. Ac per hoc filii promissionis, ut sint semen Abrahae, in Isaac uocantur, hoc est in Christo uocante gratia congregantur. Hanc ergo promissionem pater pius fideliter tenens. quia per hunc oportebat inpleri, quem Deus iubebat occidi, non haesitauit, quod sibi reddi poterat immolatus, qui dari potuit non speratus. Sic intellectum est et in epistula ad Hebraeos, et sic expositum. Fide, inquit, praecessit Abraham Isaac tentatus et unicum obtulit, qui promissiones suscepit, ad quem dictum est: In Isaac uocabitur tibi semen, cogitans quia et ex mortuis suscitare potest Deus. Proinde addidit: Pro hoc etiam eum et in similitudinem adduxit; cuius similitudinem, nisi illius unde dicit apostolus: Qui proprio filio non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit eum? Propterea et Isaac, sicut Dominus crucem suam, ita sibi ligna ad uictimae locum, quibus fuerat inponendus, ipse portauit. Postremo quia Isaac occidi non oportebat, postea quam est pater ferire prohibitus, quis erat ille aries, quo immolato inpletum est significatiuo sanguine sacrificium? Nempe quando eum uidit Abraham, cornibus in frutice tenebatur. Quis ergo illo figurabatur, nisi Iesus, antequam immolaretur, spinis Iudaicis coronatus? Sed diuina per angelum uerba potius audiamus.

[¶5] But let us rather hear the divine words spoken through the angel. For the Scripture says, “And Abraham stretched forth his hand to take the knife, that he might slay his son. And the Angel of the Lord called unto him from heaven, and said, Abraham. And he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, and hast not spared thy beloved son for my sake.” It is said, “Now I know,” that is, Now I have made to be known; for God was not previously ignorant of this. Then, having offered up that ram instead of Isaac his son, “Abraham,” as we read, “called the name of that place The Lord seeth: as they say this day, In the mount the Lord hath appeared.” As it is said, “Now I know,” for Now I have made to be known, so here, “The Lord sees,” for The Lord hath appeared, that is, made Himself to be seen. “And the Angel of the Lord called unto Abraham from heaven the second time, saying, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord; because thou hast done this thing, and hast not spared thy beloved son for my sake; that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess by inheritance the cities of the adversaries: and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.” In this manner is that promise concerning the calling of the nations in the seed of Abraham confirmed even by the oath of God, after that burnt-offering which typified Christ. For He had often promised, but never sworn. And what is the oath of God, the true and faithful, but a confirmation of the promise, and a certain reproof to the unbelieving?

> Latin: Ait quippe scriptura: Et extendit Abraham manum suam sumere machaeram, ut occideret filium suum. Et uocauit illum angelus Domini de caelo et dixit: Abraham! Ille autem dixit: Ecce ego. Et dixit: Non inicias manum tuam super puerum, neque facias illi quicquam; nunc enim sciui quia times Deum tuum, et non pepercisti filio tuo dilecto propter me. Nunc sciui dictum est ‘nunc sciri feci’; neque enim hoc nondum sciebat Deus. Deinde ariete illo immolato pro Isaac filio suo uocauit, ut legitur, Abraham nomen loci illius: Dominus uidit; ut dicant hodie: In monte Dominus apparuit. Sicut dictum est: Nunc sciui, pro eo quod est nunc sciri feci: ita hic Dominus uidit, pro eo quod est Dominus apparuit, hoc est uideri se fecit. Et uocauit angelus Domini Abraham secundo de caelo dicens: Per me ipsum iuraui, dicit Dominus, propter quod fecisti uerbum hoc et non pepercisti filio tuo dilecto propter me, nisi benedicens benedicam te, etmultiplicansmultiplicabosementuum tamquam stellas caeli et tamquam harenam, quae iuxta labiummaris. Ethereditatepossidebitsemen tuum ciuitates aduersariorum, et benedicentur in semine tuo omnes gentes terrae, quia obaudisti uocem meam. Hoc modo est illa de uocatione gentium in semine Abrahae post holocaustum, quo significatus est Christus, etiam iuratione Dei firmata promissio. Saepe enim promiserat, sed numquam iurauerat. Quid est autem Dei ueri ueracisque iuratio nisi promissi confirmatio et infidelium quaedam increpatio? Post haec Sarra mortua est, centensimo uicensimo septimo anno uitae suae, centensimo autem et tricensimo septimo uiri sui.

[¶6] After these things Sarah died, in the 127th year of her life, and the 137th of her husband for he was ten years older than she, as he himself says, when a son is promised to him by her: “Shall a son be born to me that am an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?” Then Abraham bought a field, in which he buried his wife. And then, according to Stephen’s account, he was settled in that land, entering then on actual possession of it,—that is, after the death of his father, who is inferred to have died two years before.

> Latin: Decem quippe annis eam praecedebat aetate; sicut ipse, quando sibi ex illa promissus est filius, ait: Si mihi annorum centum nascetur [filius], et si Sarra annorum nonaginta pariet. Tunc emit agrum Abraham, in quo sepeliuit uxorem. Tunc ergo secundum narrationem Stephani in terra illa est conlocatu’s, quoniam coepit ibi esse possessor; post mortem scilicet patris sui, qui colligitur ante biennium fuisse defunctus.

### Of Rebecca, the Grand-Daughter of Nahor, Whom Isaac Took to Wife.

[¶8] Chapter 33.—Of Rebecca, the Grand-Daughter of Nahor, Whom Isaac Took to Wife.

> Latin: Caput XXXIII. De Rebecca nepte Nachor, quam Isaac accepit uxorem.

[¶9] Isaac married Rebecca, the grand-daughter of Nahor, his father’s brother, when he was forty years old, that is, in the 140th year of his father’s life, three years after his mother’s death. Now when a servant was sent to Mesopotamia by his father to fetch her, and when Abraham said to that servant, “Put thy hand under my thigh, and I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the Lord of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son Isaac of the daughters of the Canaanites,” what else was pointed out by this, but that the Lord, the God of heaven, and the Lord of the earth, was to come in the flesh which was to be derived from that thigh? Are these small tokens of the foretold truth which we see fulfilled in Christ?

> Latin: Deinde Rebeccam neptem Nachor patrui sui, cum annorum quadraginta esset Isaac, duxit uxorem, centensimo scilicet et quadragensimo anno uitae patris sui, triennio post mortem matris suae. Ut autem illam duceret, quando ab eius patre in Mesopotamiam seruus missus est, quid aliud demonstratum est, cum eidem seruo dixit Abraham: Pone manum tuam sub femore meo, et adiurabo te per Dominum Deum caeli et Dominum terrae, ut non sumas uxorem filio meo Isaac a filiabus Chanallaeorum, nisi Dominum Deum caeli et Dominum terrae in carne, quae ex illo femore trahebatur, fuisse uenturum? Numquid haec parua sunt praenuntiatae indicia ueritatis, quam conpleri uidemus in Christo?

### What is Meant by Abraham’s Marrying Keturah After Sarah’s Death.

[¶11] Chapter 34.—What is Meant by Abraham’s Marrying Keturah After Sarah’s Death.

> Latin: Caput XXXIV. Quid intellegendum sit in eo, quod Abraham post mortem Sarrae Cetturam accepit uxorem.

[¶12] What did Abraham mean by marrying Keturah after Sarah’s death? Far be it from us to suspect him of incontinence, especially when he had reached such an age and such sanctity of faith. Or was he still seeking to beget children, though he held fast, with most approved faith, the promise of God that his children should be multiplied out of Isaac as the stars of heaven and the dust of the earth? And yet, if Hagar and Ishmael, as the apostle teaches us, signified the carnal people of the old covenant, why may not Keturah and her sons also signify the carnal people who think they belong to the new covenant? For both are called both the wives and the concubines of Abraham; but Sarah is never called a concubine (but only a wife). For when Hagar is given to Abraham, it is written. “And Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her handmaid, after Abraham had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.” And of Keturah, whom he took after Sarah’s departure, we read, “Then again Abraham took a wife, whose name was Keturah.” Lo! both are called wives, yet both are found to have been concubines; for the Scripture afterward says, “And Abraham gave his whole estate unto Isaac his son. But unto the sons of his concubines Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from his son Isaac, (while he yet lived,) eastward, unto the east country.” Therefore the sons of the concubines, that is, the heretics and the carnal Jews, have some gifts, but do not attain the promised kingdom; “For they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed, of whom it was said, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” For I do not see why Keturah, who was married after the wife’s death, should be called a concubine, except on account of this mystery. But if any one is unwilling to put such meanings on these things, he need not calumniate Abraham. For what if even this was provided against the heretics who were to be the opponents of second marriages, so that it might be shown that it was no sin in the case of the father of many nations himself, when, after his wife’s death, he married again? And Abraham died when he was 175 years old, so that he left his son Isaac seventy-five years old, having begotten him when 100 years old.

> Latin: Quid autem sibi uult, quod Abraham post mortem Sarrae Cetturam duxit uxorem? Ubi absit ut incontinentiam suspicemur, praesertim in illa iam aetate et in illa fidei sanctitate. An adhuc procreandi filii quaerebantur, cum iam Deo promittente tanta multiplicatio filiorum ex Isaac per stellas caeli et harenam terrae fide probatissima teneretur? Sed profecto si Agar et Ismael, doctore apostolo, significauerunt carnales ueteris testamenti, quur non etiam Cettura et filii eius significent carnales, qui se ad testamentum nouum existimant pertinere? Ambae quippe et uxores Abrahae et concubinae sunt appellatae; Sarra uero numquam dicta est concubina. Nam et quando data est Agar Abrahae, ita scriptum est: Et adprehendit Sara uxor Abram Agar Aegyptiam ancillam suam post decem annos, quam habitauerat Abram in terra Chanaan, et dedit eam Abram uiro suo ipsi uxorem. De Cettura autem, quam post obitum Sarrae accepit, sic legitur: Adiciens autem Abraham sumsit uxorem, cui nomen Cettura. Ecce ambae dicuntur uxores; ambae porro concubinae fuisse reperiuntur, postea dicente scriptura: Dedit autem Abraham omnem censumsuumlsaacfiliosuo, etfiliisconcubinarum suarum dedit Abraham dationes et dimisit eos ab Isaac filio suo adhuc se uiuo ad orientem, in terram orientis. Habent ergo nonnulla munera filii concubinarum, sed non perueniunt ad regnum promissum, nec haeretici, nec Iudaei carnales, quia praeter Isaac nullus est heres, et non qui filii carnis, hi filii Dei, sed filii promissionis deputantur in semine, de quo dictum est: In Isaac uocabitur tibi semen. Neque enim uideo, quur etiam Cettura post uxoris mortem ducta, nisi propter hoc mysterium, dicta sit concubina. Sed quisquis haec non uult in istis significationibus accipere, non calumnietur Abrahae. Quid si enim et hoc prouisum est contra haereticos futuros secundarum aduersarios nuptiarum, ut in ipso patre multarum gentium post obitum coniugis iterum coniugari demonstraretur non esse peccatum? Et mortuus est Abraham, cum esset annorum centum septuaginta ⟨quinque⟩. Annorum ergo septuaginta ⟨ quinque ⟩ Isaac filium dereliquit, quem centenarius genuit.

### What Was Indicated by the Divine Answer About the Twins Still Shut Up in the Womb of Rebecca Their Mother.

[¶14] Chapter 35.—What Was Indicated by the Divine Answer About the Twins Still Shut Up in the Womb of Rebecca Their Mother.

> Latin: Caput XXXV. De geminis adhuc in utero Rebeccae matris inclusis quid indicauerit diuina responsio.

[¶15] Let us now see how the times of the city of God run on from this point among Abraham’s descendants. In the time from the first year of Isaac’s life to the seventieth, when his sons were born, the only memorable thing is, that when he prayed God that his wife, who was barren, might bear, and the Lord granted what he sought, and she conceived, the twins leapt while still enclosed in her womb. And when she was troubled by this struggle, and inquired of the Lord, she received this answer: “Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall overcome the other people, and the elder shall serve the younger.” The Apostle Paul would have us understand this as a great instance of grace; for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, the younger is chosen without any good desert and the elder is rejected, when beyond doubt, as regards original sin, both were alike, and as regards actual sin, neither had any. But the plan of the work on hand does not permit me to speak more fully of this matter now, and I have said much about it in other works. Only that saying, “The elder shall serve the younger,” is understood by our writers, almost without exception, to mean that the elder people, the Jews, shall serve the younger people, the Christians. And truly, although this might seem to be fulfilled in the Idumean nation, which was born of the elder (who had two names, being called both Esau and Edom, whence the name Idumeans), because it was afterwards to be overcome by the people which sprang from the younger, that is, by the Israelites, and was to become subject to them; yet it is more suitable to believe that, when it was said, “The one people shall overcome the other people, and the elder shall serve the younger,” that prophecy meant some greater thing; and what is that except what is evidently fulfilled in the Jews and Christians?

> Latin: Iam ex hoc, quem ad modum per posteros Abrahae ciuitatis Dei procurrant tempora, uideamus. A primo igitur anno uitae Isaac usque ad sexagensimum, quo ei nati sunt filii, illud memorabile est, quod, cum illi Deum roganti ut pareret uxor eius, quae sterilis erat, concessisset Dominus quod petebat, adque haberet illa conceptum, gestiebant gemini adhuc in utero eius inclusi. Qua molestia cum angeretur, Dominum interrogauit accepitque responsum: Duae gentes in utero tuo sunt et duo populi de uentre tuo separabuntur et populus populum superabit et maior seruiet minori. Quod Paulus apostolus magnum uult intellegi gratiae documentum, quia nondum illis natis nec aliquid agentibus boni seu mali sine ullis bonis meritis eligitur minor maiore reprobato; quando procul dubio, quantum adtinet ad originale peccatum, ambo pares erant; quantum autem ad proprium, ullius eorum nullum erat. Sed nunc de hac re dicere aliquid latius instituti operis ratio non sinit, unde in aliis iam multa diximus. Quod autem dictum est: Maior seruiet minori, nemo fere nostrorum aliter intellexit. quam maiorem populum Iudaeorum minori Christiano populo seruiturum. Et re uera quamuis in gente Idumaeorum, quae nata est de maiore, cui duo nomina erant (nam et Esau uocabatur et Edom, unde Idumaei), hoc uideri possit inpletum, quia postea superanda fuerat a populo, qui ortus est ex minore, id est Israelitico, eique fuerat futura subiecta: tamen in aliquid maius intentam fuisse istam prophetiam, qua dictum est: Populus populum superabit et maior seruiet minori, conuenientius creditur. Et quid est hoc, nisi quod in Iudaeis et Christianis euidenter inpletur?

### Of the Oracle and Blessing Which Isaac Received, Just as His Father Did, Being Beloved for His Sake.

[¶17] Chapter 36.—Of the Oracle and Blessing Which Isaac Received, Just as His Father Did, Being Beloved for His Sake.

> Latin: Caput XXXVI. De oraculo et benedictione, quam Isaac non aliter quam pater ipsius, merito eiusdem dilectus, accepit.

[¶18] Isaac also received such an oracle as his father had often received. Of this oracle it is thus written: “And there was a famine over the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar. And the Lord appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; but dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of. And abide in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee: unto thee and unto thy seed I will give all this land; and I will establish mine oath, which I sware unto Abraham thy father: and I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all this land: and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because that Abraham thy father obeyed my voice, and kept my precepts, my commandments, my righteousness, and my laws.” This patriarch neither had another wife, nor any concubine, but was content with the twin-children begotten by one act of generation. He also was afraid, when he lived among strangers, of being brought into danger owing to the beauty of his wife, and did like his father in calling her his sister, and not telling that she was his wife; for she was his near blood-relation by the father’s and mother’s side. She also remained untouched by the strangers, when it was known she was his wife. Yet we ought not to prefer him to his father because he knew no woman besides his one wife. For beyond doubt the merits of his father’s faith and obedience were greater, inasmuch as God says it is for his sake He does Isaac good: “In thy seed,” He says, “shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because that Abraham thy father obeyed my voice, and kept my precepts, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” And again in another oracle He says, “I am the God of Abraham thy father: fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for my servant Abraham’s sake.” So that we must understand how chastely Abraham acted, because imprudent men, who seek some support for their own wickedness in the Holy Scriptures, think he acted through lust. We may also learn this, not to compare men by single good things, but to consider everything in each; for it may happen that one man has something in his life and character in which he excels another, and it may be far more excellent than that in which the other excels him. And thus, according to sound and true judgment, while continence is preferable to marriage, yet a believing married man is better than a continent unbeliever; for the unbeliever is not only less praiseworthy, but is even highly detestable. We must conclude, then, that both are good; yet so as to hold that the married man who is most faithful and most obedient is certainly better than the continent man whose faith and obedience are less. But if equal in other things, who would hesitate to prefer the continent man to the married?

> Latin: Accepit etiam Isaac tale oraculum, quale aliquotiens pater eius acceperat. De quo oraculo sic scriptum est: Facta est autem fames super terram praeter famem, quae prius facta est in tempore Abrahae. Abiit autem Isaac adAbimelech regemPhilistinorumin Gerara. Apparuit autem illi Dominus et dixit: Noli descendere in Aegyptum; habita autem in terra, quam tibi dixero, et incole in terra hac; et ero tecum et benedicam te. Tibi enim et semini tuo dabo omnem terram hanc, et statuam iuramentummeum, quod iuraui Abrahae patri tuo; et multiplicabo semen tuum tamquam stellas caeli, et dabo semini tuo omnem terram hanc, et benedicentur in semine tuo omnes gentes terrae, pro eo quod obaudiuit Abraham pater tuus uocem meam et custodiuit praecepta mea et mandata mea et iustificationes meas et legitima mea. Iste patriarcha nec uxorem habuit aliam nec aliquam concubinam, sed posteritate duorum geminorum ex uno concubitu procreatorum contentus fuit. Timuit sane etiam ipse periculum de pulchritudine coniugis, cum habitaret inter alienos, fecitque quod pater, ut eam sororem diceret, taceret uxorem; erat enim ei propinqua et paterno et materno sanguine; sed etiam ipsa ab alienis, cognito quod uxor esset, mansit intacta. Nec ideo tamen istum patri eius praeferre debemus, quia iste nullam feminam praeter unam coniugem nouerat. Erant enim procul dubio paternae fidei et oboedientiae merita potiora, in tantum, ut propter illum dicat Deus huic se facere bona quae facit. Benedicentur, inquit, in semine tuo omnes gentes terrae, pro eo quod obaudiuit Abraham pater tuus uocem meam et custodiuit praecepta mea et mandata mea et iustificationes meas et legitima mea; et alio rursus oraculo: Ego sum, inquit, Deus Abraham patris tui, noli timere; tecum enim sum et benedixi te et multiplicabo semen tuum propter Abraham patrem tuum; ut intellegamus quam caste Abraham fecerit, quod hominibus inpudicis et nequitiae suae de scripturis sanctis patrocinia requirentibus uidetur fecisse libidine; deinde ut etiam hoc nouerimus, non ex bonis singulis inter se homines conparare, sed in uno quoque consideremus uniuersa. Fieri enim potest, ut habeat aliquid in uita et moribus quispiam, quo superat alium, idque sit longe praestabilius, quam est illud, unde ab alio superatur. Ac per hoc sano ueroque iudicio, cum continentia coniugio praeferatur, melior est tamen homo fidelis coniugatus quam continens infidelis. Sed infidelis homo non solum minus laudandus, uerum etiam maxime detestandus est. Constituamus ambos bonos; etiam sic profecto melior est coniugatus fidelissimus et oboedientissimus Deo quam continens minoris fidei minorisque oboedientiae. Si uero paria sint cetera, continentem coniugato praeferre quis ambigat?

### Of the Things Mystically Prefigured in Esau and Jacob.

[¶20] Chapter 37.—Of the Things Mystically Prefigured in Esau and Jacob.

> Latin: Caput XXXVII. De his, quae in Esau et Iacob mystice praefigurabantur.

[¶21] Isaac’s two sons, Esau and Jacob, grew up together. The primacy of the elder was transferred to the younger by a bargain and agreement between them, when the elder immoderately lusted after the lentiles the younger had prepared for food, and for that price sold his birthright to him, confirming it with an oath. We learn from this that a person is to be blamed, not for the kind of food he eats, but for immoderate greed. Isaac grew old, and old age deprived him of his eyesight. He wished to bless the elder son, and instead of the elder, who was hairy, unwittingly blessed the younger, who put himself under his father’s hands, having covered himself with kid-skins, as if bearing the sins of others. Lest we should think this guile of Jacob’s was fraudulent guile, instead of seeking in it the mystery of a great thing, the Scripture has predicted in the words just before, “Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a simple man, dwelling at home.” Some of our writers have interpreted this, “without guile.” But whether the Greek ἄλαστος means “without guile,” or “simple,” or rather “without reigning,” in the receiving of that blessing what is the guile of the man without guile? What is the guile of the simple, what the fiction of the man who does not lie, but a profound mystery of the truth? But what is the blessing itself? “See,” he says, “the smell of my son is as the smell of a full field which the Lord hath blessed: therefore God give thee of the dew of heaven, and of the fruitfulness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine: let nations serve thee, and princes adore thee: and be lord of thy brethren, and let thy father’s sons adore thee: cursed be he that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee.” The blessing of Jacob is therefore a proclamation of Christ to all nations. It is this which has come to pass, and is now being fulfilled. Isaac is the law and the prophecy: even by the mouth of the Jews Christ is blessed by prophecy as by one who knows not, because it is itself not understood. The world like a field is filled with the odor of Christ’s name: His is the blessing of the dew of heaven, that is, of the showers of divine words; and of the fruitfulness of the earth, that is, of the gathering together of the peoples: His is the plenty of corn and wine, that is, the multitude that gathers bread and wine in the sacrament of His body and blood. Him the nations serve, Him princes adore. He is the Lord of His brethren, because His people rules over the Jews. Him His Father’s sons adore, that is, the sons of Abraham according to faith; for He Himself is the son of Abraham according to the flesh. He is cursed that curseth Him, and he that blesseth Him is blessed. Christ, I say, who is ours is blessed, that is, truly spoken of out of the mouths of the Jews, when, although erring, they yet sing the law and the prophets, and think they are blessing another for whom they erringly hope. So, when the elder son claims the promised blessing, Isaac is greatly afraid, and wonders when he knows that he has blessed one instead of the other, and demands who he is; yet he does not complain that he has been deceived, yea, when the great mystery is revealed to him, in his secret heart he at once eschews anger, and confirms the blessing. “Who then,” he says, “hath hunted me venison, and brought it me, and I have eaten of all before thou camest, and have blessed him, and he shall be blessed?” Who would not rather have expected the curse of an angry man here, if these things had been done in an earthly manner, and not by inspiration from above? O things done, yet done prophetically; on the earth, yet celestially; by men, yet divinely! If everything that is fertile of so great mysteries should be examined carefully, many volumes would be filled; but the moderate compass fixed for this work compels us to hasten to other things.

> Latin: Duo igitur Isaac filii Esau et Iacob pariter crescunt. Primatus maioris transfunditur in minorem ex pacto et placito inter illos, eo quod lenticulam, quem cibum minor parauerat, maior inmoderatius concupiuit, eoque pretio primogenita sua fratri iuratione interposita uendidit. Ubi discimus in uescendo non cibi genere, sed auiditate inmodesta quemque culpandum. Senescit Isaac eiusque oculis per senectam uisus aufertur. Vult benedicere filium maiorem et pro illo nesciens benedicit minorem, pro fratre maiore, qui erat pilosus, se paternis manibus subponentem, haedinis sibi pelliculis coaptatis uelut aliena peccata portantem. Iste dolus Iacob ne putaretur fraudulentus dolus et non in eo magnae rei mysterium quaereretur, superius praedixit scriptura: Et erat Esau homo sciens uenari, agrestis; Iacob autem homo simplex, habitans domum. Hoc nostri quidam interpretati sunt <sine dolo’. Siue autem ‘sine dolo’ siue […] siue potius ‘sine fictione) dicatur, quod est Graece acXaato<;: quis est in ista percipienda benedictione dolus hominis sine dolo? Quis est dolus simplicis, quae fictio non mentientis, nisi profundum mysterium ueritatis? Ipsa autem benedictio qualis est? Ecce, inquit, odor filii mei tamquam odor agri pleni, quem benedixit Dominus. Et det tibi Deus de rore caeli et de ubertate terrae et multitudinem frumenti et uini, et seruiant tibi gentes et adorent te principes et fiere dominus fratris tui et adorabunt te filii patris tui. Qui maledixerit te, maledictus; et qui benedixerit te, benedictus. Benedictio igitur Iacob praedicatio est Christi in omnibus gentibus. Hoc fit, hoc agitur. Lex et prophetia est Isaac; etiam per os Iudaeorum Christus ab illa benedicitur, uelut a nesciente, quia ipsa nescitur. Odore nominis Christi, sicut ager, mundus inpletur; eius est benedictio de rore caeli, hoc est de uerborum pluuia diurnorum, et de ubertate terrae, hoc est congregatione populorum; eius est multitudo frumenti et uini, hoc est multitudo quam colligit frumentum et uinum in sacramento corporis eius et sanguinis. Ei seruiunt gentes, ipsum adorant principes; ipse est dominus fratris sui, quia populus eius dominatur Iudaeis; ipsum adorant filii patris eius, hoc est filii Abrahae secundum fidem, quia et ipse filius est Abrahae secundum carnem; ipsum qui maledixerit, maledictus, et qui benedixerit, benedictus est. Christus, inquam, noster etiam ex ore Iudaeorum quamuis errantium, sed tamen legem prophetasque cantantium benedicitur, id est ueraciter dicitur; et alius benedici putatur, qui ab eis errantibus exspectatur. Ecce benedictionem promissam repetente maiore expauescit Isaac, et alium se pro alio benedixisse cognoscit; miratur et quisnam ille sit percontatur; nec tamen se deceptum esse conqueritur; immo confestim reuelato sibi intus in corde magno sacramento deuitat indignationem, confirmat benedictionem. Quis ergo, inquit, uenatus est mihi uenationem et intulit mihi, et manducaui ab omnibus, antequam tu uenires? et benedixi eum, et benedictus sit. Quis non hic maledictionem potius exspectaret irati, si haec non superna inspiratione, sed terreno more gererentur?s o res gestas, sed prophetice gestas; in terra, sed caelitus; per homines, sed diuinitus! Si excutiantur singula tantis fecunda mysteriis, multa sunt inplenda uolumina; sed huic operi modus moderate inponendus nos in alia festinare conpellit.

## 80. Of Jacob’s Mission to Mesopotamia to Get a Wife, and of the Vision Which He Saw in a Dream by the Way, and of His Getting Four Women When He Sought One Wife.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/80/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/80/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 38.—Of Jacob’s Mission to Mesopotamia to Get a Wife, and of the Vision Which He Saw in a Dream by the Way, and of His Getting Four Women When He Sought One Wife.

> Latin: Caput XXXVIII. De misso Iacob in Mesopotamiam ad accipiendam uxorem et de uisione, quam in itinere somniauit, et de quattuor ipsius feminis, cum unam petisset uxorem.

[¶1] Jacob was sent by his parents to Mesopotamia that he might take a wife there. These were his father’s words on sending him: “Thou shall not take a wife of the daughters of the Canaanites. Arise, fly to Mesopotamia, to the house of Bethuel, thy mother’s father, and take thee a wife from thence of the daughters of Laban thy mother’s brother. And my God bless thee, and increase thee, and multiply thee; and thou shalt be an assembly of peoples; and give to thee the blessing of Abraham thy father, and to thy seed after thee; that thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou dwellest, which God gave unto Abraham.” Now we understand here that the seed of Jacob is separated from Isaac’s other seed which came through Esau. For when it is said, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called,” by this seed is meant solely the city of God; so that from it is separated Abraham’s other seed, which was in the son of the bond woman, and which was to be in the sons of Keturah. But until now it had been uncertain regarding Isaac’s twin-sons whether that blessing belonged to both or only to one of them; and if to one, which of them it was. This is now declared when Jacob is prophetically blessed by his father, and it is said to him, “And thou shalt be an assembly of peoples, and God give to thee the blessing of Abraham thy father.”

> Latin: Mittitur Iacob a parentibus in Mesopotamiam, ut ibi ducat uxorem. Patris mittentis uerba haec sunt: Non accipies uxorem ex filiabus Chananaeorum; surgens fuge in Mesopotamiam in domum Bathuel, patris matris tuae, et sume tibi inde uxorem de filiabus. Laban, fratris matris tuae. Deus autem meus benedicat te et augeat te et multiplicet te; et eris in congregationes gentium; et det tibi benedictionem Abraham patris tui, tibi et semini tuo post te, ut heres fias terrae incolatus tui, quam dedit Deus Abraham. Hic iam intellegimus segregatum semen Iacob ab alio semine Isaac, quod factum est per Esau. Quando enim dictum est: In Isaac uocabitur tibi semen, pertinens utique semen ad ciuitatem Dei, separatum est inde aliud semen Abrahae, quod erat in ancillae filio, et quod futurum erat in filiis Cetturae. Sed adhuc erat ambiguum de duobus geminis filiis Isaac, ad utrumque an ad unum eorum illa benedictio pertineret: et si ad unum, quisnam esset illorum. Quod nunc declaratum est, cum prophetice a patre benedicitur Iacob et dicitur ei: Et eris in congregationes gentium, et det tibi benedictionem Abraham patris tui.

[¶2] When Jacob was going to Mesopotamia, he received in a dream an oracle, of which it is thus written: “And Jacob went out from the well of the oath, and went to Haran. And he came to a place, and slept there, for the sun was set; and he took of the stones of the place, and put them at his head, and slept in that place, and dreamed. And behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and the angels of God ascended and descended by it. And the Lord stood above it, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac; fear not: the land whereon thou sleepest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; and thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth; and it shall be spread abroad to the sea, and to Africa, and to the north, and to the east: and all the tribes of the earth shall be blessed in thee and in thy seed. And, behold, I am with thee, to keep thee in all thy way wherever thou goest, and I will bring thee back into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done all which I have spoken to thee of. And Jacob awoke out of his sleep, and said, Surely the Lord is in this place, and I knew it not. And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven. And Jacob arose, and took the stone that he had put under his head there, and set it up for a memorial, and poured oil upon the top of it. And Jacob called the name of that place the house of God.” This is prophetic. For Jacob did not pour oil on the stone in an idolatrous way, as if making it a god; neither did he adore that stone, or sacrifice to it. But since the name of Christ comes from the chrism or anointing, something pertaining to the great mystery was certainly represented in this. And the Saviour Himself is understood to bring this latter to remembrance in the gospel, when He says of Nathanael, “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!” because Israel who saw this vision is no other than Jacob. And in the same place He says, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.”

> Latin: Pergens itaque in Mesopotamiam Iacob in somnis accepit oraculum, de quo sic scriptum est: Et exiit Iacob a puteo iurationis et profectus est in Charran et deuenit in locum et dormiuit ibi; occiderat enim sol; et sumsit ex lapidibus loci et posuit ad caput suum et dormiuit in loco illo et somniauit. Et ecce scala stabilita super terram, cuius caput pertingebat ad caelum; et angeli. Dei ascendebant et descendebant per illam, et Dominus incumbebat super illam et dixit: Ego sum Deus Abraham patris tui et Deus Isaac, noli timere; terram, in qua tu dormis super eam, tibi dabo illam et semini tuo; et erit semen tuum sicut harena terrae, et dilatabitur supra mare et in Africum et in aquilonem et ad orientem; et benedicentur in te omnes tribus terrae et in semine tuo. Et ecce ego sum tecum, custodiens te in omni uia quacumque ibis, et reducam te in terram hanc, quia non te derelinquam, donec faciam omnia, quae tecum locutus sum. Et surrexit Iacob de somno suo et dixit: Quia est Dominus in loco hoc, ego autem nesciebam. Et timuit et dixit: Quam terribilis locus hic! non est hoc nisi domus Dei et haec porta est caeli. Et surrexit Iacob et sumsit lapidem, quem subposuit ibi sub caput suum, et statuit illum titulum et superfudit oleum in cacumen eius; et uocauit Iacob nomen loci illius: domus Dei. Hoc ad prophetiam pertinet; nec more idolatriae lapidem perfudit oleo Iacob, uelut faciens illum Deum; neque enim adorauit eundem lapidem uel ei sacrificauit; sed quoniam Christi nomen a chrismate est, id est ab unctione, profecto figuratum est hic aliquid, quod ad magnum pertineat sacramentum. Scalam uero istam intellegitur ipse Saluator nobis in memoriam reuocare in euangelio, ubi, cum dixisset de Nathanael: Ecce uere Israelita, in quo dolus non est, quia Israel uiderat istam uisionem (ipse est enim Iacob), eodem loco ait: Arnen, amen, dico uobis, uidebitis caelum apertum et angelos Dei ascendentes et descendentes super filium hominis. Pen-exit ergo Iacob in Mesopotamiam, ut inde acciperet uxorem.

[¶3] Jacob went on to Mesopotamia to take a wife from thence. And the divine Scripture points out how, without unlawfully desiring any of them, he came to have four women, of whom he begat twelve sons and one daughter; for he had come to take only one. But when one was falsely given him in place of the other, he did not send her away after unwittingly using her in the night, lest he should seem to have put her to shame; but as at that time, in order to multiply posterity, no law forbade a plurality of wives, he took her also to whom alone he had promised marriage. As she was barren, she gave her handmaid to her husband that she might have children by her; and her elder sister did the same thing in imitation of her, although she had borne, because she desired to multiply progeny. We do not read that Jacob sought any but one, or that he used many, except for the purpose of begetting offspring, saving conjugal rights; and he would not have done this, had not his wives, who had legitimate power over their own husband’s body, urged him to do it. So he begat twelve sons and one daughter by four women. Then he entered into Egypt by his son Joseph, who was sold by his brethren for envy, and carried there, and who was there exalted.

> Latin: Unde autem illi acciderit quattuor habere feminas, de quibus duodecim filios et unam filiam procreauit, cum earum nullam concupisset inlicite, indicat scriptura diuina. Ad unam quippe accipiendam uenerat; sed cum illi altera [pro altera] subposita fuisset, nec ipsam dimisit, qua nesciens usus fuerat in nocte, ne ludibrio eam uideretur habuisse, et eo tempore, quando multiplicandae posteritatis causa plures uxores lex nulla prohibebat, accepit etiam illam, cui uni iam futuri coniugii fidem fecerat. Quae cum esset sterilis, ancillam suam, de qua filios ipsa susciperet, marito dedit; quod etiam maior soror eius, quamuis peperisset, imitata, quoniam multiplicare prolem cupiebat, effecit. Nullam Iacob legitur petisse praeter unam, nec usus plurimis nisi gignendae prolis officio, coniugali iure seruato, ut neque hoc faceret, nisi uxores eius id fieri flagitassent, quae corporis uiri sui habebant legitimam potestatem. Genuit ergo duodecim filios et unam filiam ex quattuor mulieribus. Deinde ingressus est in Aegyptum per filium suum Ioseph, qui uenditus ab inuidentibus fratribus eo perductus fuit adque ibidem sublimatus.

### The Reason Why Jacob Was Also Called Israel.

[¶5] Chapter 39.—The Reason Why Jacob Was Also Called Israel.

> Latin: Caput XXXIX. Quae ratio fecerit, ut Iacob etiam Israel cognominaretur.

[¶6] As I said a little ago, Jacob was also called Israel, the name which was most prevalent among the people descended from him. Now this name was given him by the angel who wrestled with him on the way back from Mesopotamia, and who was most evidently a type of Christ. For when Jacob overcame him, doubtless with his own consent, that the mystery might be represented, it signified Christ’s passion, in which the Jews are seen overcoming Him. And yet he besought a blessing from the very angel he had overcome; and so the imposition of this name was the blessing. For Israel means seeing God, which will at last be the reward of all the saints. The angel also touched him on the breadth of the thigh when he was overcoming him, and in that way made him lame. So that Jacob was at one and the same time blessed and lame: blessed in those among that people who believed in Christ, and lame in the unbelieving. For the breadth of the thigh is the multitude of the family. For there are many of that race of whom it was prophetically said beforehand, “And they have halted in their paths.”

> Latin: Iacob autem etiam Israel, sicut paulo ante dixi, uocabatur, quod nomen magis populus ex illo procreatus obtinuit. Hoc autem nomen illi ab angelo inpositum est, qui cum illo fuerat in itinere de Mesopotamia redeunte luctatus, typum Christi euidentissime gerens. Nam quod ei praeualuit Iacob, utique uolenti, ut mysterium figuraret, significat passionem Christi, ubi uisi sunt ei praeualere Iudaei. Et tamen benedictionem ab eodem angelo, quem superauerat, inpetrauit; ac sic huius nominis inpositio benedictio fuit. Interpretatur autem Israel ‘uidens Deum quod erit in fine praemium sanctorum omnium. Tetigit porro illi idem angelus ueluti praeualenti latitudinem femoris eumque isto modo claudum reddidit. Erat itaque unus adque idem Iacob et benedictus et claudus: benedictus in eis, qui in Christum ex eodem populo crediderunt, adque in infidelibus claudus. Nam femoris latitudo generis multitudo est. Plures quippe sunt in ea stirpe, de quibus prophetice praedictum est: Et claudicauerunt a semitis suis.

### How It is Said that Jacob Went into Egypt with Seventy-Five Souls, When Most of Those Who are Mentioned Were Born at a Later Period.

[¶8] Chapter 40.—How It is Said that Jacob Went into Egypt with Seventy-Five Souls, When Most of Those Who are Mentioned Were Born at a Later Period.

> Latin: Caput XL. Quo modo Iacob cum septuaginta quinque animabus Aegyptum narretur ingressus, cum plerique ex his, qui commemorantur, tempore posteriore sint geniti.

[¶9] Seventy-five men are reported to have entered Egypt along with Jacob, counting him with his children. In this number only two women are mentioned, one a daughter, the other a grand-daughter. But when the thing is carefully considered, it does not appear that Jacob’s offspring was so numerous on the day or year when he entered Egypt. There are also included among them the great-grandchildren of Joseph, who could not possibly be born already. For Jacob was then 130 years old, and his son Joseph thirty-nine and as it is plain that he took a wife when he was thirty or more, how could he in nine years have great-grandchildren by the children whom he had by that wife? Now since, Ephraim and Manasseh, the sons of Joseph, could not even have children, for Jacob found them boys under nine years old when he entered Egypt, in what way are not only their sons but their grandsons reckoned among those seventy-five who then entered Egypt with Jacob? For there is reckoned there Machir the son of Manasseh, grandson of Joseph, and Machir’s son, that is, Gilead, grandson of Manasseh, great-grandson of Joseph; there, too, is he whom Ephraim, Joseph’s other son, begot, that is, Shuthelah, grandson of Joseph, and Shuthelah’s son Ezer, grandson of Ephraim, and great-grand-son of Joseph, who could not possibly be in existence when Jacob came into Egypt, and there found his grandsons, the sons of Joseph, their grandsires, still boys under nine years of age. But doubtless, when the Scripture mentions Jacob’s entrance into Egypt with seventy-five souls, it does not mean one day, or one year, but that whole time as long as Joseph lived, who was the cause of his entrance. For the same Scripture speaks thus of Joseph: “And Joseph dwelt in Egypt, he and his brethren, and all his father’s house: and Joseph lived 110 years, and saw Ephraim’s children of the third generation.” That is, his great-grandson, the third from Ephraim; for the third generation means son, grandson, great-grandson. Then it is added, “The children also of Machir, the son of Manasseh, were born upon Joseph’s knees.” And this is that grandson of Manasseh, and great-grandson of Joseph. But the plural number is employed according to scriptural usage; for the one daughter of Jacob is spoken of as daughters, just as in the usage of the Latin tongue liberi is used in the plural for children even when there is only one. Now, when Joseph’s own happiness is proclaimed, because he could see his great-grandchildren, it is by no means to be thought they already existed in the thirty-ninth year of their great-grandsire Joseph, when his father Jacob came to him in Egypt. But those who diligently look into these things will the less easily be mistaken, because it is written, “These are the names of the sons of Israel who entered into Egypt along with Jacob their father.” For this means that the seventy-five are reckoned along with him, not that they were all with him when he entered Egypt; for, as I have said, the whole period during which Joseph, who occasioned his entrance, lived, is held to be the time of that entrance.

> Latin: Ingressi itaque referuntur in Aegyptum simul cum ipso Iacob septuaginta quinque homines, adnumerato ipso filiis suis. In quo numero duae tantum feminae commemorantur, una filia, neptis altera. Sed res diligenter considerata non indicat, quod tantus numerus fuerit in progenie Iacob die uel anno quo ingressus est Aegyptum. Commemorati sunt quippe in eis etiam pronepotes Ioseph, qui nullo modo iam tunc esse potuerunt, quoniam tunc centum triginta annorum erat Iacob, filius uero eius Ioseph triginta nouem; quem cum accepisse tricensimo anno suo uel amplius constet uxorem, quo modo potuit per nouem annos habere pronepotes de filiis, quos ex eadem uxore suscepit? Cum igitur nec filios haberent Ephraem et Manasses, filii Ioseph, sed eos pueros infra quam nouennes Iacob Aegyptum ingressus inuenerit, quo pacto eorum non solum filii, sed etiam nepotes in illis septuaginta quinque numerantur, qui tunc Aegyptum ingressi sunt cum Iacob? Nam commemoratur ibi Machir, filius Manasse, nepos Ioseph, et eiusdem Machir filius, id est Galaad, nepos Manasse, pronepos Ioseph; ibi est et quem genuit Ephraem, alter filius Ioseph, id est Utalaam, nepos Ioseph, et filius ipsius Utalaae Edem, nepos Ephraem, pronepos Ioseph; qui nullo modo esse potuerunt, quando Iacob in Aegyptum uenit et filios Ioseph, nepotes suos, auos istorum, minores quam nouem annorum pueros inuenit. Sed nimirum introitus Iacob in Aegyptum, quando eum in septuaginta quinque hominibus scriptura commemorat, non unus dies uel unus annus, sed totum illud est tempus, quamdiu uixit loseph, per quem factum est ut intrarent. Nam de ipso Ioseph eadem scriptura sic loquitur: Et habitauit Ioseph in Aegypto, ipse et fratres eius et omnis cohabitatio patris eius, et uixit annos centum decem, et uidit Ioseph Ephraem filios usque in tertiam generationem. Ipse est ille pronepos eius ab Ephraem tertius. Generationem quippe tertiam dicit filium, nepotem, pronepotem. Deinde sequitur: Et filii Machir, filii Manasse, nati sunt supra femora Ioseph. Et hic ille ipse est nepos Manasse, pronepos Ioseph. Sed pluraliter appellati sunt, sicut scriptura consueuit, quae unam quoque filiam Iacob filias nuncupauit; sicut in Latinae linguae consuetudine liberi dicuntur pluraliter filii, etiamsi non sint uno amplius. Cum ergo ipsius Ioseph praedicetur felicitas, quia potuit uidere pronepotes, nullo modo putandi sunt iam fuisse tricensimo nono anno proaui sui Ioseph, quando ad eum in Aegyptum Iacob pater eius aduenit. Illud autem est, quod fallit minus ista diligenter intuentes, quoniam scriptum est: Haec autem nomina filiorum Israel, qui intrauerunt in Aegyptum simul cum Iacob patre suo. Hoc enim dictum est, quia simul cum illo conputantur septuaginta quinque, non quia simul iam erant omnes, quando Aegyptum ingressus est ipse; sed, ut dixi, totum tempus habetur eius ingressus, quo uixit Ioseph, per quem uidetur ingressus.

### Of the Blessing Which Jacob Promised in Judah His Son.

[¶11] Chapter 41.—Of the Blessing Which Jacob Promised in Judah His Son.

> Latin: Caput XLI. De benedictione, quam Iacob in ludam filium suum promisit.

[¶12] If, on account of the Christian people in whom the city of God sojourns in the earth, we look for the flesh of Christ in the seed of Abraham, setting aside the sons of the concubines, we have Isaac; if in the seed of Isaac, setting aside Esau, who is also Edom, we have Jacob, who also is Israel; if in the seed of Israel himself, setting aside the rest, we have Judah, because Christ sprang of the tribe of Judah. Let us hear, then, how Israel, when dying in Egypt, in blessing his sons, prophetically blessed Judah. He says: “Judah, thy brethren shall praise thee: thy hands shall be on the back of thine enemies; thy father’s children shall adore thee. Judah is a lion’s whelp: from the sprouting, my son, thou art gone up: lying down, thou hast slept as a lion, and as a lion’s whelp; who shall awake him? A prince shall not be lacking out of Judah, and a leader from his thighs, until the things come that are laid up for him; and He shall be the expectation of the nations. Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass’s foal to the choice vine; he shall wash his robe in wine, and his clothes in the blood of the grape: his eyes are red with wine, and his teeth are whiter than milk.” I have expounded these words in disputing against Faustus the Manichæan; and I think it is enough to make the truth of this prophecy shine, to remark that the death of Christ is predicted by the word about his lying down, and not the necessity, but the voluntary character of His death, in the title of lion. That power He Himself proclaims in the gospel, saying, “I have the power of laying down my life, and I have the power of taking it again. No man taketh it from me; but I lay it down of myself, and take it again.” So the lion roared, so He fulfilled what He said. For to this power what is added about the resurrection refers, “Who shall awake him?” This means that no man but Himself has raised Him, who also said of His own body, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” And the very nature of His death, that is, the height of the cross, is understood by the single words “Thou are gone up.” The evangelist explains what is added, “Lying down, thou hast slept,” when he says, “He bowed His head, and gave up the ghost.” Or at least His burial is to be understood, in which He lay down sleeping, and whence no man raised Him, as the prophets did some, and as He Himself did others; but He Himself rose up as if from sleep. As for His robe which He washes in wine, that is, cleanses from sin in His own blood, of which blood those who are baptized know the mystery, so that he adds, “And his clothes in the blood of the grape,” what is it but the Church? “And his eyes are red with wine,” [these are] His spiritual people drunken with His cup, of which the psalm sings, “And thy cup that makes drunken, how excellent it is!” “And his teeth are whiter than milk,”—that is, the nutritive words which, according to the apostle, the babes drink, being as yet unfit for solid food. And it is He in whom the promises of Judah were laid up, so that until they come, princes, that is, the kings of Israel, shall never be lacking out of Judah. “And He is the expectation of the nations.” This is too plain to need exposition.

> Latin: Igitur propter populum Christianum, in quo Dei ciuitas peregrinatur in terris, si carnem Christi in Abrahae semine requiramus, remotis concubinarum filiis occurrit Isaac; si in semine Isaac, remoto Esau, qui est etiam Edom, occurrit Iacob, qui est et Israel; si in semine ipsius Israel, remotis ceteris occurrit ludas, quia de tribu Iuda exortus est Christus. Ac per hoc cum in Aegypto moriturus Israel suos filios benediceret, quem ad modum ludam prophetice benedixerit, audiamus: Iuda, inquit, te laudabunt fratres tui. Manus tuae super dorsum inimicorum tuorum; adorabunt te filii patris tui. Catulus leonis Iuda; ex germinatione, fili mi, ascendisti; recumbens dormisti ut leo et ut catulus leonis; quis suscitabit eum? Non deficiet princeps ex Iuda et dux de femoribus eius, donec ueniant quae reposita sunt ei; et ipse exspectatio gentium; adligans ad uitem pullum suum et cilicio pullum asinae suae lauabit in uino stolam suam et in sanguine uuae amictum suum. Fului oculi eius a uino et dentes candidiores lacte. Exposui haec aduersus Manichaeum Faustum disputans et satis esse arbitror, quantum ueritas prophetiae huius elucet; ubi et mors Christi praedicta est uerbo dormitionis et non necessitas, sed potestas in morte nomine leonis. Quam potestatem in euangelio ipse praedicat dicens: Potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam et potestatem habeo iterum sumendieam. Nemo eam tollit a me; sed ego eam pono a me, et iterum sumo eam. Sic leo fremuit, sic quod dixit inpleuit. Ad eam namque pertinet potestatem, quod de resurrectione eius adiunctum est: Quis suscitabit eum? hoc est, quia nullus hominum, nisi se ipse, qui etiam de corpore suo dixit: Soluite templum hoc, et in triduo resuscitabo illud. Ipsum autem genus mortis, hoc est sublimitas crucis, in uno uerbo intellegitur, quod ait: Ascendisti. Quod uero addidit: Recumbens dormisti, euangelista exponit, ubi dicit: Et inclinato capite tradidit spiritum; aut certe sepultura eius agnoscitur, in qua recubuit dormiens, et unde illum nullus hominum, sicut prophetae aliquos uel sicut ipse alios, suscitauit, sed sicut a somno ipse surrexit. Stola porro eius, quam lauat in uino, id est mundat a peccatis in sanguine suo, cuius sanguinis sacramentum baptizati sciunt, unde et adiungit: Et in sanguine uuae amictum suum, quid est nisi ecclesia? Et fului oculi eius a uino spiritales eius inebriati poculo eius, de quo canit psalmus: Et calix tuus inebrians quam praeclarus est! Et dentes eius candidiores lacte, quod potant aput apostolum paruuli, uerba scilicet nutrientia, nondum idonei solido cibo. Ipse igitur est, in quo reposita erant promissa Iudae, quae donec uenirent numquam principes, hoc est reges Israel, ab illa stirpe defuerunt. Et ipse exspectatio gentium; quod clarius est uidendo quam fit exponendo.

### Of the Sons of Joseph, Whom Jacob Blessed, Prophetically Changing His Hands.

[¶14] Chapter 42.—Of the Sons of Joseph, Whom Jacob Blessed, Prophetically Changing His Hands.

> Latin: Caput XLII. De filiis Ioseph, quos Iacob prophetica manuum suarum transmutatione benedixit.

[¶15] Now, as Isaac’s two sons, Esau and Jacob, furnished a type of the two people, the Jews and the Christians (although as pertains to carnal descent it was not the Jews but the Idumeans who came of the seed of Esau, nor the Christian nations but rather the Jews who came of Jacob’s; for the type holds only as regards the saying, “The elder shall serve the younger”), so the same thing happened in Joseph’s two sons; for the elder was a type of the Jews, and the younger of the Christians. For when Jacob was blessing them, and laid his right hand on the younger, who was at his left, and his left hand on the elder, who was at his right, this seemed wrong to their father, and he admonished his father by trying to correct his mistake and show him which was the elder. But he would not change his hands, but said, “I know, my son, I know. He also shall become a people, and he also shall be exalted; but his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.” And these two promises show the same thing. For that one is to become “a people;” this one “a multitude of nations.” And what can be more evident than that these two promises comprehend the people of Israel, and the whole world of Abraham’s seed, the one according to the flesh, the other according to faith?

> Latin: Sicut autem duo Isaac filii. Esau et Iacob, figuram praebuerunt duorum populorum in Iudaeis et Christianis (quamuis, quod ad carnis propaginem pertinet, nec Iudaei uenerint de semine Esau. sed Idumaei; nec Christianae gentes de Iacob, sed potius Iudaei; ad hoc enim tantum figura ualuit, quod dictum est: Maior seruiet minori): ita factum est etiam in duobus filiis Ioseph; nam maior gessit typum Iudaeorum, Christianorum autem minor. Quos cum benediceret Iacob, manum dextram ponens super minorem quem habebat ad sinistram, sinistram super maiorem quem habebat ad dextram: graue uisum est patri eorum, et admonuit patrem uelut corrigens eius errorem et quisnam eorum esset maior ostendens. At ille mutare manus noluit, sed dixit: Scio, fili, scio. Et hic erit in populum, et hic exaltabitur; sed frater eius iunior maior illo erit, et semen eius erit in multitudinem gentium. Etiam hic duo illa promissa demonstrat. Nam ille in populum, iste in multitudinem gentium. Quid euidentius quam his duabus promissionibus contineri populum Israelitarum orbemque terrarum in semine Abrahae, illum secundum carnem, istum secundum fidem?

### Of the Times of Moses and Joshua the Son of Nun, of the Judges, and Thereafter of the Kings, of Whom Saul Was the First, But David is to Be Regarded as the Chief, Both by the Oath and by Merit.

[¶17] Chapter 43.—Of the Times of Moses and Joshua the Son of Nun, of the Judges, and Thereafter of the Kings, of Whom Saul Was the First, But David is to Be Regarded as the Chief, Both by the Oath and by Merit.

> Latin: Caput XLIII. De temporibus Moysi et Iesu Naue ac iudicum adque inde regum, quorum quidem Saul primus est, sed Dauid praecipuus et sacramento habetur et merito.

[¶18] Jacob being dead, and Joseph also, during the remaining 144 years until they went out of the land of Egypt, that nation increased to an incredible degree, even although wasted by so great persecutions, that at one time the male children were murdered at their birth, because the wondering Egyptians were terrified at the too great increase of that people. Then Moses, being stealthily kept from the murderers of the infants, was brought to the royal house, God preparing to do great things by him, and was nursed and adopted by the daughter of Pharaoh (that was the name of all the kings of Egypt), and became so great a man that he—yea, rather God, who had promised this to Abraham, by him—drew that nation, so wonderfully multiplied, out of the yoke of hardest and most grievous servitude it had borne there. At first, indeed, he fled thence (we are told he fled into the land of Midian), because, in defending an Israelite, he had slain an Egyptian, and was afraid. Afterward, being divinely commissioned in the power of the Spirit of God, he overcame the magi of Pharaoh who resisted him. Then, when the Egyptians would not let God’s people go, ten memorable plagues were brought by Him upon them,—the water turned into blood, the frogs and lice, the flies, the death of the cattle, the boils, the hail, the locusts, the darkness, the death of the first-born. At last the Egyptians were destroyed in the Red Sea while pursuing the Israelites, whom they had let go when at length they were broken by so many great plagues. The divided sea made a way for the Israelites who were departing, but, returning on itself, it overwhelmed their pursuers with its waves. Then for forty years the people of God went through the desert, under the leadership of Moses, when the tabernacle of testimony was dedicated, in which God was worshipped by sacrifices prophetic of things to come, and that was after the law had been very terribly given in the mount, for its divinity was most plainly attested by wonderful signs and voices. This took place soon after the exodus from Egypt, when the people had entered the desert, on the fiftieth day after the passover was celebrated by the offering up of a lamb, which is so completely a type of Christ, foretelling that through His sacrificial passion He should go from this world to the Father (for pascha in, the Hebrew tongue means transit), that when the new covenant was revealed, after Christ our passover was offered up, the Holy Spirit came from heaven on the fiftieth day; and He is called in the gospel the Finger of God, because He recalls to our remembrance the things done before by way of types, and because the tables of that law are said to have been written by the finger of God.

> Latin: Defuncto Iacob, defuncto etiam Ioseph per reliquos centum quadraginta quattuor annos, donec exiretur de terra Aegypti, in modum incredibilem illa gens creuit, etiam tantis adtrita persecutionibus, ut quodam tempore nati masculi necarentur, cum mirantes Aegyptios nimia populi illius incrementa terrerent. Tunc Moyses subtractus furto trucidatoribus paruulorum ad domum regiam, ingentia per eum Deo praeparante, peruenit nutritusque et adoptatus a filia Pharaonis (quod nomen in Aegypto omnium regum fuit) in tantum prouenit uirum, ut ipse illam gentem mirabiliter multiplicatam ex durissimo et grauissimo, quod ibi ferebat, iugo seruitutis extraheret, immo per eum Deus, qui hoc promiserat Abrahae. Prius quippe exinde fugiens, quod, cum Israelitam defenderet, Aegyptum occiderat et territus fuerat, postea diuinitus missus in potestate spiritus Dei superauit Pharaonis resistentes magos. Tunc per eum Aegyptiis inlatae sunt decem memorabiles plagae, cum dimittere populum Dei nollent, aqua in sanguinem uersa, rana et sciniphes, cynomyia, mors pecorum, ulcera, grando, lucusta, tenebrae, mors primogenitorum. Ad extremum Israelitas, quos plagis tot tantisque perfracti tandem aliquando dimiserant, Aegyptii in mari Rubro dum persequuntur extincti sunt. Illis quippe abeuntibus diuisum mare uiam fecit; hos autem insequentes in se rediens unda submersit. Deinde per annos quadraginta duce Moyse Dei populus in deserto actus est, quando tabernaculum testimonii nuncupatum est, ubi Deus sacrificiis futura praenuntiantibus colebatur, cum scilicet iam data lex fuisset in monte multum terribiliter; adtestabatur enim euidentissima mirabilibus signis uocibusque diuinitas. Quod factum est, mox ut exitum est de Aegypto et in deserto populus esse coepit, quinquagensimo die post celebratum Pascha per ouis immolationem; qui usque adeo typus Christi est praenuntians eum per uictimam passionis de hoc mundo transiturum ad Patrem (Pascha quippe Hebraea lingua transitus interpretatur), ut iam cum reuelaretur testamentum nouum, postea quam Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus, quinquagensimo die ueniret de caelo Spiritus sanctus, qui dictus est in euangelio digitus Dei, ut recordationem nostram in primi praefigurati facti memoriam reuocaret, quia et legis illae tabulae digito Dei scriptae referuntur.

[¶19] On the death of Moses, Joshua the son of Nun ruled the people, and led them into the land of promise, and divided it among them. By these two wonderful leaders wars were also carried on most prosperously and wonderfully, God calling to witness that they had got these victories not so much on account of the merit of the Hebrew people as on account of the sins of the nations they subdued. After these leaders there were judges, when the people were settled in the land of promise, so that, in the meantime, the first promise made to Abraham began to be fulfilled about the one nation, that is, the Hebrew, and about the land of Canaan; but not as yet the promise about all nations, and the whole wide world, for that was to be fulfilled, not by the observances of the old law, but by the advent of Christ in the flesh, and by the faith of the gospel. And it was to prefigure this that it was not Moses, who received the law for the people on Mount Sinai, that led the people into the land of promise, but Joshua, whose name also was changed at God’s command, so that he was called Jesus. But in the times of the judges prosperity alternated with adversity in war, according as the sins of the people and the mercy of God were displayed.

> Latin: Defuncto Moyse populum rexit Iesus Naue et in terram promissionis introduxit eamque populo diuisit. Ab his duobus mirabilibus ducibus bella etiam prosperrime ac mirabiliter gesta sunt, Deo contestante non tam propter merita Hebraei populi quam propter peccata earum, quae debellabantur, gentium illas eis prouenisse uictorias. Post istos duces iudices fuerunt, iam in terra promissionis populo conlocato, ut inciperet interim reddi Abrahae prima promissio de gente una, id est Hebraea, et terra Chanaan, nondum de omnibus gentibus et toto orbe terrarum; quod Christi aduentus in carne et non ueteris legis obseruationes, sed euangelii fides fuerat inpletura. Cuius rei praefiguratio facta est, quod non Moyses, qui legem populo acceperat in monte Sina, sed Iesus, cui etiam nomen Deo praecipiente mutatum fuerat ut Iesus uocaretur, populum in terram promissionis induxit. Temporibus autem iudicum, sicut se habebant et peccata populi et misericordia Dei, alternauerunt prospera et aduersa bellorum.

[¶20] We come next to the times of the kings. The first who reigned was Saul; and when he was rejected and laid low in battle, and his offspring rejected so that no kings should arise out of it, David succeeded to the kingdom, whose son Christ is chiefly called. He was made a kind of starting-point and beginning of the advanced youth of God’s people, who had passed a kind of age of puberty from Abraham to this David. And it is not in vain that the evangelist Matthew records the generations in such a way as to sum up this first period from Abraham to David in fourteen generations. For from the age of puberty man begins to be capable of generation; therefore he starts the list of generations from Abraham, who also was made the father of many nations when he got his name changed. So that previously this family of God’s people was in its childhood, from Noah to Abraham; and for that reason the first language was then learned, that is, the Hebrew. For man begins to speak in childhood, the age succeeding infancy, which is so termed because then he cannot speak. And that first age is quite drowned in oblivion, just as the first age of the human race was blotted out by the flood; for who is there that can remember his infancy? Wherefore in this progress of the city of God, as the previous book contained that first age, so this one ought to contain the second and third ages, in which third age, as was shown by the heifer of three years old, the she-goat of three years old, and the ram of three years old, the yoke of the law was imposed, and there appeared abundance of sins, and the beginning of the earthly kingdom arose, in which there were not lacking spiritual men, of whom the turtledove and pigeon represented the mystery.

> Latin: Inde uentum est ad regum tempora, quorum primus regnauit Saul; cui reprobato et bellica clade prostrato eiusque stirpe reiecta, ne inde reges orerentur, Dauid successit in regnum, cuius maxime Christus dictus est filius. In quo articulus quidam factus est et exordium quodam modo iuuen tutis populi Dei; cuius generis quaedam uelut adulescentia ducebatur ab ipso Abraham usque ad hunc Dauid. Neque enim frustra Matthaeus euangelista sic generationes commemorauit, ut hoc primum interuallum quattuordecim geneTationibus commendaret, ab Abraham scilicet usque ad Dauid. Ab adulescentia quippe incipit homo posse generare; propterea generationum ex Abraham sumsit exordium; qui etiam pater gentium constitutus est, quando mutatum nomen accepit. Ante hunc ergo uelut pueritia fuit huius generis populi Dei a Noe usque ad ipsum Abraham; et ideo in lingua inuenta est, id est Hebraea. A pueritia namque homo incipit loqui post infantiam, quae hinc appellata est, quod fari non potest. Quam profecto aetatem primam demergit obliuio, sicut aetas prima generis humani est deleta diluuio. Quotus enim quisque est, qui suam recordetur infantiam? Quam ob rem in isto procursu ciuitatis Dei, sicut superior unam eandemque primam, ita duas aetates secundam et tertiam liber iste contineat, in qua tertia propter uaccam trimam, capram trimam, arietem trimum et inpositum est legis iugum et apparuit abundantia peccatorum et regni terreni surrexit exordium, ubi non defuerunt spiritales, quorum in turture et columba figuratum est sacramentum.

### The history of the city of God from Noah to the time of the kings of Israel.

[¶22] Book XVII.

> Latin: Liber XVII

[¶23] Argument—In this book the history of the city of God is traced during the period of the kings and prophets from Samuel to David, even to Christ; and the prophecies which are recorded in the books of Kings, Psalms, and those of Solomon, are interpreted of Christ and the church.

## 81. Of the Prophetic Age.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/81/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/81/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 1.—Of the Prophetic Age.

> Latin: Caput I. De temporibus prophetarum.

[¶1] By the favor of God we have treated distinctly of His promises made to Abraham, that both the nation of Israel according to the flesh, and all nations according to faith, should be his seed, and the City of God, proceeding according to the order of time, will point out how they were fulfilled. Having therefore in the previous book come down to the reign of David, we shall now treat of what remains, so far as may seem sufficient for the object of this work, beginning at the same reign. Now, from the time when holy Samuel began to prophesy, and ever onward until the people of Israel was led captive into Babylonia, and until, according to the prophecy of holy Jeremiah, on Israel’s return thence after seventy years, the house of God was built anew, this whole period is the prophetic age. For although both the patriarch Noah himself, in whose days the whole earth was destroyed by the flood, and others before and after him down to this time when there began to be kings over the people of God, may not underservedly be styled prophets, on account of certain things pertaining to the city of God and the kingdom of heaven, which they either predicted or in any way signified should come to pass, and especially since we read that some of them, as Abraham and Moses, were expressly so styled, yet those are most and chiefly called the days of the prophets from the time when Samuel began to prophesy, who at God’s command first anointed Saul to be king, and, on his rejection, David himself, whom others of his issue should succeed as long as it was fitting they should do so. If, therefore, I wished to rehearse all that the prophets have predicted concerning Christ, while the city of God, with its members dying and being born in constant succession, ran its course through those times, this work would extend beyond all bounds. First, because the Scripture itself, even when, in treating in order of the kings and of their deeds and the events of their reigns, it seems to be occupied in narrating as with historical diligence the affairs transacted, will be found, if the things handled by it are considered with the aid of the Spirit of God, either more, or certainly not less, intent on foretelling things to come than on relating things past. And who that thinks even a little about it does not know how laborious and prolix a work it would be, and how many volumes it would require to search this out by thorough investigation and demonstrate it by argument? And then, because of that which without dispute pertains to prophecy, there are so many things concerning Christ and the kingdom of heaven, which is the city of God, that to explain these a larger discussion would be necessary than the due proportion of this work admits of. Therefore I shall, if I can, so limit myself, that in carrying through this work, I may, with God’s help, neither say what is superfluous nor omit what is necessary.

> Latin: Promissiones Dei, quae factae sunt ad Abraham, cuius semini et gentem Israeliticam secundum carnem et omnes gentes deberi secundum fidem Deo pollicente didicimus, quem ad modum conpleantur, per ordinem temporum procurrens Dei ciuitas indicabit. Quoniam ergo superioris libri usque ad regnum Dauid factus est finis, nunc ab eodem regno. quantum suscepto operi sufficere uidetur, cetera quae sequuntur adtingimus. Hoc itaque tempus, ex quo sanctus Samuel prophetare coepit, et deinceps, donec populus Israel captiuus in Babyloniam duceretur adque inde secundum sancti Hieremiae prophetiam post septuaginta annos reuersis Israelitis Dei domus instauraretur, totum tempus est prophetarum. Quamuis enim et ipsum Noe patriarcham, in cuius diebus uniuersa diluuio terra diluta est, et alios supra et infra usque ad hoc tempus, quo reges in Dei populo esse coeperunt, propter quaedam per eos futura siue quoquo modo significata siue praedicta, quae pertinerent ad ciuitatem Dei regnumque caelorum, non inmerito possumus appellare prophetas, praesertim quia nonnullos eorum id expressius legimus nuncupatos, sicut Abraham, sicut Moysen: tamen dies prophetarum praecipue maximeque hi dicti sunt, ex quo coepit prophetare Samuel, qui et Saulem prius et eo reprobato ipsum Dauid Deo praecipiente unxit in regem, de cuius ceteri stirpe succederent, quousque illos succedere sic oporteret. Quae igitur a prophetis sint praedicta de Christo, cum moriendo decedentibus et nascendo succedentibus suis membris ciuitas Dei per ista curreret tempora, si omnia uelim commemorare, in inmensum pergitur, primum quia ipsa scriptura, quae per ordinem reges eorumque facta et euenta digerens uidetur tamquam historica diligentia rebus gestis occupata esse narrandis, si adiuuante Dei spiritu considerata tractetur, uel magis uel certe non minus praenuntiandis futuris quam praeteritis enuntiandis inuenietur intenta; (et hoc perscrutando indagare ac disserendo monstrare quam sit operosum adque prolixum et quam multis indiguum uoluminibus, quis ignorat, qui haec uel mediocriter cogitat?) deinde quia ea ipsa, quae ad prophetiam non ambigitur pertinere, ita sunt multa de Christo regnoque caelorum, quae ciuitas Dei est, ut ad hoc aperiendum maior sit disputatio necessaria, quam huius operis modus flagitat. Proinde ita, si potuero, stilo moderabor meo, ut huic operi in Dei uoluntate peragendo nec ea quae supersunt dicam nec ea quae satis sunt praetermittam.

### At What Time the Promise of God Was Fulfilled Concerning the Land of Canaan, Which Even Carnal Israel Got in Possession.

[¶3] Chapter 2.—At What Time the Promise of God Was Fulfilled Concerning the Land of Canaan, Which Even Carnal Israel Got in Possession.

> Latin: Caput II. Quo tempore sit inpleta promissio Dei de terra Chanaan, quam in possessionem etiam Israel carnalis accepit.

[¶4] In the preceding book we said, that in the promise of God to Abraham two things were promised from the beginning, the one, name ly, that his seed should possess the land of Canaan, which was intimated when it was said, “Go into a land that I will show thee, and I will make of thee a great nation;” but the other far more excellent, concerning not the carnal but the spiritual seed, by which he is the father, not of the one nation of Israel, but of all nations who follow the footsteps of his faith, which began to be promised in these words, “And in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” And thereafter we showed by yet many other proofs that these two things were promised. Therefore the seed of Abraham, that is, the people of Israel according to the flesh, already was in the land of promise; and there, not only by holding and possessing the cities of the enemies, but also by having kings, had already begun to reign, the promises of God concerning that people being already in great part fulfilled: not only those that were made to those three fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and whatever others were made in their times, but those also that were made through Moses himself, by whom the same people was set free from servitude in Egypt, and by whom all bygone things were revealed in his times, when he led the people through the wilderness. But neither by the illustrious leader Jesus the son of Nun, who led that people into the land of promise, and, after driving out the nations, divided it among the twelve tribes according to God’s command, and died; nor after him, in the whole time of the judges, was the promise of God concerning the land of Canaan fulfilled, that it should extend from some river of Egypt even to the great river Euphrates; nor yet was it still prophesied as to come, but its fulfillment was expected. And it was fulfilled through David, and Solomon his son, whose kingdom was extended over the whole promised space; for they subdued all those nations, and made them tributary. And thus, under those kings, the seed of Abraham was established in the land of promise according to the flesh, that is, in the land of Canaan, so that nothing yet remained to the complete fulfillment of that earthly promise of God, except that, so far as pertains to temporal prosperity, the Hebrew nation should remain in the same land by the succession of posterity in an unshaken state even to the end of this mortal age, if it obeyed the laws of the Lord its God. But since God knew it would not do this, He used His temporal punishments also for training His few faithful ones in it, and for giving needful warning to those who should afterwards be in all nations, in whom the other promise, revealed in the New Testament, was about to be fulfilled through the incarnation of Christ.

> Latin: In praecedente libro diximus ab initio ad Abraham promissionum Dei duas res fuisse promissas, unam scilicet, quod terram Chanaan possessurum fuerat semen eius (quod significatur, ubi dictum est: Vade in terram, quam tibi demonstrauero, et faciam te in gentem magnam), aliam uero longe praestantiorem non de carnali, sed de spiritali semine, per quod pater est non unius gentis Israeliticae, sed omnium gentium, quae fidei eius uestigia consequuntur; quod promitti coepit his uerbis: Et benedicentur in te omnes tribus terrae; et deinceps aliis multis admodum testimoniis haec duo promissa esse monstrauimus. Erat igitur iam in terra promissionis semen Abrahae, id est populus Israel, • secundum carnem adque ibi non solum tenendo ac possidendo ciuitates aduersariorum, uerum etiam reges habendo regnare iam coeperat, inpletis de ipso populo promissionibus Dei magna iam ex parte, non solum quae tribus illis patribus Abraham Isaac et Iacob, et quaecumque aliae temporibus eorum, uerum etiam quae per ipsum Moysen, per quem populus idem de seruitute Aegyptia liberatus et per quem cuncta praeterita reuelata sunt, temporibus eius, cum populum per eremum duceret, factae fuerant. Neque autem per insignem ducem Iesum Naue, per quem populus ille in promissionis inductus est terram expugnatisque gentibus eam duodecim tribubus, quibus Deus iusserat, diuisit et mortuus est, neque post illum toto tempore iudicum inpleta fuerat promissio Dei de terra Chanaan a quodam flumine Aegypti usque ad flumen magnum Euphraten; nec tamen adhuc prophetabatur futurum, sed exspectabatur inplendum. Inpletum est autem per Dauid et eius filium Salomonem, cuius regnum tanto, quanto promissum fuerat, spatio dilatatum est; uniuersos quippe illos subdiderunt tributariosque fecerunt. Sic igitur in terra promissionis secundum carnem, hoc est in terra Chanaan, sub his regibus semen Abrahae fuerat constitutum, ut nihil deinde superesset, quo terrena illa Dei promissio conpleretur, nisi ut in eadem terra, quantum ad prosperitatem adtinet temporalem, per posteritatis successionem inconcusso statu usque ad mortalis huius saeculi terminum gens permaneret Hebraea, si Domini Dei sui legibus oboediret. Sed quoniam Deus nouerat hoc eam non esse facturam, usus est eius etiam temporalibus poenis ad exercendos in ea paucos fideles suos et admonendos qui postea futuri erant in omnibus gentibus, quod eos admoneri oportebat, in quibus alteram promissionem reuelato nouo testamento per incarnationem Christi fuerat inpleturus.

### Of the Three-Fold Meaning of the Prophecies, Which are to Be Referred Now to the Earthly, Now to the Heavenly Jerusalem, and Now Again to Both.

[¶6] Chapter 3.—Of the Three-Fold Meaning of the Prophecies, Which are to Be Referred Now to the Earthly, Now to the Heavenly Jerusalem, and Now Again to Both.

> Latin: Caput III. De tripertitis significationibus prophetarum, quae nunc ad terrenam, nunc ad caelestem Hierusalem, nunc autem ad utramque referuntur.

[¶7] Wherefore just as that divine oracle to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the other prophetic signs or sayings which are given in the earlier sacred writings, so also the other prophecies from this time of the kings pertain partly to the nation of Abraham’s flesh, and partly to that seed of his in which all nations are blessed as fellow-heirs of Christ by the New Testament, to the possessing of eternal life and the kingdom of the heavens. Therefore they pertain partly to the bond maid who gendereth to bondage, that is, the earthly Jerusalem, which is in bondage with her children; but partly to the free city of God, that is, the true Jerusalem eternal in the heavens, whose children are all those that live according to God in the earth: but there are some things among them which are understood to pertain to both,—to the bond maid properly, to the free woman figuratively.

> Latin: Quocirca sicut oracula illa diuina ad Abraham Isaac et Iacob et quaecumque alia signa uel dicta prophetica in sacris litteris praecedentibus facta sunt, ita etiam ceterae ab isto regum tempore prophetiae partim pertinent ad gentem carnis Abrahae, partim uero ad illud semen eius, in quo benedicuntur omnes gentes coheredes Christi per testamentum nouum ad possidendam uitam aeternam regnumque caelorum; partim ergo ad ancillam, quae in seruitutem generat, id est terrenam Hierusalem, quae seruit cum filiis suis, partim uero ad libe. ram ciuitatem Dei, id est ueram Hierusalem aeternam in caelis, cuius filii homines secundum Deum uiuentes peregrinantur in terris; sed sunt in eis quaedam, quae ad utramque pertinere intelleguntur, ad ancillam proprie, ad liberam figurate.

[¶8] Therefore prophetic utterances of three kinds are to be found; forasmuch as there are some relating to the earthly Jerusalem, some to the heavenly, and some to both. I think it proper to prove what I say by examples. The prophet Nathan was sent to convict king David of heinous sin, and predict to him what future evils should be consequent on it. Who can question that this and the like pertain to the terrestrial city, whether publicly, that is, for the safety or help of the people, or privately, when there are given forth for each one’s private good divine utterances whereby something of the future may be known for the use of temporal life? But where we read, “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make for the house of Israel, and for the house of Judah, a new testament: not according to the testament that I settled for their fathers in the day when I laid hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my testament, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the testament that I will make for the house of Israel: after those days, saith the Lord, I will give my laws in their mind, and will write them upon their hearts, and I will see to them; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people;”—without doubt this is prophesied to the Jerusalem above, whose reward is God Himself, and whose chief and entire good it is to have Him, and to be His. But this pertains to both, that the city of God is called Jerusalem, and that it is prophesied the house of God shall be in it; and this prophecy seems to be fulfilled when king Solomon builds that most noble temple. For these things both happened in the earthly Jerusalem, as history shows, and were types of the heavenly Jerusalem. And this kind of prophecy, as it were compacted and commingled of both the others in the ancient canonical books, containing historical narratives, is of very great significance, and has exercised and exercises greatly the wits of those who search holy writ. For example, what we read of historically as predicted and fulfilled in the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, we must also inquire the allegorical meaning of, as it is to be fulfilled in the seed of Abraham according to faith. And so much is this the case, that some have thought there is nothing in these books either foretold and effected, or effected although not foretold, that does not insinuate something else which is to be referred by figurative signification to the city of God on high, and to her children who are pilgrims in this life. But if this be so, then the utterances of the prophets, or rather the whole of those Scriptures that are reckoned under the title of the Old Testament, will be not of three, but of two different kinds. For there will be nothing there which pertains to the terrestrial Jerusalem only, if whatever is there said and fulfilled of or concerning her signifies something which also refers by allegorical prefiguration to the celestial Jerusalem; but there will be only two kinds one that pertains to the free Jerusalem, the other to both. But just as, I think, they err greatly who are of opinion that none of the records of affairs in that kind of writings mean anything more than that they so happened, so I think those very daring who contend that the whole gist of their contents lies in allegorical significations. Therefore I have said they are threefold, not two-fold. Yet, in holding this opinion, I do not blame those who may be able to draw out of everything there a spiritual meaning, only saving, first of all, the historical truth. For the rest, what believer can doubt that those things are spoken vainly which are such that, whether said to have been done or to be yet to come, they do not beseem either human or divine affairs? Who would not recall these to spiritual understanding if he could, or confess that they should be recalled by him who is able?

> Latin: Tripertita itaque reperiuntur eloquia prophetarum, si quidem aliqua sunt ad terrenam Hierusalem spectantia, aliqua ad caelestem, nonnulla ad utramque. Exemplis uideo probandum esse quod dico. Missus est Nathan propheta, qui regem Dauid argueret de peccato graui et ei, quae consecuta sunt mala, futura praediceret. Haec adque huius modi siue publice, id est pro salute uel utilitate populi, siue priuatim, cum pro suis quisque rebus diuina promereretur eloquia, quibus pro usu temporalis uitae futuri aliquid nosceretur, ad terrenam ciuitatem pertinuisse quis ambigat? Ubi autem legitur: Ecce dies ueniunt, dicit Dominus, et consummabo domui Israel et domui Iuda testamentum nouum, non secundum testamentum, quod disposui patribus eorum in die, qua adprehendi manum eorum, ut educerem eos de terra Aegypti, quoniam ipsi non per, manserunt in testamento meo, et ego neglexi eos, dicit Dominus. Quia hoc est testamentum, quod constituam domui Israel post dies illos, dicit Dominus, dando leges meas in mentem eorum et super corda eorum scribam eas, et uidebo eos, et ero illis in Deum, et ipsi erunt mihi in plebem: Hierusalem sine dubio superna prophetatur, cuius Deus ipse praemium est, eumque habere adque ipsius esse summum ibi est adque totum bonum. Ad utramque uero pertinet hoc ipsum, quod Hierusalem dicitur Dei ciuitas, et in ea prophetatur futura domus Dei, eaque prophetia uidetur inpleri, cum Salomon rex aedificat illud nobilissimum templum. Haec enim et in terrena Hierusalem secundum historiam contigerunt, et caelestis Hierusalem figurae fuerunt. Quod genus prophetiae ex utroque ueluti conpactum adque commixtum in libris ueteribus canonicis, quibus rerum gestarum narrationes continentur, ualet plurimum multumque exercuit et exercet ingenia scrutantium litteras sacras, ut, quod historice praedictum conpletumque legitur in semine Abrahae secundum carnem, etiam in semine Abrahae secundum fidem quid inplendum allegorice significet inquiratur; in tantum ut quibusdam uisum sit nihil esse in eisdem libris uel praenuntiatum et effectum, uel effectum quamuis non praenuntiatum, quod non insinuet aliquid ad supernam ciuitatem Dei eiusque filios in hac uita peregrinos figurata significatione referendum. Sed si hoc ita est, iam bipertita, non tripertita erunt eloquia prophetarum, uel potius illarum scripturarum omnium, quae ueteris instrumenti appellatione censentur. Nihil enim erit illic, quod ad Hierusalem terrenam tantum pertineat, si, quidquid ibi de illa uel propter illam dicitur adque conpletur, significat aliquid, quod etiam ad Hierusalem caelestem allegorica praefiguratione referatur; sed erunt sola duo genera, unum quod ad Hierusalem liberam, alterum quod ad utramque pertineat. Mihi autem sicut multum uidentur errare, qui nullas res gestas in eo genere litterarum aliquid aliud praeter id, quod eo modo gestae sunt, significare arbitrantur, ita multum audere, qui prorsus ibi omnia significationibus allegoricis inuoluta esse contendunt. Ideo tripertita, non bipertita esse dixi. Hoc enim existimo, non tamen culpans eos, qui potuerint illic de quacumque re gesta sensum intellegentiae spiritalis exsculpere, seruata dumtaxat primitus historiae ueritate. Ceterum quae ita dicuntur, ut rebus humanitus seu diuinitus gestis siue gerendis conuenire non possint, quis fidelis dubitet non esse inaniter dicta? Quis ea non ad intellegentiam spiritalem reuocet, si possit, aut ab eo qui potest reuocanda esse fateatur?

### About the Prefigured Change of the Israelitic Kingdom and Priesthood, and About the Things Hannah the Mother of Samuel Prophesied, Personating the Church.

[¶10] Chapter 4.—About the Prefigured Change of the Israelitic Kingdom and Priesthood, and About the Things Hannah the Mother of Samuel Prophesied, Personating the Church.

> Latin: Caput IV. De praefigurata commutatione Israelitici regni et sacerdotii et de his, quae Anna, mater Samuelis, personam gerens ecclesiae prophetauit.

[¶11] Therefore the advance of the city of God, where it reached the times of the kings, yielded a figure, when, on the rejection of Saul, David first obtained the kingdom on such a footing that thenceforth his descendants should reign in the earthly Jerusalem in continual succession; for the course of affairs signified and foretold, what is not to be passed by in silence, concerning the change of things to come, what belongs to both Testaments, the Old and the New,—where the priesthood and kingdom are changed by one who is a priest, and at the same time a king, new and everlasting, even Christ Jesus. For both the substitution in the ministry of God, on Eli’s rejection as priest, of Samuel, who executed at once the office of priest and judge, and the establishment of David in the kingdom, when Saul was rejected, typified this of which I speak. And Hannah herself, the mother of Samuel, who formerly was barren, and afterwards was gladdened with fertility, does not seem to prophesy anything else, when she exultingly pours forth her thanksgiving to the Lord, on yielding up to God the same boy she had born and weaned with the same piety with which she had vowed him. For she says, “My heart is made strong in the Lord, and my horn is exalted in my God; my mouth is enlarged over mine enemies; I am made glad in Thy salvation. Because there is none holy as the Lord; and none is righteous as our God: there is none holy save Thee. Do not glory so proudly, and do not speak lofty things, neither let vaunting talk come out of your mouth; for a God of knowledge is the Lord, and a God preparing His curious designs. The bow of the mighty hath He made weak, and the weak are girded with strength. They that were full of bread are diminished; and the hungry have passed beyond the earth: for the barren hath born seven; and she that hath many children is waxed feeble. The Lord killeth and maketh alive: He bringeth down to hell, and bringeth up again. The Lord maketh poor and maketh rich: He bringeth low and lifteth up. He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, that He may set him among the mighty of [His] people, and maketh them inherit the throne of glory; giving the vow to him that voweth, and He hath blessed the years of the just: for man is not mighty in strength. The Lord shall make His adversary weak: the Lord is holy. Let not the prudent glory in his prudence and let not the mighty glory in his might; and let not the rich glory in his riches: but let him that glorieth glory in this, to understand and know the Lord, and to do judgment and justice in the midst of the earth. The Lord hath ascended into the heavens, and hath thundered: He shall judge the ends of the earth, for He is righteous: and He giveth strength to our kings, and shall exalt the horn of His Christ.”

> Latin: Procursus igitur ciuitatis Dei ubi peruenit ad regum tempora, quando Dauid Saule reprobato ita regnum primus obtinuit, ut eius deinde posteri in terrena Hierusalem diuturna successione regnarent, dedit figuram, re gesta significans adque praenuntians, quod non est praetereundum silentio, de rerum mutatione futurarum, quod adtinet ad duo testamenta. uetus et nouum, ubi sacerdotium regnumque mutatum est per sacerdotem eundemque regem nouum ac sempiternum. qui est Christus Iesus. Nam et Heli sacerdote reprobato substitutus in Dei ministerium Samuel simul officio functus sacerdotis et iudicis, et Saule abiecto rex Dauid fundatus in regno hoc quod dico figurauerunt. Mater quoque ipsa Samuelis Anna, quae prius fuit sterilis et posteriore fecunditate laetata est, prophetare aliud non uidetur, cum gratulationem suam Domino fundit exultans, quando eundem puerum natum et ablactatum Deo reddidit eadem. pietate, qua uouerat. Dicit enim: Confirmatum est cor meum in Domino, exal. tatum est cornu meum in Deo meo. Dilatatum est super inimicos meos os meum, laetata sum in salutari tuo. Quoniam non est sanctus sicut Dominus, et non est iustus sicut Deus noster; non est sanctus praeter te. Nolite gloriari et nolite loqui excelsa, neque procedat magniloquium de ore uestro. Quoniam Deus scientiarum Dominus, et Deus praeparans adinuentiones suas. Arcum potentium fecit infirmum, et infirmi praecincti sunt uirtute. Pleni panibus minorati sunt, et esurientes transierunt terram. Quia sterilis peperit septem, et multa in filiis infirmata est. Dominus mortificat et uiuificat, deducit ad inferos et reducit. Dominus pauperes facit et ditat, humiliat et exaltat. Suscitat a terra pauperem et de stercore erigit inopem, ut conlocet eum cum potentibus populi, et sedem gloriae hereditatem dans eis; dans uotum uouenti, et benedixit annos iusti, quoniam non in uirtute potens est uir. Dominus infirmum faciet aduersarium suum, Dominus sanctus. Non glorietur prudens in prudentia sua, et non glorietur potens in potentia sua, et non glorietur diues in diuitiis suis; sed in hoc glorietur, qui gloriatur, intellegere et scire Dominum et facere iudicium et iustitiam in medio terrae. Dominus ascendit in caelos et tonuit; ipse iudicabit extrema terrae, quia iustus est; et dat uirtutem regibus nostris, et exaltabit cornu christi sui.

[¶12] Do you say that these are the words of a single weak woman giving thanks for the birth of a son? Can the mind of men be so much averse to the light of truth as not to perceive that the sayings this woman pours forth exceed her measure? Moreover, he who is suitably interested in these things which have already begun to be fulfilled even in this earthly pilgrimage also, does he not apply his mind, and perceive, and acknowledge, that through this woman—whose very name, which is Hannah, means “His grace”—the very Christian religion, the very city of God, whose king and founder is Christ, in fine, the very grace of God, hath thus spoken by the prophetic Spirit, whereby the proud are cut off so that they fall, and the humble are filled so that they rise, which that hymn chiefly celebrates? Unless perchance any one will say that this woman prophesied nothing, but only lauded God with exulting praise on account of the son whom she had obtained in answer to prayer. What then does she mean when she says, “The bow of the mighty hath He made weak, and the weak are girded with strength; they that were full of bread are diminished, and the hungry have gone beyond the earth; for the barren hath born seven, and she that hath many children is waxed feeble?” Had she herself born seven, although she had been barren? She had only one when she said that; neither did she bear seven afterwards, nor six, with whom Samuel himself might be the seventh, but three males and two females. And then, when as yet no one was king over that people, whence, if she did not prophesy, did she say what she puts at the end, “He giveth strength to our kings, and shall exalt the horn of His Christ?”

> Latin: Itane uero uerba haec unius putabuntur esse mulierculae. de nato sibi filio gratulantis? Tantumne mens hominum a luce ueritatis auersa est, ut non sentiat supergredi modum feminae huius dicta quae fudit? Porro qui rebus ipsis, quae iam coeperunt etiam in hac terrena peregrinatione conpleri, conuenienter mouetur, nonne intendit et adspicit et agnoscit per hanc mulierem, cuius etiam nomen, id est Anna, gratia eius interpretatur, ipsam religionem Christianam, ipsam ciuitatem Dei, cuius rex est et conditor Christus, ipsam postremo Dei gratiam prophetico spiritu sic locutam, a qua superbi alienantur, ut cadant, qua humiles inplentur, ut surgant, quod maxime hymnus iste personuit? Nisi quisquam forte dicturus est nihil istam prophetasse mulierem, sed Deum tantummodo propter filium, quem precata inpetrauit, exultanti praedicatione laudasse. Quid ergo sibi uult quod ait: Arcum potentium fecit infirmum, et infirmi praecincti sunt uirtute; pleni panibus minorati sunt, et esurientes transierunt terram; quia sterilis peperit septem, et multa in filiis infirmata est? Numquid septem ipsa pepererat, quamuis sterilis fuerit? Unicum habebat, quando ista dicebat; sed nec postea septem peperit, siue sex, quibusseptimus esset ipse Samuel, sed tres mares et duas feminas. Deinde in illo populo cum adhuc nemo regnaret, quod in extremo posuit: Dat uirtutem regibus nostris, et exaltabit cornu christi sui, unde dicebat, si non prophetabat?

[¶13] Therefore let the Church of Christ, the city of the great King, full of grace, prolific of offspring, let her say what the prophecy uttered about her so long before by the mouth of this pious mother confesses, “My heart is made strong in the Lord, and my horn is exalted in my God.” Her heart is truly made strong, and her horn is truly exalted, because not in herself, but in the Lord her God. “My mouth is enlarged over mine enemies;” because even in pressing straits the word of God is not bound, not even in preachers who are bound. “I am made glad,” she says, “in Thy salvation.” This is Christ Jesus Himself, whom old Simeon, as we read in the Gospel, embracing as a little one, yet recognizing as great, said, “Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen Thy salvation.” Therefore may the Church say, “I am made glad in Thy salvation. For there is none holy as the Lord, and none is righteous as our God;” as holy and sanctifying, just and justifying. “There is none holy beside Thee;” because no one becomes so except by reason of Thee. And then it follows, “Do not glory so proudly, and do not speak lofty things, neither let vaunting talk come out of your mouth. For a God of knowledge is the Lord.” He knows you even when no one knows; for “he who thinketh himself to be something when he is nothing deceiveth himself.” These things are said to the adversaries of the city of God who belong to Babylon, who presume in their own strength, and glory in themselves, not in the Lord; of whom are also the carnal Israelites, the earth-born inhabitants of the earthly Jerusalem, who, as saith the apostle, “being ignorant of the righteousness of God,” that is, which God, who alone is just, and the justifier, gives to man, “and wishing to establish their own,” that is, which is as it were procured by their own selves, not bestowed by Him, “are not subject to the righteousness of God,” just because they are proud, and think they are able to please God with their own, not with that which is of God, who is the God of knowledge, and therefore also takes the oversight of consciences, there beholding the thoughts of men that they are vain, if they are of men, and are not from Him. “And preparing,” she says, “His curious designs.” What curious designs do we think these are, save that the proud must fall, and the humble rise? These curious designs she recounts, saying, “The bow of the mighty is made weak, and the weak are girded with strength.” The bow is made weak, that is, the intention of those who think themselves so powerful, that without the gift and help of God they are able by human sufficiency to fulfill the divine commandments; and those are girded with strength whose in ward cry is, “Have mercy upon me, O Lord, for I am weak.”

> Latin: Dicat ergo ecclesia Christi, ciuitas regis magni, gratia plena, prole fecunda, dicat quod tanto ante de se prophetatum per os huius piae matris agnoscit: Confirmatum est cor meum in Domino, exaltatum est cornu meum in Deo meo. Vere confirmatum cor et cornu uere exaltatum, quia non in se, sed in Domino Deo suo. Dilatatum est super inimicos meos os meum; quia et in angustiis pressurarum sermo Dei non est adligatus nec in praeconibus adligatis. Laetata sum, inquit, in salutari tuo. Christus est iste Iesus, quem Simeon, sicut in euangelio legitur, senex amplectens paruum, agnoscens magnum: Nunc dimittis, inquit. Domine, seruum tuum in pace, quoniam uiderunt oculi mei salutare tuum. Dicat itaque ecclesia: Laetata sum in salutari tuo; quoniam non est sanctus, sicut Dominus, et non est iustus, sicut Deus noster; tamquam sanctus et sanctificans, iustus et iustificans. Non est sanctus praeter te, quia nemo fit nisi abs te. Denique sequitur: Nolite gloriari et nolite loqui excelsa, neque exeat magniloquium de ore uestro; quoniam Deus scientiarum Dominus. Ipse uos scit, et ubi nemo scit; quoniam qui putat se aliquid esse, cum nihil sit, se ipsum seducit. Haec dicuntur aduersariis ciuitatis Dei ad Babyloniam pertinentibus, de sua uirtute praesumentibus, in se, non in Domino gloriantibus; ei quibus sunt etiam carnales Israelitae, - terrenae Hierusalem ciues terrigenae, qui, ut dicit apostolus, ignorantes Dei iustitiam (id est, quam dat homini Deus, qui solus est iustus adque iustificans) et suam uolentes constituere (id est uelut a se sibi partam, non ab illo inpertitam) iustitiae Dei non sunt subiecti, utique quia superbi, de suo putantes, non de Dei, posse placere se Deo, qui est Deus scientiarum adque ideo et arbiter conscientiarum, ibi uidens cogitationes hominum, quoniam uanae sunt, si hominum sunt et ab illo non sunt. Et praeparans, inquit, adinuentiones suas. Quas adinuentiones putamus, nisi ut superbi cadant et humiles surgant? Has quippe adinuentiones exsequitur dicens: Arcus potentium infirmatus est, et infirmi praecincti sunt uirtute. Infirmatus est arcus, id est intentio eorum, qui tam potentes sibi uidentur, ut sine Dei dono adque adiutorio humana sufficientia diuina possint inplere mandata, et praecinguntur uirtute, quorum interna uox est: Miserere mei, Domine, quoniam infirmus sum.

[¶14] “They that were full of bread,” she says, “are diminished, and the hungry have gone beyond the earth.” Who are to be understood as full of bread except those same who were as if mighty, that is, the Israelites, to whom were committed the oracles of God? But among that people the children of the bond maid were diminished,—by which word minus, although it is Latin, the idea is well expressed that from being greater they were made less,—because, even in the very bread, that is, the divine oracles, which the Israelites alone of all nations have received, they savor earthly things. But the nations to whom that law was not given, after they have come through the New Testament to these oracles, by thirsting much have gone beyond the earth, because in them they have savored not earthly, but heavenly things. And the reason why this is done is as it were sought; “for the barren,” she says, “hath born seven, and she that hath many children is waxed feeble.” Here all that had been prophesied hath shone forth to those who understood the number seven, which signifies the perfection of the universal Church. For which reason also the Apostle John writes to the seven churches, showing in that way that he writes to the totality of the one Church; and in the Proverbs of Solomon it is said aforetime, prefiguring this, “Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath strengthened her seven pillars.” For the city of God was barren in all nations before that child arose whom we see. We also see that the temporal Jerusalem, who had many children, is now waxed feeble. Because, whoever in her were sons of the free woman were her strength; but now, forasmuch as the letter is there, and not the spirit, having lost her strength, she is waxed feeble.

> Latin: Pleni panibus, inquit, minorati sunt, et esurientes transierunt terram. Qui sunt intellegendi pleni panibus. nisi idem ipsi quasi potentes, id est Israelitae, quibus credita sunt eloquia Dei? Sed in eo populo ancillae filii minorati sunt (quo uerbo minus quidem Latine, bene tamen expressum est, quod ex maioribus minores facti sunt), quia et in ipsis panibus, id est diuinis eloquiis, quae Israelitae soli tunc ex omnibus gentibus acceperunt, terrena sapiunt. Gentes autem, quibus lex illa non erat data, postea quam per nouum testamentum ad eloquia illa uenerunt, multum esuriendo terram transierunt, quia in eis non terrena, sed caelestia sapuerunt. Et hoc uelut quaereretur causa quur factum sit: Quia sterilis, inquit, peperit septem, et multa in filiis infirmata est. Hic totum quod propbetabatur eluxit agnoscentibus numerum septenarium, quo est uniuersae ecclesiae significata perfectio. Propter quod et Iohannes apostolus ad septem scribit ecclesias, eo modo se ostendens ad unius plenitudinem scribere; et in prouerbiis Salomonis hoc antea praefigurans Sapientia aedificauit sibi domum et subfulsit columnas septem. Sterilis enim erat in omnibus gentibus Dei ciuitas, antequam iste fetus, quem cernimus, oreretur. Cernimus etiam, quae multa in filiis erat, nunc infirmatam Hierusalem terrenam; quoniam quicumque filii liberae in ea erant, uirtus eius erant; nunc uero ibi quoniam littera est et spiritus non est, amissa uirtute infirmata est.

[¶15] “The Lord killeth and maketh alive:” He has killed her who had many children, and made this barren one alive, so that she has born seven. Although it may be more suitably understood that He has made those same alive whom He has killed. For she, as it were, repeats that by adding, “He bringeth down to hell, and bringeth up.” To whom truly the apostle says, “If ye be dead with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.” Therefore they are killed by the Lord in a salutary way, so that he adds, “Savor things which are above, not things on the earth;” so that these are they who, hungering, have passed beyond the earth. “For ye are dead,” he says: behold how God savingly kills! Then there follows, “And your life is hid with Christ in God:” behold how God makes the same alive! But does He bring them down to hell and bring them up again? It is without controversy among believers that we best see both parts of this work fulfilled in Him, to wit our Head, with whom the apostle has said our life is hid in God. “For when He spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all,” in that way, certainly, He has killed Him. And forasmuch as He raised Him up again from the dead, He has made Him alive again. And since His voice is acknowledged in the prophecy, “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell,” He has brought Him down to hell and brought Him up again. By this poverty of His we are made rich; for “the Lord maketh poor and maketh rich.” But that we may know what this is, let us hear what follows: “He bringeth low and lifteth up;” and truly He humbles the proud and exalts the humble. Which we also read elsewhere, “God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.” This is the burden of the entire song of this woman whose name is interpreted “His grace.”

> Latin: Dominus mortificat et uiuificat; mortificauit illam. quae multa erat in filiis, et uiuificauit hanc sterilem, quae peperit septem. Quamuis commodius possit intellegi eosdem uiuificare, quos mortificauerit. Id enim uelut repetiuit addendo: Deducit ad inferos et reducit Quibus enim dicit apostolus: Si mortui estis cum Christo, quae sursum sunt quaerite, ubi Christus est in dextera Dei sedens, salubriter utique mortificantur a Domino: quibus adiungit: Quae sursum sunt sapite, non quae super terram; ut ipsi sint illi, qui esurientes transierunt terram. Mortui enim estis, inquit; ecce quo modo salubriter mortificat Deus; deinde sequitur: Et uita uestra abscondita est cum Christo in Deo; ecce quo modo eosdem ipsos uiuificat Deus. Sed numquid eosdem deduxit ad inferos et reduxit? Hoc utrumque sine controuersia fidelium in illo potius uidemus inpletum, capite scilicet nostro, cum quo uitam nostram in Deo apostolus dixit absconditam. Nam cum proprio filio non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit eum, isto modo utique mortificauit eum; et quia resuscitauit a mortuis, eundem rursus uiuificauit. Et quia in prophetia uox eius agnoscitur: Non derelinques animam meam in inferno, eundem deduxit ad inferos et reduxit. Hac eius paupertate ditati sumus. Dominus enim pauperes facit et ditat. Nam quid hoc sit ut sciamus, quod sequitur audiamus: Humiliat et exaltat; utique superbos humiliat et humiles exaltat. Quod enim alibi legitur: Deus superbis resistit, humilibus autem dat gratiam, hoc totus habet sermo huius, cuius nomen interpretatur gratia eius.

[¶16] Farther, what is added, “He raiseth up the poor from the earth,” I understand of none better than of Him who, as was said a little ago, “was made poor for us, when He was rich, that by His poverty we might be made rich.” For He raised Him from the earth so quickly that His flesh did not see corruption. Nor shall I divert from Him what is added, “And raiseth up the poor from the dunghill.” For indeed he who is the poor man is also the beggar. But by the dunghill from which he is lifted up we are with the greatest reason to understand the persecuting Jews, of whom the apostle says, when telling that when he belonged to them he persecuted the Church, “What things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ; and I have counted them not only loss, but even dung, that I might win Christ.” Therefore that poor one is raised up from the earth above all the rich, and that beggar is lifted up from that dunghill above all the wealthy, “that he may sit among the mighty of the people,” to whom He says, “Ye shall sit upon twelve thrones,” “and to make them inherit the throne of glory.” For these mighty ones had said, “Lo, we have forsaken all and followed Thee.” They had most mightily vowed this vow.

> Latin: Iam uero quod adiungitur: Suscitat a terra pauperem, de nullo melius quam de illo intellego, qui propter nos pauper factus est, cum diues esset, ut eius paupertate, sicut paulo ante dictum est, ditaremur. Ipsum enim de terra suscitauit tam cito, ut caro eius non uideret corruptionem. Nec illud ab illo alienabo, quod additum est: Et de stercore erigit inopem. Inops quippe idem, qui pauper; stercus uero, unde erectus est, rectissime intelleguntur persecutores ludaei, in quorum numero cum se dixisset apostolus ecclesiam persecutum: Quae mihi fuerunt, inquit, lucra, haec propter Christum damna esse duxi; nec solum detrimenta, uerum etiam stercora existimaui esse, ut Christum lucri facerem. De terra ergo suscitatus est ille supra omnes diuites pauper, et de illo stercore erectus est supra omnes opulentos ille inops, ut sedeat cum potentibus populi, quibus ait: Sedebitis super duodecim sedes, et sedem gloriae hereditatem dans eis; dixerant enim potentes illi: Ecce nos dimisimus omnia et secuti sumus te.

[¶17] But whence do they receive this, except from Him of whom it is here immediately said, “Giving the vow to him that voweth?” Otherwise they would be of those mighty ones whose bow is weakened. “Giving,” she saith, “the vow to him that voweth.” For no one could vow anything acceptable to God, unless he received from Him that which he might vow. There follows, “And He hath blessed the years of the just,” to wit, that he may live for ever with Him to whom it is said, “And Thy years shall have no end.” For there the years abide; but here they pass away, yea, they perish: for before they come they are not, and when they shall have come they shall not be, because they bring their own end with them. Now of these two, that is, “giving the vow to him that voweth,” and “He hath blessed the years of the just,” the one is what we do, the other what we receive. But this other is not received from God, the liberal giver, until He, the helper, Himself has enabled us for the former; “for man is not mighty in strength.” “The Lord shall make his adversary weak,” to wit, him who envies the man that vows, and resists him, lest he should fulfill what he has vowed. Owing to the ambiguity of the Greek, it may also be understood “his own adversary.” For when God has begun to possess us, immediately he who had been our adversary becomes His, and is conquered by us; but not by our own strength, “for man is not mighty in strength.” Therefore “the Lord shall make His own adversary weak, the Lord is holy,” that he may be conquered by the saints, whom the Lord, the Holy of holies, hath made saints. For this reason, “let not the prudent glory in his prudence, and let not the mighty glory in his might, and let not the rich glory in his riches; but let him that glorieth glory in this,—to understand and know the Lord, and to do judgment and justice in the midst of the earth.” He in no small measure understands and knows the Lord who understands and knows that even this, that he can understand and know the Lord, is given to him by the Lord. “For what hast thou,” saith the apostle, “that thou hast not received? But if thou hast received it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?” That is, as if thou hadst of thine own self whereof thou mightest glory. Now, he does judgment and justice who lives aright. But he lives aright who yields obedience to God when He commands. “The end of the commandment,” that is, to which the commandment has reference, “is charity out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned.” Moreover, this “charity,” as the Apostle John testifies, “is of God.” Therefore to do justice and judgment is of God. But what is “in the midst of the earth?” For ought those who dwell in the ends of the earth not to do judgment and justice? Who would say so? Why, then, is it added, “In the midst of the earth?” For if this had not been added, and it had only been said, “To do judgment and justice,” this commandment would rather have pertained to both kinds of men,—both those dwelling inland and those on the sea-coast. But lest any one should think that, after the end of the life led in this body, there remains a time for doing judgment and justice which he has not done while he was in the flesh, and that the divine judgment can thus be escaped, “in the midst of the earth” appears to me to be said of the time when every one lives in the body; for in this life every one carries about his own earth, which, on a man’s dying, the common earth takes back, to be surely returned to him on his rising again. Therefore “in the midst of the earth,” that is, while our soul is shut up in this earthly body, judgment and justice are to be done, which shall be profitable for us hereafter, when “every one shall receive according to that he hath done in the body, whether good or bad.” For when the apostle there says “in the body,” he means in the time he has lived in the body. Yet if any one blaspheme with malicious mind and impious thought, without any member of his body being employed in it, he shall not therefore be guiltless because he has not done it with bodily motion, for he will have done it in that time which he has spent in the body. In the same way we may suitably understand what we read in the psalm, “But God, our King before the worlds, hath wrought salvation in the midst of the earth;” so that the Lord Jesus may be understood to be our God who is before the worlds, because by Him the worlds were made, working our salvation in the midst of the earth, for the Word was made flesh and dwelt in an earthly body.

> Latin: Hoc uotum potentissime uouerant. Sed unde hoc eis, nisi ab illo, de quo hic continuo dictum est: Dans uotum uouenti? Alioquin ex illis essent potentibus, quorum infirmatus est arcus. Dans, inquit, uotum uouenti. Non enim Domino quisquam quidquam rectum uoueret, nisi qui ab illo acciperet quod uoueret. Sequitur: Et benedixit annos iusti, ut cum illo scilicet sine fine uiuat, cui dictum est: Et anni tui non deficient. Ibi enim stant anni, hic autem transeunt, immo pereunt; antequam ueniant enim, non sunt; cum autem uenerint, non erunt, quia cum suo fine ueniunt. Horum autem duorum, id est dans uotum uouenti, et benedixit annos iusti, unum est quod facimus, alterum quod sumimus. Sed hoc alterum Deo largitore non sumitur. nisi cum ipso adiutore primum illud efficitur: Quia non in uirtute potens est uir. Dominus infirmum faciet aduersarium eius; illum scilicet, qui homini uouenti inuidet et resistit, ne ualeat inplere quod uouit. Potest ex ambiguo Graeco intellegi et aduersarium suum. Cum enim Dominus possidere nos coeperit, profecto aduersarius, qui noster fuerat, ipsius fit, et uincetur a nobis, sed non uiribus nostris, quia non in uirtute potens est uir. Dominus ergo infirmum faciet aduersarium suum, Dominus sanctus; ut uincatur a sanctis, quos Dominus sanctus sanctorum efficit sanctos. Ac per hoc non glorietur prudens in sua prudentia, et non glorietur potens in sua potentia, et non glorietur diues in diuitiis suis; sed in hoc glorietur, qui gloriatur, intellegere et scire Dominum et facere iudicium et iustitiam in medio terrae. Non parua ex parte intellegit et scit Dominum, qui intellegit et scit etiam hoc a Domino sibi dari, ut intellegat et sciat Dominum. Quid enim habes, ait apostolus, quod non accepisti? Si autem et accepisti, quid gloriaris, quasi non acceperis? id est, quasi a te ipso tibi sit, unde gloriaris. Facit autem iudicium et iustitiam, qui recte uiuit. Recte autem uiuit. qui obtemperat praecipienti Deo; et finis praecepti, id est, ad quod refertur praeceptum, caritas est de corde puro et conscientia bona et fide non ficta. Porro ista caritas, sicut Iohannes apostolus testatur, ex Deo est. Facere igitur iudicium et iustitiam ex Deo est. Sed quid est: In medio terrae? Neque enim non debent facere iudicium et iustitiam qui habitant in extremis terrae. Quis hoc dixerit? Quur ergo additum est: In medio terrae? Quod si non adderetur et tantummodo diceretur: Facere iudicium et iustitiam, magis hoc praeceptum ad utrosque homines pertineret, et mediterraneos et maritimos. Sed ne quisquam putaret post finem uitae, quae in hoc agitur corpore, superesse tempus iudicium iustitiamque faciendi, quam dum esset in carne non fecit, et sic diuinum euadi posse iudicium: in medio terrae mihi uidetur dictum ‘cum quisque uiuit in corpore’. In hac quippe uita suam terram quisque circumfert, quam moriente homine recipit terra communis, resurgenti utique redditura. Proinde in medio terrae, id est, cum anima nostra isto terreno clauditur corpore, faciendum est iudicium adque iustitia, quod nobis prosit in posterum, quando recipit quisque secundum ea, quae per corpus gessit, siue bonum siue malum. Per corpus quippe ibi diiit apostolus per tempus, quo uixit in corpore. Neque enim si quis maligna mente adque inpia cogitatione blasphemet neque id ullis membris corporis operetur, ideo non erit reus. quia id non motu corporis gessit, cum hoc per illud tempus gesserit, quo gessit et corpus. Isto modo congruenter intellegi potest etiam illud, quod in psalmo legitur: Deus autem rex noster ante saecula operatus est salutem in medio terrae; ut Dominus Iesus accipiatur Deus noster, qui est ante saecula, quia per ipsum facta sunt saecula, operatus salutem nostram in medio terrae, cum Verbum caro factum est et terreno habitauit in corpore.

[¶18] Then after Hannah has prophesied in these words, that he who glorieth ought to glory not in himself at all, but in the Lord, she says, on account of the retribution which is to come on the day of judgment, “The Lord hath ascended into the heavens, and hath thundered: He shall judge the ends of the earth, for He is righteous.” Throughout she holds to the order of the creed of Christians: For the Lord Christ has ascended into heaven, and is to come thence to judge the quick and dead. For, as saith the apostle, “Who hath ascended but He who hath also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up above all heavens, that He might fill all things.” Therefore He hath thundered through His clouds, which He hath filled with His Holy Spirit when He ascended up. Concerning which the bond maid Jerusalem—that is, the unfruitful vineyard—is threatened in Isaiah the prophet that they shall rain no showers upon her. But “He shall judge the ends of the earth” is spoken as if it had been said, “even the extremes of the earth.” For it does not mean that He shall not judge the other parts of the earth, who, without doubt, shall judge all men. But it is better to understand by the extremes of the earth the extremes of man, since those things shall not be judged which, in the middle time, are changed for the better or the worse, but the ending in which he shall be found who is judged. For which reason it is said, “He that shall persevere even unto the end, the same shall be saved.” He, therefore, who perseveringly does judgment and justice in the midst of the earth shall not be condemned when the extremes of the earth shall be judged. “And giveth,” she saith, “strength to our kings,” that He may not condemn them in judging. He giveth them strength whereby as kings they rule the flesh, and conquer the world in Him who hath poured out His blood for them. “And shall exalt the horn of His Christ.” How shall Christ exalt the horn of His Christ? For He of whom it was said above, “The Lord hath ascended into the heavens,” meaning the Lord Christ, Himself, as it is said here, “shall exalt the horn of His Christ.” Who, therefore, is the Christ of His Christ? Does it mean that He shall exalt the horn of each one of His believing people, as she says in the beginning of this hymn, “Mine horn is exalted in my God?” For we can rightly call all those christs who are anointed with His chrism, forasmuch as the whole body with its head is one Christ. These things hath Hannah, the mother of Samuel, the holy and much-praised man, prophesied, in which, indeed, the change of the ancient priesthood was then figured and is now fulfilled, since she that had many children is waxed feeble, that the barren who hath born seven might have the new priesthood in Christ.

> Latin: Deinde postea quam prophetatum est in his uerbis Annae, quo modo gloriari debeat, qui gloriatur, non in se utique, sed in Domino, propter retributionem, quae in die iudicii futura est: Dominus ascendit, inquit, in caelos et tonuit; ipse iudicabit extrema terrae, quia iustus est. Prorsus ordinem tenuit confessionis fidelium. Ascendit enim in caelum Dominus Christus, et inde uenturus est ad uiuos et mortuos iudicandos. Nam quis ascendit, sicut dicit apostolus, nisi qui et descendit in inferiores partes terrae? Qui descendit, ipse est et qui ascendit super omnes caelos, ut adinpleret omnia. Per nubes ergo suas tonuit, quas sancto Spiritu cum ascendisset inpleuit. De quibus ancillae Hierusalem, hoc est ingratae uineae, comminatus est aput Esaiam prophetam, ne pluant super eam imbrem. Sic autem dictum est: Ipse iudicabit extrema terrae, ac si diceretur: ‘Etiam extrema terrae.’ Non enim alias partes non iudicabit, qui omnes homines procul dubio iudicabit. Sed melius intelleguntur extrema terrae extrema hominis: quoniam non iudicabuntur, quae in melius uel in deterius medio tempore commutantur, sed in quibus extremis inuentus fuerit, qui iudicabitur. Propter quod dictum est: Qui perseuerauerit usque in finem, hic saluus erit. Qui ergo perseueranter facit iudicium et iustitiam in medio terrae, non damnabitur, cum iudicabuntur extrema terrae. Et dat, inquit, uirtutem regibus nostris; ut non eos iudicando condemnet. Dat eis uirtutem, qua carnem sicut reges regant et in illo mundum, qui propter eos fudit sanguinem, uincant. Et exaltabit cornu christi sui. Quo modo Christus exaltabit cornu christi sui? De quo enim supra dictum est: Dominus ascendit in caelos, et intellectus est Dominus Christus: ipse, sicut hic dicitur, exaltabit cornu christi sui. Quis ergo est christus Christi? An cornu exaltabit uniuscuiusque fidelis sui, sicut ista ipsa in principio huius hymni ait: Exaltatum est cornu meum in Deo meo? Omnes quippe unctos eius chrismate recte christos possumus dicere; quod tamen totum cum suo capite corpus unus est Christus. Haec Anna prophetauit, Samuelis mater, sancti uiri multumque laudati; in quo quidem tunc figurata est mutatio ueteris sacerdotii et nunc inpleta, quando infirmata est quae multa erat in filiis, ut nouum haberet in Christo sacerdotium sterilis, quae peperit septem.

## 82. Of Those Things Which a Man of God Spake by the Spirit to Eli the Priest, Signifying that the Priesthood Which Had Been Appointed According to Aaron Was to Be Taken Away.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/82/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/82/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 5.—Of Those Things Which a Man of God Spake by the Spirit to Eli the Priest, Signifying that the Priesthood Which Had Been Appointed According to Aaron Was to Be Taken Away.

> Latin: Caput V. De his, quae ad Heli sacerdotem homo Dei prophetico locutus est spiritu, significans sacerdotium, quod secundum Aaron institutum fuerat, auferendum.

[¶1] But this is said more plainly by a man of God sent to Eli the priest himself, whose name indeed is not mentioned, but whose office and ministry show him to have been indubitably a prophet. For it is thus written: “And there came a man of God unto Eli, and said, Thus saith the Lord, I plainly revealed myself unto thy father’s house, when they were in the land of Egypt slaves in Pharaoh’s house; and I chose thy father’s house out of all the sceptres of Israel to fill the office of priest for me, to go up to my altar, to burn incense and wear the ephod; and I gave thy father’s house for food all the offerings made by fire of the children of Israel. Wherefore then hast thou looked at mine incense and at mine offerings with an impudent eye, and hast glorified thy sons above me, to bless the first-fruits of every sacrifice in Israel before me? Therefore thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I said thy house and thy father’s house should walk before me for ever: but now the Lord saith, Be it far from me; for them that honor me will I honor, and he that despiseth me shall be despised. Behold, the days come, that I will cut off thy seed, and the seed of thy father’s house, and thou shalt never have an old man in my house. And I will cut off the man of thine from mine altar, so that his eyes shall be consumed, and his heart shall melt away; and every one of thy house that is left shall fall by the sword of men. And this shall be a sign unto thee that shall come upon these thy two sons, Hophni and Phinehas; in one day they shall die both of them. And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to all that is in mine heart and in my soul; and I will build him a sure house, and he shall walk before my Christ for ever. And it shall come to pass that he who is left in thine house shall come to worship him with a piece of money, saying, Put me into one part of thy priesthood, that I may eat bread.”

> Latin: Sed hoc euidentius ad ipsum Heli sacerdotem missus loquitur homo Dei, cuius quidem nomen tacetur, sed intellegitur officio ministerioque suo sine dubitatione propheta. Sic enim scriptum est: Et uenit homo Dei ad Heli et dixit: Haec dicit Dominus: Reuelatus reuelatus sum ad domum patris tui, cum essent in terra Aegypti serui in domo Pharao; et elegi domum patris tui ex omnibus sceptris Israel mihi sacerdotio fungi, ut ascenderent ad altare meum et incenderent incensum et portarent Ephod; et dedi domui patris tui omnia, quae sunt ignis filiorum Israel, in escam. Et ut quid respexisti in incensum meum et in sacrificium meum inpudenti oculo et glorificasti filios tuos super me, benedicere primitias omnis sacrificii in Israel in conspectu meo? Propter hoc haec dicit Dominus Deus Israel: Dixi: Domus tua et domus patris tui transibunt coram me usque in aeternum. Et nunc dicit Dominus: Nequaquam, sed glorificantes me glorificabo, et qui spernit me, spernetur. Ecce dies ueniunt, et exterminabo semen tuum et semen domus patris tui, et non erit tibi senior in domo mea omnibus diebus, et uirum exterminabo tibi ab altari meo, ut deficiant oculi eius et defluat anima eius; et omnis qui superauerit domus tuae, decident in gladio uirorum. Et hoc tibi signum. quod ueniet super duos filios tuos hos, Ophni et Phinees: una die morientur ambo. Et suscitabo mihi sacerdotem fidelem, qui omnia, quae in corde meo et quae in anima mea, faciat; et aedificabo ei domum fidelem, et transibit coram Christo meo omnibus diebus. Et erit, qui superauerit in domo tua, ueniet adorare ei obolo argenti dicens: lacta me in unam partem sacerdotii tui manducare panem.

[¶2] We cannot say that this prophecy, in which the change of the ancient priesthood is foretold with so great plainness, was fulfilled in Samuel; for although Samuel was not of another tribe than that which had been appointed by God to serve at the altar, yet he was not of the sons of Aaron, whose offspring was set apart that the priests might be taken out of it. And thus by that transaction also the same change which should come to pass through Christ Jesus is shadowed forth, and the prophecy itself in deed, not in word, belonged to the Old Testament properly, but figuratively to the New, signifying by the fact just what was said by the word to Eli the priest through the prophet. For there were afterwards priests of Aaron’s race, such as Zadok and Abiathar during David’s reign, and others in succession, before the time came when those things which were predicted so long before about the changing of the priesthood behoved to be fulfilled by Christ. But who that now views these things with a believing eye does not see that they are fulfilled? Since, indeed, no tabernacle, no temple, no altar, no sacrifice, and therefore no priest either, has remained to the Jews, to whom it was commanded in the law of God that he should be ordained of the seed of Aaron; which is also mentioned here by the prophet, when he says, “Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I said thy house and thy father’s house shall walk before me for ever: but now the Lord saith, That be far from me; for them that honor me will I honor, and he that despiseth me shall be despised.” For that in naming his father’s house he does not mean that of his immediate father, but that of Aaron, who first was appointed priest, to be succeeded by others descended from him, is shown by the preceding words, when he says, “I was revealed unto thy father’s house, when they were in the land of Egypt slaves in Pharaoh’s house; and I chose thy father’s house out of all the sceptres of Israel to fill the office of priest for me.” Which of the fathers in that Egyptian slavery, but Aaron, was his father, who, when they were set free, was chosen to the priesthood? It was of his lineage, therefore, he has said in this passage it should come to pass that they should no longer be priests; which already we see fulfilled. If faith be watchful, the things are before us: they are discerned, they are grasped, and are forced on the eyes of the unwilling, so that they are seen: “Behold the days come,” he says, “that I will cut off thy seed, and the seed of thy father’s house, and thou shall never have an old man in mine house. And I will cut off the man of thine from mine altar, so that his eyes shall be consumed and his heart shall melt away.” Behold the days which were foretold have already come. There is no priest after the order of Aaron; and whoever is a man of his lineage, when he sees the sacrifice of the Christians prevailing over the whole world, but that great honor taken away from himself, his eyes fail and his soul melts away consumed with grief.

> Latin: Non est ut dicatur ista prophetia, ubi sacerdotii ueteris tanta manifestatione praenuntiata mutatio est, in Samuele fuisse conpleta. (Quamquam enim non esset de alia tribu Samuel, quam quae constituta. fuerat a Domino, ut seruiret altari, tamen non erat de filiis Aaron, cuius progenies fuerat deputata, unde fierent sacerdotes; ac per hoc in ea quoque re gesta eadem mutatio quae per Christum legum futura fuerat, adumbrata est, et ad uetus testamentum proprie, figurate uero pertinebat ad nouum prophetia facti etiam ipsa, non uerbi, id scilicet facto significans, quod uerbo ad Heli sacerdotem dictum est per prophetam.) Nam fuerunt postea sacerdotes ex genere Aaron, sicut Sadoc et Abiathar, regnante Dauid, et alii deinceps, antequam tempus ueniret, quo ista, quae de sacerdotio mutando tanto ante praedicta sunt, effici per Christum oportebat. Quis autem nunc fideli oculo haec intuens non uideat esse conpleta? Quando quidem nullum tabernaculum, nullum templum, nullum altare, nullum sacrificium et ideo nec ullus sacerdos remansit ludaeis, quibus, ut de semine Aaron ordinaretur, in Dei fuerat lege mandatum. Quod et hic commemoratum est illo dicente propheta: Haec dicit Dominus Deus Israel: Dixi: Domus tua et domus patris tui transibunt coram me usque in aeternum. Et nunc dicit Dominus: Nequaquam, sed glorificantes me glorificabo, et qui me spernit, spernetur. Quod enim nominat domum patris eius, non eum de proximo patre dicere, sed de illo Aaron, qui primus sacerdos est institutus. de cuius progenie ceteri sequerentur, superiora demonstrant, ubi ait: Reuelatus sum ad domum patris tui, cum essent in terra Aegypti serui in domo Pharao, et elegi domum patris tui ex omnibus sceptris Israel mihi sacerdotio fungi. Quis patrum fuit huius in illa Aegyptia seruitute, unde cum liberati essent, electus est ad sacerdotium, nisi Aaron? De huius ergo stirpe isto loco dixit futurum fuisse, ut non essent ulterius sacerdotes; quod iam uidemus inpletum. Vigilet fides, praesto sunt res, cernuntur. tenentur et uidere nolentium oculis ingeruntur. Ecce, inquit. dies ueniunt, et exterminabo semen tuum et semen domus patris tui, et non erit tibi senior in domo mea omnibus diebus, et uirum exterminabo tibi ab altari meo, ut deficiant oculi eius et defluat anima eius. Ecce dies. qui praenuntiati sunt, iam uenerunt. Nullus sacerdos est secundum ordinem Aaron; et quicumque ex eius genere est homo. cum uidet sacrificium Christianorum toto orbe pollere, sibi autem honorem illum magnum esse subtractum, deficiunt oculi eius et defluit anima eius tabe maeroris.

[¶3] But what follows belongs properly to the house of Eli, to whom these things were said: “And every one of thine house that is left shall fall by the sword of men. And this shall be a sign unto thee that shall come upon these thy two sons, Hophni and Phinehas; in one day they shall die both of them.” This, therefore, is made a sign of the change of the priesthood from this man’s house, by which it is signified that the priesthood of Aaron’s house is to be changed. For the death of this man’s sons signified the death not of the men, but of the priesthood itself of the sons of Aaron. But what follows pertains to that Priest whom Samuel typified by succeeding this one. Therefore the things which follow are said of Christ Jesus, the true Priest of the New Testament: “And I will raise me up a faithful Priest that shall do according to all that is in mine heart and in my soul; and I will build Him a sure house.” The same is the eternal Jerusalem above. “And He shall walk,” saith He, “before my Christ always.” “He shall walk” means “he shall be conversant with,” just as He had said before of Aaron’s house, “I said that thine house and thy father’s house shall walk before me for ever.” But what He says, “He shall walk before my Christ,” is to be understood entirely of the house itself, not of the priest, who is Christ Himself, the Mediator and Saviour. His house, therefore, shall walk before Him. “Shall walk” may also be understood to mean from death to life, all the time this mortality passes through, even to the end of this world. But where God says, “Who will do all that is in mine heart and in my soul,” we must not think that God has a soul, for He is the Author of souls; but this is said of God tropically, not properly, just as He is said to have hands and feet, and other corporal members. And, lest it should be supposed from such language that man in the form of this flesh is made in the image of God, wings also are ascribed to Him, which man has not at all; and it is said to God, “Hide me under the shadow of Thy wings,” that men may understand that such things are said of that ineffable nature not in proper but in figurative words.

> Latin: Proprie autem ad huius domum Heli, cui haec dicebantur, quod sequitur pertinet: Et omnia qui superauerit domus tuae, decident in gladio uirorum. Et hoc tibi signum, quod ueniet super duos filios tuos hos, Ophni et Phinees: die uno morientur ambo. Hoc ergo signum factum est mutandi sacerdotii de domo huius. quo signo significatum est mutandum sacerdotium domus Aaron. Mors quippe filiorum huius significauit mortem non hominum, sed ipsius sacerdotii de filiis Aaron. Quod autem sequitur, ad illum iam pertinet sacerdotem, cuius figuram gessit huic succedendo Samuel. Proinde quae sequuntur, de Christo Iesu noui testamenti uero sacerdote dicuntur: Et suscitabo mihi sacerdotem fidelem, qui omnia quae in corde meo et quae in anima mea faciat; et aedificabo ei domum fidelem. Ipsa est aeterna et superna Hierusalem. Et transibit, inquit, coram Christo meo omnibus diebus. Transibit dixit […] sicut superius dixerat de domo Aaron: Dixi: Domus tua et domus patris tui transibunt coram me in aeternum. Quod autem ait: Coram Christo meo transibit, de ipsa domo utique intellegendum est, non de illo sacerdote, qui est Christus ipse mediator adque saluator. Domus ergo eius coram illo transibit. Potest et transibit intellegi de morte ad uitam, omnibus diebus, quibus peragitur usque in finem saeculi huius ista mortalitas. Quod autem ait Deus: Qui omnia quae in corde meo et quae in anima mea faciat: non arbitremur habere animam Deum, cum sit conditor animae; sed ita hoc de Deo tropice, non proprie dicitur, sicut manus et pes et alia corporis membra. Et ne secundum hoc credatur homo in carnis huius effigie factus ad imaginem Dei, adduntur et alae, quas utique non habet homo, et dicitur Deo: Sub umbra alarum tuarum proteges me; ut intellegant homines de illa ineffabili natura, non propriis, sed translatis rerum uocabulis ista dici.

[¶4] But what is added, “And it shall come to pass that he who is left in thine house shall come to worship him,” is not said properly of the house of this Eli, but of that Aaron, the men of which remained even to the advent of Jesus Christ, of which race there are not wanting men even to this present. For of that house of Eli it had already been said above, “And every one of thine house that is left shall fall by the sword of men.” How, therefore, could it be truly said here, “And it shall come to pass that every one that is left shall come to worship him,” if that is true, that no one shall escape the avenging sword, unless he would have it understood of those who belong to the race of that whole priesthood after the order of Aaron? Therefore, if it is of these the predestinated remnant, about whom another prophet has said, “The remnant shall be saved;” whence the apostle also says, “Even so then at this time also the remnant according to the election of grace is saved;” since it is easily understood to be of such a remnant that it is said, “He that is left in thine house,” assuredly he believes in Christ; just as in the time of the apostle very many of that nation believed; nor are there now wanting those, although very few, who yet believe, and in them is fulfilled what this man of God has here immediately added, “He shall come to worship him with a piece of money;” to worship whom, if not that Chief Priest, who is also God? For in that priesthood after the order of Aaron men did not come to the temple or altar of God for the purpose of worshipping the priest. But what is that he says, “With a piece of money,” if not the short word of faith, about which the apostle quotes the saying, “A consummating and shortening word will the Lord make upon the earth?” But that money is put for the word the psalm is a witness, where it is sung, “The words of the Lord are pure words, money tried with the fire.”

> Latin: Quod uero adiungitur: Et erit, qui superauerit in domo tua, ueniet adorare ei, non proprie de domo dicitur huius Heli. sed illius Aaron, de qua usque ad aduentum Iesu Christi homines remanserunt, de quo genere etiam nunc usquenon desunt. Nam de illa domo huius Heli iam supra dictum erat: Et omnis qui superauerit domus tuae, decident in gladio uirorum. Quo modo ergo hic uere dici potuit: Et erit, qui superauerit in domo tua, ueniet adorare ei, si illud est uerum, quod ultore gladio nemo inde superarit? nisi quia illos intellegi uoluit, qui pertinent ad stirpem, sed illius totius sacerdotii secundum ordinem Aaron. Ergo si de illis est praedestinatis reliquiis, de quibus alius propheta dixit: Reliquiae saluae fient (unde et apostolus: Sic ergo, inquit, et in hoc tempore reliquiae per electionem gratiae factae sunt), quia de talibus reliquiis bene intellegitur esse, de quo dictum est: Qui superauerit in domo tua: profecto credit in Christum; sicut temporibus apostolorum ex ipsa gente plurimi crediderunt, neque nunc desunt, qui, licet rarissime, tamen credant; et inpletur in eo quod hic iste homo Dei continuo secutus adiunxit: Veniet adorare ei obolo argenti. Cui adorare, nisi summo illi sacerdoti, qui et Deus est? Neque enim in illo sacerdotio secundum ordinem Aaron ad hoc ueniebant homines ad templum uel altare Dei, ut sacerdotem adorarent. Quid est autem quod ait: Obolo argenti, nisi breuitate uerbi fidei, de quo commemorat apostolus dictum: Verbum consummans et breuians faciet Dominus super terram? Argentum autem pro eloquio poni psalmus testis est, ubi canitur: Eloquia Domini eloquia casta, argentum igne examinatum.

[¶5] What then does he say who comes to worship the priest of God, even the Priest who is God? “Put me into one part of Thy priesthood, to eat bread.” I do not wish to be set in the honor of my fathers, which is none; put me in a part of Thy priesthood. For “I have chosen to be mean in Thine house;” I desire to be a member, no matter what, or how small, of Thy priesthood. By the priesthood he here means the people itself, of which He is the Priest who is the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. This people the Apostle Peter calls “a holy people, a royal priesthood.” But some have translated, “Of Thy sacrifice,” not “Of Thy priesthood,” which no less signifies the same Christian people. Whence the Apostle Paul says, “We being many are one bread, one body.” [And again he says, “Present your bodies a living sacrifice.”] What, therefore, he has added, to “eat bread,” also elegantly expresses the very kind of sacrifice of which the Priest Himself says, “The bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” The same is the sacrifice not after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchisedec: let him that readeth understand. Therefore this short and salutarily humble confession, in which it is said, “Put me in a part of Thy priesthood, to eat bread,” is itself the piece of money, for it is both brief, and it is the Word of God who dwells in the heart of one who believes. For because He had said above, that He had given for food to Aaron’s house the sacrificial victims of the Old Testament, where He says, “I have given thy father’s house for food all things which are offered by fire of the children of Israel,” which indeed were the sacrifices of the Jews; therefore here He has said, “To eat bread,” which is in the New Testament the sacrifice of the Christians.

> Latin: Quid ergo dicit iste, qui uenit adorare sacerdoti Dei et sacerdoti Deo? Iacta me in partem sacerdotii tui, manducare panem. Nolo in patrum meorum conlocari honore, qui nullus est; iacta me in partem sacerdotii tui. Elegi enim abiectus esse in domo Dei; qualecumque et quantulumcumque membrum esse cupio sacerdotii tui. Sacerdotium quippe hic ipsam plebem dicit, cuius plebis ille sacerdos est mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus. Cui plebi dicit apostolus Petrus: Plebs sancta, regale sacerdotium. Quamuis nonnulli ‘sacrificii tui’ sint interpretati, non (sacerdotii tui’; quod nihilo minus eundem significat populum Christianum. Unde dicit apostolus Paulus: Unus panis, unum corpus multi sumus. Quod ergo addidit: Manducare panem, etiam ipsum sacrificii genus eleganter expressit, de quo dicit sacerdos ipse: Panis, quem egdedero, caro mea est pro saeculi uita. Ipsum est sacrificium; non secundum ordinem Aaron, sed secundum ordinem Melchisedech, qui legit, intellegat. Breuis itaque ista confessio et salubriter humilis, qua dicitur: Iacta me in partem sacerdotii tui manducare panem; ipse est obolus argenti, quia et breue est et eloquium Domini est habitantis in corde credentis. Quia enim dixerat superius, dedisse se cibos domui Aaron de uictimis ueteris testamenti, ubi ait: Dedi domui patris tui omnia, quae sunt ignis filiorum Israel, in escam (haec quippe fuerant sacrificia Iudaeorum): ideo hic dixit: Manducare panem, quod est in nouo testamento sacrificium Christianorum.

### Of the Jewish Priesthood and Kingdom, Which, Although Promised to Be Established for Ever, Did Not Continue; So that Other Things are to Be Understood to Which Eternity is Assured.

[¶7] Chapter 6.—Of the Jewish Priesthood and Kingdom, Which, Although Promised to Be Established for Ever, Did Not Continue; So that Other Things are to Be Understood to Which Eternity is Assured.

> Latin: Caput VI. De Iudaico sacerdotio et regno, quae cum in aeternum dicantur statuta, non permanent. ut alia intellegantur, quorum spondetur aeternitas.

[¶8] While, therefore, these things now shine forth as clearly as they were loftily foretold, still some one may not vainly be moved to ask, How can we be confident that all things are to come to pass which are predicted in these books as about to come, if this very thing which is there divinely spoken, “Thine house and thy father’s house shall walk before me for ever,” could not have effect? For we see that priesthood has been changed; and there can be no hope that what was promised to that house may some time be fulfilled, because that which succeeds on its being rejected and changed is rather predicted as eternal. He who says this does not yet understand, or does not recollect, that this very priesthood after the order of Aaron was appointed as the shadow of a future eternal priesthood; and therefore, when eternity is promised to it, it is not promised to the mere shadow and figure, but to what is shadowed forth and prefigured by it. But lest it should be thought the shadow itself was to remain, therefore its mutation also behoved to be foretold.

> Latin: Cum igitur haec tanta tunc altitudine praenuntiata sint, tanta nunc manifestatione clarescant, non frustra tamen moueri quispiam potest ac dicere: Quo modo confidimus uenire omnia, quae in libris illis uentura praedicta sunt, si hoc ipsum, quod ibi diuinitus dictum est: Domus tua et domus patris tui transibunt coram meinaeternum, effectum habere non potuit? quoniam uidemus illud sacerdotium fuisse mutatum, et quod illi domui promissum est. nec sperari aliquando conplendum, quia illud, quod ei reprobato mutatoque succedit, hoc potius praedicatur aeternum. Hoc qui dicit, nondum intellegit aut non recolit etiam ipsum secundum ordinem Aaron sacerdotium tamquam umbram futuri aeterni sacerdotii constitutum; ac per hoc, quando aeternitas ei promissa est, non ipsi umbrae ac figurae, sed ei, quod per ipsam adumbrabatur figurabaturque, promissum est. Sed ne putaretur ipsa umbra esse mansura, ideo etiam mutatio eius debuit prophetari.

[¶9] In this way, too, the kingdom of Saul himself, who certainly was reprobated and rejected, was the shadow of a kingdom yet to come which should remain to eternity. For, indeed, the oil with which he was anointed, and from that chrism he is called Christ, is to be taken in a mystical sense, and is to be understood as a great mystery; which David himself venerated so much in him, that he trembled with smitten heart when, being hid in a dark cave, which Saul also entered when pressed by the necessity of nature, he had come secretly behind him and cut off a small piece of his robe, that he might be able to prove how he had spared him when he could have killed him, and might thus remove from his mind the suspicion through which he had vehemently persecuted the holy David, thinking him his enemy. Therefore he was much afraid lest he should be accused of violating so great a mystery in Saul, because he had thus meddled even his clothes. For thus it is written: “And David’s heart smote him because he had taken away the skirt of his cloak.” But to the men with him, who advised him to destroy Saul thus delivered up into his hands, he saith, “The Lord forbid that I should do this thing to my lord, the Lord’s christ, to lay my hand upon him, because he is the Lord’s christ.” Therefore he showed so great reverence to this shadow of what was to come, not for its own sake, but for the sake of what it prefigured. Whence also that which Samuel says to Saul, “Since thou hast not kept my commandment which the Lord commanded thee, whereas now the Lord would have prepared thy kingdom over Israel for ever, yet now thy kingdom shall not continue for thee; and the Lord will seek Him a man after His own heart, and the Lord will command him to be prince over His people, because thou hast not kept that which the Lord commanded thee,” is not to be taken as if God had settled that Saul himself should reign for ever, and afterwards, on his sinning, would not keep this promise; nor was He ignorant that he would sin, but He had established his kingdom that it might be a figure of the eternal kingdom. Therefore he added, “Yet now thy kingdom shall not continue for thee.” Therefore what it signified has stood and shall stand; but it shall not stand for this man, because he himself was not to reign for ever, nor his offspring; so that at least that word “for ever” might seem to be fulfilled through his posterity one to another. “And the Lord,” he saith, “will seek Him a man,” meaning either David or the Mediator of the New Testament, who was figured in the chrism with which David also and his offspring was anointed. But it is not as if He knew not where he was that God thus seeks Him a man, but, speaking through a man, He speaks as a man, and in this sense seeks us. For not only to God the Father, but also to His Only-begotten, who came to seek what was lost, we had been known already even so far as to be chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. “He will seek Him” therefore means, He will have His own (just as if He had said, Whom He already has known to be His own He will show to others to be His friend). Whence in Latin this word (quærit) receives a preposition and becomes acquirit (acquires), the meaning of which is plain enough; although even without the addition of the preposition quærere is understood as acquirere, whence gains are called quæstus.

> Latin: Regnum quoque isto modo etiam Saulis ipsius, qui certe reprobatus adque reiectus est, futuri regni erat umbra in aeternitate mansuri. Oleum quippe illud, quo unctus est et ab eo chrismate christus est dictus, mystice accipiendum et magnum sacramentum intellegendum est; quod in eo tantum ueneratus est ipse Dauid, ut percusso corde pauitauerit, quando in tenebroso occultatus antro, quo etiam Saul urgente intrauerat necessitate naturae, exiguam particulam uestis eius retrorsum latenter abscidit, ut haberet unde monstraret, quo modo ei pepercerit, cum posset occidere, adque ita suspicionem de animo eius, qua sanctum Dauid putans inimicum suum uehementer persequebatur, auferret. Ne itaque reus esset tanti sacramenti in Saule uiolati, quia uel indumentum eius sic adtrectauit, extimuit. Ita enim scriptum est: Et percussit cor Dauid super eum, quia abstulit pinnulam chlamydis eius. Viris autem, qui cum illo erant et, ut Saulem in manus suas traditum interimeret, suadebant: Non mihi, inquit, contingat a Domino, si fecero hoc uerbum domino meo christo Domini, inferre manum meam super eum; quia christus Domini est hic. Huic ergo umbrae futuri non propter ipsam, sed propter illud, quod praefigurabat, tanta ueneratio exhibebatur. Unde et illud, quod ait Sauli Samuel: Quoniam non seruasti mandatum meum, quod mandauit tibi Dominus, quem ad modum nunc parauerat Dominus regnum tuum usque in aeternum super Israel: et nunc regnum tuum non stabit tibi, et quaeret Dominus sibi hominem secundum cor suum, et mandabit ei Dominus esse in principem super populum suum; quia non custodisti quae mandauit tibi Dominus, non sic accipiendum est, ac si ipsum Saulem Deus in aeternum praeparauerit regnaturum, et hoc postea noluerit seruare peccanti (neque enim eum peccaturum esse nesciebat); sed praeparauerat regnum eius, in quo figura regni esset aeterni. Ideo addidit: Et nunc regnum tuum non stabit tibi. Stetit ergo et stabit, quod in illo significatum est; sed non huic stabit, quia non in aeternum ipse fuerat regnaturus, nec progenies eius, ut saltem per posteros alterum alteri succedentes uideretur inpleri quod dictum est: In aeternum. Et quaeret, inquit, Dominus sibi hominem; siue Dauid siue ipsum Mediatorem significans testamenti noui, qui figurabatur in chrismate etiam, quo unctus est ipse Dauid et progenies eius. Non autem quasi nesciat ubi sit, ita sibi hominem Deus quaerit; sed per hominem more hominum loquitur, quia et sic loquendo nos quaerit. Non solum enim Deo Patri. uerum ipsi quoque Unigenito eius, qui uenit quaerere quod perierat, usque adeo iam eramus noti, ut in ipso essemus electi ante constitutionem mundi. Quaeret sibi ergo dixit ‘suum habebit’. Unde in Latina lingua hoc uerbum accipit praepositionem et Cadquirit) dicitur; quod satis apertum est quid significet. Quamquam et sine additamento praepositionis quaerere intellegatur adquirere; ex quo lucra uocantur et quaestus.

### Of the Disruption of the Kingdom of Israel, by Which the Perpetual Division of the Spiritual from the Carnal Israel Was Prefigured.

[¶11] Chapter 7.—Of the Disruption of the Kingdom of Israel, by Which the Perpetual Division of the Spiritual from the Carnal Israel Was Prefigured.

> Latin: Caput VII. De disruptione regni Israelitici, qua praefiguratur perpetua diuisio Israelis spiritalis ab Israele carnali.

[¶12] Again Saul sinned through disobedience, and again Samuel says to him in the word of the Lord, “Because thou hast despised the word of the Lord, the Lord hath despised thee, that thou mayest not be king over Israel.” And again for the same sin, when Saul confessed it, and prayed for pardon, and besought Samuel to return with him to appease the Lord, he said, “I will not return with thee: for thou hast despised the word of the Lord, and the Lord will despise thee that thou mayest not be king over Israel. And Samuel turned his face to go away, and Saul laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and rent it. And Samuel said unto him, The Lord hath rent the kingdom from Israel out of thine hand this day, and will give it to thy neighbor, who is good above thee, and will divide Israel in twain. And He will not be changed, neither will He repent: for He is not as a man, that He should repent; who threatens and does not persist.” He to whom it is said, “The Lord will despise thee that thou mayest not be king over Israel,” and “The Lord hath rent the kingdom from Israel out of thine hand this day,” reigned forty years over Israel,—that is, just as long a time as David himself,—yet heard this in the first period of his reign, that we may understand it was said because none of his race was to reign, and that we may look to the race of David, whence also is sprung, according to the flesh, the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

> Latin: Rursus peccauit Saul per inoboedientiam, et rursus Samuel in uerbo Domini ait illi: Quia spreuisti uerbum Domini. spreuit te Dominus, ut non sis rex super Israel. Et rursus pro eodem peccato, cum id confiteretur Saul et ueniam precaretur rogaretque Samuelem, ut reuerteretur cum illo ad placandum Deum: Non reuertar, inquit, tecum; quia spreuisti uerbum Domini, et spernet te Dominus, ne sis rex super Israel. Et conuertit Samuel faciem suam, ut abiret; et tenuit Saul pinnulam diploidis eius et disrupit eam. Et dixit ad eum Samuel: Disrupit Dominus regnum ab Israel de manu tua hodie et dabit proximo tuo bono super te, et diuidetur Israel in duo; et non conuertetur neque paenitebit eum; quoniam non est sicut homo, ut paeniteat eum; ipse minatur, et non permanet. Iste, cui dicitur: Spernet te Dominus, ne sis rex super Israel, et: Disrupit Dominus regnum ab Israel de manu tua hodie, quadraginta regnauit annos super Israel, tanto scilicet spatio temporis, quanto et ipse Dauid, et audiuit hoc primo tempore regni sui; ut intellegamus ideo dictum, quia nullus de stirpe eius fuerat regnaturus, et respiciamus ad stirpem Dauid, unde exortus est secundum carnem mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus.

[¶13] But the Scripture has not what is read in most Latin copies, “The Lord hath rent the kingdom of Israel out of thine hand this day,” but just as we have set it down it is found in the Greek copies, “The Lord hath rent the kingdom from Israel out of thine hand;” that the words “out of thine hand” may be understood to mean “from Israel.” Therefore this man figuratively represented the people of Israel, which was to lose the kingdom, Christ Jesus our Lord being about to reign, not carnally, but spiritually. And when it is said of Him, “And will give it to thy neighbor,” that is to be referred to the fleshly kinship, for Christ, according to the flesh, was of Israel, whence also Saul sprang. But what is added, “Good above thee,” may indeed be understood, “Better than thee,” and indeed some have thus translated it; but it is better taken thus, “Good above thee,” as meaning that because He is good, therefore He must be above thee, according to that other prophetic saying, “Till I put all Thine enemies under Thy feet.” And among them is Israel, from whom, as His persecutor, Christ took away the kingdom; although the Israel in whom there was no guile may have been there too, a sort of grain, as it were, of that chaff. For certainly thence came the apostles, thence so many martyrs, of whom Stephen is the first, thence so many churches, which the Apostle Paul names, magnifying God in their conversion.

> Latin: Non autem habet scriptura, quod in plerisque Latinis codicibus legitur: Disrupit Dominus regnum Israel de manu tua; sed sicut a nobis positum est inuentum in Graecis: Disrupit Dominus regnum ab Israel de manu tua; ut hoc intellegatur de manu tua, quod est ab Israel. Populi ergo Israel personam figurate gerebat homo iste, qui populus regnum fuerat amissurus, Christo Iesu Domino nostro per nouum testamentum non carnaliter, sed spiritaliter regnaturo. De quo cum dicitur: Et dabit illud proximo tuo, ad carnis cognationem id refertur; ex Israel enim Christus secundum camem, unde et Saul. Quod uero additum est: bono super te, potest quidem intellegi (meliori te’; nam et quidam sic sunt interpretati; sed melius sic accipitur bono super te, ut, quia ille bonus est, ideo sit super te, iuxta illud aliud propheticum: Donec ponam omnes inimicos tuos sub pedibus tuis; in quibus est et Israel, cui suo persecutori regnum abstulit Christus; quamuis fuerit illic et Israel. in quo dolus non erat, quoddam quasi frumentum illarum palearum; nam utique inde erant apostoli, inde tot martyres, quorum prior Stephanus: inde tot ecclesiae, quas apostolus Paulus commemorat, in conuersione eius magnificantes Deum. De qua re non dubito intellegendum esse quod sequitur: Et diuidetur Israel in duo, in Israel scilicet inimicum Christo et Israel adhaerentem Christo, in Israel ad ancillam et Israel ad liberam pertinentem.

[¶14] Of which thing I do not doubt what follows is to be understood, “And will divide Israel in twain,” to wit, into Israel pertaining to the bond woman, and Israel pertaining to the free. For these two kinds were at first together, as Abraham still clave to the bond woman, until the barren, made fruitful by the grace of God, cried, “Cast out the bond woman and her son.” We know, indeed, that on account of the sin of Solomon, in the reign of his son Rehoboam, Israel was divided in two, and continued so, the separate parts having their own kings, until that whole nation was overthrown with a great destruction, and carried away by the Chaldeans. But what was this to Saul, when, if any such thing was threatened, it would be threatened against David himself, whose son Solomon was? Finally, the Hebrew nation is not now divided internally, but is dispersed through the earth indiscriminately, in the fellowship of the same error. But that division with which God threatened the kingdom and people in the person of Saul, who represented them, is shown to be eternal and unchangeable by this which is added, “And He will not be changed, neither will He repent: for He is not as a man, that He should repent; who threatens and does not persist,”—that is, a man threatens and does not persist, but not God, who does not repent like man. For when we read that He repents, a change of circumstance is meant, flowing from the divine immutable foreknowledge. Therefore, when God is said not to repent, it is to be understood that He does not change.

> Latin: Nam ista duo genera primum simul erant, uelut Abraham adhuc adhaereret ancillae. donec sterilis per Christi gratiam fecundata clamaret: Eice ancillam et filium eius. Propter peccatum quidem Salomonis regnante filio eius Roboam scimus Israel in duo fuisse diuisum adque ita perseuerasse, habentibus singulis partibus reges suos, donec illa gens tota a Chaldaeis esset ingenti uastatione subuersa adque translata. Sed hoc quid ad Saulem, cum, si tale aliquid comminandum esset, ipsi Dauid fuerit potius comminandum, cuius erat filius Salomon? Postremo nunc inter se gens Hebraea diuisa non est, sed indifferenter in eiusdem erroris societate dispersa per terras. Diuisio uero illa, quam Deus sub persona Saulis, illius regni et populi figuram gerentis, eidem regno populoque minatus est, aeterna adque inmutabilis significata est per hoc, quod adiunctum est: Et non conuertetur neque paenitebit eum; quoniam non est sicut homo, ut paeniteat eum; ipse minatur, et non permanet; id est, homo minatur, et non permanet: non autem Deus, quem non paenitet, sicut hominem. Ubi enim legitur, quod paeniteat eum, mutatio rerum significatur, inmutabili praescientia manente diuina. Ubi ergo non paenitere dicitur, non mutare intellegitur.

[¶15] We see that this sentence concerning this division of the people of Israel, divinely uttered in these words, has been altogether irremediable and quite perpetual. For whoever have turned, or are turning, or shall turn thence to Christ, it has been according to the foreknowledge of God, not according to the one and the same nature of the human race. Certainly none of the Israelites, who, cleaving to Christ, have continued in Him, shall ever be among those Israelites who persist in being His enemies even to the end of this life, but shall for ever remain in the separation which is here foretold. For the Old Testament, from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, profiteth nothing, unless because it bears witness to the New Testament. Otherwise, however long Moses is read, the veil is put over their heart; but when any one shall turn thence to Christ, the veil shall be taken away. For the very desire of those who turn is changed from the old to the new, so that each no longer desires to obtain carnal but spiritual felicity. Wherefore that great prophet Samuel himself, before he had anointed Saul, when he had cried to the Lord for Israel, and He had heard him, and when he had offered a whole burnt-offering, as the aliens were coming to battle against the people of God, and the Lord thundered above them and they were confused, and fell before Israel and were overcome; [then] he took one stone and set it up between the old and new Massephat [Mizpeh], and called its name Ebenezer, which means “the stone of the helper,” and said, “Hitherto hath the Lord helped us.” Massephat is interpreted “desire.” That stone of the helper is the mediation of the Saviour, by which we go from the old Massephat to the new,—that is, from the desire with which carnal happiness was expected in the carnal kingdom to the desire with which the truest spiritual happiness is expected in the kingdom of heaven; and since nothing is better than that, the Lord helpeth us hitherto.

> Latin: Prorsus insolubilem uidemus per haec uerba prolatam diuinitus fuisse sententiam de ista diuisione populi Israel et omnino perpetuam. Quicumque enim ad Christum transierunt uel transeunt uel transibunt inde, non erant inde secundum Dei praescientiam, non secundum generis humani unam eandemque naturam. Prorsus quicumque ex Israelitis adhaerentes Christo perseuerant in illo, numquam erunt cum eis Israelitis, qui eius inimici usque in finem uitae huius esse persistunt; sed in diuisione, quae hic praenuntiata est, perpetuo permanebunt. Nihil enim prodest testamentum uetus de monte Sina in seruitutem generans, nisi quia testimonium perhibet testamento nouo. Alioquin, quamdiu legitur Moyses, uelamen super corda eorum positura est; cum autem inde quisque transierit ad Christum, auferetur uelamen. Transeuntium quippe intentio ipsa mutatur de uetere ad nouum, ut iam non quisque intendat accipere carnalem, sed spiritalem felicitatem. Propter quod ipse magnus propheta Samuel, antequam unxisset regem Saul, quando exclamauit ad Dominum pro Israel, et exaudiuit eum, et, cum offerret holocaustosim, accedentibus alienigenis ad pugnam contra populum Dei tonuit Dominus super eos, et confusi sunt et offenderunt coram Israel adque superati sunt: adsumsit lapidem unum et statuit illum inter Massephat nouam et ueterem, et uocauit nomen eius Abennezer, quod est Latine lapis adiutoris, et dixit: Usque hoc adiuuit nos Dominus. Massephat interpretatur intentio. Lapis ille adiutoris medietas est Saluatoris. per quem transeundum est a Massephat uetere ad nonam, id est ab intentione, qua exspectabatur in carnali regno beatitudo falsa carnalis, ad intentionem, qua per nouum testamentum exspectatur in regno caelorum beatitudo uerissima spiritalis; qua quoniam nihil est melius, huc usque adiuuat Deus.

### Of the Promises Made to David in His Son, Which are in No Wise Fulfilled in Solomon, But Most Fully in Christ.

[¶17] Chapter 8.—Of the Promises Made to David in His Son, Which are in No Wise Fulfilled in Solomon, But Most Fully in Christ.

> Latin: Caput VIII. De promissionibus ad Dauid in filio eius, quae nullatenus in Salomone, sed plenissime inueniuntur in Christo.

[¶18] And now I see I must show what, pertaining to the matter I treat of, God promised to David himself, who succeeded Saul in the kingdom, whose change prefigured that final change on account of which all things were divinely spoken, all things were committed to writing. When many things had gone prosperously with king David, he thought to make a house for God, even that temple of most excellent renown which was afterwards built by king Solomon his son. While he was thinking of this, the word of the Lord came to Nathan the prophet, which he brought to the king, in which, after God had said that a house should not be built unto Him by David himself, and that in all that long time He had never commanded any of His people to build Him a house of cedar, he says, “And now thus shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus saith God Almighty, I took thee from the sheep-cote that thou mightest be for a ruler over my people in Israel: and I was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies from before thy face, and have made thee a name, according to the name of the great ones who are over the earth. And I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant him, and he shall dwell apart, and shall be troubled no more; and the son of wickedness shall not humble him any more, as from the beginning, from the days when I appointed judges over my people Israel. And I will give thee rest from all thine enemies, and the Lord will tell [hath told] thee, because thou shall build an house for Him. And it shall come to pass when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shall sleep with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will prepare his kingdom. He shall build me an house for my name; and I will order his throne even to eternity. I will be his Father, and he shall be my son. And if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the sons of men: but my mercy I will not take away from him, as I took it away from those whom I put away from before my face. And his house shall be faithful, and his kingdom even for evermore before me, and his throne shall be set up even for evermore.”

> Latin: Iam nunc uideo esse monstrandum, quid ipsi Dauid. qui Sauli successit in regnum, cuius mutatione finalis illa mutatio figurata est, propter quam diuinitus cuncta dicta, cuncta conscripta sunt, Deus promiserit, quod ad rem de qua agimus pertinet. Cum regi Dauid multa prospera prouenissent, cogitauit facere Deo domum, templum illud scilicet excellentissime diffamatum, quod a rege Salomone filio eius postea fabricatum est. Hoc eo cogitante factum est uerbum Dei ad Nathan prophetam, quod perferret ad regem. Ubi cum dixisset Deus, quod non ab ipso Dauid sibi aedificaretur domus. neque per tantum tempus se mandasse cuiquam in populo suo, ut sibi fieret domus cedrina: Et nunc, inquit, haec dices seruo meo Dauid: Haec dicit Dominus omnipotens: Accepi te de ouili ouium, ut esses in ducem super populum meum super Israel, et eram tecum in omnibus quibus ingrediebaris, et exterminaui omnes inimicos tuos a facie tua, et feci te nominatum secundum nomen magnorum, qui sunt super terram; et ponam locum populo meo Israel, et plantabo illum. et inhabitabit seorsum, et non sollicitus erit ultra; et non adponet filius iniquitatis humiliare eum, sicut ab initio a diebus, quibus constitui iudices super populum meum Israel; et requiem tibi dabo ab omnibus inimicis tuis, et nuntiabit tibi Dominus, quoniam domum aedificabis ipsi. Et erit, cum repleti fuerint dies tui, et dormies cum patribus tuis, et suscitabo semen tuum post te, qui erit de uentre tuo, et praeparabo regnum eius. Hic aedificabit mihi domum nomini meo, et dirigam thronum illius usque in aeternum. Ego ero illi in patrem, et ille erit mihi in filium. Et si uenerit iniquitas eius, redarguam illum in uirga uirorum et in tactibus filiorum hominum; misericordiam autem meam non amoueam ab eo, sicut amoui, a quibus amoui faciem meam; et fidelis erit domus eius et regnum eius usque in aeternum coram me, et thronus eius erit erectus usque in aeternum.

[¶19] He who thinks this grand promise was fulfilled in Solomon greatly errs; for he attends to the saying, “He shall build me an house,” but he does not attend to the saying, “His house shall be faithful, and his kingdom for evermore before me.” Let him therefore attend and behold the house of Solomon full of strange women worshipping false gods, and the king himself, aforetime wise, seduced by them, and cast down into the same idolatry: and let him not dare to think that God either promised this falsely, or was unable to foreknow that Solomon and his house would become what they did. But we ought not to be in doubt here, or to see the fulfillment of these things save in Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, lest we should vainly and uselessly look for some other here, like the carnal Jews. For even they understand this much, that the son whom they read of in that place as promised to David was not Solomon; so that, with wonderful blindness to Him who was promised and is now declared with so great manifestation, they say they hope for another. Indeed, even in Solomon there appeared some image of the future event, in that he built the temple, and had peace according to his name (for Solomon means “pacific”), and in the beginning of his reign was wonderfully praiseworthy; but while, as a shadow of Him that should come, he foreshowed Christ our Lord, he did not also in his own person resemble Him. Whence some things concerning him are so written as if they were prophesied of himself, while the Holy Scripture, prophesying even by events, somehow delineates in him the figure of things to come. For, besides the books of divine history, in which his reign is narrated, the 72d Psalm also is inscribed in the title with his name, in which so many things are said which cannot at all apply to him, but which apply to the Lord Christ with such evident fitness as makes it quite apparent that in the one the figure is in some way shadowed forth, but in the other the truth itself is presented. For it is known within what bounds the kingdom of Solomon was enclosed; and yet in that psalm, not to speak of other things, we read, “He shall have dominion from sea even to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth,” which we see fulfilled in Christ. Truly he took the beginning of His reigning from the river where John baptized; for, when pointed out by him, He began to be acknowledged by the disciples, who called Him not only Master, but also Lord.

> Latin: Hanc tam grandem promissionem qui putat in Salomone fuisse conpletam, multum errat. Adtendit enim quod dictum est: Hic aedificabit mihi domum, quoniam Salomon templum illud nobile struxit, et non adtendit: Fidelis erit domus eius et regnum eius usque in aeternum coram me. Adtendat ergo et adspiciat Salomonis domum plenam mulieribus alienigenis colentibus deos falsos et ipsum ab eis regem aliquando sapientem in eandem idolatriam seductum adque deiectum; et non audeat existimare Deum uel hoc promisisse mendaciter uel talem Salomonem domumque eius futuram non potuisse praescire. Non hinc autem deberemus ambigere, nec si non in Christo Domino nostro, qui factus est ex semine Dauid secundum carnem, iam uideremus ista conpleri, ne uane adque inaniter hic alium aliquem requiramus, sicut carnales Iudaei. Nam et ipsi usque adeo filium, quem loco isto regi Dauid promissum legunt, intellegunt non fuisse Salomonem, ut eo, qui promissus est tanta iam manifestatione, declarato adhuc mirabili caecitate alium sperare se dicant. Facta est quidem nonnulla imago rei futurae etiam in Salomone, in eo quod templum aedificauit et pacem habuit secundum nomen suum (Salomon quippe pacificus est Latine) et in exordio regni sui mirabiliter laudabilis fuit; sed eadem sua persona per umbram futuri praenuntiabat etiam ipse Christum Dominum, non exhibebat. Unde quaedam de illo ita scripta sunt, quasi de ipso ista praedicta sint, dum scriptura sancta etiam rebus gestis prophetans quodam modo in eo figuram definiat futurorum. Nam praeter libros diuinae historiae, ubi regnasse narratur, psalmus etiam septuagensimus primus titulo nominis eius inscriptus est; in quo tam multa dicuntur, quae omnino ei conuenire non possunt, Domino autem Christo aptissima perspicuitate conueniunt, ut euidenter appareat, quod in illo figura qualiscumque adumbrata sit, in isto autem ipsa ueritas praesentata. Notum est enim, quibus. terminis regnum conclusum fuerat Salomonis; et tamen in eo psalmo legitur, ut alia taceam: Dominabitur a mari usque ad mare et a flumine usque ad terminos orbis terrae, quod in Christo uidemus inpleri. A flumine quippe dominandi sumsit exordium, ubi baptizatus a Iohanne eodem,. monstrante coepit agnosci a discipulis, qui eum non solum magistrum, uerum etiam Dominum appellauerunt.

[¶20] Nor was it for any other reason that, while his father David was still living, Solomon began to reign, which happened to none other of their kings, except that from this also it might be clearly apparent that it was not himself this prophecy spoken to his father signified beforehand, saying, “And it shall come to pass when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shall sleep with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will prepare His kingdom.” How, therefore, shall it be thought on account of what follows, “He shall build me an house,” that this Solomon is prophesied, and not rather be understood on account of what precedes, “When thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will raise up thy seed after thee,” that another pacific One is promised, who is foretold as about to be raised up, not before David’s death, as he was, but after it? For however long the interval of time might be before Jesus Christ came, beyond doubt it was after the death of king David, to whom He was so promised, that He behoved to come, who should build an house of God, not of wood and stone, but of men, such as we rejoice He does build. For to this house, that is, to believers, the apostle saith, “The temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.”

> Latin: Nec ob aliud uiuente adhuc patre suo Dauid regnare coepit Salomon, quod nulli regum illorum contigit, nisi ut hinc quoque satis eluceat non esse ipsum, quem prophetia ista praesigDat, quae ad eius patrem loquitur dicens: Et erit, cum repleti fuerint dies tui, et dormies cum patribus tuis, et suscitabo semen tuum post te, qui erit de uentre tuo, et praeparabo regnum illius. Quo modo ergo propter id quod sequitur: Hic aedificabit mihi domum, iste Salomon putabitur prophetatus, et non potius propter id quod praecedit: Cum repleti fuerint dies tui et dormies cum patribus tuis, suscitabo semen tuum post te, alius pacificus intellegitur esse promissus, qui non ante, sicut iste, sed post mortem Dauid praenuntiatus est suscitandus? Quamlibet enim longo interposito tempore Iesus Christus ueniret, procul dubio post mortem regis Dauid, cui sic est promissus, eum uenire oportebat, qui aedificaret domum Deo, non de lignis et lapidibus, sed de hominibus, qualem illum aedificare gaudemus. Huic enim domui dicit apostolus, hoc est fidelibus Christi: Templum enim Dei sanctum est, quod estis uos.

### How Like the Prophecy About Christ in the 89th Psalm is to the Things Promised in Nathan’s Prophecy in the Books of Samuel.

[¶22] Chapter 9.—How Like the Prophecy About Christ in the 89th Psalm is to the Things Promised in Nathan’s Prophecy in the Books of Samuel.

> Latin: Caput IX. Quam similis in psalmo octogensimo octauo sit prophetia de Christo his, quae in regnorum libris Nathan prophetante promittuntur.

[¶23] Wherefore also in the 89th Psalm, of which the title is, “An instruction for himself by Ethan the Israelite,” mention is made of the promises God made to king David, and some things are there added similar to those found in the Book of Samuel, such as this, “I have sworn to David my servant that I will prepare his seed for ever.” And again, “Then thou spakest in vision to thy sons, and saidst, I have laid help upon the mighty One, and have exalted the chosen One out of my people. I have found David my servant, and with my holy oil I have anointed him. For mine hand shall help him, and mine arm shall strengthen him. The enemy shall not prevail against him, and the son of iniquity shall harm him no more. And I will beat down his foes from before his face, and those that hate him will I put to flight. And my truth and my mercy shall be with him, and in my name shall his horn be exalted. I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers. He shall cry unto me, Thou art my Father, my God, and the undertaker of my salvation. Also I will make him my first-born, high among the kings of the earth. My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall be faithful (sure) with him. His seed also will I set for ever and ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.” Which words, when rightly understood, are all understood to be about the Lord Jesus Christ, under the name of David, on account of the form of a servant, which the same Mediator assumed from the virgin of the seed of David. For immediately something is said about the sins of his children, such as is set down in the Book of Samuel, and is more readily taken as if of Solomon. For there, that is, in the Book of Samuel, he says, “And if he commit iniquity I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the sons of men; but my mercy will I not take away from him,” meaning by stripes the strokes of correction. Hence that saying, “Touch ye not my christs.” For what else is that than, Do not harm them? But in the psalm, when speaking as if of David, He says something of the same kind there too. “If his children,” saith He, “forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; if they profane my righteousnesses, and keep not my commandments; I will visit their iniquities with the rod, and their faults with stripes: but my mercy I will not make void from him.” He did not say “from them,” although He spoke of his children, not of himself; but he said “from him,” which means the same thing if rightly understood. For of Christ Himself, who is the head of the Church, there could not be found any sins which required to be divinely restrained by human correction, mercy being still continued; but they are found in His body and members, which is His people. Therefore in the Book of Samuel it is said, “iniquity of Him,” but in the psalm, “of His children,” that we may understand that what is said of His body is in some way said of Himself. Wherefore also, when Saul persecuted His body, that is, His believing people, He Himself saith from heaven, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” Then in the following words of the psalm He says, “Neither will I hurt in my truth, nor profane my covenant, and the things that proceed from my lips I will not disallow. Once have I sworn by my holiness, if I lie unto David,”—that is, I will in no wise lie unto David; for Scripture is wont to speak thus. But what that is in which He will not lie, He adds, saying, “His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me, and as the moon perfected for ever, and a faithful witness in heaven.”

> Latin: Propter quod et in psalmo octogensimo octauo, cuius est titulus: Intellectus ipsi Aethan Israelitae. commemorantur promissiones Dei factae regi Dauid, et istis, quae in libro regnorum sunt posita, quaedam ibi similia dicuntur, sicut est: Iuraui Dauid seruo meo: Usque in aeternum praeparabo semen tuum; et iterum: Tunc locutus es in adspectu filiis tuis et dixisti: Posui adiutorium super potentem, exaltaui electum de populo meo. Inueni Dauid seruum meum, in oleo sancto meo unxi eum. Manus enim mea auxiliabitur ei et bracchium meum confortabit eum. Non proficiet inimicus in eo et filius iniquitatis non adponet nocere ei. Et concidam inimicos eius a facie eius, et eos, qui oderunt eum, fugabo. Et ueritas mea et misericordia mea cum ipso, et in nomine meo exaltabitur cornu eius. Et ponam in mari manum eius et in fluminibus dexteram eius. Ipse inuocabit me: Pater meus es tu, Deus meus et susceptor salutis meae. Et ego primogenitum ponam eum, excelsum aput reges terrae. In aeternum seruabo ei misericordiam meam et testamentum meum fidele ipsi. Et ponam in saeculum saeculi semen eius, et thronum eius sicut dies caeli. Quae omnia de Domino Iesu intelleguntur, quando recte intelleguntur, sub nomine Dauid propter formam serui, quam de semine Dauid idem Mediator adsumsit ex uirgine. Continuo etiam dicitur de peccatis filiorum eius tale aliquid, quale in regnorum libro positum est et quasi de Salomone procliuius accipitur. Ibi namque, hoc est in regnorum libro: Et si uenerit, inquit, iniquitas eius, redarguam illum in uirga uirorum et in tactibus filiorum hominum; misericordiam autem meam non amoueam ab eo; tactibus significans plagas correptionis. Unde illud est: Ne tetigeritis christos meos. Quod quid est aliud, quam (De laeseritis’? In psalmo uero cum ageret tamquam de Dauid, ut quiddam eius modi etiam ibi diceret: Si dereliquerint, inquit, filii eius legem meam et in iudiciis meis non ambulauerint; si iustificationes meas profanauerint et mandata mea non custodierint: uisitabo in uirga iniquitates eorum et in flagellis delicta eorum; misericordiam autem meam non dispergam ab eo. Non dixit (ab eis cum loqueretur de filiis eius, non de ipso; sed dixit ab eo, quod bene intellectum tantundem ualet. Non enim Christi ipsius, quod est caput ecclesiae, possent inueniri ulla peccata, quae opus esset humanis correptionibus seruata misericordia diuinitus coherceri; sed in eius corpore ac membris, quod populus eius est. Ideo in libro regnorum: Iniquitas eius dicitur; in psalmo autem: Filiorum eius; ut intellegamus de ipso dici quodam modo, quod de eius corpore dicitur. Propter quod etiam ipse de caelo, cum corpus eius, quod sunt fideles eius, Saulus persequeretur: Saule, inquit, Saule, quid me persequeris? Deinde in consequentibus psalmi: Neque nocebo, inquit, in ueritate mea, neque profanabo testamentum meum, et quae procedunt de labiis meis non reprobabo. Semel iuraui in sancto meo, si Dauid mentiar; id est, nequaquam Dauid mentiar. Solet enim sic loqui scriptura. Quid autem non mentiatur, adiungit et dicit: Semen eius in aeternum manet; et sedes eius sicut sol in con-. spectu meo, et sicut luna perfecta in aeternum, et testis in caelo fidelis.

## 83. How Different the Acts in the Kingdom of the Earthly Jerusalem are from Those Which God Had Promised, So that the Truth of the Promise Should Be Understood to Pertain to the Glory of the Other King and Kingdom.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/83/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/83/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 10.—How Different the Acts in the Kingdom of the Earthly Jerusalem are from Those Which God Had Promised, So that the Truth of the Promise Should Be Understood to Pertain to the Glory of the Other King and Kingdom.

> Latin: Caput X. Quam diuersa acta sint in regno terrenae Hieru salem ab his, quae promiserat Deus, ut intellegeretur promissionis ueritas ad alterius regis et regni gloriam pertinere.

[¶1] That it might not be supposed that a promise so strongly expressed and confirmed was fulfilled in Solomon, as if he hoped for, yet did not find it, he says, “But Thou hast cast off, and hast brought to nothing, O Lord.” This truly was done concerning the kingdom of Solomon among his posterity, even to the overthrow of the earthly Jerusalem itself, which was the seat of the kingdom, and especially the destruction of the very temple which had been built by Solomon. But lest on this account God should be thought to have done contrary to His promise, immediately he adds, “Thou hast delayed Thy Christ.” Therefore he is not Solomon, nor yet David himself, if the Christ of the Lord is delayed. For while all the kings are called His christs, who were consecrated with that mystical chrism, not only from king David downwards, but even from that Saul who first was anointed king of that same people, David himself indeed calling him the Lord’s christ, yet there was one true Christ, whose figure they bore by the prophetic unction, who, according to the opinion of men, who thought he was to be understood as come in David or in Solomon, was long delayed, but who, according as God had disposed, was to come in His own time. The following part of this psalm goes on to say what in the meantime, while He was delayed, was to become of the kingdom of the earthly Jerusalem, where it was hoped He would certainly reign: “Thou hast overthrown the covenant of Thy servant; Thou hast profaned in the earth his sanctuary. Thou hast broken down all his walls; Thou hast put his strong-holds in fear. All that pass by the way spoil him; he is made a reproach to his neighbors. Thou hast set up the right hand of his enemies; Thou hast made all his enemies to rejoice. Thou hast turned aside the help of his sword, and hast not helped him in war. Thou hast destroyed him from cleansing; Thou hast dashed down his seat to the ground. Thou hast shortened the days of his seat; Thou hast poured confusion over him.” All these things came upon Jerusalem the bond woman, in which some also reigned who were children of the free woman, holding that kingdom in temporary stewardship, but holding the kingdom of the heavenly Jerusalem, whose children they were, in true faith, and hoping in the true Christ. But how these things came upon that kingdom, the history of its affairs points out if it is read.

> Latin: Post haec tantae promissionis ualidissima firmamenta, ne putarentur in Salomone conpleta, tamquam id speraretur nec inueniretur: Tu uero, inquit, reppulisti et ad nihilum deduxisti, Domine. Hoc quippe factum est de regno Salomonis in posteris eius usque ad euersionem ipsius terrenae Hierusalem, quae regni eiusdem sedes fuit, et maxime ipsius templi labem, quod fuerat a Salomone constructum. Sed ne ob hoc putaretur Deus contra sua promissa fecisse, continuo subiecit: Distulisti christum tuum. Non ergo est ille Salomon, sed nec ipse Dauid, si dilatus est christus Domini. Cum enim christi eius dicerentur omnes reges mystico illo chrismate consecrati, non solum a rege Dauid et deinceps, sed ab illo etiam Saule, qui populo eidem rex primus est unctus (ipse quippe Dauid eum christum Domini appellat): erat tamen unus uerus christus, cuius illi figuram prophetica unctione gestabant; qui secundum opinionem hominum, qui eum putabant in Dauid uel in Salomone intellegendum, differebatur in longum; secundum dispositionem autem Dei uenturus suo tempore parabatur. Interea dum ille differtur, quid factum sit de regno terrenae Hierusalem, ubi sperabatur utique regnaturus, secutus iste psalmus adiunxit adque ait: Euertisti testamentum serui tui, profanasti in terra sanctitatem eius; destruxisti omnes macerias eius, posuisti munitiones eius formidinem; diripuerunt eum omnes transeuntes uiam, factus est obprobrium uicinis suis; exaltasti dexteram inimicorum eius, iucundasti omnes inimicos eius; auertisti adiutorium gladii eius et non es opitulatus ei in bello; dissoluisti eum ab emundatione, sedem eius in terram conlisisti; minuisti dies sedis eius, perfudisti eum confusione. Haec omnia uenerunt super ancillam Hierusalem, in qua regnauerunt nonnulli etiam filii liberae, regnum illud tenentes in dispensatione temporaria, regnum autem caelestis Hierusalem, cuius erant filii, in uera fide habentes et in uero Christo sperantes. Quo modo autem ista uenerint super illud regnum, index est rerum gestarum, si legatur, historia. -

### Of the Substance of the People of God, Which Through His Assumption of Flesh is in Christ, Who Alone Had Power to Deliver His Own Soul from Hell.

[¶3] Chapter 11.—Of the Substance of the People of God, Which Through His Assumption of Flesh is in Christ, Who Alone Had Power to Deliver His Own Soul from Hell.

> Latin: Caput XI. De substantia populi Dei, quae per susceptionem carnis in Christo est, qui solus eruendi ab inferis animam suam habuit potestatem.

[¶4] But after having prophesied these things, the prophet betakes him to praying to God; yet even the very prayer is prophecy: “How long, Lord, dost Thou turn away in the end?” “Thy face” is understood, as it is elsewhere said, “How long dost Thou turn away Thy face from me?” For therefore some copies have here not “dost,” but “wilt Thou turn away;” although it could be understood, “Thou turnest away Thy mercy, which Thou didst promise to David.” But when he says, “in the end,” what does it mean, except even to the end? By which end is to be understood the last time, when even that nation is to believe in Christ Jesus, before which end what He has just sorrowfully bewailed must come to pass. On account of which it is also added here, “Thy wrath shall burn like fire. Remember what is my substance.” This cannot be better understood than of Jesus Himself, the substance of His people, of whose nature His flesh is. “For not in vain,” he says, “hast Thou made all the sons of men.” For unless the one Son of man had been the substance of Israel, through which Son of man many sons of men should be set free, all the sons of men would have been made wholly in vain. But now, indeed, all mankind through the fall of the first man has fallen from the truth into vanity; for which reason another psalm says, “Man is like to vanity: his days pass away as a shadow;” yet God has not made all the sons of men in vain, because He frees many from vanity through the Mediator Jesus, and those whom He did not foreknow as to be delivered, He made not wholly in vain in the most beautiful and most just ordination of the whole rational creation, for the use of those who were to be delivered, and for the comparison of the two cities by mutual contrast. Thereafter it follows, “Who is the man that shall live, and shall not see death? shall he snatch his soul from the hand of hell?” Who is this but that substance of Israel out of the seed of David, Christ Jesus, of whom the apostle says, that “rising from the dead He now dieth not, and death shall no more have dominion over Him?” For He shall so live and not see death, that yet He shall have been dead; but shall have delivered His soul from the hand of hell, whither He had descended in order to loose some from the chains of hell; but He hath delivered it by that power of which He says in the Gospel, “I have the power of laying down my life, and I have the power of taking it again.”

> Latin: Post haec autem prophetata ad precandum Deum propheta conuertitur; sed et ipsa precatio prophetatio est. Usque quo, Domine, auertis in finem? subauditur ‘faciem tuam’, sicut alibi dicitur: Quo usque auertis faciem tuam a me? Nam ideo quidam codices hic non habent auertis, sed […] quamquam possit intellegi: ‘Auertis misericordiam tuam, quam promisisti Dauid’. Quod autem dixit: In finem, quid est nisi usque in finem? Qui finis intellegendus est ultimum tempus, quando in Christum Iesum etiam gens illa est creditura, ante quem finem illa fieri oportebat, quae superius aerumnosa defleuit. Propter quae et hic sequitur: Exardescit sicut ignis ira tua: memento quae est mea substantia. Nihil hic melius quam ipse Iesus intellegitur substantia populi eius, ex quo natura est carnis eius. Non enim uane, inquit, constituisti omnes filios hominum. Nisi enim esset unus filius hominis substantia Israel, per quem filium hominis liberarentur multi filii hominum, uane utique constituti essent omnes filii hominum. Nunc uero omnis quidem humana natura per peccatum primi hominis in uanitatem de ueritate conlapsa est, propter quod dicit alius psalmus: Homo uanitati similis factus est, dies eius uelut umbra praetereunt; sed non uane Deus constituit omnes filios hominum, quia et multos a uanitate liberat per mediatorem Iesum, et quos liberandos non esse praesciuit, ad utilitatem liberandorum et conparationem duarum inter se a contrario ciuitatum non utique uane in totius rationalis creaturae pulcherrima adque iustissima ordinatione constituit. Deinde sequitur: Quis est homo, qui uiuet et non uidebit mortem, eruet animam suam de manu inferi? Quis est iste. nisi substantia illa Israel ex semine Dauid, Christus Iesus? De quo dicit apostolus, quod surgens a mortuis iam non moritur, et mors ei ultra non dominabitur. Sic enim uiuet et non uidebit mortem, ut tamen mortuus fuerit, sed animam suam eruerit de manu inferni, quo propter quorundam soluenda inferna uincula descenderat; eruerit autem potestate illa, de qua in euangelio dicit: Potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam et potestatem habeo iterum sumendi eam.

### To Whose Person the Entreaty for the Promises is to Be Understood to Belong, When He Says in the Psalm, ‘Where are Thine Ancient Compassions, Lord?’ Etc.

[¶6] Chapter 12.—To Whose Person the Entreaty for the Promises is to Be Understood to Belong, When He Says in the Psalm, “Where are Thine Ancient Compassions, Lord?” Etc.

> Latin: Caput XII. Ad quorum personam pertinere intellegenda sit flagitatio promissorum, de quibus in psalmo dicitur: Ubi sunt misericordiae tuae, Domine, antiquae et cetera.

[¶7] But the rest of this psalm runs thus: “Where are Thine ancient compassions, Lord, which Thou swarest unto David in Thy truth? Remember, Lord, the reproach of Thy servants, which I have borne in my bosom of many nations; wherewith Thine enemies have reproached, O Lord, wherewith they have reproached the change of Thy Christ.” Now it may with very good reason be asked whether this is spoken in the person of those Israelites who desired that the promise made to David might be fulfilled to them; or rather of the Christians, who are Israelites not after the flesh but after the Spirit. This certainly was spoken or written in the time of Ethan, from whose name this psalm gets its title, and that was the same as the time of David’s reign; and therefore it would not have been said, “Where are Thine ancient compassions, Lord, which Thou hast sworn unto David in Thy truth?” unless the prophet had assumed the person of those who should come long afterwards, to whom that time when these things were promised to David was ancient. But it may be understood thus, that many nations, when they persecuted the Christians, reproached them with the passion of Christ, which Scripture calls His change, because by dying He is made immortal. The change of Christ, according to this passage, may also be understood to be reproached by the Israelites, because, when they hoped He would be theirs, He was made the Saviour of the nations; and many nations who have believed in Him by the New Testament now reproach them who remain in the old with this: so that it is said, “Remember, Lord, the reproach of Thy servants;” because through the Lord’s not forgetting, but rather pitying them, even they after this reproach are to believe. But what I have put first seems to me the most suitable meaning. For to the enemies of Christ who are reproached with this, that Christ hath left them, turning to the Gentiles, this speech is incongruously assigned, “Remember, Lord, the reproach of Thy servants,” for such Jews are not to be styled the servants of God; but these words fit those who, if they suffered great humiliations through persecution for the name of Christ, could call to mind that an exalted kingdom had been promised to the seed of David, and in desire of it, could say not despairingly, but as asking, seeking, knocking, “Where are Thine ancient compassions, Lord, which Thou swarest unto David in Thy truth? Remember, Lord, the reproach of Thy servants, that I have borne in my bosom of many nations;” that is, have patiently endured in my inward parts. “That Thine enemies have reproached, O Lord, wherewith they have reproached the change of Thy Christ,” not thinking it a change, but a consumption. But what does “Remember, Lord,” mean, but that Thou wouldst have compassion, and wouldst for my patiently borne humiliation reward me with the excellency which Thou swarest unto David in Thy truth? But if we assign these words to the Jews, those servants of God who, on the conquest of the earthly Jerusalem, before Jesus Christ was born after the manner of men, were led into captivity, could say such things, understanding the change of Christ, because indeed through Him was to be surely expected, not an earthly and carnal felicity, such as appeared during the few years of king Solomon, but a heavenly and spiritual felicity; and when the nations, then ignorant of this through unbelief, exulted over and insulted the people of God for being captives, what else was this than ignorantly to reproach with the change of Christ those who understand the change of Christ? And therefore what follows when this psalm is concluded, “Let the blessing of the Lord be for evermore, amen, amen,” is suitable enough for the whole people of God belonging to the heavenly Jerusalem, whether for those things that lay hid in the Old Testament before the New was revealed, or for those that, being now revealed in the New Testament, are manifestly discerned to belong to Christ. For the blessing of the Lord in the seed of David does not belong to any particular time, such as appeared in the days of Solomon, but is for evermore to be hoped for, in which most certain hope it is said, “Amen, amen;” for this repetition of the word is the confirmation of that hope. Therefore David understanding this, says in the second Book of Kings, in the passage from which we digressed to this psalm, “Thou hast spoken also for Thy servant’s house for a great while to come.” Therefore also a little after he says, “Now begin, and bless the house of Thy servant for evermore,” etc., because the son was then about to be born from whom his posterity should be continued to Christ, through whom his house should be eternal, and should also be the house of God. For it is called the house of David on account of David’s race; but the selfsame is called the house of God on account of the temple of God, made of men, not of stones, where shall dwell for evermore the people with and in their God, and God with and in His people, so that God may fill His people, and the people be filled with their God, while God shall be all in all, Himself their reward in peace who is their strength in war. Therefore, when it is said in the words of Nathan, “And the Lord will tell thee what an house thou shalt build for Him,” it is afterwards said in the words of David, “For Thou, Lord Almighty, God of Israel, hast opened the ear of Thy servant, saying, I will build thee an house.” For this house is built both by us through living well, and by God through helping us to live well; for “except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.” And when the final dedication of this house shall take place, then what God here says by Nathan shall be fulfilled, “And I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant him, and he shall dwell apart, and shall be troubled no more; and the son of iniquity shall not humble him any more, as from the beginning, from the days when I appointed judges over my people Israel.”

> Latin: Sed cetera psalmi huius, quae ita se habent: Ubi sunt miserationes tuae antiquae, Domine, quas iurasti Dauid in ueritate tua? Memento, Domine, obprobrii seruorum tuorum, quod continui in sinu meo multarum gentium; quod exprobrauerunt inimici tui, Domine; quod exprobrauerunt, commutationem Christi tui, utrum ex persona dicta sint illorum Israelitarum, qui desiderabant reddi sibi promissionem, quae facta est ad Dauid, an potius Christianorum, qui non secundum carnem, sed secundum spiritum sunt Israelitae, merito quaeri potest. Dicta sunt quippe ista uel scripta tempore, quo fuit Aethan, de cuius nomine titulum iste psalmus accepit; et idem tempus regni Dauid fuit; ac per hoc non diceretur: Ubi sunt miserationes tuae antiquae, Domine, quas iurasti Dauid in ueritate tua? nisi eorum personam in se propheta transfiguraret, qui longe postea futuri erant, quibus hoc tempus esset antiquum, quando regi Dauid ista promissa sunt. Potest autem intellegi multas gentes, quando Christianos persequebantur, exprobrasse illis passionem Christi, quam scriptura commutationem uocat. quoniam moriendo inmortalis est factus. Potest et commutatio Christi secundum hoc accipi exprobrata Israelitis, quia, cum eorum speraretur futurus, factus est gentium, et hoc eis nunc exprobrant multae gentes, quae crediderunt in eum per testamentum nouum, illis in uetustate remanentibus, ut ideo dicatur: Memento, Domine. obprobrii seruorum tuorum, quia non eos obliuiscente, sed potius miserante Domino et ipsi post hoc obprobrium credituri sunt. Sed ille, quem prius posui, conuenientior mihi sensus uidetur. Inimicis enim Christi, quibus exprobratur. quod eos ad gentes transiens reliquerit Christus, incongrue uox ista coaptatur: Memento, Domine, obprobrii seruorum tuorum; non enim serui Dei nuncupandi sunt tales Iudaei; sed eis uerba ista conpetunt, qui, cum graues humilitates persecutionum pro Christi nomine paterentur, recordari potuerunt excelsum regnum semini Dauid fuisse promissum, et eius desiderio dicere, non desperando, sed petendo quaerendo pulsando: Ubi sunt miserationes tuae antiquae, Domine, quas iurasti Dauid in ueritate tua? Memento, Domine, obprobrii seruorum tuorum, quod continui in sinu meo multarum gentium (hoc est, in interioribus meis patienter pertuli); quod exprobrauerunt inimici tui. Domine; quod exprobrauerunt, commutationem Christi tui; non eam putantes commutationem sed consumtionem. Quid est autem: Memento, Domine, nisi ut miserearis et pro tolerata patienter humilitate mea reddas celsitudinem. quam iurasti Dauid in ueritate tua? Si autem Iudaeis adsignemus haec uerba, illi serui Dei talia dicere potuerunt, qui expugnata terrena Hierusalem, antequam Iesus Christus humanitus nasceretur, in captiuitatem ducti sunt, intellegentes commutationem Christi, quia scilicet non per eum terrena carnalisque felicitas, qualis paucis annis regis Salomonis apparuit, sed caelestis ac spiritalis esset fideliter exspectanda; quam tunc ignorans infidelitas gentium, cum Dei populum exultabat adque insultabat esse captiuum, quid aliud quam Christi commutationem, sed scientibus nesciens, exprobrabat? Et ideo quod sequitur, ubi psalmus iste concluditur: Benedictio Domini in aeternum: fiat, fiat, uniuerso populo Dei ad caelestem Hierusalem pertinenti siue in illis, qui latebant in testamento uetere, antequam reuelaretur nouum, siue in his, qui iam testamento nouo reuelato manifeste pertinere cernuntur ad Christum, satis congruit. Benedictio quippe Domini in semine Dauid non ad aliquod tempus, qualis diebus Salomonis apparuit, sed in aeternum speranda est, in qua certissima spe dicitur: Fiat, fiat. Illius enim spei est confirmatio uerbi huius iteratio. Hoc ergo intellegens Dauid ait in secundo regnorum libro, unde ad istum psalmum digressi sumus: Et locutus es pro domo serui tui in longinquum. Ideo autem post paululum ait: Nunc incipe et benedic domum serui tui usque in aeternum et cetera, quia tunc geniturus erat filium, ex quo progenies eius duceretur ad Christum, per quem futura erat domus eius aeterna eademque domus Dei. Domus enim Dauid propter genus Dauid; domus autem Dei eadem ipsa propter templum Dei de hominibus factum, non de lapidibus, ubi habitet in aeternum populus cum Deo et in Deo suo, et Deus cum populo adque in populo suo; ita ut Deus sit inplens populum suum, et populus plenus Deo suo, cum Deus erit omnia in omnibus, ipse in pace praemium, qui uirtus in bello. Ideo cum in uerbis Nathan dictum sit: Et nuntiabit tibi Dominus, quoniam domum aedificabis ipsi, postea dictum est in uerbis Dauid: Quoniam tu Dominus omnipotens Deus Israel, reuelasti aurem serui tui dicens: Domum aedificabo tibi. Hanc enim domum et nos aedificamus bene uiuendo, et Deus ut bene uiuamus opitulando; quia nisi Dominus aedificauerit domum, in uanum laborant aedificantes eam. Cuius domus cum uenerit ultima dedicatio. tunc fiet illud, quod hic per Nathan locutus est Deus dicens: Et ponam locum populo meo Israel, et plantabo illum, et inhabitabit seorsum, et non sollicitus erit ultra, et non adponet filius iniquitatis humiliare eum, sicut ab initio a diebus, quibus constitui iudices super populum meum Israel.

### Whether the Truth of This Promised Peace Can Be Ascribed to Those Times Passed Away Under Solomon.

[¶9] Chapter 13.—Whether the Truth of This Promised Peace Can Be Ascribed to Those Times Passed Away Under Solomon.

> Latin: Caput XIII. An promissae pacis ueritas illis temporibus possit adscribi, quae sub Salomone fluxerunt.

[¶10] Whoever hopes for this so great good in this world, and in this earth, his wisdom is but folly. Can any one think it was fulfilled in the peace of Solomon’s reign? Scripture certainly commends that peace with excellent praise as a shadow of that which is to come. But this opinion is to be vigilantly opposed, since after it is said, “And the son of iniquity shall not humble him any more,” it is immediately added, “as from the beginning, from the days in which I appointed judges over my people Israel.” For the judges were appointed over that people from the time when they received the land of promise, before kings had begun to be there. And certainly the son of iniquity, that is, the foreign enemy, humbled him through periods of time in which we read that peace alternated with wars; and in that period longer times of peace are found than Solomon had, who reigned forty years. For under that judge who is called Ehud there were eighty years of peace. Be it far from us, therefore, that we should believe the times of Solomon are predicted in this promise, much less indeed those of any other king whatever. For none other of them reigned in such great peace as he; nor did that nation ever at all hold that kingdom so as to have no anxiety lest it should be subdued by enemies: for in the very great mutability of human affairs such great security is never given to any people, that it should not dread invasions hostile to this life. Therefore the place of this promised peaceful and secure habitation is eternal, and of right belongs eternally to Jerusalem the free mother, where the genuine people of Israel shall be: for this name is interpreted “Seeing God;” in the desire of which reward a pious life is to be led through faith in this miserable pilgrimage.

> Latin: Hoc tam magnum bonum quisquis in hoc saeculo et in hac terra sperat, insipienter sapit. An quispiam putabit in pace regni Salomonis id esse conpletum? Pacem quippe illam scriptura in umbra futuri excellenti praedicatione commendat. Sed huic suspicioni uigilanter occursum est, cum. postea quam dictum est: Et non adponet filius iniquitatis humiliare eum, continuo subiunctum est: Sicut ab initio a diebus, quibus constitui iudices super populum meum Israel. Iudices namque, priusquam reges ibi esse coepissent, super illum populum fuerant constituti, ex quo terram promissionis accepit. Et utique humiliabat eum filius iniquitatis, hoc est hostis alienigena, per interualla temporum, quibus leguntur paces alternasse cum bellis; et inueniuntur illic pacis tempora prolixiora quam Salomon habuit, qui quadraginta regnauit annos; nam sub eo iudice, qui est appellatus Aod, octoginta anni pacis fuerunt. Absit ergo ut Salomonis tempora in hac promissione praedicta esse credantur; multo minus itaque cuiuslibet regis alterius. Non enim quisquam eorum in tanta, quanta ille, pace regnauit; nec umquam omnino gens illa ita regnum tenuit, ut sollicita non fuerit ne hostibus subderetur; quia in tanta mutabilitate rerum humanarum nulli aliquando populo concessa est tanta securitas, ut huic uitae hostiles non formidaret incursus. Locus ergo iste, qui promittitur tam pacatae ac securae habitationis, aeternus est aeternisque debetur in matre Hierusalem libera, ubi erit ueraciter populus Israel; hoc enim nomen interpretatur cuidens Deum’; cuius praemii desiderio pia per fidem uita in hac aerumnosa peregrinatione ducenda est.

### Of David’s Concern in the Writing of the Psalms.

[¶12] Chapter 14.—Of David’s Concern in the Writing of the Psalms.

> Latin: Caput XIV. De studio Dauid in dispositione mysterioque psalmorum.

[¶13] In the progress of the city of God through the ages, therefore, David first reigned in the earthly Jerusalem as a shadow of that which was to come. Now David was a man skilled in songs, who dearly loved musical harmony, not with a vulgar delight, but with a believing disposition, and by it served his God, who is the true God, by the mystical representation of a great thing. For the rational and well-ordered concord of diverse sounds in harmonious variety suggests the compact unity of the well-ordered city. Then almost all his prophecy is in psalms, of which a hundred and fifty are contained in what we call the Book of Psalms, of which some will have it those only were made by David which are in scribed with his name. But there are also some who think none of them were made by him except those which are marked “Of David;” but those which have in the title “For David” have been made by others who assumed his person. Which opinion is refuted by the voice of the Saviour Himself in the Gospel, when He says that David himself by the Spirit said Christ was his Lord; for the 110th Psalm begins thus, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” And truly that very psalm, like many more, has in the title, not “of David,” but “for David.” But those seem to me to hold the more credible opinion, who ascribe to him the authorship of all these hundred and fifty psalms, and think that he prefixed to some of them the names even of other men, who prefigured something pertinent to the matter, but chose to have no man’s name in the titles of the rest, just as God inspired him in the management of this variety, which, although dark, is not meaningless. Neither ought it to move one not to believe this that the names of some prophets who lived long after the times of king David are read in the inscriptions of certain psalms in that book, and that the things said there seem to be spoken as it were by them. Nor was the prophetic Spirit unable to reveal to king David, when he prophesied, even these names of future prophets, so that he might prophetically sing something which should suit their persons; just as it was revealed to a certain prophet that king Josiah should arise and reign after more than three hundred years, who predicted his future deeds also along with his name.

> Latin: Procurrente igitur per tempora ciuitate Dei, primo in umbra futuri, in terrena scilicet Hierusalem, regnauit Dauid. Erat autem Dauid uir in canticis eruditus, qui harmoniam musicam non uulgari uoluptate, sed fideli uoluntate dilexerit eaque Deo suo, qui uerus est Deus, mystica rei magnae figuratione seruierit. Diuersorum enim sonorum rationabilis moderatusque concentus concordi uarietate conpactam bene ordinatae ciuitatis insinuat unitatem. Denique omnis fere prophetia eius in psalmis est, quos centum quinquaginta. liber continet, quem psalmorum uocamus. In quibus nonnulli uolunt eos solos factos esse a Dauid, qui eius nomine inscripti sunt. Sunt item qui putant non ab eo factos, nisi qui praenotantur: Ipsius Dauid; qui uero habent in titulis: Ipsi Dauid, ab aliis factos personae ipsius fuisse coaptatos. Quae opinio uoce euangelica Saluatoris ipsius refutatur, ubi ait, quod ipse Dauid in spiritu Christum dixerit esse Dominum suum; quoniam psalmus centensimus nonus sic incipit: Dixit Dominus Domino meo: Sede a dextris meis, donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum. Et certe idem psalmus non habet in titulo: Ipsius Dauid, sed: Ipsi Dauid, sicut plurimi. Mihi autem credibilius uidentur existimare, qui omnes illos centum et quinquaginta psalmos eius operi tribuunt eumque aliquos praenotasse etiam nominibus aliorum aliquid, quod ad rem pertineat, figurantibus, ceteros autem nullius hominis nomen in titulis habere uoluisse, sicut ei uarietatis huius dispositionem. quamuis latebrosaru, non tamen inanem Dominus inspirauit. Nec mouere debet ad hoc non credendum, quod nonnullorum nomina prophetarum. qui longe post Dauid regis tempora fuerunt, quibusdam psalmis in eo libro leguntur inscripta et quae ibi dicuntur uelut ab eis dici uidentur. Neque enim non potuit propheticus spiritus prophetanti regi Dauid haec etiam futurorum prophetarum nomina reuelare, ut aliquid, quod eorum personae conueniret, prophetice cantaretur; sicut rex Iosias exorturus et regnaturus post annos amplius quam trecentos cuidam prophetae, qui etiam facta eius futura praedixit, cum suo nomine reuelatus est.

### Whether All the Things Prophesied in the Psalms Concerning Christ and His Church Should Be Taken Up in the Text of This Work.

[¶15] Chapter 15.—Whether All the Things Prophesied in the Psalms Concerning Christ and His Church Should Be Taken Up in the Text of This Work.

> Latin: Caput XV. An omnia, quae in psalmis de Christo et ecclesia prophetantur, ad contextum huius operis adhibenda sint.

[¶16] And now I see it may be expected of me that I shall open up in this part of this book what David may have prophesied in the Psalms concerning the Lord Jesus Christ or His Church. But although I have already done so in one instance, I am prevented from doing as that expectation seems to demand, rather by the abundance than the scarcity of matter. For the necessity of shunning prolixity forbids my setting down all things; yet I fear lest if I select some I shall appear to many, who know these things, to have passed by the more necessary. Besides, the proof that is adduced ought to be supported by the context of the whole psalm, so that at least there may be nothing against it if everything does not support it; lest we should seem, after the fashion of the centos, to gather for the thing we wish, as it were, verses out of a grand poem, what shall be found to have been written not about it, but about some other and widely different thing. But ere this could be pointed out in each psalm, the whole of it must be expounded; and how great a work that would be, the volumes of others, as well as our own, in which we have done it, show well enough. Let him then who will, or can, read these volumes, and he will find out how many and great things David, at once king and prophet, has prophesied concerning Christ and His Church, to wit, concerning the King and the city which He has built.

> Latin: Nunc iam exspectari a me uideo, ut hoc loco libri huius aperiam quid in psalmis Dauid de Domino Iesu Christo uel eius ecclesia prophetauerit. Ego autem ut hoc non ita faciam, sicut uidetur ipsa exspectatio postulare (quamuis iam in uno fecerim), copia quam inopia magis inpedior; omnia enim ponere uitandae prolixitatis causa prohibeor. Vereor autem ne, cum aliqua elegero, multis, qui ea nouerunt, uidear magis necessaria praeterisse; deinde quia testimonium, quod profertur, de contextione totius psalmi debet habere suffragium aut certe nihil sit, quod ei refragetur, si non omnia suffragantur, ne more centonum ad rem, quam uolumus, tamquam uersiculos decerpere uideamur, uelut de grandi carmine, quod non de re illa, sed de alia longeque diuersa reperiatur esse conscriptum. Hoc autem ut in quocumque psalmo possit ostendi, exponendus est totus; quod quanti operis sit et aliorum et nostra uolumina, in quibus hoc fecimus, satis indicant. Legat ergo illa, qui uoluerit et potuerit; inueniet quot et quanta rex Dauid idemque propheta de Christo et eius ecclesia prophetauerit, de rege scilicet et ciuitate quam condidit.

### Of the Things Pertaining to Christ and the Church, Said Either Openly or Tropically in the 45th Psalm.

[¶18] Chapter 16.—Of the Things Pertaining to Christ and the Church, Said Either Openly or Tropically in the 45th Psalm.

> Latin: Caput XVI. De his, quae in quadragensimo quarto psalmo ad Christum et ecclesiam pertinentia aut aperte dicuntur aut tropice.

[¶19] For whatever direct and manifest prophetic utterances there may be about anything, it is necessary that those which are tropical should be mingled with them; which, chiefly on account of those of slower understanding, thrust upon the more learned the laborious task of clearing up and expounding them. Some of them, indeed, on the very first blush, as soon as they are spoken, exhibit Christ and the Church, although some things in them that are less intelligible remain to be expounded at leisure. We have an example of this in that same Book of Psalms: “My heart bubbled up a good matter: I utter my words to the king. My tongue is the pen of a scribe, writing swiftly. Thy form is beautiful beyond the sons of men; grace is poured out in Thy lips: therefore God hath blessed Thee for evermore. Gird Thy sword about Thy thigh, O Most Mighty. With Thy goodliness and Thy beauty go forward, proceed prosperously, and reign, because of Thy truth, and meekness, and righteousness; and Thy right hand shall lead Thee forth wonderfully. Thy sharp arrows are most powerful: in the heart of the king’s enemies. The people shall fall under Thee. Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a rod of direction is the rod of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hast hated iniquity: therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of exultation above Thy fellows. Myrrh and drops, and cassia from Thy vestments, from the houses of ivory: out of which the daughters of kings have delighted Thee in Thine honor.” Who is there, no matter how slow, but must here recognize Christ whom we preach, and in whom we believe, if he hears that He is God, whose throne is for ever and ever, and that He is anointed by God, as God indeed anoints, not with a visible, but with a spiritual and intelligible chrism? For who is so untaught in this religion, or so deaf to its far and wide spread fame, as not to know that Christ is named from this chrism, that is, from this anointing? But when it is acknowledged that this King is Christ, let each one who is already subject to Him who reigns because of truth, meekness, and righteousness, inquire at his leisure into these other things that are here said tropically: how His form is beautiful beyond the sons of men, with a certain beauty that is the more to be loved and admired the less it is corporeal; and what His sword, arrows, and other things of that kind may be, which are set down, not properly, but tropically.

> Latin: Quamlibet enim de quacumque re propriae sint adque manifestae propheticae locutiones, necesse est ut eis etiam tropicae misceantur; quae maxime propter tardiores ingerunt doctoribus laboriosum disputandi exponendique negotium. Quaedam tamen Christum et ecclesiam ipsa prima facie, mox ut dicuntur, ostendunt; etsi ex otio restant exponenda, quae in eis minus intelleguntur; quale illud est in eodem psalmorum libro: Eructauit cor meum uerbum bonum, dico ego opera mea regi. Lingua mea calamus scribae uelociter scribentis. Speciosus forma prae filiis hominum; diffusa est gratia in labiis tuis, propterea benedixit te Deus in aeternum. Accingere gladio tuo circa femur, potentissime specie tua et pulchritudine tua, et intende et prospere procede et regna propter ueritatem et mansuetudinem et iustitiam, et deducet te mirabiliter dextera tua. Sagittae tuae acutae, potentissimae (populi sub te cadent) in corda inimicorum regis. Sedes tua, Deus, in saecula saeculorum, uirga directionis uirga regni tui Dilexisti iustitiam et odio habuisti iniquitatem; propterea unxit te Deus, Deus tuus oleo exultationis prae participibus tuis. Myrrha et gutta et casia a uestimentis tuis, a domibus eburneis; ex quibus te delectauerunt filiae regum in honore tuo. Quis non hic Christum, quem praedicamus et in quem credimus, quamlibet sit tardus, agnoscat, cum audiat Deum, cuius sedes est in saecula saeculorum, et unctum a Deo, utique sicut unguit Deus, non uisibili, sed spiritali adque intellegibili chrismate? Quis enim tam rudis est in hac religione uel tam surdus aduersus eius famam longe lateque diffusam, ut Christum a chrismate, hoc est ab unctione appellatum esse non nouerit? Agnito autem rege Christo, iam cetera, quae hic tropice dicta sunt, quo modo sit speciosus forma prae filiis hominum, quadam tanto magis amanda adque miranda, quanto minus corporea pulchritudine, quis gladius eius, quae sagittae, et cetera isto modo non proprie, sed tropice posita iam subditus ei, qui regnat propter ueritatem et mansuetudinem et iustitiam, inquirat ei otio.

[¶20] Then let him look upon His Church, joined to her so great Husband in spiritual marriage and divine love, of which it is said in these words which follow, “The queen stood upon Thy right hand in gold-embroidered vestments, girded about with variety. Hearken, O daughter, and look, and incline thine ear; forget also thy people, and thy father’s house. Because the King hath greatly desired thy beauty; for He is the Lord thy God. And the daughters of Tyre shall worship Him with gifts; the rich among the people shall entreat Thy face. The daughter of the King has all her glory within, in golden fringes, girded about with variety. The virgins shall be brought after her to the King: her neighbors shall be brought to Thee. They shall be brought with gladness and exultation: they shall be led into the temple of the King. Instead of thy fathers, sons shall be born to thee: thou shalt establish them as princes over all the earth. They shall be mindful of thy name in every generation and descent. Therefore shall the people acknowledge thee for evermore, even for ever and ever.” I do not think any one is so stupid as to believe that some poor woman is here praised and described, as the spouse, to wit, of Him to whom it is said, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a rod of direction is the rod of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity: therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of exultation above Thy fellows;” that is, plainly, Christ above Christians. For these are His fellows, out of the unity and concord of whom in all nations that queen is formed, as it is said of her in another psalm, “The city of the great King.” The same is Sion spiritually, which name in Latin is interpreted speculatio (discovery); for she descries the great good of the world to come, because her attention is directed thither. In the same way she is also Jerusalem spiritually, of which we have already said many things. Her enemy is the city of the devil, Babylon, which is interpreted “confusion.” Yet out of this Babylon this queen is in all nations set free by regeneration, and passes from the worst to the best King,—that is, from the devil to Christ. Wherefore it is said to her, “Forget thy people and thy father’s house.” Of this impious city those also are a portion who are Israelites only in the flesh and not by faith, enemies also of this great King Himself, and of His queen. For Christ, having come to them, and been slain by them, has the more become the King of others, whom He did not see in the flesh. Whence our King Himself says through the prophecy of a certain psalm, “Thou wilt deliver me from the contradictions of the people; Thou wilt make me head of the nations. A people whom I have not known hath served me: in the hearing of the ear it hath obeyed me.” Therefore this people of the nations, which Christ did not know in His bodily presence, yet has believed in that Christ as announced to it; so that it might be said of it with good reason, “In the hearing of the ear it hath obeyed me,” for “faith is by hearing.” This people, I say, added to those who are the true Israelites both by the flesh and by faith, is the city of God, which has brought forth Christ Himself according to the flesh, since He was in these Israelites only. For thence came the Virgin Mary, in whom Christ assumed flesh that He might be man. Of which city another psalm says, “Mother Sion, shall a man say, and the man is made in her, and the Highest Himself hath founded her.” Who is this Highest, save God? And thus Christ, who is God, before He became man through Mary in that city, Himself founded it by the patriarchs and prophets. As therefore was said by prophecy so long before to this queen, the city of God, what we already can see fulfilled, “Instead of thy fathers, sons are born to thee; thou shall make them princes over all the earth;” so out of her sons truly are set up even her fathers [princes] through all the earth, when the people, coming together to her, confess to her with the confession of eternal praise for ever and ever. Beyond doubt, whatever interpretation is put on what is here expressed somewhat darkly in figurative language, ought to be in agreement with these most manifest things.

> Latin: Deinde adspiciat eius ecclesiam tanto uiro suo spiritali conubio et diuino amore coniunctam, de qua dicitur in his quae sequuntur. Adstitit regina a dextris tuis in uestitu deaurato, circumamicta uarietate. Audi, filia, et uide et inclina aurem tuam, et obliuiscere populum tuum et domum patris tui; quoniam concupiuit rex speciem tuam, quia ipse est Deus tuus. Et adorabunt eum filiae Tyri in muneribus; uultum tuum deprecabuntur ‘diuites plebis. Omnis gloria eius filiae regis intrinsecus, in fimbriis aureis circumamicta uarietate. Adferentur regi uirgines post eam, proximae eius adferentur tibi. Adferentur cum laetitia et exultatione; adducentur in templum regis. Pro patribus tuis nati sunt tibi filii; constitues eos principes super omnem terram. Memores erunt nominis tui in omni generatione et generatione. Propterea populi confitebuntur tibi in aeternum et in saeculum saeculi. Non opinor quemquam ita desipere, ut hic aliquam mulierculam praedicari credat adque describi; coniugem uidelicet illius, cui dictum est: Sedes tua, Deus, in saecula saeculorum; uirga directionis uirga regni tui. Dilexisti iustitiam et odio habuisti iniquitatem; propterea unxit te Deus, Deus tuus oleo exultationis prae participibus tuis; Christum utique prae Christianis. Hi sunt enim participes eius, ex quorum in omnibus gentibus unitate adque concordia fit ista regina, sicut in alio psalmo de illa dicitur: Ciuitas regis magni. Ipsa est Sion spiritaliter; quod nomen Latine interpretatum speculatio est; speculatur enim futuri saeculi magnum bonum, quoniam illuc dirigitur eius intentio. Ipsa est et Hierusalem eodem modo spiritaliter, unde multa iam diximus. Eius inimica est ciuitas diaboli Babylon, quae confusio interpretatur; ex qua tamen Babylone regina ista in omnibus gentibus regeneratione liberatur et a pessimo rege ad optimum regem, id est a diabolo transit ad Christum. Propter quod ei dicitur: Obliuiscere populum tuum et domum patris tui. Cuius ciuitatis inpiae portio sunt et Israelitae sola carne, non fide; inimici etiam ipsi. magni huius regis eiusque reginae. Ad ipsos enim ueniens et ab eis Christus occisus magis aliorum factus est, quos non uidit in carne. Unde per cuiusdam psalmi prophetiam dicit ipse rex noster: Erues me de contradictionibus populi, constitues me in capite gentium. Populus, quem non cognoui, seruiuit mihi; in obauditu auris obaudiuit mihi. Populus ergo iste gentium, quem non cognouit Christus praesentia corporali, in quem tamen Christum sibi adnuntiatum credidit, ut merito de illo diceretur: In obauditu auris obaudiuit mihi, quia fides ex auditu est — -iste, inquam, populus additus ueris et carne et fide Israelitis ciuitas est Dei, quae ipsum quoque secundum carnem peperit Christum, quando in solis illis Israelitis fuit. Inde quippe erat uirgo Maria, in qua carnem Christus, ut homo esset, adsumsit. De qua ciuitate psalmus alius ait: Mater Sion, dicet homo, et homo factus est in ea, et ipse fundauit eam Altissimus. Quis est iste Altissimus nisi Deus? Ac per hoc Christus Deus, antequam in illa ciuitate per Mariam fieret homo, ipse in patriarchis et prophetis fundauit eam. Cum igitur huic reginae ciuitati Dei tanto ante dictum sit per prophetiam, quod iam uidemus inpletum: Pro patribus tuis nati sunt tibi filii, constitues eos principes super omnem terram (ex filiis quippe eius per omnem terram sunt praepositi et patres eius, cum confiteantur ei populi concurrentes ad eam confessionem laudis aeternae in saeculum saeculi): procul dubio quidquid hic tropicis locutionibus subobscure dictum est, quoquo modo intellegatur, debet his rebus manifestissimis conuenire.

### Of Those Things in the 110th Psalm Which Relate to the Priesthood of Christ, and in the 22d to His Passion.

[¶22] Chapter 17.—Of Those Things in the 110th Psalm Which Relate to the Priesthood of Christ, and in the 22d to His Passion.

> Latin: Caput XVII. De his, quae ad sacerdotium Christi in psalmo centensimo nono, et de his, quae in psalmo uicensimo primo ad passionem ipsius spectant.

[¶23] Just as in that psalm also where Christ is most openly proclaimed as Priest, even as He is here as King, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” That Christ sits on the right hand of God the Father is believed, not seen; that His enemies also are put under His feet doth not yet appear; it is being done, [therefore] it will appear at last: yea, this is now believed, afterward it shall be seen. But what follows, “The Lord will send forth the rod of Thy strength out of Sion, and rule Thou in the midst of Thine enemies,” is so clear, that to deny it would imply not merely unbelief and mistake, but downright impudence. And even enemies must certainly confess that out of Sion has been sent the law of Christ which we call the gospel, and acknowledge as the rod of His strength. But that He rules in the midst of His enemies, these same enemies among whom He rules themselves bear witness, gnashing their teeth and consuming away, and having power to do nothing against Him. Then what he says a little after, “The Lord hath sworn and will not repent,” by which words He intimates that what He adds is immutable, “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek,” who is permitted to doubt of whom these things are said, seeing that now there is nowhere a priesthood and sacrifice after the order of Aaron, and everywhere men offer under Christ as the Priest, which Melchizedek showed when he blessed Abraham? Therefore to these manifest things are to be referred, when rightly understood, those things in the same psalm that are set down a little more obscurely, and we have already made known in our popular sermons how these things are to be rightly understood. So also in that where Christ utters through prophecy the humiliation of His passion, saying, “They pierced my hands and feet; they counted all my bones. Yea, they looked and stared at me.” By which words he certainly meant His body stretched out on the cross, with the hands and feet pierced and perforated by the striking through of the nails, and that He had in that way made Himself a spectacle to those who looked and stared. And he adds, “They parted my garments among them, and over my vesture they cast lots.” How this prophecy has been fulfilled the Gospel history narrates. Then, indeed, the other things also which are said there less openly are rightly understood when they agree with those which shine with so great clearness; especially because those things also which we do not believe as past, but survey as present, are beheld by the whole world, being now exhibited just as they are read of in this very psalm as predicted so long before. For it is there said a little after, “All the ends of the earth shall remember, and turn unto the Lord, and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before Him; for the kingdom is the Lord’s, and He shall rule the nations.”

> Latin: Sicut etiam in illo psalmo, ubi sacerdos Christus, quem ad modum hic rex, apertissime praedicatur: Dixit Dominus Domino meo: Sede a dextris meis, donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum. Sedere Christus ad dexteram Patris creditur, non uidetur; eius etiam inimicos poni sub pedibus eius nondum apparet; id agitur, apparebit in fine; etiam hoc nunc creditur, post uidebitur. Verum quod sequitur: Virgam uirtutis tuae emittet Dominus ex Sion, et dominare in medio inimicorum tuorum, ita clarum est, ut non solum infideliter et infeliciter, sed etiam inpudenter negetur. Et ipsi quippe fatentur inimici ex Sion missam fuisse legem Christi, quod euangelium nos uocamus, et eam uirgam uirtutis eius agnoscimus. Dominari uero eum in medio inimicorum suorum idem ipsi, inter quos dominatur, dentibus frendendo et tabescendo et nihil aduersus eum ualendo testantur. Deinde quod paulo post dicit: Iurauit Dominus, ot non paenitebit eum, quibus uerbis inmutabile futurum esse significat, quod adiungit: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech, ex eo quod iam nusquam est sacerdotium et sacrificium secundum ordinem Aaron et ubique offertur sub sacerdote Christo. quod protulit Melchisedech, quando benedixit Abraham, quis ambigere permittitur, de quo ista dicantur? Ad haec itaque manifesta referuntur, quae paulo obscurius in eodem psalmo posita sunt, quando recte intelleguntur; quod in nostris iam popularibus sermonibus fecimus. Sic et in illo, ubi humilitatem passionis suae per prophetiam Christus eloquitur dicens: Foderunt manus meas et pedes, dinumerauerunt omnia ossa mea; ipsi uero considerauerunt et conspexerunt me (quibus utique uerbis in cruce corpus significauit extentum manibus pedibusque confixis et clauorum transuerberatione confossis, eoque modo se spectaculum considerantibus et conspicientibus praebuisse), addens etiam: Diuiserunt sibi uestimenta mea et super uestimentum meum miserunt sortem, quae prophetia quem ad modum inpleta sit euangelica narratur historia, tunc profecto et alia recte intelleguntur, quae ibi minus aperte dicta sunt, cum congruunt his, quae tanta manifestatione claruerunt: praesertim quia et illa, quae non transacta credimus, sed praesentia contuemur, sicut in eodem psalmo leguntur tanto ante praedicta, ita nunc exhibita iam toto orbe cernuntur. Ibi enim paulo post dicitur: Commemorabuntur et conuertentur ad Dominum uniuersi fines terrae et adorabunt in conspectu eius uniuersae patriae gentium; quoniam Domini est regnum, et ipse dominabitur gentium.

## 84. Of the 3d, 41st, 15th, and 68th Psalms, in Which the Death and Resurrection of the Lord are Prophesied.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/84/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/84/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 18.—Of the 3d, 41st, 15th, and 68th Psalms, in Which the Death and Resurrection of the Lord are Prophesied.

> Latin: Caput XVIII. De psalm.o tertio et de quadragensimo et de quinto decimo et de sexagensimo septimo, in quibus mors et resurrectio Domini prophetatur.

[¶1] About His resurrection also the oracles of the Psalms are by no means silent. For what else is it that is sung in His person in the 3d Psalm, “I laid me down and took a sleep, [and] I awaked, for the Lord shall sustain me?” Is there perchance any one so stupid as to believe that the prophet chose to point it out to us as something great that He had slept and risen up, unless that sleep had been death, and that awaking the resurrection, which behoved to be thus prophesied concerning Christ? For in the 41st Psalm also it is shown much more clearly, where in the person of the Mediator, in the usual way, things are narrated as if past which were prophesied as yet to come, since these things which were yet to come were in the predestination and foreknowledge of God as if they were done, because they were certain. He says, “Mine enemies speak evil of me; When shall he die, and his name perish? And if he came in to see me, his heart spake vain things: he gathered iniquity to himself. He went out of doors, and uttered it all at once. Against me all mine enemies whisper together: against me do they devise evil. They have planned an unjust thing against me. Shall not he that sleeps also rise again?” These words are certainly so set down here that he may be understood to say nothing else than if he said, Shall not He that died recover life again? The previous words clearly show that His enemies have mediated and planned His death, and that this was executed by him who came in to see, and went out to betray. But to whom does not Judas here occur, who, from being His disciple, became His betrayer? Therefore because they were about to do what they had plotted,—that is, were about to kill Him,—he, to show them that with useless malice they were about to kill Him who should rise again, so adds this verse, as if he said, What vain thing are you doing? What will be your crime will be my sleep. “Shall not He that sleeps also rise again?” And yet he indicates in the following verses that they should not commit so great an impiety with impunity, saying, “Yea, the man of my peace in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, hath enlarged the heel over me;” that is, hath trampled me under foot. “But Thou,” he saith, “O Lord, be merciful unto me, and raise me up, that I may requite them.” Who can now deny this who sees the Jews, after the passion and resurrection of Christ, utterly rooted up from their abodes by warlike slaughter and destruction? For, being slain by them, He has risen again, and has requited them meanwhile by temporary discipline, save that for those who are not corrected He keeps it in store for the time when He shall judge the quick and the dead. For the Lord Jesus Himself, in pointing out that very man to the apostles as His betrayer, quoted this very verse of this psalm, and said it was fulfilled in Himself: “He that ate my bread enlarged the heel over me.” But what he says, “In whom I trusted,” does not suit the head but the body. For the Saviour Himself was not ignorant of him concerning whom He had already said before, “One of you is a devil.” But He is wont to assume the person of His members, and to ascribe to Himself what should be said of them, because the head and the body is one Christ; whence that saying in the Gospel, “I was an hungered, and ye gave me to eat.” Expounding which, He says, “Since ye did it to one of the least of mine, ye did it to me.” Therefore He said that He had trusted, because his disciples then had trusted concerning Judas; for he was numbered with the apostles.

> Latin: De resurrectione quoque eius nequaquam psalmorum oracula tacuerunt. Nam quid est aliud quod in psalmo tertio ex persona eius canitur: Ego dormiui et somnum cepi; exsurrexi, quoniam Dominus suscepit me? An forte quisquam ita desipit, ut credat uelut aliquid magnum nobis indicare uoluisse prophetam, quod dormierit et exsurrexerit, nisi somnus iste mors esset et euigilatio resurrectio, quam de Christo sic oportuit prophetari? Nam et in quadragensimo multo manifestius id ostenditur, ubi ex persona eiusdem Mediatoris more solito tamquam praeterita narrantur, quae futura prophetabantur; quoniam, quae uentura erant, iam in praedestinatione et praescientia Dei uelut facta erant [quia certa erant]. Inimici, inquit, mei dixerunt mala mihi: Quando morietur et peribit nomen eius? Et si ingrediebatur ut uideret, uana locutum est cor eius, congregauit iniquitatem ipsi. Egrediebatur foras et loquebantur simul in unum. Aduersus me susurrabant omnes inimici mei, aduersus me cogitabant mala mihi. Verbum iniquum disposuerunt aduersus me: Numquid qui dormit non adiciet ut resurgat? Hic certe ita posita sunt uerba haec, ut nihil aliud dixisse intellegatur, quam si diceret: ‘Numquid qui moritur, non adiciet ut reuiuescat?’ Superiora quippe demonstrant mortem ipsius cogitasse et disposuisse inimicos eius. et hoc actum esse per eum, qui ingrediebatur ut uideret, et egrediebatur ut proderet. Cui autem hic non ocurrat ex discipulo eius factus traditor ludas? Quia ergo facturi erant quod moliebantur, id est occisuri erant eum, ostendens illos uana malitia frustra occisuros resurrecturum, sic adiecit hunc uersum, uelut diceret: ‘Quid agitis uani? quod uestrum scelus erit, meus somnus erit’: Numquid qui dormit non adiciet ut resurgat? Et tamen eos tam magnum nefas non inpune facturos consequentibus indicat uersibus dicens: Etenim homo pacis meae, in quem speraui, qui edebat panes meos, ampliauit super me calcaneum, hoc est conculcauit me. Tu autem, inquit, Domine, miserere mei et resuscita me, et reddam illis. Quis hoc iam neget, qui Iudaeos post passionem resurrectionemque Christi de sedibus suis bellica strage et excidio funditus eradicatos uidet? Occisus enim ab eis resurrexit et reddidit eis interim temporariam disciplinam, excepto quod non correctis seruat, quando uiuos et mortuos iudicabit. Nam Dominus ipse Iesus istum ipsum traditorem suum per panem porrectum ostendens apostolis hunc etiam uersum psalmi huius commemorauit et in se dixit inpletum: Qui edebat panes meos, ampliauit super me calcaneum. Quod autem ait: In quem speraui, non congruit capiti, sed corpori. Neque enim nesciebat eum ipse Saluator, de quo ante iam dixerat: Unus ex uobis diabolus est. Sed solet in se membrorum suorum transferre personam et sibi tribuere quod esset illorum, quia caput et corpus unus est Christus; unde illud est in euangelio: Esuriui, et dedistis mihi manducare, quod exponens ait: Quando uni ex minimis meis fecistis, mihi fecistis. Se itaque dixit sperasse, quod tunc sperauerant de Iuda discipuli eius, quando est connumeratus apostolis. Iudaei autem Christum. quem sperant, moriturum esse non sperant.

[¶2] But the Jews do not expect that the Christ whom they expect will die; therefore they do not think ours to be Him whom the law and the prophets announced, but feign to themselves I know not whom of their own, exempt from the suffering of death. Therefore, with wonderful emptiness and blindness, they contend that the words we have set down signify, not death and resurrection, but sleep and awaking again. But the 16th Psalm also cries to them, “Therefore my heart is jocund, and my tongue hath exulted; moreover, my flesh also shall rest in hope: for Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt Thou give Thine Holy One to see corruption.” Who but He that rose again the third day could say his flesh had rested in this hope; that His soul, not being left in hell, but speedily returning to it, should revive it, that it should not be corrupted as corpses are wont to be, which they can in no wise say of David the prophet and king? The 68th Psalm also cries out, “Our God is the God of Salvation: even of the Lord the exit was by death.” What could be more openly said? For the God of salvation is the Lord Jesus, which is interpreted Saviour, or Healing One. For this reason this name was given, when it was said before He was born of the virgin: “Thou shall bring forth a Son, and shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins.” Because His blood was shed for the remission of their sins, it behoved Him to have no other exit from this life than death. Therefore, when it had been said, “Our God is the God of salvation,” immediately it was added, “Even of the Lord the exit was by death,” in order to show that we were to be saved by His dying. But that saying is marvellous, “Even of the Lord,” as if it was said, Such is that life of mortals, that not even the Lord Himself could go out of it otherwise save through death.

> Latin: Ideo quem lex et prophetae adnuntiauerunt, nostrum esse non putant, sed nescio quem suum, quem sibi alienum a mortis passione confingunt. Ideo mirabili uanitate adque caecitate uerba, quae posuimus, non mortem et resurrectionem, sed somnum et euigilationem significasse contendunt. Sed clamat eis etiam psalmus quintus decimus: Propter hoc iucundatum est cor meum et exultauit lingua mea, insuper et caro mea requiescet in spe; quoniam non derelinques animam meam in inferno, nec dabis sanctum tuum uidere corruptionem. Quis in ea spe diceret requieuisse carnem suam, ut non derelicta anima sua in inferno, sed cito ad eam redeunte reuiuesceret, ne corrumperetur, sicut cadauera corrumpi solent, nisi qui die tertio resurrexit? Quod utique dicere non possunt de propheta et rege Dauid. Clamat et sexagensimus septimus: Deus noster Deus saluos faciendi, et Domini exitus mortis. Quid apertius diceretur? Deus enim saluos faciendi Dominus est Iesus, quod interpretatur saluator siue salutaris. Nam ratio nominis huius haec reddita est, quando priusquam ex uirgine nasceretur dictum est: Pariet filium, et uocabis nomen eius Iesum. Ipse enim saluum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum. In quorum peccatorum remissionem quoniam sanguis eius effusus est, non utique oportuit eum de hac uita exitus alios habere quam mortis. Ideo cum dictum esset: Deus noster Deus saluos faciendi, continuo subiunctum est: Et Domini exitus mortis, ut ostenderetur moriendo saluos esse facturus. Sed mirando dictum est: Et Domini; tamquam diceretur: "Talis est ista uita mortalium, ut nec ipse Dominus aliter ab illa exiret, nisi per mortem."

### Of the 69th Psalm, in Which the Obstinate Unbelief of the Jews is Declared.

[¶4] Chapter 19.—Of the 69th Psalm, in Which the Obstinate Unbelief of the Jews is Declared.

> Latin: Caput XIX. De psalmo sexagensimo octauo, in quo Iudaeorum infidelitas et pertinacia declaratur.

[¶5] But when the Jews will not in the least yield to the testimonies of this prophecy, which are so manifest, and are also brought by events to so clear and certain a completion, certainly that is fulfilled in them which is written in that psalm which here follows. For when the things which pertain to His passion are prophetically spoken there also in the person of Christ, that is mentioned which is unfolded in the Gospel: “They gave me gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar for drink.” And as it were after such a feast and dainties in this way given to Himself, presently He brings in [these words]: “Let their table become a trap before them, and a retribution, and an offence: let their eyes be dimmed that they see not, and their back be always bowed down,” etc. Which things are not spoken as wished for, but are predicted under the prophetic form of wishing. What wonder, then, if those whose eyes are dimmed that they see not do not see these manifest things? What wonder if those do not look up at heavenly things whose back is always bowed down that they may grovel among earthly things? For these words transferred from the body signify mental faults. Let these things which have been said about the Psalms, that is, about king David’s prophecy, suffice, that we may keep within some bound. But let those readers excuse us who knew them all before; and let them not complain about those perhaps stronger proofs which they know or think I have passed by.

> Latin: Sed ut Iudaei tam manifestis huius prophetiae testimoniis etiam rebus ad effectum tam clarum certumque perductis omnino non cedant, profecto in eis illud inpletur, quod in eo psalmo, qui hunc sequitur, scriptum est. Cum enim et illic ex persona Christi, quae ad eius passionem pertinent, prophetice dicerentur, commemoratum est, quod in euangelio patuit: Dederunt in escam meam fel et in siti mea potum mihi dederunt acetum. Et uelut post tale conuiuium epulasque sibi huiusce modi exhibitas mox intulit: Fiat mensa eorum coram ipsis in muscipulam et in retributionem et in scandalum; obscurentur oculi eorum ne uideant, et dorsum eorum semper incurua, et cetera, quae non optando sunt dicta, sed optandi specie prophetando praedicta. Quid ergo mirum, si haec manifesta non uident, quorum oculi sunt obscurati, ne uideant? Quid mirum, si caelestia non suspiciunt, qui ut in terrena sint proni, dorsum eorum semper incuruum est? His enim uerbis translatis a corpore uitia significantur animorum. Ista de psalmis, hoc est de prophetia regis Dauid, satis dicta sint, ut aliquis modus sit. Ignoscant autem qui haec legunt et cuncta illa nouerunt, et de his, quae fortasse firmiora me praetermisisse uel intellegunt uel existimant, non querantur.

### Of David’s Reign and Merit; And of His Son Solomon, and that Prophecy Relating to Christ Which is Found Either in Those Books Which are Joined to Those Written by Him, or in Those Which are Indubitably His.

[¶7] Chapter 20.—Of David’s Reign and Merit; And of His Son Solomon, and that Prophecy Relating to Christ Which is Found Either in Those Books Which are Joined to Those Written by Him, or in Those Which are Indubitably His.

> Latin: Caput XX. De regno ac merito Dauid et de filio ipsius Salomone eaque prophetia, quae ad Christum pertinens inuenitur uel in eis libris, qui scriptis ipsius copulantur, uel in eis, quos ipsius esse non dubium est.

[¶8] David therefore reigned in the earthly Jerusalem, a son of the heavenly Jerusalem, much praised by the divine testimony; for even his faults are overcome by great piety, through the most salutary humility of his repentance, that he is altogether one of those of whom he himself says, “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.” After him Solomon his son reigned over the same whole people, who, as was said before, began to reign while his father was still alive. This man, after good beginnings, made a bad end. For indeed “prosperity, which wears out the minds of the wise,” hurt him more than that wisdom profited him, which even yet is and shall hereafter be renowned, and was then praised far and wide. He also is found to have prophesied in his books, of which three are received as of canonical authority, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. But it has been customary to ascribe to Solomon other two, of which one is called Wisdom, the other Ecclesiasticus, on account of some resemblance of style,—but the more learned have no doubt that they are not his; yet of old the Church, especially the Western, received them into authority,—in the one of which, called the Wisdom of Solomon, the passion of Christ is most openly prophesied. For indeed His impious murderers are quoted as saying, “Let us lie in wait for the righteous, for he is unpleasant to us, and contrary to our works; and he upbraideth us with our transgressions of the law, and objecteth to our disgrace the transgressions of our education. He professeth to have the knowledge of God, and he calleth himself the Son of God. He was made to reprove our thoughts. He is grievous for as even to behold; for his life is unlike other men’s and his ways are different. We are esteemed of him as counterfeits; and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness. He extols the latter end of the righteous; and glorieth that he hath God for his Father. Let us see, therefore, if his words be true; and let us try what shall happen to him, and we shall know what shall be the end of him. For if the righteous be the Son of God, He will undertake for him, and deliver him out of the hand of those that are against him. Let us put him to the question with contumely and torture, that we may know his reverence, and prove his patience. Let us condemn him to the most shameful death; for by His own sayings He shall be respected. These things did they imagine, and were mistaken; for their own malice hath quite blinded them.” But in Ecclesiasticus the future faith of the nations is predicted in this manner: “Have mercy upon us, O God, Ruler of all, and send Thy fear upon all the nations: lift up Thine hand over the strange nations, and let them see Thy power. As Thou wast sanctified in us before them, so be Thou sanctified in them before us, and let them acknowledge Thee, according as we also have acknowledged Thee; for there is not a God beside Thee, O Lord.” We see this prophecy in the form of a wish and prayer fulfilled through Jesus Christ. But the things which are not written in the canon of the Jews cannot be quoted against their contradictions with so great validity.

> Latin: Regnauit ergo Dauid in terrena Hierusalem, filius caelestis Hierusalem, diuino multum testimonio praedicatus, quia et delicta eius tanta pietate superata sunt per saluberrimam paenitendi humilitatem, ut prorsus inter eos sit, de quibus ipse ait: Beati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates et quorum tecta sunt peccata. Post hunc regnauit eidem populo uniuerso Salomon filius eius, qui, ut supra dictum est, patre suo uiuente coepit regnare. Hic bonis initiis malos exitus habuit. Quippe secundae res, quae sapientium animos fatigant, magis huic obfuerunt, quam profuit ipsa sapientia. etiam nunc et deinceps memorabilis, et tunc longe lateque laudata. Prophetasse etiam ipse reperitur in suis libris, qui tres recepti sunt in auctoritatem canonicam: Prouerbia, ecclesiastes et canticum canticorum. Alii uero duo, quorum unus sapientia, alter ecclesiasticus dicitur, propter eloquii nonnullam similitudinem, ut Salomonis dicantur, obtinuit consuetudo; non autem esse ipsius non dubitant doctiores; eos tamen in auctoritatem maxime occidentalis antiquitus recepit ecclesia. Quorum in uno, qui appellatur sapientia Salomonis, passio Christi apertissime prophetatur. Inpii quippe interfectores eius commemorantur dicentes: Circumueniamus iustum, quoniam insuauis est nobis et contrarius est operibus nostris et inproperat nobis peccata legis et infamatis in nos peccata disciplinae nostrae. Promittit scientiam Dei se habere et filium Dei se nominat. Factus est nobis in traductionem cogitationum nostrarum. Grauis est nobis etiam ad uidendum, quoniam dissimilis est aliis uita illius et inmutatae uiae eius. Tamquam nugaces aestimati sumus ab illo, et abstinet se a uiis nostris quasi ab inmunditiis; praefert nouissima iustorum et gloriatur patrem Deum se habere. Videamus ergo si sermones illius ueri sunt. et tentemus quae uentura sunt illi, et sciemus quae erunt nouissima illius. Si enim est iustus filius Dei, suscipiet illum et liberabit eum de manu contrariorum. Contumelia et tormento interrogemus illum, ut sciamus reuerentiam illius et probemus patientiam ipsius. Morte turpissima condemnemus illum; erit enim ei respectus ex sermonibus illius. Haec cogitauerunt et errauerunt; excaecauit enim illos malitia ipsorum. In ecclesiastico autem fides gentium futura praedicitur isto modo: Miserere nostri, dominator Deus omnium, et inmitte timorem tuum super omnes gentes; extolle manum tuam super gentes alienas et uideant potentiam tuam. Sicut coram illis sanctificatus es in nobis, ita coram nobis magnificeris in illis, et agnoscant te secundum quod et nos agnouimus te, quia non est Deus praeter te, Domine. Hanc optandi et precandi specie prophetiam per legum Christum uidemus inpletam. Sed aduersus contradictores non tanta firmitate proferuntur, quae scripta non sunt in canone Iudaeorum.

[¶9] But as regards those three books which it is evident are Solomon’s and held canonical by the Jews, to show what of this kind may be found in them pertaining to Christ and the Church demands a laborious discussion, which, if now entered on, would lengthen this work unduly. Yet what we read in the Proverbs of impious men saying, “Let us unrighteously hide in the earth the righteous man; yea, let us swallow him up alive as hell, and let us take away his memory from the earth: let us seize his precious possession,” is not so obscure that it may not be understood, without laborious exposition, of Christ and His possession the Church. Indeed, the gospel parable about the wicked husbandmen shows that our Lord Jesus Himself said something like it: “This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.” In like manner also that passage in this same book, on which we have already touched when we were speaking of the barren woman who hath born seven, must soon after it was uttered have come to be understood of only Christ and the Church by those who knew that Christ was the Wisdom of God. “Wisdom hath builded her an house, and hath set up seven pillars; she hath sacrificed her victims, she hath mingled her wine in the bowl; she hath also furnished her table. She hath sent her servants summoning to the bowl with excellent proclamation, saying, Who is simple, let him turn aside to me. And to the void of sense she hath said, Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled for you.” Here certainly we perceive that the Wisdom of God, that is, the Word co-eternal with the Father, hath builded Him an house, even a human body in the virgin womb, and hath subjoined the Church to it as members to a head, hath slain the martyrs as victims, hath furnished a table with wine and bread, where appears also the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, and hath called the simple and the void of sense, because, as saith the apostle, “He hath chosen the weak things of this world that He might confound the things which are mighty.” Yet to these weak ones she saith what follows, “Forsake simplicity, that ye may live; and seek prudence, that ye may have life.” But to be made partakers of this table is itself to begin to have life. For when he says in another book, which is called Ecclesiastes, “There is no good for a man, except that he should eat and drink,” what can he be more credibly understood to say, than what belongs to the participation of this table which the Mediator of the New Testament Himself, the Priest after the order of Melchizedek, furnishes with His own body and blood? For that sacrifice has succeeded all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, which were slain as a shadow of that which was to come; wherefore also we recognize the voice in the 40th Psalm as that of the same Mediator speaking through prophesy, “Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire; but a body hast Thou perfected for me.” Because, instead of all these sacrifices and oblations, His body is offered, and is served up to the partakers of it. For that this Ecclesiastes, in this sentence about eating and drinking, which he often repeats, and very much commends, does not savor the dainties of carnal pleasures, is made plain enough when he says, “It is better to go into the house of mourning than to go into the house of feasting.” And a little after He says, “The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning, and the heart of the simple in the house of feasting.” But I think that more worthy of quotation from this book which relates to both cities, the one of the devil, the other of Christ, and to their kings, the devil and Christ: “Woe to thee, O land,” he says, “when thy king is a youth, and thy princes eat in the morning! Blessed art thou, O land, when thy king is the son of nobles, and thy princes eat in season, in fortitude, and not in confusion!” He has called the devil a youth, because of the folly and pride, and rashness and unruliness, and other vices which are wont to abound at that age; but Christ is the Son of nobles, that is, of the holy patriarchs, of those belonging to the free city, of whom He was begotten in the flesh. The princes of that and other cities are eaters in the morning, that is, before the suitable hour, because they do not expect the seasonable felicity, which is the true, in the world to come, desiring to be speedily made happy with the renown of this world; but the princes of the city of Christ patiently wait for the time of a blessedness that is not fallacious. This is expressed by the words, “in fortitude, and not in confusion,” because hope does not deceive them; of which the apostle says, “But hope maketh not ashamed.” A psalm also saith, “For they that hope in Thee shall not be put to shame.” But now the Song of Songs is a certain spiritual pleasure of holy minds, in the marriage of that King and Queen-city, that is, Christ and the Church. But this pleasure is wrapped up in allegorical veils, that the Bridegroom may be more ardently desired, and more joyfully unveiled, and may appear; to whom it is said in this same song, “Equity hath delighted Thee; and the bride who there hears, “Charity is in thy delights.” We pass over many things in silence, in our desire to finish this work.

> Latin: In tribus uero illis, quos Salomonis esse constat et Iudaei canonicos habent, ut ostendatur ad Christum et ecclesiam pertinere quod in eis eius modi reperitur, operosa disputatio necessaria est, quae nos ultra quam oportet, si nunc adhibetur, extendit. Tamen quod in prouerbiis legitur, uiros inpios dicere: Abscondamus in terra uirum iustum iniuste, absorbeamus uero eum tamquam infernus uiuentem et auferamus eius memoriam de terra, possessionem eius pretiosam adprehendamus, non ita obscurum est, ut de Christo et possessione eius ecclesia sine laboriosa expositione non possit intellegi. Tale quippe aliquid etiam Dominus ipse Iesus per euangelicam parabolam ostendit dixisse malos colonos: Hic est heres, uenite, occidamus eum, et nostra erit hereditas. Itemque illud in eodem libro, quod iam ante perstrinximus, cum ageremus de sterili, quae peperit septem, non nisi de Christo et ecclesia, mox ut fuerit, pronuntiatum consueuit intellegi ab eis, qui Christum sapientiam Dei esse nouerunt: Sapientia aedificauit sibi domum et subfulsit columnas septem; immolauit suas uictimas, miscuit in cratere uinum suum et parauit mensam suam. Misit seruos suos conuocans cum excellenti praedicatione ad craterem dicens: Quis est insipiens? Diuertat ad me. Et inopibus sensu dixit: Venite, manducate de meis panibus et bibite uinum quod miscui uobis. Hic certe agnoscimus Dei sapientiam, hoc est Verbum Patri coaeternum, in utero uirginali domum sibi aedificasse corpus humanum et huic, tamquam capiti membra, ecclesiam subiunxisse, martyrum uictimas immolasse, mensam in uino et panibus praeparasse, ubi apparet etiam sacerdotium secundum ordinem Melchisedech, insipientes et inopes sensu uocasse, quia, sicut dicit apostolus, infirma huius mundi elegit, ut confunderet fortia. Quibus tamen infirmis quod sequitur dicit: Derelinquite insipientiam, ut uiuatis, et quaerite prudentiam, ut habeatis uitam. Participem autem fieri mensae illius, ipsum est incipere habere uitam. Nam et in alio libro, qui uocatur ecclesiastes, ubi ait: Non est bonum homini, nisi quod manducabit et bibet, quid credibilius dicere intellegitur, quam quod ad participationem mensae huius pertinet, quam sacerdos ipse Mediator testamenti noui exhibet secundum ordinem Melchisedech de corpore et sanguine suo? Id enim sacrificium successit omnibus illis sacrificiis ueteris testamenti, quae immolabantur in umbra futuri; propter quod etiam uocem illam in psalmo tricensimo et nono eiusdem Mediatoris per prophetiam loquentis agnoscimus: Sacrificium et oblationem noluisti, corpus autem perfecisti mihi; quia pro illis omnibus sacrificiis et oblationibus corpus eius offertur et participantibus ministratur. Nam istum ecclesiasten in hac sententia manducandi et bibendi, quam saepe repetit plurimumque commendat, non sapere carnalis epulas uoluptatis, satis illud ostendit, ubi ait: Melius est ire in domum luctus quam ire in domum potus; et paulo post: Cor, inquit, sapientium in domo luctus et cor insipientium in domo epularum. Sed illud magis commemorandum existimo de hoc libro, quod pertinet ad ciuitates duas, unam diaboli, alteram Christi, et earum reges diabolum et Christum: Vae tibi, terra, inquit, cuius rex adulescens, et principes tui mane comedunt. Beata tu, terra, cuius rex tuus filius ingenuorum, et principes tui in tempore comedunt, in fortitudine, et non in confusione. Adulescentem dixit diabolum propter stultitiam et superbiam et temeritatem et petulantiam ceteraque uitia, quae huic aetati adsolent abundare; Christum autem filium ingenuorum, sanctorum scilicet patriarcharum, pertinentium ad liberam ciuitatem, ex quibus est in carne progenitus. Principes illius ciuitatis mane manducantes, id est ante horam congruam, quia non exspectant opportunam, quae uera est, in futuro saeculo felicitatem, festinanter beari huius saeculi celebritate cupientes; principes autem ciuitatis Christi tempus non fallacis beatitudinis patienter exspectant. Hoc ait: In fortitudine, et non in confusione, quia non eos fallit spes, de qua dicit apostolus: Spes autem non confundit; dicit et psalmus: Etenim qui te exspectant, non confundentur. Iam uero canticum canticorum spiritalis quaedam sanctarum est uoluptas mentium in coniugio illius regis et reginae ciuitatis, quod est Christus et ecclesia. Sed haec uoluptas allegoricis tegminibus inuoluta est, ut desideretur ardentius nudeturque iucundius, et appareat sponsus, cui dicitur in eodem cantico: Aequitas dilexit te, et sponsa, quae ibi audit: Caritas in deliciis tuis. Tacita multa transimus cura huius operis terminandi.

### Of the Kings After Solomon, Both in Judah and Israel.

[¶11] Chapter 21.—Of the Kings After Solomon, Both in Judah and Israel.

> Latin: Caput XXI. De regibus post Salomonem siue in Iuda siue in Israel.

[¶12] The other kings of the Hebrews after Solomon are scarcely found to have prophesied, through certain enigmatic words or actions of theirs, what may pertain to Christ and the Church, either in Judah or Israel; for so were the parts of that people styled, when, on account of Solomon’s offence, from the time of Rehoboam his son, who succeeded him in the kingdom, it was divided by God as a punishment. The ten tribes, indeed, which Jeroboam the servant of Solomon received, being appointed the king in Samaria, were distinctively called Israel, although this had been the name of that whole people; but the two tribes, namely, of Judah and Benjamin, which for David’s sake, lest the kingdom should be wholly wrenched from his race, remained subject to the city of Jerusalem, were called Judah, because that was the tribe whence David sprang. But Benjamin, the other tribe which, as was said, belonged to the same kingdom, was that whence Saul sprang before David. But these two tribes together, as was said, were called Judah, and were distinguished by this name from Israel which was the distinctive title of the ten tribes under their own king. For the tribe of Levi, because it was the priestly one, bound to the servitude of God, not of the kings, was reckoned the thirteenth. For Joseph, one of the twelve sons of Israel, did not, like the others, form one tribe, but two, Ephraim and Manasseh. Yet the tribe of Levi also belonged more to the kingdom of Jerusalem, where was the temple of God whom it served. On the division of the people, therefore, Rehoboam, son of Solomon, reigned in Jerusalem as the first king of Judah, and Jeroboam, servant of Solomon, in Samaria as king of Israel. And when Rehoboam wished as a tyrant to pursue that separated part with war, the people were prohibited from fighting with their brethren by God, who told them through a prophet that He had done this; whence it appeared that in this matter there had been no sin either of the king or people of Israel, but the accomplished will of God the avenger. When this was known, both parts settled down peaceably, for the division made was not religious but political.

> Latin: Ceteri post Salomonem reges Hebraeorum uix inueniuntur per aliqua aenigmata dictorum suorumrerumue gestarum, quod ad Christum et ecclesiam pertineat. prophetasse, siue in Iuda siue in Israel. Sic enim appellatae sunt illius populi partes, ex quo propter Salomonis offensam tempore filii eius Roboam, qui patri successit in regnum, Deo uindicante diuisus est. Proinde tribus decem, quas accepit Hieroboam, seruus Salomonis, rex eis in Samaria constitutus, proprie uocabantur Israel, quamuis hoc uniuersi illius populi nomen esset. Duabus uero tribubus, Iudae scilicet et Beniamin, quae propter Dauid ne penitus regnum stirpis eius fuisset eradicatum, remanserant subiacentes ciuitati Hierusalem, Iudae nomen fuit, quia ipsa erat tribus unde Dauid. Beniamin uero tribus altera ad idem regnum, sicut dixi, pertinens erat, unde fuit Saul rex ante Dauid. Sed simul istae duae tribus, ut dictum est, Iuda uocabantur, et hoc nomine discernebantur. ab Israel, quod appellabantur proprie decem tribus habentes suum regem. Nam tribus Leui, quoniam sacerdotalis fuit, Dei, non regum seruitio mancipata, tertia decima numerabatur. Ioseph quippe unus ex duodecim filiis Israel, non unam, sicut ceteri singulas, sed duas tribus fecit, Ephraem et Manassen. Verum tamen etiam tribus Leui ad regnum Hierosolymitanum pertinebat magis, ubi erat Dei templum, cui seruiebat. Diuiso igitur populo primus regnauit in Hierusalem Roboam, rex Iuda, filius Salomonis, et in Samaria Hieroboam, rex Israel, seruus Salomonis. Et cum uoluisset Roboam tamquam tyrannidem diuisae illius partis bello persequi, prohibitus est populus pugnare cum fratribus suis dicente Deo per prophetam se hoc fecisse. Unde apparuit nullum in ea re uel regis Israel uel populi fuisse peccatum, sed uoluntatem Dei uindicantis inpletam. Qua cognita pars utraque inter se pacata conquieuit; non enim religionis, sed regni fuerat facta diuisio.

### Of Jeroboam, Who Profaned the People Put Under Him by the Impiety of Idolatry, Amid Which, However, God Did Not Cease to Inspire the Prophets, and to Guard Many from the Crime of Idolatry.

[¶14] Chapter 22.—Of Jeroboam, Who Profaned the People Put Under Him by the Impiety of Idolatry, Amid Which, However, God Did Not Cease to Inspire the Prophets, and to Guard Many from the Crime of Idolatry.

> Latin: Caput XXII. De Hieroboam, qui inpietate idolatriae subditum sibi populum profanauit, in quo tamen non destitit Deus et prophetas inspirare et multos ab idolatriae crimine custodire.

[¶15] But Jeroboam king of Israel, with perverse mind, not believing in God, whom he had proved true in promising and giving him the kingdom, was afraid lest, by coming to the temple of God which was in Jerusalem, where, according to the divine law, that whole nation was to come in order to sacrifice, the people should be seduced from him, and return to David’s line as the seed royal; and set up idolatry in his kingdom, and with horrible impiety beguiled the people, ensnaring them to the worship of idols with himself. Yet God did not altogether cease to reprove by the prophets, not only that king, but also his successors and imitators in his impiety, and the people too. For there the great and illustrious prophet Elijah and Elisha his disciple arose, who also did many wonderful works. Even there, when Elijah said, “O Lord, they have slain Thy prophets, they have digged down Thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life,” it was answered that seven thousand men were there who had not bowed the knee to Baal.

> Latin: Verum rex Israel Hieroboam mente peruersa non credens Deo, quem ueracem promisso sibi regno datoque probauerat, timuit ne ueniendo ad templum Dei, quod erat in Hierusalem, quo secundum diuinam legem sacrificandi causa uniuersae illi genti ueniendum fuit, seduceretur ab eo populus et stirpi Dauid tamquam regio semini redderetur, et instituit. idolatriam n regno suo et populum Dei secum simulacrorum cultu obstrictum nefanda inpietate decepit. Nec tamen omni modo cessauit Deus non solum illum regem, uerum etiam successores eius et inpietatis imitatores populumque ipsum arguere per prophetas. Nam ibi exstiterunt et magni illi insignesque prophetae, qui etiam mirabilia multa fecerunt, Helias et Helisaeus discipulus eius; ibi etiam dicenti Heliae: Domine, prophetas tuos occiderunt, altaria tua suffoderunt, et ego relictus sum solus, et quaerunt animam meam, responsum est esse illic septem milia uirorum, qui non curuauerunt genua ante Bahal.

### Of the Varying Condition of Both the Hebrew Kingdoms, Until the People of Both Were at Different Times Led into Captivity, Judah Being Afterwards Recalled into His Kingdom, Which Finally Passed into the Power of the Romans.

[¶17] Chapter 23.—Of the Varying Condition of Both the Hebrew Kingdoms, Until the People of Both Were at Different Times Led into Captivity, Judah Being Afterwards Recalled into His Kingdom, Which Finally Passed into the Power of the Romans.

> Latin: Caput XXIII. De uario utriusque regni Hebraeorum statu, donec ambo populi in captiuitatem diuerso tempore ducerentur, reuocato postea Iuda in regnum suum, quod nouissime in Romanorum transiit potestatem.

[¶18] So also in the kingdom of Judah pertaining to Jerusalem prophets were not lacking even in the times of succeeding kings, just as it pleased God to send them, either for the prediction of what was needful, or for correction of sin and instruction in righteousness; for there, too, although far less than in Israel, kings arose who grievously offended God by their impieties, and, along with their people, who were like them, were smitten with moderate scourges. The no small merits of the pious kings there are praised indeed. But we read that in Israel the kings were, some more, others less, yet all wicked. Each part, therefore, as the divine providence either ordered or permitted, was both lifted up by prosperity and weighed down by adversity of various kinds; and it was afflicted not only by foreign, but also by civil wars with each other, in order that by certain existing causes the mercy or anger of God might be manifested; until, by His growing indignation, that whole nation was by the conquering Chaldeans not only overthrown in its abode, but also for the most part transported to the lands of the Assyrians,—first, that part of the thirteen tribes called Israel, but afterwards Judah also, when Jerusalem and that most noble temple was cast down,—in which lands it rested seventy years in captivity. Being after that time sent forth thence, they rebuilt the overthrown temple. And although very many stayed in the lands of the strangers, yet the kingdom no longer had two separate parts, with different kings over each, but in Jerusalem there was one prince over them; and at certain times, from every direction wherever they were, and from whatever place they could, they all came to the temple of God which was there. Yet not even then were they without foreign enemies and conquerors; yea, Christ found them tributaries of the Romans.

> Latin: Itemque in regno Iuda pertinente ad Hierusalem etiam regum succedentium temporibus non defuerunt prophetae; sicut Deo placebat eos mittere uel ad praenuntiandum, quod opus erat, uel ad corripienda peccata praecipiendamque iustitiam. Nam et illic, etsi longe minus quam in Israel, tamen exstiterunt reges, qui suis inpietatibus Deum grauiter offenderent et moderatis flagellis cum populo simili plecterentur. Piorum sane regum merita ibi non parua laudantur; in Israel autem reges alios magis, alios minus, omnes tamen reprobos legimus. Utraque igitur pars, sicut iubebat diuina prouidentia uel sinebat, uariis et erigebatur prosperitatibus et aduersitatibus premebatur, et sic adfligebatur non solum externis, uerum etiam inter se ciuilibus bellis, ut certis exsistentibus causis misericordia Dei uel ira patesceret, donec eius indignatione crescente uniuersa gens illa a Chaldaeis debellantibus non solum subuerteretur in sedibus suis, sed etiam ex maxima sui parte transferretur in terras Assyriorum; prius illa pars, quae uocabatur Israel in tribubus decem; postea uero etiam ludas, euersa Hierusalem et templo illo nobilissimo; in quibus terris per annos septuaginta captiuum egit otium. Post quos inde dimissa templum, quod euersum fuerat, instaurauit; et quamuis plurimi eius in alienigenarum degerent terris, non habuit tamen deinceps duas regni partes et duos diuersos in singulis partibus reges; sed in Hierusalem princeps eorum erat unus, adque ad Dei templum, quod ibi erat, omnes undique, ubicumque essent et undecumque possent, per certa tempora ueniebant. Sed nec tunc eis hostes ex aliis gentibus expugnatoresque defuerunt; nam etiam Romanorum iam tributarios eos Christus inuenit. CAPUT XXIIII.

### Of the Prophets, Who Either Were the Last Among the Jews, or Whom the Gospel History Reports About the Time of Christ’s Nativity.

[¶20] Chapter 24.—Of the Prophets, Who Either Were the Last Among the Jews, or Whom the Gospel History Reports About the Time of Christ’s Nativity.

[¶21] But in that whole time after they returned from Babylon, after Malachi, Haggai, and Zechariah, who then prophesied, and Ezra, they had no prophets down to the time of the Saviour’s advent except another Zechariah, the father of John, and Elisabeth his wife, when the nativity of Christ was already close at hand; and when He was already born, Simeon the aged, and Anna a widow, and now very old; and, last of all, John himself, who, being a young man, did not predict that Christ, now a young man, was to come, but by prophetic knowledge pointed Him out though unknown; for which reason the Lord Himself says, “The law and the prophets were until John.” But the prophesying of these five is made known to us in the gospel, where the virgin mother of our Lord herself is also found to have prophesied before John. But this prophecy of theirs the wicked Jews do not receive; but those innumerable persons received it who from them believed the gospel. For then truly Israel was divided in two, by that division which was foretold by Samuel the prophet to king Saul as immutable. But even the reprobate Jews hold Malachi, Haggai, Zechariah, and Ezra as the last received into canonical authority. For there are also writings of these, as of others, who being but a very few in the great multitude of prophets, have written those books which have obtained canonical authority, of whose predictions it seems good to me to put in this work some which pertain to Christ and His Church; and this, by the Lord’s help, shall be done more conveniently in the following book, that we may not further burden this one, which is already too long.

> Latin: De prophetis, qui uel aput Iudaeos postremi fuerunt, uel quos circa tempus natiuitatis Christi euangelica prodit historia. Toto autem illo tempore, ex quo redierunt de Babylonia, post Malachiam, Aggaeum et Zachariam, qui tunc prophetauerunt, et Esdram non habuerunt prophetas usque ad Saluatoris aduentum, nisi alium Zachariam patrem Iohannis et Elisabeth eius uxorem, Christi natiuitate iam proxima, et eo iam nato Simeonem senem et Annam uiduam iamque grandaeuam et ipsum Iohannem nouissimum; qui iuuenis iam iuuenem Christum non quidem futurum praedixit, sed tamen incognitum prophetica cognitione monstrauit; propter quod ipse Dominus ait: Lex et prophetae usque ad Iohannem. Sed istorum quinque prophetatio ex euangelio nobis nota est. ubi et ipsa uirgo mater Domini ante Iohannem prophetasse inuenitur. Sed hanc istorum prophetiam Iudaei reprobi non accipiunt; acceperunt autem, qui ex eis innumerabiles euangelio crediderunt. Tunc enim est uere Israel diuisus in duo diuisione illa, quae per Samuelem prophetam Sauli regi est inmutabilis praenuntiata. Malachiam uero, Aggaeum, Zachariam et Esdram etiam Iudaei reprobi in auctoritatem canonicam receptos nouissimos habent. Sunt enim et scripta eorum. sicut aliorum, qui in magna multitudine prophetarum perpauci ea scripserunt, quae auctoritatem canonis obtinerent. De quorum praedictis, quae ad Christum ecclesiamque eius pertinent, nonnulla mihi in hoc opere uideo esse ponenda; quod commodius fiet adiuuante Domino sequenti libro, ne hunc tam prolixum ulterius oneremus.

### A parallel history of the earthly and heavenly cities from the time of Abraham to the end of the world.

[¶23] Book XVIII.

> Latin: Liber XVIII

[¶24] Argument—Augustin traces the parallel courses of the earthly and heavenly cities from the time of Abraham to the end of the world; and alludes to the oracles regarding Christ, both those uttered by the Sibyls, and those of the sacred prophets who wrote after the foundation of Rome, Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, Micah, and their successors.

## 85. Of Those Things Down to the Times of the Saviour Which Have Been Discussed in the Seventeen Books.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/85/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/85/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 1.—Of Those Things Down to the Times of the Saviour Which Have Been Discussed in the Seventeen Books.

> Latin: Caput I. De his, quae usque ad tempora Saluatoris decem et septem uoluminibus disputata sunt.

[¶1] I Promised to write of the rise, progress, and appointed end of the two cities, one of which is God’s, the other this world’s, in which, so far as mankind is concerned, the former is now a stranger. But first of all I undertook, so far as His grace should enable me, to refute the enemies of the city of God, who prefer their gods to Christ its founder, and fiercely hate Christians with the most deadly malice. And this I have done in the first ten books. Then, as regards my threefold promise which I have just mentioned, I have treated distinctly, in the four books which follow the tenth, of the rise of both cities. After that, I have proceeded from the first man down to the flood in one book, which is the fifteenth of this work; and from that again down to Abraham our work has followed both in chronological order. From the patriarch Abraham down to the time of the Israelite kings, at which we close our sixteenth book, and thence down to the advent of Christ Himself in the flesh, to which period the seventeenth book reaches, the city of God appears from my way of writing to have run its course alone; whereas it did not run its course alone in this age, for both cities, in their course amid mankind, certainly experienced chequered times together just as from the beginning. But I did this in order that, first of all, from the time when the promises of God began to be more clear, down to the virgin birth of Him in whom those things promised from the first were to be fulfilled, the course of that city which is God’s might be made more distinctly apparent, without interpolation of foreign matter from the history of the other city, although down to the revelation of the new covenant it ran its course, not in light, but in shadow. Now, therefore, I think fit to do what I passed by, and show, so far as seems necessary, how that other city ran its course from the times of Abraham, so that attentive readers may compare the two.

> Latin: De ciuitatum duarum, quarum Dei una, saeculi huius est altera, in qua est, quantum ad hominum genus pertinet, etiam ista peregrina, exortu et procursu et debitis finibus me scripturum esse promisi, cum prius inimicos ciuitatis Dei, qui conditori eius Christo deos suos praeferunt et liuore sibi perniciosissimo atrociter inuident Christianis, quantum me adiuuaret eius gratia, refellissem, quod uoluminibus decem prioribus feci. De hac uero mea, quam modo commemoraui, tripertita promissione decimum sequentibus quattuor libris ambarum est digestus exortus, deinde procursus ab homine primo usque ad diluuium libro uno, qui est huius operis quintus decimus, adque inde usque ad Abraham rursus ambae, sicut in temporibus, ita et in nostris litteris cucurrerunt. Sed a patre Abraham usque ad regum tempus Israelitarum, ubi sextum decimum uolumen absoluimus, et inde usque ad ipsius in carne Saluatoris aduentum, quo usque septimus decimus liber tenditur, sola uidetur in meo stilo cucurrisse Dei ciuitas; cum in hoc saeculo non sola cucurrerit, sed ambae utique in genere humano, sicut ab initio, simul suo procursu tempora uariauerint. Verum hoc ideo feci, ut prius, ex quo apertiores Dei promissiones esse coeperunt, usque ad eius ex uirgine natiuitatem, in quo fuerant quae primo promittebantur inplenda, sine interpellatione a contrario alterius ciuitatis ista, quae Dei est, procurrens distinctius appareret; quamuis usque ad reuelationem testamenti noui non in lumine, sed in umbra cucurrerit. Nunc ergo, quod intermiseram, uideo esse faciendum, ut ex Abrahae temporibus quo modo etiam illa cucurrerit, quantum satis uidetur, adtingam, ut ambae inter se possint consideratione legentium conparari.

### Of the Kings and Times of the Earthly City Which Were Synchronous with the Times of the Saints, Reckoning from the Rise of Abraham.

[¶3] Chapter 2.—Of the Kings and Times of the Earthly City Which Were Synchronous with the Times of the Saints, Reckoning from the Rise of Abraham.

> Latin: Caput II. De terrenae ciuitatis regibus adque temporibus, quibus ab exortu Abrahae sanctorum tempora subputata conueniunt.

[¶4] The society of mortals spread abroad through the earth everywhere, and in the most diverse places, although bound together by a certain fellowship of our common nature, is yet for the most part divided against itself, and the strongest oppress the others, because all follow after their own interests and lusts, while what is longed for either suffices for none, or not for all, because it is not the very thing. For the vanquished succumb to the victorious, preferring any sort of peace and safety to freedom itself; so that they who chose to die rather than be slaves have been greatly wondered at. For in almost all nations the very voice of nature somehow proclaims, that those who happen to be conquered should choose rather to be subject to their conquerors than to be killed by all kinds of warlike destruction. This does not take place without the providence of God, in whose power it lies that any one either subdues or is subdued in war; that some are endowed with kingdoms, others made subject to kings. Now, among the very many kingdoms of the earth into which, by earthly interest or lust, society is divided (which we call by the general name of the city of this world), we see that two, settled and kept distinct from each other both in time and place, have grown far more famous than the rest, first that of the Assyrians, then that of the Romans. First came the one, then the other. The former arose in the east, and, immediately on its close, the latter in the west. I may speak of other kingdoms and other kings as appendages of these.

> Latin: Societas igitur usquequaque mortalium diffusa per terras et in locorum quantislibet diuersitatibus unius tamen eius.. demque naturae quadam communione deuincta utilitates et cupiditates suas quibusque sectantibus, dum id quod adpetitur aut nemini aut non omnibus sufficit, quia non est id ipsum, aduersus se ipsam plerumque diuiditur, et pars partem, quae praeualet, obprimit. Victrici enim uicta subcumbit, dominationi scilicet uel etiam libertati qualemcumque pacem praeferens ac salutem, ita ut magnae fuerint admirationi, qui perire quam seruire maluerunt. Nam in omnibus fere gentibus quodam modo uox naturae ista personuit, ut subiugari uictoribus mallent, quibus contigit uinci, quam bellica omnifariam uastatione deleri. Hinc factum est, ut non sine Dei prouidentia, in cuius potestate est, ut quisque bello aut subiugetur aut subiuget, quidam essent regnis praediti, quidam regnantibus subditi. Sed inter plurima regna terrarum, in quae terrenae utilitatis uel cupiditatis est diuisa societas (quam ciuitatem mundi huius uniuersali uocabulo nuncupamus), duo regna cernimus longe ceteris prouenisse clariora, Assyriorum primum, deinde Romanorum, ut temporibus, ita locis inter se ordinata adque distincta. Nam quo modo illud prius, hoc posterius: eo modo illud in Oriente, hoc in Occidente surrexit; denique in illius fine huius initium confestim fuit.

[¶5] Ninus, then, who succeeded his father Belus, the first king of Assyria, was already the second king of that kingdom when Abraham was born in the land of the Chaldees. There was also at that time a very small kingdom of Sicyon, with which, as from an ancient date, that most universally learned man Marcus Varro begins, in writing of the Roman race. For from these kings of Sicyon he passes to the Athenians, from them to the Latins, and from these to the Romans. Yet very little is related about these kingdoms, before the foundation of Rome, in comparison with that of Assyria. For although even Sallust, the Roman historian, admits that the Athenians were very famous in Greece, yet he thinks they were greater in fame than in fact. For in speaking of them he says, “The deeds of the Athenians, as I think, were very great and magnificent, but yet somewhat less than reported by fame. But because writers of great genius arose among them, the deeds of the Athenians were celebrated throughout the world as very great. Thus the virtue of those who did them was held to be as great as men of transcendent genius could represent it to be by the power of laudatory words.” This city also derived no small glory from literature and philosophy, the study of which chiefly flourished there. But as regards empire, none in the earliest times was greater than the Assyrian, or so widely extended. For when Ninus the son of Belus was king, he is reported to have subdued the whole of Asia, even to the boundaries of Libya, which as to number is called the third part, but as to size is found to be the half of the whole world. The Indians in the eastern regions were the only people over whom he did not reign; but after his death Semiramis his wife made war on them. Thus it came to pass that all the people and kings in those countries were subject to the kingdom and authority of the Assyrians, and did whatever they were commanded. Now Abraham was born in that kingdom among the Chaldees, in the time of Ninus. But since Grecian affairs are much better known to us than Assyrian, and those who have diligently investigated the antiquity of the Roman nation’s origin have followed the order of time through the Greeks to the Latins, and from them to the Romans, who themselves are Latins, we ought on this account, where it is needful, to mention the Assyrian kings, that it may appear how Babylon, like a first Rome, ran its course along with the city of God, which is a stranger in this world. But the things proper for insertion in this work in comparing the two cities, that is, the earthly and heavenly, ought to be taken mostly from the Greek and Latin kingdoms, where Rome herself is like a second Babylon.

> Latin: Regna cetera ceterosque reges uelut adpendices istorum dixerim. Ninus ergo iam secundus rex erat Assyriorum, qui patri suo Belo successerat, regni illius primo regi, quando in terra Chaldaeorum natus est Abraham. Erat etiam tempore illo regnum Sicyoniorum admodum paruum, a quo ille undecumque doctissimus Marcus Varro scribens de gente populi Romani, uelut antiquo tempore. exorsus est. Ab his enim Sicyoniorum regibus ad Athenienses peruenit, a quibus ad Latinos, inde Romanos. Sed ante conditam Romam in conparatione regni Assyriorum perexigua ista memorantur; quamuis Athenienses in Graecia plurimum claruisse fateatur etiam Sallustius Romanus historicus; plus tamen fama quam re ipsa. Nam loquens de illis: ‘Atheniensium, inquit, res gestae, sicuti ego existimo, satis amplae magnificaeque fuere; uerum aliquanto minores tamen, quam fama feruntur. Sed quia prouenere ibi scriptorum magna ingenia, per terrarum orbem Atheniensium facta pro maximis celebrantur. Ita eorum qui fecere uirtus tanta habetur, quantum eam uerbis potuere extollere praeclara ingenia.’ Accedit huic ciuitati non parua etiam ex litteris et philosophis gloria, quod ibi potissimum talia studia uiguerunt. Nam quantum adtinet ad imperium, nullum maius primis temporibus quam Assyriorum fuit, nec tam longe lateque diffusum, quippe ubi Ninus rex, Beli filius, uniuersam Asiam, quae totius orbis ad numerum partium tertia dicitur, ad magnitudinem uero dimidia reperitur, usque ad Libyae fines subegisse traditur. Solis quippe Indis in partibus Orientis non dominabatur, quos tamen eo defuncto Samiramis uxor eius est adgressa bellando. Ita factum est, ut, quicumque in illis terris populi siue reges erant, Assyriorum regno dicionique parerent et quidquid imperaretur efficerent. Abraham igitur in eo regno aput Chaldaeos Nini temporibus natus est. Sed quoniam res Graecae multo sunt nobis quam Assyriae notiores, et per Graecos ad Latinos ac deinde ad Romanos, qui etiam ipsi Latini sunt, temporum seriem deduxerunt qui gentem populi Romani in originis eius antiquitate rimati sunt: ob hoc debemus, ubi opus est, Assyrios memorare reges, ut appareat quem ad modum Babylonia, quasi prima Roma, cum peregrina in hoc mundo Dei ciuitate procurrat; res autem, quas propter conparationem ciuitatis utriusque, terrenae scilicet et caelestis, huic operi oportet inserere, magis ex Graecis et Latinis, ubi et ipsa Roma quasi secunda Babylonia est, debemus adsumere.

[¶6] At Abraham’s birth, then, the second kings of Assyria and Sicyon respectively were Ninus and Europs, the first having been Belus and Ægialeus. But when God promised Abraham, on his departure from Babylonia, that he should become a great nation, and that in his seed all nations of the earth should be blessed, the Assyrians had their seventh king, the Sicyons their fifth; for the son of Ninus reigned among them after his mother Semiramis, who is said to have been put to death by him for attempting to defile him by incestuously lying with him. Some think that she founded Babylon, and indeed she may have founded it anew. But we have told, in the sixteenth book, when or by whom it was founded. Now the son of Ninus and Semiramis, who succeeded his mother in the kingdom, is also called Ninus by some, but by others Ninias, a patronymic word. Telexion then held the kingdom of the Sicyons. In his reign times were quiet and joyful to such a degree, that after his death they worshipped him as a god by offering sacrifices and by celebrating games, which are said to have been first instituted on this occasion.

> Latin: Quando ergo natus est Abraham, secundi reges erant aput Assyrios Ninus, aput Sicyonios Europa; primi autem illic Belus, hic Aegialeus fuerunt. Cum uero egresso Abraham de Babylonia promisit ei Deus ex illo magnam gentem futuram et in eius semine omnium gentium benedictionem. Assyrii quartum regem habebant, Sicyonii quintum; aput illos enim regnabat filius Nini post matrem Samiramidem: quae ab illo interfecta perhibetur, ausa filium mater incestare concubitu. Hanc putant nonnulli condidisse Babylonem, quam quidem potuit instaurare. Quando autem uel quo modo condita fuerit, in sexto decimo libro diximus. Filium porro Nini et Samiramidis, qui matri successit in regnum, quidam etiam ipsum Ninum, quidam uero deriuato a patre uocabulo Ninyan uocant. Sicyoniorum autem regnum tunc tenebat TelIioD. Quo regnante usque adeo ibi mitia et laeta tempora fuerunt, ut eum defunctum uelut deum colerent sacrificando et ludos celebrando, quos ei primitus institutos ferunt.

### What Kings Reigned in Assyria and Sicyon When, According to the Promise, Isaac Was Born to Abraham in His Hundredth Year, and When the Twins Esau and Jacob Were Born of Rebecca to Isaac in His Sixtieth Year.

[¶8] Chapter 3.—What Kings Reigned in Assyria and Sicyon When, According to the Promise, Isaac Was Born to Abraham in His Hundredth Year, and When the Twins Esau and Jacob Were Born of Rebecca to Isaac in His Sixtieth Year.

> Latin: Caput III. Quibus regnantibus aput Assyrios adque Sicyonios Abrahae centenario Isaac de promissione sit natus, uel ipsi Isaac sexagenario Esau et Iacob gemini de Rebecca sint editi.

[¶9] In his times also, by the promise of God, Isaac, the son of Abraham, was born to his father when he was a hundred years old, of Sarah his wife, who, being barren and old, had already lost hope of issue. Aralius was then the fifth king of the Assyrians. To Isaac himself, in his sixtieth year, were born twin-sons, Esau and Jacob, whom Rebecca his wife bore to him, their grandfather Abraham, who died on completing a hundred and seventy years, being still alive, and reckoning his hundred and sixtieth year. At that time there reigned as the seventh kings,—among the Assyrians, that more ancient Xerxes, who was also called Balæus; and among the Sicyons, Thuriachus, or, as some write his name, Thurimachus. The kingdom of Argos, in which Inachus reigned first, arose in the time of Abraham’s grandchildren. And I must not omit what Varro relates, that the Sicyons were also wont to sacrifice at the tomb of their seventh king Thuriachus. In the reign of Armamitres in Assyria and Leucippus in Sicyon as the eighth kings, and of Inachus as the first in Argos, God spoke to Isaac, and promised the same two things to him as to his father,—namely, the land of Canaan to his seed, and the blessing of all nations in his seed. These same things were promised to his son, Abraham’s grandson, who was at first called Jacob, afterwards Israel, when Belocus was the ninth king of Assyria, and Phoroneus, the son of Inachus, reigned as the second king of Argos, Leucippus still continuing king of Sicyon. In those times, under the Argive king Phoroneus, Greece was made more famous by the institution of certain laws and judges. On the death of Phoroneus, his younger brother Phegous built a temple at his tomb, in which he was worshipped as God, and oxen were sacrificed to him. I believe they thought him worthy of so great honor, because in his part of the kingdom (for their father had divided his territories between them, in which they reigned during his life) he had founded chapels for the worship of the gods, and had taught them to measure time, by months and years, and to that extent to keep count and reckoning of events. Men still uncultivated, admiring him for these novelties, either fancied he was, or resolved that he should be made, a god after his death. Io also is said to have been the daughter of Inachus, who was afterwards called Isis, when she was worshipped in Egypt as a great goddess; although others write that she came as a queen out of Ethiopia, and because she ruled extensively and justly, and instituted for her subjects letters and many useful things, such divine honor was given her there after she died, that if any one said she had been human, he was charged with a capital crime.

> Latin: Huius temporibus etiam Isaac ex promissione Dei natus est centenario patri filius Abrahae de Sarra coniuge, quae sterilis et anus iam spem prolis amiserat. Tunc et Assyriis quintus erat rex Arrius. Ipsi uero Isaac sexagenario nati sunt gemini, Esau et Iacob, quos ei Rebecca uxor peperit. auo eorum Abraham adhuc uiuente et centum sexaginta aetatis annos agente, qui expletis centum septuaginta quinque defunctus est, regnantibus aput Assyrios Xerse illo antiquiore, qui etiam Baleus uocabatur, et aput Sicyonios Thuriaco, quem quidam Thurimachum scribunt, septimis regibus. Regnum autem Argiuorum simul cum Abrahae nepotibus ortum est, ubi primus regnauit Inachus. Sane, quod praetereundum non fuit, etiam aput sepulcrum septimi sui regis Thuriaci sacrificare Sicyonios solere Varro refert. Regnantibus porro octauis regibus, Armamitre Assyriorum, Sicyoniorum Leucippo et primo Argiuorum Inacho Deus locutus est ad Isaac adque ipsi quoque eadem, quae patri eius, duo illa promisit, semini scilicet eius terram Chanaan et in eius semine benedictionem cunctarum gentium. Haec ipsa promissa sunt etiam filio eius, nepoti Abrahae, qui est appellatus primo Iacob, post Israel, cum iam Belocus rex nonus Assyriae et Phoroneus Inachi filius secundus regnaret Argiuis, Leucippo adhuc aput Sicyonios permanente. His temporibus Graecia sub Phoroneo Argolico rege legum et iudiciorum quibusdam clarior facta est institutis. Phegous tamen frater huius Phoronei iunior cum esset mortuus, ad eius sepulcrum templum est constitutum, in quo coleretur ut Deus et ei boues immolarentur. Credo honore tanto ideo dignum putarunt, quia in regni sui parte (pater quippe loca ambobus distribuerat, in quibus eo uiuente regnarent) iste sacella constituerat ad colendos deos et docuerat obseruari tempora per menses adque annos, quid eorum quatenus metirentur adque numerarent. Haec in eo noua mirantes rudes adhuc homines morte obita deum esse factum siue opinati sunt siue uoluerunt. Nam et Io filia Inachi fuisse perhibetur, quae postea Isis appellata ut magna dea culta est in Aegypto; quamuis alii scribant eam ex Aethiopia in Aegyptum uenisse reginam, et quod late iusteque imperauerit eisque multa commoda et litteras instituerit, hunc honorem illi habitum esse diuinum. postea quam ibi mortua est, et tantum honorem, ut capitali crimine reus fieret, si quis eam fuisse hominem diceret.

### Of the Times of Jacob and His Son Joseph.

[¶11] Chapter 4.—Of the Times of Jacob and His Son Joseph.

> Latin: Caput IV. De temporibus Iacob et filii eius Ioseph.

[¶12] In the reign of Balæus, the ninth king of Assyria, and Mesappus, the eighth of Sicyon, who is said by some to have been also called Cephisos (if indeed the same man had both names, and those who put the other name in their writings have not rather confounded him with another man), while Apis was third king of Argos, Isaac died, a hundred and eighty years old, and left his twin-sons a hundred and twenty years old. Jacob, the younger of these, belonged to the city of God about which we write (the elder being wholly rejected), and had twelve sons, one of whom, called Joseph, was sold by his brothers to merchants going down to Egypt, while his grandfather Isaac was still alive. But when he was thirty years of age, Joseph stood before Pharaoh, being exalted out of the humiliation he endured, because, in divinely interpreting the king’s dreams, he foretold that there would be seven years of plenty, the very rich abundance of which would be consumed by seven other years of famine that should follow. On this account the king made him ruler over Egypt, liberating him from prison, into which he had been thrown for keeping his chastity intact; for he bravely preserved it from his mistress, who wickedly loved him, and told lies to his weakly credulous master, and did not consent to commit adultery with her, but fled from her, leaving his garment in her hands when she laid hold of him. In the second of the seven years of famine Jacob came down into Egypt to his son with all he had, being a hundred and thirty years old, as he himself said in answer to the king’s question. Joseph was then thirty-nine, if we add seven years of plenty and two of famine to the thirty he reckoned when honored by the king.

> Latin: Regnantibus Assyriorum decimo rege Baleo et Sicyoniorum nono Messapo, qui etiam Cephisos a quibusdam traditur (si tamen duorum nominum homo unus fuit ac non potius alterum pro altero putauerunt fuisse hominem, qui in suis posuerunt scriptis alterum nomen), cum rex Argiuorum tertius Apis esset, mortuus est Isaac annorum centum octoginta et reliquit geminos suos annorum centum et uiginti; quorum minor Iacob pertinens ad ciuitatem Dei, de qua scribimus, maiore utique reprobato, habebat duodecim filios, quorum illam, qui uocabatur Ioseph, mercatoribus in Aegyptum transeuntibus fratres adhuc Isaac auo eorum uiuente uendiderant. Stetit autem ante Pharaonem Ioseph, quando ex humilitate, quam pertulit, sublimatus est, cum triginta esset annorum; quoniam somnia regis diuine interpretatus praenuntiauit septem ubertatis annos futuros, quorum abundantiam praepollentem consequentes alii septem steriles fuerant consumturi, et ob hoc eum rex praefecerat Aegypto de carcere liberatum, quo eum coniecerat integritas castitatis, quam fortiter seruans male amanti dominae et male credulo domino mentiturae ueste etiam derelicta de manibus adtrahentis aufugiens non consensit ad stuprum. Secundo autem anno septem annorum no sterilium Iacob in Aegyptum cum suis omnibus uenit ad filium, agens annos centum et triginta, sicut interroganti regi ipse respondit, cum Ioseph ageret triginta et nouem, ad triginta scilicet, quos agebat, quando a rege honoratus est, additis septem ubertatis et duobus famis.

### Of Apis King of Argos, Whom the Egyptians Called Serapis, and Worshipped with Divine Honors.

[¶14] Chapter 5.—Of Apis King of Argos, Whom the Egyptians Called Serapis, and Worshipped with Divine Honors.

> Latin: Caput V. De Api rege Argiuorum, quem Aegyptii Serapim nominatum diuino honore coluerunt.

[¶15] In these times Apis king of Argos crossed over into Egypt in ships, and, on dying there, was made Serapis, the chief god of all the Egyptians. Now Varro gives this very ready reason why, after his death, he was called, not Apis, but Serapis. The ark in which he was placed when dead, which every one now calls a sarcophagus, was then called in Greek σορὸς, and they began to worship him when buried in it before his temple was built; and from Soros and Apis he was called first [Sorosapis, or] Sorapis, and then Serapis, by changing a letter, as easily happens. It was decreed regarding him also, that whoever should say he had been a man should be capitally punished. And since in every temple where Isis and Serapis were worshipped there was also an image which, with finger pressed on the lips, seemed to warn men to keep silence, Varro thinks this signifies that it should be kept secret that they had been human. But that bull which, with wonderful folly, deluded Egypt nourished with abundant delicacies in honor of him, was not called Serapis, but Apis, because they worshipped him alive without a sarcophagus. On the death of that bull, when they sought and found a calf of the same color,—that is, similarly marked with certain white spots,—they believed it was something miraculous, and divinely provided for them. Yet it was no great thing for the demons, in order to deceive them, to show to a cow when she was conceiving and pregnant the image of such a bull, which she alone could see, and by it attract the breeding passion of the mother, so that it might appear in a bodily shape in her young, just as Jacob so managed with the spotted rods that the sheep and goats were born spotted. For what men can do with real colors and substances, the demons can very easily do by showing unreal forms to breeding animals.

> Latin: His temporibus rex Argiuorum Apis nauibus transuectus in Aegyptum, cum ibi mortuus fuisset, factus est Serapis omnium maximus Aegyptiorum deus. Nominis autem huius, quur non Apis etiam post mortem, sed Serapis appellatus sit, facillimam rationem Varro reddidit. Quia enim arca, in qua mortuus ponitur, quod omnes iam sarcophagum uocant, aopds dicitur Graece, et ibi eum uenerari sepultum coeperant, priusquam templum eius esset exstructum: uelut soros et Apis Sorapis primo, deinde una littera, ut fieri adsolet, commutata Serapis dictus est. Et constitutum est etiam de illo, ut, quisquis eum hominem fuisse dixisset, capitalem penderet poenam. Et quoniam fere in omnibus templis, ubi colebantur Isis et Serapis, erat etiam simulacrum, quod digito labiis inpresso admonere uideretur, ut silentium fieret: hoc significare idem Varro existimat, ut homines eos fuisse taceretur. Ille autem bos, quem mirabili uanitate decepta Aegyptus in eius honorem deliciis afluentibus alebat, quoniam eum sine sarcophago uiuum uenerabantur, Apis, non Serapis uocabatur. Quo boue mortuo quoniam quaerebatur et reperiebatur uitulus coloris eiusdem, hoc est albis quibusdam maculis similiter insignitus, mirum quiddam et diuinitus sibi procuratum esse credebant. Non enim magnum erat daemonibus ad eos decipiendos phantasiam talis tauri, quam sola cerneret, ostentare uaccae concipienti adque praegnanti, unde libido matris adtraheret, quod in eius fetu iam corporaliter appareret; sicut Iacob de uirgis uariatis, ut oues et caprae uariae nascerentur, effecit. Quod enim homines coloribus et corporibus ueris, hoc daemones figuris fictis facillime possunt animalibus concipientibus exhibere.

### Who Were Kings of Argos, and of Assyria, When Jacob Died in Egypt.

[¶17] Chapter 6.—Who Were Kings of Argos, and of Assyria, When Jacob Died in Egypt.

> Latin: Caput VI. Quo regnante aput Argiuos quoue aput Assyrios Iacob in Aegypto sit mortuus.

[¶18] Apis, then, who died in Egypt, was not the king of Egypt, but of Argos. He was succeeded by his son Argus, from whose name the land was called Argos and the people Argives, for under the earlier kings neither the place nor the nation as yet had this name. While he then reigned over Argos, and Eratus over Sicyon, and Balæus still remained king of Assyria, Jacob died in Egypt a hundred and forty-seven years old, after he had, when dying, blessed his sons and his grandsons by Joseph, and prophesied most plainly of Christ, saying in the blessing of Judah, “A prince shall not fail out of Judah, nor a leader from his thighs, until those things come which are laid up for him; and He is the expectation of the nations.” In the reign of Argus, Greece began to use fruits, and to have crops of corn in cultivated fields, the seed having been brought from other countries. Argus also began to be accounted a god after his death, and was honored with a temple and sacrifices. This honor was conferred in his reign, before being given to him, on a private individual for being the first to yoke oxen in the plough. This was one Homogyrus, who was struck by lightning.

> Latin: Apis ergo rex, non Aegyptiorum, sed Argiuorum, mortuus est in Aegypto. Huic filius Argus successit in regnum, ex cuius nomine et Argi et ex hoc Argiui appellati sunt; superioribus autem regibus nondum uel locus uel gens habebat hoc nomen. Hoc regnante aput Argiuos et aput Sicyonios Erato, aput Assyrios uero adhuc manente Baleo mortuus est Iacob in Aegypto annorum centum quadraginta septem, cum moriturus filios suos et nepotes ex Ioseph benedixisset Christumque apertissime prophetasset, dicens in benedictione Iudae: Non deficiet princeps ex Iuda et dux de femoribus eius, donec ueniant quae reposita sunt ei; et ipse exspectatio gentium. Regnante Argo suis coepit uti frugibus Graecia et habere segetes in agricultura, delatis aliunde seminibus. Argus quoque post obitum deus haberi coepit, templo et sacrificiis honoratus. Qui honor eo regnante ante illum delatus est homini priuato et fulminato cuidam Homogyro, eo quod primus ad aratrum boues iunxerit.

### Who Were Kings When Joseph Died in Egypt.

[¶20] Chapter 7.—Who Were Kings When Joseph Died in Egypt.

> Latin: Caput VII. Quorum regum tempore Ioseph in Aegypto defunctus sit.

[¶21] In the reign of Mamitus, the twelfth king of Assyria, and Plemnæus, the eleventh of Sicyon, while Argus still reigned over the Argives, Joseph died in Egypt a hundred and ten years old. After his death, the people of God, increasing wonderfully, remained in Egypt a hundred and forty-five years, in tranquillity at first, until those who knew Joseph were dead. Afterward, through envy of their increase, and the suspicion that they would at length gain their freedom, they were oppressed with persecutions and the labors of intolerable servitude, amid which, however, they still grew, being multiplied with God-given fertility. During this period the same kingdoms continued in Assyria and Greece.

> Latin: Regnantibus Assyriorum duodecimo Mamytho et undecimo Sicyoniorum Plemmeo et Argis adhuc manente Argo mortuus est Ioseph in Aegypto annorum centum decem. Post cuius mortem populus Dei mirabiliter crescens mansit in Aegypto centum quadraginta quinque annos, tranquille prius, donec morerentur quibus Ioseph notus fuit; deinde quia inuidebatur incrementis eius erantque suspecta, quo usque inde liberaretur, persecutionibus (inter quas tamen diuinitus fecundata multiplicatione crescebat) et laboribus premebatur intolerabilis seruitutis. In Assyria uero et Graecia per idem tempus regna eadem permanebant.

### Who Were Kings When Moses Was Born, and What Gods Began to Be Worshipped Then.

[¶23] Chapter 8.—Who Were Kings When Moses Was Born, and What Gods Began to Be Worshipped Then.

> Latin: Caput VIII. Quorum regum aetate Moyses natus sit, et quorum deorum eisdem temporibus sit orta religio.

[¶24] When Saphrus reigned as the fourteenth king of Assyria, and Orthopolis as the twelfth of Sicyon, and Criasus as the fifth of Argos, Moses was born in Egypt, by whom the people of God were liberated from the Egyptian slavery, in which they behoved to be thus tried that they might desire the help of their Creator. Some have thought that Prometheus lived during the reign of the kings now named. He is reported to have formed men out of clay, because he was esteemed the best teacher of wisdom; yet it does not appear what wise men there were in his days. His brother Atlas is said to have been a great astrologer; and this gave occasion for the fable that he held up the sky, although the vulgar opinion about his holding up the sky appears rather to have been suggested by a high mountain named after him. Indeed, from those times many other fabulous things began to be invented in Greece; yet, down to Cecrops king of Athens, in whose reign that city received its name, and in whose reign God brought His people out of Egypt by Moses, only a few dead heroes are reported to have been deified according to the vain superstition of the Greeks. Among these were Melantomice, the wife of king Criasus, and Phorbas their son, who succeeded his father as sixth king of the Argives, and Iasus, son of Triopas, their seventh king, and their ninth king, Sthenelas, or Stheneleus, or Sthenelus,—for his name is given differently by different authors. In those times also, Mercury, the grandson of Atlas by his daughter Maia, is said to have lived, according to the common report in books. He was famous for his skill in many arts, and taught them to men, for which they resolved to make him, and even believed that he deserved to be, a god after death. Hercules is said to have been later, yet belonging to the same period; although some, whom I think mistaken, assign him an earlier date than Mercury. But at whatever time they were born, it is agreed among grave historians, who have committed these ancient things to writing, that both were men, and that they merited divine honors from mortals because they conferred on them many benefits to make this life more pleasant to them. Minerva was far more ancient than these; for she is reported to have appeared in virgin age in the times of Ogyges at the lake called Triton, from which she is also styled Tritonia, the inventress truly of many works, and the more readily believed to be a goddess because her origin was so little known. For what is sung about her having sprung from the head of Jupiter belongs to the region of poetry and fable, and not to that of history and real fact. And historical writers are not agreed when Ogyges flourished, in whose time also a great flood occurred,—not that greatest one from which no man escaped except those who could get into the ark, for neither Greek nor Latin history knew of it, yet a greater flood than that which happened afterward in Deucalion’s time. For Varro begins the book I have already mentioned at this date, and does not propose to himself, as the starting-point from which he may arrive at Roman affairs, anything more ancient than the flood of Ogyges, that is, which happened in the time of Ogyges. Now our writers of chronicles—first Eusebius, and afterwards Jerome, who entirely follow some earlier historians in this opinion—relate that the flood of Ogyges happened more than three hundred years after, during the reign of Phoroneus, the second king of Argos. But whenever he may have lived, Minerva was already worshipped as a goddess when Cecrops reigned in Athens, in whose reign the city itself is reported to have been rebuilt or founded.

> Latin: Cum ergo regnaret Assyriis quartus decimus Saphrus et Sicyoniis duodecimus Orthopolis et Criasus quintus Argiuis, natus est in Aegypto Moyses, per quem populus Dei de seruitute Aegyptia liberatus est, in qua eum ad desiderandum sui Creatoris auxilium sic exerceri oportebat. Regnantibus memoratis regibus fuisse a quibusdam creditur Prometheus, quem propterea ferunt de luto formasse homines, quia optimus sapientiae doctor fuisse perhibetur; nec tamen ostenditur, qui eius temporibus fuerint sapientes. Frater eius Atlans magnus fuisse astrologus dicitur; unde occasionem fabula inuenit, ut eum caelum portare confingeret; quamuis mons eius nomine nuncupetur, cuius altitudine potius caeli portatio in opinionem uulgi uenisse uideatur. Multa quoque alia ex illis in Graecia temporibus confingi fabulosa coeperunt; sed usque ad Cecropem regem Atheniensium, quo regnante eadem ciuitas etiam tale nomen accepit, et quo regnante Deus per Moysen eduxit ex Aegypto populum suum, relati sunt in deorum numerum aliquot mortui caeca et uana consuetudine ac superstitione Graecorum. In quibus Criasi regis coniux Melantomice et Phorbas filius eorum, qui post patrem rex Argiuorum sextus fuit, et septimi regis Triopae filius Iasus et rex nonus Sthenelas siue Stheneleus siue Sthenelus, uarie quippe in diuersis auctoribus inuenitur. His temporibus etiam Mercurius fuisse perhibetur, nepos Atlantis ex Maia filia, quod uulgatiores etiam litterae personant. Multarum autem artium peritus claruit, quas et hominibus tradidit; quo merito eum post mortem deum esse uoluerunt siue etiam crediderunt. Posterior fuisse Hercules dicitur, ad ea tamen tempora pertinens Argiuorum; quamuis nonnulli eum Mercurio praeferant tempore; quos falli existimo. Sed quolibet tempore nati sint, constat inter historicos graues, qui haec antiqua litteris mandauerunt, ambos homines fuisse, et quod mortalibus ad istam uitam commodius ducendam beneficia multa contulerint, honores ab eis meruisse diuinos. Minerua uero longe his antiquior; nam temporibus Ogygi ad lacum, qui Tritonis dicitur, uirginali apparuisse fertur aetate, unde et Tritonia nuncupata est; multorum sane operum inuentrix et tanto procliuius dea credita, quanto minus origo eius innotuit. Quod enim de capite Iouis nata canitur, poetis et fabulis, non historiae rebusque gestis est adplicandum. Quamquam Ogygus ipse quando fuerit, cuius temporibus etiam diluuium magnum factum est, non illud maximum, in quo nulli homines euaserunt, nisi qui in arca esse potuerunt, quod gentium nec Graeca nec Latina nouit historia, sed tamen maius quam postea tempore Deucalionis fuit, inter scriptores historiae non conuenit. Nam Varro inde exorsus est librum, cuius mentionem superius feci, et nihil sibi, ex quo perueniat ad res Romanas, proponit antiquius quam Ogygi diluuium, hoc est Ogygi factum temporibus. Nostri autem qui chronica scripserunt, prius Eusebius, post Hieronymus, qui utique praecedentes aliquos historicos in hac opinione seeuti sunt, post annos amplius quam trecentos iam secundo Argiuorum Phoroneo rege regnante Ogygi diluuium fuisse commemorant. Sed quolibet tempore fuerit, iam tamen Minerua tamquam dea colebatur regnante Atheniensibus Cecrope, sub quo rege etiam ipsam uel instauratam ferunt uel conditam ciuitatem.

## 86. When the City of Athens Was Founded, and What Reason Varro Assigns for Its Name.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/86/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/86/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 9.—When the City of Athens Was Founded, and What Reason Varro Assigns for Its Name.

> Latin: Caput IX. Quando Atheniensium sit ciuitas condita, et quam causam nominis eius Varro perhibeat.

[¶1] Athens certainly derived its name from Minerva, who in Greek is called ᾽Αθηνη, and Varro points out the following reason why it was so called. When an olive-tree suddenly appeared there, and water burst forth in another place, these prodigies moved the king to send to the Delphic Apollo to inquire what they meant and what he should do. He answered that the olive signified Minerva, the water Neptune, and that the citizens had it in their power to name their city as they chose, after either of these two gods whose signs these were. On receiving this oracle, Cecrops convoked all the citizens of either sex to give their vote, for it was then the custom in those parts for the women also to take part in public deliberations. When the multitude was consulted, the men gave their votes for Neptune, the women for Minerva; and as the women had a majority of one, Minerva conquered. Then Neptune, being enraged, laid waste the lands of the Athenians, by casting up the waves of the sea; for the demons have no difficulty in scattering any waters more widely. The same authority said, that to appease his wrath the women should be visited by the Athenians with the three-fold punishment—that they should no longer have any vote; that none of their children should be named after their mothers; and that no one should call them Athenians. Thus that city, the mother and nurse of liberal doctrines, and of so many and so great philosophers, than whom Greece had nothing more famous and noble, by the mockery of demons about the strife of their gods, a male and female, and from the victory of the female one through the women, received the name of Athens; and, on being damaged by the vanquished god, was compelled to punish the very victory of the victress, fearing the waters of Neptune more than the arms of Minerva. For in the women who were thus punished, Minerva, who had conquered, was conquered too, and could not even help her voters so far that, although the right of voting was henceforth lost, and the mothers could not give their names to the children, they might at least be allowed to be called Athenians, and to merit the name of that goddess whom they had made victorious over a male god by giving her their votes. What and how much could be said about this, if we had not to hasten to other things in our discourse, is obvious.

> Latin: Nam ut Athenae uocarentur, quod certe nomen a Minerua est, quae Graece ‘Adijva dicitur, hanc causam Varro indicat. Cum apparuisset illic repeute oliuae arbor et alio loco aqua erupisset, regem prodigia ista mouerunt, et misit ad Apollinem Delphicum sciscitatum quid intellegendum esset quidue faciendum. Ille respondit, quod olea Mineruam significaret, unda Neptunum, et quod esset in ciuium potestate, ex cuius potius nomine duorum deorum, quorum illa signa essent, ciuitas uocaretur. Isto Cecrops oraculo accepto ciues omnes utriusque sexus (mos enim tunc in eisdem locis erat,’ ut etiam feminae publicis consultationibus interessent) ad ferendum suffragium conuocauit. Consulta igitur multitudine mares pro Neptuno, feminae pro Minerua tulere sententias, et quia una plus inuenta est feminarum, Minerua uicit. Tunc Neptunus iratus marinis fluctibus exaestuantibus terras Atheniensium populatus est; quoniam spargere latius quaslibet aquas difficile daemonibus non est. Cuius ut iracundia placaretur, triplici supplicio dicit idem auctor ab Atheniensibus adfectas esse mulieres, ut nulla ulterius ferrent suffragia, ut nullus nascentium maternum nomen acciperet, ut ne quis eas Athenaeas uocaret. Ita illa ciuitas, mater aut nutrix liberalium doctrinarum et tot tantorumque philosophorum, qua nihil habuit Graecia clarius adque nobilius, ludificantibus daemonibus de lite deorum suorum, maris et feminae, et de uictoria per feminas feminae Athenas nomen accepit, et a uicto laesa ipsam uictricis uictoriam punire conpulsa est, plus aquas Neptuni quam Mineruae arma formidans. Nam in mulieribus, quae sic punitae sunt, et Minerua quae uicerat uicta est; nec adfuit suffragatricibus suis, ut suffragiorum deinceps perdita potestate et alienatis filiis a nominibus matrum Atbenaeas saltem uocari liceret et eius deae mereri uocabulum, quam uiri dei uictricem fecerant ferendo suffragium. Quae et quanta hinc dici possent, nisi sermo ad alia properaret!

### What Varro Reports About the Term Areopagus, and About Deucalion’s Flood.

[¶3] Chapter 10.—What Varro Reports About the Term Areopagus, and About Deucalion’s Flood.

> Latin: Caput X. Quid Varro tradat de nuncupatione Areopagi et de diluuio Deucalionls.

[¶4] Marcus Varro, however, is not willing to credit lying fables against the gods, lest he should find something dishonoring to their majesty; and therefore he will not admit that the Areopagus, the place where the Apostle Paul disputed with the Athenians, got this name because Mars, who in Greek is called ἌΑρης, when he was charged with the crime of homicide, and was judged by twelve gods in that field, was acquitted by the sentence of six; because it was the custom, when the votes were equal, to acquit rather than condemn. Against this opinion, which is much most widely published, he tries, from the notices of obscure books, to support another reason for this name, lest the Athenians should be thought to have called it Areopagus from the words” Mars” and “field,” as if it were the field of Mars, to the dishonor of the gods, forsooth, from whom he thinks lawsuits and judgments far removed. And he asserts that this which is said about Mars is not less false than what is said about the three goddesses, to wit, Juno, Minerva, and Venus, whose contest for the palm of beauty, before Paris as judge, in order to obtain the golden apple, is not only related, but is celebrated in songs and dances amid the applause of the theatres, in plays meant to please the gods who take pleasure in these crimes of their own, whether real or fabled. Varro does not believe these things, because they are incompatible with the nature of the gods and of morality; and yet, in giving not a fabulous but a historic reason for the name of Athens, he inserts in his books the strife between Neptune and Minerva as to whose name should be given to that city, which was so great that, when they contended by the display of prodigies, even Apollo dared not judge between them when consulted; but, in order to end the strife of the gods, just as Jupiter sent the three goddesses we have named to Paris, so he sent them to men, when Minerva won by the vote, and yet was defeated by the punishment of her own voters, for she was unable to confer the title of Athenians on the women who were her friends, although she could impose it on the men who were her opponents. In these times, when Cranaos reigned at Athens as the successor of Cecrops, as Varro writes, but, according to our Eusebius and Jerome, while Cecrops himself still remained, the flood occurred which is called Deucalion’s, because it occurred chiefly in those parts of the earth in which he reigned. But this flood did not at all reach Egypt or its vicinity.

> Latin: Et tamen Marcus Varro non uult fabulosis aduersus deos fidem adhibere figmentis, ne de maiestatis eorum dignitate indignum aliquid sentiat. Et ideo nec Areon pagon, ubi cum Atheniensibus Paulus apostolus disputauit, ex quo loco Areopagitae appellati sunt curiales urbis eiusdem, uult inde accepisse nomen, quod Mars, qui Graece Ἄρης dicitur, cum homicidii crimine reus fieret, iudicantibus duodecim dis in eo pago sex sententiis absolutus est (quia ubi paris numeri sententiae fuissent, praeponi absolutio damnationi solebat); sed contra istam, quae multo amplius est celebrata, opinionem aliam quandam de obscurarum notitia litterarum causam nominis huius conatur adstruere, ne Areon pagon Athenienses de nomine Martis et pagi quasi Martis pagum nominasse credantur, in iniuriam uidelicet numinum, a quibus litigia uel iudicia existimat aliena; non minus hoc, quod de Marte dicitur, falsum esse adseuerans, quam illud quod de tribus deabus, Iunone scilicet et Minerua et Venere, quae pro malo aureo adipiscendo aput iudicem Paridem de pulchritudinis excellentia certasse narrantur et ad placandos ludis deos, qui delectantur seu ueris seu falsis istis criminibus suis, inter theatricos plausus cantantur adque saltantur. Haec Varro non credit, ne deorum naturae seu moribus credat incongrua; et tamen non fabulosam, sed historicam rationem de Athenarum uocabulo reddens tantam Neptuni et Mineruae litem suis litteris inserit, de cuius nomine potius illa ciuitas uocaretur, ut, cum prodigiorum ostentatione contenderent, inter eos iudicare nec Apollo consultus auderet, sed deorum iurgium finiendum, sicut memoratarum trium dearum ad Paridem Iuppiter, ita et iste ad homines mitteret, ubi uinceret Minerua suffragiis et in poena suarum suffragatricium uinceretur, quae in aduersariis suis uiris obtinere Athenas potuit, et amicas suas feminas Athenaeas habere non potuit. His temporibus, ut Varro scribit, regnante Atheniensibus Cranao, successore Cecropis, ut autem nostri Eusebius et Hieronymus, adhuc eodem Cecrope permanente, diluuium fuit, quod appellatum est Deucalionis, eo quod ipse regnabat in earum terrarum partibus, ubi maxime factum est. Hoc autem diluuium nequaquam ad Aegyptum adque ad eius uicina peruenit.

### When Moses Led the People Out of Egypt; And Who Were Kings When His Successor Joshua the Son of Nun Died.

[¶6] Chapter 11.—When Moses Led the People Out of Egypt; And Who Were Kings When His Successor Joshua the Son of Nun Died.

> Latin: Caput XI. Quo tempore Moyses populum Dei ex Aegypto eduxerit, et Iesus Naue, qui eidem successit, quorum regum aetate sit mortuus.

[¶7] Moses led the people out of Egypt in the last time of Cecrops king of Athens, when Ascatades reigned in Assyria, Marathus in Sicyon, Triopas in Argos; and having led forth the people, he gave them at Mount Sinai the law he received from God, which is called the Old Testament, because it has earthly promises, and because, through Jesus Christ, there was to be a New Testament, in which the kingdom of heaven should be promised. For the same order behoved to be observed in this as is observed in each man who prospers in God, according to the saying of the apostle, “That is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural,” since, as he says, and that truly, “The first man of the earth, is earthly; the second man, from heaven, is heavenly.” Now Moses ruled the people for forty years in the wilderness, and died a hundred and twenty years old, after he had prophesied of Christ by the types of carnal observances in the tabernacle, priesthood, and sacrifices, and many other mystic ordinances. Joshua the son of Nun succeeded Moses, and settled in the land of promise the people he had brought in, having by divine authority conquered the people by whom it was formerly possessed. He also died, after ruling the people twenty-seven years after the death of Moses, when Amyntas reigned in Assyria as the eighteenth king, Coracos as the sixteenth in Sicyon, Danaos as the tenth in Argos, Ericthonius as the fourth in Athens.

> Latin: Eduxit ergo Moyses ex Aegypto populum Dei nouissimo tempore Cecropis Atheniensium regis, cum aput Assyrios regnaret Ascatades, aput Sicyonios Marathus, aput Argiuos Triopas. Educto autem populo in monte Sina diuinitus acceptam tradidit legem, quod uetus dicitur testamentum, quia promissiones terrenas habet, et per Iesum Christum futurum fuerat testamentum nouum, quo regnum caelorum promitteretur. Hunc enim ordinem seruari oportebat, sicut in uno quoque homine, qui in Deum proficit, id agitur, quod ait apostolus, ut non sit prius quod spiritale est; sed quod animale, postea spiritale; quoniam sicut dicit et uerum est, primus homo de terra, terrenus; secundus homo de caelo. Rexit autem populum Moyses per annos quadraginta in deserto et mortuus est annorum centum et uiginti, cum Christum etiam ipse prophetasset per figuras obseruationum carnalium in tabernaculo et sacerdotio et sacrificiis aliisque mysticis plurimisque mandatis. Moysi successit Iesus Naue et in terra promissionis introductum populum conlocauit ex auctoritate diuina debellatis gentibus, a quibus eadem loca tenebantur. Qui cum populum rexisset post mortem Moysi uiginti et septem annos, etiam ipse defunctus est regnante aput Assyrios octauo decimo Amynta, aput Sicyonios sexto decimo Corace, aput Argiuos decimo Danao, aput Athenienses quarto Erichthonio.’

### Of the Rituals of False Gods Instituted by the Kings of Greece in the Period from Israel’s Exodus from Egypt Down to the Death of Joshua the Son of Nun.

[¶9] Chapter 12.—Of the Rituals of False Gods Instituted by the Kings of Greece in the Period from Israel’s Exodus from Egypt Down to the Death of Joshua the Son of Nun.

> Latin: Caput XII. De sacris falsorum deorum, quae reges Graeciae illis temporibus instituerunt, quae ab exitu Israel ex Aegypto usque ad Iesu Naue obitum dinumerantur.

[¶10] During this period, that is, from Israel’s exodus from Egypt down to the death of Joshua the son of Nun, through whom that people received the land of promise, rituals were instituted to the false gods by the kings of Greece, which, by stated celebration, recalled the memory of the flood, and of men’s deliverance from it, and of that troublous life they then led in migrating to and fro between the heights and the plains. For even the Luperci, when they ascend and descend the sacred path, are said to represent the men who sought the mountain summits because of the inundation of water, and returned to the lowlands on its subsidence. In those times, Dionysus, who was also called Father Liber, and was esteemed a god after death, is said to have shown the vine to his host in Attica. Then the musical games were instituted for the Delphic Apollo, to appease his anger, through which they thought the regions of Greece were afflicted with barrenness, because they had not defended his temple which Danaos burnt when he invaded those lands; for they were warned by his oracle to institute these games. But king Ericthonius first instituted games to him in Attica, and not to him only, but also to Minerva, in which games the olive was given as the prize to the victors, because they relate that Minerva was the discoverer of that fruit, as Liber was of the grape. In those years Europa is alleged to have been carried off by Xanthus king of Crete (to whom we find some give another name), and to have borne him Rhadamanthus, Sarpedon, and Minos, who are more commonly reported to have been the sons of Jupiter by the same woman. Now those who worship such gods regard what we have said about Xanthus king of Crete as true history; but this about Jupiter, which the poets sing, the theatres applaud, and the people celebrate, as empty fable got up as a reason for games to appease the deities, even with the false ascription of crimes to them. In those times Hercules was held in honor in Tyre, but that was not the same one as he whom we spoke of above. In the more secret history there are said to have been several who were called Father Liber and Hercules. This Hercules, whose great deeds are reckoned as twelve (not including the slaughter of Antæus the African, because that affair pertains to another Hercules), is declared in their books to have burned himself on Mount Œta, because he was not able, by that strength with which he had subdued monsters, to endure the disease under which he languished. At that time the king, or rather tyrant Busiris, who is alleged to have been the son of Neptune by Libya the daughter of Epaphus, is said to have offered up his guests in sacrifice to the gods. Now it must not be believed that Neptune committed this adultery, lest the gods should be criminated; yet such things must be ascribed to them by the poets and in the theatres, that they may be pleased with them. Vulcan and Minerva are said to have been the parents of Ericthonius king of Athens, in whose last years Joshua the son of Nun is found to have died. But since they will have it that Minerva is a virgin, they say that Vulcan, being disturbed in the struggle between them, poured out his seed into the earth, and on that account the man born of it received that name; for in the Greek language ἔρις is “strife,” and χθὼν “earth,” of which two words Ericthonius is a compound. Yet it must be admitted that the more learned disprove and disown such things concerning their gods, and declare that this fabulous belief originated in the fact that in the temple at Athens, which Vulcan and Minerva had in common, a boy who had been exposed was found wrapped up in the coils of a dragon, which signified that he would become great, and, as his parents were unknown, he was called the son of Vulcan and Minerva, because they had the temple in common. Yet that fable accounts for the origin of his name better than this history. But what does it matter to us? Let the one in books that speak the truth edify religious men, and the other in lying fables delight impure demons. Yet these religious men worship them as gods. Still, while they deny these things concerning them they cannot clear them of all crime, because at their demand they exhibit plays in which the very things they wisely deny are basely done, and the gods are appeased by these false and base things. Now, even although the play celebrates an unreal crime of the gods, yet to delight in the ascription of an unreal crime is a real one.

> Latin: Per haec tempora, id est ab exitu Israel ex Aegypto usque ad mortem Iesu Naue, per quem populus idem terram promissionis accepit, sacra sunt instituta dis falsis a regibus Graeciae, quae memoriam diluuii et ab eo liberationis hominum uitaeque tunc aerumnosae modo ad alta, modo ad plana migrantium sollemni celebritate reuocarunt. Nam et Lupercorum per sacram uiam adscensum adque descensum sic interpretantur, ut ab eis significari dicant homines, qui propter aquae inundationem summa montium petiuerunt et rursus eadem residente ad ima redierunt. His temporibus Dionysum, qui etiam Liber pater dictus est et post mortem deus habitus, uitem ferunt ostendisse in Attica terra hospiti suo. Tunc Apollini Delphico instituti sunt ludi musici, ut placaretur ira eius, qua putabant adflictas esse sterilitate Graeciae regiones, quia non defenderint templum eius, quod rex Danaus, cum easdem terras bello inuasisset, incendit. Hos autem ludos ut instituerent, oraculo sunt eius admoniti. In Attica uero rex Erichthonius ei ludos primus instituit, nec ei tantum. sed etiam Mineruae, ubi praemium uictoribus oleum ponebatur, quod eius fructus inuentricem Mineruam, sicut uini Liberum tradunt. Per eos annos a rege Xantho Cretensium, cuius aput alios aliud nomen inuenimus, rapta perhibetur Europa, et inde geniti Rhadamanthus, Sarpedon et Minos. quos magis ex eadem muliere filios Iouis esse uulgatum est. Sed talium deorum cultores illud, quod de rege Cretensium diximus, historicae ueritati, hoc autem, quod de Ioue poetae cantant, theatra concrepant, populi celebrant, uanitati deputant fabularum, ut esset unde ludi fierent placandis numinibus etiam falsis eorum criminibus. His temporibus Hercules in Syria clarus habebatur; sed nimirum alius, non ille, de quo supra. locuti sumus. Secretiore quippe historia plures fuisse dicuntur et Liberi patres et Hercules. Hunc sane Herculem, cuius ingentia duodecim facta numerant, inter quae Antaei Afri necem non commemorant, quod ea res ad alterum Herculem pertinet, in Oeta monte a se ipso incensum produnt suis litteris, cum ea uirtute, qua multa subegerat, morbum tamen, quo languebat, sustinere non posset. Illo tempore uel rex uel potius tyrannus Busiris suis dis suos hospites immolabat, quem filium perhibent fuisse Neptuni ex matre Libya, filia Epaphi. Verum non credatur hoc stuprum perpetrasse Neptunus, ne di accusentur; sed poetis et theatris ista tribuantur, ut sit unde placentur. Erichthonii regis Atheniensium, cuius nouissimis annis Iesus Naue mortuus reperitur, Vulcanus et Minerua parentes fuisse dicuntur. Sed quoniam Mineruam uirginem uolunt, in amborum contentione Vulcanum commotum effudisse aiunt semen in terram adque inde homini nato ob eam causam tale inditum nomen. Graeca enim lingua εριςcontentio, […] terra est, ex quibus duobus conpositum uocabulum est Erichthonius. Verum, quod fatendum est, refellunt et a suis dis repellunt ista doctiores, qui hanc opinionem fabulosam hinc exortam ferunt, quia in templo Vulcani et Mineruae, quod ambo unum habebant Athenis, expositus inuentus est puer dracone inuolutus, qui eum significauit magnum futurum, et propter commune templum, cum essent parentes eius ignoti, Vulcani et Mineruae dictum esse filium. Nominis tamen eius originem fabula illa potius quam ista designat historia. Sed quid ad nos? Hoc in ueracibus libris homines instruat religiosos, illud in fallacibus ludis daemones delectet inpuros; quos tamen illi religiosi tamquam deos colunt, et cum de illis haec negant, ab omni eos crimine purgare non possunt, quoniam ludos eis poscentibus exhibent, ubi turpiter aguntur, quae uelut sapienter negantur, et his falsis ac turpibus di placantur, ubi etsi fabula cantat crimen numinum falsum, delectari tamen falso. crimine crimen est uerum.

### What Fables Were Invented at the Time When Judges Began to Rule the Hebrews.

[¶12] Chapter 13.—What Fables Were Invented at the Time When Judges Began to Rule the Hebrews.

> Latin: Caput XIII. Qnalium fabularum figmenta exorta sint eo tempore, quo Hebraeis iudices praeesse coeperunt.

[¶13] After the death of Joshua the son of Nun, the people of God had judges, in whose times they were alternately humbled by afflictions on account of their sins, and consoled by prosperity through the compassion of God. In those times were invented the fables about Triptolemus, who, at the command of Ceres, borne by winged snakes, bestowed corn on the needy lands in flying over them; about that beast the Minotaur, which was shut up in the Labyrinth, from which men who entered its inextricable mazes could find no exit; about the Centaurs, whose form was a compound of horse and man; about Cerberus, the three-headed dog of hell; about Phryxus and his sister Hellas, who fled, borne by a winged ram; about the Gorgon, whose hair was composed of serpents, and who turned those who looked on her into stone; about Bellerophon, who was carried by a winged horse called Pegasus; about Amphion, who charmed and attracted the stones by the sweetness of his harp; about the artificer Dædalus and his son Icarus, who flew on wings they had fitted on; about Œdipus, who compelled a certain four-footed monster with a human face, called a sphynx, to destroy herself by casting herself headlong, having solved the riddle she was wont to propose as insoluble; about Antæus, who was the son of the earth, for which reason, on falling on the earth, he was wont to rise up stronger, whom Hercules slew; and perhaps there are others which I have forgotten. These fables, easily found in histories containing a true account of events, bring us down to the Trojan war, at which Marcus Varro has closed his second book about the race of the Roman people; and they are so skillfully invented by men as to involve no scandal to the gods. But whoever have pretended as to Jupiter’s rape of Ganymede, a very beautiful boy, that king Tantalus committed the crime, and the fable ascribed it to Jupiter; or as to his impregnating Danäe as a golden shower, that it means that the woman’s virtue was corrupted by gold: whether these things were really done or only fabled in those days, or were really done by others and falsely ascribed to Jupiter, it is impossible to tell how much wickedness must have been taken for granted in men’s hearts that they should be thought able to listen to such lies with patience. And yet they willingly accepted them, when, indeed, the more devotedly they worshipped Jupiter, they ought the more severely to have punished those who durst say such things of him. But they not only were not angry at those who invented these things, but were afraid that the gods would be angry at them if they did not act such fictions even in the theatres. In those times Latona bore Apollo, not him of whose oracle we have spoken above as so often consulted, but him who is said, along with Hercules, to have fed the flocks of king Admetus; yet he was so believed to be a god, that very many, indeed almost all, have believed him to be the selfsame Apollo. Then also Father Liber made war in India, and led in his army many women called Bacchæ, who were notable not so much for valor as for fury. Some, indeed, write that this Liber was both conquered and bound and some that he was slain in Persia, even telling where he was buried; and yet in his name, as that of a god, the unclean demons have instituted the sacred, or rather the sacrilegious, Bacchanalia, of the outrageous vileness of which the senate, after many years, became so much ashamed as to prohibit them in the city of Rome. Men believed that in those times Perseus and his wife Andromeda were raised into heaven after their death, so that they were not ashamed or afraid to mark out their images by constellations, and call them by their names.

> Latin: Post mortem Iesu Naue populus Dei iudices habuit, quibus temporibus alternauerunt aput eos et humilitates laborum pro eorum peccatis, et prosperitates consolationum propter miserationem Dei. His temporibus fabulae fictae sunt de Triptolemo, quod iubente Cerere anguibus portatus alitibus indigentibus terris frumenta uolando contulerit; de Minotauro, quod bestia fuerit inclusa Labyrintho,’ quo cum intrassent homines, inextricabili errore inde exire non poterant; de Centauris, quod equorum hominumque fuerit natura coniuncta; de Cerbero, quod sit triceps inferorum canis; de Phryxo et Helle eius sorore, quod uecti ariete uolauerint; de Gorgone, quod fuerit crinita serpentibus et adspicientes conuertebat in lapides; de Bellerophonte, quod equo pennis uolante sit uectus, qui equus Pegasus dictus est; de Amphione, quod citharae suauitate lapides mulserit et adtraxerit; de fabro Daedalo et eius Icaro filio, quod sibi coaptatis pinnis uolauerint; de Oedipo, quod monstrum quoddam, quae Sphinga dicebatur, humana facie quadrupedem, soluta quae ab illa proponi soleret uelut insolubili quaestione suo praecipitio perire conpulerit; de Antaeo. quem necauit Hercules, quod filius terrae fuerit, propter quod cadens in terram fortior soleret adsurgere; et si qua forte alia praetermisi. Hae fabulae bellum ad usque Troianum, ubi secundum librum Marcus Varro de populi Romani gente finiuit, ex occasione historiarum, quae res ueraciter gestas continent, ita sunt ingeniis hominum fictae, ut non sint obprobriis numinum adfixae. Porro autem quicumque finxerunt a Ioue ad stuprum raptum pulcherrimum puerum Ganymedem, quod nefas rex Tantalus fecit et Ioui fabula tribuit, uel Danaes per imbrem aureum adpetisse concubitum, ubi intellegitur pudicitia mulieris auro fuisse corrupta, quae illis temporibus uel facta uel ficta sunt, aut facta ab aliis et ficta de Ioue, dici non potest quantum mali de hominum praesumserint cordibus, quod possent ista patienter ferre mendacia, quae tamen etiam libenter amplexi sunt. Qui utique quanto deuotius Iouem colunt, tanto eos, qui haec de illo dicere ausi sunt, seuerius punire debuerunt. Nunc uero non solum eis, qui ista finxerunt, irati non sunt, sed ut talia figmenta etiam in theatris agerent, ipsos deos potius iratos habere timuerunt. His temporibus Latona Apollinem peperit, non illum, cuius oracula solere consuli superius loquebamur, sed illum, qui cum Hercule seruiuit Admeto; qui tamen sic est deus creditus, ut plurimi ac paene omnes unum eundemque Apollinem fuisse opinentur. Tunc et Liber pater bellauit in India, qui multas habuit in exercitu feminas, quae Bacchae appellatae sunt, non tam uirtute nobiles quam furore. Aliqui sane et uictum scribunt istum Liberum et uinctum; nonnulli et occisum in pugna a Perseo, nec ubi fuerit sepultus tacent; et tamen eius uelut dei nomine per inmundos daemones Bacchanalia sacra uel potius sacrilegia sunt instituta, de quorum rabiosa turpitudine post tam multos annos sic senatus erubuit, ut in urbe Roma esse prohiberet. Per ea tempora Perseus et uxor eius Andromeda postea quam sunt mortui, sic eos in caelum receptos esse crediderunt, ut imagines eorum stellis designare eorumque appellare nominibus non erubescerent, non timerent.

### Of the Theological Poets.

[¶15] Chapter 14.—Of the Theological Poets.

> Latin: Caput XIV. De theologis poetis.

[¶16] During the same period of time arose the poets, who were also called theologues, because they made hymns about the gods; yet about such gods as, although great men, were yet but men, or the elements of this world which the true God made, or creatures who were ordained as principalities and powers according to the will of the Creator and their own merit. And if, among much that was vain and false, they sang anything of the one true God, yet, by worshipping Him along with others who are not gods, and showing them the service that is due to Him alone, they did not serve Him at all rightly; and even such poets as Orpheus, Musæus, and Linus, were unable to abstain from dishonoring their gods by fables. But yet these theologues worshipped the gods, and were not worshipped as gods, although the city of the ungodly is wont, I know not how, to set Orpheus over the sacred, or rather sacrilegious, rites of hell. The wife of king Athamas, who was called Ino, and her son Melicertes, perished by throwing themselves into the sea, and were, according to popular belief, reckoned among the gods, like other men of the same times, [among whom were] Castor and Pollux. The Greeks, indeed, called her who was the mother of Melicertes, Leucothea, the Latins, Matuta; but both thought her a goddess.

> Latin: Per idem temporis interuallum exstiterunt poetae, qui etiam theologi dicerentur, quoniam de dis carmina faciebant, sed talibus dis, qui licet magni homines, tamen homines fuerunt aut mundi huius, quem uerus Deus fecit, elementa sunt aut in principatibus et potestatibus pro uoluntate Creatoris et suis meritis ordinati, et si quid de uno uero Deo inter multa uana et falsa cecinerunt, colendo cum illo alios, qui di non sunt, eisque exhibendo famulatum, qui uni tantum debetur Deo, non ei utique rite seruierunt nec a fabuloso deorum suorum dedecore etiam sibi se abstinere potuerunt — Orpheus, Musaeus, Linus. Verum isti theologi deos coluerunt, non pro dis culti sunt; quamuis Orpheum nescio quo modo infernis sacris uel potius sacrilegiis praeficere soleat ciuitas inpiorum. Uxor autem regis Athamantis, quae uocabatur Ino, et eius filius Melicertes praecipitio spontaneo in mari perierunt et opinione hominum in deos relati sunt, sicut alii homines eorum temporum, Castor et Pollux. Illam sane Melicertis matrem Leucothean Graeci, Matutam Latini uocauerunt, utrique tamen putantes deam.

## 87. Of the Fall of the Kingdom of Argos, When Picus the Son of Saturn First Received His Father’s Kingdom of Laurentum.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/87/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/87/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 15.—Of the Fall of the Kingdom of Argos, When Picus the Son of Saturn First Received His Father’s Kingdom of Laurentum.

> Latin: Caput XV. De occasu regni Argiuorum, quo tempore aput Laurentes Picus Saturni filius regnum [patris] primus accepit.

[¶1] During those times the kingdom of Argos came to an end; being transferred to Mycene, from which Agamemnon came, and the kingdom of Laurentum arose, of which Picus son of Saturn was the first king, when the woman Deborah judged the Hebrews; but it was the Spirit of God who used her as His agent, for she was also a prophetess, although her prophecy is so obscure that we could not demonstrate, without a long discussion, that it was uttered concerning Christ. Now the Laurentes already reigned in Italy, from whom the origin of the Roman people is quite evidently derived after the Greeks; yet the kingdom of Assyria still lasted, in which Lampares was the twenty-third king when Picus first began to reign at Laurentum. The worshippers of such gods may see what they are to think of Saturn the father of Picus, who deny that he was a man; of whom some also have written that he himself reigned in Italy before Picus his son; and Virgil in his well-known book says,

> Latin: Per ea tempora regnum finitum est Argiuorum, translatum ad Mycenas, unde fuit Agamemnon, et exortum est regnum Laurentum, ubi Saturni filius Picus regnum primus accepit. iudicante aput Hebraeos femina Debbora; sed per illam Dei spiritus id agebat; nam etiam prophetissa erat, cuius prophetia minus aperta est, quam ut possimus eam sine diuturna expositione de Christo demonstrare prolatam. Iam ergo regnabant Laurentes utique in Italia, ex quibus euidentior ducitur origo Romana post Graecos; et tamen adhuc regnum Assyrium permanebat, ubi erat rex uicensimus et tertius Lampares, cum primus Laurentum Picus esse coepisset. De huius Pici patre Saturno uiderint quid sentiant talium deorum cultores, qui negant hominem fuisse; de quo et alii scripserunt, quod ante.

[¶2] “That race indocile, and through mountains high

> Latin: Picum filium suum in Italia ipse regnauerit, et Vergilius notioribus litteris dicit: Is genus indocile et dispersum montibus altis Conposuit legesque dedit Latiumque uocari Maluit, his quoniam latuisset tutus in oris.

[¶3] Dispersed, he settled, and endowed with laws,

[¶4] And named their country Latium, because

[¶5] Latent within their coasts he dwelt secure.

> Latin: Aurea quae perhibent illo sub rege fuere Saecula.

[¶6] Tradition says the golden ages pure

[¶7] Began when he was king.”

[¶8] But they regard these as poetic fancies, and assert that the father of Picus was Sterces rather, and relate that, being a most skillful husbandman, he discovered that the fields could be fertilized by the dung of animals, which is called stercus from his name. Some say he was called Stercutius. But for whatever reason they chose to call him Saturn, it is yet certain they made this Sterces or Stercutius a god for his merit in agriculture; and they likewise received into the number of these gods Picus his son, whom they affirm to have been a famous augur and warrior. Picus begot Faunus, the second king of Laurentum; and he too is, or was, a god with them. These divine honors they gave to dead men before the Trojan war.

> Latin: Sed haec poetica opinentur esse figmenta et Pici patrem Stercen potius fuisse adseuerent, a quo peritissimo agricola inuentum ferunt, ut fimo animalium agri fecundarentur, quod ab eius nomine stercus est dictum; hunc quidam Stercutium uocatum ferunt. Qualibet autem ex causa eum Saturnum appellare uoluerint, certe tamen hunc Stercen siue Stercutium merito agriculturae fecerunt deum. Picum quoque similiter eius filium in talium deorum numerum receperunt, quem praeclarum augurem et belligeratorem fuisse adserunt. Picus Faunum genuit, Laurentum regem secundum; etiam iste deus illis uel est uel fuit. Hos ante Troianum bellum diuinos honores mortuis hominibus detulerunt.

### Of Diomede, Who After the Destruction of Troy Was Placed Among the Gods, While His Companions are Said to Have Been Changed into Birds.

[¶10] Chapter 16.—Of Diomede, Who After the Destruction of Troy Was Placed Among the Gods, While His Companions are Said to Have Been Changed into Birds.

> Latin: Caput XVI. De Diomede post excidium Troiae in deos relato, cuius socii crediti sunt in uolucres esse conuersi.

[¶11] Troy was overthrown, and its destruction was everywhere sung and made well known even to boys; for it was signally published and spread abroad, both by its own greatness and by writers of excellent style. And this was done in the reign of Latinus the son of Faunus, from whom the kingdom began to be called Latium instead of Laurentum. The victorious Greeks, on leaving Troy destroyed and returning to their own countries, were torn and crushed by divers and horrible calamities. Yet even from among them they increased the number of their gods for they made Diomede a god. They allege that his return home was prevented by a divinely imposed punishment, and they prove, not by fabulous and poetic falsehood, but by historic attestation, that his companions were turned into birds. Yet they think that, even although he was made a god, he could neither restore them to the human form by his own power, nor yet obtain it from Jupiter his king, as a favor granted to a new inhabitant of heaven. They also say that his temple is in the island of Diomedæa, not far from Mount Garganus in Apulia, and that these birds fly round about this temple, and worship in it with such wonderful obedience, that they fill their beaks with water and sprinkle it; and if Greeks, or those born of the Greek race, come there, they are not only still, but fly to meet them; but if they are foreigners, they fly up at their heads, and wound them with such severe strokes as even to kill them. For they are said to be well enough armed for these combats with their hard and large beaks.

> Latin: Troia uero euersa excidio illo usquequaque cantato pueris-. que notissimo, quod et magnitudine sui et scriptorum excellentibus linguis insigniter diffamatum adque uulgatum est gestumque regnante iam Latino Fauni filio, ex quo Latinorum regnum dici coepit Laurentumque cessauit, Graeci uictores deletam Troiam relinquentes et ad propria remeantes diuersis et horrendis cladibus dilacerati adque contriti sunt; et tamen etiam ex eis deorum suorum numerum auxerunt. Nam et Diomeden fecerunt deum, quem poena diuinitus inrogata perhibent ad suos non reuertisse: eiusque socios in uolucres fuisse conuersos non fabuloso poeticoque mendacio, sed historica adtestatione confirmant; quibus nec deus, ut putant, factus humanam reuocare naturam uel ipse potuit uel certe a Ioue suo rege tamquam caelicola nouicius inpetrauit. Quin etiam templum eius esse aiunt in insula Diomedea, non longe a monte Gargano, qui est in Apulia, et hoc templum circumuolare adque incolere has alites tam mirabili obsequio, ut aquam inpleant et adspergant; et eo si Graeci uenerint uel Graecorum stirpe prognati, non solum quietas esse, uerum et insuper adulare; si autem alienigenas uiderint, subuolare ad capita tamque grauibus ictibus, ut etiam perimant, uulnerare. Nam duris et grandibus rostris satis ad haec proelia perhibentur armatae.

### What Varro Says of the Incredible Transformations of Men.

[¶13] Chapter 17.—What Varro Says of the Incredible Transformations of Men.

> Latin: Caput XVII. De incredibilibus commutationibus hominum quid Varro tradiderit.

[¶14] In support of this story, Varro relates others no less incredible about that most famous sorceress Circe, who changed the companions of Ulysses into beasts, and about the Arcadians, who, by lot, swam across a certain pool, and were turned into wolves there, and lived in the deserts of that region with wild beasts like themselves. But if they never fed on human flesh for nine years, they were restored to the human form on swimming back again through the same pool. Finally, he expressly names one Demænetus, who, on tasting a boy offered up in sacrifice by the Arcadians to their god Lycæus according to their custom, was changed into a wolf, and, being restored to his proper form in the tenth year, trained himself as a pugilist, and was victorious at the Olympic games. And the same historian thinks that the epithet Lycæus was applied in Arcadia to Pan and Jupiter for no other reason than this metamorphosis of men into wolves, because it was thought it could not be wrought except by a divine power. For a wolf is called in Greek λυκὸς, from which the name Lycæus appears to be formed. He says also that the Roman Luperci were as it were sprung of the seed of these mysteries.

> Latin: Hoc Van’o ut adstruat, commemorat alia non minus incredibilia de illa maga famosissima Circe, quae socios quoque Ulixis mutauit in bestias, et de Arcadibus, qui sorte ducti tranatabant quoddam stagnum adque ibi conuertebantur in lupos et cum similibus feris per illius regionis deserta uiuebant. Si autem carne non uescerentur humana, rursus post nouem annos eodem renatato stagno reformabantur in homines. Denique etiam nominatim expressit quendam Demaenetum gustasse de sacrificio, quod Arcades immolato puero deo suo Lycaeo facere solerent, et in lupum fuisse mutatum et anno decimo in figuram propriam restitutum pugilatum sese exercuisse et Olympiaco uicisse certamine. Nec idem propter aliud arbitratur historicus in Arcadia tale nomen adfictum Pani Lycaeo et loui Lycaeo nisi propter hanc in lupos hominum mutationem, quod eam nisi ui diuina fieri non putarent. Lupus enim Graece Xoxoc dicitur, unde Lycaei nomen apparet inflexum. Romanos etiam Lupercos ex illorum mysteriorum ueluti semine dicit exortos.

### What We Should Believe Concerning the Transformations Which Seem to Happen to Men Through the Art of Demons.

[¶16] Chapter 18.—What We Should Believe Concerning the Transformations Which Seem to Happen to Men Through the Art of Demons.

> Latin: Caput XVIII. Quid credendum sit de transformationibus, quae arte daemonum hominibus uidentur accidere.

[¶17] Perhaps our readers expect us to say something about this so great delusion wrought by the demons; and what shall we say but that men must fly out of the midst of Babylon? For this prophetic precept is to be understood spiritually in this sense, that by going forward in the living God, by the steps of faith, which worketh by love, we must flee out of the city of this world, which is altogether a society of ungodly angels and men. Yea, the greater we see the power of the demons to be in these depths, so much the more tenaciously must we cleave to the Mediator through whom we ascend from these lowest to the highest places. For if we should say these things are not to be credited, there are not wanting even now some who would affirm that they had either heard on the best authority, or even themselves experienced, something of that kind. Indeed we ourselves, when in Italy, heard such things about a certain region there where landladies of inns, imbued with these wicked arts, were said to be in the habit of giving to such travellers as they chose, or could manage, something in a piece of cheese by which they were changed on the spot into beasts of burden, and carried whatever was necessary, and were restored to their own form when the work was done. Yet their mind did not become bestial, but remained rational and human, just as Apuleius, in the books he wrote with the title of The Golden Ass, has told, or feigned, that it happened to his own self that, on taking poison, he became an ass, while retaining his human mind.

> Latin: Sed de ista tanta ludificatione daemonum nos quid dicamus, qui haec legent, fortassis exspectent. Et quid dicemus, nisi de medio Babylonis esse fugiendum? Quod praeceptum propheticum ita spiritaliter intellegitur, ut de huius saeculi ciuitate, quae profecto et angelorum et hominum societas inpiorum est, fidei passibus, quae per dilectionem operatur, in Deum uiuum proficiendo fugiamus. Quanto quippe in haec ima potestatem daemonum maiorem uidemus, tanto tenacius Mediatori est inhaerendum, per quem de imis ad summa conscendimus. Si enim dixerimus ea non esse credenda, non desunt etiam nunc, qui eius modi quaedam uel certissima audisse uel etiam expertos se esse adseuerent. Nam et nos cum essemus in Italia audiebamus talia de quadam regione illarum partium, ubi stabularias mulieres inbutas his malis artibus in caseo dare solere dicebant quibus uellent seu possent uiatoribus, unde in iumenta ilico uerterentur et necessaria quaeque portarent postque perfuncta opera iterum ad se redirent; nec tamen in eis mentem fieri bestialem, sed rationalem humanamque seruari. sicut Apuleius in libris, quos asini aurei titulo inscripsit, sibi ipsi accidisse, ut accepto ueneno humano animo permanente asinus fieret, aut indicauit aut finxit. Haec uel falsa sunt uel tam inusitata, ut merito non credantur.

[¶18] These things are either false, or so extraordinary as to be with good reason disbelieved. But it is to be most firmly believed that Almighty God can do whatever He pleases, whether in punishing or favoring, and that the demons can accomplish nothing by their natural power (for their created being is itself angelic, although made malign by their own fault), except what He may permit, whose judgments are often hidden, but never unrighteous. And indeed the demons, if they really do such things as these on which this discussion turns, do not create real substances, but only change the appearance of things created by the true God so as to make them seem to be what they are not. I cannot therefore believe that even the body, much less the mind, can really be changed into bestial forms and lineaments by any reason, art, or power of the demons; but the phantasm of a man which even in thought or dreams goes through innumerable changes may, when the man’s senses are laid asleep or overpowered, be presented to the senses of others in a corporeal form, in some indescribable way unknown to me, so that men’s bodies themselves may lie somewhere, alive, indeed, yet with their senses locked up much more heavily and firmly than by sleep, while that phantasm, as it were embodied in the shape of some animal, may appear to the senses of others, and may even seem to the man himself to be changed, just as he may seem to himself in sleep to be so changed, and to bear burdens; and these burdens, if they are real substances, are borne by the demons, that men may be deceived by beholding at the same time the real substance of the burdens and the simulated bodies of the beasts of burden. For a certain man called Præstantius used to tell that it had happened to his father in his own house, that he took that poison in a piece of cheese, and lay in his bed as if sleeping, yet could by no means be aroused. But he said that after a few days he as it were woke up and related the things he had suffered as if they had been dreams, namely, that he had been made a sumpter horse, and, along with other beasts of burden, had carried provisions for the soldiers of what is called the Rhœtian Legion, because it was sent to Rhœtia. And all this was found to have taken place just as he told, yet it had seemed to him to be his own dream. And another man declared that in his own house at night, before he slept, he saw a certain philosopher, whom he knew very well, come to him and explain to him some things in the Platonic philosophy which he had previously declined to explain when asked. And when he had asked this philosopher why he did in his house what he had refused to do at home, he said, “I did not do it, but I dreamed I had done it.” And thus what the one saw when sleeping was shown to the other when awake by a phantasmal image.

> Latin: Firmissime tamen credendum est omnipotentem Deum posse omnia facere quae uoluerit, siue uindicando siue praestando, nec daemones aliquid operari secundum naturae suae potentiam (quia et ipsa angelica creatura est, licet proprio uitio sit maligna) nisi quod ille permiserit, cuius iudicia occulta sunt multa, iniusta nulla. Nec sane daemones naturas creant, si aliquid tale faciunt, de qualibus factis ista uertitur quaestio; sed specie tenus, quae a uero Deo sunt creata, commutant, ut uideantur esse quod non sunt. Non itaque solum animum, sed ne corpus quidem ulla ratione crediderim daemonum arte uel potestate in membra et liniamenta bestialia ueraciter posse conuerti, sed phantasticum hominis, quod etiam cogitando siue somniando per rerum innumerabilia genera uariatur et, cum corpus non sit, corporum tamen similes mira celeritate formas capit, sopitis aut obpressis corporeis hominis sensibus ad aliorum sensum nescio quo ineffabili modo figura corporea posse perduci; ita ut corpora ipsa hominum alicubi iaceant, uiuentia quidem, sed multo grauius adque uehementius quam somno suis sensibus obseratis; phantasticum autem illud ueluti corporatum in alicuius animalis effigie appareat sensibus alienis talisque etiam sibi esse homo uideatur, sicut talis sibi uideri posset in somnis, et portare onera; quae onera si uera sunt corpora, portantur a daemonibus, ut inludatur hominibus, partim uera onerum corpora, partim iumentorum falsa cernentibus. Nam quidam nomine Praestantius patri suo contigisse indicabat, ut uenenum illud per caseum in domo sua sumeret et iaceret in lecto suo quasi dormiens, qui tamen nullo modo poterat excitari. Post aliquot autem dies eum uelut euigilasse dicebat et quasi somnia narrasse quae passus est, caballum se scilicet factum annonam inter alia iumenta baiulasse militibus, quae dicitur Retica, quoniam ad Retias deportatur. Quod ita, ut narrauit, factum fuisse conpertum est; quae tamen ei sua somnia uidebantur. Indicauit et alius se domi suae per noctem, antequam requiesceret, uidisse uenientem ad se philosophum quendam sibi notissimum sibique exposuisse nonnulla Platonica, quae antea rogatus exponere noluisset. Et cum ab eodem philosopho quaesitum fuisset, quur in domo eius fecerit, quod in domo sua petenti negauerat: "Non feci, inquit, sed me fecisse somniaui." Ac per hoc alteri per imaginem phantasticam exhibitum est uigilanti, quod alter uidit in somnis.

[¶19] These things have not come to us from persons we might deem unworthy of credit, but from informants we could not suppose to be deceiving us. Therefore what men say and have committed to writing about the Arcadians being often changed into wolves by the Arcadian gods, or demons rather, and what is told in song about Circe transforming the companions of Ulysses, if they were really done, may, in my opinion, have been done in the way I have said. As for Diomede’s birds, since their race is alleged to have been perpetuated by constant propagation, I believe they were not made through the metamorphosis of men, but were slyly substituted for them on their removal, just as the hind was for Iphigenia, the daughter of king Agamemnon. For juggleries of this kind could not be difficult for the demons if permitted by the judgment of God; and since that virgin was afterwards, found alive it is easy to see that a hind had been slyly substituted for her. But because the companions of Diomede were of a sudden nowhere to be seen, and afterwards could nowhere be found, being destroyed by bad avenging angels, they were believed to have been changed into those birds, which were secretly brought there from other places where such birds were, and suddenly substituted for them by fraud. But that they bring water in their beaks and sprinkle it on the temple of Diomede, and that they fawn on men of Greek race and persecute aliens, is no wonderful thing to be done by the inward influence of the demons, whose interest it is to persuade men that Diomede was made a god, and thus to beguile them into worshipping many false gods, to the great dishonor of the true God; and to serve dead men, who even in their lifetime did not truly live, with temples, altars, sacrifices, and priests, all which, when of the right kind, are due only to the one living and true God.

> Latin: Haec ad nos non quibuscumque, qualibus credere putaremus indignum, sed eis referentibus peruenerunt, quos nobis non existimaremus fuisse mentitos. Proinde quod homines dicuntur mandatumque est litteris ab dis uel potius daemonibus Arcadibus in lupos solere conuerti, et quod Carminibus Circe socios mutauit Ulixi, secundum istum modum mihi uidetur fieri potuisse, quem dixi, si tamen factum est. Diomedeas autem uolucres, quando quidem genus earum per successionem propaginis durare perhibetur, non mutatis hominibus factas, sed subtractis credo fuisse subpositas, sicut cerua pro Iphigenia, regis Agamemnonis filia. Neque enim daemonibus iudicio Dei permissis huius modi praestigiae difficiles esse potuerunt; sed quia illa uirgo postea uiua reperta est, subpositam pro illa esse ceruam facile cognitum est. Socii uero Diomedis quia nusquam subito conparuerunt et postea nullo loco apparuerunt, perdentibus eos ultoribus angelis malis, in eas aues, quae pro illis sunt occulte ex aliis locis, ubi est hoc genus auium, ad ea loca perductae ac repente subpositae, creduntur esse conuersi. Quod autem Diomedis templo aquam rostris adferunt et adspergunt, et quod blandiuntur Graecigenis adque alienigenas persequuntur, mirandum non est fieri daemonum instinctu, quorum interest persuadere deum factum esse Diomeden ad decipiendos homines, ut falsos deos cum ueri Dei iniuria multos colant et hominibus mortuis, qui nec cum uiuerent uere uixerunt, templis altaribus, sacrificiis sacerdotibus (quae omnia cum recta sunt non nisi uni Deo uiuo et uero debentur) inseruiant.

### That Æneas Came into Italy When Abdon the Judge Ruled Over the Hebrews.

[¶21] Chapter 19.—That Æneas Came into Italy When Abdon the Judge Ruled Over the Hebrews.

> Latin: Caput XIX. Quod eo tempore Aeneas in Italiam uenerit, quo Labdon iudex praesidebat Hebraeis.

[¶22] After the capture and destruction of Troy, Æneas, with twenty ships laden with the Trojan relics, came into Italy, when Latinus reigned there, Menestheus in Athens, Polyphidos in Sicyon, and Tautanos in Assyria, and Abdon was judge of the Hebrews. On the death of Latinus, Æneas reigned three years, the same kings continuing in the above-named places, except that Pelasgus was now king in Sicyon, and Samson was judge of the Hebrews, who is thought to be Hercules, because of his wonderful strength. Now the Latins made Æneas one of their gods, because at his death he was nowhere to be found. The Sabines also placed among the gods their first king, Sancus, [Sangus], or Sanctus, as some call him. At that time Codrus king of Athens exposed himself incognito to be slain by the Peloponnesian foes of that city, and so was slain. In this way, they say, he delivered his country. For the Peloponnesians had received a response from the oracle, that they should overcome the Athenians only on condition that they did not slay their king. Therefore he deceived them by appearing in a poor man’s dress, and provoking them, by quarrelling, to murder him. Whence Virgil says, “Or the quarrels of Codrus.” And the Athenians worshipped this man as a god with sacrificial honors. The fourth king of the Latins was Silvius the son of Æneas, not by Creüsa, of whom Ascanius the third king was born, but by Lavinia the daughter of Latinus, and he is said to have been his posthumous child. Oneus was the twenty-ninth king of Assyria, Melanthus the sixteenth of the Athenians, and Eli the priest was judge of the Hebrews; and the kingdom of Sicyon then came to an end, after lasting, it is said, for nine hundred and fifty-nine years.

> Latin: Eo tempore post captam Troiam adque deletam Aeneas cum uiginti nauibus, quibus portabantur reliquiae Troianorum, in Italiam uenit, regnante ibi Latino et aput Athenienses Menestheo, aput Sicyonios Polyphide, aput Assyrios Tautane, aput Hebraeos autem iudex Labdon fuit. Mortuo autem Latino regnauit Aeneas tribus annis, eisdem in supradictis locis manentibus regibus, nisi quod Sicyoniorum iam Pelasgus erat et Hebraeorum iudex Samson; qui cum mirabiliter fortis esset, putatus est Hercules. Sed Aenean, quoniam quando mortuus est non conparuit, deum sibi fecerunt Latini. Sabini etiam regem suum primum Sancum siue, ut aliqui appellant, Sane tum, rettulerunt in deos. Per idem tempus Codrus rex Atheniensium Peloponnensibus eiusdem hostibus ciuitatis se interficiendum ignotus obiecit; et factum est. Hoc modo eum praedicant patriam liberasse. Responsum enim acceperant Peloponnenses tum demum se superaturos, si eorum regem non occidissent. Fefellit ergo eos habitu pauperis apparendo et in suam necem per iurgium prouocando. Unde ait Vergilius: Et iurgia Codri. Et hunc Athenienses tamquam deum sacrificiorum honore coluerunt. Quarto Latinorum rege Siluio Aeneae filio, non de Creusa, de qua fuit Ascanius, qui tertius ibi regnauit, sed de Lauinia Latini filia, quem postumum Aeneas dicitur habuisse, Assyriorum autem uicensimo et nono Oneo et Melantho Atheniensium sexto decimo, iudice autem Hebraeorum Heli sacerdote regnum Sicyoniorum consumtum est, quod per annos nongentos quinquaginta et nouem traditur fuisse porrectum.

## 88. Of the Succession of the Line of Kings Among the Israelites After the Times of the Judges.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/88/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/88/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 20.—Of the Succession of the Line of Kings Among the Israelites After the Times of the Judges.

> Latin: Caput XX. De successione ordinis regii aput Israelitas post iudicum tempora.

[¶1] While these kings reigned in the places mentioned, the period of the judges being ended, the kingdom of Israel next began with king Saul, when Samuel the prophet lived. At that date those Latin kings began who were surnamed Silvii, having that surname, in addition to their proper name, from their predecessor, that son of Æneas who was called Silvius; just as, long afterward, the successors of Cæsar Augustus were surnamed Cæsars. Saul being rejected, so that none of his issue should reign, on his death David succeeded him in the kingdom, after he had reigned forty years. Then the Athenians ceased to have kings after the death of Codrus, and began to have a magistracy to rule the republic. After David, who also reigned forty years, his son Solomon was king of Israel, who built that most noble temple of God at Jerusalem. In his time Alba was built among the Latins, from which thereafter the kings began to be styled kings not of the Latins, but of the Albans, although in the same Latium. Solomon was succeeded by his son Rehoboam, under whom that people was divided into two kingdoms, and its separate parts began to have separate kings.

> Latin: Mox eisdem per loca memorata regnantibus Israelitarum regnum finito tempore iudicum a Saule rege sumsit exordium, quo tempore fuit propheta Samuel. Ab illo igitur tempore hi reges Latinorum esse coeperunt, quos cognominabant Siluios; ab eo quippe, qui filius Aeneae primus dictus est Siluius, ceteris subsecutis et propria nomina inponebantur et hoc non defuit cognomentum; sicut longe postea Caesares cognominati sunt, qui successerunt Caesari Augusto. Reprobato autem Saule, ne quisquam ex eius stirpe regnaret, eoque defuncto Dauid successit in regnum post annos a Saulis imperio quadraginta. Tunc Athenienses habere deinde reges post Codri interitum destiterunt et magistratus habere coeperunt administrandae rei publicae. Post Dauid, qui etiam ipse quadraginta regnauit annos, filius eius Salomon rex Israelitarum fuit, qui templum illud nobilissimum Dei Hierosolymitanum condidit. Cuius tempore aput Latinos condita est Alba, ex qua deinceps non Latinorum, sed Albanorum reges appellari, in eodem tamen Latio, coeperunt. Salomoni successit filius eius Roboam, sub quo in duo regna populus ille diuisus est, et singulae partes suos singulos reges habere coeperunt.

### Of the Kings of Latium, the First and Twelfth of Whom, Æneas and Aventinus, Were Made Gods.

[¶3] Chapter 21.—Of the Kings of Latium, the First and Twelfth of Whom, Æneas and Aventinus, Were Made Gods.

> Latin: Caput XXI. De regibus Latii, quorum primus Aeneas et duodecimus Auentinus di facti sunt.

[¶4] After Æneas, whom they deified, Latium had eleven kings, none of whom was deified. But Aventinus, who was the twelfth after Æneas, having been laid low in war, and buried in that hill still called by his name, was added to the number of such gods as they made for themselves. Some, indeed, were unwilling to write that he was slain in battle, but said he was nowhere to be found, and that it was not from his name, but from the alighting of birds, that hill was called Aventinus. After this no god was made in Latium except Romulus the founder of Rome. But two kings are found between these two, the first of whom I shall describe in the Virgilian verse:

> Latin: Latium post Aenean, quem deum fecerunt, undecim reges habuit, quorum nullus deus factus est. Auentinus autem, qui duodecimo loco Aenean sequitur, cum esset prostratus in bello et sepultus in eo monte, qui etiam nunc eius nomine nuncupatur, deorum talium, quales sibi faciebant, numero est additus. Alii sane noluerunt eum in proelio scribere occisum, sed non conparuisse dixerunt; nec ex eius uocabulo appellatum montem, sed ex aduentu auium dictum Auentinum. Post hunc non est deus factus in Latio nisi Romulus conditor Romae.

[¶5] “Next came that Procas, glory of the Trojan race.”

> Latin: Inter istum autem et illum reges reperiuntur duo, quorum primus est, ut eum Vergiliano uersu eloquar: Proximus ille Procas, Troianae gloria gentis.

[¶6] That greatest of all kingdoms, the Assyrian, had its long duration brought to a close in his time, the time of Rome’s birth drawing nigh. For the Assyrian empire was transferred to the Medes after nearly thirteen hundred and five years, if we include the reign of Belus, who begot Ninus, and, content with a small kingdom, was the first king there. Now Procas reigned before Amulius. And Amulius had made his brother Numitor’s daughter, Rhea by name, who was also called Ilia, a vestal virgin, who conceived twin sons by Mars, as they will have it, in that way honoring or excusing her adultery, adding as a proof that a she-wolf nursed the infants when exposed. For they think this kind of beast belongs to Mars so that the she-wolf is believed to have given her teats to the infants, because she knew they were the sons of Mars her lord; although there are not wanting persons who say that when the crying babes lay exposed, they were first of all picked up by I know not what harlot, and sucked her breasts first (now harlots were called lupæ, she-wolves, from which their vile abodes are even yet called lupanaria), and that afterwards they came into the hands of the shepherd Faustulus, and were nursed by Acca his wife. Yet what wonder is it, if, to rebuke the king who had cruelly ordered them to be thrown into the water, God was pleased, after divinely delivering them from the water, to succor, by means of a wild beast giving milk, these infants by whom so great a city was to be founded? Amulius was succeeded in the Latian kingdom by his brother Numitor, the grandfather of Romulus; and Rome was founded in the first year of this Numitor, who from that time reigned along with his grandson Romulus.

> Latin: Cuius tempore quia iam quodam modo Roma parturiebatur, illud omnium regnorum maximum Assyrium finem tantae diuturnitatis accepit. Ad Medos quippe translatum est post annos ferme mille trecentos quinque, ut etiam Beli, qui Ninum genuit et illic paruo contentus imperio primus rex fuit. tempora conputentur. Procas autem regnauit ante Amulium. Porro Amulius fratris sui Numitoris filiam, Rheam nomine, quae etiam Ilia uocabatur, Romuli matrem, Vestalem uirginem fecerat, quam uolunt de Marte geminos concepisse, isto modo stuprum eius honorantes uel excusantes, et adhibentes argumentum, quod infantes expositos lupa nutriuerit. Hoc enim genus bestiae ad Martem existimant pertinere, ut uidelicet ideo lupa credatur admouisse ubera paruulis, quia filios domini sui Martis agnouit; quamuis non desint qui dicant, cum expositi uagientes iacerent, a nescio qua primum meretrice fuisse collectos et primas eius suxisse mamillas (meretrices autem lupas uocabant, unde etiam nunc turpia loca earum lupanaria nuncupantur), et eos postea ad Faustulum peruenisse pastorem adque ab eius Acca uxore nutritos. Quamquam si ad arguendum hominem regem, qui eos in aquam proici crudeliter iusserat, eis infantibus, per quos tanta ciuitas condenda fuerat, de aqua diuinitus liberatis per lactantem feram Deus uoluit subuenire, quid mirum est? Amulio successit in regnum Latiare frater eius Numitor, auus Romuli, cuius Numitoris primo anno condita est Roma; ac per hoc cum suo deinceps, id est Romulo, nepote regnauit.

### That Rome Was Founded When the Assyrian Kingdom Perished, at Which Time Hezekiah Reigned in Judah.

[¶8] Chapter 22.—That Rome Was Founded When the Assyrian Kingdom Perished, at Which Time Hezekiah Reigned in Judah.

> Latin: Caput XXII. Quod eo tempore Roma sit condita, quo regnum Assyriorum intercidit et quo Ezechias regnabat in Iuda.

[¶9] To be brief, the city of Rome was founded, like another Babylon, and as it were the daughter of the former Babylon, by which God was pleased to conquer the whole world, and subdue it far and wide by bringing it into one fellowship of government and laws. For there were already powerful and brave peoples and nations trained to arms, who did not easily yield, and whose subjugation necessarily involved great danger and destruction as well as great and horrible labor. For when the Assyrian kingdom subdued almost all Asia, although this was done by fighting, yet the wars could not be very fierce or difficult, because the nations were as yet untrained to resist, and neither so many nor so great as afterward; forasmuch as, after that greatest and indeed universal flood, when only eight men escaped in Noah’s ark, not much more than a thousand years had passed when Ninus subdued all Asia with the exception of India. But Rome did not with the same quickness and facility wholly subdue all those nations of the east and west which we see brought under the Roman empire, because, in its gradual increase, in whatever direction it was extended, it found them strong and warlike. At the time when Rome was founded, then, the people of Israel had been in the land of promise seven hundred and eighteen years. Of these years twenty-seven belong to Joshua the son of Nun, and after that three hundred and twenty-nine to the period of the judges. But from the time when the kings began to reign there, three hundred and sixty-two years had passed. And at that time there was a king in Judah called Ahaz, or, as others compute, Hezekiah his successor, the best and most pious king, who it is admitted reigned in the times of Romulus. And in that part of the Hebrew nation called Israel, Hoshea had begun to reign.

> Latin: Ne multis morer, condita est ciuitas Roma uelut altera Babylon et uelut prioris filia Babylonis, per quam Deo placuit orbem debellare terrarum et in unam societatem rei publicae legumque perductum longe lateque pacare. Erant enim iam populi ualidi et fortes et armis gentes exercitatae, quae non facile cederent, et quas opus esset ingentibus periculis et uastatione utrimque non parua adque horrendo labore superari. Nam quando regnum Assyriorum totam paene Asiam subiugauit, licet bellando sit factum, non tamen multum asperis et difficilibus bellis fieri potuit, quia rudes adhuc ad resistendum gentes erant nec tam multae uel magnae. Si quidem post illud maximum adque uniuersale diluuium, cum in arca Noe octo soli homines euaserunt, anni non multo amplius quam mille transierant, quando Ninus Asiam totam excepta India subiugauit. Roma uero tot gentes [et] Orientis et Occidentis, quas imperio Romano subditas cernimus, non ea celeritate ac facilitate perdomuit, quoniam paulatim crescendo robustas eas et bellicosas, quaqua uersum dilatabatur, inuenit. Tempore igitur, quo Roma condita est, populus Israel habebat in terra promissionis annos septingentos decem et octo. Ex quibus uiginti septem pertinent ad Iesum Naue, deinde ad tempus iudicum trecenti uiginti nouem. Ex quo autem reges ibi esse coeperant, anni erant trecenti sexaginta duo. Et rei tunc erat in Iuda, cuius nomen erat Achaz uel, sicut alii conputant, qui ei successit Ezechias, quem quidem constat optimum et piissimum regem Romuli regnasse temporibus. In ea uero Hebraei populi parte, quae appellabatur Israel, regnare coeperat Osee.

## 89. Of the Erythræan Sibyl, Who is Known to Have Sung Many Things About Christ More Plainly Than the Other Sibyls.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/89/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/89/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 23.—Of the Erythræan Sibyl, Who is Known to Have Sung Many Things About Christ More Plainly Than the Other Sibyls.

> Latin: Caput XXIII. De Sibylla Erythraea, quae inter alias Sibyllas cognoscitur de Christo euidentia multa cecinisse.

[¶1] Some say the Erythræan sibyl prophesied at this time. Now Varro declares there were many sibyls, and not merely one. This sibyl of Erythræ certainly wrote some things concerning Christ which are quite manifest, and we first read them in the Latin tongue in verses of bad Latin, and unrhythmical, through the unskillfulness, as we afterwards learned, of some interpreter unknown to me. For Flaccianus, a very famous man, who was also a proconsul, a man of most ready eloquence and much learning, when we were speaking about Christ, produced a Greek manuscript, saying that it was the prophecies of the Erythræan sibyl, in which he pointed out a certain passage which had the initial letters of the lines so arranged that these words could be read in them: ᾽Ιησοῦς Χριστος Θεοῦ υιὸς σωτηρ, which means, “Jesus Christ the Son of God, the Saviour.” And these verses, of which the initial letters yield that meaning, contain what follows as translated by some one into Latin in good rhythm:

> Latin: Eodem tempore nonnulli Sibyllam Erythraeam uaticinatam ferunt. Sibyllas autem Varro prodit plures fuisse, non unam. Haec sane Erythraea Sibylla quaedam de Christo manifesta conscripsit; quod etiam nos prius in Latina lingua uersibus male Latinis et non stantibus legimus per nescio cuius interpretis inperitiam, sicut post cognouimus. Nam uir clarissimus. Flaccianus, qui etiam proconsul fuit, homo facillimae facundiae multaeque doctrinae, cum de Christo conloqueremur, Graecum nobis codicem protulit, carmina esse dicens Sibyllae Erythraeae, ubi ostendit quodam loco in capitibus uersuum ordinem litterarum ita se habentem, ut haec in eo uerba legerentur: Ἰησοῦς Χρειστὸς Θεοῦ υἱὸς σωτήρ, quod est Latine, Iesus Christus Dei filius saluator.

[¶2] Ι Judgment shall moisten the earth with the sweat of its standard,

[¶3] Η Ever enduring, behold the King shall come through the ages,

[¶4] Σ Sent to be here in the flesh, and Judge at the last of the world.

[¶5] Ο O God, the believing and faithless alike shall behold Thee

[¶6] Υ Uplifted with saints, when at last the ages are ended.

[¶7] Σ Seated before Him are souls in the flesh for His judgment.

[¶8] Χ Hid in thick vapors, the while desolate lieth the earth.

[¶9] Ρ Rejected by men are the idols and long hidden treasures;

[¶10] Ε Earth is consumed by the fire, and it searcheth the ocean and heaven;

[¶11] Ι Issuing forth, it destroyeth the terrible portals of hell.

[¶12] Σ Saints in their body and soul freedom and light shall inherit;

[¶13] Τ Those who are guilty shall burn in fire and brimstone for ever.

> Latin: Hi autem uersus, quorum primae litterae istum sensum, quem diximus, reddunt, sicut eos quidam Latinis et stantibus uersibus est interpretatus, hoc continent: Ι Indicii signum tellus sudore madescet. Η E caelo rex adueniet per saecla futurus, Σ Scilicet ut carnem praesens, ut iudicet orbem. Ο Unde Deum cernent incredulus adque fidelis Υ Celsum cum sanctis aeni iam termino in ipso. Σ Sic animae cum carne aderunt, quas indicat ipse, Χ Cum iacet incultus densis in uepribus orbis, Ρ Reicient simulacra uiri, cunctam quoque gazam, Ε Exuret terras ignis pontumque polumque Ι Inquirens taetri portas effringet Auerni. Σ Sanctorum sed enim cunctae lux libera carni Τ Tradetur, sontes aeterna flamma cremabit. Ο Occultos actus retegens tunc quisque loquetur Σ Secreta, adque Deus reserabit pectora luci. Θ Tunc erit et luctus, stridebunt dentibus omnes. Ε Eripitur solis iubar et chorus interit astris. Ο Voluetur caelum, lunaris splendor obibit; Υ Deiciet colles, ualles extollet ab imo. Υ Non erit in rebus hominum sublime uel altum. Ι Iam aequantur campis montes et caerula ponti Ο Omnia cessabunt, tellus confracta peribit: Σ Sic pariter fontes torrentur fluminaque igni. Σ Sed tuba tum sonitum tristem demittet ab alto Ω Orbe, gemens facinus miserum uariosque labores, Τ Tartareumque chaos monstrabit terra dehiscens. Η Et coram hic Domino reges sistentur ad unum. Ρ Reccidet e caelo ignisque et sulphuris amnis.

[¶14] Ο Occult actions revealing, each one shall publish his secrets;

[¶15] Σ Secrets of every man’s heart God shall reveal in the light.

[¶16] Θ Then shall be weeping and wailing, yea, and gnashing of teeth;

[¶17] Ε Eclipsed is the sun, and silenced the stars in their chorus.

[¶18] Ο Over and gone is the splendor of moonlight, melted the heaven,

[¶19] Υ Uplifted by Him are the valleys, and cast down the mountains.

[¶20] Υ Utterly gone among men are distinctions of lofty and lowly.

[¶21] Ι Into the plains rush the hills, the skies and oceans are mingled.

[¶22] Ο Oh, what an end of all things! earth broken in pieces shall perish;

[¶23] Σ . . . . Swelling together at once shall the waters and flames flow in rivers.

[¶24] Σ Sounding the archangel’s trumpet shall peal down from heaven,

[¶25] Ω Over the wicked who groan in their guilt and their manifold sorrows.

[¶26] Τ Trembling, the earth shall be opened, revealing chaos and hell.

[¶27] Η Every king before God shall stand in that day to be judged.

[¶28] Ρ Rivers of fire and brimstone shall fall from the heavens.

> Latin: In his Latinis uersibus de Graeco utcumque translatis ibi non potuit ille sensus occurrere, qui fit, cum litterae, quae sunt in eorum capitibus, conectuntur, ubi Υ littera in Graeco posita est, quia non potuerunt Latina uerba inueniri, quae ab eadem littera inciperent et sententiae conuenirent.

[¶29] In these Latin verses the meaning of the Greek is correctly given, although not in the exact order of the lines as connected with the initial letters; for in three of them, the fifth, eighteenth, and nineteenth, where the Greek letter Υ occurs, Latin words could not be found beginning with the corresponding letter, and yielding a suitable meaning. So that, if we note down together the initial letters of all the lines in our Latin translation except those three in which we retain the letter Υ in the proper place, they will express in five Greek words this meaning, “Jesus Christ the Son of God, the Saviour.” And the verses are twenty-seven, which is the cube of three. For three times three are nine; and nine itself, if tripled, so as to rise from the superficial square to the cube, comes to twenty-seven. But if you join the initial letters of these five Greek words, ᾽Ιησοῦς Χριστος Θεοῦ υἰὸς σωτήρ, which mean, “Jesus Christ the Son of God, the Saviour,” they will make the word ἰχδὺς, that is, “fish,” in which word Christ is mystically understood, because He was able to live, that is, to exist, without sin in the abyss of this mortality as in the depth of waters.

> Latin: Hi autem sunt uersus tres, quintus et octauus decimus et nonus decimus. Denique si litteras quae sunt in capitibus omnium uersuum conectentes horum trium quae scriptae sunt non legamus, sed pro eis Υ litteram, tamquam in eisdem locis ipsa sit posita, recordemur, exprimitur in quinque uerbis: Iesus Christus Dei filius saluator; sed cum Graece hoc dicitur, non Latine. Et sunt uersus uiginti et septem, qui numerus quadratum ternarium solidum reddit. Tria enim ter ducta fiunt nouem; et ipsa nouem si ter ducantur, ut ex lato in altum figura consurgat, ad uiginti septem perueniunt. Horum autem Graecorum quinque uerborum, quae sunt Ἰησοῦς Χρειστὸς Θεοῦ υἱὸς σωτήρ, quod est Latine Iesus Christus Dei filius saluator, si primas litteras iungas, erit ἰχθύς, id est piscis, in quo nomine mystice intellegitur Christus, eo quod in huius mortalitatis abysso uelut in aquarum profunditate uiuus, hoc est sine peccato, esse potuerit.

[¶30] But this sibyl, whether she is the Erythræan, or, as some rather believe, the Cumæan, in her whole poem, of which this is a very small portion, not only has nothing that can relate to the worship of the false or feigned gods, but rather speaks against them and their worshippers in such a way that we might even think she ought to be reckoned among those who belong to the city of God. Lactantius also inserted in his work the prophecies about Christ of a certain sibyl, he does not say which. But I have thought fit to combine in a single extract, which may seem long, what he has set down in many short quotations. She says, “Afterward He shall come into the injurious hands of the unbelieving, and they will give God buffets with profane hands, and with impure mouth will spit out envenomed spittle; but He will with simplicity yield His holy back to stripes. And He will hold His peace when struck with the fist, that no one may find out what word, or whence, He comes to speak to hell; and He shall be crowned with a crown of thorns. And they gave Him gall for meat, and vinegar for His thirst: they will spread this table of inhospitality. For thou thyself, being foolish, hast not understood thy God, deluding the minds of mortals, but hast both crowned Him with thorns and mingled for Him bitter gall. But the veil of the temple shall be rent; and at midday it shall be darker than night for three hours. And He shall die the death, taking sleep for three days; and then returning from hell, He first shall come to the light, the beginning of the resurrection being shown to the recalled.” Lactantius made use of these sibylline testimonies, introducing them bit by bit in the course of his discussion as the things he intended to prove seemed to require, and we have set them down in one connected series, uninterrupted by comment, only taking care to mark them by capitals, if only the transcribers do not neglect to preserve them hereafter. Some writers, indeed, say that the Erythræan sibyl was not in the time of Romulus, but of the Trojan war.

> Latin: Haec autem Sibylla sine Erythraea siue, ut quidam magis credunt, Cumaea ita nihil habet in toto carmine suo, cuius exigua ista particula est, quod ad deorum falsorum siue factorum cultum pertineat, quin immo ita etiam contra eos et contra cultores eorum loquitur, ut in eorum numero deputanda uideatur, qui pertinent ad ciuitatem Dei. Inserit etiam Lactantius operi suo quaedam de Christo uaticinia Sibyllae, quamuis non exprimat cuius. Sed quae ipse singillatim posuit, ego arbitratus sum coniuncta esse ponenda, tamquam unum sit prolixum, quae ille plura commemorauit et breuia. ‘In manus [iniquas], inquit, infidelium postea ueniet; dabunt autem Deo alapas manibus incestis et inpurato ore exspuent uenenatos sputus; dabit uero ad uerbera simpliciter sanctum dorsum. Et colaphos accipiens tacebit, ne quis agnoscat, quod uerbum uel unde uenit, ut inferis loquatur et corona spinea coronetur. Ad cibum autem fel et ad sitim acetum dederunt; inhospitalitatis hanc monstrabunt mensam. Ipsa enim insipiens tuum Deum non intellexisti, ludentem mortalium mentibus, sed spinis coronasti et horridum fel miscuisti. Templi uero uelum scindetur; et medio die nox erit tenebrosa nimis in tribus horis. Et morte morietur tribus diebus somno suscepto; et tunc ab inferis regressus ad lucem ueniet primus resurrectionis principio reuocatis ostenso.’ Ista Lactantius carptim per interualla disputationis suae, sicut ea poscere uidebantur, quae -probare intenderat, adhibuit testimonia Sibyllina, quae nos nihil interponentes, sed in unam seriem conexa ponentes solis capitibus, si tamen scriptores deinceps ea seruare non neglegant, distinguenda curauimus. Nonnulli sane Erythraeam Sibyllam non Romuli, sed belli Troiani tempore fuisse scripserunt.

## 90. That the Seven Sages Flourished in the Reign of Romulus, When the Ten Tribes Which Were Called Israel Were Led into Captivity by the Chaldeans, and Romulus, When Dead, Had Divine Honors Conferred on Him.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/90/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/90/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 24.—That the Seven Sages Flourished in the Reign of Romulus, When the Ten Tribes Which Were Called Israel Were Led into Captivity by the Chaldeans, and Romulus, When Dead, Had Divine Honors Conferred on Him.

> Latin: Caput XXIV. Quod regnante Romulo septem sapientes claruerint, quo tempore decem tribus, quae Israel dicebantur, in captiuitatem a Chaldaeis ductae sunt, idemque Romulus mortuus diuino honore donatus est.

[¶1] While Romulus reigned, Thales the Milesian is said to have lived, being one of the seven sages, who succeeded the theological poets, of whom Orpheus was the most renowned, and were called Σοφοί, that is, sages. During that time the ten tribes, which on the division of the people were called Israel, were conquered by the Chaldeans and led captive into their lands, while the two tribes which were called Judah, and had the seat of their kingdom in Jerusalem, remained in the land of Judea. As Romulus, when dead, could nowhere be found, the Romans, as is everywhere notorious, placed him among the gods,—a thing which by that time had already ceased to be done, and which was not done afterwards till the time of the Cæsars, and then not through error, but in flattery; so that Cicero ascribes great praises to Romulus, because he merited such honors not in rude and unlearned times, when men were easily deceived, but in times already polished and learned, although the subtle and acute loquacity of the philosophers had not yet culminated. But although the later times did not deify dead men, still they did not cease to hold and worship as gods those deified of old; nay, by images, which the ancients never had, they even increased the allurements of vain and impious superstition, the unclean demons effecting this in their heart, and also deceiving them by lying oracles, so that even the fabulous crimes of the gods, which were not once imagined by a more polite age, were yet basely acted in the plays in honor of these same false deities. Numa reigned after Romulus; and although he had thought that Rome would be better defended the more gods there were, yet on his death he himself was not counted worthy of a place among them, as if it were supposed that he had so crowded heaven that a place could not be found for him there. They report that the Samian sibyl lived while he reigned at Rome, and when Manasseh began to reign over the Hebrews,—an impious king, by whom the prophet Isaiah is said to have been slain.

> Latin: Eodem Romulo regnante Thales Milesius fuisse perhibetur, unus e septem sapientibus, qui post theologos poetas, in quibus Orpheus maxime omnium nobilitatus est, cotpoi appellati sunt, quod est Latine sapientes. Per idem tempus decem tribus, quae in diuisione populi uocatae sunt Israel, debellatae a Chaldaeis et in eas terras captiuae ductae sunt, remanentibus in Iudaea terra duabus illis tribubus, quae nomine Iudae uocabantur sedemque regni habebant Hierusalem. Mortuum Romulum, cum et ipse non conparuisset, in deos, quod et uulgo notissimum est, rettulere Romani; quod usque adeo fieri iam desierat (nec postea nisi adulando, non errando, factum est temporibus Caesarum), ut Cicero magnis Romuli laudibus tribuat, quod non rudibus et indoctis temporibus, quando facile homines fallebantur, sed iam expolitis et eruditis meruerit hos honores, quamuis nondum efiferbuerat ac pullulauerat philosophorum subtilis et acuta loquacitas. Sed etiamsi posteriora tempora deos homines mortuos non instituerunt, tamen ab antiquis institutos colere ut deos et habere non destiterunt; quin etiam simulacris, quae ueteres non habebant, auxerunt uanae adque inpiae superstitionis inlecebram, id efficientibus inmundis in eorum corde daemonibus per fallacia quoque oracula decipientibus, ut fabulosa etiam crimina deorum, quae iam urbaniore saeculo non fingebantur, per ludos tamen in eorundem falsorum numinum obsequium turpiter agerentur. Regnauit deinde Numa post Romulum, qui cum illam ciuitatem putauerit deorum profecto falsorum numerositate muniendam, in eandem turbam referri mortuus ipse non meruit, tamquam ita putatus sit caelum multitudine numinum constipasse, ut locum ibi reperire non posset. Hoc regnante Romae et aput Hebraeos initio regni Manasse, a quo inpio rege propheta Esaias perhibetur occisus, Samiam fuisse Sibyllam ferunt.

### What Philosophers Were Famous When Tarquinius Priscus Reigned Over the Romans, and Zedekiah Over the Hebrews, When Jerusalem Was Taken and the Temple Overthrown.

[¶3] Chapter 25.—What Philosophers Were Famous When Tarquinius Priscus Reigned Over the Romans, and Zedekiah Over the Hebrews, When Jerusalem Was Taken and the Temple Overthrown.

> Latin: Caput XXV. Qui philosophi enituerint regnante aput Romanos Tarquinio Prisco, aput Hebraeos Sedechia, cum Hierusalem capta est templumque subuersum.

[¶4] When Zedekiah reigned over the Hebrews, and Tarquinius Priscus, the successor of Ancus Martius, over the Romans, the Jewish people was led captive into Babylon, Jerusalem and the temple built by Solomon being overthrown. For the prophets, in chiding them for their iniquity and impiety, predicted that these things should come to pass, especially Jeremiah, who even stated the number of years. Pittacus of Mitylene, another of the sages, is reported to have lived at that time. And Eusebius writes that, while the people of God were held captive in Babylon, the five other sages lived, who must be added to Thales, whom we mentioned above, and Pittacus, in order to make up the seven. These are Solon of Athens, Chilo of Lacedæmon, Periander of Corinth, Cleobulus of Lindus, and Bias of Priene. These flourished after the theological poets, and were called sages, because they excelled other men in a certain laudable line of life, and summed up some moral precepts in epigrammatic sayings. But they left posterity no literary monuments, except that Solon is alleged to have given certain laws to the Athenians, and Thales was a natural philosopher, and left books of his doctrine in short proverbs. In that time of the Jewish captivity, Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Xenophanes, the natural philosophers, flourished. Pythagoras also lived then, and at this time the name philosopher was first used.

> Latin: Regnante uero aput Hebraeos Sedechia et aput Romanos Tarquinio Prisco, qui successerat Anco Marcio, ductus est captiuus in Babyloniam populus Iudaeorum euersa Hierusalem et templo illo a Salomone constructo. Increpantes enim eos prophetae de iniquitatibus et inpietatibus suis haec eis uentura praedixerant, maxime Hieremias, qui etiam numerum definiuit annorum. Eo tempore Pittacus Mitylenaeus, alius e septem sapientibus, fuisse perhibetur. Et quinque ceteros, qui, ut septem numerentur, Thaleti, quem supra commemorauimus, et huic Pittaco adduntur, eo tempore fuisse scribit Eusebius, quo captiuus Dei populus in Babylonia tenebatur. Hi sunt autem: Solon Atheniensis, Chilon Lacedaemonius, Periandrus Corinthius, Cleobulus Lindius, Bias Prienaeus. Omnes hi, septem appellati sapientes, post poetas theologos claruerunt, quia genere uitae quodam laudabili praestabant hominibus ceteris et morum nonnulla praecepta sententiarum breuitate conplexi sunt. Nihil autem monumentorum, quod ad litteras adtinet, posteris reliquerant, nisi quod Solon quasdam leges Atheniensibus dedisse perhibetur; Thales uero physicus fuit et suorum dogmatum libros reliquit. Eo captiuitatis Iudaicae tempore et Anaximander et Anaximenes et Xenophanes physici claruerunt. Tunc et Pythagoras, ex quo coeperunt appellari philosophi.

### That at the Time When the Captivity of the Jews Was Brought to an End, on the Completion of Seventy Years, the Romans Also Were Freed from Kingly Rule.

[¶6] Chapter 26.—That at the Time When the Captivity of the Jews Was Brought to an End, on the Completion of Seventy Years, the Romans Also Were Freed from Kingly Rule.

> Latin: Caput XXVI. Quod eo tempore, quo inpletis septuaginta annis Iudaeorum est resoluta captiuitas, Romani quoque a dominatu sint regio liberati.

[¶7] At this time, Cyrus king of Persia, who also ruled the Chaldeans and Assyrians, having somewhat relaxed the captivity of the Jews, made fifty thousand of them return in order to rebuild the temple. They only began the first foundations and built the altar; but, owing to hostile invasions, they were unable to go on, and the work was put off to the time of Darius. During the same time also those things were done which are written in the book of Judith, which, indeed, the Jews are said not to have received into the canon of the Scriptures. Under Darius king of Persia, then, on the completion of the seventy years predicted by Jeremiah the prophet, the captivity of the Jews was brought to an end, and they were restored to liberty. Tarquin then reigned as the seventh king of the Romans. On his expulsion, they also began to be free from the rule of their kings. Down to this time the people of Israel had prophets; but, although they were numerous, the canonical writings of only a few of them have been preserved among the Jews and among us. In closing the previous book, I promised to set down something in this one about them, and I shall now do so.

> Latin: Per idem tempus Cyrus, rex Persarum, qui etiam Chaldaeis et Assyriis imperabat, relaxata aliquanta captiuitate Iudaeorum, quinquaginta milia hominum ex eis ad instaurandum templum regredi fecit. A quibus tantum prima coepta fundamina et altare constructum est. Incursantibus autem hostibus nequaquam progredi aedificando ualuerunt, dilatumque opus est usque ad Darium. Per idem tempus etiam illa sunt gesta, quae conscripta sunt in libro Iudith; quem sane in canone scripturarum Iudaei non recepisse dicuntur. Sub Dario ergo rege Persarum inpletis septuaginta annis, quos Hieremias propheta praedixerat, reddita est Iudaeis soluta captiuitate libertas, regnante Romanorum septimo rege Tarquinio. Quo expulso etiam ipsi a regum suorum dominatione liberi esse coeperunt. Usque ad hoc tempus prophetas habuit populus Israel; qui cum multi fuerint, paucorum et aput Iudaeos et aput nos canonica scripta retinentur. De quibus me aliqua positurum esse promisi in hoc libro, cum clauderem superiorem, quod iam uideo esse faciendum.

### Of the Times of the Prophets Whose Oracles are Contained in Books and Who Sang Many Things About the Call of the Gentiles at the Time When the Roman Kingdom Began and the Assyrian Came to an End.

[¶9] Chapter 27.—Of the Times of the Prophets Whose Oracles are Contained in Books and Who Sang Many Things About the Call of the Gentiles at the Time When the Roman Kingdom Began and the Assyrian Came to an End.

> Latin: Caput XXVII. De temporibus prophetarum, quorum oracula habentur in libris quique tunc de uocatione gentium multa cecinerunt, quando Romanorum regnum coepit Assyriorumque defecit.

[¶10] In order that we may be able to consider these times, let us go back a little to earlier times. At the beginning of the book of the prophet Hosea, who is placed first of twelve, it is written, “The word of the Lord which came to Hosea in the days of Uzziah, Jothan, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.” Amos also writes that he prophesied in the days of Uzziah, and adds the name of Jeroboam king of Israel, who lived at the same time. Isaiah the son of Amos—either the above-named prophet, or, as is rather affirmed, another who was not a prophet, but was called by the same name—also puts at the head of his book these four kings named by Hosea, saying by way of preface that he prophesied in their days. Micah also names the same times as those of his prophecy, after the days of Uzziah; for he names the same three kings as Hosea named,—Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. We find from their own writings that these men prophesied contemporaneously. To these are added Jonah in the reign of Uzziah, and Joel in that of Jotham, who succeeded Uzziah. But we can find the date of these two prophets in the chronicles, not in their own writings, for they say nothing about it themselves. Now these days extend from Procas king of the Latins, or his predecessor Aventinus, down to Romulus king of the Romans, or even to the beginning of the reign of his successor Numa Pompilius. Hezekiah king of Judah certainly reigned till then. So that thus these fountains of prophecy, as I may call them, burst forth at once during those times when the Assyrian kingdom failed and the Roman began; so that, just as in the first period of the Assyrian kingdom Abraham arose, to whom the most distinct promises were made that all nations should be blessed in his seed, so at the beginning of the western Babylon, in the time of whose government Christ was to come in whom these promises were to be fulfilled, the oracles of the prophets were given not only in spoken but in written words, for a testimony that so great a thing should come to pass. For although the people of Israel hardly ever lacked prophets from the time when they began to have kings, these were only for their own use, not for that of the nations. But when the more manifestly prophetic Scripture began to be formed, which was to benefit the nations too, it was fitting that it should begin when this city was founded which was to rule the nations.

> Latin: Tempora igitur eorum ut possimus aduertere, in anteriora paululum recurramus. In capite libri Osee prophetae, qui primus in duodecim ponitur, ita scriptum est: Verbum Domini, quod factum est ad Osee in diebus Oziae et Ioatham et Achaz et Ezechiae regum Iuda. Amos quoque diebus regis Oziae prophetasse se scribit; addit etiam Hieroboam regem Israel, qui per eosdem dies fuit. Nec non Esaias, filius Amos, siue supradicti prophetae siue, quod magis perhibetur, alterius qui non propheta eodem nomine uocabatur, eosdem reges quattuor, quos posuit Osee, in capite libri sui ponit, quorum diebus se prophetasse praeloquitur. Michaeas etiam eadem suae prophetiae commemorat tempora post dies Oziae. Nam tres qui sequuntur reges nominat, quos et Osee nominauit, Ioatham et Achaz et Ezechian. Hi sunt, quos eodem tempore simul prophetasse ex eorum litteris inuenitur. His adiungitur Ionas eodem Ozia rege regnante et Ioel, cum iam regnaret Ioatham, qui successit Oziae. Sed istorum prophetarum duorum tempora in chronicis, non in eorum libris potuimus inuenire, quoniam de suis diebus tacent. Tenduntur autem hi dies a rege Latinorum Proca siue superiore Auentino usque ad regem Romulum iam Romanum, uel etiam usque ad regni primordia successoris eius Numae Pompilii (Ezechias quippe rex Iuda eo usque regnauit); ac per hoc per ea tempora isti uelut fontes prophetiae pariter eruperunt, quando regnum defecit Assyrium coepitque Romanum; ut scilicet, quem ad modum regni Assyriorum primo tempore exstitit Abraham, cui promissiones apertissimae fierent in eius semine benedictionis omnium gentium, ita occidentalis Babylonis exordio, qua fuerat Christus imperante uenturus, in quo inplerentur illa promissa, oracula prophetarum non solum loquentium, uerum etiam scribentium in tantae rei futurae testimonium soluerentur. Cum enim prophetae numquam fere defuissent populo Israel, ex quo ibi reges esse coeperunt, in usum tantummodo eorum fuere, non gentium; quando autem scriptura manifestius prophetica condebatur, quae gentibus quandoque prodesset, tunc oportebat inciperet, quando condebatur haec ciuitas, quae gentibus imperaret.

### Of the Things Pertaining to the Gospel of Christ Which Hosea and Amos Prohesied.

[¶12] Chapter 28.—Of the Things Pertaining to the Gospel of Christ Which Hosea and Amos Prohesied.

> Latin: Caput XXVIII. De his, quae ad euangelium Christi pertinent, quid Osee et Amos prophetauerint.

[¶13] The prophet Hosea speaks so very profoundly that it is laborious work to penetrate his meaning. But, according to promise, we must insert something from his book. He says, “And it shall come to pass that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there they shall be called the sons of the living God.” Even the apostles understood this as a prophetic testimony of the calling of the nations who did not formerly belong to God; and because this same people of the Gentiles is itself spiritually among the children of Abraham, and for that reason is rightly called Israel, therefore he goes on to say, “And the children of Judah and the children of Israel shall be gathered together in one, and shall appoint themselves one headship, and shall ascend from the earth.” We should but weaken the savor of this prophetic oracle if we set ourselves to expound it. Let the reader but call to mind that cornerstone and those two walls of partition, the one of the Jews, the other of the Gentiles, and he will recognize them, the one under the term sons of Judah, the other as sons of Israel, supporting themselves by one and the same headship, and ascending from the earth. But that those carnal Israelites who are now unwilling to believe in Christ shall afterward believe, that is, their children shall (for they themselves, of course, shall go to their own place by dying), this same prophet testifies, saying, “For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, without a prince, without a sacrifice, without an altar, without a priesthood, without manifestations.” Who does not see that the Jews are now thus? But let us hear what he adds: “And afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king, and shall be amazed at the Lord and at His goodness in the latter days.” Nothing is clearer than this prophecy, in which by David, as distinguished by the title of king, Christ is to be understood, “who is made,” as the apostle says, “of the seed of David according to the flesh.” This prophet has also foretold the resurrection of Christ on the third day, as it behoved to be foretold, with prophetic loftiness, when he says, “He will heal us after two days, and in the third day we shall rise again.” In agreement with this the apostle says to us, “If ye be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above.” Amos also prophesies thus concerning such things: “Prepare thee, that thou mayst invoke thy God, O Israel; for lo, I am binding the thunder, and creating the spirit, and announcing to men their Christ.” And in another place he says, “In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and build up the breaches thereof: and I will raise up his ruins, and will build them up again as in the days of old: that the residue of men may inquire for me, and all the nations upon whom my name is invoked, saith the Lord that doeth this.”

> Latin: Osee igitur propheta, quanto profundius quidem loquitur, tanto operosius penetratur. Sed aliquid inde sumendum est uciuitate dei lib. XVIII. cap 27. 28. et hic ex nostra promissione ponendum. Et erit, inquit, in loco quo dictum est eis: Non populus meus uos, uocabuntur et ipsi filii Dei uiui. Hoc testimonium propheticum de uocatione populi gentium, qui prius non pertinebat ad Deum, etiam apostoli intellexerunt. Et quia ipse quoque populus gentium spiritaliter est in filiis Abrahae ac per hoc recte dicitur Israel, propterea sequitur et dicit: Et congregabuntur filii Iuda et filii Israel in id ipsum, et ponent sibi principatum unum et adscenlodent a terra. Hoc si adhuc uelimus exponere, eloquii prophetici obtundetur sapor. Recolatur tamen lapis ille angularis et duo parietes, unus ex Iudaeis, alter ex gentibus; ille nomine filiorum Iuda, iste nomine filiorum Israel, eidem uni principatui suo in id ipsum innitentes et adscendentes agnoscantur ia terra. Istos autem carnaliter Israelitas, qui nunc nolunt credere in Christum, postea credituros, id est filios eorum (nam utique isti in suum locum moriendo transibunt), idem propheta testatur dicens: Quoniam diebus multis sedebunt filii Israel sine rege, sine principe, sine sacrificio, sine altari, sine sacerdotio, sine manifestationibus. Quis non uideat nunc sic esse Iudaeos? Sed quid adiungat, audiamus. Et postea, inquit, reuertentur filii Israel et inquirent Dominum Deum suum et Dauid regem suum, et stupescent in Domino et in bonis ipsius in nouissimis diebus. Nihil est ista prophetia manifestius, cum Dauid regis nomine significatus intellegitur Christus, quia factus est, sicut dicit apostolus, ex semine Dauid secundum carnem. Praenuntiauit iste propheta etiam tertio die Christi resurrectionem futuram, sicut eam prophetica altitudine praenuntiari oportebat, ubi ait: Sanabit nos post biduum, in die tertio resurgemus. Secundum hoc enim nobis dicit apostolus: Si resurre-xistis cum Christo, quae sursum sunt quaerite. Amos quoque de rebus talibus sic prophetat: Praepara, inquit, te, ut inuoces Deum tuum Israel; quia ecce ego firmans tonitrum et creans spiritum et adnuntians in hominibus Christum suum; et alio loco: In illa die, inquit, resuscitabo tabernaculum Dauid, quod cecidit, et reaedificabo, quae ceci. derunt eius, et destructa eius resuscitabo et reaedificabo ea sicut dies saeculi; ita ut exquirant me residui hominum et omnes gentes, in quibus inuocatum est nomen meum super eos, dicit Dominus faciens haec.

### What Things are Predicted by Isaiah Concerning Christ and the Church.

[¶15] Chapter 29.—What Things are Predicted by Isaiah Concerning Christ and the Church.

> Latin: Caput XXIX. Quae ab Esaia de Christo et ecclesia sint praedicta.

[¶16] The prophecy of Isaiah is not in the book of the twelve prophets, who are called the minor from the brevity of their writings, as compared with those who are called the greater prophets because they published larger volumes. Isaiah belongs to the latter, yet I connect him with the two above named, because he prophesied at the same time. Isaiah, then, together with his rebukes of wickedness, precepts of righteousness, and predictions of evil, also prophesied much more than the rest about Christ and the Church, that is, about the King and that city which he founded; so that some say he should be called an evangelist rather than a prophet. But, in order to finish this work, I quote only one out of many in this place. Speaking in the person of the Father, he says, “Behold, my servant shall understand, and shall be exalted and glorified very much. As many shall be astonished at Thee.” This is about Christ.

> Latin: Esaias propheta non est in libro duodecim prophetarum, qui propterea dicuntur minores, quia sermones eorum sunt breues in eorum conparatione, qui maiores ideo uocantur, quia prolixa uolumina condiderunt; ex quibus est hic Esaias, quem propter eadem prophetiae tempora subiungo supradictis duobus. Esaias ergo inter illa, quae arguit iniqua et iusta praecepit et peccatori populo mala futura praedixit, etiam de Christo et ecclesia, hoc est de rege et ea quam condidit ciuitate, multo plura quam ceteri prophetauit, ita ut a quibusdam euangelista quam propheta potius diceretur. Sed propter rationem operis terminandi unum de multis hoc loco ponam. Ex persona quippe Dei Patris loquens: Ecce, inquit, intelleget puer meus et exaltabitur et glorificabitur ualde. Quem ad modum stupescent super te multi, ita gloria priuabitur ab hominibus species tua et gloria tua ab hominibus; ita mirabuntur gentes multae super eum et continebunt reges os suum; quoniam quibus non est nuntiatum de illo, uidebunt, et qui non audierunt, intellegent. Domine, quis credidit auditui nostro, et brachium Domini cui reuelatum est? Adnuntiauimus coram illo, ut infans, ut radix in terra sitienti: non est species illi neque gloria. Et uidimus eum, et non habebat speciem neque decorem; sed species eius sine honore, deficiens prae omnibus hominibus. Homo in plaga positus et sciens ferre infirmitatem; quoniam auersa est facies eius, inhonoratus est nec magni aestimatus est. Hic peccata nostra portat et pro nobis dolet; et nos existimauimus illum esse in dolore et in plaga et in adflictione. Ipse autem uulneratus est propter iniquitates nostras et infirmatus est propter peccata nostra. Eruditio pacis nostrae in eo; liuore eius nos sanati sumus. Omnes ut oues errauimus, homo a uia sua errauit; et Dominus tradidit illum pro peccatis nostris; et ipse, propter quod adflictus est, non aperuit os. Ut ouis ad immolandum ductus est et ut agnus ante eum, qui se tonderet, sine uoce, sic non aperuit os suum. In humilitate iudicium eius sublatum est. Generationem eius quis enarrabit? Quoniam tolletur de terra uita eius. Ab iniquitatibus populi mei ductus est ad mortem. Et dabo malignos pro sepultura eius et diuites pro morte eius. Quoniam iniquitatem non fecit nec dolum in ore suo; et Dominus uult purgare eum de plaga. Si dederitis pro peccato animam uestram, uidebitis semen longaeuum; et Dominus uult auferre a dolore animam eius, ostendere illi lucem et formare intellectum, iustificare iustum bene seruientem pluribus; et peccata eorum ipse portabit.

[¶17] But let us now hear what follows about the Church. He says, “Rejoice, O barren, thou that barest not; break forth and cry, thou that didst not travail with child: for many more are the children of the desolate than of her that has an husband.” But these must suffice; and some things in them ought to be expounded; yet I think those parts sufficient which are so plain that even enemies must be compelled against their will to understand them.

> Latin: Propterea ipse hereditabit plures et fortium diuidet spolia, propter quod tradita est ad mortem anima eius, et inter iniquos aestimatus est et ipse peccata multorum portauit, et propter peccata eorum traditus est. Haec de Christo Iam uero de ecclesia, quod sequitur, audiamus. Laetare, inquit, sterilis, quae non paris; erumpe et clama, quae non parturis; quoniam multi filii desertae magis quam eius, quae habet uirum. Dilata locum tabernaculi tui et aulaearum tuarum; fige, noli parcere, prolonga funiculos tuos et palos tuos conforta, adhuc in dextram et sinistram partem extende. Et semen tuum hereditabit gentes, et ciuitates desertas inhabitabis. Ne timeas, quoniam confusa es, neque reuerearis, quia exprobrata es; quoniam confusionem aeternam obliuisceris et obprobrium uiduitatis tuae non eris memor. Quoniam Dominus faciens te, Dominus Sabaoth nomen ei; et qui eruit te, ipse Deus Israel uniuersae terrae uocabitur; et cetera. Verum ista sint satis; et in eis sunt exponenda nonnulla; sed sufficere arbitror quae ita sunt aperta, ut etiam inimici intellegere cogantur inuiti.

### What Micah, Jonah, and Joel Prophesied in Accordance with the New Testament.

[¶19] Chapter 30.—What Micah, Jonah, and Joel Prophesied in Accordance with the New Testament.

> Latin: Caput XXX. Quae Michaeas et Ionas et Ioel nouo testamento congruentia prophetarint.

[¶20] The prophet Micah, representing Christ under the figure of a great mountain, speaks thus: “It shall come to pass in the last days, that the manifested mountain of the Lord shall be prepared on the tops of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall hasten unto it. Many nations shall go, and shall say, Come, let us go up into the mountain of the Lord, and into the house of the God of Jacob; and He will show us His way, and we will go in His paths: for out of Zion shall proceed the law, and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem. And He shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off.” This prophet predicts the very place in which Christ was born, saying, “And thou, Bethlehem, of the house of Ephratah, art the least that can be reckoned among the thousands of Judah; out of thee shall come forth unto me a leader, to be the prince in Israel; and His going forth is from the beginning, even from the days of eternity. Therefore will He give them [up] even until the time when she that travaileth shall bring forth; and the remnant of His brethren shall be converted to the sons of Israel. And He shall stand, and see, and feed His flock in the strength of the Lord, and in the dignity of the name of the Lord His God: for now shall He be magnified even to the utmost of the earth.”

> Latin: Michaeas propheta Christum in figura ponens magni cuiusdam montis haec loquitur: Erit in nouissimis diebus manifestus mons Domini paratus super uertices montium et exaltabitur super colles. Et festinabunt ad eum plebes, et ibunt gentes multae et dicent: Venite, ascendamus in montem Domini et in domum Dei Iacob, et ostendet nobis uiam suam, et ibimus in semitis eius; quia ex Sion procedet lex et uerbum Domini ex Hierusalem. Et iudicabit inter plebes multas, et redarguet gentes potentes usque in longinquum. Praedicens iste propheta et locum in quo natus est Christus: Et tu, inquit, Bethleem, domus Ephrata, minima es, ut sis in milibus Iuda; ex te mihi prodiet, ut sit in principem Israel; et egressus eius ab initio et ex diebus aeternitatis. Propterea dabit eos usque ad tempus parturientis, pariet, et residui fratres eius conuertentur ad filios Israel. Et stabit et uidebit et pascet gregem suum in uirtute Domini, et in honore nominis Domini Dei sui erunt; quoniam nunc magnificabitur usque ad summum terrae.

[¶21] The prophet Jonah, not so much by speech as by his own painful experience, prophesied Christ’s death and resurrection much more clearly than if he had proclaimed them with his voice. For why was he taken into the whale’s belly and restored on the third day, but that he might be a sign that Christ should return from the depths of hell on the third day?

> Latin: Ionas autem propheta non tam sermone Christum, quam sua quadam passione prophetauit, profecto apertius, quam si eius mortem et resurrectionem uoce clamaret. Ut quid enim exceptus est uentre beluino et die tertio redditus, nisi ut significaret Christum de profundo inferni die tertio rediturum?

[¶22] I should be obliged to use many words in explaining all that Joel prophesies in order to make clear those that pertain to Christ and the Church. But there is one passage I must not pass by, which the apostles also quoted when the Holy Spirit came down from above on the assembled believers according to Christ’s promise. He says, “And it shall come to pass after these things, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your old men shall dream, and your young men shall see visions: and even on my servants and mine handmaids in those days will I pour out my Spirit.”

> Latin: Ioel omnia, quae prophetat, multis uerbis conpellit exponi. ut quae pertinent ad Christum et ecclesiam dilucescant. Unum tamen, quod etiam apostoli commemorauerunt, quando in congregatos credentes Spiritus sanctus, sicut a Christo promissus fuerat, desuper uenit, non praetermittam. Et erit, inquit, post haec, et effundam de spiritu meo super omnem carnem; et prophetabunt filii uestri et filiae uestrae, et seniores uestri somnia somniabunt, et iuuenes uestri uisa uidebunt; et quidem in seruos et ancillas meas in illis diebus effundam de spiritu meo.

## 91. Of the Predictions Concerning the Salvation of the World in Christ, in Obadiah, Nahum, and Habakkuk.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/91/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/91/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 31.—Of the Predictions Concerning the Salvation of the World in Christ, in Obadiah, Nahum, and Habakkuk.

> Latin: Caput XXXI. Quae in Abdia et Naum et Ambacu de salute mundi in Christo praenuntiata reperiantur.

[¶1] The date of three of the minor prophets, Obadiah, Nahum, and Habakkuk, is neither mentioned by themselves nor given in the chronicles of Eusebius and Jerome. For although they put Obadiah with Micah, yet when Micah prophesied does not appear from that part of their writings in which the dates are noted. And this, I think, has happened through their error in negligently copying the works of others. But we could not find the two others now mentioned in the copies of the chronicles which we have; yet because they are contained in the canon, we ought not to pass them by.

> Latin: Tres prophetae de minoribus, Abdias, Naum, Ambacum, nec tempora sua dicunt ipsi, nec in chronicis Eusebii et Hieronymi, quando prophetauerint, inuenitur. Abdias enim positus est quidem ab eis cum Michaea, sed non eo loco, ubi notantur tempora, quando Michaeam prophetasse ex eius litteris constat; quod errore neglegenter describentium labores alienos existimo contigisse; duos uero alios commemoratos in codicibus chronicorum, quos habuimus, non potuimus inuenire.

[¶2] Obadiah, so far as his writings are concerned, the briefest of all the prophets, speaks against Idumea, that is, the nation of Esau, that reprobate elder of the twin sons of Isaac and grandsons of Abraham. Now if, by that form of speech in which a part is put for the whole, we take Idumea as put for the nations, we may understand of Christ what he says among other things, “But upon Mount Sion shall be safety, and there shall be a Holy One.” And a little after, at the end of the same prophecy, he says, “And those who are saved again shall come up out of Mount Sion, that they may defend Mount Esau, and it shall be a kingdom to the Lord.” It is quite evident this was fulfilled when those saved again out of Mount Sion—that is, the believers in Christ from Judea, of whom the apostles are chiefly to be acknowledged—went up to defend Mount Esau. How could they defend it except by making safe, through the preaching of the gospel, those who believed that they might be “delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of God?” This he expressed as an inference, adding, “And it shall be to the Lord a kingdom.” For Mount Sion signifies Judea, where it is predicted there shall be safety, and a Holy One, that is, Christ Jesus. But Mount Esau is Idumea, which signifies the Church of the Gentiles, which, as I have expounded, those saved again out of Sion have defended that it should be a kingdom to the Lord. This was obscure before it took place; but what believer does not find it out now that it is done?

> Latin: Tamen quia canone continentur, nec ipsi oportet praetereantur a nobis. Abdias, quantum ad scripturam eius adtinet, omnium breuissimus prophetarum, aduersus Idumaeam loquitur, gentem scilicet Esau, ex duobus geminis filiis Isaac, nepotibus Abrahae, maioris illius reprobati. Porro si Idumaeam modo locutionis, quo intellegitur a parte totum, accipiamus positam esse pro gentibus: possumus de Christo agnoscere, quod ait inter cetera: In monte autem Sion erit salus et erit sanctum; et paulo post in fine ipsius prophetiae: Et adscendent, inquit, resaluati ex monte Sion, ut defendant montem E sau, et erit Domino regnum. Apparet quippe id esse conpletum, cum resaluati ex monte Sion, id est ex Iudaea credentes in Christum, qui praecipue agnoscuntur apostoli, adscenderunt, ut defenderent montem Esau. Quo modo defenderent, nisi per euangelii praedicationem saluos faciendo eos qui crediderunt, ut eruerentur de potestate tenebrarum et transferrentur in regnum Dei? Quod consequenter expressit addendo: Et erit Domino regnum. Mons enim Sion Iudaeam significat, ubi futura praedicta est salus et sanctum, quod est Christus Iesus. Mons uero Esau Idumaea est, per quam significata est ecclesia gentium, quam defenderunt, sicut exposui, resaluati ex monte Sion, ut esset Domino regnum. Hoc obscurum erat, antequam fieret; sed factum quis non fidelis agnoscat?

[¶3] As for the prophet Nahum, through him God says, “I will exterminate the graven and the molten things: I will make thy burial. For lo, the feet of Him that bringeth good tidings and announceth peace are swift upon the mountains! O Judah, celebrate thy festival days, and perform thy vows; for now they shall not go on any more so as to become antiquated. It is completed, it is consumed, it is taken away. He ascendeth who breathes in thy face, delivering thee out of tribulation.” Let him that remembers the gospel call to mind who hath ascended from hell and breathed the Holy Spirit in the face of Judah, that is, of the Jewish disciples; for they belong to the New Testament, whose festival days are so spiritually renewed that they cannot become antiquated. Moreover, we already see the graven and molten things, that is, the idols of the false gods, exterminated through the gospel, and given up to oblivion as of the grave, and we know that this prophecy is fulfilled in this very thing.

> Latin: Naum uero propheta, immo per illum Deus: Exterminabo, inquit, sculptilia et conflatilia, ponam sepulturam tuam; quia ueloces ecce super montes pedes euangelizantis et adnuntiantis pacem. Celebra, Iuda, dies festos tuos, redde uota tua; quia iam non adicientultra, uttranseantinuetustatem. Consummatum est, consumtum est, ablatum est. Adscendit, qui insufflat in faciem tuam, eripiens te ex tribulatione. Quis adscenderit ab inferis et insufflauerit in faciem Iudae, hoc est Iudaeorum discipulorum, Spiritum sanctum, recolat qui meminit euangelium. Ad nouum enim testamentum pertinent, quorum dies festi ita spiritaliter innouantur, ut in uetustatem transire non possint. Porro per euangelium exterminata sculptilia et conflatilia, id est idola deorum falsorum, et obliuioni tamquam sepulturae tradita iam uidemus et hanc etiam in hac re prophetiam conpletam esse cognoscimus.

[¶4] Of what else than the advent of Christ, who was to come, is Habakkuk understood to say, “And the Lord answered me, and said, Write the vision openly on a tablet of boxwood, that he that readeth these things may understand. For the vision is yet for a time appointed, and it will arise in the end, and will not become void: if it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, and will not be delayed?”

> Latin: Ambacum de quo alio quam de Christi aduentu, qui futurus fuerat, intellegitur dicere: Et respondit Dominus ad me et dixit: Scribe uisum aperte in buxo, ut adsequatur qui legit ea; quia adhuc uisio ad tempus, et orietur in fine et non in uacuum; si tardauerit, sustine eum, quia ueniens ueniet et non morabitur?.

### Of the Prophecy that is Contained in the Prayer and Song of Habakkuk.

[¶6] Chapter 32.—Of the Prophecy that is Contained in the Prayer and Song of Habakkuk.

> Latin: Caput XXXII. De prophetia quae in oratione Ambacu et cantico continetur.

[¶7] In his prayer, with a song, to whom but the Lord Christ does he say, “O Lord, I have heard Thy hearing, and was afraid: O Lord, I have considered Thy works, and was greatly afraid?” What is this but the inexpressible admiration of the foreknown, new, and sudden salvation of men? “In the midst of two living creatures thou shalt be recognized.” What is this but either between the two testaments, or between the two thieves, or between Moses and Elias talking with Him on the mount? “While the years draw nigh, Thou wilt be recognized; at the coming of the time Thou wilt be shown,” does not even need exposition. “While my soul shall be troubled at Him, in wrath Thou wilt be mindful of mercy.” What is this but that He puts Himself for the Jews, of whose nation He was, who were troubled with great anger and crucified Christ, when He, mindful of mercy, said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do? “God shall come from Teman, and the Holy One from the shady and close mountain.” What is said here, “He shall come from Teman,” some interpret “from the south,” or “from the southwest,” by which is signified the noonday, that is, the fervor of charity and the splendor of truth. “The shady and close mountain” might be understood in many ways, yet I prefer to take it as meaning the depth of the divine Scriptures, in which Christ is prophesied: for in the Scriptures there are many things shady and close which exercise the mind of the reader; and Christ comes thence when he who has understanding finds Him there. “His power covereth up the heavens, and the earth is full of His praise.” What is this but what is also said in the psalm, “Be Thou exalted, O God, above the heavens; and Thy glory above all the earth?” “His splendor shall be as the light.” What is it but that the fame of Him shall illuminate believers? “Horns are in His hands.” What is this but the trophy of the cross? “And He hath placed the firm charity of His strength” needs no exposition. “Before His face shall go the word, and it shall go forth into the field after His feet.” What is this but that He should both be announced before His coming hither and after His return hence? “He stood, and the earth was moved.” What is this but that “He stood” for succor, “and the earth was moved” to believe? “He regarded, and the nations melted;” that is, He had compassion, and made the people penitent. “The mountains are broken with violence;” that is, through the power of those who work miracles the pride of the haughty is broken. “The everlasting hills flowed down;” that is, they are humbled in time that they may be lifted up for eternity. “I saw His goings [made] eternal for his labors;” that is, I beheld His labor of love not left without the reward of eternity. “The tents of Ethiopia shall be greatly afraid, and the tents of the land of Midian;” that is, even those nations which are not under the Roman authority, being suddenly terrified by the news of Thy wonderful works, shall become a Christian people. “Wert Thou angry at the rivers, O Lord? or was Thy fury against the rivers? or was Thy rage against the sea?” This is said because He does not now come to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. “For Thou shall mount upon Thy horses, and Thy riding shall be salvation;” that is, Thine evangelists shall carry Thee, for they are guided by Thee, and Thy gospel is salvation to them that believe in Thee. “Bending, Thou wilt bend Thy bow against the sceptres, saith the Lord;” that is, Thou wilt threaten even the kings of the earth with Thy judgment. “The earth shall be cleft with rivers;” that is, by the sermons of those who preach Thee flowing in upon them, men’s hearts shall be opened to make confession, to whom it is said, “Rend your hearts and not your garments.” What does “The people shall see Thee and grieve” mean, but that in mourning they shall be blessed? What is “Scattering the waters in marching,” but that by walking in those who everywhere proclaim Thee, Thou wilt scatter hither and thither the streams of Thy doctrine? What is “The abyss uttered its voice?” Is it not that the depth of the human heart expressed what it perceived? The words, “The depth of its phantasy,” are an explanation of the previous verse, for the depth is the abyss; and “Uttered its voice” is to be understood before them, that is, as we have said, it expressed what it perceived. Now the phantasy is the vision, which it did not hold or conceal, but poured forth in confession. “The sun was raised up, and the moon stood still in her course;” that is, Christ ascended into heaven, and the Church was established under her King. “Thy darts shall go in the light;” that is, Thy words shall not be sent in secret, but openly. For He had said to His own disciples, “What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in the light.” “By threatening thou shall diminish the earth;” that is, by that threatening Thou shall humble men. “And in fury Thou shall cast down the nations;” for in punishing those who exalt themselves Thou dashest them one against another. “Thou wentest forth for the salvation of Thy people, that Thou mightest save Thy Christ; Thou hast sent death on the heads of the wicked.” None of these words require exposition. “Thou hast lifted up the bonds, even to the neck.” This may be understood even of the good bonds of wisdom, that the feet may be put into its fetters, and the neck into its collar. “Thou hast struck off in amazement of mind the bonds” must be understood for, He lifts up the good and strikes off the bad, about which it is said to Him, “Thou hast broken asunder my bonds,” and that “in amazement of mind,” that is, wonderfully. “The heads of the mighty shall be moved in it;” to wit, in that wonder. “They shall open their teeth like a poor man eating secretly.” For some of the mighty among the Jews shall come to the Lord, admiring His works and words, and shall greedily eat the bread of His doctrine in secret for fear of the Jews, just as the Gospel has shown they did. “And Thou hast sent into the sea Thy horses, troubling many waters,” which are nothing else than many people; for unless all were troubled, some would not be converted with fear, others pursued with fury. “I gave heed, and my belly trembled at the voice of the prayer of my lips; and trembling entered into my bones, and my habit of body was troubled under me.” He gave heed to those things which he said, and was himself terrified at his own prayer, which he had poured forth prophetically, and in which he discerned things to come. For when many people are troubled, he saw the threatening tribulation of the Church, and at once acknowledged himself a member of it, and said, “I shall rest in the day of tribulation,” as being one of those who are rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation. “That I may ascend,” he says, “among the people of my pilgrimage,” departing quite from the wicked people of his carnal kinship, who are not pilgrims in this earth, and do not seek the country above. “Although the fig-tree,” he says, “shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labor of the olive shall lie, and the fields shall yield no meat; the sheep shall be cut off from the meat, and there shall be no oxen in the stalls.” He sees that nation which was to slay Christ about to lose the abundance of spiritual supplies, which, in prophetic fashion, he has set forth by the figure of earthly plenty. And because that nation was to suffer such wrath of God, because, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, it wished to establish its own, he immediately says, “Yet will I rejoice in the Lord; I will joy in God my salvation. The Lord God is my strength, and He will set my feet in completion; He will place me above the heights, that I may conquer in His song,” to wit, in that song of which something similar is said in the psalm, “He set my feet upon a rock, and directed my goings, and put in my mouth a new song, a hymn to our God.” He therefore conquers in the song of the Lord, who takes pleasure in His praise, not in his own; that “He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.” But some copies have, “I will joy in God my Jesus,” which seems to me better than the version of those who, wishing to put it in Latin, have not set down that very name which for us it is dearer and sweeter to name.

> Latin: In oratione autem sua cum cantico cui nisi Domino Christo dicit: Domine, audiui auditionem tuam, et timui; Domine, consideraui opera tua, et expaui? Quid enim hoc est nisi praecognitae nouae ac repentinae salutis hominum ineffabilis admiratio? In medio duorum anima lium cognosceris quid est nisi aut in medio duorum testamentorum, aut in medio duorum latronum, aut in medio Moysi et Heliae cum illo in monte sermocinantium? Dum adpropinquant anni, nosceris; in aduentu temporis ostenderis, nec exponendum est. In eo cum turbata fuerit anima mea, in ira misericordiae memor eris quid est nisi quod Iudaeos in se transfigurauit, quorum gentis fuit, qui cum magna ira turbati crucifigerent Christum, ille misericordiae memor dixit: Pater ignosce illis, quia nesciunt quod faciunt? Deus de Theman ueniet et sanctus de monte umbroso et condenso. Quod hic dictum est: De Theman ueniet, alii interpretati sunt lab Austro) uel cAfrico); per quod significatur meridies, id est feruor caritatis et splendor ueritatis. Montem uero umbrosum adque condensum, quamuis multis modis possit intellegi, libentius acceperim scripturarum altitudinem diuinarum, quibus prophetatus est Christus. Multa ibi quippe umbrosa adque condensa sunt, quae mentem quaerentis exerceant. Inde autem uenit, cum ibi eum, qui intellegit, inuenit. Operuit caelos uirtus eius, et laudis eius plena est terra quid est nisi quod etiam in psalmo dicitur: Exaltare supercaelos, Deus, et super omnem terram gloria tua? Splendor eius ut lumen erit quid est nisi cfama eius credentes inluminabit’? Cornua in manibus eius sunt quid est nisi tropaeum crucis? Et posuit caritatem firmam fortitudinis suae nec exponendum est. Ante faciem eius ibit uerbum, etprodietin campum post pedes eius quid est nisi quod et antequam huc ueniret praenuntiatus est, et postea quam hinc reuersus est, adnuntiatus est? Stetit, et terra commota est quid est nisi stetit ad subueniendum, et terra commota est ad credendum’? Respexit. et tabuerunt gentes, hoc est ‘misertus est et fecit populos paenitentes’. Contriti sunt montes uiolentia, hoc est ‘uim facientibus miraculis elatorum est contrita superbia’. Defluxerunt colles aeternales, hoc est humiliati sunt ad tempus, ut erigerentur in aeternum Ingressus aeternos eius pro laboribus uidi, hoc est (non sine mercede aeternitatis laborem caritatis adspexi. Tabernacula Aethiopum expauescent et tabernacula terrae Madiam, hoc est ‘gentes repente perterritae nuntio mirabilium tuorum etiam quae non sunt in iure Romano erunt in populo Christiano.’ Numquid in fluminibus iratus es, Domine. aut in fluminibus furor tuus aut in mari impetus tuus? hoc ideo dictum est, quia non uenit nunc ut iudicet mundum, sed ut saluetur mundus per ipsum. Quia adscendes super equos tuos, et equitatio tua salus, hoc est ‘euangelistae tui portabunt te, qui reguntur a te, et euangelium tuum salus erit eis, qui credunt in te/ Intendens intendes arcum tuumsupersceptra, dicitDominus hoc est ccomminaberis iudicium tuum etiam regibus terrae.’ Fluminibus scindetur terra, hoc est influentibus sermonibus praedicantium te aperientur ad confitendum hominum corda, quibus est dictum: Scindite corda uestra et non uestimenta.’ Quid est: Videbunt te et dolebunt populi, nisi ut lugendo sint beati? Quid est: Dispergens aquas incessu, an ‘ambulando in eis, qui te usque quaque adnuntiant, hac adque hac dispergis fluenta doctrinae’? Quid est: Dedit abyssus uocem suam, an ‘profunditas cordis humani quid ei uideretur expressit’? Altitudo phantasiae suae tamquam uersus superioris est expositio; altitudo enim est abyssus. Quod autem ait: Phantasiae suae, subaudiendum est (uocem dedit); hoc est, quod diximus, quid ei uideretur expressit). Phantasia quippe uisio est, quam non tenuit, non operuit, sed confitendo eructauit. Eleuatus est sol, et luna stetit in ordine suo, hoc est ‘adscendit Christus in caelum, et ordinata est ecclesia sub rege suo. In lucem iacula tua ibunt, hoc est ‘non in occultum, sed in manifestum tua uerba mittentur.’ In splendorem coruscationis armorum tuorum, subaudiendum est iacula tua ibunt Dixerat enim suis: Quae dico uobis in tenebris, dicite in lumine. In comminatione minor a b i s terram, id est ‘comminando humiliabis homines.) Et in furore deicies gentes, quia eos, qui se exaltant, uindicando conlides. Existi in salutem populi tui, ut saluos facias christos tuos; misisti in capita iniquorum mortem, nihil horum est exponendum. Excitasti uincula usque ad collum, et bona hic possunt intellegi uincula sapientiae, ut iniciantur pedes in conpedes eius et collum in torquem eius. Praecidisti in stupore mentis, subaudimus (uincula); excitauit enim bona, praecidit mala, de quibus ei dicitur: Disrupisti uincula mea, et hoc in stupore mentis, id est mirabiliter. Capita potentium mouebuntur in ea, in ea scilicet admiratione. Adaperient morsus suos, sicut edens pauper absconse. Potentes enim quidam Iudaeorum ueniebant ad Dominum facta eius et uerba mirati, et esurientes panem doctrinae manducabant absconse propter metum Iudaeorum, sicut eos prodidit euangęlium. Et inmisisti in mare equos tuos turbantes aquas multas, quae nihil sunt aliud quam populi multi; non enim alii timore conuerterentur, alii furore persequerentur, nisi omnes turbarentur. Obseruaui, et expauit uenter meus a uoce orationis labiorum meorum; et introiit tremor in ossa mea, et subtus me turbata est habitudo mea. Intendit in ea, quae dicebat, et ipsa sua est oratione perterritus, quam prophetice fundebat et in qua futura cernebat; turbatis enim populis multis uidit inminentes ecclesiae tribulationes; continuoque se membrum eius agnouit adque ait: Requiescam in die tribulationis. tamquam ad eos pertinens, qui sunt spe gaudentes, in tribulatione patientes. Ut adscendam, inquit, ad populum peregrinationis meae, recedens utique a populo maligno carnalis cognationis suae, non peregrinante in hac terra nec supernam patriam requirente. Quoniam ficus, inquit, non adferet fructus, et non erunt natiuitates in uineis; mentietur opus oliuae, et campi non facient escam. Defecerunt ab esca oues, et non supersunt in praesepibus boues. Vidit eam gentem, quae Christum fuerat occisura, ubertatem copiarum spiritalium perdituram, quas per terrenam fecunditatem more prophetico figurauit Et quia iram Dei talem propterea passa est illa gens, quia ignorans Dei iustitiam suam uoluit constituere, iste continuo: Ego autem, inquit, in Domino exultabo, gaudebo in Deo salutari meo. Dominus Deus meus uirtus mea, statuit pedes meos in consummationem; super excelsa inponet me, ut uincam in cantico eius, illo scilicet cantico, de quo similia quaedam dicuntur in psalmo: Statuit super petram pedes meos et direxit gressus meos, et inmisit in os meum canticum nouum, hymnum Deo nostro. Ipse ergo uincit in cantico Domini, qui placet in eius laude non sua, ut qui gloriatur, in Domino glorietur. Melius autem mihi uidentur quidam codices habere: Gaudebo in Deo Iesu meo, quam hi, qui uolentes id Latine ponere, nomen ipsum non posuerunt, quod est nobis amicius et dulcius nominare.

### What Jeremiah and Zephaniah Have, by the Prophetic Spirit, Spoken Before Concerning Christ and the Calling of the Nations.

[¶9] Chapter 33.—What Jeremiah and Zephaniah Have, by the Prophetic Spirit, Spoken Before Concerning Christ and the Calling of the Nations.

> Latin: Caput XXXIII. De Christo et uocatione gentium quae Hieremias et Sophonias prophetico spiritu sint praefati.

[¶10] Jeremiah, like Isaiah, is one of the greater prophets, not of the minor, like the others from whose writings I have just given extracts. He prophesied when Josiah reigned in Jerusalem, and Ancus Martius at Rome, when the captivity of the Jews was already at hand; and he continued to prophesy down to the fifth month of the captivity, as we find from his writings. Zephaniah, one of the minor prophets, is put along with him, because he himself says that he prophesied in the days of Josiah; but he does not say till when. Jeremiah thus prophesied not only in the times of Ancus Martius, but also in those of Tarquinius Priscus, whom the Romans had for their fifth king. For he had already begun to reign when that captivity took place. Jeremiah, in prophesying of Christ, says, “The breath of our mouth, the Lord Christ, was taken in our sins,” thus briefly showing both that Christ is our Lord and that He suffered for us. Also in another place he says, “This is my God, and there shall none other be accounted of in comparison of Him; who hath found out all the way of prudence, and hath given it to Jacob His servant, and to Israel His beloved: afterwards He was seen on the earth, and conversed with men.” Some attribute this testimony not to Jeremiah, but to his secretary, who was called Baruch; but it is more commonly ascribed to Jeremiah. Again the same prophet says concerning Him, “Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise up unto David a righteous shoot, and a King shall reign and shall be wise, and shall do judgment and justice in the earth. In those days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell confidently: and this is the name which they shall call Him, Our righteous Lord.” And of the calling of the nations which was to come to pass, and which we now see fulfilled, he thus spoke: “O Lord my God, and my refuge in the day of evils, to Thee shall the nations come from the utmost end of the earth, saying, Truly our fathers have worshipped lying images, wherein there is no profit.” But that the Jews, by whom He behoved even to be slain, were not going to acknowledge Him, this prophet thus intimates: “Heavy is the heart through all; and He is a man, and who shall know Him?” That passage also is his which I have quoted in the seventeenth book concerning the new testament, of which Christ is the Mediator. For Jeremiah himself says, “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will complete over the house of Jacob a new testament,” and the rest, which may be read there.

> Latin: Hieremias propheta de maioribus est, sicut Esaias, non de minoribus, sicut ceteri, de quorum scriptis nonnulla iam posui. Prophetauit autem regnante Iosia in Hierusalem et aput Romanos Anco Marcio, iam propinquante captiuitate Iudaeorum Tetendit autem prophetiam usque ad quintum mensem captiuitatis, sicut in eius litteris inuenimus. Sophonias autem unus de minoribus adiungitur ei. Nam et ipse in diebus Iosiae prophetasse se dicit; sed quousque, non dicit. Prophetauit ergo Hieremias non solum Anci Marcii, uerum etiam Tarquinii Prisci temporibus, quem Romani habuerunt quintum regem. Ipse enim, quando illa captiuitas facta est, regnare iam coeperat. Prophetans ergo de Christo Hieremias: Spiritus, inquit, oris nostri Christus Dominus captus est in peccatis nostris, sic breuiter ostendensetdominum nostrum Christum et passum esse pro nobis. Item loco alio: Hic Deus meus, inquit, et non aestimabitur alter ad eum; qui inuenit omnem uiam prudentiae et dedit eam Iacob puero suo et Israel dilecto suo; post haec in terra uisus est et cum hominibus conuersatus est. Hoc testimonium quidam non Hieremiae, sed scribae eius adtribuunt, qui uocabatur Baruch; sed Hieremiae celebratius habetur. Rursus idem propheta de ipso: Ecce. inquit, dies ueniunt, ait Dominus, et suscitabo Dauid germen iustum, et regnabit rex et sapiens erit et faciet iudicium et iustitiam in terra. In diebus illis saluabitur Iuda, et Israel habitabit confidenter; et hoc est nomen, quod uocabunt eum: Dominus iustus noster. De uocatione etiam gentium, quae fuerat futura et eam nunc inpletam cernimus, sic locutus est: Domine Deus meus et refugium meum in die malorum, ad te gentes uenient ab extremo terrae et dicent: Vere mendacia coluerunt patres nostri simulacra, et non est in illis utilitas. Quia uero non erant eum agnituri Iudaei, a quibus eum et occidi oportebat, sic idem propheta significat: Graue cor per omnia, et homo est, et quis agnoscit eum? Huius est etiam illud quod in libro septimo decimo posui de testamento nouo, cuius est mediator Christus. Ipse quippe Hieremias ait: Ecce dies ueniunt, dicit Dominus, et consummabo super domumlacob testamentum nouum, et cetera quae ibi leguntur.

[¶11] For the present I shall put down those predictions about Christ by the prophet Zephaniah, who prophesied with Jeremiah. “Wait ye upon me, saith the Lord, in the day of my resurrection, in the future; because it is my determination to assemble the nations, and gather together the kingdoms.” And again he says, “The Lord will be terrible upon them, and will exterminate all the gods of the earth; and they shall worship Him every man from his place, even all the isles of the nations.” And a little after he says, “Then will I turn to the people a tongue, and to His offspring, that they may call upon the name of the Lord, and serve Him under one yoke. From the borders of the rivers of Ethiopia shall they bring sacrifices unto me. In that day thou shall not be confounded for all thy curious inventions, which thou hast done impiously against me: for then I will take away from thee the haughtiness of thy trespass; and thou shalt no more magnify thyself above thy holy mountain. And I will leave in thee a meek and humble people, and they who shall be left of Israel shall fear the name of the Lord.” These are the remnant of whom the apostle quotes that which is elsewhere prophesied: “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved.” These are the remnant of that nation who have believed in Christ.

> Latin: Sophoniae autem prophetae, qui cum Hieremia prophetabat, haec praedicta de Christo interim ponam: Exspecta me, dicit Dominus, in die resurrectionis meae in futurum: quia iudicium meum, ut congregem gentes et colligam regna. Et iterum: Horribilis, inquit, Dominus super eos, et exterminabit omnes deos terrae, et adorabit eum uir de loco suo, omnes insulae gentium. Et paulo post: Tunc, inquit, transuertam in populos linguam et progenies eius, ut inuocent omnes nomen Domini et seruiant ei sub iugo uno; a finibus fluminum Aethiopiae adferent hostias mihi. In illo die [non] confunderis ex omnibus adinuentionibus tuis, quas inpie egisti in me; quia tunc auferam abs te prauitates iniuriae tuae; et iam non adicies, ut magnificeris super montem sanctum meum, et subrelinquam in te populum mansuetum et humilem; et uerebuntur a nomine Domini, qui reliqui fuerint Israel. Hae sunt reliquiae, de quibus alibi prophetatur, quod apostolus etiam commemorat: Si fuerit numerus filiorum Israel sicut harena maris, reliquiae saluae fient. Hae quippe in Christum illius gentis reliquiae crediderunt.

### Of the Prophecy of Daniel and Ezekiel, Other Two of the Greater Prophets.

[¶13] Chapter 34.—Of the Prophecy of Daniel and Ezekiel, Other Two of the Greater Prophets.

> Latin: Caput XXXIV. De prophetia Danielis et Hiezechielis, quae in Christum ecclesiamque concordat.

[¶14] Daniel and Ezekiel, other two of the greater prophets, also first prophesied in the very captivity of Babylon. Daniel even defined the time when Christ was to come and suffer by the exact date. It would take too long to show this by computation, and it has been done often by others before us. But of His power and glory he has thus spoken: “I saw in a night vision, and, behold, one like the Son of man was coming with the clouds of heaven, and He came even to the Ancient of days, and He was brought into His presence. And to Him there was given dominion, and honor, and a kingdom: and all people, tribes, and tongues shall serve Him. His power is an everlasting power, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom shall not be destroyed.”

> Latin: In ipsa POITO Babyloniae captiuitate prius prophetauerunt Daniel et Hiezechiel, alii scilicet duo ex prophetis maioribus. Quorum Daniel etiam tempus, quo uenturus fuerat Christus adque passurus, numero definiuit annorum; quod longum est conputando monstrare, et ab aliis factitatum est ante nos. De potestate uero eius et ecclesia sic locutus est: Videbam, inquit, in uisu noctis, et ecce cum nubibus caeli ut filius hominis ueniens erat; et usque ad uetustum dierum peruenit, et in conspectu eius praelatus est; et ipsi datus est principatus et honor et regnum, et omnes populi, tribus, linguae ipsi seruient.

[¶15] Ezekiel also, speaking prophetically in the person of God the Father, thus foretells Christ, speaking of Him in the prophetic manner as David, because He assumed flesh of the seed of David, and on account of that form of a servant in which He was made man, He who is the Son of God is also called the servant of God. He says, “And I will set up over my sheep one Shepherd, who will feed them, even my servant David; and He shall feed them, and He shall be their shepherd. And I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David a prince in the midst of them. I the Lord have spoken.” And in another place he says, “And one King shall be over them all: and they shall no more be two nations, neither shall they be divided any more into two kingdoms: neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, and their abominations, and all their iniquities. And I will save them out of all their dwelling-places wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God. And my servant David shall be king over them, and there shall be one Shepherd for them all.”

> Latin: Potestas eius potestas perpetua. quae non transibit, et regnum eius non corrump e t u r. Hiezechiel quoque more prophetico per Dauid Christum significans, quia carnem de Dauid semine adsumsit (propter quam formam serui, qua factus est homo, etiam seruus Dei dicitur idem Dei filius), sic eum prophetando praenuntiat ei persona Dei Patris: Et suscitabo, inquit, superpecora mea pastorem unum qui pascat ea, seruum meum Dauid; et ipse pascet ea et ipse erit his in pastorem. Ego autem Dominus ero eis in Deum, et seruus meus Dauid princeps in medio eorum; ego Dominus locutus sum. Et alio loco: Et rex, inquit. unus erit omnibus imperans; et non erunt ultra duae gentes, nec diuidentur amplius ia duo regna; neque polluentur ultra in idolis suis et abominationibus et in cunctis iniquitatibus suis. Et saluos eos faciam de uniuersis sedibus suis, in quibus peccauerunt, et mundabo eos; et erunt mihi populus, et ego ero eis Deus; et seruus meus Dauid rex super eos, et pastor unus erit omnium eorum.

### Of the Prophecy of the Three Prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

[¶17] Chapter 35.—Of the Prophecy of the Three Prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

> Latin: Caput XXXV. De trium prophetarum uaticinio, id est Aggaei, Zachariae et Malachiae.

[¶18] There remain three minor prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, who prophesied at the close of the captivity. Of these Haggai more openly prophesies of Christ and the Church thus briefly: “Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Yet one little while, and I will shake the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; and I will move all nations, and the desired of all nations shall come.” The fulfillment of this prophecy is in part already seen, and in part hoped for in the end. For He moved the heaven by the testimony of the angels and the stars, when Christ became incarnate. He moved the earth by the great miracle of His birth of the virgin. He moved the sea and the dry land, when Christ was proclaimed both in the isles and in the whole world. So we see all nations moved to the faith; and the fulfillment of what follows, “And the desired of all nations shall come,” is looked for at His last coming. For ere men can desire and and wait for Him, they must believe and love Him.

> Latin: Restant tres minores prophetae, qui prophetauerunt in fine captiuitatis, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias. Quorum Aggaeus Christum et ecclesiam hac apertius breuitate prophetat: Haec dicit Dominus exercituum: Adhuc unum modicum est, et ego commouebo caelum et terram et mare et aridam, et mouebo omnes gentes, et ueniet desideratus cunctis gentibus. Haec prophetia partim conpleta iam cernitur, partim speratur in fine conplenda. Mouit enim caelum angelorum et siderum testimonio, quando incarnatus est Christus; mouit terram ingenti miraculo de ipso uirginis partu; mouit mare et aridam, cum et in insulis et in orbe toto Christus adnuntiatur: ita moueri omnes gentes uidemus ad fidem. Iam uero quod sequitur: Et ueniet desideratus cunctis gentibus, de nouissimo eius exspectatur aduentu. Ut enim esset desideratus exspectantibus, prius oportuit eum dilectum esse credentibus.

[¶19] Zechariah says of Christ and the Church, “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; shout joyfully, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, thy King shall come unto thee, just and the Saviour; Himself poor, and mounting an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass: and His dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.” How this was done, when the Lord Christ on His journey used a beast of burden of this kind, we read in the Gospel, where, also, as much of this prophecy is quoted as appears sufficient for the context. In another place, speaking in the Spirit of prophecy to Christ Himself of the remission of sins through His blood, he says, “Thou also, by the blood of Thy testament, hast sent forth Thy prisoners from the lake wherein is no water.” Different opinions may be held, consistently with right belief, as to what he meant by this lake. Yet it seems to me that no meaning suits better than that of the depth of human misery, which is, as it were, dry and barren, where there are no streams of righteousness, but only the mire of iniquity. For it is said of it in the Psalms, “And He led me forth out of the lake of misery, and from the miry clay.”

> Latin: Zacharias de Christo et ecclesia: Exuit, inquit, ualde, filia Sion, iubila, filia Hierusalem; ecce rex tuus uenit tibi iustus et saluator; ipse pauper et adscendens super asinum et super pullum filium asinae; et potestas eius a mari usque ad mare et a fluminibus usque ad fines terrae. Hoc quando factum sit, ut Dominus Christus in itinere iumento huius generis uteretur, in euangelio legitur, ubi et haec prophetia commemoratur ex parte, quantum illi loco sufficere uisum est. Alio loco ad ipsum Christum in spiritu prophetiae loquens de remissione peccatorum per eius sanguinem: Tu quoque, inquit, in sanguine testamenti tu-i emisisti uinctos tuos de lacu, in quo non est aqua. Quid per hunc lacum uelit intellegi, possunt diuersa sentiri etiam secundum rectam fidem. Mihi tamen uidetur non eo significari melius, nisi humanae miseriae profunditatem siccam quodam modo et sterilem, ubi non sunt fluenta iustitiae, sed iniquitatis lutum. De hoc quippe etiam in psalmo dicitur: Et eduxit me de lacu miseriae et de luto limi.

[¶20] Malachi, foretelling the Church which we now behold propagated through Christ, says most openly to the Jews, in the person of God, “I have no pleasure in you, and I will not accept a gift at your hand. For from the rising even to the going down of the sun, my name is great among the nations; and in every place sacrifice shall be made, and a pure oblation shall be offered unto my name: for my name shall be great among the nations, saith the Lord.” Since we can already see this sacrifice offered to God in every place, from the rising of the sun to his going down, through Christ’s priesthood after the order of Melchisedec, while the Jews, to whom it was said, “I have no pleasure in you, neither will I accept a gift at your hand,” cannot deny that their sacrifice has ceased, why do they still look for another Christ, when they read this in the prophecy, and see it fulfilled, which could not be fulfilled except through Him? And a little after he says of Him, in the person of God, “My covenant was with Him of life and peace: and I gave to Him that He might fear me with fear, and be afraid before my name. The law of truth was in His mouth: directing in peace He hath walked with me, and hath turned many away from iniquity. For the Priest’s lips shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at His mouth: for He is the Angel of the Lord Almighty.” Nor is it to be wondered at that Christ Jesus is called the Angel of the Almighty God. For just as He is called a servant on account of the form of a servant in which He came to men, so He is called an angel on account of the evangel which He proclaimed to men. For if we interpret these Greek words, evangel is “good news,” and angel is “messenger.” Again he says of Him, “Behold I will send mine angel, and He will look out the way before my face: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come into His temple, even the Angel of the testament, whom ye desire. Behold, He cometh, saith the Lord Almighty, and who shall abide the day of His entry, or who shall stand at His appearing?” In this place he has foretold both the first and second advent of Christ: the first, to wit, of which he says, “And He shall come suddenly into His temple;” that is, into His flesh, of which He said in the Gospel, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.” And of the second advent he says, “Behold, He cometh, saith the Lord Almighty, and who shall abide the day of His entry, or who shall stand at His appearing?” But what he says, “The Lord whom ye seek, and the Angel of the testament whom ye desire,” just means that even the Jews, according to the Scriptures which they read, shall seek and desire Christ. But many of them did not acknowledge that He whom they sought and desired had come, being blinded in their hearts, which were preoccupied with their own merits. Now what he here calls the testament, either above, where he says, “My testament had been with Him,” or here, where he has called Him the Angel of the testament, we ought, beyond a doubt, to take to be the new testament, in which the things promised are eternal, and not the old, in which they are only temporal. Yet many who are weak are troubled when they see the wicked abound in such temporal things, because they value them greatly, and serve the true God to be rewarded with them. On this account, to distinguish the eternal blessedness of the new testament, which shall be given only to the good, from the earthly felicity of the old, which for the most part is given to the bad as well, the same prophet says, “Ye have made your words burdensome to me: yet ye have said, In what have we spoken ill of Thee? Ye have said, Foolish is every one who serves God; and what profit is it that we have kept His observances, and that we have walked as suppliants before the face of the Lord Almighty? And now we call the aliens blessed; yea, all that do wicked things are built up again; yea, they are opposed to God and are saved. They that feared the Lord uttered these reproaches every one to his neighbor: and the Lord hearkened and heard; and He wrote a book of remembrance before Him, for them that fear the Lord and that revere His name.” By that book is meant the New Testament. Finally, let us hear what follows: “And they shall be an acquisition for me, saith the Lord Almighty, in the day which I make; and I will choose them as a man chooseth his son that serveth him. And ye shall return, and shall discern between the just and the unjust, and between him that serveth God and him that serveth Him not. For, behold, the day cometh burning as an oven, and it shall burn them up; and all the aliens and all that do wickedly shall be stubble: and the day that shall come will set them on fire, saith the Lord Almighty, and shall leave neither root nor branch. And unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise, and health shall be in His wings; and ye shall go forth, and exult as calves let loose from bonds. And ye shall tread down the wicked, and they shall be ashes under your feet, in the day in which I shall do [this], saith the Lord Almighty.” This day is the day of judgment, of which, if God will, we shall speak more fully in its own place.

> Latin: Malachias prophetans ecclesiam, quam per Christum cernimus propagatam, Iudaeis apertissime dicit ex persona Dei: Non est mihi uoluntas in uobis, et munus non suscipiam de manu uestra. Ab ortu enim solis usque ad occasum magnum nomen meum in gentibus, et in omni loco sacrificabitur et offeretur nomini meo oblatio munda; quia magnum nomen meum in gentibus, dicit Dominus. Hoc sacrificium per sacerdotium Christi secundum ordinem Melchisedech cum in omni loco a solis ortu usque ad occasum Deo iam uideamus offerri, sacrificium autem Iudaeorum, quibus dictum est: Non est mihi uoluntas in uobis, nec accipiam munus de manibus uestris, cessasse negare non possunt: quid adhuc exspectant alium Christum, cum hoc, quod prophetatum legunt et inpletum uident, inpleri non potuerit nisi per ipsum? Dicit enim paulo post de ipso ex persona Dei: Testamentum meum erat cum eo uitae et pacis. et.dedi ei, ut timore timeret me, et a facie nominis mei reuereretur. Lex ueritatis erat in ore ipsius. in pace dirigens ambulauit mecum et multos conuertit ab iniquitate; quoniam labia sacerdotis custodient scientiam et legem inquirent ex ore eius; quoniam angelus Domini omnipotentis est. Nec mirandum est, quia Domini omnipotentis angelus dictus est Christus Iesus. Sicut enim seruus propter formam serui, in qua uenit ad homines, sic angelus propter euangelium, quod nuntiauit hominibus. Nam si Graeca ista interpretemur, et euangelium bona nuntiatio est et angelus nuntius. De ipso quippe iterum dicit: Ecce mittam angelum meum, et prospiciet uiam ante faciem meam; et subito ueniet in templum suum Dominus, quem uos quaeritis, et angelus testamenti, quem uos uultis. Ecce uenit, dicit Dominus omnipotens; et quis sustinebit diem introitus eius? aut quis resistet in adspectu eius? Hoc loco et primum et secundum Christi praenuntiauit aduentum; primum scilicet, de quo ait: Et subito ueniet in templum suum, id est in carnem suam, de qua dixit in euangelio: Soluite templum hoc, et in triduo resuscitabo illud; secundum uero, ubi ait: Ecce uenit, dicit Dominus omnipotens, et quis sustinebit diem introitus eius? aut quis resistet in adspectu eius? Quod autem dixit: Dominus, quem uos quaeritis, et angelus testamenti, quem uos uultis, significauit utique etiam Iudaeos secundum scripturas, quas legunt, Christum quaerere et uelle. Sed multi eorum, quem quaesierunt et uoluerunt, uenisse non agnouerunt, excaecati in cordibus suis praecedentibus meritis suis. Quod sane hic nominat testamentum, uel supra, ubi ait: Testamentum meum erat cum eo, uel hic, ubi eum dixit angelum testamenti, nouum procul dubio testamentum debemus accipere, ubi sempiterna, non uetus, ubi temporalia sunt promissa; quae pro magno habentes plurimi infirmi et Deo uero talium rerum mercede seruientes, quando uident eis inpios abundare, turbantur. Propter quod idem propheta, ut noui testamenti aeternam beatitudinem, quae non dabitur nisi bonis, distingueret a ueteris terrena felicitate, quae plerumque datur et malis: Ingrauastis, inquit, super me uerba uestra, dicit Dominus, et dixistis: In quo detraximus de te? Dixistis: Vanus est omnis, qui seruit Deo, et quid plus, quiacustodiuimusobseruationes eius, et quia ambulauimus supplicantes ante faciem Domini omnipotentis? Et nunc nos beatificamus alienos, etreaedificanturomnes, quifaciunt iniqua; et aduersati sunt Deo, et salui facti sunt. Haec oblocuti sunt, qui timebant Dominum, unusquisque ad proximum suum; et animaduertit Dominus et audiuit; et scripsit librum memoriae in conspectu suo eis, qui timent Dominum et reuerentur nomen eius. Isto libro significatum est testamentum nouum. Denique quod sequitur audiamus: Et erunt mihi, dicit Dominus omnipotens, in diem qua ego facio in adquisitionem, et eligam eos sicut eligit homo filium suum seruientem sibi; et conuertimini, et uidebitis inter iustum et in ius t u ro, et inter seruientem Deo et non seruientem. Quoniam ecce dies uenit ardens sicut clibanus et concremabit eos, et erunt omnes alienigenae et omnes facientes iniquitatem stipula, et incendet illos dies, qui adueniet, dicitDominusomnipotens; et non derelinquetur eorum radix neque sarmentum. Et orietur uobis timentibus nomen meum sol iustitiae, et sanitas in pinnis eius; et exibitis et exultabitis sicut uituli ex uinculis resoluti; et conculcabitis iniquos, et erunt cinis sub pedibus uestris in die, in quo ego facio, dicit Dominus omnipotens. Hic est qui dicitur dies iudicii; de quo suo loco, si Deus uoluerit, loquemur uberius.

### About Esdras and the Books of the Maccabees.

[¶22] Chapter 36.—About Esdras and the Books of the Maccabees.

> Latin: Caput XXXVI. De Esdra et libris Macchabaeorum.

[¶23] After these three prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, during the same period of the liberation of the people from the Babylonian servitude Esdras also wrote, who is historical rather than prophetical, as is also the book called Esther, which is found to relate, for the praise of God, events not far from those times; unless, perhaps, Esdras is to be understood as prophesying of Christ in that passage where, on a question having arisen among certain young men as to what is the strongest thing, when one had said kings, another wine, the third women, who for the most part rule kings, yet that same third youth demonstrated that the truth is victorious over all. For by consulting the Gospel we learn that Christ is the Truth. From this time, when the temple was rebuilt, down to the time of Aristobulus, the Jews had not kings but princes; and the reckoning of their dates is found, not in the Holy Scriptures which are called canonical, but in others, among which are also the books of the Maccabees. These are held as canonical, not by the Jews, but by the Church, on account of the extreme and wonderful sufferings of certain martyrs, who, before Christ had come in the flesh, contended for the law of God even unto death, and endured most grievous and horrible evils.

> Latin: Post hos tres prophetas, Aggaeum, Zachariam, Malachiam, per idem tempus liberationis populi ex Babylonica seruitute scripsit etiam Esdras, qui magis rerum gestarum scriptor est habitus quam propheta (sicuti est et liber, qui appellatur Esther, cuius res gesta in laudem Dei non longe ab his temporibus inuenitur); nisi forte Esdras in eo Christum prophe tasse intellegendus est, quod inter quosdam iuuenes orta quaestione, quid amplius ualeret in rebus, cum reges unus dixisset, alter uinum, tertius mulieres, quae plerumque regibus imperarent, idem tamen tertius ueritatem super omnia demonstrauit es. e uictricem. Consulto autem euangelio Christum esse cognoscimus ueritatem. Ab hoc tempore aput Iudaeos restituto templo non reges, sed principes fuerunt usque ad Aristobolum: quorum subputatio temporum non in scripturis sanctis, quae appellantur canonicae, sed in aliis inuenitur, in quibus sunt et Macchabaeorum libri, quos non Iudaei, sed ecclesia pro canonicis habet propter quorundam martyrum passiones uehementes adque mirabiles, qui, antequam Christus uenisset in carne, usque ad mortem pro Dei lege certarunt et mala grauissima adque horribilia pertulerunt.

## 92. That Prophetic Records are Found Which are More Ancient Than Any Fountain of the Gentile Philosophy.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/92/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/92/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 37.—That Prophetic Records are Found Which are More Ancient Than Any Fountain of the Gentile Philosophy.

> Latin: Caput XXXVII. Quod prophetica auctoritas omni origine gentilis philosophiae inueniatur antiquior.

[¶1] In the time of our prophets, then, whose writings had already come to the knowledge of almost all nations, the philosophers of the nations had not yet arisen,—at least, not those who were called by that name, which originated with Pythagoras the Samian, who was becoming famous at the time when the Jewish captivity ended. Much more, then, are the other philosophers found to be later than the prophets. For even Socrates the Athenian, the master of all who were then most famous, holding the pre-eminence in that department that is called the moral or active, is found after Esdras in the chronicles. Plato also was born not much later, who far out went the other disciples of Socrates. If, besides these, we take their predecessors, who had not yet been styled philosophers, to wit, the seven sages, and then the physicists, who succeeded Thales, and imitated his studious search into the nature of things, namely, Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Anaxagoras, and some others, before Pythagoras first professed himself a philosopher, even these did not precede the whole of our prophets in antiquity of time, since Thales, whom the others succeeded, is said to have flourished in the reign of Romulus, when the stream of prophecy burst forth from the fountains of Israel in those writings which spread over the whole world. So that only those theological poets, Orpheus, Linus, and Musæus, and, it may be, some others among the Greeks, are found earlier in date than the Hebrew prophets whose writings we hold as authoritative. But not even these preceded in time our true divine, Moses, who authentically preached the one true God, and whose writings are first in the authoritative canon; and therefore the Greeks, in whose tongue the literature of this age chiefly appears, have no ground for boasting of their wisdom, in which our religion, wherein is true wisdom, is not evidently more ancient at least, if not superior. Yet it must be confessed that before Moses there had already been, not indeed among the Greeks, but among barbarous nations, as in Egypt, some doctrine which might be called their wisdom, else it would not have been written in the holy books that Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, as he was, when, being born there, and adopted and nursed by Pharaoh’s daughter, he was also liberally educated. Yet not even the wisdom of the Egyptians could be antecedent in time to the wisdom of our prophets, because even Abraham was a prophet. And what wisdom could there be in Egypt before Isis had given them letters, whom they thought fit to worship as a goddess after her death? Now Isis is declared to have been the daughter of Inachus, who first began to reign in Argos when the grandsons of Abraham are known to have been already born.

> Latin: Tempore igitur prophetarum nostrorum, quorum iam scripta ad notitiam fere omnium gentium peruenerunt, et multo magis post eos fuerunt philosophi gentium, qui hoc etiam nomine uocarentur, quod coepit a Samio Pythagora, qui eo tempore, quo Iudaeorum est soluta captiuitas, coepit excellere adque cognosci. Multo magis ergo ceteri philosophi post prophetas reperiuntur fuisse. Nam ipse Socrates Atheniensis, magister omnium, qui tunc maxime claruerunt, tenens in ea parte, quae moralis uel actiua dicitur, principatum, post Esdram in chronicis inuenitur. Non multo post etiam Plato natus est, qui longe ceteros Socratis discipulos anteiret. Quibus si addamus etiam superiores, qui nondum philosophi uocabantur, septem scilicet sapientes ac deinde physicos, qui Thaleti successerunt in perscrutanda natura rerum studium eius imitati, Anaximandrum scilicet et Anaximenem et Anaxagoram aliosque nonnullos, antequam Pythagoras philosophum primus profiteretur: nec illi prophetas nostros uniuersos temporis antiquitate praecedunt, quando quidem Thales, post quem ceteri fuerunt, regnante Romulo eminuisse fertur, quando de fontibus Israel in’ eis litteris, quae toto orbe manarent, prophetiae flumen erupit. Soli igitur illi theologi poetae, Orpheus, Linus, Musaeus et si quis alius aput Graecos fuit, his prophetis Hebraeis, quorum scripta in auctoritate habemus, annis reperiuntur priores. Sed nec ipsi uerum theologum nostrum Moysen, qui unum uerum Deum ueraciter praedicauit, cuius nunc scripta in auctoritatis canone prima sunt, tempore praeuenerunt; ac per hoc, quantum ad Graecos adtinet, in qua lingua litterae huius saeculi maxime ferbuerunt, nihil habent unde sapientiam suam iactent, quo religione nostra, ubi uera sapientia est, si non superior, saltem uideatur antiquior. Verum, quod fatendum est, non quidem in Graecia, sed in barbaris gentibus, sicut in Aegypto, iam fuerat ante Moysen nonnulla doctrina, quae illorum sapientia diceretur; alioquin non scriptum esset in libris sanctis, Moysen eruditum fuisse omni sapientia Aegyptiorum, tunc utique, quando ibi natus et a filia Pharaonis adoptatus adque nutritus etiam liberaliter educatus est. Sed nec sapientia Aegyptiorum sapientiam prophetarum nostrorum tempore antecedere potuit, quando quidem et Abraham propheta fuit. Quid autem sapientiae potuit esse in Aegypto, antequam eis Isis, quam mortuam tamquam magnam deam colendam putarunt, litteras traderet? Isis porro Inachi filia fuisse proditur, qui primus regnare coepit Argiuis, quando Abrahae iam nepotes reperiuntur exorti.

### That the Ecclesiastical Canon Has Not Admitted Certain Writings on Account of Their Too Great Antiquity, Lest Through Them False Things Should Be Inserted Instead of True.

[¶3] Chapter 38.—That the Ecclesiastical Canon Has Not Admitted Certain Writings on Account of Their Too Great Antiquity, Lest Through Them False Things Should Be Inserted Instead of True.

> Latin: Caput XXXVIII. Quod quaedam sanctorum scripta ecclesiasticus canon propter nimiam non receperit uetustatem, ne per occasionem eorum falsa ueris insererentur.

[¶4] If I may recall far more ancient times, our patriarch Noah was certainly even before that great deluge, and I might not undeservedly call him a prophet, forasmuch as the ark he made, in which he escaped with his family, was itself a prophecy of our times. What of Enoch, the seventh from Adam? Does not the canonical epistle of the Apostle Jude declare that he prophesied? But the writings of these men could not be held as authoritative either among the Jews or us, on account of their too great antiquity, which made it seem needful to regard them with suspicion, lest false things should be set forth instead of true. For some writings which are said be theirs are quoted by those who, according to their own humor, loosely believe what they please. But the purity of the canon has not admitted these writings, not because the authority of these men who pleased God is rejected, but because they are not believed to be theirs. Nor ought it to appear strange if writings for which so great antiquity is claimed are held in suspicion, seeing that in the very history of the kings of Judah and Israel containing their acts, which we believe to belong to the canonical Scripture, very many things are mentioned which are not explained there, but are said to be found in other books which the prophets wrote, the very names of these prophets being sometimes given, and yet they are not found in the canon which the people of God received. Now I confess the reason of this is hidden from me; only I think that even those men, to whom certainly the Holy Spirit revealed those things which ought to be held as of religious authority, might write some things as men by historical diligence, and others as prophets by divine inspiration; and these things were so distinct, that it was judged that the former should be ascribed to themselves, but the latter to God speaking through them: and so the one pertained to the abundance of knowledge, the other to the authority of religion. In that authority the canon is guarded. So that, if any writings outside of it are now brought forward under the name of the ancient prophets, they cannot serve even as an aid to knowledge, because it is uncertain whether they are genuine; and on this account they are not trusted, especially those of them in which some things are found that are even contrary to the truth of the canonical books, so that it is quite apparent they do not belong to them.

> Latin: Iam uero si longe antiquiora repetam, et ante illud grande diluuium noster erat utique Noe patriarcha, quem prophetam quoque non inmerito dixerim; si quidem ipsa arca, quam fecit et in qua cum suis euasit, prophetia nostrorum temporum fuit. Quid Enoch septimus ab Adam, nonne etiam in canonica epistula apostoli Iudae prophetasse praedicatur? Quorum scripta ut aput Iudaeos et aput nos in auctoritate non essent, nimia fecit antiquitas, propter quam uidebantur habenda esse suspecta, ne proferrentur falsa pro ueris. Nam et proferuntur quaedam quae ipsorum esse dicantur ab eis, qui pro suo sensu passim quod uolunt credunt. Sed ea castitas canonis non recepit, non quod eorum hominum, qui Deo placuerunt, reprobetur auctoritas, sed quod ista esse non credantur ipsorum. Nec mirum debet uideri, quod suspecta habentur, quae sub tantae antiquitatis nomine proferuntur; quando quidem in ipsa historia regum Iuda et regum Israel, quae res gestas continet, de quibus eidem scripturae canonicae credimus, commemorantur plurima, quae ibi non explicantur et in libris dicuntur aliis inueniri, quos prophetae scripserunt, et alicubi eorum quoque prophetarum nomina non tacentur; nec tamen inueniuntur in canone, quem recepit populus Dei. Cuius rei, fateor, causa me latet, nisi quod existimo etiam ipsos, quibus ea, quae in auctoritate religionis esse deberent, sanctus utique Spiritus reuelabat, alia sicut homines historica diligentia, alia sicut prophetas inspiratione diuina scribere potuisse, adque haec ita fuisse distincta, ut illa tamquam ipsis, ista uero tamquam Deo per ipsos loquenti iudicarentur esse tribuenda, ac sic illa pertinerent ad uber. tatem cognitionis, haec ad religionis auctoritatem, in qua auctoritate custoditur canon, praeter quem iam si qua etiam sub nomine uerorum prophetarum scripta proferuntur, nec ad ipsam copiam scientiae ualent, quoniam utrum eorum sint, quorum esse dicuntur, incertum est; et ob hoc eis non habetur fides, maxime his, in quibus etiam contra fidem librorum canonicorum quaedam leguntur, propter quod ea prorsus non esse apparet illorum.

### About the Hebrew Written Characters Which that Language Always Possessed.

[¶6] Chapter 39.—About the Hebrew Written Characters Which that Language Always Possessed.

> Latin: Caput XXXIX. De Hebraicis litteris, quae numquam in suae linguae proprietate non fuerint.

[¶7] Now we must not believe that Heber, from whose name the word Hebrew is derived, preserved and transmitted the Hebrew language to Abraham only as a spoken language, and that the Hebrew letters began with the giving of the law through Moses; but rather that this language, along with its letters, was preserved by that succession of fathers. Moses, indeed, appointed some among the people of God to teach letters, before they could know any letters of the divine law. The Scripture calls these men γραμματεισαγωγεῖς, who may be called in Latin inductores or introductores of letters, because they, as it were, introduce them into the hearts of the learners, or rather lead those whom they teach into them. Therefore no nation could vaunt itself over our patriarchs and prophets by any wicked vanity for the antiquity of its wisdom; since not even Egypt, which is wont falsely and vainly to glory in the antiquity of her doctrines, is found to have preceded in time the wisdom of our patriarchs in her own wisdom, such as it is. Neither will any one dare to say that they were most skillful in wonderful sciences before they knew letters, that is, before Isis came and taught them there. Besides, what, for the most part, was that memorable doctrine of theirs which was called wisdom but astronomy, and it may be some other sciences of that kind, which usually have more power to exercise men’s wit than to enlighten their minds with true wisdom? As regards philosophy, which professes to teach men something which shall make them happy, studies of that kind flourished in those lands about the times of Mercury, whom they called Trismegistus, long before the sages and philosophers of Greece, but yet after Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, and even after Moses himself. At that time, indeed, when Moses was born, Atlas is found to have lived, that great astronomer, the brother of Prometheus, and maternal grandson of the elder Mercury, of whom that Mercury Trismegistus was the grandson.

> Latin: Non itaque credendum est, quod nonnulli arbitrantur, Hebraeam tantum linguam per illum, qui uocabatur Heber, unde Hebraeorum uocabulum est, fuisse seruatam, adque inde peruenisse ad Abraham, Hebraeas autem litteras a lege coepisse, quae data est per Moysen, sed potius per illam successionem patrum memoratam linguam cum suis litteris custoditam. Denique Moyses in populo constituit qui docendis litteris praeessent, priusquam diuinae legis ullas litteras nossent. Hos appellat scriptura […] qui Latine dici possunt litterarum inductores uel introductores, eo quod eas inducant, id est introducant, quodam modo in corda discentium uel in eas potius ipsos quos docent. Nulla igitur gens de antiquitate suae sapientiae super patriarchas et prophetas nostros, quibus diuina inerat sapientia, ulla se uanitate iactauerit, quando nec Aegyptus inuenitur, quae solet falso et inaniter de suarum doctrinarum antiquitate gloriari, qualicumque sapientia sua patriarcharum nostrorum tempore praeuenisse sapientiam. Neque enim quisquam dicere audebit mirabilium disciplinarum eos peritissimos fuisse, antequam litteras nossent, id est, antequam Isis eo uenisset easque ibi docuisset. Ipsa porro eorum memorabilis doctrina, quae appellata est sapientia, quid erat nisi maxime astronomia et si quid aliud talium disciplinarum magis ad exercenda ingenia quam ad inluminandas uera sapientia mentes solet ualere? Nam quod adtinet ad philosophiam, quae se docere profitetur aliquid, unde fiant homines beati, circa tempora Mercurii, quem Trismegistum uocauerunt, in illis terris eius modi studia claruerunt, longe quidem ante sapientes uel philosophos Graeciae, sed tamen post Abraham et Isaac et Iacob et Ioseph, nimirum etiam post ipsum Moysen. Eo quippe tempore, quo Moyses natus est, fuisse reperitur Atlans ille magnus astrologus, Promethei frater, maternus auus Mercurii maioris, cuius nepos fuit Trismegistus iste Mercurius,

### About the Most Mendacious Vanity of the Egyptians, in Which They Ascribe to Their Science an Antiquity of a Hundred Thousand Years.

[¶9] Chapter 40.—About the Most Mendacious Vanity of the Egyptians, in Which They Ascribe to Their Science an Antiquity of a Hundred Thousand Years.

> Latin: Caput XL. De Aegyptiorum mendacissima uanitate, quae antiquitati scientiae suae centum milia adscribit annorum.

[¶10] In vain, then, do some babble with most empty presumption, saying that Egypt has understood the reckoning of the stars for more than a hundred thousand years. For in what books have they collected that number who learned letters from Isis their mistress, not much more than two thousand years ago? Varro, who has declared this, is no small authority in history, and it does not disagree with the truth of the divine books. For as it is not yet six thousand years since the first man, who is called Adam, are not those to be ridiculed rather than refuted who try to persuade us of anything regarding a space of time so different from, and contrary to, the ascertained truth? For what historian of the past should we credit more than him who has also predicted things to come which we now see fulfilled? And the very disagreement of the historians among themselves furnishes a good reason why we ought rather to believe him who does not contradict the divine history which we hold. But, on the other hand, the citizens of the impious city, scattered everywhere through the earth, when they read the most learned writers, none of whom seems to be of contemptible authority, and find them disagreeing among themselves about affairs most remote from the memory of our age, cannot find out whom they ought to trust. But we, being sustained by divine authority in the history of our religion, have no doubt that whatever is opposed to it is most false, whatever may be the case regarding other things in secular books, which, whether true or false, yield nothing of moment to our living rightly and happily.

> Latin: Frustra itaque uanissima praesumtione garriunt quidam dicentes, ex quo Aegyptus rationem siderum conprehendit, amplius quam centum annorum milia numerari. In quibus enim libris istum numerum collegerunt, qui non multum ante annorum duo milia litteras magistra Iside didicerunt? Non enim paruus auctor est in historia Varro, qui hoc prodidit, quod a litterarum etiam diuinarum ueritate non dissonat. Cum enim ab ipso primo homine, qui est appellatus Adam, nondum sex annorum milia conpleantur, quo modo non isti ridendi potius quam refellendi sunt, qui de spatio temporum tam diuersa et huic exploratae ueritati tam contraria persuadere conantur? Cui enim melius narranti praeterita credimus, quam qui etiam futura praedixit, quae praesentia iam uidemus? Nam et ipsa historicorum inter se dissonantia copiam nobis praebet, ut ei potius credere debeamus, qui diuinae, quam tenemus, non repugnat historiae. Porro autem ciues inpiae ciuitatis diffusi usquequaque per terras cum legunt doctissimos homines, quorum nullius contemnenda uideatur auctoritas, inter se de rebus gestis ab aetatis nostrae memoria remotissimis discrepantes, cui potius credere debeant, non inueniunt. Nos uero in nostrae religionis historia fulti auctoritate diuina, quidquid ei resistit, non dubitamus esse falsissimum, quomodolibet sese habeant cetera in saecularibus litteris, quae seu uera seu falsa sint, nihil momenti adferunt, quo recte beateque uiuamus.

### About the Discord of Philosophic Opinion, and the Concord of the Scriptures that are Held as Canonical by the Church.

[¶12] Chapter 41.—About the Discord of Philosophic Opinion, and the Concord of the Scriptures that are Held as Canonical by the Church.

> Latin: Caput XLI. De philosophicarum opinionum dissensionibus et canonicarum aput ecclesiam concordia scripturarum.

[¶13] But let us omit further examination of history, and return to the philosophers from whom we digressed to these things. They seem to have labored in their studies for no other end than to find out how to live in a way proper for laying hold of blessedness. Why, then, have the disciples dissented from their masters, and the fellow-disciples from one another, except because as men they have sought after these things by human sense and human reasonings? Now, although there might be among them a desire of glory, so that each wished to be thought wiser and more acute than another, and in no way addicted to the judgment of others, but the inventor of his own dogma and opinion, yet I may grant that there were some, or even very many of them, whose love of truth severed them from their teachers or fellow-disciples, that they might strive for what they thought was the truth, whether it was so or not. But what can human misery do, or how or where can it reach forth, so as to attain blessedness, if divine authority does not lead it? Finally, let our authors, among whom the canon of the sacred books is fixed and bounded, be far from disagreeing in any respect. It is not without good reason, then, that not merely a few people prating in the schools and gymnasia in captious disputations, but so many and great people, both learned and unlearned, in countries and cities, have believed that God spoke to them or by them, i.e. the canonical writers, when they wrote these books. There ought, indeed, to be but few of them, lest on account of their multitude what ought to be religiously esteemed should grow cheap; and yet not so few that their agreement should not be wonderful. For among the multitude of philosophers, who in their works have left behind them the monuments of their dogmas, no one will easily find any who agree in all their opinions. But to show this is too long a task for this work.

> Latin: Ut autem iam cognitionem omittamus historiae, ipsi philosophi, a quibus ad ista progressi sumus, qui non uidentur laborasse in studiis suis, nisi ut inuenirent quo modo uiuendum esset adcommodate ad beatitudinem capessendam, quur dissenserunt et a magistris discipuli, et inter se condiscipuli, nisi quia ut homines humanis sensibus et humanis ratiocinationibus ista quaesierunt? Ubi quamuis esse potuerit et studium gloriandi, quo quisque alio sapientior et acutior uideri cupit nec sententiae quodam modo addictus alienae. sed sui dogmatis et opinionis inuentor, tamen ut nonnullos uel etiam plurimos eorum fuisse concedam, quos a suis doctoribus uel discendi sociis amor ueritatis abruperit, ut pro ea certarent, quam ueritatem putarent, siue illa esset, siue non esset: quid agit aut quo uel qua, ut ad beatitudinem perueniatur, humana se porrigit infelicitas, si diuina non ducit auctoritas? Denique auctores nostri, in quibus non frustra sacrarum litterarum figitur et terminatur canon, absit ut inter se aliqua ratione dissentiant. Unde non inmerito, cum illa scriberent, eis Deum uel per eos locutum, non pauci in scholis adque gymnasiis litigiosis disputationibus garruli, sed in agris adque urbibus cum doctis adque indoctis tot tantique populi crediderunt. Ipsi sane pauci esse debuerunt, ne multitudine uilesceret, quod religione carum esse oporteret; nec tamen ita pauci, ut eorum non sit miranda consensio. Neque enim in multitudine philosophorum, qui labore etiam litterario monumenta suorum dogmatum reliquerunt, facile quis inuenerit, inter quos cuncta quae sensere conueniant: quod ostendere hoc opere longum est.

[¶14] But what author of any sect is so approved in this demon-worshipping city, that the rest who have differed from or opposed him in opinion have been disapproved? The Epicureans asserted that human affairs were not under the providence of the gods; and the Stoics, holding the opposite opinion, agreed that they were ruled and defended by favora ble and tutelary gods. Yet were not both sects famous among the Athenians? I wonder, then, why Anaxagoras was accused of a crime for saying that the sun was a burning stone, and denying that it was a god at all; while in the same city Epicurus flourished gloriously and lived securely, although he not only did not believe that the sun or any star was a god, but contended that neither Jupiter nor any of the gods dwelt in the world at all, so that the prayers and supplications of men might reach them! Were not both Aristippus and Antisthenes there, two noble philosophers and both Socratic? yet they placed the chief end of life within bounds so diverse and contradictory, that the first made the delight of the body the chief good, while the other asserted that man was made happy mainly by the virtue of the mind. The one also said that the wise man should flee from the republic; the other, that he should administer its affairs. Yet did not each gather disciples to follow his own sect? Indeed, in the conspicuous and well-known porch, in gymnasia, in gardens, in places public and private, they openly strove in bands each for his own opinion, some asserting there was one world, others innumerable worlds; some that this world had a beginning, others that it had not; some that it would perish, others that it would exist always; some that it was governed by the divine mind, others by chance and accident; some that souls are immortal, others that they are mortal,—and of those who asserted their immortality, some said they transmigrated through beasts, others that it was by no means so; while of those who asserted their mortality, some said they perished immediately after the body, others that they survived either a little while or a longer time, but not always; some fixing supreme good in the body, some in the mind, some in both; others adding to the mind and body external good things; some thinking that the bodily senses ought to be trusted always, some not always, others never. Now what people, senate, power, or public dignity of the impious city has ever taken care to judge between all these and other well-nigh innumerable dissensions of the philosophers, approving and accepting some, and disapproving and rejecting others? Has it not held in its bosom at random, without any judgment, and confusedly, so many controversies of men at variance, not about fields, houses, or anything of a pecuniary nature, but about those things which make life either miserable or happy? Even if some true things were said in it, yet falsehoods were uttered with the same licence; so that such a city has not amiss received the title of the mystic Babylon. For Babylon means confusion, as we remember we have already explained. Nor does it matter to the devil, its king, how they wrangle among themselves in contradictory errors, since all alike deservedly belong to him on account of their great and varied impiety.

> Latin: Quis autem sectae cuiuslibet auctor sic est in hac daemonicola ciuitate adprobatus, ut ceteri inprobarentur, qui diuersa et aduersa senserunt? Nonne aput Athenas et Epicurei clarebant, adserentes res humanas ad deorum curam non pertinere, et Stoici, qui contraria sentientes eas regi ti adque muniri dis adiutoribus et tutoribus disputabant? Unde miror quur Anaxagoras reus factus sit, quia solem dixit esse lapidem ardentem, negans utique deum, cum in eadem ciuitate gloria floruerit Epicurus uixeritque securus, non solum solem uel ullum siderum deum esse non credens, sed nec Iouem nec ullum deorum omnino in mundo habitare contendens, ad quem preces hominum supplicationesque perueniant. Nonne ibi Aristippus in uoluptate corporis summum bonum ponens, ibi Antisthenes uirtute animi potius hominem fieri beatum adseuerans, duo philosophi nobiles et ambo Socratici, in tam diuersis adque inter se contrariis finibus uitae summam locantes, quorum etiam ille fugiendam, iste administrandam sapienti dicebat esse rem publicam, ad suam quisque sectam sectandam discipulos congregabat? Nempe palam in conspicua et notissima porticu, in gymnasiis, in hortulis, in locis publicis ac priuatis cateruatim pro sua quisque opinione certabant, alii adserentes unum, alii innumerabiles mundos; ipsum autem unum alii ortum esse, alii uero initium non habere; alii interiturum, alii semper futurum; alii mente diuina, alii fortuito et casibus agi; alii inmortales esse animas, alii mortales; et qui inmortales, alii reuolui in bestias, alii nequaquam; qui uero mortales, alii mox interire post corpus, alii uiuere etiam postea uel paululum uel diutius, non tamen semper; alii in corpore constituentes finem boni, alii in animo, alii in utroque, alii extrinsecus posita etiam bona ad animum et corpus addentes; alii sensibus corporis semper, alii non semper, alii numquam putantes esse credendum. Has et alias paene innumerabiles dissensiones philosophorum quis umquam populus, quis senatus, quae potestas uel dignitas publica inpiae ciuitatis diiudicandas et alias probandas ac recipiendas, alias inprobandas repudiandasque curauit, ac non passim sine ullo iudicio confuseque habuit in gremio suo tot controuersias hominum dissidentium, non de agris et domibus uel quacumque pecuniaria ratione, sed de his rebus, quibus aut misere uiuitur aut beate? Ubi etsi aliqua uera dicebantur, eadem licentia dicebantur et falsa, prorsus ut non frustra talis ciuitas mysticum uocabulum Babylonis acceperit. Babylon interpretatur quippe confusio, quod nos iam dixisse meminimus. Nec interest diaboli regis eius, quam contrariis inter se rixentur erroribus, quos merito multae uariaeque inpietatis pariter possidet.

[¶15] But that nation, that people, that city, that republic, these Israelites, to whom the oracles of God were entrusted, by no means confounded with similar licence false prophets with the true prophets; but, agreeing together, and differing in nothing, acknowledged and upheld the authentic authors of their sacred books. These were their philosophers, these were their sages, divines, prophets, and teachers of probity and piety. Whoever was wise and lived according to them was wise and lived not according to men, but according to God who hath spoken by them. If sacrilege is forbidden there, God hath forbidden it. If it is said, “Honor thy father and thy mother,” God hath commanded it. If it is said, “Thou shall not commit adultery, Thou shall not kill, Thou shall not steal,” and other similar commandments, not human lips but the divine oracles have enounced them. Whatever truth certain philosophers, amid their false opinions, were able to see, and strove by laborious discussions to persuade men of,—such as that God had made this world, and Himself most providently governs it, or of the nobility of the virtues, of the love of country, of fidelity in friendship, of good works and everything pertaining to virtuous manners, although they knew not to what end and what rule all these things were to be referred,—all these, by words prophetic, that is, divine, although spoken by men, were commended to the people in that city, and not inculcated by contention in arguments, so that he who should know them might be afraid of contemning, not the wit of men, but the oracle of God.

> Latin: At uero gens illa, ille populus, illa ciuitas, illa res publica, illi Israelitae, quibus credita sunt eloquia Dei, nullo modo pseudoprophetas cum ueris prophetis parilitate licentiae confuderunt, sed concordes inter se adque in nullo dissentientes sacrarum litterarum ueraces ab eis agnoscebantur et tenebantur auctores. Ipsi eis erant philosophi, hoc est amatores sapientiae, ipsi sapientes, ipsi theologi, ipsi prophetae, ipsi doctores probitatis adque pietatis. Quicumque secundum illos sapuit et uixit, non secundum homines, sed secundum Deum, qui per eos locutus est, sapuit et uixit. Ibi si prohibitum est sacrilegium, Deus prohibuit. Si dictum est: Honora patrem [tuum] et matrem tuam, Deus iussit. Si dictum est: Non moechaberis, non homicidium facies, non furaberis, et cetera huius modi, non haec ora humana. sed oracula diuina fuderunt. Quidquid philosophi quidam inter falsa, quae opinati sunt, uerum uidere potuerunt et laboriosis disputationibus persuadere moliti sunt, quod mundum istum Deus fecerit eumque ipse prouidentissimus administret, de honestate uirtutum, de amore patriae; de fide amicitiae, de bonis operibus adque omnibus ad mores probos pertinentibus rebus, quamuis nescientes ad quem finem et quonam modo essent ista omnia referenda, propheticis, hoc est diuinis, uocibus, quamuis per homines, in illa ciuitate populo commendata sunt, non argumentationum concertationibus inculcata, ut non hominis ingenium, sed Dei eloquium contemnere formidaret, qui illa cognosceret.

### By What Dispensation of God’s Providence the Sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament Were Translated Out of Hebrew into Greek, that They Might Be Made Known to All the Nations.

[¶17] Chapter 42.—By What Dispensation of God’s Providence the Sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament Were Translated Out of Hebrew into Greek, that They Might Be Made Known to All the Nations.

> Latin: Caput XLII. Qua dispensatione prouidentiae Dei scripturae sacrae ueteris testamenti ex Hebraeo in Graecum eloquium translatae sint, ut gentibus innotescerent.

[¶18] One of the Ptolemies, kings of Egypt, desired to know and have these sacred books. For after Alexander of Macedon, who is also styled the Great, had by his most wonderful, but by no means enduring power, subdued the whole of Asia, yea, almost the whole world, partly by force of arms, partly by terror, and, among other kingdoms of the East, had entered and obtained Judea also, on his death his generals did not peaceably divide that most ample kingdom among them for a possession, but rather dissipated it, wasting all things by wars. Then Egypt began to have the Ptolemies as her kings. The first of them, the son of Lagus, carried many captive out of Judea into Egypt. But another Ptolemy, called Philadelphus, who succeeded him, permitted all whom he had brought under the yoke to return free; and more than that, sent kingly gifts to the temple of God, and begged Eleazar, who was the high priest, to give him the Scriptures, which he had heard by report were truly divine, and therefore greatly desired to have in that most noble library he had made. When the high priest had sent them to him in Hebrew, he afterwards demanded interpreters of him, and there were given him seventy-two, out of each of the twelve tribes six men, most learned in both languages, to wit, the Hebrew and Greek and their translation is now by custom called the Septuagint. It is reported, indeed, that there was an agreement in their words so wonderful, stupendous, and plainly divine, that when they had sat at this work, each one apart (for so it pleased Ptolemy to test their fidelity), they differed from each other in no word which had the same meaning and force, or, in the order of the words; but, as if the translators had been one, so what all had translated was one, because in very deed the one Spirit had been in them all. And they received so wonderful a gift of God, in order that the authority of these Scriptures might be commended not as human but divine, as indeed it was, for the benefit of the nations who should at some time believe, as we now see them doing.

> Latin: Has sacras litteras etiam unus Ptolomaeorum regum Aegypti nosse studuit et habere. Nam post Alexandri Macedonis, qui etiam Magnus cognominatus est, mirificentissimam minimeque diuturnam potentiam, qua uniuersam Asiam, immo paene totum orbem, partim ui et annis, partim terrore subegerat, quando inter cetera Orientis etiam Iudaeam ingressus obtinuit; eo mortuo comites eius cum regnum illud amplissimum non pacifice inter se possessuri diuisissent, sed potius dissipassent bellis omnia uastaturi, Ptolomaeos reges habere coepit Aegyptus; quorum primus, Lagi filius, multos ex Iudaea captiuos in Aegyptum transtulit. Huic autem succedens alius Ptolomaeus, qui est appellatus Philadelphus, omnes, quos ille adduxerat subiugatos, liberos redire permisit; insuper et dona regia in templum Dei misit petiuitque ab Eleazaro tunc pontifice dari sibi scripturas, quas profecto audierat fama praedicante diuinas, et ideo concupiuerat habere in bibliotheca, quam nobilissimam fecerat. Has ei cum idem pontifex misisset Hebraeas, post ille etiam interpretes postulauit; et dati sunt septuaginta duo, de singulis duodecim tribubus seni homines, linguae utriusque doctissimi, Hebraeae scilicet adque Graecae, quorum interpretatio ut Septuaginta uocetur, iam obtinuit consuetudo. Traditur sane tam mirabilem ac stupendum planeque diuinum in eorum uerbis fuisse consensum, ut, cum ad hoc opus separatim singuli sederint (ita enim eorum fidem Ptolomaeo placuit explorare), in nullo uerbo, quod idem significaret et tantundem ualeret, uel in uerborum ordine alter ab altero discreparet; sed tamquam unus esset interpres, ita quod omnes interpretati sunt unum erat; quoniam re uera spiritus erat unus in omnibus. Et ideo tam mirabile Dei munus acceperant, ut illarum scripturarum non tamquam humanarum, sed, sicut erant, tamquam diuinarum etiam isto modo commendaretur auctoritas, credituris quandoque gentibus profutura, quod iam uidemus effectum.

### Of the Authority of the Septuagint Translation, Which, Saving the Honor of the Hebrew Original, is to Be Preferred to All Translations.

[¶20] Chapter 43.—Of the Authority of the Septuagint Translation, Which, Saving the Honor of the Hebrew Original, is to Be Preferred to All Translations.

> Latin: Caput XLIII. De auctoritate septuaginta interpretum, quae, saluo honore Hebraei stili, omnibus sit interpretibus praeferenda.

[¶21] For while there were other interpreters who translated these sacred oracles out of the Hebrew tongue into Greek, as Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and also that translation which, as the name of the author is unknown, is quoted as the fifth edition, yet the Church has received this Septuagint translation just as if it were the only one; and it has been used by the Greek Christian people, most of whom are not aware that there is any other. From this translation there has also been made a translation in the Latin tongue, which the Latin churches use. Our times, however, have enjoyed the advantage of the presbyter Jerome, a man most learned, and skilled in all three languages, who translated these same Scriptures into the Latin speech, not from the Greek, but from the Hebrew. But although the Jews acknowledge this very learned labor of his to be faithful, while they contend that the Septuagint translators have erred in many places, still the churches of Christ judge that no one should be preferred to the authority of so many men, chosen for this very great work by Eleazar, who was then high priest; for even if there had not appeared in them one spirit, without doubt divine, and the seventy learned men had, after the manner of men, compared together the words of their translation, that what pleased them all might stand, no single translator ought to be preferred to them; but since so great a sign of divinity has appeared in them, certainly, if any other translator of their Scriptures from the Hebrew into any other tongue is faithful, in that case he agrees with these seventy translators, and if he is not found to agree with them, then we ought to believe that the prophetic gift is with them. For the same Spirit who was in the prophets when they spoke these things was also in the seventy men when they translated them, so that assuredly they could also say something else, just as if the prophet himself had said both, because it would be the same Spirit who said both; and could say the same thing differently, so that, although the words were not the same, yet the same meaning should shine forth to those of good understanding; and could omit or add something, so that even by this it might be shown that there was in that work not human bondage, which the translator owed to the words, but rather divine power, which filled and ruled the mind of the translator. Some, however, have thought that the Greek copies of the Septuagint version should be emended from the Hebrew copies; yet they did not dare to take away what the Hebrew lacked and the Septuagint had, but only added what was found in the Hebrew copies and was lacking in the Septuagint, and noted them by placing at the beginning of the verses certain marks in the form of stars which they call asterisks. And those things which the Hebrew copies have not, but the Septuagint have, they have in like manner marked at the beginning of the verses by horizontal spit-shaped marks like those by which we denote ounces; and many copies having these marks are circulated even in Latin. But we cannot, without inspecting both kinds of copies, find out those things which are neither omitted nor added, but expressed differently, whether they yield another meaning not in itself unsuitable, or can be shown to explain the same meaning in another way. If, then, as it behoves us, we behold nothing else in these Scriptures than what the Spirit of God has spoken through men, if anything is in the Hebrew copies and is not in the version of the Seventy, the Spirit of God did not choose to say it through them, but only through the prophets. But whatever is in the Septuagint and not in the Hebrew copies, the same Spirit chose rather to say through the latter, thus showing that both were prophets. For in that manner He spoke as He chose, some things through Isaiah, some through Jeremiah, some through several prophets, or else the same thing through this prophet and through that. Further, whatever is found in both editions, that one and the same Spirit willed to say through both, but so as that the former preceded in prophesying, and the latter followed in prophetically interpreting them; because, as the one Spirit of peace was in the former when they spoke true and concordant words, so the selfsame one Spirit hath appeared in the latter, when, without mutual conference they yet interpreted all things as if with one mouth.

> Latin: Nam cum fuerint et alii interpretes, qui ex Hebraea lingua in Graecam sacra illa eloquia transtulerunt, sicut Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion; sicut etiam illa est interpretatio, cuius auctor non apparet et ob hoc sine nomine interpretis quinta editio nuncupatur: hanc tamen, quae Septuaginta est, tamquam sola esset, sic recepit ecclesia, eaque utuntur Graeci populi Christiani, quorum plerique utrum alia sit aliqua ignorant. Ex hac Septuaginta interpretatione etiam in Latinam linguam interpretatum est, quod ecclesiae Latinae tenent; quamuis non defuerit temporibus nostris presbyter Hieronymus, homo doctissimus et omnium trium linguarum peritus. qui non ex Graeco, sed ex Hebraeo in Latinum eloquium easdem. scripturas conuerterit. Sed eius tam litteratum laborem quamuis Iudaei fateantur esse ueracem, septuaginta uero interpretes in multis errasse contendant: tamen ecclesiae Christi tot hominum auctoritati ab Eleazaro tunc pontifice ad hoc tantum opus electorum neminem iudicant praeferendum; quia, etsi non in eis unus apparuisset spiritus sine dubitatione diuinus, sed inter se uerba interpretationis suae septuaginta docti more hominum contulissent, ut, quod placuisset omnibus, hoc maneret, nullus eis unus interpres debuit anteponi; cum uero tantum in eis signum diuinitatis apparuerit, profecto quisquis alius illarum scripturarum ex Hebraea in quamlibet aliam linguam interpres est uerax, aut congruit illis septuaginta interpretibus, aut si non congruere uidetur, altitudo ibi prophetica esse credenda est. Spiritus enim, qui in prophetis erat, quando illa dixerunt, idem ipse erat etiam in septuaginta uiris, quando illa interpretati sunt; qui profecto auctoritate diuina et aliud dicere potuit, tamquam propheta ille utrumque dixisset, quia utrumque idem Spiritus diceret, et hoc ipsum aliter, ut, si non eadem uerba, idem tamen sensus bene intellegentibus dilucesceret, et aliquid praetermittere et aliquid addere, ut etiam hinc ostenderetur non humanam fuisse in illo opere seruitutem, quam uerbis debebat interpres, sed diuinam potius potestatem, quae mentem replebat et regebat interpretis. Nonnulli autem codices Graecos interpretationis Septuaginta ex Hebraeis codicibus emendandos putarunt; nec tamen ausi sunt detrahere, quod Hebraei non habebant et Septuaginta posuerunt; sed tantum modo addiderunt, quae in Hebraeis inuenta aput Septuaginta non erant, eaque signis quibusdam in stellarum modum factis ad capita eorundem uersuum notauerunt, quae signa asteriscos uocant. Illa uero, quae non habent Hebraei, habent autem Septuaginta. similiter ad capita uersuum iacentibus uirgulis, sicut scribuntur unciae, signauerunt. Et multi codices has notas habentes usquequaque diffusi sunt et Latini. Quae autem non praetermissa uel addita, sed aliter dicta sunt, siue alium sensum faciant etiam ipsum non abhorrentem, siue alio modo eundem sensum explicare monstrentur, nisi utrisque codicibus inspectis nequeunt reperiri. Si ergo, ut oportet, nihil aliud intueamur in scripturis illis. nisi quid per homines dixerit Dei Spiritus, quidquid est in Hebraeis codicibus et non est aput interpretes septuaginta, noluit ea per istos, sed per illos prophetas Dei Spiritus dicere. Quidquid uero est aput Septuaginta, in Hebraeis autem codicibus non est, per istos ea maluit quam per illos idem Spiritus dicere, sic ostendens utrosque fuisse prophetas. Isto enim modo alia per Esaiam, alia per Hieremiam, alia per alium aliumque prophetam uel aliter eadem per hunc ac per illum dixit. ut uoluit. Quidquid porro aput utrosque inuenitur, per utrosque dicere uoluit unus adque idem Spiritus; sed ita ut illi praecederent prophetando, isti sequerentur prophetice illos interpretando; quia sicut in illis uera et concordantia dicentibus unus pacis Spiritus fuit, sic et in istis non secum conferentibus et tamen tamquam ore uno cuncta interpretantibus idem Spiritus unus apparuit.

### How the Threat of the Destruction of the Ninevites is to Be Understood Which in the Hebrew Extends to Forty Days, While in the Septuagint It is Contracted to Three.

[¶23] Chapter 44.—How the Threat of the Destruction of the Ninevites is to Be Understood Which in the Hebrew Extends to Forty Days, While in the Septuagint It is Contracted to Three.

> Latin: Caput XLIV. Quid intellegendum sit deNineuitarum excidio. cuius denuntiatio in Hebraeo quadraginta dierum spatio tenditur, in Septuaginta autem tridui breuitate concluditur.

[¶24] But some one may say, “How shall I know whether the prophet Jonah said to the Ninevites, ‘Yet three days and Nineveh shall be overthrown,’ or forty days?” For who does not see that the prophet could not say both, when he was sent to terrify the city by the threat of imminent ruin? For if its destruction was to take place on the third day, it certainly could not be on the fortieth; but if on the fortieth, then certainly not on the third. If, then, I am asked which of these Jonah may have said, I rather think what is read in the Hebrew, “Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown.” Yet the Seventy, interpreting long afterward, could say what was different and yet pertinent to the matter, and agree in the self-same meaning, although under a different signification. And this may admonish the reader not to despise the authority of either, but to raise himself above the history, and search for those things which the history itself was written to set forth. These things, indeed, took place in the city of Nineveh, but they also signified something else too great to apply to that city; just as, when it happened that the prophet himself was three days in the whale’s belly, it signified besides, that He who is Lord of all the prophets should be three days in the depths of hell. Wherefore, if that city is rightly held as prophetically representing the Church of the Gentiles, to wit, as brought down by penitence, so as no longer to be what it had been, since this was done by Christ in the Church of the Gentiles, which Nineveh represented, Christ Himself was signified both by the forty and by the three days: by the forty, because He spent that number of days with His disciples after the resurrection, and then ascended into heaven, but by the three days, because He rose on the third day. So that, if the reader desires nothing else than to adhere to the history of events, he may be aroused from his sleep by the Septuagint interpreters, as well as the prophets, to search into the depth of the prophecy, as if they had said, In the forty days seek Him in whom thou mayest also find the three days,—the one thou wilt find in His ascension, the other in His resurrection. Because that which could be most suitably signified by both numbers, of which one is used by Jonah the prophet, the other by the prophecy of the Septuagint version, the one and self-same Spirit hath spoken. I dread prolixity, so that I must not demonstrate this by many instances in which the seventy interpreters may be thought to differ from the Hebrew, and yet, when well understood, are found to agree. For which reason I also, according to my capacity, following the footsteps of the apostles, who themselves have quoted prophetic testimonies from both, that is, from the Hebrew and the Septuagint, have thought that both should be used as authoritative, since both are one, and divine. But let us now follow out as we can what remains.

> Latin: Sed ait aliquis: lQuo modo sciam quid Ionas propheta dixerit Nineuitis, utrum: Triduum, et Nineue euertetur. an: Quadraginta dies? Quis enim non uideat non potuisse utrumque tunc dici a propheta, qui missus fuerat terrere comminatione inminenti exitii ciuitatem? Cui si tertio die fuerat futurus interitus, non utique quadragensimo die; si autem quadragensimo, non utique tertio. Si ergo a me quaeritur, quid horum Ionas dixerit, hoc puto potius quod legitur in Hebraeo: Quadraginta dies, et Nineue euertetur. Septuaginta -quinque longe posterius interpretati aliud dicere potuerunt, quod tamen ad rem pertineret et in unum eundemque sensum, quamuis sub altera significatione, concurreret, admoneretque lectorem utraque auctoritate non spreta ab historia sese adtollere ad ea requirenda, propter quae significanda historia ipsa conscripta est. Gesta sunt quippe illa in, Nineue ciuitate, sed aliquid etiam significauerunt, quod modum illius ciuitatis excedat; sicut gestum est, quod ipse propheta in uentre ceti triduo fuit, et tamen alium significauit in profundo inferni triduo futurum, qui dominus est omnium prophetarum. Quapropter si per illam ciuitatem recte accipitur ecclesia gentium prophetice figurata, euersa scilicet per paenitentiam, ut qualis fuerat iam non esset, hoc quoniam per Christum factum est in ecclesia gentium, cuius illa Nineue figuram gerebat, siue per quadraginta dies sine per triduum idem ipse significatus est Christus; per quadraginta scilicet, quia tot dies peregit cum discipulis suis post resurrectionem et adscendit in caelum; per triduum uero, quia die tertio resurrexit; tamquam lectorem nihil aliud quam historiae rerum gestarum inhaerere cupientem de somno excitauerint septuaginta interpretes idemque prophetae ad perscrutandam altitudinem prophetiae et quodam modo dixerint: lIn quadraginta diebus ipsum quaere, in quo et triduum potueris inuenire; illud in adscensione, hoc in eius resurrectione reperies.’ Propter quod utroque numero significari conuenientissime potuit, quorum unum per Ionam prophetam, alterum per septuaginta interpretum prophetiam, tamen unus adque idem Spiritus dixit. Longitudinem fugio, ut non haec per multa demonstrem, in quibus ab Hebraica ueritate putantur septuaginta interpretes discrepare et bene intellecti inueniuntur esse concordes. Unde etiam ego pro meo modulo uestigia sequens apostolorum, quia et ipsi ex utriusque, id est ex Hebraeis et ex Septuaginta, testimonia prophetica posuerunt, utraque auctoritate utendum putaui, quoniam utraque una adque diuina est. Sed iam quae restant, ut possumus, exsequamur.

## 93. That the Jews Ceased to Have Prophets After the Rebuilding of the Temple, and from that Time Until the Birth of Christ Were Afflicted with Continual Adversity, to Prove that the Building of Another Temple Had Been Promised by Prophetic Voices.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/93/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/93/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 45.—That the Jews Ceased to Have Prophets After the Rebuilding of the Temple, and from that Time Until the Birth of Christ Were Afflicted with Continual Adversity, to Prove that the Building of Another Temple Had Been Promised by Prophetic Voices.

> Latin: Caput XLV. Quod post instaurationem templi Iudaei prophetas habere destiterint et exinde usque ad natiuitatem Christi continuis aduersitatibus sint adflicti, ut probaretur alterius templi aedificationem propheticis uocibus fuisse promissam.

[¶1] The Jewish nation no doubt became worse after it ceased to have prophets, just at the very time when, on the rebuilding of the temple after the captivity in Babylon, it hoped to become better. For so, indeed, did that car nal people understand what was foretold by Haggai the prophet, saying, “The glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former.” Now, that this is said of the new testament, he showed a little above, where he says, evidently promising Christ, “And I will move all nations, and the desired One shall come to all nations.” In this passage the Septuagint translators giving another sense more suitable to the body than the Head, that is, to the Church than to Christ, have said by prophetic authority, “The things shall come that are chosen of the Lord from all nations,” that is, men, of whom Jesus saith in the Gospel, “Many are called, but few are chosen.” For by such chosen ones of the nations there is built, through the new testament, with living stones, a house of God far more glorious than that temple was which was constructed by king Solomon, and rebuilt after the captivity. For this reason, then, that nation had no prophets from that time, but was afflicted with many plagues by kings of alien race, and by the Romans themselves, lest they should fancy that this prophecy of Haggai was fulfilled by that rebuilding of the temple.

> Latin: Postea quam gens Iudaea coepit non habere prophetas, procul dubio deterior facta est, eo scilicet tempore, quo se sperabat instaurato templo post captiuitatem, quae fuit in Babylonia, futuram esse meliorem. Sic quippe intellegebat populus ille carnalis, quod praenuntiatum est per Aggaeuni prophetam dicentem: Magna erit gloria domus istius nouissimae, plus quam primae; quod de nouotestamento dictum esse paulo superius demonstrauit, ubi ait aperte Christum promittens: Et mouebo omnes gentes, et ueniet desideratus cunctis gentibus. Quo loco septuaginta interpretes alium sensum magis corpori quam capiti, hoc est magis ecclesiae quam Christo, conuenientem prophetica auctoritate dixerunt: Venient quae electa sunt Domini de cunctis gentibus, id est homines, de quibus ipse Iesus in euangelio: Multi, inquit, uocati, pauci uero electi. Talibus enim electis gentium domus aedificatur Dei per testamentum nouum lapidibus uiuis, longe gloriosior, quam templum illud fuit, quod a rege Salomone constructum est et post captiuitatem instauratum. Propter hoc ergo nec prophetas ex illo tempore habuit illa gens et multis cladibus adflicta est ab alienigenis regibus ipsisque Romanis, ne hanc Aggaei prophetiam in illa instauratione templi opinaretur inpletam.

[¶2] For not long after, on the arrival of Alexander, it was subdued, when, although there was no pillaging, because they dared not resist him, and thus, being very easily subdued, received him peaceably, yet the glory of that house was not so great as it was when under the free power of their own kings. Alexander, indeed, offered up sacrifices in the temple of God, not as a convert to His worship in true piety, but thinking, with impious folly, that He was to be worshipped along with false gods. Then Ptolemy son of Lagus, whom I have already mentioned, after Alexander’s death carried them captive into Egypt. His successor, Ptolemy Philadelphus, most benevolently dismissed them; and by him it was brought about, as I have narrated a little before, that we should have the Septuagint version of the Scriptures. Then they were crushed by the wars which are explained in the books of the Maccabees. Afterward they were taken captive by Ptolemy king of Alexandria, who was called Epiphanes. Then Antiochus king of Syria compelled them by many and most grievous evils to worship idols, and filled the temple itself with the sacrilegious superstitions of the Gentiles. Yet their most vigorous leader Judas, who is also called Maccabæus, after beating the generals of Antiochus, cleansed it from all that defilement of idolatry.

> Latin: Non multo post enim adueniente Alexandro subiugata est, quando etsi nulla est facta uastatio, quoniam non sunt ei ausi resistere et ideo placatum facillime subditi receperunt, non erat tamen gloria tanta domus illius, quanta fuit in suorum regum libera potestate. Hostias sane Alexander immolauit in Dei templo, non ad eius cultum uera pietate conuersus, sed inpia uanitate cum dis eum falsis colendum putans. Deinde Ptolomaeus, Lagi filius, quod supra memoraui, post Alexandri mortem captiuos inde in Aegyptum transtulit, quos eius successor Ptolomaeus Philadelphus beneuolentissime inde dimisit; per quem factum est, quod paulo ante narraui, ut septuaginta interpretum scripturas haberemus. Deinde contriti sunt bellis, quae in Macchabaeorum libris explicantur. Post haec capti a rege Alexandriae Ptolomaeo, qui est appellatus, Epiphanes; inde ab Antiocho rege Syriae multis et grauissimis malis ad idola colenda conpulsi, templumque ipsum repletum sacrilegis superstitionibus gentium. quod tamen dux eorum strenuissimus ludas, qui etiam Macchabaeus dictus est, Antiochi ducibus pulsis ab omni illa idolatriae contaminatione mundauit.

[¶3] But not long after, one Alcimus, although an alien from the sacerdotal tribe, was, through ambition, made pontiff, which was an impious thing. After almost fifty years, during which they never had peace, although they prospered in some affairs, Aristobulus first assumed the diadem among them, and was made both king and pontiff. Before that, indeed, from the time of their return from the Babylonish captivity and the rebuilding of the temple, they had not kings, but generals or principes. Although a king himself may be called a prince, from his principality in governing, and a leader, because he leads the army, but it does not follow that all who are princes and leaders may also be called kings, as that Aristobulus was. He was succeeded by Alexander, also both king and pontiff, who is reported to have reigned over them cruelly. After him his wife Alexandra was queen of the Jews, and from her time downwards more grievous evils pursued them; for this Alexandra’s sons, Aristobulus and Hyrcanus, when contending with each other for the kingdom, called in the Roman forces against the nation of Israel. For Hyrcanus asked assistance from them against his brother. At that time Rome had already subdued Africa and Greece, and ruled extensively in other parts of the world also, and yet, as if unable to bear her own weight, had, in a manner, broken herself by her own size. For indeed she had come to grave domestic seditions, and from that to social wars, and by and by to civil wars, and had enfeebled and worn herself out so much, that the changed state of the republic, in which she should be governed by kings, was now imminent. Pompey then, a most illustrious prince of the Roman people, having entered Judea with an army, took the city, threw open the temple, not with the devotion of a suppliant, but with the authority of a conqueror, and went, not reverently, but profanely, into the holy of holies, where it was lawful for none but the pontiff to enter. Having established Hyrcanus in the pontificate, and set Antipater over the subjugated nation as guardian or procurator, as they were then called, he led Aristobulus with him bound. From that time the Jews also began to be Roman tributaries. Afterward Cassius plundered the very temple. Then after a few years it was their desert to have Herod, a king of foreign birth, in whose reign Christ was born. For the time had now come signified by the prophetic Spirit through the mouth of the patriarch Jacob, when he says, “There shall not be lacking a prince out of Judah, nor a teacher from his loins, until He shall come for whom it is reserved; and He is the expectation of the nations.” There lacked not therefore a Jewish prince of the Jews until that Herod, who was the first king of a foreign race received by them. Therefore it was now the time when He should come for whom that was reserved which is promised in the New Testament, that He should be the expectation of the nations. But it was not possible that the nations should expect He would come, as we see they did, to do judgment in the splendor of power, unless they should first believe in Him when He came to suffer judgment in the humility of patience.

> Latin: Non autem multo post Alcimus quidam per ambitionem, cum a genere sacerdotali esset alienus, quod nefas erat, pontifex factus est. Hinc iam post annos ferme quinquaginta, in quibus eis tamen pax non fuit, quamuis aliqua et prospere gesserint, primus aput eos Aristobolus adsumto diademate et rex et pontifex factus est. Antea quippe, ex quo de Babyloniae captiuitate reuersi sunt templumque instauratum est, non reges, sed duces uel principes habuerunt; quamuis et qui rex est possit dici princeps a principatu imperandi et dux eo, quod sit ductor exercitus; sed non continuo, quicumque principes uel duces sunt, etiam reges dici possunt, quod iste Aristobolus fuit. Cui successit Alexander, etiam ipse rei et pontifex, qui crudeliter in suos regnasse traditur. Post hunc uxor eius Alexandra regina Iudaeorum fuit, ex cuius tempore deinceps mala sunt eos secuta grauiora. Filii quippe huius Alexandrae Aristobolus et Hyrcanus inter se de imperio dimicantes uires aduersus Israeliticam gentem prouocauere Romanas. Hyrcanus namque ab eis contra fratrem poposcit auxilium. Tunc iam Roma subiugauerat Africam, subiugauerat Graeciam lateque etiam aliis orbis partibus imperans, tamquam se ipsam non ualens ferre, sua se quodam modo magnitudine fregerat. Peruenerat quippe ad seditiones domesticas graues ? adque inde ad bella socialia moxque ciuilia, tantumque se commmuerat et adtriuerat, ut ei mutandus rei publicae status. quo regeretur regibus, inmineret. Pompeius ergo, populi Romani praeclarissimus princeps, Iudaeam cum exercitu ingressus ciuitatem capit, templum reserat, non deuotione supplicis, sed iure uictoris. et ad sancta sanctorum, quo nisi summum sacerdotem non licebat intrare, non ut uenerator, sed ut profanator accedit; confirmatoque Hyrcani pontificatu et subiugatae genti inposito custode Antipatro, quos tunc procuratores uocabant, uinctum secum Aristobolum ducit. Ex illo Iudaei etiam tributarii Romanorum esse coeperunt. Postea Cassius etiam templum exspoliauit. Deinde post paucos annos etiam Herodem alienigenam regem habere meruerunt, quo regnante natus est Christus. Iam enim uenerat plenitudo temporis significata prophetico spiritu per os patriarchae Iacob, ubi ait: Non deficiet princeps ex Iuda, neque dux de femoribus eius, donec ueniat cui repositum est, et ipse exspectatio gentium. Non ergo defuit Iudaeorum princeps ex Iudaeis usque ad istum Herodem, quem primum acceperunt alienigenam regem. Tempus ergo iam erat, ut ueniret ille, cui repositum erat, quod nouo promissum est testamento, ut ipse esset exspectatio gentium. Fieri autem non posset, ut exspectarent eum gentes uenturum, sicut eum cernimus exspectari, ut ueniat ad faciendum iudicium in claritate potentiae, nisi prius in eum crederent, cum uenit ad patiendum iudicium in humilitate patientiae.

### Of the Birth of Our Saviour, Whereby the Word Was Made Flesh; And of the Dispersion of the Jews Among All Nations, as Had Been Prophesied.

[¶5] Chapter 46.—Of the Birth of Our Saviour, Whereby the Word Was Made Flesh; And of the Dispersion of the Jews Among All Nations, as Had Been Prophesied.

> Latin: Caput XLVI. De ortu Saluatoris nostri, secundum quod Verbum caro factum est, et de dispersione Iudaeorum per omnes gentes, sicut fuerat prophetatum.

[¶6] While Herod, therefore, reigned in Judea, and Cæsar Augustus was emperor at Rome, the state of the republic being already changed, and the world being set at peace by him, Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judah, man manifest out of a human virgin, God hidden out of God the Father. For so had the prophet foretold: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and bring forth a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel, which, being interpreted, is, God with us.” He did many miracles that He might commend God in Himself, some of which, even as many as seemed sufficient to proclaim Him, are contained in the evangelic Scripture. The first of these is, that He was so wonderfully born, and the last, that with His body raised up again from the dead He ascended into heaven. But the Jews who slew Him, and would not believe in Him, because it behoved Him to die and rise again, were yet more miserably wasted by the Romans, and utterly rooted out from their kingdom, where aliens had already ruled over them, and were dispersed through the lands (so that indeed there is no place where they are not), and are thus by their own Scriptures a testimony to us that we have not forged the prophecies about Christ. And very many of them, considering this, even before His passion, but chiefly after His resurrection, believed on Him, of whom it was predicted, “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, the remnant shall be saved.” But the rest are blinded, of whom it was predicted, “Let their table be made before them a trap, and a retribution, and a stumbling-block. Let their eyes be darkened lest they see, and bow down their back alway.” Therefore, when they do not believe our Scriptures, their own, which they blindly read, are fulfilled in them, lest perchance any one should say that the Christians have forged these prophecies about Christ which are quoted under the name of the sibyl, or of others, if such there be, who do not belong to the Jewish people. For us, indeed, those suffice which are quoted from the books of our enemies, to whom we make our acknowledgment, on account of this testimony which, in spite of themselves, they contribute by their possession of these books, while they themselves are dispersed among all nations, wherever the Church of Christ is spread abroad. For a prophecy about this thing was sent before in the Psalms, which they also read, where it is written, “My God, His mercy shall prevent me. My God hath shown me concerning mine enemies, that Thou shalt not slay them, lest they should at last forget Thy law: disperse them in Thy might.” Therefore God has shown the Church in her enemies the Jews the grace of His compassion, since, as saith the apostle, “their offence is the salvation of the Gentiles.” And therefore He has not slain them, that is, He has not let the knowledge that they are Jews be lost in them, although they have been conquered by the Romans, lest they should forget the law of God, and their testimony should be of no avail in this matter of which we treat. But it was not enough that he should say, “Slay them not, lest they should at last forget Thy law,” unless he had also added, “Disperse them;” because if they had only been in their own land with that testimony of the Scriptures, and not every where, certainly the Church which is everywhere could not have had them as witnesses among all nations to the prophecies which were sent before concerning Christ.

> Latin: Regnante ergo Herode in Iudaea, aput Romanos autem iam mutato rei publicae statu imperante Caesare Augusto et per eum orbe pacato natus est Christus secundum praecedentem prophetiam in Bethleem Iudae, homo manifestus ex homine uirgine, Deus occultus ex Deo Patre. Sic enim propheta praedixerat: Ecce uirgo accipiet in utero et pariet filium, et uocabunt nomen eius Emmanuel, quod est interpretatum: Nobiscum Deus. Qui ut in se commendaret Deum, miracula multa fecit, ex quibus quaedam, quantum ad eum praedicandum satis esse uisum est, scriptura euangelica continet. Quorum primum est, quod tam mirabiliter natus est; ultimum autem, quod cum suo resuscitato a mortuis corpore adscendit in caelum. Iudaei autem, qui eum occiderunt et in eum credere noluerunt, quia oportebat eum mori et resurgere, uastati infelicius a Romanis funditusque a suo regno, ubi iam eis alienigenae dominabantur, eradicati dispersique per terras (quando quidem ubique non desunt) per scripturas suas testimonio nobis sunt prophetias nos non finxisse de Christo; quas plurimi eorum considerantes et ante passionem et maxime post eius resurrectionem crediderunt in eum, de quibus praedictum est: Si fuerit numerus filiorum Israel sicut harena maris, reliquiae saluae fient. Ceteri uero excaecati sunt, de quibus praedictum est: Fiat mensa eorum [coram ipsis] in laqueum et in retributionem et scandalum. Obscurentur oculi eorum, ne uideant; et dorsum illorum semper incurua. Proinde cum scripturis nostris non credunt, conplentur in eis suae, quas caeci legunt. Nisi forte quis dixerit illas prophetias Christianos finxisse de Christo, quae Sibyllae nomine proferuntur uel aliorum, si quae sunt, quae non pertinent ad populum Iudaeorum. Nobis quidem illae sufficrunt, quae de nostrorum inimicorum codicibus proferuntur, quos agnoscimus propter hoc testimonium, quod nobis inuiti perhibent eosdem codices habendo adque seruando, per omnes gentes etiam ipsos esse dispersos, quaqua uersum Christi ecclesia dilatatur. Nam prophetia in psalmis, quos legunt etiam, de hac re praemissa est, ubi scriptum est: Deus meus, misericordia eius praeueniet me; Deus meus demonstrauit mihi in inimicis meis, ne occideris eos, ne quando obliuiscantur legem tuam; disperge eos in uirtute tua. Demonstrauit ergo Deus ecclesiae in eius inimicis Iudaeis gratiam misericordiae suae, quoniam, sicut dicit apostolus, delictum illorum salus gentibus; et ideo non eos occidit, id est non in eis perdidit quod sunt Iudaei, quamuis a Romanis fuerint deuicti et obpressi, ne obliti legem Dei ad hoc, de quo agimus, testimonium nihil ualerent. Ideo parum fuit, ut diceret: Ne occideris eos, ne quando obliuiscantur legem tuam, nisi adderet etiam: Disperge eos; quoniam si cum isto testimonio scripturarum in sua tantummodo terra, non ubique essent, profecto ecclesia, quae ubique est, eos prophetiarum, quae de Christo praemissae sunt, testes in omnibus gentibus habere non posset.

### Whether Before Christian Times There Were Any Outside of the Israelite Race Who Belonged to the Fellowship of the Heavenly City.

[¶8] Chapter 47.—Whether Before Christian Times There Were Any Outside of the Israelite Race Who Belonged to the Fellowship of the Heavenly City.

> Latin: Caput XLVII. An ante tempora Christiana aliqui fuerint extra Israeliticum genus, qui ad caelestis ciuitatis consortium pertinerent.

[¶9] Wherefore if we read of any foreigner—that is, one neither born of Israel nor received by that people into the canon of the sacred books—having prophesied something about Christ, if it has come or shall come to our knowledge, we can refer to it over and above; not that this is necessary, even if wanting, but because it is not incongruous to believe that even in other nations there may have been men to whom this mystery was revealed, and who were also impelled to proclaim it, whether they were partakers of the same grace or had no experience of it, but were taught by bad angels, who, as we know, even confessed the present Christ, whom the Jews did not acknowledge. Nor do I think the Jews themselves dare contend that no one has belonged to God except the Israelites, since the increase of Israel began on the rejection of his elder brother. For in very deed there was no other people who were specially called the people of God; but they cannot deny that there have been certain men even of other nations who belonged, not by earthly but heavenly fellowship, to the true Israelites, the citizens of the country that is above. Because, if they deny this, they can be most easily confuted by the case of the holy and wonderful man Job, who was neither a native nor a proselyte, that is, a stranger joining the people of Israel, but, being bred of the Idumean race, arose there and died there too, and who is so praised by the divine oracle, that no man of his times is put on a level with him as regards justice and piety. And although we do not find his date in the chronicles, yet from his book, which for its merit the Israelites have received as of canonical authority, we gather that he was in the third generation after Israel. And I doubt not it was divinely provided, that from this one case we might know that among other nations also there might be men pertaining to the spiritual Jerusalem who have lived according to God and have pleased Him. And it is not to be supposed that this was granted to any one, unless the one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, was divinely revealed to him; who was pre-announced to the saints of old as yet to come in the flesh, even as He is announced to us as having come, that the self-same faith through Him may lead all to God who are predestinated to be the city of God, the house of God, and the temple of God. But whatever prophecies concerning the grace of God through Christ Jesus are quoted, they may be thought to have been forged by the Christians. So that there is nothing of more weight for confuting all sorts of aliens, if they contend about this matter, and for supporting our friends, if they are truly wise, than to quote those divine predictions about Christ which are written in the books of the Jews, who have been torn from their native abode and dispersed over the whole world in order to bear this testimony, so that the Church of Christ has everywhere increased.

> Latin: Quapropter quisquis alienigena, id est non ex Israel progenitus nec ab illo populo in canonem sacrarum litterarum receptus, legitur aliquid prophetasse de Christo, si in nostram notitiam uenit aut uenerit, ad cumulum a nobis commemorari potest; non quo necessarius sit, etiamsi desit, sed quia non incongrue creditur fuisse et in aliis gentibus homines, quibus hoc mysterium. reuelatum est, et qui haec etiam praedicere inpulsi sunt, siue participes eiusdem gratiae fuerint siue expertes, sed per malos angelos docti sunt. quos etiam prae- ‘sentem Christum, quem Iudaei non agnoscebant, scimus fuisse confessos. Nec ipsos Iudaeos existimo audere contendere neminem pertinuisse ad Deum praeter Israelitas, ex quo propago Israel esse coepit, reprobato eius fratre maiore. Populus enim re uera, qui proprie Dei populus diceretur. nullus alius fuit; homines autem quosdam non terrena, sed caelesti societate ad ueros Israelitas supernae ciues patriae pertinentes etiam in aliis gentibus fuisse negare non possunt: quia si negant, facillime conuincuntur de sancto et mirabili uiro Iob, qui nec indigena nec proselytus, id est aduena populi Israel fuit, sed ex gente Idumaea genus ducens, ibi ortus, ibidem mortuus est; qui diuino sic laudatur eloquio, ut, quod ad iustitiam pietatemque adtinet, nullus ei homo suorum temporum coaequetur. Quae tempora eius quamuis non inueniamus in Chronicis, colligimus tamen ex libro eius, quem pro sui merito Israelitae in auctoritatem canonicam receperunt, tertia generatione posteriorem fuisse quam Israel. Diuinitus autem prouisum fuisse non dubito, ut ex hoc uno sciremus etiam per alias gentes esse potuisse, qui secundum Deum uixerunt eique placuerunt, pertinentes ad spiritalem Hierusalem. Quod nemini concessum fuisse credendum est. nisi cui diuinitus reuelatus est unus mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus, qui uenturus in carne sic antiquis sanetis praenuntiabatur, quem ad modum nobis uenisse nuntiatus est, ut una eademque per ipsum fides omnes in Dei ciuitatem, Dei domum, Dei templum praedestinatos perducat ad Deum. Sed quaecumque aliorum prophetiae de Dei per legum Christum gratia proferuntur, possunt putari a Christianis esse confictae. Ideo nihil est firmius ad conuincendos quoslibet alienos, si de hac re contenderint, nostrosque faciendos, si recte sapuerint, quam ut diuina praedicta de Christo ea proferantur, quae in Iudaeorum codicibus scripta sunt; quibus auulsis de sedibus propriis et propter hoc testimonium toto orbe dispersis Christi usquequaque creuit ecclesia.

### That Haggai’s Prophecy, in Which He Said that the Glory of the House of God Would Be Greater Than that of the First Had Been, Was Really Fulfilled, Not in the Rebuilding of the Temple, But in the Church of Christ.

[¶11] Chapter 48.—That Haggai’s Prophecy, in Which He Said that the Glory of the House of God Would Be Greater Than that of the First Had Been, Was Really Fulfilled, Not in the Rebuilding of the Temple, But in the Church of Christ.

> Latin: Caput XLVIII. Prophetiam Aggaei, qua dixit maiorem futuram gloriam domus Dei, quam primum fuisset, non in reaedificatione templi, sed in ecclesia Christi esse conpletam.

[¶12] This house of God is more glorious than that first one which was constructed of wood and stone, metals and other precious things. Therefore the prophecy of Haggai was not fulfilled in the rebuilding of that temple. For it can never be shown to have had so much glory after it was rebuilt as it had in the time of Solomon; yea, rather, the glory of that house is shown to have been diminished, first by the ceasing of prophecy, and then by the nation itself suffering so great calamities, even to the final destruction made by the Romans, as the things above-mentioned prove. But this house which pertains to the new testament is just as much more glorious as the living stones, even believing, renewed men, of which it is constructed are better. But it was typified by the rebuilding of that temple for this reason, because the very renovation of that edifice typifies in the prophetic oracle another testament which is called the new. When, therefore, God said by the prophet just named, “And I will give peace in this place,” He is to be understood who is typified by that typical place; for since by that rebuilt place is typified the Church which was to be built by Christ, nothing else can be accepted as the meaning of the saying, “I will give peace in this place,” except I will give peace in the place which that place signifies. For all typical things seem in some way to personate those whom they typify, as it is said by the apostle, “That Rock was Christ.” Therefore the glory of this new testament house is greater than the glory of the old testament house; and it will show itself as greater when it shall be dedicated. For then “shall come the desired of all nations,” as we read in the Hebrew. For before His advent He had not yet been desired by all nations. For they knew not Him whom they ought to desire, in whom they had not believed. Then, also, according to the Septuagint interpretation (for it also is a prophetic meaning), “shall come those who are elected of the Lord out of all nations.” For then indeed there shall come only those who are elected, whereof the apostle saith, “According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world.” For the Master Builder who said, “Many are called, but few are chosen,” did not say this of those who, on being called, came in such a way as to be cast out from the feast, but would point out the house built up of the elect, which henceforth shall dread no ruin. Yet because the churches are also full of those who shall be separated by the winnowing as in the threshing-floor, the glory of this house is not so apparent now as it shall be when every one who is there shall be there always.

> Latin: Haec domus Dei maioris est gloriae, quam fuerat illa prima lignis et lapidibus ceterisque pretiosis rebus metallisque constructa. Non itaque Aggaei prophetia in templi illius instauratione conpleta est. Ex quo enim est instauratum, numquam ostenditur habuisse tantam gloriam, quantam habuit tempore Salomonis; immo potius ostenditur primum cessatione prophetiae fuisse domus illius gloriam diminutam, deinde ipsius gentis cladibus tantis usque ad ultimum excidium, quod factum est a Romanis, sicut ea, quae supra sunt commemorata testantur. Haec autem domus ad nouum pertinens testamentum tanto utique maioris est gloriae, quanto meliores sunt lapides uiui, quibus credentibus renouatisque construitur. Sed ideo per instaurationem templi illius significata est, quia ipsa renouatio illius aedificii significat eloquio prophetico alterum testamentum, quod appellatur nouum. Quod ergo Deus dixit per memoratum prophetam: Et dabo pacem in loco isto, per significantem locum ille, qui eo significatur, intellegendus est; ut, quia illo loco instaurato significata est ecclesia, quae fuerat aedificanda per Christum, nihil aliud accipiatur, quod dictum est: Dabo pacem in loco isto, nisi dabo pacem in loco, quem significat locus iste). Quoniam omnia significantia uidentur quodam modo earum rerum, quas significant, sustinere personas; sicut dictum est ab apostolo: Petra erat Christus, quoniam petra illa, de qua hoc dictum est, significabat utique Christum. Maior est itaque gloria domus huius noui testamenti quam domus prioris ueteris testamenti, et tunc apparebit maior cum dedicabitur. Tunc enim ueniet desideratus cunctis gentibus, sicut legitur in Hebraeo. Nam primus eius aduentus nondum erat desideratus omnibus gentibus. Non enim quem deberent desiderare sciebant, in quem non crediderant. Tunc etiam secundum septuaginta interpretes (quia et ipse propheticus sensus est) uenient quae electa sunt Domini de cunctis gentibus. Tunc enim uere non uenient nisi electa, de quibus dicit apostolus: Sicut elegit nos in ipso ante mundi constitutionem. Ipse quippe architectus, qui dixit: Multi uocati, pauci uero electi, non de his, qui uocati sic uenerunt, ut de conuiuio proicerentur, sed de electis demonstraturus eat aedificatam domum, quae nullam ruinam deinceps formidabit. Nunc autem, quando et hi replent ecclesias, quos tamquam in area uentilatio separabit, non apparet tanta gloria domus huius, quanta tunc apparebit, quando, quisquis ibi erit, semper erit.

### Of the Indiscriminate Increase of the Church, Wherein Many Reprobate are in This World Mixed with the Elect.

[¶14] Chapter 49.—Of the Indiscriminate Increase of the Church, Wherein Many Reprobate are in This World Mixed with the Elect.

> Latin: Caput XLIX. De indiscreta multiplicatione ecclesiae, qua in hoc saeculo multi reprobi miscentur electis.

[¶15] In this wicked world, in these evil days, when the Church measures her future loftiness by her present humility, and is exercised by goading fears, tormenting sorrows, disquieting labors, and dangerous temptations, when she soberly rejoices, rejoicing only in hope, there are many reprobate mingled with the good, and both are gathered together by the gospel as in a drag net; and in this world, as in a sea, both swim enclosed without distinction in the net, until it is brought ashore, when the wicked must be separated from the good, that in the good, as in His temple, God may be all in all. We acknowledge, indeed, that His word is now fulfilled who spake in the psalm, and said, “I have announced and spoken; they are multiplied above number.” This takes place now, since He has spoken, first by the mouth of his forerunner John, and afterward by His own mouth, saying, “Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” He chose disciples, whom He also called apostles, of lowly birth, unhonored, and illiterate, so that whatever great thing they might be or do, He might be and do it in them. He had one among them whose wickedness He could use well in order to accomplish His appointed passion, and furnish His Church an example of bearing with the wicked. Having sown the holy gospel as much as that behoved to be done by His bodily presence, He suffered, died, and rose again, showing by His passion what we ought to suffer for the truth, and by His resurrection what we ought to hope for in adversity; saving always the mystery of the sacrament, by which His blood was shed for the remission of sins. He held converse on the earth forty days with His disciples, and in their sight ascended into heaven, and after ten days sent the promised Holy Spirit. It was given as the chief and most necessary sign of His coming on those who had believed, that every one of them spoke in the tongues of all nations; thus signifying that the unity of the catholic Church would embrace all nations, and would in like manner speak in all tongues.

> Latin: In hoc ergo saeculo maligno, in his diebus malis, ubi per humilitatem praesentem futuram conparat ecclesia celsitudinem et timorum stimulis, dolorum tormentis, laborum molestiis, tentationum periculis eruditur, sola spe gaudens, quando sanum gaudet, multi reprobi miscentur bonis et utrique tamquam in sagenam euangelicam colliguntur et in hoc mundo tamquam in mari utrique inclusi retibus indiscrete natant, donec perueniatur ad litus, ubi mali segregentur a bonis, et in bonis tamquam in templo suo sit Deus omnia in omnibus. Proinde uocem nunc agnoscimus eius inpleri, qui loquebatur in psalmo adque dicebat: Adnuntiaui et locutus sum, multiplicati sunt super numerum. Hoc fit nunc, ex quo primum per os praecursoris sui Iohannis, deinde per os proprium adnuntiauit et locutus est dicens: Agite paenitentiam, adpropinquauit enim regnum caelorum. Elegit discipulos, quos et apostolos nominauit, humiliter natos, inhonoratos, inlitteratos, ut, quidquid magnum essent et facerent, ipse in eis esset et faceret. Habuit inter eos unum, quo malo utens bene et suae passionis inpleret dispositum et ecclesiae suae tolerandorum malorum praeberet exemplum. Seminato, quantum per eius oportebat praesentiam corporalem, sancto euangelio passus est, mortuus est, resurrexit, passione ostendens quid sustinere pro ueritate, resurrectione quid sperare in aeternitate debeamus, excepta altitudine sacramenti, qua sanguis eius in remissionem fusus est peccatorum. Conuersatus est in teiTa quadraginta dies cum discipulis suis adque ipsis uidentibus adscendit in caelum et post dies decem misit promissum Spiritum sanctum; cuius ueni. entis in eos qui crediderant tunc signum erat maximum et maxime necessarium, ut unusquisque eorum linguis omnium gentium loqueretur; ita significans unitatem catholicae ecclesiae per omnes gentes futuram ac sic linguis omnibus locuturam.

### Of the Preaching of the Gospel, Which is Made More Famous and Powerful by the Sufferings of Its Preachers.

[¶17] Chapter 50.—Of the Preaching of the Gospel, Which is Made More Famous and Powerful by the Sufferings of Its Preachers.

> Latin: Caput L. De praedicatione euangelii, quae per passiones praedicantium clarior et potentior facta est.

[¶18] Then was fulfilled that prophecy, “Out of Sion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem;” and the prediction of the Lord Christ Himself, when, after the resurrection, “He opened the understanding” of His amazed disciples “that they might understand the Scriptures, and said unto them, that thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” And again, when, in reply to their questioning about the day of His last coming, He said, “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father hath put in His own power; but ye shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even unto the ends of the earth.” First of all, the Church spread herself abroad from Jerusalem; and when very many in Judea and Samaria had believed, she also went into other nations by those who announced the gospel, whom, as lights, He Himself had both prepared by His word and kindled by His Holy Spirit. For He had said to them, “Fear ye not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul.” And that they might not be frozen with fear, they burned with the fire of charity. Finally, the gospel of Christ was preached in the whole world, not only by those who had seen and heard Him both before His passion and after His resurrection, but also after their death by their successors, amid the horrible persecutions, diverse torments and deaths of the martyrs, God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost, that the people of the nations, believing in Him who was crucified for their redemption, might venerate with Christian love the blood of the martyrs which they had poured forth with devilish fury, and the very kings by whose laws the Church had been laid waste might become profitably subject to that name they had cruelly striven to take away from the earth, and might begin to persecute the false gods for whose sake the worshippers of the true God had formerly been persecuted.

> Latin: Deinde secundum illam prophetiam: Ex Sion lex prodiet et uerbum Domini ex Hierusalem, et secundum ipsius Domini Christi praedicta, ubi post resurrectionem stupentibus eum discipulis suis aperuit sensum, ut intellegerent scripturas, et dixit eis, quoniam sic scriptum est, et sic oportebat Christum pati et resurgere a mortuis tertio die et praedicari in nomine eius paenitentiam et remissionem peccatorum per omnes gentes, incipientibus ab Hierusalem, et ubi rursus eis de aduentu eius nouissimo requirentibus respondit adque ait: Non est uestrum scire tempora quae Pater posuit in sua potestate; sed accipietis uirtutem Spiritus sancti superuenientem in uos, et eritis mihi testes in Hierusalem et in totam Iudaeam et Samariam et usque in fines terrae, primum se ab Hierusalem diffudit ecclesia, et cum in Iudaea adque Samaria plurimi credidissent, et in alias gentes itum est, eis adnuntiantibus euangelium, quos ipse sicut luminaria et aptauerat uerbo et accenderat Spiritu sancto. Dixerat enim eis: Nolite timere eos, qui corpus occidunt, animam autem non possunt occidere. Qui ut frigidi timore non essent, igne caritatis ardebant. Denique non solum per ipsos, qui eum et ante passionem et post resurrectionem uiderant et audierant, uerum etiam post obitum eorum per posteros eorum inter horrendas persecutiones et uarios cruciatus ac funera martyrum praedicatum est toto orbe euangelium, contestante Deo signis et ostentis et uariis uirtutibus et Spiritus sancti muneribus; ut populi gentium credentes in eum, qui pro eorum redemtione crucifixus est, Christiano amore uenerarentur sanguinem martyrum, quem diabolico furore fuderunt, ipsique reges, quorum legibus uastabatur ecclesia, ei nomini salubriter subderentur, quod de terra crudeliter auferre conati sunt, et falsos deos inciperent persequi, quorum causa cultores Dei ueri fuerant antea persecuti.

### That the Catholic Faith May Be Confirmed Even by the Dissensions of the Heretics.

[¶20] Chapter 51.—That the Catholic Faith May Be Confirmed Even by the Dissensions of the Heretics.

> Latin: Caput LI. Quod etiam per haereticorum dissensiones fides catholica roboretur.

[¶21] But the devil, seeing the temples of the demons deserted, and the human race running to the name of the liberating Mediator, has moved the heretics under the Christian name to resist the Christian doctrine, as if they could be kept in the city of God indifferently without any correction, just as the city of confusion indifferently held the philosophers who were of diverse and adverse opinions. Those, therefore, in the Church of Christ who savor anything morbid and depraved, and, on being corrected that they may savor what is wholesome and right, contumaciously resist, and will not amend their pestiferous and deadly dogmas, but persist in defending them, become heretics, and, going without, are to be reckoned as enemies who serve for her discipline. For even thus they profit by their wickedness those true catholic members of Christ, since God makes a good use even of the wicked, and all things work together for good to them that love Him. For all the enemies of the Church, whatever error blinds or malice depraves them, exercise her patience if they receive the power to afflict her corporally; and if they only oppose her by wicked thought, they exercise her wisdom: but at the same time, if these enemies are loved, they exercise her benevolence, or even her beneficence, whether she deals with them by persuasive doctrine or by terrible discipline. And thus the devil, the prince of the impious city, when he stirs up his own vessels against the city of God that sojourns in this world, is permitted to do her no harm. For without doubt the divine providence procures for her both consolation through prosperity, that she may not be broken by adversity, and trial through adversity, that she may not be corrupted by prosperity; and thus each is tempered by the other, as we recognize in the Psalms that voice which arises from no other cause, “According to the multitude of my griefs in my heart, Thy consolations have delighted my soul.” Hence also is that saying of the apostle, “Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation.”

> Latin: Videns autem diabolus templa daemonum deseri et in nomen liberantis Mediatoris currere genus humanum, haereticos mouit, qui sub uocabulo Christiano doctrinae resisterent Christianae, quasi possent indifferenter sine ulla correptione haberi in ciuitate Dei, sicut ciuitas confusionis indifferenter habuit philosophos inter se diuersa et aduersa sentientes. Qui ergo in ecclesia Christi morbidum aliquid prauumque sapiunt, si correpti, ut sanum rectumque sapiant, resistunt contumaciter suaque pestifera et mortifera dogmata emendare nolunt, sed defensare persistunt, haeretici fiunt et foras exeuntes habentur in exercentibus inimicis. Etiam sic quippe ueris illis catholicis membris Christi malo suo prosunt, dum Deus utitur et malis bene et diligentibus eum omnia cooperantur in bonum. Inimici enim omnes ecclesiae, quolibet errore caecentur uel malitia deprauentur, si accipiunt potestatem corporaliter adfligendi, exercent eius patientiam; si tantummodo male sentiendo aduersantur, exercent eius sapientiam; ut autem etiam inimici diligantur, exercent eius beneuolentiam aut etiam beneficentiam, siue suadibili doctrina cum eis agatur siue terribili disciplina. Ac per hoc diabolus princeps inpiae ciuitatis aduersus peregrinantem in hoc mundo ciuitatem Dei uasa propria commouendo nihil ei nocere permittitur, cui procul dubio et rebus prosperis consolatio, ut non frangatur aduersis, et rebus aduersis exercitatio, ut non corrumpatur prosperis, per diuinam prouidentiam procuratur, adque ita temperatur utrumque ab alterutro. ut in psalmo illam uocem non aliunde agnoscamus exortam: Secundum multitudinem dolorum meorum in corde meo consolationes tuae iucundauerunt animam meam. Hinc est et illud apostoli: Spe gaudentes, in tribulatione patientes.

[¶22] For it is not to be thought that what the same teacher says can at any time fail, “Whoever will live piously in Christ shall suffer persecution.” Because even when those who are without do not rage, and thus there seems to be, and really is, tranquillity, which brings very much consolation, especially to the weak, yet there are not wanting, yea, there are many within who by their abandoned manners torment the hearts of those who live piously, since by them the Christian and catholic name is blasphemed; and the dearer that name is to those who will live piously in Christ, the more do they grieve that through the wicked, who have a place within, it comes to be less loved than pious minds desire. The heretics themselves also, since they are thought to have the Christian name and sacraments, Scriptures, and profession, cause great grief in the hearts of the pious, both because many who wish to be Christians are compelled by their dissensions to hesitate, and many evil-speakers also find in them matter for blaspheming the Christian name, because they too are at any rate called Christians. By these and similar depraved manners and errors of men, those who will live piously in Christ suffer persecution, even when no one molests or vexes their body; for they suffer this persecution, not in their bodies, but in their hearts. Whence is that word, “According to the multitude of my griefs in my heart;” for he does not say, in my body. Yet, on the other hand, none of them can perish, because the immutable divine promises are thought of. And because the apostle says, “The Lord knoweth them that are His; for whom He did foreknow, He also predestinated [to be] conformed to the image of His Son,” none of them can perish; therefore it follows in that psalm, “Thy consolations have delighted my soul.” But that grief which arises in the hearts of the pious, who are persecuted by the manners of bad or false Christians, is profitable to the sufferers, because it proceeds from the charity in which they do not wish them either to perish or to hinder the salvation of others. Finally, great consolations grow out of their chastisement, which imbue the souls of the pious with a fecundity as great as the pains with which they were troubled concerning their own perdition. Thus in this world, in these evil days, not only from the time of the bodily presence of Christ and His apostles, but even from that of Abel, whom first his wicked brother slew because he was righteous, and thenceforth even to the end of this world, the Church has gone forward on pilgrimage amid the persecutions of the world and the consolations of God.

> Latin: Nam et id, quod ait idem doctor: Quicumque uolunt in Christo pie uiuere, persecutionem patiuntur, nullis putandum est deesse posse temporibus. Quia et cum ab eis, qui foris sunt, non saeuientibus uidetur esse tranquillitas et re uera est plurimumque consolationis adfert, maxime infirmis: non tamen desunt, immo multi sunt intus, qui corda pie uiuentium suis perditis moribus cruciant; quoniam per eos blasphematur Christianum et catholicum nomen; quod quanto est carius eis, qui uolunt pie uiuere in Christo, tanto magis dolent, quod per malos intus positos fit, ut minus, quam piorum mentes desiderant, diligatur. Ipsi quoque haeretici, cum cogitantur habere nomen et sacramenta Christiana et scripturas et professionem, magnum dolorem faciunt in cordibus piorum; quia et multi uolentes esse Christiani propter eorum dissensiones haesitare coguntur et multi maledici etiam in his inueniunt materiam blasphemandi Christianum nomen, quia et ipsi quoquo modo Christiani appellantur. His adque huius modi prauis moribus et erroribus hominum persecutionem patiuntur, qui uolunt in Christo pie uiuere, etiam nullo infestante neque uexante corpus illorum. Patiuntur quippe hanc persecutionem non in corporibus, sed in cordibus. Unde illa uox est: Secundum multitudinem dolorum meorum in corde meo. Non enim ait: (In corpore meo. Sed rursus quoniam cogitantur inmutabilia diuina promissa, et quod ait apostolus: Nouit Dominus qui sunt eius (quos enim praesciuit et praedestinauit conformes imaginis filii sui, ex eis perire nullus potest): ideo sequitur in illo psalmo: Consolationes tuae iucundauerunt animam meam. Dolor autem ipse, qui fit in cordibus piorum, quos persequuntur mores Christianorum malorum siue falsorum, prodest dolentibus, quoniam de caritate descendit, qua eos perire nolunt nec inpedire aliorum salutem. Denique magnae consolationes fiunt etiam de correctionibus eorum, quae piorum animas tanta iucunditate perfundunt, quantis doloribus de sua perditione cruciauerunt. Sic in hoc saeculo, in his diebus malis non solum a tempore corporalis praesentiae Christi et apostolorum eius, sed ab ipso Abel, quem primum iustum inpius frater occidit, et deinceps usque in huius saeculi finem inter persecutiones mundi et consolationes Dei peregrinando procurrit ecclesia.

## 94. Whether We Should Believe What Some Think, That, as the Ten Persecutions Which are Past Have Been Fulfilled, There Remains No Other Beyond the Eleventh, Which Must Happen in the Very Time of Antichrist.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/94/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/94/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 52.—Whether We Should Believe What Some Think, That, as the Ten Persecutions Which are Past Have Been Fulfilled, There Remains No Other Beyond the Eleventh, Which Must Happen in the Very Time of Antichrist.

> Latin: Caput LII. An credendum sit, quod quidam putant, inpletis decem persecutionibus, quae fuerunt, nullam iam superesse praeter undecimam, quae in ipso Antichristi tempore sit futura.

[¶1] I do not think, indeed, that what some have thought or may think is rashly said or believed, that until the time of Antichrist the Church of Christ is not to suffer any persecutions besides those she has already suffered,—that is, ten,—and that the eleventh and last shall be inflicted by Antichrist. They reckon as the first that made by Nero, the second by Domitian, the third by Trajan, the fourth by Antoninus, the fifth by Severus, the sixth by Maximin, the seventh by Decius, the eighth by Valerian, the ninth by Aurelian, the tenth by Diocletian and Maximian. For as there were ten plagues in Egypt before the people of God could begin to go out, they think this is to be referred to as showing that the last persecution by Antichrist must be like the eleventh plague, in which the Egyptians, while following the Hebrews with hostility, perished in the Red Sea when the people of God passed through on dry land. Yet I do not think persecutions were prophetically signified by what was done in Egypt, however nicely and ingeniously those who think so may seem to have compared the two in detail, not by the prophetic Spirit, but by the conjecture of the human mind, which sometimes hits the truth, and sometimes is deceived. But what can those who think this say of the persecution in which the Lord Himself was crucified? In which number will they put it? And if they think the reckoning is to be made exclusive of this one, as if those must be counted which pertain to the body, and not that in which the Head Himself was set upon and slain, what can they make of that one which, after Christ ascended into heaven, took place in Jerusalem, when the blessed Stephen was stoned; when James the brother of John was slaughtered with the sword; when the Apostle Peter was imprisoned to be killed, and was set free by the angel; when the brethren were driven away and scattered from Jerusalem; when Saul, who afterward became the Apostle Paul, wasted the Church; and when he himself, publishing the glad tidings of the faith he had persecuted, suffered such things as he had inflicted, either from the Jews or from other nations, where he most fervently preached Christ everywhere? Why, then, do they think fit to start with Nero, when the Church in her growth had reached the times of Nero amid the most cruel persecutions; about which it would be too long to say anything? But if they think that only the persecutions made by kings ought to be reckoned, it was king Herod who also made a most grievous one after the ascension of the Lord. And what account do they give of Julian, whom they do not number in the ten? Did not he persecute the Church, who forbade the Christians to teach or learn liberal letters? Under him the elder Valentinian, who was the third emperor after him, stood forth as a confessor of the Christian faith, and was dismissed from his command in the army. I shall say nothing of what he did at Antioch, except to mention his being struck with wonder at the freedom and cheerfulness of one most faithful and steadfast young man, who, when many were seized to be tortured, was tortured during a whole day, and sang under the instrument of torture, until the emperor feared lest he should succumb under the continued cruelties and put him to shame at last, which made him dread and fear that he would be yet more dishonorably put to the blush by the rest. Lastly, within our own recollection, did not Valens the Arian, brother of the foresaid Valentinian, waste the catholic Church by great persecution throughout the East? But how unreasonable it is not to consider that the Church, which bears fruit and grows through the whole world, may suffer persecution from kings in some nations even when she does not suffer it in others! Perhaps, however, it was not to be reckoned a persecution when the king of the Goths, in Gothia itself, persecuted the Christians with wonderful cruelty, when there were none but catholics there, of whom very many were crowned with martyrdom, as we have heard from certain brethren who had been there at that time as boys, and unhesitatingly called to mind that they had seen these things? And what took place in Persia of late? Was not persecution so hot against the Christians (if even yet it is allayed) that some of the fugitives from it came even to Roman towns? When I think of these and the like things, it does not seem to me that the number of persecutions with which the Church is to be tried can be definitely stated. But, on the other hand, it is no less rash to affirm that there will be some persecutions by kings besides that last one, about which no Christian is in doubt. Therefore we leave this undecided, supporting or refuting neither side of this question, but only restraining men from the audacious presumption of affirming either of them.

> Latin: Proinde ne illud quidem temere puto esse dicendum siue credendum, quod nonnullis uisum est uel uidetur, non amplius ecclesiam passuram persecutiones usque ad tempus Antichristi. quam quot iam passa est, id est decem, ut undecima eademque nouissima sit ab Antichristo. Primam quippe conputant a Nerone quae facta est, secundam a Domitiano, a Traiano tertiam, quartam ab Antonino, a Seuero quintam, sextam a Maximino, a Decio septimam, octauam a Valeriano, ab Aureliano nonam, decimam a Diocletiano et Maximiano. Plagas enim Aegyptiorum, quoniam decem fuerunt, antequam exire inde inciperet populus Dei, putant ad hunc intellectum esse referendas, ut nouissima Antichristi persecutio similis uideatur undecimae plagae, qua Aegyptii, dum hostiliter sequerentur Hebraeos, in mari Rubro populo Dei per siccum transeunte perierunt. Sed ego illa re gesta in Aegypto istas persecutiones prophetice significatas esse non arbitror; quamuis ab eis. qui hoc putant, exquisite et ingeniose illa singula his singulis conpai-ata uideantur, non prophetico spiritu, sed coniectura mentis humanae, quae aliquando ad uerum peruenit, aliquando fallitur. Quid enim, qui hoc sentiunt, dicturi sunt de persecutione, qua ipse Dominus crucifixus est? in quo eam numero posituri? Si autem hac excepta existimant conputandum, tamquam illae numerandae sint, quae ad corpus pertinent, non qua ipsum caput est adpetitum et occisum: quid agent de illa. quae, postea quam Christus adscendit in caelum, Hierosolymis facta est, ubi beatus Stephanus lapidatus est, ubi Iacobus frater Iohannis gladio trucidatus, ubi apostolus Petrus ut occideretur inclusus et per angelum liberatus, ubi fugati adque dispersi de Hierosolymis fratres, ubi Saulus, qui postea Paulus apostolus factus est, uastabat ecclesiam, ubi ipse quoque iam fidem, quam persequebatur, euangelizans, qualia faciebat, est passus, siue per Iudaeam siue per alias gentes, quacumque Christum feruentissimus praedicabat? Quur ergo eis a Nerone uidetur ordiendum, cum ad Neronis tempora inter atrocissimas persecutiones, de quibus nimis longum est cuncta dicere, ecclesia crescendo peruenerit? Quod si a regibus factas persecutiones in numero existimant esse debere: rex fuit Herodes, qui etiam post adscensum Domini grauissimam fecit. Deinde quid respondent etiam de Iuliano, quem non numerant in decem? An ipse non est ecclesiam persecutus, qui Christianos liberales litteras docere ac discere uetuit? Sub quo Valentinianus maior, qui post eum tertius imperator fuit, fidei Christianae confessor exstitit militiaque priuatus est; ut omittam quae aput Antiochiam facere coeperat, nisi unius fidelissimi et constantissimi iuuenis, qui multis, ut torquerentur, adprehensis per totum diem primus est tortus, inter ungulas cruciatusque psallentis libertatem adque hilaritatem miratus horruisset et in ceteris deformius erubescere timuisset. Postremo nostra memoria Valens, supradicti Valentiniani frater, Arianus, nonne magna persecutione per Orientis partes catholicam uastauit ecclesiam? Quale est autem, non considerare ecclesiam per totum mundum fructificantem adque crescentem posse in aliquibus gentibus persecutionem pati a regibus, et quando in aliis non patitur? Nisi forte non est persecutio conputanda, quando rex Gothorum in ipsa Gothia persecutus est Christianos crudelitate mirabili, cum ibi non essent nisi catholici, quorum plurimi martyrio coronati sunt, sicut a quibusdam fratribus, qui tunc illic pueri fuerant et se ista uidisse incunctanter recordabantur, audiuimus? Quid modo in Perside? Nonne ita in Christianos ferbuit persecutio (si tamen iam quieuit), ut fugientes inde nonnulli usque ad Romana oppida peruenerint? Haec adque huius modi mihi cogitanti non uidetur esse definiendus numerus persecutionum, quibus exerceri oportet ecclesiam. Sed rursus adfirmare aliquas futuras a regibus praeter illam nouissimam, de qua nullus ambigit Christianus, non minoris est temeritatis. Itaque hoc in medio relinquimus neutram partem quaestionis huius adstruentes siue destruentes, sed tantummodo ab adfirmandi quodlibet horum audaci praesumtione reuocantes.

### Of the Hidden Time of the Final Persecution.

[¶3] Chapter 53.—Of the Hidden Time of the Final Persecution.

> Latin: Caput LIII. De tempore nouissimae persecutionis nulli hominum reuelato.

[¶4] Truly Jesus Himself shall extinguish by His presence that last persecution which is to be made by Antichrist. For so it is written, that “He shall slay him with the breath of His mouth, and empty him with the brightness of His presence.” It is customary to ask, When shall that be? But this is quite unreasonable. For had it been profitable for us to know this, by whom could it better have been told than by God Himself, the Master, when the disciples questioned Him? For they were not silent when with Him, but inquired of Him, saying, “Lord, wilt Thou at this time present the kingdom to Israel, or when?” But He said, “It is not for you to know the times, which the Father hath put in His own power.” When they got that answer, they had not at all questioned Him about the hour, or day, or year, but about the time. In vain, then, do we attempt to compute definitely the years that may remain to this world, when we may hear from the mouth of the Truth that it is not for us to know this. Yet some have said that four hundred, some five hundred, others a thousand years, may be completed from the ascension of the Lord up to His final coming. But to point out how each of them supports his own opinion would take too long, and is not necessary; for indeed they use human conjectures, and bring forward nothing certain from the authority of the canonical Scriptures. But on this subject He puts aside the figures of the calculators, and orders silence, who says, “It is not for you to know the times, which the Father hath put in His own power.”

> Latin: Illam sane nouissimam persecutionem, quae ab Antichristo futura est, praesentia sua exstinguet ipse Iesus. Sic enim scriptum est, quod eum interficiet spiritu oris sui et euacuabit inluminatione praesentiae suae. Hic quaeri solet: Quando istud erit? Inportune omnino. Si enim hoc nobis nosse prodesset, a quo melius quam ab ipso Deo magistro interrogantibus discipulis diceretur? Non enim siluerunt inde aput eum, sed a praesente quaesierunt dicentes: Domine, si hoc tempore repraesentabis regnum Israel? At ille: Non est, inquit, uestrum scire tempora, quae Pater posuit in sua potestate. Non utique illi de hora uel die uel anno, sed de tempore interrogauerant, quando istud accepere responsum. Frustra igitur annos, qui remanent huic saeculo, conputare ac definire conamur, cum hoc scire non esse nostrum ex ore Veritatis audiamus; quos tamen alii quadringentos, alii quingentos, alii etiam mille ab adscensione Domini usque ad eius ultimum aduentum conpleri posse dixerunt. Quem ad modum autem quisque eorum adstruat opinionem suam, longum est demonstrare et non necessarium. Coniecturis quippe utuntur humanis, non ab eis aliquid certum de scripturae canonicae auctoritate profertur. Omnium uero de hac re calculantium digitos resoluit et quiescere iubet ille, qui dicit: Non est uestrum scire tempora, quae Pater posuit in sua potestate.

[¶5] But because this sentence is in the Gospel, it is no wonder that the worshippers of the many and false gods have been none the less restrained from feigning that by the responses of the demons, whom they worship as gods, it has been fixed how long the Christian religion is to last. For when they saw that it could not be consumed by so many and great persecutions, but rather drew from them wonderful enlargements, they invented I know not what Greek verses, as if poured forth by a divine oracle to some one consulting it, in which, indeed, they make Christ innocent of this, as it were, sacrilegious crime, but add that Peter by enchantments brought it about that the name of Christ should be worshipped for three hundred and sixty-five years, and, after the completion of that number of years, should at once take end. Oh the hearts of learned men! Oh, learned wits, meet to believe such things about Christ as you are not willing to believe in Christ, that His disciple Peter did not learn magic arts from Him, yet that, although He was innocent, His disciple was an enchanter, and chose that His name rather than his own should be worshipped through his magic arts, his great labors and perils, and at last even the shedding of his blood! If Peter the enchanter made the world so love Christ, what did Christ the innocent do to make Peter so love Him? Let them answer themselves then, and, if they can, let them understand that the world, for the sake of eternal life, was made to love Christ by that same supernal grace which made Peter also love Christ for the sake of the eternal life to be received from Him, and that even to the extent of suffering temporal death for Him. And then, what kind of gods are these who are able to predict such things, yet are not able to avert them, succumbing in such a way to a single enchanter and wicked magician (who, as they say, having slain a yearling boy and torn him to pieces, buried him with nefarious rites), that they permitted the sect hostile to themselves to gain strength for so great a time, and to surmount the horrid cruelties of so many great persecutions, not by resisting but by suffering, and to procure the overthrow of their own images, temples, rituals, and oracles? Finally, what god was it—not ours, certainly, but one of their own—who was either enticed or compelled by so great wickedness to perform these things? For those verses say that Peter bound, not any demon, but a god to do these things. Such a god have they who have not Christ.

> Latin: Sed haec quia euangelica sententia est, mirum non est non ea repressos fuisse deorum multorum falsorumque cultores, quominus fingerent daemonum responsis, quos tamquam deos colunt, definitum esse quanto tempore mansura esset religio Christiana. Cum enim uiderent nec tot tantisque persecutionibus eam potuisse consumi, sed his potius mira incrementa sumsisse, excogitauerunt nescio quos uersus Graecos tamquam consulenti cuidam diuino oraculo effusos, ubi Christum quidem ab huius tamquam sacrilegii crimine faciunt innocentem. Petrum autem maleficia fecisse subiungunt, ut coleretur Christi nomen per trecentos sexaginta quinque annos, deinde conpleto memorato numero annorum, sine mora sumeret finem.s o hominum corda doctorum!s o ingenia litterata digna credere ista de Christo, quae credere non uultis in Christum, quod eius discipulus Petrus ab eo magicas artes non didicerit, sed, ipso innocente, tamen eius maleficus fuerit nomenque illius quam suum coli maluerit magicis artibus suis, magnis laboribus et periculis suis, postremo etiam effusione sanguinis sui! Si Petrus maleficus fecit, ut Christum sic diligeret mundus, quid fecit innocens Christus, ut eum sic diligeret Petrus? Respondeant igitur ipsi sibi et si possunt intellegant illa superna gratia factum esse, ut propter aeternam uitam Christum diligeret mundus, qua gratia factum est, ut et propter aeternam uitam ab illo accipiendam et usque ad temporariam mortem pro illo patiendam Christum diligeret Petrus. Deinde isti di qui sunt, qui possunt ista praedicere nec possunt auertere, ita succumbentes uni malefico et uni sceleri magico, quo puer, ut dicunt, anniculus occisus et dilaniatus et ritu nefario sepultus est, ut sectam sibi aduersariam tam prolixo tempore conualescere, tot tantarumque persecutionum horrendas crudelitates non resistendo, sed patiendo superare et ad suorum simulacrorum templorum, sacrorum oraculorum euersionem peruenire permitterent? Quis postremo est deus, non noster utique, sed ipsorum, qui uel inlectus tanto scelere uel inpulsus est ista praestare? Non enim alicui daemoni, sed deo dicunt illi uersus haec Petrum arte magica definisse. Talem deum habent, qui Christum non habent.

### Of the Very Foolish Lie of the Pagans, in Feigning that the Christian Religion Was Not to Last Beyond Three Hundred and Sixty-Five Years.

[¶7] Chapter 54.—Of the Very Foolish Lie of the Pagans, in Feigning that the Christian Religion Was Not to Last Beyond Three Hundred and Sixty-Five Years.

> Latin: Caput LIV. De stultissimo mendacio paganorum, quo Christianam religionem non ultra trecentos sexaginta quinque annos mansuram esse finxerunt.

[¶8] I might collect these and many similar arguments, if that year had not already passed by which lying divination has promised, and deceived vanity has believed. But as a few years ago three hundred and sixty-five years were completed since the time when the worship of the name of Christ was established by His presence in the flesh, and by the apostles, what other proof need we seek to refute that falsehood? For, not to place the beginning of this period at the nativity of Christ, because as an infant and boy He had no disciples, yet, when He began to have them, beyond doubt the Christian doctrine and religion then became known through His bodily presence, that is, after He was baptized in the river Jordan by the ministry of John. For on this account that prophecy went before concerning Him: “He shall reign from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.” But since, before He suffered and rose from the dead, the faith had not yet been defined to all, but was defined in the resurrection of Christ (for so the Apostle Paul speaks to the Athenians, saying, “But now He announces to men that all everywhere should repent, because He hath appointed a day in which to judge the world in equity, by the Man in whom He hath defined the faith to all men, raising Him from the dead”), it is better that, in settling this question, we should start from that point, especially because the Holy Spirit was then given, just as He behoved to be given after the resurrection of Christ in that city from which the second law, that is, the new testament, ought to begin. For the first, which is called the old testament was given from Mount Sinai through Moses. But concerning this which was to be given by Christ it was predicted, “Out of Sion shall go forth the law and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem;” whence He Himself said that repentance in His name behoved to be preached among all nations, but yet beginning at Jerusalem. There, therefore, the worship of this name took its rise, that Jesus should be believed in, who died and rose again. There this faith blazed up with such noble beginnings, that several thousand men, being converted to the name of Christ with wonderful alacrity, sold their goods for distribution among the needy, thus, by a holy resolution and most ardent charity, coming to voluntary poverty, and prepared themselves, amid the Jews who raged and thirsted for their blood, to contend for the truth even to death, not with armed power, but with more powerful patience. If this was accomplished by no magic arts, why do they hesitate to believe that the other could be done throughout the whole world by the same divine power by which this was done? But supposing Peter wrought that enchantment so that so great a multitude of men at Jerusalem was thus kindled to worship the name of Christ, who had either seized and fastened Him to the cross, or reviled Him when fastened there, we must still inquire when the three hundred and sixty-five years must be completed, counting from that year. Now Christ died when the Gemini were consuls, on the eighth day before the kalends of April. He rose the third day, as the apostles have proved by the evidence of their own senses. Then forty days after, He ascended into heaven. Ten days after, that is, on the fiftieth after his resurrection, He sent the Holy Spirit; then three thousand men believed when the apostles preached Him. Then, therefore, arose the worship of that name, as we believe, and according to the real truth, by the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, but, as impious vanity has feigned or thought, by the magic arts of Peter. A little afterward, too, on a wonderful sign being wrought, when at Peter’s own word a certain beggar, so lame from his mother’s womb that he was carried by others and laid down at the gate of the temple, where he begged alms, was made whole in the name of Jesus Christ, and leaped up, five thousand men believed, and thenceforth the Church grew by sundry accessions of believers. Thus we gather the very day with which that year began, namely, that on which the Holy Spirit was sent, that is, during the ides of May. And, on counting the consuls, the three hundred and sixty-five years are found completed on the same ides in the consulate of Honorius and Eutychianus. Now, in the following year, in the consulate of Mallius Theodorus, when, according to that oracle of the demons or figment of men, there ought already to have been no Christian religion, it was not necessary to inquire, what perchance was done in other parts of the earth. But, as we know, in the most noted and eminent city, Carthage, in Africa, Gaudentius and Jovius, officers of the Emperor Honorius, on the fourteenth day before the kalends of April, overthrew the temples and broke the images of the false gods. And from that time to the present, during almost thirty years, who does not see how much the worship of the name of Christ has increased, especially after many of those became Christians who had been kept back from the faith by thinking that divination true, but saw when that same number of years was completed that it was empty and ridiculous? We, therefore, who are called and are Christians, do not believe in Peter, but in Him whom Peter believed,—being edified by Peter’s sermons about Christ, not poisoned by his incantations; and not deceived by his enchantments, but aided by his good deeds. Christ Himself, who was Peter’s Master in the doctrine which leads to eternal life, is our Master too.

> Latin: Haec adque huius modi multa colligerem, si nondum annus ipse transisset, quem diuinatio ficta promisit et decepta uanitas credidit. Cum uero, ex quo nominis Christi cultus per eius in carne praesentiam et per apostolos institutus est, ante aliquot annos anni trecenti sexaginta quinque conpleti sint, quid aliud quaerimus, unde ista falsitas refellatur? Ut enim in Christi natiuitate huius rei non ponamus initium, quia infans et puer discipulos non habebat, tamen quando habere coepit, procul dubio tunc innotuit per eius corporalem praesentiam doctrina et religio Christiana, id est, postea quam in fluuio Iordane ministerio Iohannis est baptizatus. Propter hoc enim de illo prophetia illa praecesserat: Dominabitur a mari usque ad mare et a flumine usque ad terminos orbis terrae. Sed quoniam, priusquam passus esset et resurrexisset a mortuis, nondum fides omnibus fuerat definita (in resurrectione quippe Christi definita est, nam sic apostolus Paulus Atheniensibus loquitur dicens: Iam nunc adnuntiat hominibus omnes ubique agere paenitentiam, eo quod statuit diem iudicare orbem in aequitate in uiro quo definiuit fidem omnibus resuscitans illum a mortuis): melius in hac quaestione soluenda inde initium sumimus; praesertim quia tunc datus est etiam Spiritus sanctus, sicut eum dari post resurrectionem Christi oportebat in ea ciuitate, ex qua debuit incipere lex secunda, hoc est testamentum nouum. Prima enim fuit ex monte Sina per Moysen, quod testamentum uocatur uetus. De hac autem. quae per Christum danda erat, praedictum est: Ex Sion lex prodiet et uerbum Domini ex Hierusalem. Unde et ipse per omnes gentes dixit praedicari oportere in nomine suo paenitentiam, sed tamen incipientibus ab Hierusalem. Ibi ergo exorsus est huius nominis cultus, ut in legum Christum, qui crucifixus fuerat et resurrexerat, crederetur. Ibi haec fides tam insignibus initiis incanduit, ut aliquot hominum milia in Christi nomen mirabili alacritate conuersa uenditis suis rebus, ut egenis distribuerentur, proposito sancto et ardentissima caritate ad paupertatem uoluntariam peruenirent adque inter frementes et sanguinem sitientes Iudaeos se usque ad mortem pro ueritate certare non armata potentia, sed potentiore patientia praepararent. Hoc si nullis magicis artibus factum est, quur credere dubitant eadem uirtute diuina per totum mundum id fieri potuisse, qua hoc factum est? Si autem ut Hierosolymis sic ad cultum nominis Christi accenderetur tanta hominum multitudo, quae illum in cruce uel fixerat prensum uel riserat fixum, iam maleficium illud fecerat Petrus, ex ipso anno quaerendum est, quando trecenti sexaginta quinque conpleti sint. Mortuus est ergo Christus duobus Geminis consulibus octauo Kalendas Aprilis. Resurreiit tertio die, sicut apostoli suis etiam sensibus probauerunt. Deinde post quadraginta dies adscendit in caelum; post decem dies, id est quinquagensimo post suam resurrectionem die, misit Spiritum sanctum. Tunc tria milia hominum apostolis eum praedicantibus crediderunt. Tunc itaque nominis illius cultus exorsus est, sicut nos credimus et ueritas habet, efficacia Spiritus sancti; sicut autem finxit uanitas inpia uel putauit, magicis artibus Petri. Paulo post etiam signo mirabili facto, quando ad uerbum ipsius Petri quidam mendicus ab utero matris ita claudus, ut ab aliis portaretur et ad portam templi, ubi stipem peteret, poneretur, in nomine Iesu Christi saluus exsiliuit, quinque hominum milia crediderunt; ac deinde aliis adque aliis accessibus credentium creuit ecclesia. Ac per hoc colligitur etiam dies, ex quo annus ipse sumsit initium, scilicet quando missus est Spiritus sanctus, id est per Idus Maias. Numeratis proinde consulibus trecenti sexaginta quinque anni reperiuntur inpleti per easdem Idus consulatu Honorii et Eutychiani. Porro sequenti anno, consule Mallio Theodoro, quando iam secundum illud oraculum daemonum aut figmentum hominum nulla esse debuit religio Christiana, quid per alias terrarum partes forsitan factum sit, non fuit necesse perquirere; interim, quod scimus, in ciuitate notissima et eminentissima Carthagine Africae Gaudentius et Iouius comites imperatoris Honorii quarto decimo Kalendas Aprilis falsorum deorum templa euerterunt et simulacra fregerunt. Ex quo usque ad hoc tempus per triginta ferme annos quis non uideat quantum creuerit cultus nominis Christi. praesertim postea quam multi eorum Christiani facti sunt, qui tamquam uera illa diuinatione reuocabantur a fide eamque conpleto eodem numero annorum inanem ridendamque uiderunt? Nos ergo, qui sumus uocamurque Christiani, non in Petrum credimus, sed in quem credidit Petrus; Petri de Christo aedificati sermonibus, non carminibus uenenati; nec decepti maleficiis, sed beneficiis eius adiuti. Ille Petri magister Christus in doctrina, quae ad uitam ducit aeternam, ipse est magister et noster.

[¶9] But let us now at last finish this book, after thus far treating of, and showing as far as seemed sufficient, what is the mortal course of the two cities, the heavenly and the earthly, which are mingled together from the beginning down to the end. Of these, the earthly one has made to herself of whom she would, either from any other quarter, or even from among men, false gods whom she might serve by sacrifice; but she which is heavenly and is a pilgrim on the earth does not make false gods, but is herself made by the true God of whom she herself must be the true sacrifice. Yet both alike either enjoy temporal good things, or are afflicted with temporal evils, but with diverse faith, diverse hope, and diverse love, until they must be separated by the last judgment, and each must receive her own end, of which there is no end. About these ends of both we must next treat.

> Latin: Sed aliquando iam concludamus hunc librum, huc usque disserentes et quantum satis uisum est demonstrantes, quisnam sit duarum ciuitatum, caelestis adque terrenae, ab initio usque in finem permixtarum mortalis excursus; quarum illa, quae terrena est, fecit sibi quos uoluit uel undecumque uel etiam ex hominibus falsos deos, quibus sacrificando seruiret; illa autem, quae caelestis peregrinatur in terra, falsos deos non facit, sed a uero Deo ipsa fit, cuius uerum sacrificium ipsa sit. Ambae tamen temporalibus uel bonis pariter utuntur uel malis pariter adfliguntur, diuersa fide, diuersa spe, diuerso amore, donec ultimo iudicio separentur, et percipiat unaquaeque suum finem, cuius nullus est finis; de quibus ambarum finibus deinceps disserendum est.

### A review of the philosophical opinions regarding the Supreme Good, and a comparison of these opinions with the Christian belief regarding happiness.

[¶11] Book XIX.

> Latin: Liber XIX

[¶12] Argument—In this book the end of the two cities, the earthly and the heavenly, is discussed. Augustin reviews the opinions of the philosophers regarding the supreme good, and their vain efforts to make for themselves a happiness in this life; and, while he refutes these, he takes occasion to show what the peace and happiness belonging to the heavenly city, or the people of Christ, are both now and hereafter.

### That Varro Has Made Out that Two Hundred and Eighty-Eight Different Sects of Philosophy Might Be Formed by the Various Opinions Regarding the Supreme Good.

[¶14] Chapter 1.—That Varro Has Made Out that Two Hundred and Eighty-Eight Different Sects of Philosophy Might Be Formed by the Various Opinions Regarding the Supreme Good.

> Latin: Caput I. Quod in quaestione, quam de finibus bonorum etmalorum philosophica disputatio uentilauit, ducentas octo- ginta et octo sectas esse posse Varro perspexerit.

[¶15] As I see that I have still to discuss the fit destinies of the two cities, the earthly and the heavenly, I must first explain, so far as the limits of this work allow me, the reasonings by which men have attempted to make for themselves a happiness in this unhappy life, in order that it may be evident, not only from divine authority, but also from such reasons as can be adduced to unbelievers, how the empty dreams of the philosophers differ from the hope which God gives to us, and from the substantial fulfillment of it which He will give us as our blessedness. Philosophers have expressed a great variety of diverse opinions regarding the ends of goods and of evils, and this question they have eagerly canvassed, that they might, if possible, discover what makes a man happy. For the end of our good is that for the sake of which other things are to be desired, while it is to be desired for its own sake; and the end of evil is that on account of which other things are to be shunned, while it is avoided on its own account. Thus, by the end of good, we at present mean, not that by which good is destroyed, so that it no longer exists, but that by which it is finished, so that it becomes complete; and by the end of evil we mean, not that which abolishes it, but that which completes its development. These two ends, therefore, are the supreme good and the supreme evil; and, as I have said, those who have in this vain life professed the study of wisdom have been at great pains to discover these ends, and to obtain the supreme good and avoid the supreme evil in this life. And although they erred in a variety of ways, yet natural insight has prevented them from wandering from the truth so far that they have not placed the supreme good and evil, some in the soul, some in the body, and some in both. From this tripartite distribution of the sects of philosophy, Marcus Varro, in his book De Philosophia, has drawn so large a variety of opinions, that, by a subtle and minute analysis of distinctions, he numbers without difficulty as many as 288 sects,—not that these have actually existed, but sects which are possible.

> Latin: Quoniam de ciuitatis utriusque, terrenae scilicet et caelestis, debitis finibus deinceps mihi uideo disputandum: prius exponenda sunt, quantum operis huius terminandi ratio patitur, argumenta mortalium, quibus sibi ipsi beatitudinem facere in huius uitae infelicitate moliti sunt, ut ab eorum rebus uanis spes nostra quid differat, quam Deus nobis dedit, et res ipsa, hoc est uera beatitudo, quam dabit, non tantum auctoritate diuina, sed adhibita etiam ratione, qualem propter infideles possumus adhibere, clarescat. De finibus enim bonorum et malorum multa et multipliciter inter se philosophi disputarunt; quam quaestionem maxima intentione uersantes inuenire conati sunt, quid efficiat hominem beatum. Illud enim est finis boni nostri, propter quod adpetenda sunt cetera, ipsum autem propter se ipsum; et illud finis mali, propter quod uitanda sunt cetera, ipsum autem propter se ipsum. Finem boni ergo nunc dicimus, non quo consumatur, ut non sit, sed quo perficiatur, ut plenum sit; et finem mali, non quo esse desinat, sed quo usque nocendo perducat. Fines itaque isti sunt summum bonum et summum malum. De quibus inueniendis adque in hac uita summo bono adipiscendo, uitando autem summo malo, multum, sicut dixi, laborauerunt, qui studium sapientiae in saeculi huius uanitate professi sunt; nec tamen eos, quamuis diuersis errantes modis, naturae limes in tantum ab itinere ueritatis deuiare permisit, ut non alii in animo, alii in corpore, alii in utroque fines bonorum ponerent et malorum. Ex qua tripertita uelut generalium distributione sectarum Marcus Varro in libro de philosophia tam multam dogmatum uarietatem diligenter et subtiliter scrutatus aduertit, ut ad ducentas octoginta et octo sectas, non quae iam essent, sed quae esse possent, adhibens quasdam differentias facillime perueniret.

[¶16] To illustrate briefly what he means, I must begin with his own introductory statement in the above-mentioned book, that there are four things which men desire, as it were by nature without a master, without the help of any instruction, without industry or the art of living which is called virtue, and which is certainly learned: either pleasure, which is an agreeable stirring of the bodily sense; or repose, which excludes every bodily inconvenience; or both these, which Epicurus calls by the one name, pleasure; or the primary objects of nature, which comprehend the things already named and other things, either bodily, such as health, and safety, and integrity of the members, or spiritual, such as the greater and less mental gifts that are found in men. Now these four things—pleasure, repose, the two combined, and the primary objects of nature—exist in us in such sort that we must either desire virtue on their account, or them for the sake of virtue, or both for their own sake; and consequently there arise from this distinction twelve sects, for each is by this consideration tripled. I will illustrate this in one instance, and, having done so, it will not be difficult to understand the others. According, then, as bodily pleasure is subjected, preferred, or united to virtue, there are three sects. It is subjected to virtue when it is chosen as subservient to virtue. Thus it is a duty of virtue to live for one’s country, and for its sake to beget children, neither of which can be done without bodily pleasure. For there is pleasure in eating and drinking, pleasure also in sexual intercourse. But when it is preferred to virtue, it is desired for its own sake, and virtue is chosen only for its sake, and to effect nothing else than the attainment or preservation of bodily pleasure. And this, indeed, is to make life hideous; for where virtue is the slave of pleasure it no longer deserves the name of virtue. Yet even this disgraceful distortion has found some philosophers to patronize and defend it. Then virtue is united to pleasure when neither is desired for the other’s sake, but both for their own. And therefore, as pleasure, according as it is subjected, preferred, or united to virtue, makes three sects, so also do repose, pleasure and repose combined, and the prime natural blessings, make their three sects each. For as men’s opinions vary, and these four things are sometimes subjected, sometimes preferred, and sometimes united to virtue, there are produced twelve sects. But this number again is doubled by the addition of one difference, viz., the social life; for whoever attaches himself to any of these sects does so either for his own sake alone, or for the sake of a companion, for whom he ought to wish what he desires for himself. And thus there will be twelve of those who think some one of these opinions should be held for their own sakes, and other twelve who decide that they ought to follow this or that philosophy not for their own sakes only, but also for the sake of others whose good they desire as their own. These twenty-four sects again are doubled, and become forty-eight by adding a difference taken from the New Academy. For each of these four and twenty sects can hold and defend their opinion as certain, as the Stoics defended the position that the supreme good of man consisted solely in virtue; or they can be held as probable, but not certain, as the New Academics did. There are, therefore, twenty-four who hold their philosophy as certainly true, other twenty-four who hold their opinions as probable, but not certain. Again, as each person who attaches himself to any of these sects may adopt the mode of life either of the Cynics or of the other philosophers, this distinction will double the number, and so make ninety-six sects. Then, lastly, as each of these sects may be adhered to either by men who love a life of ease, as those who have through choice or necessity addicted themselves to study, or by men who love a busy life, as those who, while philosophizing, have been much occupied with state affairs and public business, or by men who choose a mixed life, in imitation of those who have apportioned their time partly to erudite leisure, partly to necessary business: by these differences the number of the sects is tripled, and becomes 288.

> Latin: Quod ut breuiter ostendam, inde oportet incipiam, quod ipse aduertit et posuit in libro memorato, quattuor esse quaedam, quae homines sine magistro, sine ullo doctrinae adminiculo, sine industria uel arte uiuendi, quae uirtus dicitur et procul dubio discitur, uelut naturaliter adpetunt, aut uoluptatem, qua delectabiliter mouetur corporis sensus, aut quietem, qua fit ut nullam molestiam corporis quisque patiatur, aut utramque, quam tamen uno nomine uoluptatis Epicurus appellat, aut uniuersaliter prima naturae, in quibus et haec sunt et alia, uel in corpore, ut membrorum integritas et salus adque incolumitas eius, uel in animo, ut sunt ea, quae uel parua uel magna in hominum reperiuntur ingeniis. Haec igitur quattuor, id est uoluptas, quies, utrumque, prima naturae, ita sunt in nobis, ut uel uirtus, quam postea doctrina inserit, propter haec adpetenda sit, aut ista propter uirtutem, aut utraque propter se ipsa; ac per hoc fiunt hinc duodecim sectae; per hanc enim rationem singulae triplicantur; quod cum in una demonstrauero, difficile non erit id in ceteris inuenire. Cum ergo uoluptas corporis animi uirtuti aut subditur aut praefertur aut iungitur, tripertita uariatur diuersitate sectarum. Subditur autem uirtuti, quando in usum uirtutis adsumitur. Pertinet quippe ad uirtutis officium et uiuere patriae et propter patriam filios procreare, quorum neutrum fieri potest sine corporis uoluptate; nam sine illa nec cibus potusque sumitur, ut uiuatur, nec concumbitur, ut generatio propagetur. Cum uero praefertur uirtuti, ipsa adpetitur propter se ipsam, uirtus autem adsumenda creditur propter illam, id est, ut nihil uirtus agat nisi ad consequendam uel conseruandam corporis uoluptatem; quae uita deformis est quidem, quippe ubi uirtus seruit dominae uoluptati, quamuis nullo modo haec dicenda sit uirtus; sed tamen etiam ista horribilis turpitudo habuit quosdam philosophos patronos et defensores suos. Virtuti porro uoluptas iungitur, quando neutra earum propter alteram, sed propter se ipsas ambae adpetuntur. Quapropter sicut uoluptas uel subdita uel praelata uel iuncta uirtuti tres sectas facit, ita quies, ita utrumque, ita prima naturae alias ternas inueniuntur efficere. Pro uarietate quippe humanarum opinionum uirtuti aliquando subduntur, aliquando praeferuntur, aliquando iunguntur, ac sic ad duodenarium sectarum numerum peruenitur. Sed iste quoque numerus duplicatur adhibita una differentia, socialis uidelicet uitae, quoniam, quisquis sectatur aliquam istarum duodecim sectam, profecto aut propter se tantum id agit aut etiam propter socium, cui debet hoc uelle quod sibi. Quocirca duodecim sunt eorum, qui propter se tantum unamquamque tenendam putant, et aliae duodecim eorum, qui non solum propter se sic uel sic philosophandum esse decernunt, sed etiam propter alios, quorum bonum adpetunt sicut suum. Hae autem sectae uiginti quattuor iterum geminantur addita differentia ex Academicis nouis et fiunt quadraginta octo. Illarum quippe uiginti quattuor unamquamque sectarum potest quisque sic tenere ac defendere ut certam, quem ad modum defenderunt Stoici, quod hominis bonum, quo beatus esset, in animi tantummodo uirtute consisteret; potest alius ut incertam, sicut defenderunt Academici noui, quod eis etsi non certum, tamen ueri simile uidebatur. Viginti quattuor ergo fiunt per eos, qui eas uelut certas propter ueritatem, et aliae uiginti quattuor per eos, qui easdem quamuis incertas propter ueri similitudinem sequendas putant. Rursus, quia unamquamque istarum quadraginta octo sectarum potest quisque sequi habitu ceterorum philosophorum, itemque alius potest habitu Cynicorum, ex hac etiam differentia duplicantur et nonaginta sex fiunt. Deinde quia earum singulas quasque ita tueri homines possunt adque sectari, ut aut otiosam diligant uitam, sicut hi, qui tantummodo studiis doctrinae uacare uoluerunt adque ualuerunt, aut negotiosam, sicut hi, qui cum philosopharentur tamen administratione rei publicae regendisque rebus humanis occupatissimi fuerunt,. aut ex utroque genere temperatam, sicut hi, qui partim erudito otio partim necessario negotio alternantia uitae suae tempora tribuerunt: propter has differentias potest etiam triplicari numerus iste sectarum et ad ducentas octoginta octo perduci.

[¶17] I have thus, as briefly and lucidly as I could, given in my own words the opinions which Varro expresses in his book. But how he refutes all the rest of these sects, and chooses one, the Old Academy, instituted by Plato, and continuing to Polemo, the fourth teacher of that school of philosophy which held that their system was certain; and how on this ground he distinguishes it from the New Academy, which began with Polemo’s successor Arcesilaus, and held that all things are uncertain; and how he seeks to establish that the Old Academy was as free from error as from doubt,—all this, I say, were too long to enter upon in detail, and yet I must not altogether pass it by in silence. Varro then rejects, as a first step, all those differences which have multiplied the number of sects; and the ground on which he does so is that they are not differences about the supreme good. He maintains that in philosophy a sect is created only by its having an opinion of its own different from other schools on the point of the ends-in-chief. For man has no other reason for philosophizing than that he may be happy; but that which makes him happy is itself the supreme good. In other words, the supreme good is the reason of philosophizing; and therefore that cannot be called a sect of philosophy which pursues no way of its own towards the supreme good. Thus, when it is asked whether a wise man will adopt the social life, and desire and be interested in the supreme good of his friend as in his own, or will, on the contrary, do all that he does merely for his own sake, there is no question here about the supreme good, but only about the propriety of associating or not associating a friend in its participation: whether the wise man will do this not for his own sake, but for the sake of his friend in whose good he delights as in his own. So, too, when it is asked whether all things about which philosophy is concerned are to be considered uncertain, as by the New Academy, or certain, as the other philosophers maintain, the question here is not what end should be pursued, but whether or not we are to believe in the substantial existence of that end; or, to put it more plainly, whether he who pursues the supreme good must maintain that it is a true good, or only that it appears to him to be true, though possibly it may be delusive,—both pursuing one and the same good. The distinction, too, which is founded on the dress and manners of the Cynics, does not touch the question of the chief good, but only the question whether he who pursues that good which seems to himself true should live as do the Cynics. There were, in fact, men who, though they pursued different things as the supreme good, some choosing pleasure, others virtue, yet adopted that mode of life which gave the Cynics their name. Thus, whatever it is which distinguishes the Cynics from other philosophers, this has no bearing on the choice and pursuit of that good which constitutes happiness. For if it had any such bearing, then the same habits of life would necessitate the pursuit of the same chief good, and diverse habits would necessitate the pursuit of different ends.

> Latin: Haec de Varronis libro, quantum potui, breuiter ac dilucide posui, sententias eius meis explicans uerbis. Quo modo autem refutatis ceteris unam eligat, quam uult esse Acaderaicorum ueterum (quos a Platone institutos usque ad Polemonem, qui ab illo quartus eius scholam tenuit, quae Academia dicta est, habuisse certa dogmata uult uideri et ob hoc distinguit ab Academicis nonis, quibus incerta sunt omnia, quod philosophiae genus ab Arcesila coepit successore Polemonis), eamque sectam, id est ueterum Academicorum, sicut dubitatione ita omni errore carere arbitretur, longum est per omnia demonstrare; nec tamen omni ex parte res omittenda est. Remouet ergo prius illas omnes differentias, quae numerum multiplicauere sectarum, quas ideo remouendas putat, quia non in eis est finis boni. Neque enim existimat ullam philosophiae sectam esse dicendam, quae non eo distet a ceteris. quod diuersos habeat fines bonorum et malorum. Quando quidem nulla est homini causa philosophandi, nisi ut beatus sit; quod autem beatum facit, ipse est finis boni; nulla est igitur causa philosophandi, nisi finis boni: quam ob rem quae nullum boni finem sectatur, nulla philosophiae secta dicenda est. Cum ergo quaeritur de sociali uita, utrum sit tenenda sapienti, ut summum bonum, quo fit homo beatus, ita uelit et curet amici sui, quem ad modum suum, an suae tantummodo beatitudinis causa faciat quidquid facit: non de ipso summo bono quaestio est, sed de adsumendo uel non adsumendo socio ad huius participationem boni, non propter se ipsum, sed propter eundem socium, ut eius bono ita gaudeat, sicut gaudet suo. Item cum quaeritur de Academicis nouis, quibus incerta sunt omnia, utrum ita sint res habendae, in quibus philosophandum est, an, sicut aliis philosophis placuit, certas eas habere debeamus: non quaeritur quid in boni fine sectandum sit, sed de ipsius boni ueritate, quod sectandum uidetur, utrum sit necne dubitandum; hoc est, ut id planius eloquar, utrum ita sectandum sit, ut, qui sectatur, dicat esse uerum, an ita, ut, qui sectatur, dicat uerum sibi uideri, etiamsi forte sit falsum, tamen uterque sectetur unum adque idem bonum. In illa etiam differentia, quae adhibetur ex habitu et consuetudine Cynicorum, non quaeritur, quisnam sit finis boni, sed utrum in illo habitu et consuetudine sit uiuendum ei, qui uerum sectatur bonum, quodlibet ei uerum uideatur esse adque sectandum. Denique fuerunt, qui cum diuersa sequerentur bona finalia, alii uirtutem, alii uoluptatem, eundem tamen habitum et consuetudinem tenebant, ex qua Cynici appellabantur. Ita illud quidquid est, unde philosophi Cynici discernuntur a ceteris, ad eligendum ac tenendum bonum, quo beati fierent, utique nil ualebat. Nam si aliquid ad hoc interesset, profecto idem habitus eundem finem sequi cogeret, et diuersus habitus eundem sequi finem non sineret.

### How Varro, by Removing All the Differences Which Do Not Form Sects, But are Merely Secondary Questions, Reaches Three Definitions of the Chief Good, of Which We Must Choose One.

[¶19] Chapter 2.—How Varro, by Removing All the Differences Which Do Not Form Sects, But are Merely Secondary Questions, Reaches Three Definitions of the Chief Good, of Which We Must Choose One.

> Latin: Caput II. .Quo modo remotis omnibus differentiis, quae non sectae, sed quaestiones sint, ad tripertitam summi boni definitionem Varro perueniat, quarum tamen una sit eligenda.

[¶20] The same may be said of those three kinds of life, the life of studious leisure and search after truth, the life of easy engagement in affairs, and the life in which both these are mingled. When it is asked, which of these should be adopted, this involves no controversy about the end of good, but inquires which of these three puts a man in the best position for finding and retaining the supreme good. For this good, as soon as a man finds it, makes him happy; but lettered leisure, or public business, or the alternation of these, do not necessarily constitute happiness. Many, in fact, find it possible to adopt one or other of these modes of life, and yet to miss what makes a man happy. The question, therefore, regarding the supreme good and the supreme evil, and which distinguishes sects of philosophy, is one; and these questions concerning the social life, the doubt of the Academy, the dress and food of the Cynics, the three modes of life—the active, the contemplative, and the mixed—these are different questions, into none of which the question of the chief good enters. And therefore, as Marcus Varro multiplied the sects to the number of 288 (or whatever larger number he chose) by introducing these four differences derived from the social life, the New Academy, the Cynics, and the threefold form of life, so, by removing these differences as having no bearing on the supreme good, and as therefore not constituting what can properly be called sects, he returns to those twelve schools which concern themselves with inquiring what that good is which makes man happy, and he shows that one of these is true, the rest false. In other words, he dismisses the distinction founded on the threefold mode of life, and so decreases the whole number by two-thirds, reducing the sects to ninety-six. Then, putting aside the Cynic peculiarities, the number decreases by a half, to forty-eight. Taking away next the distinction occasioned by the hesitancy of the New Academy, the number is again halved, and reduced to twenty-four. Treating in a similar way the diversity introduced by the consideration of the social life, there are left but twelve, which this difference had doubled to twenty-four. Regarding these twelve, no reason can be assigned why they should not be called sects. For in them the sole inquiry is regarding the supreme good and the ultimate evil,—that is to say, regarding the supreme good, for this being found, the opposite evil is thereby found. Now, to make these twelve sects, he multiplies by three these four things—pleasure, repose, pleasure and repose combined, and the primary objects of nature which Varro calls primigenia. For as these four things are sometimes subordinated to virtue, so that they seem to be desired not for their own sake, but for virtue’s sake; sometimes preferred to it, so that virtue seems to be necessary not on its own account, but in order to attain these things; sometimes joined with it, so that both they and virtue are desired for their own sakes,—we must multiply the four by three, and thus we get twelve sects. But from those four things Varro eliminates three—pleasure, repose, pleasure and repose combined—not because he thinks these are not worthy of the place assigned them, but because they are included in the primary objects of nature. And what need is there, at any rate, to make a threefold division out of these two ends, pleasure and repose, taking them first severally and then conjunctly, since both they, and many other things besides, are comprehended in the primary objects of nature? Which of the three remaining sects must be chosen? This is the question that Varro dwells upon. For whether one of these three or some other be chosen, reason forbids that more than one be true. This we shall afterwards see; but meanwhile let us explain as briefly and distinctly as we can how Varro makes his selection from these three, that is, from the sects which severally hold that the primary objects of nature are to be desired for virtue’s sake, that virtue is to be desired for their sake, and that virtue and these objects are to be desired each for their own sake.

> Latin: In tribus quoque illis uitae generibus, uno scilicet non segniter, sed in contemplatione uel inquisitione ueritatis otioso, altero in gerendis rebus humanis negotioso, tertio ex utroque genere temperato, cum quaeritur quid horum sit potius eligendum, non finis boni habet controuersiam: sed quid horum trium difficultatem uel facilitatem adferat ad consequendum uel retinendum finem boni, id in ista quaestione uersatur. Finis enim boni, cum ad eum quisque peruenerit, protinus beatum facit; in otio autem litterato, uel in negotio publico, uel quando utrumque uicibus agitur, non continuo quisque beatus est. Multi quippe in quolibet horum trium possunt uiuere, et in adpetendo boni fine, quo fit homo beatus, errare. Alia est igitur quaestio de finibus bonorum et malorum, quae unamquamque philosophorum sectam facit, et aliae sunt quaestiones de sociali uita, de cunctatione Academicorum, de uestitu et uictu Cynicorum, de tribus uitae generibus. otioso. actuoso, ex utroque modificato; quarum nulla est, in qua de bonorum et malorum finibus disputatur. Proinde quoniam Marcus Varro has quattuor adhibens differentias, id est ei uita sociali, ex Academicis nouis, ex Cynicis, ex isto uitae genere tripertito ad sectas ducentas octoginta octo peruenit, et si quae aliae possunt similiter adici: remotis eis omnibus, quoniam de sectando summo bono nullam inferunt quaestionem et ideo sectae nec sunt nec uocandae sunt, ad illas duodecim, in quibus quaeritur, quod sit bonum hominis, quo adsecuto fit beatus, ut ex eis unam ueram, ceteras falsas ostendat esse, reuertitur. Nam remoto illo tripertito genere uitae duae partes huius numeri detrahuntur et sectae nonaginta sex remanent. Remota uero differentia ex Cynicis addita ad dimidium rediguntur et quadraginta octo fiunt. Auferamus etiam quod ex Academicis nouis adhibitum est: rursus dimidia pars remanet, id est uiginti quattuor. De sociali quoque uita quod accesserat similiter auferatur: duodecim sunt reliquae, quas ista differentia, ut uiginti quattuor fierent, duplicauerat. De his ergo duodecim nihil dici potest, quur sectae non sint habendae. Nihil quippe aliud in eis quaeritur quam fines bonorum et malorum. Inuentis autem bonorum finibus profecto e contrario sunt malorum. Hae autem ut fiant duodecim sectae, illa quattuor triplicantur, uoluptas, quies, utrumque et prima naturae, quae primigenia Varro uocat. Haec quippe quattuor dum singillatim uirtuti aliquando subduntur, ut non propter se ipsa, sed propter officium uirtutis adpetenda uideantur, aliquando praeferuntur, ut non propter se ipsa, sed propter haec adipiscenda uel conseruanda necessaria uirtus putetur, aliquando iunguntur, ut propter se ipsa et uirtus et ista adpetenda credantur, quaternarium numerum triplum reddunt et ad duodecim sectas perueniunt. Ex illis autem quattuor rebus Varro tres tollit, uoluptatem scilicet et quietem et utrumque; non quod eas inprobet, sed quod primigenia illa naturae et uoluptatem in se habeant et quietem. Quid ergo opus est ex his duabus tria quaedam facere, duo scilicet, cum singillatim adpetuntur uoluptas aut quies, et tertium cum ambae simul, quando quidem prima naturae et ipsas et praeter ipsas alia multa contineant? De tribus ergo sectis ei placet diligenter esse tractandum, quaenam sit potius eligenda. Non enim ueram plus quam unam uera ratio esse permittit, siue in his tribus sit siue alicubi alibi, quod post uidebimus. Interim de his tribus quo modo unam Varro eligat, quantum breuiter aperteque possumus, disseramus. Istae nempe tres sectae ita fiunt, cum uel prima naturae propter uirtutem, uel uirtus propter prima naturae, uel utraque, id est et uirtus et prima naturae, propter se ipsa sunt expetenda.

### Which of the Three Leading Opinions Regarding the Chief Good Should Be Preferred, According to Varro, Who Follows Antiochus and the Old Academy.

[¶22] Chapter 3.—Which of the Three Leading Opinions Regarding the Chief Good Should Be Preferred, According to Varro, Who Follows Antiochus and the Old Academy.

> Latin: Caput III. De tribus sectis summum hominis bonum quaerentibus quam eligendam Varro definiat sequens ueteris Academiae Antiocho auctore sententiam.

[¶23] Which of these three is true and to be adopted he attempts to show in the following manner. As it is the supreme good, not of a tree, or of a beast, or of a god, but of man that philosophy is in quest of, he thinks that, first of all, we must define man. He is of opinion that there are two parts in human nature, body and soul, and makes no doubt that of these two the soul is the better and by far the more worthy part. But whether the soul alone is the man, so that the body holds the same relation to it as a horse to the horseman, this he thinks has to be ascertained. The horseman is not a horse and a man, but only a man, yet he is called a horseman, because he is in some relation to the horse. Again, is the body alone the man, having a relation to the soul such as the cup has to the drink? For it is not the cup and the drink it contains which are called the cup, but the cup alone; yet it is so called because it is made to hold the drink. Or, lastly, is it neither the soul alone nor the body alone, but both together, which are man, the body and the soul being each a part, but the whole man being both together, as we call two horses yoked together a pair, of which pair the near and the off horse is each a part, but we do not call either of them, no matter how connected with the other, a pair, but only both together? Of these three alternatives, then, Varro chooses the third, that man is neither the body alone, nor the soul alone, but both together. And therefore the highest good, in which lies the happiness of man, is composed of goods of both kinds, both bodily and spiritual. And consequently he thinks that the primary objects of nature are to be sought for their own sake, and that virtue, which is the art of living, and can be communicated by instruction, is the most excellent of spiritual goods. This virtue, then, or art of regulating life, when it has received these primary objects of nature which existed independently of it, and prior to any instruction, seeks them all, and itself also, for its own sake; and it uses them, as it also uses itself, that from them all it may derive profit and enjoyment, greater or less, according as they are themselves greater or less; and while it takes pleasure in all of them, it despises the less that it may obtain or retain the greater when occasion demands. Now, of all goods, spiritual or bodily, there is none at all to compare with virtue. For virtue makes a good use both of itself and of all other goods in which lies man’s happiness; and where it is absent, no matter how many good things a man has, they are not for his good, and consequently should not be called good things while they belong to one who makes them useless by using them badly. The life of man, then, is called happy when it enjoys virtue and these other spiritual and bodily good things without which virtue is impossible. It is called happier if it enjoys some or many other good things which are not essential to virtue; and happiest of all, if it lacks not one of the good things which pertain to the body and the soul. For life is not the same thing as virtue, since not every life, but a wisely regulated life, is virtue; and yet, while there can be life of some kind without virtue, there cannot be virtue without life. This I might apply to memory and reason, and such mental faculties; for these exist prior to instruction, and without them there cannot be any instruction, and consequently no virtue, since virtue is learned. But bodily advantages, such as swiftness of foot, beauty, or strength, are not essential to virtue, neither is virtue essential to them, and yet they are good things; and, according to our philosophers, even these advantages are desired by virtue for its own sake, and are used and enjoyed by it in a becoming manner.

> Latin: Quid ergo istorum trium sit uerum adque sectandum, isto modo persuadere conatur. Primum, quia summum bonum in philosophia non arboris, non pecoris, non Dei, sed hominis quaeritur, quid sit ipse homo, quaerendum putat. Sentit quippe in eius natura duo esse quaedam, corpus et animam. 6t horum quidem duorum melius esse animam longeque praestabilius omnino non dubitat, sed utrum anima sola sit homo. ut ita sit ei corpus tamquam equus equiti (eques enim non homo et equus, sed solus homo est; ideo tamen eques dicitur, quod aliquo modo se habeat ad equum), an corpus solum sit homo, aliquo modo se habens ad animam, sicut poculum ad potionem (non enim calix et potio, quam continet calix. simul dicitur poculum, sed calix solus; ideo tamen quod potioni continendae sit adcommodatus), an uero nec anima sola nec solum corpus, sed simul utrumque sit homo, cuius sit pars una siue anima siue corpus, ille autem totus ex utroque constet, ut homo sit (sicut duos equos iunctos bigas uocamus, quorum siue dexter siue sinister pars est bigarum, unum uero eorum, quoquo modo se habeat ad alterum, bigas non dicimus, sed ambo simul). Horum autem trium hoc elegit tertium hominemque nec animam solam nec solum corpus, sed animam simul et corpus esse arbitratur. Proinde summum bonum hominis, quo fit beatus, ex utriusque rei bonis constare dicit, et animae scilicet et corporis. Ac per hoc prima illa naturae propter se ipsa existimat expetenda ipsamque uirtutem, quam doctrina inserit uelut artem uiuendi, quae in animae bonis est excellentissimum bonum. Quapropter eadem uirtus, id est ars agendae uitae, cum acceperit prima naturae, quae sine illa erant, sed tamen erant etiam quando eis doctrina adhuc deerat, omnia propter se ipsa adpetit simulque etiam se ipsam, omnibusque simul et se ipsa utitur, eo fine, ut omnibus delectetur adque perfruatur, magis minusque, ut quaeque inter se maiora adque minora sunt, tamen omnibus gaudens et quaedam minora, si necessitas postulat, propter maiora uel adipiscenda uel tenenda contemnens. Omnium autem bonorum uel animi uel corporis nihil sibi uirtus omnino praeponit. Haec enim bene utitur et se ipsa et ceteris, quae hominem faciunt beatum, bonis. Ubi uero ipsa non est, quamlibet multa sint bona, non bono eius sunt, cuius sunt, ac per hoc iam nec eius bona dicenda sunt, cui male utenti utilia esse non possunt. Haec ergo uita hominis, quae uirtute et aliis animi et corporis bonis, sine quibus uirtus esse non potest, fruitur, beata esse dicitur; si uero et aliis, sine quibus esse uirtus potest, uel ullis uel pluribus, beatior; si autem prorsus omnibus, ut nullum omnino bonum desit uel animi uel corporis, beatissima. Non enim hoc est uita, quod uirtus, quoniam non omnis uita, sed sapiens uita uirtus est; et tamen qualiscumque uita sine ulla uirtute potest esse; uirtus uero sine ulla uita non potest esse. Hoc et de memoria dixerim adque ratione, et si quid tale aliud est in homine. Sunt enim haec et ante doctrinam, sine his autem non potest esse ulla doctrina, ac per hoc nec uirtus, quae utique discitur. Bene autem currere, pulchrum esse corpore, uiribus ingentibus praeualere et cetera huius modi talia sunt, ut et uirtus sine his esse possit et ipsa sine uirtute; bona sunt tamen, et secundum istos etiam ipsa propter se ipsam diligit uirtus, utiturque illis et fruitur, sicut uirtutem decet.

[¶24] They say that this happy life is also social, and loves the advantages of its friends as its own, and for their sake wishes for them what it desires for itself, whether these friends live in the same family, as a wife, children, domestics; or in the locality where one’s home is, as the citizens of the same town; or in the world at large, as the nations bound in common human brotherhood; or in the universe itself, comprehended in the heavens and the earth, as those whom they call gods, and provide as friends for the wise man, and whom we more familiarly call angels. Moreover, they say that, regarding the supreme good and evil, there is no room for doubt, and that they therefore differ from the New Academy in this respect, and they are not concerned whether a philosopher pursues those ends which they think true in the Cynic dress and manner of life or in some other. And, lastly, in regard to the three modes of life, the contemplative, the active, and the composite, they declare in favor of the third. That these were the opinions and doctrines of the Old Academy, Varro asserts on the authority of Antiochus, Cicero’s master and his own, though Cicero makes him out to have been more frequently in accordance with the Stoics than with the Old Academy. But of what importance is this to us, who ought to judge the matter on its own merits, rather than to understand accurately what different men have thought about it?

> Latin: Hanc uitam beatam etiam socialem perhibent esse, quae amicorum bona propter se ipsa diligat sicut sua eisque propter ipsos hoc uelit quod sibi; siue in domo sint, sicut coniux et liberi et quicumque domestici, siue in loco, ubi domus est eius, sicuti est urbs, ut sunt hi qui ciues uocantur, siue in orbe toto, ut sunt gentes quas ei societas humana coniungit, siue in ipso mundo, qui censetur nomine caeli et terrae, sicut esse dicunt deos, quos uolunt amicos esse homini sapienti, quos nos familiarius angelos dicimus. De bonorum autem et e contrario malorum finibus negant ullo modo esse dubitandum et hanc inter se et nouos Academicos adfirmant esse distantiam, nec eorum interest quidquam, siue Cynico siue alio quolibet habitu et uictu in his finibus, quos ueros putant, quisque philosophetur. Ex tribus porro illis uitae generibus, otioso, actuoso et quod ex utroque conpositum est, hoc tertium sibi placere adseuerant. Haec sensisse adque docuisse Academicos ueteres Varro adserit, auctore Antiocho, magistro Ciceronis et suo, quem sane Cicero in pluribus fuisse Stoicum quam ueterem Academicum I unIt uideri. Sed quid ad nos, qui potius de rebus ipsis iudicare debemus, quam pro magno de hominibus quid quisque senserit scire?

## 95. What the Christians Believe Regarding the Supreme Good and Evil, in Opposition to the Philosophers, Who Have Maintained that the Supreme Good is in Themselves.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/95/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/95/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 4.—What the Christians Believe Regarding the Supreme Good and Evil, in Opposition to the Philosophers, Who Have Maintained that the Supreme Good is in Themselves.

> Latin: Caput IV. De summo bono et summo malo quid Christiani sentiant contra philosophos, qui summum bonum in se sibi esse dixerunt.

[¶1] If, then, we be asked what the city of God has to say upon these points, and, in the first place, what its opinion regarding the supreme good and evil is, it will reply that life eternal is the supreme good, death eternal the supreme evil, and that to obtain the one and escape the other we must live rightly. And thus it is written, “The just lives by faith,” for we do not as yet see our good, and must therefore live by faith; neither have we in ourselves power to live rightly, but can do so only if He who has given us faith to believe in His help do help us when we believe and pray. As for those who have supposed that the sovereign good and evil are to be found in this life, and have placed it either in the soul or the body, or in both, or, to speak more explicitly, either in pleasure or in virtue, or in both; in repose or in virtue, or in both; in pleasure and repose, or in virtue, or in all combined; in the primary objects of nature, or in virtue, or in both,—all these have, with a marvelous shallowness, sought to find their blessedness in this life and in themselves. Contempt has been poured upon such ideas by the Truth, saying by the prophet, “The Lord knoweth the thoughts of men” (or, as the Apostle Paul cites the passage, “The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise”) “that they are vain.”

> Latin: Si ergo quaeratur a nobis, quid ciuitas Dei de his singulis interrogata respondeat ac primum de finibus bonorum malorumque quid sentiat: respondebit aeternam uitam esse summum bonum, aeternam uero mortem summum malum; propter illam proinde adipiscendam istamque uitandam recte nobis esse uiuendum. Propter quod scriptum est: Iustus ex fide uiuit; quoniam neque bonum nostrum iam uidemus, unde oportet ut credendo quaeramus, neque ipsum recte uiuere nobis ex nobis est, nisi credentes adiuuet et orantes qui et ipsam fidem dedit. qua nos ab illo adiuuandos esse credamus. Illi autem, qui in ista uita fines bonorum et malorum esse putauerunt, siue in corpore siue in animo siue in utroque ponentes summum bonum, adque, ut id explicatius eloquar, siue in uoluptate siue in uirtute siue in utraque; siue in quiete siue in uirtute siue in utraque; siue in uoluptate simul et quiete siue in uirtute siue in utrisque, siue in primis naturae siue in uirtute siue in utrisque; hic beati esse et a se ipsis beati fieri mira uanitate uoluerunt. Inrisit hos Veritas per prophetam dicentem: Dominus nouit cogita. tiones hominum uel, sicut hoc testimonium posuit apostolus Paulus: Dominus nouit cogitationes sapientium, quoniam uanae sunt.

[¶2] For what flood of eloquence can suffice to detail the miseries of this life? Cicero, in the Consolation on the death of his daughter, has spent all his ability in lamentation; but how inadequate was even his ability here? For when, where, how, in this life can these primary objects of nature be possessed so that they may not be assailed by unforeseen accidents? Is the body of the wise man exempt from any pain which may dispel pleasure, from any disquietude which may banish repose? The amputation or decay of the members of the body puts an end to its integrity, deformity blights its beauty, weakness its health, lassitude its vigor, sleepiness or sluggishness its activity,—and which of these is it that may not assail the flesh of the wise man? Comely and fitting attitudes and movements of the body are numbered among the prime natural blessings; but what if some sickness makes the members tremble? what if a man suffers from curvature of the spine to such an extent that his hands reach the ground, and he goes upon all-fours like a quadruped? Does not this destroy all beauty and grace in the body, whether at rest or in motion? What shall I say of the fundamental blessings of the soul, sense and intellect, of which the one is given for the perception, and the other for the comprehension of truth? But what kind of sense is it that remains when a man becomes deaf and blind? where are reason and intellect when disease makes a man delirious? We can scarcely, or not at all, refrain from tears, when we think of or see the actions and words of such frantic persons, and consider how different from and even opposed to their own sober judgment and ordinary conduct their present demeanor is. And what shall I say of those who suffer from demoniacal possession? Where is their own intelligence hidden and buried while the malignant spirit is using their body and soul according to his own will? And who is quite sure that no such thing can happen to the wise man in this life? Then, as to the perception of truth, what can we hope for even in this way while in the body, as we read in the true book of Wisdom, “The corruptible body weigheth down the soul, and the earthly tabernacle presseth down the mind that museth upon many things?” And eagerness, or desire of action, if this is the right meaning to put upon the Greek ὁρμη, is also reckoned among the primary advantages of nature; and yet is it not this which produces those pitiable movements of the insane, and those actions which we shudder to see, when sense is deceived and reason deranged?

> Latin: Quis enim sufficit quantouis eloquentiae flumine uitae huius miserias explicare? Quam lamentatus est Cicero in consolatione de morte filiae, sicut potuit; sed quantum est quod potuit? Ea quippe, quae dicuntur prima naturae, quando, ubi, quo modo tam bene se habere in hac uita possunt, ut non sub incertis casibus fluctuent? Quis enim dolor contrarius uoluptati, quae inquietudo contraria quieti in corpus cadere sapientis non potest? Membrorum certe amputatio uel debilitas hominis expugnat incolumitatem, deformitas pulchritudinem, inbecillitas sanitatem, uires lassitudo, mobilitatem torpor aut tarditas; et quid horum est, quod nequeat in carnem sapientis inruere? Status quoque corporis adque motus, cum decentes et congruentes sunt, inter naturae prima numerantur; sed quid si aliqua mala ualetudo membra tremore concutiat? quid si usque ad ponendas in terra manus dorsi spina curuetur et hominem quodam modo quadrupedem faciat? Nonne omnem statuendi corporis et mouendi speciem decusque peruertet? Quid ipsius animi primigenia quae appellantur bona, ubi duo prima ponunt propter conprehensionem perceptionemque ueritatis sensum et intellectum? Sed qualis quantusque remanet sensus, si, ut alia taceam, fiat homo surdus et caecus? Ratio uero et intellegentia quo recedet, ubi sopietur, si aliquo morbo efficiatur insanus? Phrenetici multa absurda cum dicunt uel faciunt, plerumque a bono suo proposito et moribus aliena, immo suo bono proposito moribusque contraria, siue illa cogitemus siue uideamus, si digne consideremus, lacrimas tenere uix possumus aut forte nec possumus. Quid dicam de his, qui daemonum patiuntur incursus? Ubi habent absconditam uel obrutam intellegentiam suam, quando secundum suam uoluntatem et anima eorum et corpore malignus utitur spiritus? Et quis confidit hoc,. malum in hac uita euenire non posse sapienti? Deinde perceptio ueritatis in hac carne qualis aut quanta est, quando. sicut legimus in ueraci libro sapientiae, corpus corruptibile adgrauat animam et deprimit terrena inhabitatio sensum multa cogitantem?

[¶3] In fine, virtue itself, which is not among the primary objects of nature, but succeeds to them as the result of learning, though it holds the highest place among human good things, what is its occupation save to wage perpetual war with vices,—not those that are outside of us, but within; not other men’s, but our own,—a war which is waged especially by that virtue which the Greeks call σωφροσυνη, and we temperance, and which bridles carnal lusts, and prevents them from winning the consent of the spirit to wicked deeds? For we must not fancy that there is no vice in us, when, as the apostle says, “The flesh lusteth against the spirit;” for to this vice there is a contrary virtue, when, as the same writer says, “The spirit lusteth against the flesh.” “For these two,” he says, “are contrary one to the other, so that you cannot do the things which you would.” But what is it we wish to do when we seek to attain the supreme good, unless that the flesh should cease to lust against the spirit, and that there be no vice in us against which the spirit may lust? And as we cannot attain to this in the present life, however ardently we desire it, let us by God’s help accomplish at least this, to preserve the soul from succumbing and yielding to the flesh that lusts against it, and to refuse our consent to the perpetration of sin. Far be it from us, then, to fancy that while we are still engaged in this intestine war, we have already found the happiness which we seek to reach by victory. And who is there so wise that he has no conflict at all to maintain against his vices?

> Latin: Inpetus porro uel adpetitus actionis, si hoc modo recte Latine appellatur ea, quam Graeci uocant oppjv, quia et ipsam primis naturae deputant bonis, nonne ipse est, quo geruntur etiam insanorum illi miserabiles motus et facta, quae horremus, quando peruertitur sensus ratioque sopitur? Porro ipsa uirtus, quae non est inter prima naturae, quoniam eis postea doctrina introducente superuenit, cum sibi bonorum culmen uindicet humanorum, quid hic agit nisi perpetua bella cum uitiis, nec exterioribus, sed interioribus, nec alienis, sed plane nostris et propriis, maxime illa, quae Graece ococpoaovirj, Latine temperantia nominatur, qua carnales frenantur libidines, ne in quaeque flagitia mentem consen tientem trahant? Neque enim nullum est uitium, cum, sicut dicit apostolus, caro concupiscit aduersus spiritum; cui uitio contraria uirtus est, cum, sicut idem dicit, spiritus. concupiscit aduersus carnem. Haec enim, inquit, inuicem aduersantur, ut non ea quae uultis faciatis. Quid autem facere uolumus, cum perfici uolumus fine summi boni, nisi ut caro aduersus spiritum non concupiscat, nec sit in nobis hoc uitium, contra quod spiritus concupiscat? Quod in hac uita, quamuis uelimus, quoniam facere non ualemus, id saltem in adiutorio Dei facimus, ne carni concupiscenti aduersus spiritum spiritu succumbente cedamus et ad perpetrandum peccatum nostra consensione pertrahamur. Absit ergo ut, quamdiu in hoc bello intestino sumus, iam nos beatitudinem, ad quam uincendo uolumus peruenire, adeptos esse credamus.

[¶4] What shall I say of that virtue which is called prudence? Is not all its vigilance spent in the discernment of good from evil things, so that no mistake may be admitted about what we should desire and what avoid? And thus it is itself a proof that we are in the midst of evils, or that evils are in us; for it teaches us that it is an evil to consent to sin, and a good to refuse this consent. And yet this evil, to which prudence teaches and temperance enables us not to consent, is removed from this life neither by prudence nor by temperance. And justice, whose office it is to render to every man his due, whereby there is in man himself a certain just order of nature, so that the soul is subjected to God, and the flesh to the soul, and consequently both soul and flesh to God,—does not this virtue demonstrate that it is as yet rather laboring towards its end than resting in its finished work? For the soul is so much the less subjected to God as it is less occupied with the thought of God; and the flesh is so much the less subjected to the spirit as it lusts more vehemently against the spirit. So long, therefore, as we are beset by this weakness, this plague, this disease, how shall we dare to say that we are safe? and if not safe, then how can we be already enjoying our final beatitude? Then that virtue which goes by the name of fortitude is the plainest proof of the ills of life, for it is these ills which it is compelled to bear patiently. And this holds good, no matter though the ripest wisdom co-exists with it. And I am at a loss to understand how the Stoic philosophers can presume to say that these are no ills, though at the same time they allow the wise man to commit suicide and pass out of this life if they become so grievous that he cannot or ought not to endure them. But such is the stupid pride of these men who fancy that the supreme good can be found in this life, and that they can become happy by their own resources, that their wise man, or at least the man whom they fancifully depict as such, is always happy, even though he become blind, deaf, dumb, mutilated, racked with pains, or suffer any conceivable calamity such as may compel him to make away with himself; and they are not ashamed to call the life that is beset with these evils happy. O happy life, which seeks the aid of death to end it? If it is happy, let the wise man remain in it; but if these ills drive him out of it, in what sense is it happy? Or how can they say that these are not evils which conquer the virtue of fortitude, and force it not only to yield, but so to rave that it in one breath calls life happy and recommends it to be given up? For who is so blind as not to see that if it were happy it would not be fled from? And if they say we should flee from it on account of the infirmities that beset it, why then do they not lower their pride and acknowledge that it is miserable? Was it, I would ask, fortitude or weakness which prompted Cato to kill himself? for he would not have done so had he not been too weak to endure Cæsar’s victory. Where, then, is his fortitude? It has yielded, it has succumbed, it has been so thoroughly overcome as to abandon, forsake, flee this happy life. Or was it no longer happy? Then it was miserable. How, then, were these not evils which made life miserable, and a thing to be escaped from?

> Latin: Et quis est usque adeo sapiens, ut contra libidines nullum habeat omnino conflictum? Quid illa uirtus, quae prudentia dicitur, nonne tota uigilantia sua bona discernit a malis, ut in illis adpetendis istisque uitandis nullus error obrepat, ac per hoc et ipsa nos in malis uel mala in nobis esse testatur? Ipsa enim docet malum esse ad peccandum consentire bonumque esse ad peccandum non consentire libidini. Illud tamen malum, cui nos non consentire docet prudentia, facit temperantia, nec prudentia nec temperantia tollit huic uitae. Quid iustitia, cuius munus est sua cuique tribuere (unde fit in ipso homine quidam iustus ordo naturae, ut anima subdatur Deo et animae caro, ac per hoc Deo et anima et caro), nonne demonstrat in eo se adhuc opere laborare potius quam in huius operis iam fine requiescere? Tanto minus quippe anima subditur Deo, quanto minus Deum in ipsis suis cogitationibus concipit; et tanto minus animae subditur caro, quanto magis aduersus spiritum concupiscit. Quamdiu ergo nobis inest haec infirmitas, haec pestis, hic languor, quo modo nos iam saluos, et si nondum saluos, quo modo iam beatos illa finali beatitudine dicere audebimus? Iam uero illa uirtus, cuius nomen est fortitudo, in quantacumque sapientia euidentissima testis est humanorum malorum, quae conpellitur patientia tolerare. Quae mala Stoici philosophi miror qua fronte mala non esse contendant, quibus fatentur, si tanta fuerint, ut ea sapiens uel non possit uel non debeat sustinere, cogi eum mortem sibimet inferre adque ex hac uita emigrare. Tantus autem superbiae stupor est in his hominibus hic se habere finem boni et a se ipsis fieri beatos putantibus, ut sapiens eorum, hoc est, qualem mirabili uanitate describunt, etiamsi excaecetur obsurdescat obmutescat, membris debilitetur doloribus crucietur et, si quid aliud talium malorum dici aut cogitari potest, incidat in eum, quo sibi mortem cogatur inferre, hanc in his malis uitam constitutam eum non pudeat beatam uocare.s o uitam beatam, quae ut finiatur mortis quaerit auxilium! Si beata est, maneatur in ea. Quo modo ista non sunt mala, quae uincunt fortitudinis bonum eandemque fortitudinem non solum sibi cedere, uerum etiam delirare conpellunt, ut eandem uitam et dicat beatam et persuadeat esse fugiendam? Quis usque adeo caecus est, ut non uideat, quod, si beata esset, fugienda non esset? Sed aperta infirmitatis uoce fugiendam fatentur. Quid igitur causae est, quur non etiam miseram fracta superbiae ceruice fateantur? Utrum, obsecro, Cato ille patientia an potius inpatientia se peremit? Non enim hoc fecisset, nisi uictoriam Caesaris inpatienter tulisset. Ubi est fortitudo? Nempe cessit, nempe succubuit, nempe usque adeo superata est, ut uitam beatam derelinqueret desereret fugeret. An non erat iam beata? Misera ergo erat. Quo modo igitur mala non erant, quae uitam miseram fugiendamque faciebant?

[¶5] And therefore those who admit that these are evils, as the Peripatetics do, and the Old Academy, the sect which Varro advocates, express a more intelligible doctrine; but theirs also is a surprising mistake, for they contend that this is a happy life which is beset by these evils, even though they be so great that he who endures them should commit suicide to escape them. “Pains and anguish of body,” says Varro, “are evils, and so much the worse in proportion to their severity; and to escape them you must quit this life.” What life, I pray? This life, he says, which is oppressed by such evils. Then it is happy in the midst of these very evils on account of which you say we must quit it? Or do you call it happy because you are at liberty to escape these evils by death? What, then, if by some secret judgment of God you were held fast and not permitted to die, nor suffered to live without these evils? In that case, at least, you would say that such a life was miserable. It is soon relinquished, no doubt but this does not make it not miserable; for were it eternal, you yourself would pronounce it miserable. Its brevity, therefore, does not clear it of misery; neither ought it to be called happiness because it is a brief misery. Certainly there is a mighty force in these evils which compel a man—according to them even a wise man—to cease to be a man that he may escape them, though they say, and say truly, that it is as it were the first and strongest demand of nature that a man cherish himself, and naturally therefore avoid death, and should so stand his own friend as to wish and vehemently aim at continuing to exist as a living creature, and subsisting in this union of soul and body. There is a mighty force in these evils to overcome this natural instinct by which death is by every means and with all a man’s efforts avoided, and to overcome it so completely that what was avoided is desired, sought after, and if it cannot in any other way be obtained, is inflicted by the man on himself. There is a mighty force in these evils which make fortitude a homicide,—if, indeed, that is to be called fortitude which is so thoroughly overcome by these evils, that it not only cannot preserve by patience the man whom it undertook to govern and defend, but is itself obliged to kill him. The wise man, I admit, ought to bear death with patience, but when it is inflicted by another. If, then, as these men maintain, he is obliged to inflict it on himself, certainly it must be owned that the ills which compel him to this are not only evils, but intolerable evils. The life, then, which is either subject to accidents, or environed with evils so considerable and grievous, could never have been called happy, if the men who give it this name had condescended to yield to the truth, and to be conquered by valid arguments, when they inquired after the happy life, as they yield to unhappiness, and are overcome by overwhelming evils, when they put themselves to death, and if they had not fancied that the supreme good was to be found in this mortal life; for the very virtues of this life, which are certainly its best and most useful possessions, are all the more telling proofs of its miseries in proportion as they are helpful against the violence of its dangers, toils, and woes. For if these are true virtues,—and such cannot exist save in those who have true piety,—they do not profess to be able to deliver the men who possess them from all miseries; for true virtues tell no such lies, but they profess that by the hope of the future world this life, which is miserably involved in the many and great evils of this world, is happy as it is also safe. For if not yet safe, how could it be happy? And therefore the Apostle Paul, speaking not of men without prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice, but of those whose lives were regulated by true piety, and whose virtues were therefore true, says, “For we are saved by hope: now hope which is seen is not hope; for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.” As, therefore, we are saved, so we are made happy by hope. And as we do not as yet possess a present, but look for a future salvation, so is it with our happiness, and this “with patience;” for we are encompassed with evils, which we ought patiently to endure, until we come to the ineffable enjoyment of unmixed good; for there shall be no longer anything to endure. Salvation, such as it shall be in the world to come, shall itself be our final happiness. And this happiness these philosophers refuse to believe in, because they do not see it, and attempt to fabricate for themselves a happiness in this life, based upon a virtue which is as deceitful as it is proud.

> Latin: Quaproptu etiam ipsi, qui mala ista esse confessi sunt, sicut Peripatetici, sicut ueteres Academici, quorum sectam VaiTO defendit, tolerabilius quidem loquuntur, sed eorum quoque mirus est error, quod in his malis, etsi tam grauia sint, ut morte fugienda sint ab ipso sibimet inlata, qui haec patitur, uitam beatam tamen esse contendunt. ‘Mala sunt, inquit, tormenta adque cruciatus corporis, et tanto sunt peiora, quanto potuerint esse maiora; quibus ut careas, ex hac uita fugiendum est.’ Qua uita, obsecro? (Hac, inquit, quae tantis adgrauatur malis.’ Certe ergo beata est in eisdem ipsis malis, propter quae dicis esse fugiendam? An ideo beatam dicis, quia licet tibi ab his malis morte discedere? Quid si ergo in eis aliquo diuino iudicio tenereris nec permittereris mori nec umquam sine illis esse sinereris? Nempe tunc saltem miseram talem diceres uitam. Non igitur propterea misera non est, quia cito relinquitur. Quando quidem si sempiterna sit, etiam abs te ipso misera iudicatur; non itaque propterea, quoniam breuis est, nulla miseria debet uideri aut, quod est absurdius, quia breuis miseria est, ideo etiam beatitudo appellari. Magna uis est in eis malis, quae cogunt hominem secundum ipsos etiam sapientem sibimet auferre quod homo est; cum dicant et uerum dicant, hanc esse naturae primam quodam modo et maximam uocem, ut homo concilietur sibi et propterea mortem naturaliter fugiat, ita sibi amicus, ut esse se animal et in hac coniunctione corporis adque animae uiuere uelit uehementer adque adpetat. Magna uis est in eis malis, quibus iste naturae uincitur sensus, quo mors omni modo omnibus uiribus conatibusque uitatur, et ita uincitur, ut, quae uitabatur optetur adpetatur et, si non potuerit aliunde contingere, ab homine ipso sibimet inferatur. Magna uis est in eis malis, quae fortitudinem faciunt homicidam; si tamen adhuc dicenda est fortitudo, quae ita his malis uincitur, ut hominem, quem sicut uirtus regendum tuendumque suscepit, non modo non possit per patientiam custodire, sed ipsa insuper cogatur occidere. Debet quidem etiam mortem sapiens ferre patienter, sed quae accidit aliunde. Secundum istos autem si eam sibi ipse inferre conpellitur, profecto fatendum est eis non solum mala, sed intolerabilia etiam mala esse. quae hoc eum perpetrare conpellunt. Vita igitur, quae istorum tam magnorum tamque grauium malorum aut premitur oneribus aut subiacet casibus, nullo modo beata diceretur, si homines, qui hoc dicunt, sicut uicti malis ingrauescentibus, cum sibi ingerunt mortem, cedunt infelicitati, ita uicti certis rationibus, cum quaerunt beatam uitam, dignarentur cedere ueritati et non sibi putarent in ista mortalitate fine summi boni esse gaudendum, ubi uirtutes ipsae, quibus hic certe nihil melius adque utilius in homine reperitur, quanto maiora sunt adiutoria contra uim periculorum laborum dolorum, tanto fideliora testimonia miseriarum. Si enim uerae uirtutes sunt, quae nisi in eis, quibus uera inest pietas, esse non possunt: non se profitentur hoc posse, ut nullas miserias patiantur homines, in quibus sunt (neque enim mendaces sunt uerae uirtutes, ut hoc profiteantur), sed ut uita humana, quae tot et tantis huius saeculi malis esse cogitur misera, spe futuri saeculi sit beata, sicut et salua. Quo modo enim beata est, quae nondum salua est? Unde et apostolus Paulus non de hominibus inprudentibus inpatientibus, intemperantibus et iniquis, sed de his, qui secundum ueram pietatem uiuerent et ideo uirtutes, quas haberent, ueras haberent, ait: Spe enim salui facti sumus. Spes autem quae uidetur, non est spes. Quod enim uidet quis, quid et sperat? Si autem quod non uidemus speramus, per patientiam expectamus. Sicut ergo spe salui, ita spe beati facti sumus, et sicut salutem, ita beatitudinem non iam tenemus praesentem, sed exspectamus futuram, et hoc per patientiam; quia in malis sumus, quae patienter tolerare debemus, donec ad illa ueniamus bona, ubi omnia erunt, quibus ineffabiliter delectemur, nihil erit autem, quod iam tolerare debeamus. Talis salus, quae in futuro erit saeculo, ipsa erit etiam finalis beatitudo. Quam beatitudinem isti philosophi, quoniam non uidentes nolunt credere, hic sibi conantur falsissimam fabricare, quanto superbiore, tanto mendaciore uirtute.

### Of the Social Life, Which, Though Most Desirable, is Frequently Disturbed by Many Distresses.

[¶7] Chapter 5.—Of the Social Life, Which, Though Most Desirable, is Frequently Disturbed by Many Distresses.

> Latin: Caput V. De sociali uita, quae, cum maxime expetenda sit, multis offensionibus saepe subuertitur.

[¶8] We give a much more unlimited approval to their idea that the life of the wise man must be social. For how could the city of God (concerning which we are already writing no less than the nineteenth book of this work) either take a beginning or be developed, or attain its proper destiny, if the life of the saints were not a social life? But who can enumerate all the great grievances with which human society abounds in the misery of this mortal state? Who can weigh them? Hear how one of their comic writers makes one of his characters express the common feelings of all men in this matter: “I am married; this is one misery. Children are born to me; they are additional cares.” What shall I say of the miseries of love which Terence also recounts—“slights, suspicions, quarrels, war to-day, peace to-morrow?” Is not human life full of such things? Do they not often occur even in honorable friendships? On all hands we experience these slights, suspicions, quarrels, war, all of which are undoubted evils; while, on the other hand, peace is a doubtful good, because we do not know the heart of our friend, and though we did know it to-day, we should be as ignorant of what it might be to-morrow. Who ought to be, or who are more friendly than those who live in the same family? And yet who can rely even upon this friendship, seeing that secret treachery has often broken it up, and produced enmity as bitter as the amity was sweet, or seemed sweet by the most perfect dissimulation? It is on this account that the words of Cicero so move the heart of every one, and provoke a sigh: “There are no snares more dangerous than those which lurk under the guise of duty or the name of relationship. For the man who is your declared foe you can easily baffle by precaution; but this hidden, intestine, and domestic danger not merely exists, but overwhelms you before you can foresee and examine it.” It is also to this that allusion is made by the divine saying, “A man’s foes are those of his own household,”—words which one cannot hear without pain; for though a man have sufficient fortitude to endure it with equanimity, and sufficient sagacity to baffle the malice of a pretended friend, yet if he himself is a good man, he cannot but be greatly pained at the discovery of the perfidy of wicked men, whether they have always been wicked and merely feigned goodness, or have fallen from a better to a malicious disposition. If, then, home, the natural refuge from the ills of life, is itself not safe, what shall we say of the city, which, as it is larger, is so much the more filled with lawsuits civil and criminal, and is never free from the fear, if sometimes from the actual outbreak, of disturbing and bloody insurrections and civil wars?

> Latin: Quod autem socialem uitam uolunt esse sapientis, nos multo amplius adprobamus. Nam unde ista Dei ciuitas, de qua huius operis ecce iam undeuicensimum librum uersamus in manibus, uel inchoaretur exortu uel progrederetur excursu uel adprehenderet debitos fines, si non esset socialis uita sanctorum? Sed in huius mortalitatis aerumna quot et quantis abundet malis humana societas, quis enumerare ualeat? quis aestimare sufficiat? Audiant aput comicos suos hominem cum sensu adque consensu omnium hominum dicere: Duxi uxorem; quam ibi miseriam uidi! Nati filii. Alia cura. Quid itidem illa, quae in amore uitia commemorat idem Terentius, <iniuriae suspiciones, inimicitiae bellum, pax rursum’: nonne res humanas ubique inpleuerunt? nonne et in amicorum honestis amoribus plerumque contingunt? nonne his usquequaque plenae sunt res humanae, ubi iniurias suspiciones, inimicitias bellum mala certa sentimus; pacem uero incertum bonum, quoniam corda eomm, cum quibus eam tenere uolumus, ignoramus, et si hodie nosse possemus qualia cras futura essent utique nesciremus. Qui porro inter se amiciores solent esse uel debent, quam qui una etiam continentur domo? Et tamen quis inde securus est, cum tanta saepe mala ex eorum occultis insidiis exstiterint, tanto amariora, quanto pax dulcior fuit, quae uera putata est, cum astutissime fingeretur? Propter quod omnium pectora sic adtingit, ut cogat in gemitum, quod ait Tullius: ‘Nullae sunt occultiores insidiae quam hae, quae latent in simulatione officii aut in aliquo necessitudinis nomine. Nam eum, qui palam est aduersarius, facile cauendo uitare possis; hoc uero occultum intestinum ac domesticum malum non solum exsistit, uerum etiam obprimit, antequam prospicere adque explorare potueris.’ Propter quod etiam diuina uox illa: Et inimici hominis domestici eius cum magno dolore cordis auditur, quia, etsi quisque tam fortis sit, ut aequo animo perferat, uel tam uigilans, ut prouido consilio caueat, quae aduersus eum molitur amicitia simulata, eorum tamen hominum perfidorum malo, cum eos esse pessimos experitur, si ipse bonus est, grauiter excrucietur necesse est, siue semper mali fuerint et se bonos finxerint, siue in istam malitiam ex bonitate mutati sint. Si ergo domus, commune perfugium in his malis humani generis, tuta non est, quid ciuitas, quae quanto maior est, tanto forum eius litibus et ciuilibus et criminalibus plenius, etiamsi quiescant non. solum turbulentae, uerum saepius et cruentae seditiones ac bella ciuilia, a quorum euentis sunt aliquando liberae ciuitates, a periculis numquam?

### Of the Error of Human Judgments When the Truth is Hidden.

[¶10] Chapter 6.—Of the Error of Human Judgments When the Truth is Hidden.

> Latin: Caput VI. De errore humanorum iudiciorum, cum ueritas latet.

[¶11] What shall I say of these judgments which men pronounce on men, and which are necessary in communities, whatever outward peace they enjoy? Melancholy and lamentable judgments they are, since the judges are men who cannot discern the consciences of those at their bar, and are therefore frequently compelled to put innocent witnesses to the torture to ascertain the truth regarding the crimes of other men. What shall I say of torture applied to the accused himself? He is tortured to discover whether he is guilty, so that, though innocent, he suffers most undoubted punishment for crime that is still doubtful, not because it is proved that he committed it, but because it is not ascertained that he did not commit it. Thus the ignorance of the judge frequently involves an innocent person in suffering. And what is still more unendurable—a thing, indeed, to be bewailed, and, if that were possible, watered with fountains of tears—is this, that when the judge puts the accused to the question, that he may not unwittingly put an innocent man to death, the result of this lamentable ignorance is that this very person, whom he tortured that he might not condemn him if innocent, is condemned to death both tortured and innocent. For if he has chosen, in obedience to the philosophical instructions to the wise man, to quit this life rather than endure any longer such tortures, he declares that he has committed the crime which in fact he has not committed. And when he has been condemned and put to death, the judge is still in ignorance whether he has put to death an innocent or a guilty person, though he put the accused to the torture for the very purpose of saving himself from condemning the innocent; and consequently he has both tortured an innocent man to discover his innocence, and has put him to death without discovering it. If such darkness shrouds social life, will a wise judge take his seat on the bench or no? Beyond question he will. For human society, which he thinks it a wickedness to abandon, constrains him and compels him to this duty. And he thinks it no wickedness that innocent witnesses are tortured regarding the crimes of which other men are accused; or that the accused are put to the torture, so that they are often overcome with anguish, and, though innocent, make false confessions regarding themselves, and are punished; or that, though they be not condemned to die, they often die during, or in consequence of, the torture; or that sometimes the accusers, who perhaps have been prompted by a desire to benefit society by bringing criminals to justice, are themselves condemned through the ignorance of the judge, because they are unable to prove the truth of their accusations though they are true, and because the witnesses lie, and the accused endures the torture without being moved to confession. These numerous and important evils he does not consider sins; for the wise judge does these things, not with any intention of doing harm, but because his ignorance compels him, and because human society claims him as a judge. But though we therefore acquit the judge of malice, we must none the less condemn human life as miserable. And if he is compelled to torture and punish the innocent because his office and his ignorance constrain him, is he a happy as well as a guiltless man? Surely it were proof of more profound considerateness and finer feeling were he to recognize the misery of these necessities, and shrink from his own implication in that misery; and had he any piety about him, he would cry to God “From my necessities deliver Thou me.”

> Latin: Quid ipsa iudicia hominum de hominibus, quae ciuitatibus in quantalibet pace manentibus deesse non possunt, qualia putamus esse, quam misera, quam dolenda? Quando quidem hi iudicant, qui conscientias eorum, de quibus iudicant, cernere nequeunt. Unde saepe coguntur tormentis innocentium testium ad alienam causam pertinentem quaerere ueritatem. Quid cum in sua causa quisque torquetur et, cum quaeritur utrum sit nocens, cruciatur et innocens luit pro incerto scelere certissimas poenas, non quia illud commisisse detegitur, sed quia non commisisse nescitur? Ac per hoc ignorantia iudicis plerumque est calamitas innocentis. Et quod est intolerabilius magisque plangendum rigandumque, si fieri possit, fontibus Iaci-imarum, cum propterea iudex torqueat accusatum, ne occidat nesciens innocentem, fit per ignorantiae miseriam, ut et tortum et innocentem occidat, quem ne innocentem occideret torserat. Si enim secundum istorum sapientiam delegerit ex hac uita fugere quam diutius illa sustinere tormenta: quod non commisit, commisisse se dicit. Quo damnato et occiso, utrum nocentem an innocentem iudex occiderit, adhuc nescit, quem ne innocentem nesciens occideret torsit; ac per hoc innocentem et ut sciret torsit, et dum nesciret occidit. In his tenebris uitae socialis sedebit iudex ille sapiens an non audebit? Sedebit plane. Constringit enim eum et ad hoc officium pertrahit humana societas, quam deserere nefas ducit. Hoc enim nefas esse non ducit, quod testes innocentes in causis torquentur alienis; quod hi, qui arguuntur, ui doloris plerumque superati et de se falsa confessi etiam puniuntur innocentes, cum iam torti fuerint innocentes; quod, etsi non morte puniantur, in ipsis uel ex ipsis tormentis plerumque moriuntur; quod aliquando et ipsi, qui arguunt, humanae societati fortasse, ne crimina inpunita sint, prodesse cupientes et mentientibus testibus reoque ipso contra tormenta durante inmaniter nec fatente probare quod obiciunt non ualentes, quamuis uera obiecerint, a iudice nesciente damnantur. Haec tot et tanta mala non deputat esse peccata; non enim haec facit sapiens iudex nocendi uoluntate, sed necessitate nesciendi, et tamen, quia cogit humana societas, necessitate etiam iudicandi. Haec est ergo quam dicimus miseria certe hominis, etsi non malitia sapientis. An uero necessitate nesciendi adque iudicandi torquet insontes, punit insontes, et parum est illi, quod non est reus, si non sit insuper et beatus? Quanto consideratius et homine dignius agnoscit in ista necessitate miseriam eamque odit in se et, si pie sapit, clamat ad Deum: De necessitatibus meis erue me!

### Of the Diversity of Languages, by Which the Intercourse of Men is Prevented; And of the Misery of Wars, Even of Those Called Just.

[¶13] Chapter 7.—Of the Diversity of Languages, by Which the Intercourse of Men is Prevented; And of the Misery of Wars, Even of Those Called Just.

> Latin: Caput VII. De diuersitate linguarum, qua societas hominum dirimatur, et de miseria bellorum, etiam quae iusta dicuntur.

[¶14] After the state or city comes the world, the third circle of human society,—the first being the house, and the second the city. And the world, as it is larger, so it is fuller of dangers, as the greater sea is the more dangerous. And here, in the first place, man is separated from man by the difference of languages. For if two men, each ignorant of the other’s language, meet, and are not compelled to pass, but, on the contrary, to remain in company, dumb animals, though of different species, would more easily hold intercourse than they, human beings though they be. For their common nature is no help to friendliness when they are prevented by diversity of language from conveying their sentiments to one another; so that a man would more readily hold intercourse with his dog than with a foreigner. But the imperial city has endeavored to impose on subject nations not only her yoke, but her language, as a bond of peace, so that interpreters, far from being scarce, are numberless. This is true; but how many great wars, how much slaughter and bloodshed, have provided this unity! And though these are past, the end of these miseries has not yet come. For though there have never been wanting, nor are yet wanting, hostile nations beyond the empire, against whom wars have been and are waged, yet, supposing there were no such nations, the very extent of the empire itself has produced wars of a more obnoxious description—social and civil wars—and with these the whole race has been agitated, either by the actual conflict or the fear of a renewed outbreak. If I attempted to give an adequate description of these manifold disasters, these stern and lasting necessities, though I am quite unequal to the task, what limit could I set? But, say they, the wise man will wage just wars. As if he would not all the rather lament the necessity of just wars, if he remembers that he is a man; for if they were not just he would not wage them, and would therefore be delivered from all wars. For it is the wrongdoing of the opposing party which compels the wise man to wage just wars; and this wrong-doing, even though it gave rise to no war, would still be matter of grief to man because it is man’s wrong-doing. Let every one, then, who thinks with pain on all these great evils, so horrible, so ruthless, acknowledge that this is misery. And if any one either endures or thinks of them without mental pain, this is a more miserable plight still, for he thinks himself happy because he has lost human feeling.

> Latin: Post ciuitatem uel urbem sequitur orbis terrae, in quo tertium gradum ponunt societatis humanae, incipientes a domo adque inde ad urbem, deinde ad orbem progrediendo uenientes; qui utique, sicut aquarum congeries, quanto maior est, tanto periculis plenior. In quo primum linguarum diuersitas hominem alienat ab homine. Nam si duo sibimet inuicem fiant obuiam neque praeterire, sed simul esse aliqua necessitate cogantur, quorum neuter linguam nouit alterius: facilius sibi muta animalia, etiam diuersi generis, quam illi, cum sint homines ambo, sociantur. Quando enim quae sentiunt inter se communicare non possunt propter solam diuersitatem linguae, nihil prodest ad consociandos homines tanta similitudo naturae; ita ut libentius homo sit cum cane suo quam cum homine alieno. At enim opera data est, ut imperiosa ciuitas non solum iugum, uerum etiam linguam suam domitis gentibus per pacem societatis inponeret, per quam non deesset, immo et abundaret etiam interpretum copia. Velum est; sed hoc quam multis et quam grandibus bellis, quanta strage hominum, quanta effusione humani sanguinis conparatum est? Quibus transactis, non est tamen eorundem malorum finita miseria. Quamuis enim non defuerint neque desint hostes exterae nationes, contra quas semper bella gesta sunt et geruntur: tamen etiam ipsa imperii latitudo peperit peioris generis bella, socialia scilicet et ciuilia, quibus miserabilius quatitur humanum genus, siue cum belligeratur, ut aliquando conquiescant, siue cum timetur, ne rursus exsurgant. Quorum malorum multas et multiplices clades, duras et diras necessitates si ut dignum est eloqui uelim, quamquam nequaquam sicut res postulat possim: quis erit prolixae disputationis modus? Sed sapiens, inquiunt, iusta bella gesturus est. Quasi non, si se hominem meminit, multo magis dolebit iustorum necessitatem sibi extitisse bellorum, quia nisi iusta essent, ei gerenda non essent, ac per hoc sapienti nulla bella essent. Iniquitas enim partis aduersae iusta bella ingerit gerenda sapienti; quae iniquitas utique homini est dolenda, quia hominum est, etsi nulla ex ea bellandi necessitas nasceretur. Haec itaque mala tam magna, tam horrenda, tam saeua quisquis cum dolore considerat, miseriam fateatur; quisquis autem uel patitur ea sine animi dolore uel cogitat, multo utique miserius ideo se putat beatum, quia et humanum perdidit sensum.

### That the Friendship of Good Men Cannot Be Securely Rested In, So Long as the Dangers of This Life Force Us to Be Anxious.

[¶16] Chapter 8.—That the Friendship of Good Men Cannot Be Securely Rested In, So Long as the Dangers of This Life Force Us to Be Anxious.

> Latin: Caput VIII. Quod amicitia bonorum secura esse non possit, dum a periculis, quae in hac uita sunt, trepidari necesse est.

[¶17] In our present wretched condition we frequently mistake a friend for an enemy, and an enemy for a friend. And if we escape this pitiable blindness, is not the unfeigned confidence and mutual love of true and good friends our one solace in human society, filled as it is with misunderstandings and calamities? And yet the more friends we have, and the more widely they are scattered, the more numerous are our fears that some portion of the vast masses of the disasters of life may light upon them. For we are not only anxious lest they suffer from famine, war, disease, captivity, or the inconceivable horrors of slavery, but we are also affected with the much more painful dread that their friendship may be changed into perfidy, malice, and injustice. And when these contingencies actually occur,—as they do the more frequently the more friends we have, and the more widely they are scattered,—and when they come to our knowledge, who but the man who has experienced it can tell with what pangs the heart is torn? We would, in fact, prefer to hear that they were dead, although we could not without anguish hear of even this. For if their life has solaced us with the charms of friendship, can it be that their death should affect us with no sadness? He who will have none of this sadness must, if possible, have no friendly intercourse. Let him interdict or extinguish friendly affection; let him burst with ruthless insensibility the bonds of every human relationship; or let him contrive so to use them that no sweetness shall distil into his spirit. But if this is utterly impossible, how shall we contrive to feel no bitterness in the death of those whose life has been sweet to us? Hence arises that grief which affects the tender heart like a wound or a bruise, and which is healed by the application of kindly consolation. For though the cure is affected all the more easily and rapidly the better condition the soul is in, we must not on this account suppose that there is nothing at all to heal. Although, then, our present life is afflicted, sometimes in a milder, sometimes in a more painful degree, by the death of those very dear to us, and especially of useful public men, yet we would prefer to hear that such men were dead rather than to hear or perceive that they had fallen from the faith, or from virtue,—in other words, that they were spiritually dead. Of this vast material for misery the earth is full, and therefore it is written, “Is not human life upon earth a trial?” And with the same reference the Lord says, “Woe to the world because of offenses!” and again, “Because iniquity abounded, the love of many shall wax cold.” And hence we enjoy some gratification when our good friends die; for though their death leaves us in sorrow, we have the consolatory assurance that they are beyond the ills by which in this life even the best of men are broken down or corrupted, or are in danger of both results.

> Latin: Si autem non contingat quaedam ignorantia similis dementiae, quae tamen in huius uitae misera condicione saepe contingit, ut credatur uel amicus esse, qui inimicus est, uel inimicus, qui amicus est: quid nos consolatur in hac humana societate erroribus aerumnisque plenissima nisi fides non ficta et mutua dilectio uerorum et bonorum amicorum? Quos quanto plures et in locis pluribus habemus, tanto longius latiusque metuimus, ne quid eis contingat mali de tantis malorum aggeribus huius saeculi. Non enim tantummodo solliciti sumus, ne fame, ne bellis, ne morbis, ne captiuitatibus adfligantur, ne in eadem seruitute talia patiantur, qualia nec cogitare sufficimus; uerum etiam, ubi timor est multo amarior, ne in perfidiam malitiam nequitiamque mutentur. Et quando ista contingunt (tanto utique plura, quanto illi sunt plures) et in nostram notitiam perferuntur, quibus cor nostrum flagris uratur, quis potest, nisi qui talia sentit, aduertere? Mortuos quippe audire mallemus, quamuis et hoc sine dolore non possimus audire. Quorum enim nos uita propter amicitiae solacia delectabat, unde fieri potest, ut eorum mors nullam nobis ingerat maestitudinem? Quam qui prohibet, prohibeat, si potest, amica conloquia, interdicat amicalem uel intercidat adfectum, humanarum omnium necessitudinum uincula mentis inmiti stupore disrumpat aut sic eis utendum censeat, ut nulla ex eis animum dulcedo perfundat. Quod si fieri nullo modo potest, etiam hoc quo pacto futurum est, ut eius nobis amara mors non sit, cuius dulcis est uita? Hinc enim est et luctus quoddam non inhumani cordis quasi uulnus aut ulcus, cui sanando adhibentur officiosae consolationes. Non enim propterea non est quod sanetur, quoniam quanto est animus melior, tanto in eo citius faciliusque sanatur. Cum igitur etiam de carissimorum mortibus, maxime quorum sunt humanae societati officia necessaria, nunc mitius, nunc asperius adfligatur uita mortalium: mortuos tamen eos, quos diligimus, quam uel a fide uel a bonis moribus lapsos, hoc est in ipsa anima mortuos, audire seu uidere mallemus. Qua ingenti materia malorum plena est terra, propter quod scriptum est: Numquid non tentatio est uita humana super terram? et propter quod ipse Dominus ait: Vae mundo ab scandalis, et iterum: Quoniam abundauit, inquit, iniquitas, refrigescet caritas multorum. Ex quo fit, ut bonis amicis mortuis gratulemur et, cum mors eorum nos contristet, ipsa nos certius consoletur, quoniam caruerunt malis, quibus in hac uita etiam boni homines uel conteruntur uel deprauantur uel in utroque periclitantur.

### Of the Friendship of the Holy Angels, Which Men Cannot Be Sure of in This Life, Owing to the Deceit of the Demons Who Hold in Bondage the Worshippers of a Plurality of Gods.

[¶19] Chapter 9.—Of the Friendship of the Holy Angels, Which Men Cannot Be Sure of in This Life, Owing to the Deceit of the Demons Who Hold in Bondage the Worshippers of a Plurality of Gods.

> Latin: Caput IX. De amicitia sanctorum angelorum, quae homini in hoc mundo non potest esse manifesta propter fallaciam daemonum, in quos inciderunt, qui multos sibi deos colendos putarunt.

[¶20] The philosophers who wished us to have the gods for our friends rank the friendship of the holy angels in the fourth circle of society, advancing now from the three circles of society on earth to the universe, and embracing heaven itself. And in this friendship we have indeed no fear that the angels will grieve us by their death or deterioration. But as we cannot mingle with them as familiarly as with men (which itself is one of the grievances of this life), and as Satan, as we read, sometimes transforms himself into an angel of light, to tempt those whom it is necessary to discipline, or just to deceive, there is great need of God’s mercy to preserve us from making friends of demons in disguise, while we fancy we have good angels for our friends; for the astuteness and deceitfulness of these wicked spirits is equalled by their hurtfulness. And is this not a great misery of human life, that we are involved in such ignorance as, but for God’s mercy, makes us a prey to these demons? And it is very certain that the philosophers of the godless city, who have maintained that the gods were their friends, had fallen a prey to the malignant demons who rule that city, and whose eternal punishment is to be shared by it. For the nature of these beings is sufficiently evinced by the sacred or rather sacrilegious observances which form their worship, and by the filthy games in which their crimes are celebrated, and which they themselves originated and exacted from their worshippers as a fit propitiation.

> Latin: In societate uero sanctorum angelorum, quam philosophi illi, qui nobis deos amicos esse uoluerunt, quarto constitnerunt loco, uelut ad mundum uenientes ab orbe terrarum, ut sic quodam modo conplecterentur et caelum, nullo modo quidem metuimus, ne tales amici uel morte nos sua uel deprauatione contristent. Sed quia nobis non ea, qua homines, familiaritate miscentur (quod etiam ipsum ad aerumnas huius pertinetuitae) et aliquando Satanas, sicut legimus, transfigurat se uelut angelum lucis ad tentandos eos, quos ita uel erudiri opus est uel decipi iustum est: magna Dei misericordia necessaria est, ne quisquam, cum bonos angelos amicos se habere putat, habeat malos daemones fictos amicos, eosque tanto nocentiores, quanto astutiores ac fallaciores, patiatur inimicos. Et cui magna ista Dei misericordia necessaria est nisi magnae humanae miseriae, quae ignorantia tanta premitur, ut facile istorum simulatione fallatur? Et illos quidem philosophos in inpia ciuitate, qui deos sibi amicos esse dixerunt, in daemones malignos incidisse certissimum est, quibus tota ipsa ciuitas subditur, aeternum cum eis habitura supplicium. Ex eorum quippe sacris uel potius sacrilegiis, quibus eos colendos, et ex ludis inmundissimis, ubi eorum crimina celebrantur, quibus eos placandos putarunt eisdem ipsis auctoribus et exactoribus talium tantorumque dedecorum, satis ab eis qui colantur apertum est.

### The Reward Prepared for the Saints After They Have Endured the Trial of This Life.

[¶22] Chapter 10.—The Reward Prepared for the Saints After They Have Endured the Trial of This Life.

> Latin: Caput X. Quis fructus sanctis de superata huius uitae tentatione pariatur.

[¶23] But not even the saints and faithful worshippers of the one true and most high God are safe from the manifold temptations and deceits of the demons. For in this abode of weakness, and in these wicked days, this state of anxiety has also its use, stimulating us to seek with keener longing for that security where peace is complete and unassailable. There we shall enjoy the gifts of nature, that is to say, all that God the Creator of all natures has bestowed upon ours,—gifts not only good, but eternal,—not only of the spirit, healed now by wisdom, but also of the body renewed by the resurrection. There the virtues shall no longer be struggling against any vice or evil, but shall enjoy the reward of victory, the eternal peace which no adversary shall disturb. This is the final blessedness, this the ultimate consummation, the unending end. Here, indeed, we are said to be blessed when we have such peace as can be enjoyed in a good life; but such blessedness is mere misery compared to that final felicity. When we mortals possess such peace as this mortal life can afford, virtue, if we are living rightly, makes a right use of the advantages of this peaceful condition; and when we have it not, virtue makes a good use even of the evils a man suffers. But this is true virtue, when it refers all the advantages it makes a good use of, and all that it does in making good use of good and evil things, and itself also, to that end in which we shall enjoy the best and greatest peace possible.

> Latin: Sed neque sancti et fideles unius ueri Dei summique cultores ab eorum fallaciis et multiformi tentatione securi sunt. In hoc enim loco infirmitatis et diebus malignis etiam ista sollicitudo non est inutilis, ut illa securitas, ubi pax plenissima adque certissima est, desiderio feruentiore quaeratur. Ibi enim erunt naturae munera, hoc est, quae naturae nostrae ab omnium naturarum creatore donantur, non solum bona, uerum etiam sempiterna, non solum in animo, qui sanatur per sapientiam, uerum etiam in corpore, quod resurrectione renouabitur; ibi uirtutes, non contra ulla uitia uel mala quaecumque certantes, sed habentes uictoriae praemium aeternam pacem. quam nullus aduersarius inquietet. Ipsa est enim beatitudo finalis, ipse perfectionis finis, qui consumentem non habet finem. Hic autem dicimur quidem beati, quando pacem habemus, quantulacumque hic haberi potest in uita bona; sed haec beatitudo illi, quam finalem dicimus, beatitudini conparata prorsus miseria reperitur. Hanc ergo pacem, qualis hic potest esse, mortales homines in rebus mortalibus quando habemus, si recte uiuimus, bonis eius recte utitur uirtus; quando uero eam non habemus, etiam malis, quae homo patitur, bene utitur uirtus. Sed tunc est uera uirtus, quando et omnia bona, quibus bene utitur. et quidquid in bono usu bonorum et malorum facit, et se ipsam ad eum finem refert, ubi nobis talis et tanta pax erit, qua melior et maior esse non possit.

## 96. Of the Happiness of the Eternal Peace, Which Constitutes the End or True Perfection of the Saints.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/96/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/96/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 11.—Of the Happiness of the Eternal Peace, Which Constitutes the End or True Perfection of the Saints.

> Latin: Caput XI. De beatitudine pacis aeternae, in qua sanctis finis est, id est uera perfectio.

[¶1] And thus we may say of peace, as we have said of eternal life, that it is the end of our good; and the rather because the Psalmist says of the city of God, the subject of this laborious work, “Praise the Lord, O Jerusalem; praise thy God, O Zion: for He hath strengthened the bars of thy gates; He hath blessed thy children within thee; who hath made thy borders peace.” For when the bars of her gates shall be strengthened, none shall go in or come out from her; consequently we ought to understand the peace of her borders as that final peace we are wishing to declare. For even the mystical name of the city itself, that is, Jerusalem, means, as I have already said, “Vision of Peace.” But as the word peace is employed in connection with things in this world in which certainly life eternal has no place, we have preferred to call the end or supreme good of this city life eternal rather than peace. Of this end the apostle says, “But now, being freed from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end life eternal.” But, on the other hand, as those who are not familiar with Scripture may suppose that the life of the wicked is eternal life, either because of the immortality of the soul, which some of the philosophers even have recognized, or because of the endless punishment of the wicked, which forms a part of our faith, and which seems impossible unless the wicked live for ever, it may therefore be advisable, in order that every one may readily understand what we mean, to say that the end or supreme good of this city is either peace in eternal life, or eternal life in peace. For peace is a good so great, that even in this earthly and mortal life there is no word we hear with such pleasure, nothing we desire with such zest, or find to be more thoroughly gratifying. So that if we dwell for a little longer on this subject, we shall not, in my opinion, be wearisome to our readers, who will attend both for the sake of understanding what is the end of this city of which we speak, and for the sake of the sweetness of peace which is dear to all.

> Latin: Quapropter possemus dicere fines bonorum nostrorum esse pacem, sicut aeternam diximus uitam, praesertim quia ipsi ciuitati Dei, de qua nobis est ista operosissima disputatio, in sancto dicitur psalmo: Lauda Hierusalem Dominum, conlauda Deum tuum Sion; quoniam confirmauit seras portarum tuarum, benedixit filios tuos in te, qui posuit fines tuos pacem. Quando enim confirmatae fuerint serae portarum eius, iam in illam nullus intrabit nec ab illa ullus exibit. Ac per hoc fines eius eam debemus hic intellegere pacem, quam uolumus demonstrare finalem. Nam et ipsius ciuitatis mysticum nomen, id est Hierusalem, quod et ante iam diximus, uisio pacis interpretatur. Sed quoniam pacis nomen etiam in his rebus mortalibus frequentatur, ubi utique non est uita aeterna, propterea finem ciuitatis huius, ubi erit summum bonum eius, aeternam uitam maluimus commemorare quam pacem. De quo fine apostolus ait: Nunc uero liberati a peccato, serui autem facti Deo, habetis fructum uestrum in sanctificationem, finem uero uitam aeternam. Sed rursus quia uita aeterna ab eis, qui familiaritatem non habent cum scripturis sanctis, potest accipi etiam malorum uita, uel secundum quosdam etiam philosophos propter animae inmortalitatem uel secundum etiam fidem nostram propter poenas interminabiles inpiorum, qui utique in aeternum cruciari non poterunt, nisi etiam uixerint in aeternum: profecto finis ciuitatis huius, in quo summum habebit bonum, uel pax in uita aeterna uel uita aeterna in pace dicendus est, ut facilius ab omnibus possit intellegi. Tantum est enim pacis bonum, ut etiam in rebus terrenis adque mortalibus nihil gratius soleat audiri, nihil desiderabilius concupisci, nihil postremo possit melius inueniri. De quo si aliquanto diutius loqui uoluerimus, non erimus, quantum arbitror, onerosi legentibus, et propter finem ciuitatis huius, de qua nobis sermo est, et propter ipsam dulcedinem pacis, quae omnibus cara est.

### That Even the Fierceness of War and All the Disquietude of Men Make Towards This One End of Peace, Which Every Nature Desires.

[¶3] Chapter 12.—That Even the Fierceness of War and All the Disquietude of Men Make Towards This One End of Peace, Which Every Nature Desires.

> Latin: Caput XII. Quod etiam bellantium saeuitia omnesque hominum inquietudines ad pacis finem cupiant peruenire, sine cuius adpetitu nulla natura sit.

[¶4] Whoever gives even moderate attention to human affairs and to our common nature, will recognize that if there is no man who does not wish to be joyful, neither is there any one who does not wish to have peace. For even they who make war desire nothing but victory,—desire, that is to say, to attain to peace with glory. For what else is victory than the conquest of those who resist us? and when this is done there is peace. It is therefore with the desire for peace that wars are waged, even by those who take pleasure in exercising their warlike nature in command and battle. And hence it is obvious that peace is the end sought for by war. For every man seeks peace by waging war, but no man seeks war by making peace. For even they who intentionally interrupt the peace in which they are living have no hatred of peace, but only wish it changed into a peace that suits them better. They do not, therefore, wish to have no peace, but only one more to their mind. And in the case of sedition, when men have separated themselves from the community, they yet do not effect what they wish, unless they maintain some kind of peace with their fellow-conspirators. And therefore even robbers take care to maintain peace with their comrades, that they may with greater effect and greater safety invade the peace of other men. And if an individual happen to be of such unrivalled strength, and to be so jealous of partnership, that he trusts himself with no comrades, but makes his own plots, and commits depredations and murders on his own account, yet he maintains some shadow of peace with such persons as he is unable to kill, and from whom he wishes to conceal his deeds. In his own home, too, he makes it his aim to be at peace with his wife and children, and any other members of his household; for unquestionably their prompt obedience to his every look is a source of pleasure to him. And if this be not rendered, he is angry, he chides and punishes; and even by this storm he secures the calm peace of his own home, as occasion demands. For he sees that peace cannot be maintained unless all the members of the same domestic circle be subject to one head, such as he himself is in his own house. And therefore if a city or nation offered to submit itself to him, to serve him in the same style as he had made his household serve him, he would no longer lurk in a brigand’s hiding-places, but lift his head in open day as a king, though the same coveteousness and wicked ness should remain in him. And thus all men desire to have peace with their own circle whom they wish to govern as suits themselves. For even those whom they make war against they wish to make their own, and impose on them the laws of their own peace.

> Latin: Quod enim mecum quisquis res humanas naturamque communem utcumque intuetur agnoscit, sicut nemo est qui gaudere nolit, ita nemo est qui pacem habere nolit. Quando quidem et ipsi, qui bella uolunt, nihil aliud quam uincere uolunt; ad gloriosam ergo pacem bellando cupiunt peruenire. Nam quid est aliud uictoria nisi subiectio repugnantium ? quod cum factum fuerit, pax erit. Pacis igitur intentione geruntur et bella, ab his etiam, qui uirtutem bellicam student exercere imperando adque pugnando. Unde pacem constat belli esse optabilem finem. Omnis enim homo etiam belligerando pacem requirit; nemo autem bellum pacificando. Nam et illi qui pacem, in qua sunt, perturbari uolunt, non pacem oderunt, sed eam pro arbitrio suo cupiunt commutari. Non ergo ut sit pax nolunt, sed ut ea sit quam uolunt. Denique etsi per seditionem se ab aliis separauerint, cum eis ipsis conspiratis uel coniuratis suis nisi qualemcumque speciem pacis teneant, non efficiunt quod intendunt. Proinde latrones ipsi, ut uehementius et tutius infesti sint paci ceterorum, pacem uolunt habere sociorum. Sed etsi unus sit tam praepollens uiribus et conscios ita cauens, ut nulli socio se committat solusque insidians et praeualens quibus potuerit obpressis et exstinctis praedas agat, cum eis certe, quos occidere non potest et quos uult latere quod facit, qualemcumque umbram pacis tenet. In domo autem sua cum uxore et cum filiis, et si quos. alios illic habet, studet profecto esse pacatus; eis quippe ad nutum obtemperantibus sine dubio delectatur. Nam si non fiat, indignatur corripit uindicat et domus suae pacem, si ita necesse sit, etiam saeuiendo conponit, quam sentit esse non posse, nisi cuidam principio, quod ipse in domo sua est, cetera in eadem domestica societate subiecta sint. Ideoque si offerretur ei seruitus plurium, uel ciuitatis uel gentis, ita ut sic ei seruirent, quem ad modum sibi domi suae seruiri uolebat: non se iam latronem latebris conderet, sed regem conspicuum sublimaret, cum eadem in illo cupiditas et malitia permaneret. Pacem itaque cum suis omnes habere cupiunt, quos ad arbitrium suum uolunt uiuere. Nam et cum quibus bellum gerunt, suos facere, si possint, uolunt eisque subiectis leges suae pacis inponere. Sed faciamus aliquem, qualem canit poetica et fabulosa narratio, quem fortasse propter ipsam insociabilem feritatem semihominem quam hominem dicere maluerunt.

[¶5] But let us suppose a man such as poetry and mythology speak of,—a man so insociable and savage as to be called rather a semi-man than a man. Although, then, his kingdom was the solitude of a dreary cave, and he himself was so singularly bad-hearted that he was named Κακός, which is the Greek word for bad; though he had no wife to soothe him with endearing talk, no children to play with, no sons to do his bidding, no friend to enliven him with intercourse, not even his father Vulcan (though in one respect he was happier than his father, not having begotten a monster like himself); although he gave to no man, but took as he wished whatever he could, from whomsoever he could, when he could yet in that solitary den, the floor of which, as Virgil says, was always reeking with recent slaughter, there was nothing else than peace sought, a peace in which no one should molest him, or disquiet him with any assault or alarm. With his own body he desired to be at peace, and he was satisfied only in proportion as he had this peace. For he ruled his members, and they obeyed him; and for the sake of pacifying his mortal nature, which rebelled when it needed anything, and of allaying the sedition of hunger which threatened to banish the soul from the body, he made forays, slew, and devoured, but used the ferocity and savageness he displayed in these actions only for the preservation of his own life’s peace. So that, had he been willing to make with other men the same peace which he made with himself in his own cave, he would neither have been called bad, nor a monster, nor a semi-man. Or if the appearance of his body and his vomiting smoky fires frightened men from having any dealings with him, perhaps his fierce ways arose not from a desire to do mischief, but from the necessity of finding a living. But he may have had no existence, or, at least, he was not such as the poets fancifully describe him, for they had to exalt Hercules, and did so at the expense of Cacus. It is better, then, to believe that such a man or semi-man never existed, and that this, in common with many other fancies of the poets, is mere fiction. For the most savage animals (and he is said to have been almost a wild beast) encompass their own species with a ring of protecting peace. They cohabit, beget, produce, suckle, and bring up their young, though very many of them are not gregarious, but solitary,—not like sheep, deer, pigeons, starlings, bees, but such as lions, foxes, eagles, bats. For what tigress does not gently purr over her cubs, and lay aside her ferocity to fondle them? What kite, solitary as he is when circling over his prey, does not seek a mate, build a nest, hatch the eggs, bring up the young birds, and maintain with the mother of his family as peaceful a domestic alliance as he can? How much more powerfully do the laws of man’s nature move him to hold fellowship and maintain peace with all men so far as in him lies, since even wicked men wage war to maintain the peace of their own circle, and wish that, if possible, all men belonged to them, that all men and things might serve but one head, and might, either through love or fear, yield themselves to peace with him! It is thus that pride in its perversity apes God. It abhors equality with other men under Him; but, instead of His rule, it seeks to impose a rule of its own upon its equals. It abhors, that is to say, the just peace of God, and loves its own unjust peace; but it cannot help loving peace of one kind or other. For there is no vice so clean contrary to nature that it obliterates even the faintest traces of nature.

> Latin: Quamuis ergo huius regnum dirae speluncae fuerit solitudo tamque malitia singularis, ut ex hac ei nomen inuentum sit (Graece namque malus xax:m dicitur, quod ille uocabatur), nulla coniux ei blandum ferret referretque sermonem, nullis filiis uel adluderet paruulis uel grandiusculis imperaret, nullo amici conloquio frueretur, nec Vulcani patris, quo uel hinc tantum non parum felicior fuit, quia tale monstrum ipse non genuit; nihil cuiquam daret, sed a quo posset quidquid uellet et quando posset et cum uellet auferret: tamen in ipsa sua spelunca solitaria. cuius, ut describitur, ‘semper recenti caede tepebat humus,’ nihil aliud quam pacem uolebat, in qua nemo illi molestus esset, nec eius quietem uis ullius ten’orne turbaret. Cum corpore denique suo pacem habere cupiebat, et quantum habebat, tantum bene illi erat. Quando quidem membris obtemperantibus imperabat, et ut suam mortalitatem aduersum se ex indigentia rebellantem ac seditionem famis ad dissofciandam adque excludendam de corpore animam concitantem quanta posset festinatione pacaret, rapiebat necabat uorabat et quamuis inmanis ac ferus paci tamen suae uitae ac salutis inmaniter ac ferociter consulebat; ac per hoc si pacem, quam in sua spelunca adque in se ipso habere satis agebat, etiam cum aliis habere uellet, nec malus nec monstrum nec semihomo uocaretur. Aut si eius corporis forma et atrorum ignium uomitus ab eo deterrebat hominum societatem, forte non nocendi cupiditate, sed uiuendi necessitate saeuiebat. Verum iste non fuerit uel, quod magis credendum est, non talis fuerit, qualis poetica uanitate describitur; nisi enim nimis accusaretur Cacus, parum Hercules laudaretur. Talis ergo homo siue semihomo melius, ut dixi, creditur non fuisse, sicut multa figmenta poetarum. Ipsae enim saeuissimae ferae, unde ille partem habuit feritatis (nam et semiferus dictus est), genus proprium quadam pace custodiunt, coeundo gignendo pariendo, fetus fouendo adque nutriendo, cum sint pleraeque insociabiles et soliuagae; non scilicet ut [oues] cerui columbae sturni apes, sed ut leones uulpes aquilae noctuae. Quae enim tigris non filiis suis mitis inmurmurat et pacata feritate blanditur? Quis miluus, quantumlibet solitarius rapinis circumuolet, non coniugium copulat, nidum congerit, oua confouet, pullos alit et quasi cum sua matre familias societatem domesticam quanta potest pace conseruat? Quanto magis homo fertur quodam modo naturae suae legibus ad ineundam societatem pacemque cum hominibus, quantum in ipso est, omnibus obtinendam, cum etiam mali pro suorum pace belligerent omnesque, si possint, suos facere uelint, ut uni cuncti et cuncta deseruiant; quo pacto, nisi in eius pacem uel amando uel timendo consentiant? Sic enim superbia peruerse imitatur Deum. Odit namque cum sociis aequalitatem sub illo. sed inponere uult sociis dominationem suam pro illo. Odit ergo iustam pacem Dei et amat iniquam pacem suam. Non amare tamen qualemcumque pacem nullo modo potest.

[¶6] He, then, who prefers what is right to what is wrong, and what is well-ordered to what is perverted, sees that the peace of unjust men is not worthy to be called peace in comparison with the peace of the just. And yet even what is perverted must of necessity be in harmony with, and in dependence on, and in some part of the order of things, for otherwise it would have no existence at all. Suppose a man hangs with his head downwards, this is certainly a perverted attitude of body and arrangement of its members; for that which nature requires to be above is beneath, and vice versâ. This perversity disturbs the peace of the body, and is therefore painful. Nevertheless the spirit is at peace with its body, and labors for its preservation, and hence the suffering; but if it is banished from the body by its pains, then, so long as the bodily framework holds together, there is in the remains a kind of peace among the members, and hence the body remains suspended. And inasmuch as the earthly body tends towards the earth, and rests on the bond by which it is suspended, it tends thus to its natural peace, and the voice of its own weight demands a place for it to rest; and though now lifeless and without feeling, it does not fall from the peace that is natural to its place in creation, whether it already has it, or is tending towards it. For if you apply embalming preparations to prevent the bodily frame from mouldering and dissolving, a kind of peace still unites part to part, and keeps the whole body in a suitable place on the earth,—in other words, in a place that is at peace with the body. If, on the other hand, the body receive no such care, but be left to the natural course, it is disturbed by exhalations that do not harmonize with one another, and that offend our senses; for it is this which is perceived in putrefaction until it is assimilated to the elements of the world, and particle by particle enters into peace with them. Yet throughout this process the laws of the most high Creator and Governor are strictly observed, for it is by Him the peace of the universe is administered. For although minute animals are produced from the carcass of a larger animal, all these little atoms, by the law of the same Creator, serve the animals they belong to in peace. And although the flesh of dead animals be eaten by others, no matter where it be carried, nor what it be brought into contact with, nor what it be converted and changed into, it still is ruled by the same laws which pervade all things for the conservation of every mortal race, and which bring things that fit one another into harmony.

> Latin: Nullius quippe uitium ita contra naturam est, ut naturae deleat etiam extrema uestigia. Itaque pacem iniquorum in pacis conparatione iustorum ille uidet nec pacem esse dicendam, qui nouit praeponere recta prauis et ordinata peruersis. Quod autem peruersum est, etiam hoc necesse est ut in aliqua et ex aliqua et cum aliqua rerum parte pacatum sit, in quibus est uel ex quibus constat; alioquin nihil esset omnino. Velut si quisquam capite deorsum pendeat, peruersus est utique situs corporis et ordo membrorum, quia id, quod desuper esse natura postulat, subter est. et quod illa subter uult esse, desuper factum est; conturbauit carnis pacem ista peruersitas et ideo molesta est: uerum tamen anima corpori suo pacata est et pro eius salute satagit, et ideo est qui doleat: quae si molestiis eius exclusa discesserit, quamdiu conpago membrorum manet, non est sine quadam partium pace quod remanet, et ideo est adhuc qui pendeat. Et quod terrenum corpus in terram nititur et uinculo quo suspensum est renititur, in suae pacis ordinem tendit et locum quo requiescat quodam modo uoce ponderis poscit, iamque exanime ac sine ullo sensu a pace tamen naturali sui ordinis non recedit, uel cum tenet eam, uel cum fertur ad eam. Si enim adhibeantur medicamenta adque curatio, quae formam cadaueris dissolui dilabique non sinat, adhuc pax quaedam partes partibus iungit totamque molem adplicat terreno et conuenienti ac per hoc pacato loco. Si autem nulla adhibeatur cura condendi, sed naturali cursui relinquatur, tamdiu quasi tumultuatur dissidentibus exhalationibus et nostro inconuenientibus sensui (id enim est quod in putore sentitur), donec mundi conueniat elementis et in eorum pacem paulatim particulatimque discedat. Nullo modo tamen inde aliquid legibus summi illius creatoris ordinatorisque subtrahitur, a quo pax uniuersitatis administratur; quia, etsi de cadauere maioris animantis animalia minuta nascantur, eadem lege creatoris quaeque corpuscula in salutis pace suis animulis seruiunt; etsi mortuorum carnes ab aliis animalibus deuorentur. easdem leges per cuncta diffusas ad salutem generis cuiusque mortalium congrua congruis pacificantes, quaqua uersum trahantur et rebus quibuscumque iungantur et in res quaslibet conuertantur et commutentur, inueniunt.

### Of the Universal Peace Which the Law of Nature Preserves Through All Disturbances, and by Which Every One Reaches His Desert in a Way Regulated by the Just Judge.

[¶8] Chapter 13.—Of the Universal Peace Which the Law of Nature Preserves Through All Disturbances, and by Which Every One Reaches His Desert in a Way Regulated by the Just Judge.

> Latin: Caput XIII. De pace uniuersali, quae inter quaslibet perturbationes priuari non potest lege naturae, dum sub iusto iudice ad id quisque peruenit ordinatione, quod meruit uoluntate.

[¶9] The peace of the body then consists in the duly proportioned arrangement of its parts. The peace of the irrational soul is the harmonious repose of the appetites, and that of the rational soul the harmony of knowledge and action. The peace of body and soul is the well-ordered and harmonious life and health of the living creature. Peace between man and God is the well-ordered obedience of faith to eternal law. Peace between man and man is well-ordered concord. Domestic peace is the well-ordered concord between those of the family who rule and those who obey. Civil peace is a similar concord among the citizens. The peace of the celestial city is the perfectly ordered and harmonious enjoyment of God, and of one another in God. The peace of all things is the tranquillity of order. Order is the distribution which allots things equal and unequal, each to its own place. And hence, though the miserable, in so far as they are such, do certainly not enjoy peace, but are severed from that tranquillity of order in which there is no disturbance, nevertheless, inasmuch as they are deservedly and justly miserable, they are by their very misery connected with order. They are not, indeed, conjoined with the blessed, but they are disjoined from them by the law of order. And though they are disquieted, their circumstances are notwithstanding adjusted to them, and consequently they have some tranquillity of order, and therefore some peace. But they are wretched because, although not wholly miserable, they are not in that place where any mixture of misery is impossible. They would, however, be more wretched if they had not that peace which arises from being in harmony with the natural order of things. When they suffer, their peace is in so far disturbed; but their peace continues in so far as they do not suffer, and in so far as their nature continues to exist. As, then, there may be life without pain, while there cannot be pain without some kind of life, so there may be peace without war, but there cannot be war without some kind of peace, because war supposes the existence of some natures to wage it, and these natures cannot exist without peace of one kind or other.

> Latin: Pax itaque corporis est ordinata temperatura partium, pax animae inrationalis ordinata requies adpetitionum, pax animae rationalis ordinata cognitionis actionisque consensio, pax corporis et animae ordinata uita et salus animantis, pax hominis mortalis et Dei ordinata in fide sub aeterna lege oboedientia, pax hominum ordinata concordia, pax domus ordinata imperandi oboediendique concordia cohabitantium, pax ciuitatis ordinata imperandi adque oboediendi concordia ciuium, pax caelestis ciuitatis ordinatissima et concordissima societas fruendi Deo et inuicem in Deo, pax omnium rerum tranquillitas ordinis. Ordo est parium dispariumque rerum sua cuique loca tribuens dispositio. Proinde miseri, quia, in quantum miseri sunt, utique in pace non sunt, tranquillitate quidem ordinis carent, ubi perturbatio nulla est; uerum tamen quia merito iusteque sunt miseri, in ea quoque ipsa miseria sua I praeter ordinem esse non possunt; non quidem coniuncti beatis, sed ab eis tamen ordinis lege seiuncti. Qui cum sine perturbatione sunt, rebus, in quibus sunt, quantacumque congruentia coaptantur; ac per hoc inest eis ordinis nonnulla tranquillitas, inest ergo nonnulla pax. Verum ideo miseri sunt, quia, etsi in aliqua securitate non dolent, non tamen ibi sunt, ubi securi esse ac dolere non debeant; miseriores autem, si pax eis cum ipsa lege non est, qua naturalis ordo administratur. Cum autem dolent, ex qua parte dolent, pacis perturbatio facta est; in illa uero adhuc pax est, in qua nec dolor urit nec conpago ipsa dissoluitur. Sicut ergo est quaedam uita sine dolore, dolor autem sine aliqua uita esse non potest: sic est quaedam pax sine ullo bello, bellum uero esse sine aliqua pace non potest; non secundum id, quod bellum est, sed secundum id, quod ab eis uel in eis geritur, quae aliquae naturae sunt; quod nullo modo essent, si non qualicumque pace subsisterent.

[¶10] And therefore there is a nature in which evil does not or even cannot exist; but there cannot be a nature in which there is no good. Hence not even the nature of the devil himself is evil, in so far as it is nature, but it was made evil by being perverted. Thus he did not abide in the truth, but could not escape the judgment of the Truth; he did not abide in the tranquillity of order, but did not therefore escape the power of the Ordainer. The good imparted by God to his nature did not screen him from the justice of God by which order was preserved in his punishment; neither did God punish the good which He had created, but the evil which the devil had committed. God did not take back all He had imparted to his nature, but something He took and something He left, that there might remain enough to be sensible of the loss of what was taken. And this very sensibility to pain is evidence of the good which has been taken away and the good which has been left. For, were nothing good left, there could be no pain on account of the good which had been lost. For he who sins is still worse if he rejoices in his loss of righteousness. But he who is in pain, if he derives no benefit from it, mourns at least the loss of health. And as righteousness and health are both good things, and as the loss of any good thing is matter of grief, not of joy,—if, at least, there is no compensation, as spiritual righteousness may compensate for the loss of bodily health,—certainly it is more suitable for a wicked man to grieve in punishment than to rejoice in his fault. As, then, the joy of a sinner who has abandoned what is good is evidence of a bad will, so his grief for the good he has lost when he is punished is evidence of a good nature. For he who laments the peace his nature has lost is stirred to do so by some relics of peace which make his nature friendly to itself. And it is very just that in the final punishment the wicked and godless should in anguish bewail the loss of the natural advantages they enjoyed, and should perceive that they were most justly taken from them by that God whose benign liberality they had despised. God, then, the most wise Creator and most just Ordainer of all natures, who placed the human race upon earth as its greatest ornament, imparted to men some good things adapted to this life, to wit, temporal peace, such as we can enjoy in this life from health and safety and human fellowship, and all things needful for the preservation and recovery of this peace, such as the objects which are accommodated to our outward senses, light, night, the air, and waters suitable for us, and everything the body requires to sustain, shelter, heal, or beautify it: and all under this most equitable condition, that every man who made a good use of these advantages suited to the peace of this mortal condition, should receive ampler and better blessings, namely, the peace of immortality, accompanied by glory and honor in an endless life made fit for the enjoyment of God and of one another in God; but that he who used the present blessings badly should both lose them and should not receive the others.

> Latin: Quapropter est natura, in qua nullum malum est uel etiam in qua nullum esse malum potest; esse autem natura, in qua nullum bonum sit, non potest. Proinde nec ipsius diaboli natura, in quantum natura est, malum est; sed peruersitas eam malam facit. Itaque in ueritate non stetit, sed ueritatis iudicium non euasit; in ordinis tranquillitate non mansit, nec ideo tamen a potestate ordinatoris effugit. Bonum Dei, quod illi est in natura, non eum subtrahit iustitiae Dei, qua ordinatur in poena; nec ibi Deus bonum insequitur quod creauit, sed malum quod ille commisit. Neque enim totum aufert quod naturae dedit, sed aliquid adimit, aliquid relinquit, ut sit qui doleat quod ademit. Et ipse dolor testimonium est boni ademti et boni relicti. Nisi enim bonum relictum esset, bonum amissum dolere non posset. Nam qui peccat, peior est, si laetatur in damno aequitatis; qui uero cruciatur, si nihil inde adquirat boni, dolet damnum salutis. Et quoniam aequitas ac salus utrumque bonum est bonique amissione dolendum est potius quam laetandum (si tamen non sit conpensatio melioris; melior est autem animi aequitas quam corporis sanitas): profecto conuenientius iniustus dolet in supplicio, quam laetatus est in delicto. Sicut ergo laetitia deserti boni in peccato testis est uoluntatis malae, ita dolor amissi boni in supplicio testis est naturae bonae. Qui enim dolet amissam naturae suae pacem, ex aliquibus reliquiis pacis id dolet, quibus fit, ut sibi amica natura sit. Hoc autem in extremo supplicio recte fit, ut iniqui et inpii naturalium bonorum damna in cruciatibus defleant, sentientes eorum ablatorem iustissimum Deum, quem contemserunt benignissimum largitorem. Deus ergo naturarum omnium sapientissimus conditor et iustissimus ordinator, qui terrenorum ornamentorum maximum instituit mortale genus humanum, dedit hominibus quaedam bona huic uitae congrua, id est pacem temporalem pro modulo mortalis uitae in ipsa salute et incolumitate ac societate sui generis, et quaeque huic paci uel tuendae uel recuperandae necessaria sunt (sicut ea, quae apte et conuenienter adiacent sensibus, lux uox, aurae spirabiles aquae potabiles, et quidquid ad alendum tegendum curandum ornandumque corpus congruit), eo pacto aequissimo, ut, qui mortalis talibus bonis paci mortalium adcommodatis recte usus fuerit, accipiat ampliora adque meliora, ipsam scilicet inmortalitatis pacem eique conuenientem gloriam et honorem in uita aeterna ad fruendum Deo et proximo in Deo; qui autem perperam, nec illa accipiat et haec amittat.

### Of the Order and Law Which Obtain in Heaven and Earth, Whereby It Comes to Pass that Human Society Is Served by Those Who Rule It.

[¶12] Chapter 14.—Of the Order and Law Which Obtain in Heaven and Earth, Whereby It Comes to Pass that Human Society Is Served by Those Who Rule It.

> Latin: Caput XIV. De ordine ac lege siue terrena siue caelesti, per quam societati humanae etiam dominando consulitur, cui et consulendo seruitur.

[¶13] The whole use, then, of things temporal has a reference to this result of earthly peace in the earthly community, while in the city of God it is connected with eternal peace. And therefore, if we were irrational animals, we should desire nothing beyond the proper arrangement of the parts of the body and the satisfaction of the appetites,—nothing, therefore, but bodily comfort and abundance of pleasures, that the peace of the body might contribute to the peace of the soul. For if bodily peace be awanting, a bar is put to the peace even of the irrational soul, since it cannot obtain the gratification of its appetites. And these two together help out the mutual peace of soul and body, the peace of harmonious life and health. For as animals, by shunning pain, show that they love bodily peace, and, by pursuing pleasure to gratify their appetites, show that they love peace of soul, so their shrinking from death is a sufficient indication of their intense love of that peace which binds soul and body in close alliance. But, as man has a rational soul, he subordinates all this which he has in common with the beasts to the peace of his rational soul, that his intellect may have free play and may regulate his actions, and that he may thus enjoy the well-ordered harmony of knowledge and action which constitutes, as we have said, the peace of the rational soul. And for this purpose he must desire to be neither molested by pain, nor disturbed by desire, nor extinguished by death, that he may arrive at some useful knowledge by which he may regulate his life and manners. But, owing to the liability of the human mind to fall into mistakes, this very pursuit of knowledge may be a snare to him unless he has a divine Master, whom he may obey without misgiving, and who may at the same time give him such help as to preserve his own freedom. And because, so long as he is in this mortal body, he is a stranger to God, he walks by faith, not by sight; and he therefore refers all peace, bodily or spiritual or both, to that peace which mortal man has with the immortal God, so that he exhibits the well-ordered obedience of faith to eternal law. But as this divine Master inculcates two precepts,—the love of God and the love of our neighbor,—and as in these precepts a man finds three things he has to love,—God, himself, and his neighbor,—and that he who loves God loves himself thereby, it follows that he must endeavor to get his neighbor to love God, since he is ordered to love his neighbor as himself. He ought to make this endeavor in behalf of his wife, his children, his household, all within his reach, even as he would wish his neighbor to do the same for him if he needed it; and consequently he will be at peace, or in well-ordered concord, with all men, as far as in him lies. And this is the order of this concord, that a man, in the first place, injure no one, and, in the second, do good to every one he can reach. Primarily, therefore, his own household are his care, for the law of nature and of society gives him readier access to them and greater opportunity of serving them. And hence the apostle says, “Now, if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” This is the origin of domestic peace, or the well-ordered concord of those in the family who rule and those who obey. For they who care for the rest rule,—the husband the wife, the parents the children, the masters the servants; and they who are cared for obey,—the women their husbands, the children their parents, the servants their masters. But in the family of the just man who lives by faith and is as yet a pilgrim journeying on to the celestial city, even those who rule serve those whom they seem to command; for they rule not from a love of power, but from a sense of the duty they owe to others—not because they are proud of authority, but because they love mercy.

> Latin: Omnis igitur usus rerum temporalium refertur ad fructum pacis terrenae in terrena ciuitate; in caelesti autem ciuitate refertur ad fructum pacis aeternae. Quapropter si inrationalia essemus animantia, nihil adpeteremus praeter ordinatam temperaturam partium corporis et requiem adpetitionum; nihil ergo praeter quietem carnis et copiam uoluptatum, ut pax corporis prodesset paci animae. Si enim desit pax corporis, inpeditur etiam inrationalis animae pax, quia requiem adpetitionum consequi non potest. Utrumque autem simul ei paci prodest, quam inter se habent anima et corpus, id est ordinatae uitae ac salutis. Sicut enim pacem corporis amare se ostendunt animantia, cum fugiunt dolorem, et pacem aahnae, cum propter explendas indigentias adpetitionum uoluptatem sequuntur: ita mortem fugiendo satis indicant, quantum dili. gant pacem, qua sibi conciliantur anima et corpus. Sed quia homini rationalis anima inest, totum hoc, quod habet commune cum bestiis, subdit paci animae rationalis, ut mente aliquid contempletur et secundum hoc aliquid agat, ut sit ei ordinata cognitionis actionisque consensio, quam pacem rationalis animae dixeramus. Ad hoc enim uelle debet nec dolore molestari nec desiderio perturbari nec morte dissolui, ut aliquid utile cognoscat et secundum eam cognitionem uitam moresque conponat. Sed ne ipso studio cognitionis propter humanae mentis infirmitatem in pestem alicuius erroris incurrat, opus habet magisterio diuino, cui certus obtemperet, et adiutorio, ut liber obtemperet. Et quoniam, quamdiu est in isto mortali corpore, peregrinatur a Domino: ambulat per fidem, non per speciem; ac per hoc omnem pacem uel corporis uel animae uel simul corporis et animae refert ad illam pacem, quae homini mortali est cum inmortali Deo, ut ei sit ordinata in fide sub aeterna lege oboedientia. Iam uero quia duo praecipua praecepta, hoc est dilectionem Dei et dilectionem proximi, docet magister Deus, in quibus tria inuenit homo quae diligat, Deum, se ipsum et proximum, adque ille in se diligendo non errat, qui Deum diligit: consequens est, ut etiam proximo ad diligendum Deum consulat, quem iubetur sicut se ipsum diligere (sic uxori, sic filiis, sic domesticis, sic ceteris quibus potuerit hominibus), et ad hoc sibi a proximo, si forte indiget, consuli uelit; ac per hoc erit pacatus, quantum in ipso est, omni homini pace hominum, id est ordinata concordia, cuius hic ordo est, primum ut nulli noceat, deinde ut etiam prosit cui potuerit. Primitus ergo inest ei suorum cura; ad eos quippe habet opportuniorem facilioremque aditum consulendi, uel naturae ordine uel ipsius societatis humanae. Unde apostolus dicit: Quisquis autem suis et maxime domesticis non prouidet, fidem denegat et est infideli deterior. Hinc itaque etiam pax domestica oritur, id est ordinata imperandi oboediendique concordia cohabitantium. Imperant enim, qui consulunt; sicut uir uxori, parentes filiis, domini seruis. Oboediunt autem quibus consulitur; sicut mulieres maritis, filii parentibus, serui dominis. Sed in domo iusti uiuentis ex fide et adhuc ab illa caelesti ciuitate peregrinantis etiam qui imperant seruiunt eis, quibus uidentur imperare. Neque enim dominandi cupiditate imperant, sed officio consulendi, nec principandi superbia, sed prouidendi misericordia.

### Of the Liberty Proper to Man’s Nature, and the Servitude Introduced by Sin,—A Servitude in Which the Man Whose Will is Wicked is the Slave of His Own Lust, Though He is Free So Far as Regards Other Men.

[¶15] Chapter 15.—Of the Liberty Proper to Man’s Nature, and the Servitude Introduced by Sin,—A Servitude in Which the Man Whose Will is Wicked is the Slave of His Own Lust, Though He is Free So Far as Regards Other Men.

> Latin: Caput XV. De libertate naturali et de seruitute, cuius prima causa peccatum est, quia homo malae uoluntatis, etiamsi non est mancipium alterius hominis, seruus est propriae libidinis.

[¶16] This is prescribed by the order of nature: it is thus that God has created man. For “let them,” He says, “have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every creeping thing which creepeth on the earth.” He did not intend that His rational creature, who was made in His image, should have dominion over anything but the irrational creation,—not man over man, but man over the beasts. And hence the righteous men in primitive times were made shepherds of cattle rather than kings of men, God intending thus to teach us what the relative position of the creatures is, and what the desert of sin; for it is with justice, we believe, that the condition of slavery is the result of sin. And this is why we do not find the word “slave” in any part of Scripture until righteous Noah branded the sin of his son with this name. It is a name, therefore, introduced by sin and not by nature. The origin of the Latin word for slave is supposed to be found in the circumstance that those who by the law of war were liable to be killed were sometimes preserved by their victors, and were hence called servants. And these circumstances could never have arisen save through sin. For even when we wage a just war, our adversaries must be sinning; and every victory, even though gained by wicked men, is a result of the first judgment of God, who humbles the vanquished either for the sake of removing or of punishing their sins. Witness that man of God, Daniel, who, when he was in captivity, confessed to God his own sins and the sins of his people, and declares with pious grief that these were the cause of the captivity. The prime cause, then, of slavery is sin, which brings man under the dominion of his fellow,—that which does not happen save by the judgment of God, with whom is no unrighteousness, and who knows how to award fit punishments to every variety of offence. But our Master in heaven says, “Every one who doeth sin is the servant of sin.” And thus there are many wicked masters who have religious men as their slaves, and who are yet themselves in bondage; “for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.” And beyond question it is a happier thing to be the slave of a man than of a lust; for even this very lust of ruling, to mention no others, lays waste men’s hearts with the most ruthless dominion. Moreover, when men are subjected to one another in a peaceful order, the lowly position does as much good to the servant as the proud position does harm to the master. But by nature, as God first created us, no one is the slave either of man or of sin. This servitude is, however, penal, and is appointed by that law which enjoins the preservation of the natural order and forbids its disturbance; for if nothing had been done in violation of that law, there would have been nothing to restrain by penal servitude. And therefore the apostle admonishes slaves to be subject to their masters, and to serve them heartily and with good-will, so that, if they cannot be freed by their masters, they may themselves make their slavery in some sort free, by serving not in crafty fear, but in faithful love, until all unrighteousness pass away, and all principality and every human power be brought to nothing, and God be all in all.

> Latin: Hoc naturalis ordo praescribit, ita Deus hominem condidit. Nam: Dominetur, inquit, piscium maris et uolatilium caeli et omnium repentium, quae repunt super terram. Rationalem factum ad imaginem suam noluit nisi inrationabilibus dominari; non hominem homini. sed hominem pecori. Inde primi iusti pastores pecorum magis quam reges hominum constituti sunt, ut etiam sic insinuaret Deus, quid postulet ordo creaturarum, quid exigat meritum peccatorum. Condicio quippe seruitutis iure intellegitur inposita peccatori. Proinde nusquam scripturarum legimus seruum, antequam hoc uocabulo Noe iustus peccatum filii uindicaret. Nomen itaque istuc culpa meruit, non natura. Origo autem uocabuli seruorum in Latina lingua inde creditur ducta, quod hi, qui iure belli possent occidi. a uictoribus cum seruabantur serui fiebant, a seruando appellati; quod etiam ipsum sine peccati merito non est. Nam et cum iustum geritur bellum, pro peccato e contrario dimicatur; et omnis uictoria, cum etiam malis prouenit, diuino iudicio uictos humiliat uel emendans peccata uel puniens. Testis est homo Dei Daniel. cum in captiuitate positus peccata sua et peccata populi sui confitetur Deo et hanc esse causam illius captiuitatis pio dolore testatur. Prima ergo seruitutis causa peccatum est. ut homo homini condicionis uinculo subderetur; quod non fit nisi Deo iudicante, aput quem non est iniquitas et nouit diuersas poenas meritis distribuere delinquentium. Sicut autem supernus Dominus dicit: Omnis, qui facit peccatum, seruus est peccati, ac per hoc multi quidem religiosi dominis iniquis, non tamen liberis seruiunt: A quo enim quis deuictus est, huic et seruus addictus est. Et utique felicius seruitur homini, quam libidini, cum saeuissimo dominatu uastet corda mortalium, ut alias omittam, libido ipsa dominandi. Hominibus autem illo pacis ordine, quo aliis alii subiecti sunt, sicut prodest humilitas seruientibus, ita nocet superbia dominantibus. Nullus autem natura, in qua prius Deus hominem condidit, seruus est hominis aut peccati. Verum et poenalis seruitus ea lege ordinatur, quae naturalem ordinem conseruari iubet, perturbari uetat; quia si contra eam legem non esset factum, nihil esset poenali seruitute cohercendum. Ideoque apostolus etiam seruos monet subditos esse dominis suis et ex animo eis cum bona uoluntate serio; ut scilicet, si non possunt a dominis liberi fieri, suam seruitutem ipsi quodam modo liberam faciant, non timore subdolo, sed fideli dilectione seruiendo, donec transeat iniquitas et euacuetur omnis principatus et potestas humana et sit Deus omnia in omnibus.

### Of Equitable Rule.

[¶18] Chapter 16.—Of Equitable Rule.

> Latin: Caput XVI. De aequo iure dominandi.

[¶19] And therefore, although our righteous fathers had slaves, and administered their domestic affairs so as to distinguish between the condition of slaves and the heirship of sons in regard to the blessings of this life, yet in regard to the worship of God, in whom we hope for eternal blessings, they took an equally loving oversight of all the members of their household. And this is so much in accordance with the natural order, that the head of the household was called paterfamilias; and this name has been so generally accepted, that even those whose rule is unrighteous are glad to apply it to themselves. But those who are true fathers of their households desire and endeavor that all the members of their household, equally with their own children, should worship and win God, and should come to that heavenly home in which the duty of ruling men is no longer necessary, because the duty of caring for their everlasting happiness has also ceased; but, until they reach that home, masters ought to feel their position of authority a greater burden than servants their service. And if any member of the family interrupts the domestic peace by disobedience, he is corrected either by word or blow, or some kind of just and legitimate punishment, such as society permits, that he may himself be the better for it, and be readjusted to the family harmony from which he had dislocated himself. For as it is not benevolent to give a man help at the expense of some greater benefit he might receive, so it is not innocent to spare a man at the risk of his falling into graver sin. To be innocent, we must not only do harm to no man, but also restrain him from sin or punish his sin, so that either the man himself who is punished may profit by his experience, or others be warned by his example. Since, then, the house ought to be the beginning or element of the city, and every beginning bears reference to some end of its own kind, and every element to the integrity of the whole of which it is an element, it follows plainly enough that domestic peace has a relation to civic peace,—in other words, that the well-ordered concord of domestic obedience and domestic rule has a relation to the well-ordered concord of civic obedience and civic rule. And therefore it follows, further, that the father of the family ought to frame his domestic rule in accordance with the law of the city, so that the household may be in harmony with the civic order.

> Latin: Quocirca etiamsi habuerunt seruos iusti patres nostri, sic administrabant domesticam pacem, ut secundum haec temporalia bona filiorum sortem a seruorum condicione distinguerent; ad Deum autem colendum, in quo aeterna bona speranda sunt, omnibus domus suae membris pari dilectione consulerent. Quod naturalis ordo ita praescribit, ut nomen patrum familias hinc exortum sit et tam late uulgatum, ut etiam inique dominantes hoc se gaudeant appellari. Qui autem ueri patres familias sunt, omnibus in familia sua tamquam filiis ad colendum et promerendum Deum consulunt, desiderantes adque optantes uenire ad caelestem domum, ubi necessarium non sit officium imperandi mortalibus, quia necessarium non erit officium consulendi iam in illa inmortalitate felicibus; quo donec ueniatur, magis debent patres quod dominantur, quam serui tolerare quod seruiunt. Si quis autem in domo per inoboedientiam domesticae paci aduersatur, corripitur seu uerbo seu uerbere seu quolibet alio genere poenae iusto adque licito, quantum societas humana concedit, pro eius qui corripitur utilitate, ut paci unde dissiluerat coaptetur. Sicut enim non est beneficentiae adiuuando efficere, ut bonum quod maius est amittatur: ita non est innocentiae parcendo sinere. ut in malum grauius incidatur. Pertinet ergo ad innocentis officium, non solum nemini malum inferre, uerum etiam cohibere a peccato uel punire peccatum, ut aut ipse qui plectitur corrigatur experimento, aut alii terreantur exemplo. Quia igitur hominis domus initium siue particula debet esse ciuitatis, omne autem initium ad aliquem sui generis finem et omnis pars ad uniuersi, cuius pars est, integritatem refertur, satis apparet esse consequens, ut ad pacem ciuicam pax domestica referatur, id est, ut ordinata imperandi oboediendique concordia cohabitantium referatur ad ordinatam imperandi oboediendique concordiam ciuium. Ita fit, ut ex lege ciuitatis praecepta sumere patrem familias oporteat, quibus domum suam sic regat, ut sit paci adcommoda ciuitatis.

### What Produces Peace, and What Discord, Between the Heavenly and Earthly Cities.

[¶21] Chapter 17.—What Produces Peace, and What Discord, Between the Heavenly and Earthly Cities.

> Latin: Caput XVII. Unde caelestis societas cum terrena ciuitate pacem habeat et unde discordiam.

[¶22] But the families which do not live by faith seek their peace in the earthly advantages of this life; while the families which live by faith look for those eternal blessings which are promised, and use as pilgrims such advantages of time and of earth as do not fascinate and divert them from God, but rather aid them to endure with greater ease, and to keep down the number of those burdens of the corruptible body which weigh upon the soul. Thus the things necessary for this mortal life are used by both kinds of men and families alike, but each has its own peculiar and widely different aim in using them. The earthly city, which does not live by faith, seeks an earthly peace, and the end it proposes, in the well-ordered concord of civic obedience and rule, is the combination of men’s wills to attain the things which are helpful to this life. The heavenly city, or rather the part of it which sojourns on earth and lives by faith, makes use of this peace only because it must, until this mortal condition which necessitates it shall pass away. Consequently, so long as it lives like a captive and a stranger in the earthly city, though it has already received the promise of redemption, and the gift of the Spirit as the earnest of it, it makes no scruple to obey the laws of the earthly city, whereby the things necessary for the maintenance of this mortal life are administered; and thus, as this life is common to both cities, so there is a harmony between them in regard to what belongs to it. But, as the earthly city has had some philosophers whose doctrine is condemned by the divine teaching, and who, being deceived either by their own conjectures or by demons, supposed that many gods must be invited to take an interest in human affairs, and assigned to each a separate function and a separate department,—to one the body, to another the soul; and in the body itself, to one the head, to another the neck, and each of the other members to one of the gods; and in like manner, in the soul, to one god the natural capacity was assigned, to another education, to another anger, to another lust; and so the various affairs of life were assigned,—cattle to one, corn to another, wine to another, oil to another, the woods to another, money to another, navigation to another, wars and victories to another, marriages to another, births and fecundity to another, and other things to other gods: and as the celestial city, on the other hand, knew that one God only was to be worshipped, and that to Him alone was due that service which the Greeks call λατρεία, and which can be given only to a god, it has come to pass that the two cities could not have common laws of religion, and that the heavenly city has been compelled in this matter to dissent, and to become obnoxious to those who think differently, and to stand the brunt of their anger and hatred and persecutions, except in so far as the minds of their enemies have been alarmed by the multitude of the Christians and quelled by the manifest protection of God accorded to them. This heavenly city, then, while it sojourns on earth, calls citizens out of all nations, and gathers together a society of pilgrims of all languages, not scrupling about diversities in the manners, laws, and institutions whereby earthly peace is secured and maintained, but recognizing that, however various these are, they all tend to one and the same end of earthly peace. It therefore is so far from rescinding and abolishing these diversities, that it even preserves and adopts them, so long only as no hindrance to the worship of the one supreme and true God is thus introduced. Even the heavenly city, therefore, while in its state of pilgrimage, avails itself of the peace of earth, and, so far as it can without injuring faith and godliness, desires and maintains a common agreement among men regarding the acquisition of the necessaries of life, and makes this earthly peace bear upon the peace of heaven; for this alone can be truly called and esteemed the peace of the reasonable creatures, consisting as it does in the perfectly ordered and harmonious enjoyment of God and of one another in God. When we shall have reached that peace, this mortal life shall give place to one that is eternal, and our body shall be no more this animal body which by its corruption weighs down the soul, but a spiritual body feeling no want, and in all its members subjected to the will. In its pilgrim state the heavenly city possesses this peace by faith; and by this faith it lives righteously when it refers to the attainment of that peace every good action towards God and man; for the life of the city is a social life.

> Latin: Sed domus hominum, qui non uiuunt ex fide, pacem terrenam ex huius temporalis uitae rebus commodisque sectatur: domus autem hominum ex fide uiuentium exspectat ea, quae in futurum aeterna promissa sunt, terrenisque rebus ac temporalibus tamquam peregrina utitur, non quibus capiatur et auertatur quo tendit in Deum, sed quibus sustentetur ad facilius toleranda minimeque augenda onera corporis COITUPtibilis, quod adgrauat animam. Idcirco rerum uitae huic mortali necessariarum utrisque hominibus et utrique domui communis est usus; sed finis utendi cuique suus proprius multumque diuersus. Ita etiam terrena ciuitas, quae non uiuit ex fide, terrenam pacem adpetit in eoque defigit imperandi oboediendique concordiam ciuium, ut sit eis de rebus ad mortalem uitam pertinentibus humanarum quaedam conpositio uoluntatum. Ciuitas autem caelestis uel potius pars eius, quae in hac mortalitate peregrinatur et uiuit ex fide, etiam ista pace necesse est utatur, donec ipsa, cui talis pax necessaria est, mortalitas transeat; ac per hoc, dum aput terrenam ciuitatem uelut captiuam uitam suae peregrinationis agit, iam promissione redemtionis et dono spiritali tamquam pignore accepto legibus terrenae ciuitatis, quibus haec administrantur, quae sustentandae mortali uitae adcommodata sunt, obtemperare non dubitat, ut, quoniam communis est ipsa mortalitas. seruetur in rebus ad eam pertinentibus inter ciuitatem utramque concordia. Verum quia terrena ciuitas habuit quosdam suos sapientes, quos diuina inprobat disciplina, qui uel suspicati uel decepti a daemonibus crederent multos deos conciliandos esse rebus humanis, ad quorum diuersa quodam modo officia diuersa subdita pertinerent, ad alium corpus, ad alium animum, inque ipso corpore ad alium caput, ad alium ceruicem et cetera singula ad singulos; similiter in animo ad alium ingenium, ad alium doctrinam, ad alium iram, ad alium concupiscentiam; inque ipsis rebus uitae adiacentibus ad alium pecus, ad alium triticum, ad alium uinum, ad alium oleum, ad alium siluas, ad alium nummos, ad alium nauigationem, ad alium bella adque uictorias, ad alium coniugia, ad alium partum ac fecunditatem et ad alios alia cetera: caelestis autem ciuitas cum unum Deum solum colendum nosset eique tantum modo seruiendum seruitute illa, quae Graece Xocrpeia dicitur et non nisi Deo debetur, fideli pietate censeret: factum est, ut religionis leges cum terrena ciuitate non posset habere communes proque his ab ea dissentire haberet necesse adque oneri esse diuersa sentientibus eorumque iras et odia et persecutionum inpetus sustinere, nisi cum animos aduersantium aliquando terrore suae multitudinis et semper diuino adiutorio propulsaret. Haec ergo caelestis ciuitas dum peregrinatur in terra, ex omnibus gentibus ciues euocat adque in omnibus linguis peregrinam colligit societatem, non curans quidquid in moribus legibus institutisque diuersum est, quibus pax terrena uel conquiritur uel tenetur. nihil eorum rescindens uel destruens, immo etiam seruans ac sequens, quod licet diuersum in diuersis nationibus, ad unum tamen eundemque finem terrenae pacis intenditur, si religionem, qua unus summus et uerus Deus colendus docetur. non inpedit. Utitur ergo etiam caelestis ciuitas in hac sua peregrinatione pace terrena et de rebus ad mortalem hominum naturam pertinentibus humanarum uoluntatum conpositionem. quantum salua pietate ac religione conceditur, tuetur adque adpetit eamque terrenam pacem refert ad caelestem pacem,: quae uere ita pax est, ut rationalis dumtaxat creaturae sola pax habenda adque dicenda sit, ordinatissima scilicet et concordissima societas fruendi Deo et inuicem in Deo; quo cum uentum erit, non erit uita mortalis, sed plane certeque uitalis nec corpus animale, quod, dum corrumpitur, adgrauat animam, sed spiritale sine ulla indigentia ex omni parte subditum uoluntati. Hanc pacem, dum peregrinatur in fide, habet adque ex hac fide iuste uiuit, cum ad illam pacem adipiscendam refert quidquid bonarum actionum gerit erga Deum et proximum, quoniam uita ciuitatis utique socialis est.

## 97. How Different the Uncertainty of the New Academy is from the Certainty of the Christian Faith.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/97/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/97/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 18.—How Different the Uncertainty of the New Academy is from the Certainty of the Christian Faith.

> Latin: Caput XVIII. Quam diuersa sit Academiae nouae ambiguitas a constantia fidei Christianae.,

[¶1] As regards the uncertainty about everything which Varro alleges to be the differentiating characteristic of the New Academy, the city of God thoroughly detests such doubt as madness. Regarding matters which it apprehends by the mind and reason it has most absolute certainty, although its knowledge is limited because of the corruptible body pressing down the mind, for, as the apostle says, “We know in part.” It believes also the evidence of the senses which the mind uses by aid of the body; for [if one who trusts his senses is sometimes deceived], he is more wretchedly deceived who fancies he should never trust them. It believes also the Holy Scriptures, old and new, which we call canonical, and which are the source of the faith by which the just lives and by which we walk without doubting whilst we are absent from the Lord. So long as this faith remains inviolate and firm, we may without blame entertain doubts regarding some things which we have neither perceived by sense nor by reason, and which have not been revealed to us by the canonical Scriptures, nor come to our knowledge through witnesses whom it is absurd to disbelieve.

> Latin: Quod autem adtinet ad illam differentiam, quam de Academicis nouis Varro adhibuit, quibus incerta sunt omnia, omnino ciuitas Dei talem dubitationem tamquam dementiam detestatur, habens de rebus, quas mente adque ratione conprehendit, etiamsi paruam propter corpus corruptibile, quod adgrauat animam (quoniam, sicut dicit apostolus, ex parte scimus), tamen certissimam scientiam, creditque sensibus in rei cuiusque euidentia, quibus per corpus animus utitur, quoniam miserabilius fallitur, qui numquam putat eis esse credendum: credit etiam scripturis sanctis et ueteribus et nouis, quas canonicas appellamus, unde fides ipsa concepta est, ex qua iustus uiuit; per quam sine dubitatione ambulamus, quamdiu peregrinamur a Domino; qua salua adque certa de quibusdam rebus, quas neque sensu neque ratione percepimus neque. nobis per scripturam canonicam claruerunt nec per testes, quibus non credere absurdum est, in nostram notitiam peruenerunt, sine iusta reprehensione dubitamus.

### Of the Dress and Habits of the Christian People.

[¶3] Chapter 19.—Of the Dress and Habits of the Christian People.

> Latin: Caput XIX. De habitu et moribus populi Christiani.

[¶4] It is a matter of no moment in the city of God whether he who adopts the faith that brings men to God adopts it in one dress and manner of life or another, so long only as he lives in conformity with the commandments of God. And hence, when philosophers themselves become Christians, they are compelled, indeed, to abandon their erroneous doctrines, but not their dress and mode of living, which are no obstacle to religion. So that we make no account of that distinction of sects which Varro adduced in connection with the Cynic school, provided always nothing indecent or self-indulgent is retained. As to these three modes of life, the contemplative, the active, and the composite, although, so long as a man’s faith is preserved, he may choose any of them without detriment to his eternal interests, yet he must never overlook the claims of truth and duty. No man has a right to lead such a life of contemplation as to forget in his own ease the service due to his neighbor; nor has any man a right to be so immersed in active life as to neglect the contemplation of God. The charm of leisure must not be indolent vacancy of mind, but the investigation or discovery of truth, that thus every man may make solid attainments without grudging that others do the same. And, in active life, it is not the honors or power of this life we should covet, since all things under the sun are vanity, but we should aim at using our position and influence, if these have been honorably attained, for the welfare of those who are under us, in the way we have already explained. It is to this the apostle refers when he says, “He that desireth the episcopate desireth a good work.” He wished to show that the episcopate is the title of a work, not of an honor. It is a Greek word, and signifies that he who governs superintends or takes care of those whom he governs: for ἐπί means over, and σκοπεῖν, to see; therefore ἐπισκοπεῖν means “to oversee.” So that he who loves to govern rather than to do good is no bishop. Accordingly no one is prohibited from the search after truth, for in this leisure may most laudably be spent; but it is unseemly to covet the high position requisite for governing the people, even though that position be held and that government be administered in a seemly manner. And therefore holy leisure is longed for by the love of truth; but it is the necessity of love to undertake requisite business. If no one imposes this burden upon us, we are free to sift and contemplate truth; but if it be laid upon us, we are necessitated for love’s sake to undertake it. And yet not even in this case are we obliged wholly to relinquish the sweets of contemplation; for were these to be withdrawn, the burden might prove more than we could bear.

> Latin: Nihil sane ad istam pertinet ciuitatem quo habitu uel more uiuendi, si non est contra diuina praecepta, istam fidem, qua peruenitur ad Deum, quisque sectetur; unde ipsos quoque philosophos, quando Christiani fiunt. non habitum uel consuetudinem uictus, quae nihil inpedit religionem, sed falsa dogmata mutare conpellit. Unde illam quam Varro adhibuit ex Cynicis differentiam, si nihil turpiter adque intemperanter agat, omnino non curat. Ex tribus. uero illis uitae generibus. otioso, actuoso et ex utroque conposito, quamuis salua fide quisque possit in quolibet eorum uitam ducere et ad sempiterna praemia peruenire, interest tamen quid amore teneat ueritatis, quid officio caritatis inpendat.fNec sic esse quisque debet otiosus, ut in eodem otio utilitatem non cogitet proximi, nec sic actuosus, ut contemplationem non requirat Dei. In otio non iners uacatio delectare debet, sed aut inquisitio aut inuentio ueritatis, ut in ea quisque proficiat et quod inuenerit ne alteri inuideat. In actione uero non amandus est honor in hac uita siue potentia, quoniam omnia uana sub sole, sed opus ipsum, quod per eundem honorem uel potentiam fit, si recte adque utiliter fit, id est, ut ualeat ad eam salutem subditorum, quae secundum Deum est; unde iam superius disputauimus. Propter quod ait apostolus: Qui episcopatum desiderat, bonum opus desiderat. Exponere uoluit quid sit episcopatus, quia nomen est operis, non honoris. Graecum est enim adque inde ductum uocabulum, quod ille qui praeficitur eis quibus praeficitur superintendit, curam scilicet eorum gerens; oxoso? quippe intentio est; ergo cioxojrslv, si uelimus, Latine superintendere possumus dicere, ut intellegat non se esse episcopum, qui praeesse dilexerit, non prodesse. Itaque ab studio cognoscendae ueritatis nemo prohibetur, quod ad laudabile pertinet otium; locus uero superior, sine quo regi populus non potest, etsi ita teneatur adque administretur ut decet, tamen indecenter adpetitur. Quam ob rem otium sanctum quaerit caritas ueri-. tatis; negotium iustum suscipit necessitas caritatis. Quam sarcinam si nullus inponit, percipiendae adque intuendae uacandum est ueritati; si autem inponitur, suscipienda est propter caritatis necessitatem: sed nec sic omni modo ueritatis delectatio deserenda est, ne subtrahatur illa suauitas et obprimat ista necessitas.

### That the Saints are in This Life Blessed in Hope.

[¶6] Chapter 20.—That the Saints are in This Life Blessed in Hope.

> Latin: Caput XX. Quod ciues sanctorum in huius uitae tempore spe beati sint.

[¶7] Since, then, the supreme good of the city of God is perfect and eternal peace, not such as mortals pass into and out of by birth and death, but the peace of freedom from all evil, in which the immortals ever abide; who can deny that that future life is most blessed, or that, in comparison with it, this life which now we live is most wretched, be it filled with all blessings of body and soul and external things? And yet, if any man uses this life with a reference to that other which he ardently loves and confidently hopes for, he may well be called even now blessed, though not in reality so much as in hope. But the actual possession of the happiness of this life, without the hope of what is beyond, is but a false happiness and profound misery. For the true blessings of the soul are not now enjoyed; for that is no true wisdom which does not direct all its prudent observations, manly actions, virtuous self-restraint, and just arrangements, to that end in which God shall be all and all in a secure eternity and perfect peace.

> Latin: Quam ob rem summum bonum ciuitatis Dei cum sit pax aeterna adque perfecta, non per quam mortales transeant nascendo adque moriendo, sed in qua inmortales maneant nihil aduersi omnino patiendo: quis est qui illam uitam uel beatissimam neget uel in eius comparatione istam, quae hic agitur, quantislibet animi et corporis externarumque rerum bonis plena sit, non miserrimam iudicet? Quam tamen quicumque sic habet, ut eius usum referat ad illius finem, quam diligit ardentissime ac fidelissime sperat, non absurde dici etiam nunc beatus potest, spe illa potius quam re ista. Res ista uero sine spe illa beatitudo falsa et magna miseria est; non enim ueris animi bonis utitur, quoniam non est uera sapientia, quae intentionem suam in his, quae prudenter discernit, gerit fortiter, cohibet temperanter iusteque distribuit, non in illum dirigit finem, ubi erit Deus omnia in omnibus, aeternitate certa et pace perfecta.

### Whether There Ever Was a Roman Republic Answering to the Definitions of Scipio in Cicero’s Dialogue.

[¶9] Chapter 21.—Whether There Ever Was a Roman Republic Answering to the Definitions of Scipio in Cicero’s Dialogue.

> Latin: Caput XXI. An secundum definitiones Scipionis, quae in dialogo Ciceronis sunt, umquam fuerit Romana res publica.

[¶10] This, then, is the place where I should fulfill the promise gave in the second book of this work, and explain, as briefly and clearly as possible, that if we are to accept the definitions laid down by Scipio in Cicero’s De Republica, there never was a Roman republic; for he briefly defines a republic as the weal of the people. And if this definition be true, there never was a Roman republic, for the people’s weal was never attained among the Romans. For the people, according to his definition, is an assemblage associated by a common acknowledgment of right and by a community of interests. And what he means by a common acknowledgment of right he explains at large, showing that a republic cannot be administered without justice. Where, therefore, there is no true justice there can be no right. For that which is done by right is justly done, and what is unjustly done cannot be done by right. For the unjust inventions of men are neither to be considered nor spoken of as rights; for even they themselves say that right is that which flows from the fountain of justice, and deny the definition which is commonly given by those who misconceive the matter, that right is that which is useful to the stronger party. Thus, where there is not true justice there can be no assemblage of men associated by a common acknowledgment of right, and therefore there can be no people, as defined by Scipio or Cicero; and if no people, then no weal of the people, but only of some promiscuous multitude unworthy of the name of people. Consequently, if the republic is the weal of the people, and there is no people if it be not associated by a common acknowledgment of right, and if there is no right where there is no justice, then most certainly it follows that there is no republic where there is no justice. Further, justice is that virtue which gives every one his due. Where, then, is the justice of man, when he deserts the true God and yields himself to impure demons? Is this to give every one his due? Or is he who keeps back a piece of ground from the purchaser, and gives it to a man who has no right to it, unjust, while he who keeps back himself from the God who made him, and serves wicked spirits, is just?

> Latin: Quapropter nunc est locus, ut quam potero breuiter ac dilucide expediam, quod in secundo huius operis libro me demonstraturum esse promisi, secundum definitiones, quibus aput Ciceronem utitur Scipio in libris de re publica, numquam rem publicam fuisse Romanam. Breuiter enim rem publicam definit esse rem populi. Quae definitio si uera est, numquam fuit Romana res publica, quia numquam fuit res populi, quam definitionem uoluit esse rei publicae. Populum enim esse definiuit coetum multitudinis iuris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatum. Quid autem dicat iuris consensum, disputando explicat, per hoc ostendens geri sine iustitia non posse rem publicam; ubi ergo iustitia uera non est, nec ius potest esse. Quod enim iure fit, profecto iuste fit; quod autem fit iniuste, nec iure fieri potest Non enim iura dicenda sunt uel putanda iniqua hominum constituta, cum illud etiam ipsi ius esse dicant, quod de iustitiae fonte manauerit, falsumque esse, quod a quibusdam non recte sentientibus dici solet, id esse ius, quod ei, qui plus potest. utile est. Quocirca ubi non est uera iustitia, iuris consensu sociatus coetus hominum non potest esse et ideo nec populus iuxta illam Scipionis uel Ciceronis definitionem; et si non populus, nec res populi. sed qualiscumque multitudinis, quae populi nomine digna non est. Ac per hoc, si res publica res est populi et populus non est, qui consensu non sociatus est iuris, non est autem ius, ubi nulla iustitia est: procul dubio colligitur, ubi iustitia non est, non esse rem publicam. Iustitia porro ea uirtus est, quae sua cuique distribuit. Quae igitur iustitia est hominis, quae ipsum hominem Deo uero tollit et inmundis daemonibus subdit? Hocine est sua cuique distribuere? An qui fundum aufert eius, a quo emtus est, et tradit ei, qui nihil habet in eo iuris, iniustus est; et qui se ipsum aufert dominanti Deo, a quo factus est, et malignis seruit spiritibus, iustus est?

[¶11] This same book, De Republica, advocates the cause of justice against injustice with great force and keenness. The pleading for injustice against justice was first heard, and it was asserted that without injustice a republic could neither increase nor even subsist, for it was laid down as an absolutely unassailable position that it is unjust for some men to rule and some to serve; and yet the imperial city to which the republic belongs cannot rule her provinces without having recourse to this injustice. It was replied in behalf of justice, that this ruling of the provinces is just, because servitude may be advantageous to the provincials, and is so when rightly administered,—that is to say, when lawless men are prevented from doing harm. And further, as they became worse and worse so long as they were free, they will improve by subjection. To confirm this reasoning, there is added an eminent example drawn from nature: for “why,” it is asked, “does God rule man, the soul the body, the reason the passions and other vicious parts of the soul?” This example leaves no doubt that, to some, servitude is useful; and, indeed, to serve God is useful to all. And it is when the soul serves God that it exercises a right control over the body; and in the soul itself the reason must be subject to God if it is to govern as it ought the passions and other vices. Hence, when a man does not serve God, what justice can we ascribe to him, since in this case his soul cannot exercise a just control over the body, nor his reason over his vices? And if there is no justice in such an individual, certainly there can be none in a community composed of such persons. Here, therefore, there is not that common acknowledgment of right which makes an assemblage of men a people whose affairs we call a republic. And why need I speak of the advantageousness, the common participation in which, according to the definition, makes a people? For although, if you choose to regard the matter attentively, you will see that there is nothing advantageous to those who live godlessly, as every one lives who does not serve God but demons, whose wickedness you may measure by their desire to receive the worship of men though they are most impure spirits, yet what I have said of the common acknowledgment of right is enough to demonstrate that, according to the above definition, there can be no people, and therefore no republic, where there is no justice. For if they assert that in their republic the Romans did not serve unclean spirits, but good and holy gods, must we therefore again reply to this evasion, though already we have said enough, and more than enough, to expose it? He must be an uncommonly stupid, or a shamelessly contentious person, who has read through the foregoing books to this point, and can yet question whether the Romans served wicked and impure demons. But, not to speak of their character, it is written in the law of the true God, “He that sacrificeth unto any god save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.” He, therefore, who uttered so menacing a commandment decreed that no worship should be given either to good or bad gods.

> Latin: Disputatur certe acerrime adque fortissime in eisdem ipsis de re publica libris aduersus iniustitiam pro iustitia. Et quoniam, cum prius ageretur pro iniustitiae partibus contra iustitiam et diceretur nisi per iniustitiam rem publicam stare augerique non posse, hoc ueluti ualidissimum positum erat, iniustum esse, ut homines hominibus dominantibus seruiant; quam tamen iniustitiam nisi sequatur imperiosa ciuitas, cuius est magna res publica, non eam posse prouinciis imperare: responsum est a parte iustitiae ideo iustum esse, quod talibus hominibus sit utilis seruitus, et pro utilitate eorum fieri, cum recte fit, id est cum inprobis aufertur iniuriarum licentia, et domiti melius se habebunt, quia indomiti deterius se habuerunt; subditumque est, ut ista ratio firmaretur, ueluti a natura sumtum nobile exemplum adque dictum est: ‘Quur igitur Deus homini, animus imperat corpori, ratio libidini ceterisque uitiosis animi partibus?’ Plane hoc exemplo satis edoctum est quibusdam esse utilem seruitutem, et Deo quidem ut seruiatur utile esse omnibus. Seruiens autem Deo animus recte imperat corpori, inque ipso animo ratio Deo Domino subdita recte imperat libidini uitiisque ceteris. Quapropter ubi homo Deo non seruit, quid in eo putandum est esse iustitiae? quando quidem Deo non seruiens nullo modo potest iuste animus corpori aut humana ratio uitiis imperare. Et si in homine tali non est ulla iustitia. procul dubio nec in hominum coetu, qui ex hominibus talibus constat. Non est hic ergo iuris ille consensus, qui hominum multitudinem populum facit, cuius res dicitur esse res publica. Nam de utilitate quid dicam, cuius etiam communione sociatus coetus hominum, sicut sese habet ista definitio, populus nuncupatur? Quamuis enim, si diligenter adtendas, nec utilitas sit ulla uiuentium, qui uiuunt inpie, sicut uiuit omnis, qui non seruit Deo seruitque daemonibus, tanto magis inpiis, quanto magis sibi, cum sint inmundissimi spiritus, tamquam dis sacrificari uolunt: tamen quod de iuris consensu diximus satis esse arbitror, unde appareat per hanc definitionem non esse populum, cuius res publica esse dicatur, in quo iustitia non est. Si enim dicunt non spiritibus inmundis, sed dis bonis adque sanctis in sua re publica seruisse Romanos: numquid eadem totiens repetenda sunt, quae iam satis, immo ultra quam satis est diximus? Quis enim ad hunc locum per superiores huius operis libros peruenit, qui dubitare adhuc possit malis et inpuris daemonibus seruisse Romanos, nisi uel nimium stolidus uel inpudentissime contentiosus? Sed ut taceam quales sint, quos sacrificiis colebant: in lege ueri Dei scriptum eat: Sacrificans dis eradicabitur nisi Domino tantum. Nec bonis igitur nec malis dis sacrificari uoluit, qui hoc cum tanta comminatione praecepit.

### Whether the God Whom the Christians Serve is the True God to Whom Alone Sacrifice Ought to Be Paid.

[¶13] Chapter 22.—Whether the God Whom the Christians Serve is the True God to Whom Alone Sacrifice Ought to Be Paid.

> Latin: Caput XXII. An uerus sit Deus, cui Christiani seruiunt, cui soli debeat sacrificari.

[¶14] But it may be replied, Who is this God, or what proof is there that He alone is worthy to receive sacrifice from the Romans? One must be very blind to be still asking who this God is. He is the God whose prophets predicted the things we see accomplished. He is the God from whom Abraham received the assurance, “In thy seed shall all nations be blessed.” That this was fulfilled in Christ, who according to the flesh sprang from that seed, is recognized, whether they will or no, even by those who have continued to be the enemies of this name. He is the God whose divine Spirit spake by the men whose predictions I cited in the preceding books, and which are fulfilled in the Church which has extended over all the world. This is the God whom Varro, the most learned of the Romans, supposed to be Jupiter, though he knows not what he says; yet I think it right to note the circumstance that a man of such learning was unable to suppose that this God had no existence or was contemptible, but believed Him to be the same as the supreme God. In fine, He is the God whom Porphyry, the most learned of the philosophers, though the bitterest enemy of the Christians, confesses to be a great God, even according to the oracles of those whom he esteems gods.

> Latin: Sed responderi potest: ‘Quis iste Deus est aut unde dignus probatur, cui deberent obtemperare Romani, ut nullum deorum praeter ipsum colerent sacrificiis ?’ Magnae caecitatis est, adhuc quaerere, quis iste sit Deus. Ipse est Deus, cuius prophetae praedixerunt ista quae cernimus. Ipse est Deus, a quo responsum accepit Abraham: In semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes. Quod in Christo fieri, qui secundum carnem de illo semine exortus est, idem ipsi qui remanserunt huius nominis inimici, uelint nolintue, cognoscunt. Ipse est Deus, cuius diuinus Spiritus per eos locutus est, quorum praedicta adque conpleta per ecclesiam, quam uidemus toto orbe diffusam, in libris superioribus posui. Ipse est Deus, quem Varro doctissimus Romanorum Iouem putat, quamuis nesciens quid loquatur; quod tamen ideo commemorandum putaui, quoniam uir tantae scientiae nec nullum istum Deum potuit existimare nec uilem. Hunc enim eum esse credidit, quem summum putauit deum. Postremo ipse est Deus, quem doctissimus philosophorum, quamuis Christianorum acerrimus inimicus, etiam per eorum oracula, quos deos putat, deum magnum Porphyrius confitetur.

### Porphyry’s Account of the Responses Given by the Oracles of the gods Concerning Christ.

[¶16] Chapter 23.—Porphyry’s Account of the Responses Given by the Oracles of the gods Concerning Christ.

> Latin: Caput XXIII. Quae Porphyrius dicat oraculis deorum responsa esse de Christo.

[¶17] For in his book called ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας, in which he collects and comments upon the responses which he pretends were uttered by the gods concerning divine things, he says—I give his own words as they have been translated from the Greek: “To one who inquired what god he should propitiate in order to recall his wife from Christianity, Apollo replied in the following verses.” Then the following words are given as those of Apollo: “You will probably find it easier to write lasting characters on the water, or lightly fly like a bird through the air, than to restore right feeling in your impious wife once she has polluted herself. Let her remain as she pleases in her foolish deception, and sing false laments to her dead God, who was condemned by right-minded judges, and perished ignominiously by a violent death.” Then after these verses of Apollo (which we have given in a Latin version that does not preserve the metrical form), he goes on to say: “In these verses Apollo exposed the incurable corruption of the Christians, saying that the Jews, rather than the Christians, recognized God.” See how he misrepresents Christ, giving the Jews the preference to the Christians in the recognition of God. This was his explanation of Apollo’s verses, in which he says that Christ was put to death by right-minded or just judges,—in other words, that He deserved to die. I leave the responsibility of this oracle regarding Christ on the lying interpreter of Apollo, or on this philosopher who believed it or possibly himself invented it; as to its agreement with Porphyry’s opinions or with other oracles, we shall in a little have something to say. In this passage, however, he says that the Jews, as the interpreters of God, judged justly in pronouncing Christ to be worthy of the most shameful death. He should have listened, then, to this God of the Jews to whom he bears this testimony, when that God says, “He that sacrificeth to any other god save to the Lord alone shall be utterly destroyed.” But let us come to still plainer expressions, and hear how great a God Porphyry thinks the God of the Jews is. Apollo, he says, when asked whether word, i.e., reason, or law is the better thing, replied in the following verses. Then he gives the verses of Apollo, from which I select the following as sufficient: “God, the Generator, and the King prior to all things, before whom heaven and earth, and the sea, and the hidden places of hell tremble, and the deities themselves are afraid, for their law is the Father whom the holy Hebrews honor.” In this oracle of his god Apollo, Porphyry avowed that the God of the Hebrews is so great that the deities themselves are afraid before Him. I am surprised, therefore, that when God said, He that sacrificeth to other gods shall be utterly destroyed, Porphyry himself was not afraid lest he should be destroyed for sacrificing to other gods.

> Latin: Nam in libris. quos ex XoTfwv <ptXooo<ptac appellat, in quibus exsequitur adque conscribit rerum ad philosophiam pertinentium uelut diuina responsa, ut ipsa uerba eius, quem ad modum ex Graeca lingua in Latinam interpretata sunt, ponam: ‘Interroganti, inquit, quem deum placando reuocare possit uxorem suam a Christianismo, haec ait uersibus Apollo/ Deinde uerba uelut Apollinis ista sunt: Torte magis poteris in aqua inpressis litteris scribere aut adinflans leues pinnas per aera auis uolare, quam pollutae reuoces inpiae uxoris sensum. Pergat quo modo uult inanibus fallaciis [perseuerans et lamentari fallaciis] mortuum Deum cantans, quem iudicibus recta sentientibus perditum pessima in speciosis ferro uincta mors interfecit.’ Deinde post hos uersus Apollinis, qui non stante metro Latine interpretati sunt, subiunxit adque ait: lIn his quidem inremediabile sententiae eorum manifestauit dicens, quoniam Iudaei suscipiunt Deum magis quam isti.’ Ecce, ubi decolorans Christum Iudaeos praeposuit Christianis, confitens quod Iudaei suscipiant Deum. Sic enim exposuit uersus Apollinis, ubi a iudicibus recta sentientibus Christum dicit occisum, tamquam illis iuste iudicantibus merito sit ille punitus. Viderim quid de Christo uates mendax Apollinis dixerit adque iste crediderit aut fortasse uatem, quod non dixit, dixisse iste ipse confinxerit. Quam sibi constet uel ipsa oracula inter se faciat conuenire, postea uidebimus; hic tamen Iudaeos. tamquam Dei susceptores, recte dicit iudicasse de Christo, quod eum morte pessima excruciandum esse censuerint. Deus itaque Iudaeorum, cui perhibet testimonium, audiendus fuit dicens: Sacrificans dis eradicabitur, nisi Domino tantum. Sed ad manifestiora ueniamus et audiamus quam magnum Deum dicat esse Iudaeorum. Item ad ea, quae interrogauit Apollinem, quid melius, uerbum siue ratio an lex: cRespondit, inquit, uersibus haec dicens.’ Ac deinde subicit Apollinis uersus, in quibus et isti sunt, ut quantum satis est inde decerpam: (In Deum uero, inquit, generatorem et in regem ante omnia, quem tremit et caelum et terra adque mare et infernorum abdita et ipsa numina perhorrescunt; quorum lex est Pater, quem ualde sancti honorant Hebraei.) Tali oraculo dei sui Apollinis Porphyrius tam magnum Deum dixit Hebraeorum, ut eum et ipsa numina perhorrescant. Cum ergo Deus iste dixerit: Sacrificans dis eradicabitur, miror quod ipse Porphyrius non perhorruerit et sacrificans dis eradicari non formidauerit. Dicit etiam bona philosophus iste de Christo, quasi oblitus illius, de qua paulo ante locuti sumus, contumeliae suae, aut quasi in somnis di eius maledixerint Christo et euigilantes eum bonum esse cognouerint digneque laudauerint.

[¶18] This philosopher, however, has also some good to say of Christ, oblivious, as it were, of that contumely of his of which we have just been speaking; or as if his gods spoke evil of Christ only while asleep, and recognized Him to be good, and gave Him His deserved praise, when they awoke. For, as if he were about to proclaim some marvellous thing passing belief, he says, “What we are going to say will certainly take some by surprise. For the gods have declared that Christ was very pious, and has become immortal, and that they cherish his memory: that the Christians, however, are polluted, contaminated, and involved in error. And many other such things,” he says, “do the gods say against the Christians.” Then he gives specimens of the accusations made, as he says, by the gods against them, and then goes on: “But to some who asked Hecate whether Christ were a God, she replied, You know the condition of the disembodied immortal soul, and that if it has been severed from wisdom it always errs. The soul you refer to is that of a man foremost in piety: they worship it because they mistake the truth.” To this so-called oracular response he adds the following words of his own: “Of this very pious man, then, Hecate said that the soul, like the souls of other good men, was after death dowered with immortality, and that the Christians through ignorance worship it. And to those who ask why he was condemned to die, the oracle of the goddess replied, The body, indeed, is always exposed to torments, but the souls of the pious abide in heaven. And the soul you inquire about has been the fatal cause of error to other souls which were not fated to receive the gifts of the gods, and to have the knowledge of immortal Jove. Such souls are therefore hated by the gods; for they who were fated not to receive the gifts of the gods, and not to know God, were fated to be involved in error by means of him you speak of. He himself, however, was good, and heaven has been opened to him as to other good men. You are not, then, to speak evil of him, but to pity the folly of men: and through him men’s danger is imminent.”

> Latin: Denique tamquam mirabile aliquid adque incredibile prolaturus: Traeter opinionem, inquit, profecto quibusdam uideatur esse quod dicturi sumus. Christum enim di piissimum pronuntiauerunt et inmortalem factum et cum bona praedicatione eius meminerunt; Christianos uero pollutos, inquit, et contaminatos et errore inplicatos esse dicunt et multis talibus aduersus eos blasphemiis utuntur.’ Deinde subicit uelut oracula deorum blasphemantium Christianos et post haec: ‘De Christo autem, inquit, interrogantibus si est Deus, ait Hecate: Quoniam quidem inmortalis anima post corpus ut incedit, nosti; a sapientia autem abscisa semper errat. Viri pietate praestantissimi est illa anima; hanc colunt aliena a se ueritate.) Deinde post uerba huius quasi oraculi sua ipse contexens: Tiissimum igitur uirum, inquit, eum dixit et eius animam, sicut et aliorum piorum, post obitum inmortalitate dignatam et hanc colere Christianos ignorantes.) (Interrogantibus autem, inquit: Quur ergo damnatus est? oraculo respondit dea: Corpus quidem debilitantibus tormentis semper obpositum est; anima autem piorum caelesti sedi insidet. Illa uero anima aliis animabus fataliter dedit, quibus fata non adnuerunt deorum dona obtinere neque habere Iouis inmortalis agnitionem, errore inplicari. Propterea ergo dis exosi, quia, quibus fato non fuit nosse Deum nec dona ab dis accipere, his fataliter dedit iste errore inplicari. Ipse uero pius et in caelum, sicut pii, concessit. Itaque hunc quidem non blasphemabis, misereberis autem hominum dementiam, ex eo in eis facile praecepsque periculum.’ ‘ Qui ita stultus est, ut non intellegat aut ab homine callido eoque Christianis inimicissimo haec oracula fuisse conficta aut consilio simili ab inpuris daemonibus ista fuisse responsa, ut scilicet, quoniam laudant Christum, propterea credantur ueraciter uituperare Christianos adque ita, si possint, intercludant uiam salutis aeternae, in qua fit quisque Christianus?

[¶19] Who is so foolish as not to see that these oracles were either composed by a clever man with a strong animus against the Christians, or were uttered as responses by impure demons with a similar design,—that is to say, in order that their praise of Christ may win credence for their vituperation of Christians; and that thus they may, if possible, close the way of eternal salvation, which is identical with Christianity? For they believe that they are by no means counter working their own hurtful craft by promoting belief in Christ, so long as their calumniation of Christians is also accepted; for they thus secure that even the man who thinks well of Christ declines to become a Christian, and is therefore not delivered from their own rule by the Christ he praises. Besides, their praise of Christ is so contrived that whosoever believes in Him as thus represented will not be a true Christian but a Photinian heretic, recognizing only the humanity, and not also the divinity of Christ, and will thus be precluded from salvation and from deliverance out of the meshes of these devilish lies. For our part, we are no better pleased with Hecate’s praises of Christ than with Apollo’s calumniation of Him. Apollo says that Christ was put to death by right-minded judges, implying that He was unrighteous. Hecate says that He was a most pious man, but no more. The intention of both is the same, to prevent men from becoming Christians, because if this be secured, men shall never be rescued from their power. But it is incumbent on our philosopher, or rather on those who believe in these pretended oracles against the Christians, first of all, if they can, to bring Apollo and Hecate to the same mind regarding Christ, so that either both may condemn or both praise Him. And even if they succeeded in this, we for our part would notwithstanding repudiate the testimony of demons, whether favorable or adverse to Christ. But when our adversaries find a god and goddess of their own at variance about Christ the one praising, the other vituperating Him, they can certainly give no credence, if they have any judgment, to mere men who blaspheme the Christians.

> Latin: Suae quippe nocendi astutiae milleformi sentiunt non esse contrarium, si credatur eis laudantibus Christum, dum tamen credatur etiam uituperantibus Christianos; ut eum, qui utrumque crediderit, talem Christi faciant laudatorem, ne uelit esse Christianus, ac sic quamuis ab illo laudatus ab istorum tamen daemonum dominatu eum non liberet Christus; praesertim quia ita laudant Christum, ut, quisquis in eum talem crediderit, qualis ab eis praedicatur, Christianus nerus non sit, sed Photimanus haereticus, qui tantummodo hominem, non etiam Deum nouerit Christum, et ideo per eum saluus esse non possit nec istorum mendaciloquorum daemonum laqueos uitare uel soluere. Nos autem neque Apollinem uituperantem Christum neque Hecaten possumus adprobare laudantem. Ille quippe tamquam iniquum Christum uult credi, quem iudicibus recta sentientibus dicit occisum; ista hominem piissimum, sed hominem tantum. Una est tamen et illius et huius intentio, ut nolint homines esse Christianos, quia, nisi Christiani erunt, ab eorum erui potestate non poterunt. Iste uero philosophus, uel potius qui talibus aduersus Christianos quasi oraculis credunt, prius faciant, si possunt, ut inter se de ipso Christo Hecate adque Apollo concordent eumque aut ambo condemnent aut ambo conlaudent. Quod si facere potuissent, nihilo minus nos et uituperatores et laudatores Christi fallaces daemones uitaremus. Cum uero eorum deus et dea inter se de Christo, ille uituperando, ista laudando dissentiant: profecto eis blasphemantibus Christianos non credunt homines, si recte ipsi sentiant. Sane Christum laudans uel Porphyrius uel Hecate, cum dicat eum ipsum fataliter dedisse Christianis, ut inplicarentur errore, causas tamen eiusdem, sicut putat, pandit erroris.

[¶20] When Porphyry or Hecate praises Christ, and adds that He gave Himself to the Christians as a fatal gift, that they might be involved in error, he exposes, as he thinks, the causes of this error. But before I cite his words to that purpose, I would ask, If Christ did thus give Himself to the Christians to involve them in error, did He do so willingly, or against His will? If willingly, how is He righteous? If against His will, how is He blessed? However, let us hear the causes of this error. “There are,” he says,” in a certain place very small earthly spirits, subject to the power of evil demons. The wise men of the Hebrews, among whom was this Jesus, as you have heard from the oracles of Apollo cited above, turned religious persons from these very wicked demons and minor spirits, and taught them rather to worship the celestial gods, and especially to adore God the Father. This,” he said, “the gods enjoin; and we have already shown how they admonish the soul to turn to God, and command it to worship Him. But the ignorant and the ungodly, who are not destined to receive favors from the gods, nor to know the immortal Jupiter, not listening to the gods and their messages, have turned away from all gods, and have not only refused to hate, but have venerated the prohibited demons. Professing to worship God, they refuse to do those things by which alone God is worshipped. For God, indeed, being the Father of all, is in need of nothing; but for us it is good to adore Him by means of justice, chastity, and other virtues, and thus to make life itself a prayer to Him, by inquiring into and imitating His nature. For inquiry,” says he, “purifies and imitation deifies us, by moving us nearer to Him.” He is right in so far as he proclaims God the Father, and the conduct by which we should worship Him. Of such precepts the prophetic books of the Hebrews are full, when they praise or blame the life of the saints. But in speaking of the Christians he is in error, and caluminates them as much as is desired by the demons whom he takes for gods, as if it were difficult for any man to recollect the disgraceful and shameful actions which used to be done in the theatres and temples to please the gods, and to compare with these things what is heard in our churches, and what is offered to the true God, and from this comparison to conclude where character is edified, and where it is ruined. But who but a diabolical spirit has told or suggested to this man so manifest and vain a lie, as that the Christians reverenced rather than hated the demons, whose worship the Hebrews prohibited? But that God, whom the Hebrew sages worshipped, forbids sacrifice to be offered even to the holy angels of heaven and divine powers, whom we, in this our pilgrimage, venerate and love as our most blessed fellow-citizens. For in the law which God gave to His Hebrew people He utters this menace, as in a voice of thunder: “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.” And that no one might suppose that this prohibition extends only to the very wicked demons and earthly spirits, whom this philosopher calls very small and inferior,—for even these are in the Scripture called gods, not of the Hebrews, but of the nations, as the Septuagint translators have shown in the psalm where it is said, “For all the gods of the nations are demons,”—that no one might suppose, I say, that sacrifice to these demons was prohibited, but that sacrifice might be offered to all or some of the celestials, it was immediately added, “save unto the Lord alone.” The God of the Hebrews, then, to whom this renowned philosopher bears this signal testimony, gave to His Hebrew people a law, composed in the Hebrew language, and not obscure and unknown, but published now in every nation, and in this law it is written, “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord alone, he shall be utterly destroyed.” What need is there to seek further proofs in the law or the prophets of this same thing? Seek, we need not say, for the passages are neither few nor difficult to find; but what need to collect and apply to my argument the proofs which are thickly sown and obvious, and by which it appears clear as day that sacrifice may be paid to none but the supreme and true God? Here is one brief but decided, even menacing, and certainly true utterance of that God whom the wisest of our adversaries so highly extol. Let this be listened to, feared, fulfilled, that there may be no disobedient soul cut off. “He that sacrifices,” He says, not because He needs anything, but because it behoves us to be His possession. Hence the Psalmist in the Hebrew Scriptures sings, “I have said to the Lord, Thou art my God, for Thou needest not my good.” For we ourselves, who are His own city, are His most noble and worthy sacrifice, and it is this mystery we celebrate in our sacrifices, which are well known to the faithful, as we have explained in the preceding books. For through the prophets the oracles of God declared that the sacrifices which the Jews offered as a shadow of that which was to be would cease, and that the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun, would offer one sacrifice. From these oracles, which we now see accomplished, we have made such selections as seemed suitable to our purpose in this work. And therefore, where there is not this righteousness whereby the one supreme God rules the obedient city according to His grace, so that it sacrifices to none but Him, and whereby, in all the citizens of this obedient city, the soul consequently rules the body and reason the vices in the rightful order, so that, as the individual just man, so also the community and people of the just, live by faith, which works by love, that love whereby man loves God as He ought to be loved, and his neighbor as himself,—there, I say, there is not an assemblage associated by a common acknowledgment of right, and by a community of interests. But if there is not this, there is not a people, if our definition be true, and therefore there is no republic; for where there is no people there can be no republic.

> Latin: Quas antequam ex uerbis eius exponam, prius quaero, si fataliter dedit Christus Christianis erroris inplicationem, utrum nolens an nolens dederit. Si uolens, quo modo iustus? Si nolens, quo modo beatus? Sed iam causas ipsius audiamus erroris. ‘Sunt, inquit, spiritus terreni minimi loco quodam malorum daemonum potestati subiecti. Ab his sapientes Hebraeorum (quorum unus iste etiam Iesus fuit, sicut audisti diuina Apollinis, quae superius dicta sunt) — ab his ergo Hebraei daemonibus pessimis et minoribus spiritibus uetabant religiosos et ipsis uacare prohibebant; uenerari autem magis caelestes deos, amplius autem uenerari Deum Patrem. Hoc autem, inquit, et di praecipiunt et in superioribus ostendimus, quem ad modum animum aduertere ad Deum monent et illum colere ubique imperant. Verum indocti et inpiae naturae, quibus uere fatum non concessit ab dis dona obtinere neque habere Iouis inmortalis notionem, non audientes et deos et diuinos uiros deos quidem omnes recusauerunt, prohibitos autem daemones et hos non odisse, sed reuereri. Deum autem simulantes colere, ea sola, per quae Deus adoratur, non agunt. Nam Deus quidem, utpote omnium Pater, nullius indiget; sed nobis est bene, cum eum per iustitiam et castitatem aliasque uirtutes adoramus, ipsam uitam precem ad ipsum facientes per’imitationem et inquisitionem de ipso. Inquisitio enim purgat, inquit; imitatio deificat adfectionem ad ipsum operando.’ Bene quidem praedicauit Deum Patrem, et quibus sit colendus moribus dixit; quibus praeceptis prophetici libri pleni sunt Hebraeorum, quando sanctorum uita siue imperatur siue laudatur. Sed in Christianis tantum errat aut tantum calumniatur, quantum uolunt daemones, quos opinatur deos; quasi cuiquam difficile sit recolere, quae turpia, quae dedecora erga deorum obsequium in theatris agebantur et templis, et adtendere quae legantur dicantur audiantur in ecclesiis, uel Deo uero quid offeratur, et hinc intellegere ubi aedificium, et ubi ruina sit morum. Quis autem huic dixit uel inspirauit, nisi diabolicus spiritus, tam uanum apertumque mendacium, quod daemones ab Hebraeis coli prohibitos reuereantur potius, quam oderint Christiani? Sed Deus ille. quem coluerunt sapientes Hebraeorum, etiam caelestibus sanctis angelis et uirtutibus Dei, quos beatissimos tamquam ciues in hac nostra peregrinatione mortali ueneramur et amamus, sacrificari uetat intonans in lege sua, quam dedit Hebraeo populo suo, et ualde minaciter dicens: Sacrificans dis eradicabitur. Et ne quisquam putaret daemonibus pessimis terrenisque spiritibus, quos iste dicit minimos uel minores, ne sacrificetur esse praeceptum (quia et ipsi in scripturis sanctis dicti sunt di, non Hebraeorum, sed gentium; quod euidenter in psalmo septuaginta interpretes posuerunt, dicentes: Quoniam [omnes] di gentium daemonia), — ne quis ergo putaret istis quidem daemoniis prohibitum, caelestibus autem uel omnibus uel aliquibus sacrificari esse permissum, mox addidit: Nisi Domino soli, id est nisi Domino tantum; ne forte in eo, quod ait: Domino soli, Dominum solem credat esse quispiam, cui sacrificandum putet; quod non ita esse intellegendum in scripturis Graecis facillime reperitur. Deus igitur Hebraeorum, cui tam magnum tantus etiam iste philosophus perhibet testimonium, legem dedit Hebraeo populo suo, Hebraeo sermone conscriptam, non obscuram et incognitam, sed omnibus iam gentibus diffamatam, in qua lege scriptum est: Sacrificans dis eradicabitur nisi Domino tantum. Quid opus est in hac eius lege eiusque prophetis de hac re multa perquirere; immo non perquirere, non enim abstrusa uel rara sunt, sed aperta et crebra colligere et in hac disputatione mea ponere, quibus luce clarius apparet nulli omnino nisi tantum sibi Deum uerum et summum uoluisse sacrificari? Ecce hoc unum breuiter, immo granditer, minaciter, sed ueraciter dictum ab illo Deo, quem tam excellenter eorum doctissimi praedicant, audiatur timeatur inpleatur, ne inoboedientes eradicatio consequatur. Sacrificans, inquit, dis eradicabitur nisi Domino tantum; non quo rei egeat alicuius, sed quia nobis expedit, ut res eius simus. Huic enim canitur in sacris litteris Hebraeorum: Dixi Domino: Deus meus es tu, quoniam bonorum meorum non eges. Huius autem praechuissimum adque optimum sacrificium nos ipsi sumus, hoc est ciuitas eius, cuius rei mysterium celebramus oblationibus nostris, quae fidelibus notae sunt, sicut in libris praecedentibus disputauimus. Cessaturas enim uictimas, quas in umbra futuri offerebant Iudaei, et unum sacrificium gentes a solis ortu usque ad occasum, sicut iam fieri cernimus, oblaturas per prophetas Hebraeos oracula increpuere diuina; ex quibus quantum satis uisum est, nonnulla protulimus et huic iam. operi adspersimus. Quapropter ubi non est ista iustitia, ut secundum suam gratiam ciuitati oboedienti Deus imperet unus et summus, ne cuiquam sacrificet nisi tantum sibi, et per hoc in omnibus hominibus ad eandem ciuitatem pertinentibus adque oboedientibus Deo animus etiam corpori adque ratio uitiis ordine legitimo fideliter imperet; ut, quem ad modum iustus unus, ita coetus populusque iustorum uiuat ex fide, quae operatur per dilectionem, qua homo diligit Deum, sicut diligendus est Deus, et proximum sicut semet ipsum, — ubi ergo non est ista iustitia, profecto non est coetus hominum iuris consensu et utilitatis communione. sociatus. Quod si non est, utique populus non est si uera est haec populi definitio. Ergo nec res publica est, quia res populi non est, ubi ipse populus non est.

### The Definition Which Must Be Given of a People and a Republic, in Order to Vindicate the Assumption of These Titles by the Romans and by Other Kingdoms.

[¶22] Chapter 24.—The Definition Which Must Be Given of a People and a Republic, in Order to Vindicate the Assumption of These Titles by the Romans and by Other Kingdoms.

> Latin: Caput XXIV. Qua definitione constet populi et rei publicae nuncupationem recte sibi non solum Romanos, sed etiam regna alia uindicare.

[¶23] But if we discard this definition of a people, and, assuming another, say that a people is an assemblage of reasonable beings bound together by a common agreement as to the objects of their love, then, in order to discover the character of any people, we have only to observe what they love. Yet whatever it loves, if only it is an assemblage of reasonable beings and not of beasts, and is bound together by an agreement as to the objects of love, it is reasonably called a people; and it will be a superior people in proportion as it is bound together by higher interests, inferior in proportion as it is bound together by lower. According to this definition of ours, the Roman people is a people, and its weal is without doubt a commonwealth or republic. But what its tastes were in its early and subsequent days, and how it declined into sanguinary seditions and then to social and civil wars, and so burst asunder or rotted off the bond of concord in which the health of a people consists, history shows, and in the preceding books I have related at large. And yet I would not on this account say either that it was not a people, or that its administration was not a republic, so long as there remains an assemblage of reasonable beings bound together by a common agreement as to the objects of love. But what I say of this people and of this republic I must be understood to think and say of the Athenians or any Greek state, of the Egyptians, of the early Assyrian Babylon, and of every other nation, great or small, which had a public government. For, in general, the city of the ungodly, which did not obey the command of God that it should offer no sacrifice save to Him alone, and which, therefore, could not give to the soul its proper command over the body, nor to the reason its just authority over the vices, is void of true justice.

> Latin: Si autem populus non isto, sed alio definiatur modo, uelut si dicatur: Topulus est coetus multitudinis rationalis rerum quas diligit concordi communione sociatus’, profecto, ut uideatur qualis quisque populus sit, illa sunt intuenda, quae diligit. Quaecumque tamen diligat, si coetus est multitudinis non pecorum, sed rationalium creaturarum et eorum quae diligit concordi communione sociatus est, non absurde populus nuncupatur; tanto utique melior, quanto in melioribus, tantoque deterior, quanto est in deterioribus concors. Secundum istam definitionem nostram Romanus populus populus est et res eius sine dubitatione res publica. Quid autem primis temporibus suis quidue sequentibus populus ille dilexerit et quibus moribus ad cruentissimas seditiones adque inde ad socialia adque ciuilia bella perueniens ipsam concordiam, quae salus est quodam modo populi, ruperit adque corruperit, testatur historia; de qua in praecedentibus libris multa posuimus. Nec ideo tamen uel ipsum non esse populum uel eius rem dixerim non esse rem publicam, quamdiu manet qualiscumque rationalis multitudinis coetus, rerum quas diligit concordi communione sociatus. Quod autem de isto populo et de ista re publica dixi, hoc de Atheniensium uel quorumcumque Graecorum, hoc de Aegyptiorum, hoc de illa priore Babylone Assyriorum, quando in rebus publicis suis imperia uel parua uel magna tenuerunt, et de alia quacumque aliarum gentium intellegar dixisse adque sensisse. Generaliter quippe ciuitas inpiorum, cui non imperat Deus oboedienti sibi, ut sacrificium non offerat nisi tantummodo sibi, et per hoc in illa et animus corpori ratioque uitiis recte ac fideliter imperet, caret iustitiae ueritate.

## 98. That Where There is No True Religion There are No True Virtues.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/98/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/98/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 25.—That Where There is No True Religion There are No True Virtues.

> Latin: Caput XXV. Quod non possint ibi uerae esse uirtutes, ubi non est uera religio.

[¶1] For though the soul may seem to rule the body admirably, and the reason the vices, if the soul and reason do not themselves obey God, as God has commanded them to serve Him, they have no proper authority over the body and the vices. For what kind of mistress of the body and the vices can that mind be which is ignorant of the true God, and which, instead of being subject to His authority, is prostituted to the corrupting influences of the most vicious demons? It is for this reason that the virtues which it seems to itself to possess, and by which it restrains the body and the vices that it may obtain and keep what it desires, are rather vices than virtues so long as there is no reference to God in the matter. For although some suppose that virtues which have a reference only to themselves, and are desired only on their own account, are yet true and genuine virtues, the fact is that even then they are inflated with pride, and are therefore to be reckoned vices rather than virtues. For as that which gives life to the flesh is not derived from flesh, but is above it, so that which gives blessed life to man is not derived from man, but is something above him; and what I say of man is true of every celestial power and virtue whatsoever.

> Latin: Quamlibet enim uideatur animus corpori et ratio uitiis laudabiliter imperare, si Deo animus et ratio ipsa non seruit, sicut sibi esse seruiendum ipse Deus praecepit, nullo modo corpori uitiisque recte imperat. Nam qualis corporis adque uitiorum potest esse mens domina ueri Dei nescia nec eius imperio subiugata, sed uitiosissimis daemonibus corrumpentibus prostituta? Proinde uirtutes, quas habere sibi uidetur, per quas imperat corpori et uitiis, ad quodlibet adipiscendum uel tenendum rettulerit nisi ad Deum, etiam ipsae uitia sunt potius quam uirtutes. Nam licet a quibusdam tunc uerae adque honestae putentur esse uirtutes, cum referuntur ad se ipsas nec propter aliud expetuntur: etiam tunc inflatae ac superbae sunt, et ideo non uirtutes, sed uitia iudicanda sunt. Sicut enim non est a carne sed super carnem, quod carnem facit uiuere: sic non est ab homine, sed super hominem, quod hominem facit beate uiuere; nec solum hominem, sed etiam quamlibet potestatem uirtutemque caelestem.

### Of the Peace Which is Enjoyed by the People that are Alienated from God, and the Use Made of It by the People of God in the Time of Its Pilgrimage.

[¶3] Chapter 26.—Of the Peace Which is Enjoyed by the People that are Alienated from God, and the Use Made of It by the People of God in the Time of Its Pilgrimage.

> Latin: Caput XXVI. De pace populi alienati a Deo, qua utitur ad pietatem populus Dei, dum in hoc peregrinus est mundo.

[¶4] Wherefore, as the life of the flesh is the soul, so the blessed life of man is God, of whom the sacred writings of the Hebrews say, “Blessed is the people whose God is the Lord.” Miserable, therefore, is the people which is alienated from God. Yet even this people has a peace of its own which is not to be lightly esteemed, though, indeed, it shall not in the end enjoy it, because it makes no good use of it before the end. But it is our interest that it enjoy this peace meanwhile in this life; for as long as the two cities are commingled, we also enjoy the peace of Babylon. For from Babylon the people of God is so freed that it meanwhile sojourns in its company. And therefore the apostle also admonished the Church to pray for kings and those in authority, assigning as the reason, “that we may live a quiet and tranquil life in all godliness and love.” And the prophet Jeremiah, when predicting the captivity that was to befall the ancient people of God, and giving them the divine command to go obediently to Babylonia, and thus serve their God, counselled them also to pray for Babylonia, saying, “In the peace thereof shall ye have peace,”—the temporal peace which the good and the wicked together enjoy.

> Latin: Quocirca ut uita carnis anima est, ita beata uita hominis Deus est, de quo dicunt sacrae litterae Hebraeorum: Beatus populus, cuius est Dominus Deus ipsius. Miser igitur populus ab isto alienatus Deo. Diligit tamen etiam ipse quandam pacem suam non inprobandam, quam quidem non habebit in fine, quia non ea bene utitur ante finem. Hanc autem ut interim habeat in hac uita, etiam nostri interest; quoniam, quamdiu permixtae sunt ambae ciuitates, utimur et nos pace Babylonis; ex qua ita per fidem populus Dei liberatur, ut aput hanc interim peregrinetur. Propter quod et apostolus admonuit ecclesiam, ut oraret pro regibus eius adque sublimibus, addens et dicens: Ut quietam et tranquillam uitam agamus cum omni pietate et caritate, et propheta Hieremias, cum populo Dei ueteri praenuntiaret captiuitatem et diuinitus imperaret, ut oboedienter irent in Babyloniam Deo suo etiam ista patientia seruientes monuit et ipse ut oraretur pro illa dicens: Quia in eius est pace pax uestra, utique interim temporalis, quae bonis malisque communis est.

### That the Peace of Those Who Serve God Cannot in This Mortal Life Be Apprehended in Its Perfection.

[¶6] Chapter 27.—That the Peace of Those Who Serve God Cannot in This Mortal Life Be Apprehended in Its Perfection.

> Latin: Caput XXVII. De pace seruientium Deo, cuius perfecta tranquillitas in hac temporali uita non potest adprehendi.

[¶7] But the peace which is peculiar to ourselves we enjoy now with God by faith, and shall hereafter enjoy eternally with Him by sight. But the peace which we enjoy in this life, whether common to all or peculiar to ourselves, is rather the solace of our misery than the positive enjoyment of felicity. Our very righteousness, too, though true in so far as it has respect to the true good, is yet in this life of such a kind that it consists rather in the remission of sins than in the perfecting of virtues. Witness the prayer of the whole city of God in its pilgrim state, for it cries to God by the mouth of all its members, “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.” And this prayer is efficacious not for those whose faith is “without works and dead,” but for those whose faith “worketh by love.” For as reason, though subjected to God, is yet “pressed down by the corruptible body,” so long as it is in this mortal condition, it has not perfect authority over vice, and therefore this prayer is needed by the righteous. For though it exercises authority, the vices do not submit without a struggle. For however well one maintains the conflict, and however thoroughly he has subdued these enemies, there steals in some evil thing, which, if it does not find ready expression in act, slips out by the lips, or insinuates itself into the thought; and therefore his peace is not full so long as he is at war with his vices. For it is a doubtful conflict he wages with those that resist, and his victory over those that are defeated is not secure, but full of anxiety and effort. Amidst these temptations, therefore, of all which it has been summarily said in the divine oracles, “Is not human life upon earth a temptation?” who but a proud man can presume that he so lives that he has no need to say to God, “Forgive us our debts?” And such a man is not great, but swollen and puffed up with vanity, and is justly resisted by Him who abundantly gives grace to the humble. Whence it is said, “God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.” In this, then, consists the righteousness of a man, that he submit himself to God, his body to his soul, and his vices, even when they rebel, to his reason, which either defeats or at least resists them; and also that he beg from God grace to do his duty, and the pardon of his sins, and that he render to God thanks for all the blessings he receives. But, in that final peace to which all our righteousness has reference, and for the sake of which it is maintained, as our nature shall enjoy a sound immortality and incorruption, and shall have no more vices, and as we shall experience no resistance either from ourselves or from others, it will not be necessary that reason should rule vices which no longer exist, but God shall rule the man, and the soul shall rule the body, with a sweetness and facility suitable to the felicity of a life which is done with bondage. And this condition shall there be eternal, and we shall be assured of its eternity; and thus the peace of this blessedness and the blessedness of this peace shall be the supreme good.

> Latin: Pax autem nostra propria et hic est cum Deo per fidem et in aeternum erit cum illo per speciem. Sed hic siue illa communis siue nostra propria talis est pax, ut solacium miseriae sit potius quam beatitudinis gaudium. Ipsa quoquo nostra iustitia, quamuis uera sit propter uerum boni finem, ad quem refertur, tamen tanta est in hac uita, ut potius remissione peccatorum constet quam perfectione uirtutum. Testis est oratio totius ciuitatis Dei, quae peregrinatur in terris. Per omnia quippe membra sua clamat ad Deum: Dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Nec pro eis est efficax haec oratio, quorum fides sine operibus mortua est; sed pro eis, quorum fides per dilectionem operatur. Quia enim Deo quidem subdita, in hac tamen condicione mortali et corpore corruptibili, quod adgrauat animam, non perfecte uitiis imperat ratio, ideo necessaria est iustis talis oratio. Nam profecto quamquam imperetur, nequaquam sine conflictu uitiis imperatur; et utique subrepit aliquid in hoc loco infirmitatis etiam bene confligenti siue hostibus talibus uictis subditisque dominanti, unde si non facili operatione, certe labili locutione aut uolatili cogitatione peccetur. Et ideo, quamdiu uitiis imperatur, plena pax non est, quia et illa, quae resistunt, periculoso debellantur proelio, et illa, quae uicta sunt, nondum securo triumphantur otio, sed adhuc sollicito premuntur imperio. In his ergo tentationibus, de quibus omnibus in diuinis eloquiis breuiter dictum est: Numquid non tentatio est uita humana super terram? quis ita uiuere se praesumat, ut dicere Deo: Dimitte nobis debita nostra necesse non habeat nisi homo elatus? nec uero magnus, sed inflatus ac tumidus, cui per iustitiam resistit, qui gratiam largitur humilibus. Propter quod scriptum est: Deus superbis resistit, humilibus autem dat gratiam. Hic itaque in unoquoque iustitia est. ut oboedienti Deus homini, animus corpori, ratio autem uitiis etiam repugnantibus imperet, uel subigendo uel resistendo, adque ut ab ipso Deo petatur et meritorum gratia et uenia delictorum ac de acceptis bonis gratiarum actio persoluatur. In illa uero pace finali, quo referenda et cuius adipiscendae causa habenda est ista iustitia, quoniam sanata inmortalitate adque incorruptione natura uitia non habebit nec unicuique nostrum uel ab alio uel a se ipso quippiam repugnabit, non opus erit ut ratio uitiis, quae nulla erunt, imperet; sed imperabit Deus homini, animus corpori, tantaque ibi erit oboediendi suauitas et facilitas, quanta uiuendi regnandique felicitas. Et hoc illic in omnibus adque in singulis aeternum erit aeternumque esse certum erit, et ideo pax beatitudinis huius uel beatitudo pacis huius summum bonum erit.

### The End of the Wicked.

[¶9] Chapter 28.—The End of the Wicked.

> Latin: Caput XXVIII. In quem finem uenturus sit exitus inpiorum.

[¶10] But, on the other hand, they who do not belong to this city of God shall inherit eternal misery, which is also called the second death, because the soul shall then be separated from God its life, and therefore cannot be said to live, and the body shall be subjected to eternal pains. And consequently this second death shall be the more severe, because no death shall terminate it. But war being contrary to peace, as misery to happiness, and life to death, it is not without reason asked what kind of war can be found in the end of the wicked answering to the peace which is declared to be the end of the righteous? The person who puts this question has only to observe what it is in war that is hurtful and destructive, and he shall see that it is nothing else than the mutual opposition and conflict of things. And can he conceive a more grievous and bitter war than that in which the will is so opposed to passion, and passion to the will, that their hostility can never be terminated by the victory of either, and in which the violence of pain so conflicts with the nature of the body, that neither yields to the other? For in this life, when this conflict has arisen, either pain conquers and death expels the feeling of it, or nature conquers and health expels the pain. But in the world to come the pain continues that it may torment, and the nature endures that it may be sensible of it; and neither ceases to exist, lest punishment also should cease. Now, as it is through the last judgment that men pass to these ends, the good to the supreme good, the evil to the supreme evil, I will treat of this judgment in the following book.

> Latin: Eorum autem, qui non pertinent ad istam ciuitatem Dei, erit e contrario miseria sempiterna, quae mors etiam secunda dicitur, quia nec anima ibi uiuere dicenda est, quae a uita Dei alienata erit, nec corpus, quod aeternis doloribus subiacebit; ac per hoc ideo durior ista secunda mors erit, quia finiri morte non poterit. Sed quoniam sicut miseria beatitudini et mors uitae, ita bellum paci uidetur esse contrarium: merito quaeritur, sicut pax in bonorum finibus praedicata est adque laudata, quod uel quale bellum e contrario in finibus malorum possit intellegi. Verum qui hoc quaerit, adtendat quid in bello noxium perniciosumque sit, et uidebit nihil aliud quam rerum esse inter se aduersitatem adque conflictum. Quod igitur bellum grauius et amarius cogitari potest, quam ubi uoluntas sic aduersa est passioni et passio uoluntati, ut nullius earum uictoria tales inimicitiae finiantur, et ubi sic confligit cum ipsa natura corporis uis doloris, ut neutrum alteri cedat? Hic enim quando contingit iste conflictus, aut dolor uincit et sensum mors adimit, aut natura uincit et dolorem sanitas tollit. Ibi autem et dolor permanet ut adfligat, et natura perdurat ut sentiat; quia utrumque ideo non deficit, ne poena deficiat. Ad hos autem fines bonorum et malorum, illos expetendos, istos cauendos, quoniam per iudicium transibunt ad illos boni, ad istos mali: de hoc iudicio, quantum Deus donauerit, in consequenti uolumine disputabo.

### Of the last judgment, and the declarations regarding it in the Old and New Testaments.

[¶12] Book XX.

> Latin: Liber XX

[¶13] Argument—Concerning the last judgment, and the declarations regarding it in the old and new testaments.

### That Although God is Always Judging, It is Nevertheless Reasonable to Confine Our Attention in This Book to His Last Judgment.

[¶15] Chapter 1.—That Although God is Always Judging, It is Nevertheless Reasonable to Confine Our Attention in This Book to His Last Judgment.

> Latin: Caput I. Quod, quamuis omni tempore Deus iudicet, in hoc tamen libro de nouissimo eius iudicio sit proprie disputandum.

[¶16] Intending to speak, in dependence on God’s grace, of the day of His final judgment, and to affirm it against the ungodly and incredulous, we must first of all lay, as it were, in the foundation of the edifice the divine declarations. Those persons who do not believe such declarations do their best to oppose to them false and illusive sophisms of their own, either contending that what is adduced from Scripture has another meaning, or altogether denying that it is an utterance of God’s. For I suppose no man who understands what is written, and believes it to be communicated by the supreme and true God through holy men, refuses to yield and consent to these declarations, whether he orally confesses his consent, or is from some evil influence ashamed or afraid to do so; or even, with an opinionativeness closely resembling madness, makes strenuous efforts to defend what he knows and believes to be false against what he knows and believes to be true.

> Latin: De die ultimi iudicii Dei quod ipse donauerit locuturi eumque adserturi aduersus inpios et incredulos tamquam in aedificii fundamento prius ponere testimonia diuina debemus: quibus qui nolunt credere, humanis ratiunculis falsis adque fallacibus contrauenire conantur, ad hoc ut aut aliud significare contendant quod adhibetur testimonium de litteris sacris, aut omnino diuinitus esse dictum negent. Nam nullum existimo esse mortalium, qui cum ea, sicut dicta sunt, intellexerit et a summo ac uero Deo per animas sanctas dicta esse crediderit, non eis cedat adque consentiat, siue id etiam ore fateatur siue aliquo uitio fateri erubescat aut metuat, uel etiam peruicacia simillima insaniae id, quod falsum esse nouit aut credit, [contra id, quod uerum esse nouit aut credit,] etiam contentiosissime defendere moliatur.

[¶17] That, therefore, which the whole Church of the true God holds and professes as its creed, that Christ shall come from heaven to judge quick and dead, this we call the last day, or last time, of the divine judgment. For we do not know how many days this judgment may occupy; but no one who reads the Scriptures, however negligently, need be told that in them “day” is customarily used for “time.” And when we speak of the day of God’s judgment, we add the word last or final for this reason, because even now God judges, and has judged from the beginning of human history, banishing from paradise, and excluding from the tree of life, those first men who perpetrated so great a sin. Yea, He was certainly exercising judgment also when He did not spare the angels who sinned, whose prince, overcome by envy, seduced men after being himself seduced. Neither is it without God’s profound and just judgment that the life of demons and men, the one in the air, the other on earth, is filled with misery, calamities, and mistakes. And even though no one had sinned, it could only have been by the good and right judgment of God that the whole rational creation could have been maintained in eternal blessedness by a persevering adherence to its Lord. He judges, too, not only in the mass, condemning the race of devils and the race of men to be miserable on account of the original sin of these races, but He also judges the voluntary and personal acts of individuals. For even the devils pray that they may not be tormented, which proves that without injustice they might either be spared or tormented according to their deserts. And men are punished by God for their sins often visibly, always secretly, either in this life or after death, although no man acts rightly save by the assistance of divine aid; and no man or devil acts unrighteously save by the permission of the divine and most just judgment. For, as the apostle says, “There is no unrighteousness with God;” and as he elsewhere says, “His judgments are inscrutable, and His ways past finding out.” In this book, then, I shall speak, as God permits, not of those first judgments, nor of these intervening judgments of God, but of the last judgment, when Christ is to come from heaven to judge the quick and the dead. For that day is properly called the day of judgment, because in it there shall be no room left for the ignorant questioning why this wicked person is happy and that righteous man unhappy. In that day true and full happiness shall be the lot of none but the good, while deserved and supreme misery shall be the portion of the wicked, and of them only.

> Latin: Quod ergo in confessione ac professione tenet omnis ecclesia Dei ueri Christum de caelo esse uenturum ad uiuos ac mortuos iudicandos, hunc diuini iudicii ultimum diem dicimus, id est nouissimum tempus. Nam per quot dies hoc iudicium tendatur, incertum est; sed scripturarum more sanctarum diem poni solere pro tempore nemo, qui illas litteras quamlibet neglegenter legerit, nescit. Ideo autem, cum diem iudicii Dei dicimus, addimus ultimum uel nouissimum, quia et nunc iudicat et ab humani generis initio iudicauit dimittens de paradiso et a ligno uitae separans primos homines peccati magni perpetratores; immo etiam quando angelis peccantibus non pepercit, quorum princeps homines a se ipso subuersus inuidendo subuertit, procul dubio iudicauit; nec sine illius alto iustoque iudicio et in hoc aerio caelo et in terris et daemonum et hominum miserrima est uita, erroribus aerumnisque plenissima. Verum etsi nemo peccasset, non sine bono rectoque iudicio uniuersam rationalem creaturam perseuerantissime sibi suo Domino cohaerentem in aeterna beatitudine retineret. Iudicat etiam non solum uniuersaliter de genere daemonum adque hominum, ut miseri sint propter primorum meritum peccatorum; sed etiam de singulorum operibus propriis, quae gerunt arbitrio uoluntatis. Nam et daemones ne torqueantur precantur, nec utique iniuste uel parcitur eis uel pro sua quique inprobitate torquentur; et homines plerumque aperte, semper occulte, luunt pro suis factis diuinitus poenas sine in hac uita siue post mortem: quamuis nullus hominum agat recte, nisi diuino adiuuetur auxilio; nullus daemonum aut hominum agat inique, nisi diuino eodemque iustissimo iudicio permittatur. Sicut enim ait apostolus, non estiniquitas aput Deum; etiam sicut ipse alibi dicit, inscrutabilia sunt iudicia eius et inuestigabiles uiae eius. Non igitur in hoc libro de illis primis nec de istis mediis Dei iudiciis, sed de ipso nouissimo, quantum ipsi tribuerit, disputabo, quando Christus de caelo uenturus est uiuos iudicaturus et mortuos. Iste quippe dies iudicii proprie iam uocatur, eo quod nullus ibi erit inperitae querellae locus, quur iniustus ille sit felix et quur ille iustus infelix. Omnium namque tunc nonnisi bonorum uera et plena felicitas et omnium nonnisi malorum digna et summa infelicitas apparebit.

### That in the Mingled Web of Human Affairs God’s Judgment is Present, Though It Cannot Be Discerned.

[¶19] Chapter 2.—That in the Mingled Web of Human Affairs God’s Judgment is Present, Though It Cannot Be Discerned.

> Latin: Caput II. De uarietate rerum humanarum, cui non potest dici deesse iudicium Dei, quamuis neque at uestigari.

[¶20] In this present time we learn to bear with equanimity the ills to which even good men are subject, and to hold cheap the blessings which even the wicked enjoy. And consequently, even in those conditions of life in which the justice of God is not apparent, His teaching is salutary. For we do not know by what judgment of God this good man is poor and that bad man rich; why he who, in our opinion, ought to suffer acutely for his abandoned life enjoys himself, while sorrow pursues him whose praiseworthy life leads us to suppose he should be happy; why the innocent man is dismissed from the bar not only unavenged, but even condemned, being either wronged by the iniquity of the judge, or overwhelmed by false evidence, while his guilty adversary, on the other hand, is not only discharged with impunity, but even has his claims admitted; why the ungodly enjoys good health, while the godly pines in sickness; why ruffians are of the soundest constitution, while they who could not hurt any one even with a word are from infancy afflicted with complicated disorders; why he who is useful to society is cut off by premature death, while those who, as it might seem, ought never to have been so much as born have lives of unusual length; why he who is full of crimes is crowned with honors, while the blameless man is buried in the darkness of neglect. But who can collect or enumerate all the contrasts of this kind? But if this anomalous state of things were uniform in this life, in which, as the sacred Psalmist says, “Man is like to vanity, his days as a shadow that passeth away,”—so uniform that none but wicked men won the transitory prosperity of earth, while only the good suffered its ills,—this could be referred to the just and even benign judgment of God. We might suppose that they who were not destined to obtain those everlasting benefits which constitute human blessedness were either deluded by transitory blessings as the just reward of their wickedness, or were, in God’s mercy, consoled by them, and that they who were not destined to suffer eternal torments were afflicted with temporal chastisement for their sins, or were stimulated to greater attainment in virtue. But now, as it is, since we not only see good men involved in the ills of life, and bad men enjoying the good of it, which seems unjust, but also that evil often overtakes evil men, and good surprises the good, the rather on this account are God’s judgments unsearchable, and His ways past finding out. Although, therefore, we do not know by what judgment these things are done or permitted to be done by God, with whom is the highest virtue, the highest wisdom, the highest justice, no infirmity, no rashness, no unrighteousness, yet it is salutary for us to learn to hold cheap such things, be they good or evil, as attach indifferently to good men and bad, and to covet those good things which belong only to good men, and flee those evils which belong only to evil men. But when we shall have come to that judgment, the date of which is called peculiarly the day of judgment, and sometimes the day of the Lord, we shall then recognize the justice of all God’s judgments, not only of such as shall then be pronounced, but, of all which take effect from the beginning, or may take effect before that time. And in that day we shall also recognize with what justice so many, or almost all, the just judgments of God in the present life defy the scrutiny of human sense or insight, though in this matter it is not concealed from pious minds that what is concealed is just.

> Latin: Nunc autem et mala aequo animo ferre discimus, quae patiuntur et boni, et bona non magnipendere, quae adipiscuntur et mali; ac per hoc etiam in his rebus, in quibus non apparet diuina iustitia, salutaris est diuina doctrina. Nescimus enim quo iudicio Dei bonus ille sit pauper, malus ille sit dines; iste gaudeat, quem pro suis perditis moribus cruciari debuisse maeroribus arbitramur, contristetur ille, quem uita laudabilis gaudere debuisse persuadet; exeat de iudicio non solum inultus, uerum etiam damnatus innocens, aut iniquitate iudicis pressus aut falsis obrutus testimoniis, e contrario scelestus aduersarius eius non solum inpunitus. uerum etiam uindicatus insultet; inpius optime ualeat, pius languore tabescat; latrocinentur sanissimi iuuenes, et qui nec uerbo quemquam laedere potuerunt, diuersa morborum atrocitate adfligantur infantes; utilis rebus humanis inmatura morte rapiatur, et qui uidetur nec nasci debuisse, diutissime insuper uiuat; plenus criminibus sublimetur honoribus, et hominem sine querella tenebrae ignobilitatis abscondant, et cetera huius modi, quae quis colligit, quis enumerat? Quae si haberent in ipsa uelut absurditate constantiam, ut in hac uita, in qua homo, sicut sacer psalmus eloquitur, uanitati similis factus est et dies eius uelut umbra praetereunt, nonnisi mali adipiscerentur transitoria bona ista adque terrena, nec nisi boni talia paterentur mala: posset hoc referri ad iudicium iustum Dei siue etiam benignum, ut, qui non erant adsecuturi bona aeterna, quae faciunt beatos, temporalibus uel deciperentur pro malitia sua, uel pro Dei misericordia consolarentur bonis, et qui non erant passuri aeterna tormenta, temporalibus uel pro suis quibuscumque et quantuliscumque peccatis adfligerentur, uel propter inplendas uirtutes exercerentur malis. Nunc uero, quando non solum in malo sunt boni et in bono mali, quod uidetur iniustum, uerum etiam plerumque et malis mala eueniunt et bonis bona proueniunt: magis inscrutabilia fiunt iudicia Dei et inuestigabiles uiae eius. Quamuis ergo nesciamus quo iudicio Deus ista uel faciat uel fieri sinat, aput quem summa uirtus est et summa sapientia, summa iustitia, nulla infirmitas, nulla temeritas. nulla iniquitas: salubriter tamen discimus non magnipendere seu bona seu mala, quae uidemus esse bonis malisque communia, et illa bona quaerere, quae bonorum, adque illa mala maxime fugere, quae propria sunt malorum. Cum uero ad illud Dei iudicium uenerimus, cuius tempus iam proprie dies iudicii et aliquando dies Domini nuncupatur: non solum quaecumque tunc iudicabuntur, uerum etiam quaecumque ab initio iudicata et quaecumque usque ad illud tempus adhuc iudicanda sunt. apparebunt esse iustissima. Ubi hoc quoque manifestabitur, quam iusto iudicio Dei fiat, ut nunc tam multa ac paene omnia iusta iudicia Dei lateant sensus mentesque mortalium, cum tamen in hac re piorum fidem non lateat, iustum esse quod latet.

### What Solomon, in the Book of Ecclesiastes, Says Regarding the Things Which Happen Alike to Good and Wicked Men.

[¶22] Chapter 3.—What Solomon, in the Book of Ecclesiastes, Says Regarding the Things Which Happen Alike to Good and Wicked Men.

> Latin: Caput III. Quid in libro ecclesiaste Salomon de his, quae in hac uita et bonis et malis sunt communia, dispatarit.

[¶23] Solomon, the wisest king of Israel, who reigned in Jerusalem, thus commences the book called Ecclesiastes, which the Jews number among their canonical Scriptures: “Vanity of vanities, said Ecclesiastes, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labor which he hath taken under the sun?” And after going on to enumerate, with this as his text, the calamities and delusions of this life, and the shifting nature of the present time, in which there is nothing substantial, nothing lasting, he bewails, among the other vanities that are under the sun, this also, that though wisdom excelleth folly as light excelleth darkness, and though the eyes of the wise man are in his head, while the fool walketh in darkness, yet one event happeneth to them all, that is to say, in this life under the sun, unquestionably alluding to those evils which we see befall good and bad men alike. He says, further, that the good suffer the ills of life as if they were evil doers, and the bad enjoy the good of life as if they were good. “There is a vanity which is done upon the earth; that there be just men unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked: again, there be wicked men, to whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteous. I said, that this also is vanity.” This wisest man devoted this whole book to a full exposure of this vanity, evidently with no other object than that we might long for that life in which there is no vanity under the sun, but verity under Him who made the sun. In this vanity, then, was it not by the just and righteous judgment of God that man, made like to vanity, was destined to pass away? But in these days of vanity it makes an important difference whether he resists or yields to the truth, and whether he is destitute of true piety or a partaker of it,—important not so far as regards the acquirement of the blessings or the evasion of the calamities of this transitory and vain life, but in connection with the future judgment which shall make over to good men good things, and to bad men bad things, in permanent, inalienable possession. In fine, this wise man concludes this book of his by saying, “Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is every man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every despised person, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” What truer, terser, more salutary enouncement could be made? “Fear God, he says, and keep His commandments: for this is every man.” For whosoever has real existence, is this, is a keeper of God’s commandments; and he who is not this, is nothing. For so long as he remains in the likeness of vanity, he is not renewed in the image of the truth. “For God shall bring into judgment every work,”—that is, whatever man does in this life,—“whether it be good or whether it be evil, with every despised person,”—that is, with every man who here seems despicable, and is therefore not considered; for God sees even him and does not despise him nor pass him over in His judgment.

> Latin: Nempe Salomon, sapientissimus rex Israel, qui regnauit in Hierusalem, librum, qui uocatur ecclesiastes et a Iudaeis quoque habetur in sacrarum canone litterarum, sic exorsus est: Vanitas uanitantium, dixit ecclesiastes; uanitas uanitantium, omnia uanitas. Quae abundantia homini in omni labore suo, quo laborat sub sole? Et cum ex hac sententia conecteret cetera, commemorans aerumnas erroresque uitae huius et uanescentes interea temporum lapsus, ubi nihil solidum, nihil stabile retinetur: in ea rerum uanitate sub sole illud etiam deplorat quodam. modo, quod, cum sit abundantia sapientiae super insipientiam, sicut abundantia lucis super tenebras, sapientisque oculi sint in capite ipsius et stultus in tenebris ambulet, unus tamen incursus incurrat omnibus, utique in hac uita quae sub sole agitur, significans uidelicet ea mala, quae bonis et malis uidemus esse communia. Dicit etiam illud, quod et boni patiantur mala, tamquam mali sint, et mali, tamquam boni sint, adipiscantur bona, ita loquens: Est, inquit, uanitas, quae facta est super terram, quia sunt iusti, super quos uenit sicut factum inpiorum, et sunt inpii super quos uenit sicut factum iustorum. Dixi quoniam hoc quoque uanitas. In hac uanitate, cui quantum satis uisum est intimandae totum istum librum uir sapientissimus deputauit (non utique ob aliud, nisi ut eam uitam desideremus, quae uanitatem non habet sub hoc sole, sed ueritatem sub illo qui fecit hunc solem), — in hac ergo uanitate numquid nisi iusto Dei rectoque iudicio similis eidem uanitati factus uanesceret homo? In diebus tamen uanitatis suae interest plurimum, utrum resistat an obtemperet ueritati, et utrum sit expers uerae pietatis an particeps; non propter uitae huius uel bona adquirenda uel mala uitanda uanescendo transeuntia, sed propter futurum iudicium, per quod erunt et bonis bona et malis mala sine fine mansura. Denique iste sapiens hunc librum sic conclusit, ut diceret: Deum time et mandata eius custodi, quia hoc est omnis homo; quia omne hoc opus Deus adducet in iudicium in omni despecto, siue bonum siue malum. Quidbreuius, uerius, salubrius dici potuit? Deum, inquit, time et mandata eius custodi, quia hoc est omnis homo. Quicumque enim est, hoc est, custos utique mandatorum Dei; quoniam qui hoc non est, nihil est; non enim ad ueritatis imaginem reformatur, remanens in similitudine uanitatis. Quia omne hoc opus, id est, quod ab homine fit in hac uita, siue bonum sine malum, Deus adducet in iudicium in omni despecto, id est in omni etiam qui contemtibilis hic uidetur et ideo nec uidetur; quoniam Deus et ipsum uidet nec eum despicit nec cum iudicat praeterit.

## 99. That Proofs of the Last Judgment Will Be Adduced, First from the New Testament, and Then from the Old.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/99/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/99/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 4.—That Proofs of the Last Judgment Will Be Adduced, First from the New Testament, and Then from the Old.

> Latin: Caput IV. Quod ad disserendum de nouissimo iudicio Dei noui primum testamenti ac deinde ueteris testimonia prolaturus sit.

[¶1] The proofs, then, of this last judgment of God which I propose to adduce shall be drawn first from the New Testament, and then from the Old. For although the Old Testament is prior in point of time, the New has the precedence in intrinsic value; for the Old acts the part of herald to the New. We shall therefore first cite passages from the New Testament, and confirm them by quotations from the Old Testament. The Old contains the law and the prophets, the New the gospel and the apostolic epistles. Now the apostle says “By the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; now the righteousness of God is by faith of Jesus Christ upon all them that believe.” This righteousness of God belongs to the New Testament, and evidence for it exists in the old books, that is to say, in the law and the prophets. I shall first, then state the case, and then call the witnesses. This order Jesus Christ Himself directs us to observe, saying, “The scribe instructed in the kingdom of God is like a good householder, bringing out of his treasure things new and old.” He did not say “old and new,” which He certainly would have said had He not wished to follow the order of merit rather than that of time.

> Latin: Huius itaque ultimi iudicii Dei testimonia de scripturis sanctis, quae ponere institui, prius eligenda sunt de libris instrumenti noui, postea de ueteris. Quamuis enim uetera priora sint tempore, noua tamen anteponenda sunt dignitate, quoniam illa uetera praeconia sunt nouorum. Noua igitur ponentur prius, quae ut firmius probemus, adsumentur et uetera. In ueteribus habentur lex et prophetae, in nouis euangelium et apostolicae litterae. Ait autem apostolus: Per legem enim cognitio peccati. Nunc autem sine lege iustitia Dei manifestata est, testificata per legem et prophetas; iustitia autem Dei per fidem Iesu Christi in omnes qui credunt. Haec iustitia Dei ad nouum pertinet testamentum et testimonium habet a ueteribus libris, hoc est lege ac prophetis. Prius igitur ipsa causa ponenda est, et postea testes introducendi. Hunc et ipse Christus Iesus ordinem seruandum esse demonstrans: Scriba, inquit, eruditus in regno Dei similis est uiro patri familias proferenti de thesauro suo noua et uetera. Non dixit: ‘Vetera et noua’, quod utique dixisset, nisi maluisset meritorum ordinem seruare quam temporum.

### The Passages in Which the Saviour Declares that There Shall Be a Divine Judgment in the End of the World.

[¶3] Chapter 5.—The Passages in Which the Saviour Declares that There Shall Be a Divine Judgment in the End of the World.

> Latin: Caput V. Quibus sententiis Domini Saluatoris diuinum iudicium futurum in fine saeculi declaretur.

[¶4] The Saviour Himself, while reproving the cities in which He had done great works, but which had not believed, and while setting them in unfavorable comparison with foreign cities, says, “But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment than for you.” And a little after He says, “Verily, I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for thee.” Here He most plainly predicts that a day of judgment is to come. And in another place He says, “The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the utter most parts of the earth to hear the words of Solomon; and behold, a greater than Solomon is here.” Two things we learn from this passage, that a judgment is to take place, and that it is to take place at the resurrection of the dead. For when He spoke of the Ninevites and the queen of the south, He certainly spoke of dead persons, and yet He said that they should rise up in the day of judgment. He did not say, “They shall condemn,” as if they themselves were to be the judges, but because, in comparison with them, the others shall be justly condemned.

> Latin: Ergo ipse Saluator cum obiurgaret ciuitates, in quibus uirtutes magnas fecerat neque crediderant, et eis alienigenas anteponeret: Verum tamen, inquit, dico uobis, Tyro et Sidoni remissius erit in die iudicii quam uobis; et paulo post alteri ciuitati: Arnen, inquit, dico uobis, quia terrae Sodomorum remissius erit in die iudicii quam tibi (hic euidentissime praedicat diem iudicii esse uenturum) ; et alio loco: Viri Nineuitae, inquit, surgent in iudicio cum generatione ista et condemnabunt eam; quia paenitentiam egerunt in praedicatione Ionae, et ecce plus quam Iona hic. Regina Austri surget in iudicio cum generatione ista et condemnabit eam; quia uenit a finibus terrae audire sapientiam Salomonis, et ecce plus quam Salomon hic. Duas res hoc loco discimus, et uenturum esse iudicium et cum mortuorum resurrectione uenturum. De Nineuitis enim et regina Austri quando ista dicebat, de mortuis sine dubio loquebatur, quos tamen in die iudicii resurrecturos esse praedixit. Nec ideo dixit: […] quia ipsi iudicabunt; sed quia ex ipsorum conparatione isti merito damnabuntur. Rursus alio loco, cum de hominum bonorum et malorum nunc permixtione, postea separatione, quae utique die iudicii futura est, loqueretur, adhibuit similitudinem de tritico seminato et superseminatis zizaniis, eamque suis exponens discipulis: Qui seminat, inquit, bonum semen, est filius hominis; ager autem est mundus: bonum uero semen hi sunt filii regni; zizania autem filii sunt nequam; inimicus autem, qui seminauit ea, est diabolus; messis uero consummatio saeculi est, messores autem angeli sunt.

[¶5] Again, in another passage, in which He was speaking of the present intermingling and future separation of the good and bad,—the separation which shall be made in the day of judgment,—He adduced a comparison drawn from the sown wheat and the tares sown among them, and gave this explanation of it to His disciples: “He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man,” etc. Here, indeed, He did not name the judgment or the day of judgment, but indicated it much more clearly by describing the circumstances, and foretold that it should take place in the end of the world.

> Latin: Sicut ergo colliguntur zizania et igni comburuntur: sic erit in consummatione saeculi. Mittet filius hominis angesuos, et colligunt de regno eius omnia scandala et eos, qui faciunt iniquitatem, et mittunt eos in caminum ignis; ibi erit fletus et stridor dentium. Tunc iusti fulgebunt sicut sol in regno patris eorum. Qui habet aures, audiat. Hic iudicium quidem uel diem iudicii non nominauit, sed eum multo clarius ipsis rebus expressit et in fine saeculi futurum esse praedixit.

[¶6] In like manner He says to His disciples, “Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Here we learn that Jesus shall judge with His disciples. And therefore He said elsewhere to the Jews, “If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges.” Neither ought we to suppose that only twelve men shall judge along with Him, though He says that they shall sit upon twelve thrones; for by the number twelve is signified the completeness of the multitude of those who shall judge. For the two parts of the number seven (which commonly symbolizes totality), that is to say four and three, multiplied into one another, give twelve. For four times three, or three times four, are twelve. There are other meanings, too, in this number twelve. Were not this the right interpretation of the twelve thrones, then since we read that Matthias was ordained an apostle in the room of Judas the traitor, the Apostle Paul, though he labored more than them all, should have no throne of judgment; but he unmistakeably considers himself to be included in the number of the judges when he says, “Know ye not that we shall judge angels?” The same rule is to be observed in applying the number twelve to those who are to be judged. For though it was said, “judging the twelve tribes of Israel,” the tribe of Levi, which is the thirteenth, shall not on this account be exempt from judgment, neither shall judgment be passed only on Israel and not on the other nations. And by the words “in the regeneration,” He certainly meant the resurrection of the dead to be understood; for our flesh shall be regenerated by incorruption, as our soul is regenerated by faith.

> Latin: Item discipulis suis: Arnen, inquit, dicouobis, quod uos, qui secuti estis me, in regeneratione, cum sederit filius hominis in sede maiestatis suae, sedebitis et uos super sedes duodecim iudicantes duodecim tribus Israel. Hic discimus cum suis discipulis iudicaturum Iesum. Unde et alibi Iudaeis dixit: Si ego in Beelzebub eicio daemonia, filii uestri in quo eiciunt? Ideo ipsi iudices erunt uestri. Nec quoniam super duodecim sedes sessuros esse ait, duodecim solos homines cum illo iudicaturos putare debemus. Duodenario quippe. numero uniuersa quaedam significata est iudicantium multitudo propter duas partes numeri septenarii, quo significatur plerumque uniuersitas; quae duae partes, id est tria et quattuor, altera per alteram multiplicatae duodecim faciunt, nam et quattuor ter et tria quater duodecim sunt, et si qua alia huius duodenarii numeri, quae ad hoc ualeat, ratio reperitur. Alioquin, quoniam in locum Iudae traditoris apostolum Matthiam legimus ordinatum, apostolus Paulus, qui plus omnibus illis laborauit, ubi ad iudicandum sedeat non habebit; qui profecto cum aliis sanctis ad numerum iudicum se pertinere demonstrat. cum dicit: Nescitis quia angelos iudicabimus? De ipsis quoque iudicandis in hoc numero duodenario similis causa est. Non enim quia dictum est: Iudicantes duodecim tribus Israel, tribus Leui, quae tertia decima est, ab eis iudicanda non erit, aut solum illum populum, non etiam gentes cet.eras indicabunt. Quod autem ait: In regeneratione, procul dubio mortuorum resurrectionem nomine uoluit regenerationis intellegi. Sic enim caro nostra regenerabitur per incorruptionem, quem ad modum est anima nostra regenerata per fidem.- Multa praetereo, quae de ultimo iudicio ita dici uidentur, ut diligenter considerata reperiantur ambigua uel magis ad aliud pertinentia, siue scilicet ad eum Saluatoris aduentum, quo per totum hoc tempus in ecclesia sua uenit, hoc est in membris suis, particulatim adque paulatim, quoniam tota corpus est eius; siue ad excidium terrenae Hierusalem; quia et de illo cum loquitur, plerumque sic loquitur, tamquam de fine saeculi adque illo die iudicii nouissimo et magno loquatur; ita ut dignosci non possit omnino, nisi ea, quae aput tres euangelistas Matthaeum, Marcum et Lucam de hac re similiter dicta sunt, inter se omnia conferantur.

[¶7] Many passages I omit, because, though they seem to refer to the last judgment, yet on a closer examination they are found to be ambiguous, or to allude rather to some other event,—whether to that coming of the Saviour which continually occurs in His Church, that is, in His members, in which comes little by little, and piece by piece, since the whole Church is His body, or to the destruction of the earthly Jerusalem. For when He speaks even of this, He often uses language which is applicable to the end of the world and that last and great day of judgment, so that these two events cannot be distinguished unless all the corresponding passages bearing on the subject in the three evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are compared with one another,—for some things are put more obscurely by one evangelist and more plainly by another,—so that it becomes apparent what things are meant to be referred to one event. It is this which I have been at pains to do in a letter which I wrote to Hesychius of blessed memory, bishop of Salon, and entitled, “Of the End of the World.”

> Latin: Quaedam quippe alter obscurius, alter explicat planius, ut ea, quae ad unam rem pertinentia dicuntur, appareat unde dicantur. Quod facere utcumque curaui in quadam epistula, quam rescripsi ad beatae memoriae uirum Hesychium, Salonitanae urbis episcopum, cuius epistulae titulus est: De fine saeculi. Proinde iam illud hic dicam, quod in euangelio secundum Matthaeum de. separatione bonorum et malorum legitur per iudicium praesentissimum adque nouissimum Christi. Cum autem uenerit, inquit, filius hominis in maiestate sua, et omnes angeli cum eo, tunc sedebit super sedem maiestatis suae, et congregabuntur ante eum omnes gentes, et separabit eos ab inuicem. sicut pastor segregat oues ab haedis, et statuet oues quidem a dextris suis, haedos autem a sinistris. Tunc dicet rex his, qui a dextris eius erunt: Venite, benedicti patris mei, possidete paratum uobis regnum a constitutione mundi.

[¶8] I shall now cite from the Gospel according to Matthew the passage which speaks of the separation of the good from the wicked by the most efficacious and final judgment of Christ: “When the Son of man,” he says, “shall come in His glory, . . . then shall He say also unto them on His left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.” Then He in like manner recounts to the wicked the things they had not done, but which He had said those on the right hand had done. And when they ask when they had seen Him in need of these things, He replies that, inasmuch as they had not done it to the least of His brethren, they had not done it unto Him, and concludes His address in the words, “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.” Moreover, the evangelist John most distinctly states that He had predicted that the judgment should be at the resurrection of the dead. For after saying, “The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father: he that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father which hath sent Him;” He immediately adds, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment; but is passed from death to life.” Here He said that believers on Him should not come into judgment. How, then, shall they be separated from the wicked by judgment, and be set at His right hand, unless judgment be in this passage used for condemnation? For into judgment, in this sense, they shall not come who hear His word, and believe on Him that sent Him.

> Latin: Esunuienim, et dedistis mihi manducare; sitiui, et dedistis mihi bibere; hospes eram, et collegistis me; nudus. et operuistis me; [infirmus, et uisitastis me] in carcere eram, et uenistis ad me. Tunc respondebunt ei iusti dicentes: Domine, quando te uidimus esurientem, et pauimus; sitientem, et dedimus potum? Quando autem te uidimus hospitem. et collegimus te; aut nudum, et cooperuimus te? Aut quando te uidimus infirmum aut in carcere, et uenimus ad te? Et respondens rex dicet illis: Arnen dico uobis, quamdiu fecistis uni de his fratribus meis minimis, mihi fecistis. Tunc dicet, inquit, et his qui a sinistris erunt: Discedite a me, maledicti, in ignem aeternum, qui paratus est diabolo et an gelis eius. Deinde similiter etiam his enumerat, quod illa non fecerint, quae dextros fecisse memorauit. Similiterque interrogantibus, quando eum uiderint in horum indigentia constitutum: quod minimis suis non factum est, sibi factum non fuisse respondet; sermonemque concludens: Et ibunt, inquit, hi in supplicium aeternum, iusti autem in uitam aeternam. Iohannes uero euangelista apertissime narrat eum in resurrectione mortuorum futurum praedixisse iudicium. Cum enim dixisset: Neque enim Pater iudicat quemquam, sed iudicium omne dedit Filio, ut omnes honorificent Filium, sicut honorificant Patrem; qui non honorificat Filium, non honorificat Patrem, qui misit illum: protinus addidit: Amen, amen dico uobis, quia, qui uerbum meum audit et credit ei qui misit me, habet uitam aeternam, et in iudicium non uenit, sed transiit a morte in uitam. Ecce hic dixit fideles suos in iudicium non uenire. Quo modo ergo per iudicium separabuntur a malis et ad eius dexteram stabunt, nisi quia hoc loco iudicium pro damnatione posuit? In tale quippe iudicium non uenient, qui audiunt uerbum eius et credunt ei, qui misit illum.

### What is the First Resurrection, and What the Second.

[¶10] Chapter 6.—What is the First Resurrection, and What the Second.

> Latin: Caput VI. Quae sit prima resurrectio, quae secunda.

[¶11] After that He adds the words, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in Himself; so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself.” As yet He does not speak of the second resurrection, that is, the resurrection of the body, which shall be in the end, but of the first, which now is. It is for the sake of making this distinction that He says, “The hour is coming, and now is.” Now this resurrection regards not the body, but the soul. For souls, too, have a death of their own in wickedness and sins, whereby they are the dead of whom the same lips say, “Suffer the dead to bury their dead,”—that is, let those who are dead in soul bury them that are dead in body. It is of these dead, then—the dead in ungodliness and wickedness—that He says, “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.” “They that hear,” that is, they who obey, believe, and persevere to the end. Here no difference is made between the good and the bad. For it is good for all men to hear His voice and live, by passing to the life of godliness from the death of ungodliness. Of this death the Apostle Paul says, “Therefore all are dead, and He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them and rose again.” Thus all, without one exception, were dead in sins, whether original or voluntary sins, sins of ignorance, or sins committed against knowledge; and for all the dead there died the one only person who lived, that is, who had no sin whatever, in order that they who live by the remission of their sins should live, not to themselves, but to Him who died for all, for our sins, and rose again for our justification, that we, believing in Him who justifies the ungodly, and being justified from ungodliness or quickened from death, may be able to attain to the first resurrection which now is. For in this first resurrection none have a part save those who shall be eternally blessed; but in the second, of which He goes on to speak, all, as we shall learn, have a part, both the blessed and the wretched. The one is the resurrection of mercy, the other of judgment. And therefore it is written in the psalm, “I will sing of mercy and of judgment: unto Thee, O Lord, will I sing.”

> Latin: Deinde adiungit et dicit: Amen, amen dico uobis, quia uenithora etnunc est, quando mortui audient uocem filii Dei, et qui audierint uiuent. Sicut enim Pater habet uitam in semet ipso, sic dedit et Filio habere uitam in semet ipso. Nondum de secunda resurrectione, id est corporum, loquitur, quae in fine futura est, sed de prima, quae nunc est. Hanc quippe ut distingueret, ait: Venit hora, et nunc est. Non autem ista corporum, sed animarum est. Habent enim et animae mortem suam in inpietate adque peccatis, secundum quam mortem mortui sunt, de quibus idem Dominus ait: Sine mortuos sepelire mortuos suos; ut scilicet in anima mortui in corpore mortuos sepelirent. Propter istos ergo inpietate et iniquitate in anima mortuos: Venit, inquit, hora, et nunc est, quando mortui audient uocem filii Dei; et qui audierint, uiuent. Qui audierint dixit qui oboedierint, qui crediderint et usque in finem perseuerauerint Nec fecit hic ullam differentiam bonorum et malorum. Omnibus enim bonum est audire uocem eius et uiuere ad uitam pietatis ex inpietatis morte transeundo. De qua morte ait apostolus Paulus: Ergo omnes mortui sunt, et pro omnibus mortuus est, ut qui uiuunt iam non sibi uiuant, sed ei, qui pro ipsis mortuus est et resurrexit. Omnes itaque mortui sunt in peccatis, nemine prorsus excepto, siue originalibus siue etiam uoluntate additis, uel ignorando uel sciendo nec faciendo quod iustum est; et pro omnibus mortuis uiuus mortuus est unus, id est nullum habens omnino peccatum; ut, qui per remissionem peccatorum uiuunt, iam non sibi uiuant, sed ei, qui pro omnibus mortuus est propter peccata nostra et resurrexit propter iustificationem nostram, ut credentes in eum, qui iustificat inpium, ex inpietate iustificati, tamquam ex morte uiuificati, ad primam resurrectionem, quae nunc est, pertinere possimus. Ad hanc enim primam non pertinent, nisi qui beati erunt in aeternum; ad secundam uero, de qua mox locuturus est, et beatos pertinere docebit et miseros. Ista est misericordiae, illa iudicii.

[¶12] And of this judgment He went on to say, “And hath given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man.” Here He shows that He will come to judge in that flesh in which He had come to be judged. For it is to show this He says, “because He is the Son of man.” And then follow the words for our purpose: “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment.” This judgment He uses here in the same sense as a little before, when He says, “He that heareth my word, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but is passed from death to life;” i.e., by having a part in the first resurrection, by which a transition from death to life is made in this present time, he shall not come into damnation, which He mentions by the name of judgment, as also in the place where He says, “but they that have done evil unto the resurrection of judgment,” i.e., of damnation. He, therefore, who would not be damned in the second resurrection, let him rise in the first. For “the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live,” i.e., shall not come into damnation, which is called the second death; into which death, after the second or bodily resurrection, they shall be hurled who do not rise in the first or spiritual resurrection. For “the hour is coming” (but here He does not say, “and now is,” because it shall come in the end of the world in the last and greatest judgment of God) “when all that are in the graves shall hear His voice and shall come forth.” He does not say, as in the first resurrection, “And they that Hear shall live.” For all shall not live, at least with such life as ought alone to be called life because it alone is blessed. For some kind of life they must have in order to hear, and come forth from the graves in their rising bodies. And why all shall not live He teaches in the words that follow: “They that have done good, to the resurrection of life,”—these are they who shall live; “but they that have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment,”—these are they who shall not live, for they shall die in the second death. They have done evil because their life has been evil; and their life has been evil because it has not been renewed in the first or spiritual resurrection which now is, or because they have not persevered to the end in their renewed life. As, then, there are two regenerations, of which I have already made mention,—the one according to faith, and which takes place in the present life by means of baptism; the other according to the flesh, and which shall be accomplished in its incorruption and immortality by means of the great and final judgment,—so are there also two resurrections,—the one the first and spiritual resurrection, which has place in this life, and preserves us from coming into the second death; the other the second, which does not occur now, but in the end of the world, and which is of the body, not of the soul, and which by the last judgment shall dismiss some into the second death, others into that life which has no death.

> Latin: Propter quod in psalmo scriptum est: Misericordiam et iudicium cantabo tibi, Domine. De quo iudicio consequenter adiunxit adque ait: Et potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere, quia filius hominis est. Hic ostendit, quod in ea carne ueniet iudicaturus, in qua uenerat iudicandus. Ad hoc enim ait: Quoniam filius hominis est. Ac deinde subiungens unde agimus: Nolite, inquit, mirari hoc, quia ueniet hora, in qua omnes, qui in monumentis sunt, audient uocem eius et procedent, qui bona fecerunt, in resurrectionem uitae; qui uero mala egerunt, in resurrectionem iudicii. Hoc est illud iudicium, quod paulo ante, sicut nunc, pro damnatione posuerat dicens: Qui uerbum meum audit et credit eiqui m is it me, h a bet u ita m aeternam et in iudicium non uenit, sed transiit a morte in uitam, id est, pertinendo ad primam resurrectionem, qua nunc transitur a morte ad uitam, in damnationem non ueniet, quam significauit appellatione iudicii, sicut etiam hoc loco, ubi ait: Qui [uero] mala egerunt, in resurrectionem iudicii, id est damnationis. Resurgat ergo in prima, qui non uult in secunda resurrectione damnari. Venit enim hora, et nunc est, quando mortui audient uocem filii Dei, et qui audierint, uiuent, id est, in damnationem non uenient, quae secunda mors dicitur: in quam mortem post secundam, quae corporum futura est, resurrectionem praecipitabuntur, qui in prima, quae animarum est, non resurgunt. Veniet enim hora (ubi non ait: Et nunc est, quia in fine erit saeculi, hoc est in ultimo et maximo iudicio Dei), quando omnes, qui in monumentis sunt, audient uocem eius et procedent. Non dixit quem ad modum in prima: Et qui audierint, uiuent. Non enim omnes uiuent, ea uita scilicet, quae, quoniam beata est, sola uita dicenda est. Nam utique non sine qualicumque uita possent audire et de monumentis resurgente carne procedere. Quare autem non omnes uiuent, in eo quod sequitur docet; qui bona, inquit, fecerunt, in resurrectionem uitae, hi sunt qui uiuent; qui uero mala egerunt, in resurrectionem iudicii, hi sunt qui non uiuent, quia secunda morte morientur. Mala quippe egerunt, quoniam male uixerunt; male autem uixerunt, quia in prima, quae nunc est, animarum resurrectione non reuixerunt aut in eo, quod reuixerant, non in finem usque manserunt. Sicut ergo duae sunt regenerationes, de quibus iam supra locutus sum, una secundum fidem, quae nunc fit per baptismum; alia secundum carnem, quae fit in eius incorruptione adque inmortalitate per iudicium magnum adque nouissimum: ita sunt et resurrectiones duae, una prima, quae et nunc est et animarum est, quae uenire non permittit in mortem secundam; alia secunda, quae non nunc, sed in saeculi fine futura est, nec animarum, sed corporum est, quae per ultimum iudicium alios mittet in secundam mortem, alios in eam uitam, quae non habet mortem.

### What is Written in the Revelation of John Regarding the Two Resurrections, and the Thousand Years, and What May Reasonably Be Held on These Points.

[¶14] Chapter 7.—What is Written in the Revelation of John Regarding the Two Resurrections, and the Thousand Years, and What May Reasonably Be Held on These Points.

> Latin: Caput VII. De duabus resurrectionibus et de mille annis quid in apocalypsi Iohannis scriptum sit et quid de eis rationabiliter sentiatur.

[¶15] The evangelist John has spoken of these two resurrections in the book which is called the Apocalypse, but in such a way that some Christians do not understand the first of the two, and so construe the passage into ridiculous fancies. For the Apostle John says in the foresaid book, “And I saw an angel come down from heaven. . . . Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power; but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.” Those who, on the strength of this passage, have suspected that the first resurrection is future and bodily, have been moved, among other things, specially by the number of a thousand years, as if it were a fit thing that the saints should thus enjoy a kind of Sabbath-rest during that period, a holy leisure after the labors of the six thousand years since man was created, and was on account of his great sin dismissed from the blessedness of paradise into the woes of this mortal life, so that thus, as it is written, “One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day,” there should follow on the completion of six thousand years, as of six days, a kind of seventh-day Sabbath in the succeeding thousand years; and that it is for this purpose the saints rise, viz., to celebrate this Sabbath. And this opinion would not be objectionable, if it were believed that the joys of the saints in that Sabbath shall be spiritual, and consequent on the presence of God; for I myself, too, once held this opinion. But, as they assert that those who then rise again shall enjoy the leisure of immoderate carnal banquets, furnished with an amount of meat and drink such as not only to shock the feeling of the temperate, but even to surpass the measure of credulity itself, such assertions can be believed only by the carnal. They who do believe them are called by the spiritual Chiliasts, which we may literally reproduce by the name Millenarians. It were a tedious process to refute these opinions point by point: we prefer proceeding to show how that passage of Scripture should be understood.

> Latin: De his duabus resurrectionibus idem Iohannes euangelista in libro, qui dicitur apocalypsis, eo modo locutus est, ut earum prima a quibusdam nostris non intellecta insuper etiam in quasdam ridiculas fabulas uerteretur. Ait quippe in libro memorato Iohannes apostolus: Et uidi angelum descendentem de caelo, habentem clauem abyssi et catenam in manu sua. Et tenuit draconem illum serpentem antiquum, qui cognominatus est diabolus et satanas; [et] adligauit illum mille annis et misit illum in abyssum; et elusit et signauit super eum, ut non seduceret iam gentes, donec finiantur mille anni; post haec oportet eum solui breui tempore. Et uidi sedes et sedentes super eas, et iudicium datum est. Et animae occisorum propter testimonium Iesu et propter uerbum Dei, et si qui non adorauerunt bestiam nec imaginem eius, neque acceperunt inscriptionem in fronte aut in manu sua, et regnauerunt cum Iesu mille annis; reliqui eorum non uixerunt, donec finiantur mille anni. Haec resurrectio prima est. Beatus et sanctus est, qui habet in hac prima resurrectione partem. In istis secunda mors non habet potestatem; sed erunt sacerdotes Dei et Christi et regnabunt cum eo mille annis. Qui propter haec huius libri uerba primam resurrectionem futuram suspicati sunt corporalem, inter cetera maxime numero annorum mille permoti sunt, tamquam oporteret in sanctis eo modo uelut tanti temporis fieri sabbatismum, uacatione scilicet sancta post labores annorum sex milium, ex quo creatus est homo et magni illius peccati merito in huius mortalitatis aerumnas de paradisi felicitate dimissus est, ut, quoniam scriptum est: Unus dies aput Dominum sicut mille anni, et mille anni sicut dies unus, sex annorum milibus tamquam sex diebus inpletis, sequatur uelut septimus sabbati in annis mille postremis, ad hoc scilicet sabbatum celebrandum resurgentibus sanctis. Quae opinio esset utcumque tolerabilis, si aliquae deliciae spiritales in illo sabbato adfuturae sanctis per Domini praesentiam crederentur. Nam etiam nos hoc opinati fuimus aliquando.

[¶16] The Lord Jesus Christ Himself says, “No man can enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man”—meaning by the strong man the devil, because he had power to take captive the human race; and meaning by his goods which he was to take, those who had been held by the devil in divers sins and iniquities, but were to become believers in Himself. It was then for the binding of this strong one that the apostle saw in the Apocalypse “an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the abyss, and a chain in his hand. And he laid hold,” he says, “on the dragon, that old serpent, which is called the devil and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,”—that is, bridled and restrained his power so that he could not seduce and gain possession of those who were to be freed. Now the thousand years may be understood in two ways, so far as occurs to me: either because these things happen in the sixth thousand of years or sixth millennium (the latter part of which is now passing), as if during the sixth day, which is to be followed by a Sabbath which has no evening, the endless rest of the saints, so that, speaking of a part under the name of the whole, he calls the last part of the millennium—the part, that is, which had yet to expire before the end of the world—a thousand years; or he used the thousand years as an equivalent for the whole duration of this world, employing the number of perfection to mark the fullness of time. For a thousand is the cube of ten. For ten times ten makes a hundred, that is; the square on a plane superficies. But to give this superficies height, and make it a cube, the hundred is again multiplied by ten, which gives a thousand. Besides, if a hundred is sometimes used for totality, as when the Lord said by way of promise to him that left all and followed Him “He shall receive in this world an hundredfold;” of which the apostle gives, as it were, an explanation when he says, “As having nothing, yet possessing all things,”—for even of old it had been said, The whole world is the wealth of a believer,—with how much greater reason is a thousand put for totality since it is the cube, while the other is only the square? And for the same reason we cannot better interpret the words of the psalm, “He hath been mindful of His covenant for ever, the word which He commanded to a thousand generations,” than by understanding it to mean “to all generations.”

> Latin: Sed cum eos, qui tunc resurrexerint, dicant inmoderatissimis carnalibus epulis uacaturos, in quibus cibus sit tantus ac potus, ut non solum nullam modestiam teneant, sed modum quoque ipsius incredulitatis excedant: nullo modo ista possunt nisi a carnalibus credi. Hi autem qui spiritales sunt, istos ista credentes χιλιατὰς appellant Graeco uocabulo; quos uerbum e uerbo exprimentes nos possemus miliarios nuncupare. Eos autem longum est refellere ad singula; sed potius, quem ad modum scriptura haec accipienda sit, iam debemus ostendere. Ait ipse Dominus Iesus Christus: Nemo potest introire in domum fortis et uasa eius eripere, nisi prius adligauerit fortem, diabolum uolens intellegi fortem, quia ipse genus humanum potuit tenere captiuum; uasa uero eius, quae fuerat erepturus, fideles suos futuros, quos ille in diuersis peccatis adque inpietatibus possidebat. Ut ergo adligaretur hic fortis, propterea uidit iste apostolus in apocalypsi angelum descendentem de caelo, habentem clauem abyssi et catenam in manu sua. Et tenuit, inquit, draconem illum serpentem antiquum, qui cognominatus est diabolus et satanas, et adligauit illum mille annis, hoc est, eius potestatem ab eis seducendis ac possidendis. qui fuerant liberandi, cohibuit adque frenauit. Mille autem anni duobus modis possunt, quantum mihi occurrit. intellegi: aut quia in ultimis annis mille ista res agitur, id est sexto annorum miliario tamquam sexto die, cuius nunc spatia posteriora uoluuntur, secuturo deinde sabbato, quod non habet uesperam. requie scilicet sanctorum, quae non habet finem, ut huius miliarii tamquam diei nouissimam partem, quae remanebat usque ad terminum saeculi, mille annos appellauerit eo loquendi modo, quo pars significatur a toto; aut certe mille annos pro annis omnibus huius saeculi posuit. ut perfecto numero notaretur ipsa temporis plenitudo. Millenarius quippe numerus denarii numeri quadratum solidum reddit. Decem quippe deciens ducta fiunt centum, quae iam figura quadrata, sed plana est; ut autem in altitudinem surgat et solida fiat, rursus centum deciens multiplicantur, et mille sunt.

[¶17] “And he cast him into the abyss,”—i.e., cast the devil into the abyss. By the abyss is meant the countless multitude of the wicked whose hearts are unfathomably deep in malignity against the Church of God; not that the devil was not there before, but he is said to be cast in thither, because, when prevented from harming believers, he takes more complete possession of the ungodly. For that man is more abundantly possessed by the devil who is not only alienated from God, but also gratuitously hates those who serve God. “And shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years should be fulfilled.” “Shut him up,”—i.e., prohibited him from going out, from doing what was forbidden. And the addition of “set a seal upon him” seems to me to mean that it was designed to keep it a secret who belonged to the devil’s party and who did not. For in this world this is a secret, for we cannot tell whether even the man who seems to stand shall fall, or whether he who seems to lie shall rise again. But by the chain and prison-house of this interdict the devil is prohibited and restrained from seducing those nations which belong to Christ, but which he formerly seduced or held in subjection. For before the foundation of the world God chose to rescue these from the power of darkness, and to translate them into the kingdom of the Son of His love, as the apostle says. For what Christian is not aware that he seduces nations even now, and draws them with himself to eternal punishment, but not those predestined to eternal life? And let no one be dismayed by the circumstance that the devil often seduces even those who have been regenerated in Christ, and begun to walk in God’s way. For “the Lord knoweth them that are His,” and of these the devil seduces none to eternal damnation. For it is as God, from whom nothing is hid even of things future, that the Lord knows them; not as a man, who sees a man at the present time (if he can be said to see one whose heart he does not see), but does not see even himself so far as to be able to know what kind of person he is to be. The devil, then, is bound and shut up in the abyss that he may not seduce the nations from which the Church is gathered, and which he formerly seduced before the Church existed. For it is not said “that he should not seduce any man,” but “that he should not seduce the nations”—meaning, no doubt, those among which the Church exists—“till the thousand years should be fulfilled,”—i.e., either what remains of the sixth day which consists of a thousand years, or all the years which are to elapse till the end of the world.

> Latin: Porro si centum ipsa pro uniuersitate aliquando ponantur, quale illud est, quod Dominus omnia sua dimittenti et eum sequenti promisit dicens: Accipiet in hoc saeculo centuplum, quod exponens quodam modo apostolus ait: Quasi nihil habentes, et omnia possidentes; quia et ante iam dictum erat: Fidelis hominis totus mundus diuitiarum est: quanto magis mille pro uniuersitate ponuntur, ubi est soliditas ipsius denariae quadraturae? Unde nec illud melius intellegitur, quod in psalmo legitur: Memor fuit in saeculum testamenti sui uerbi, quod mandauit in mille generationes, id est in omnes. Et misit illum, inquit, in abyssum; utique diabolum misit in abyssum, quo nomine significata est multitudo innumerabilis inpiorum, quorum in malignitate aduersus ecclesiam Dei multum profunda sunt corda; non quia ibi diabolus ante non erat; sed ideo illuc dicitur missus, quia exclusus a credentibus plus coepit inpios possidere. Plus namque possidetur a diabolo, qui non solum est alienatus a Deo, uenim etiam gratis odit seruientes Deo. Et clausit, inquit, et signauit super eum, ut non seduceret iam gentes. donec finiantur mille anni. Clausit super eum dictum est ‘interdixit ei, ne posset exire,’ id est uetitum transgredi. Signauit autem, quod addidit, significasse mihi uidetur, quia occultum esse uoluit, qui pertineant ad partem diaboli, et qui non pertineant. Hoc quippe in saeculo isto prorsus latet, quia et qui uidetur stare, utrum sit casurus, et qui uidetur iacere, utrum sit surrecturus, incertum est. Ab eis autem gentibus seducendis huius interdicti uinculo et claustro diabolus prohibetur adque cohibetur, quas pertinentes ad Christum seducebat antea uel tenebat. Has enim Deus elegit ante mundi constitutionem eruere de potestate tenebrarum et transferre in regnum filii caritatis suae, sicut apostolus dicit. Nam seducere illum gentes etiam nunc et secum trahere in aeternam poenam, sed non praedestinatas in aeternam uitam, quis fidelis ignorat? Nec moueat, quod saepe diabolus seducit etiam illos, qui regenerati iam in Christo uias ingrediuntur Dei. Nouit enim Dominus qui sunt eius; ex his in aeternam damnationem neminem ille seducit. Sic enim eos nouit Dominus, ut Deus, quem nil latet etiam futurorum, non ut homo, qui hominem ad praesens uidet (si tamen uidet, cuius cor non uidet). qualis autem postea sit futurus nec se ipsum uidet. Ad hoc ergo ligatus est diabolus et inclusus in abysso, ut iam non seducat gentes, ex quibus constat ecclesia. quas antea seductas tenebat, antequam essent ecclesia.

[¶18] The words, “that he should not seduce the nations till the thousand years should be fulfilled,” are not to be understood as indicating that afterwards he is to seduce only those nations from which the predestined Church is composed, and from seducing whom he is restrained by that chain and imprisonment; but they are used in conformity with that usage frequently employed in Scripture and exemplified in the psalm, “So our eyes wait upon the Lord our God, until He have mercy upon us,”—not as if the eyes of His servants would no longer wait upon the Lord their God when He had mercy upon them. Or the order of the words is unquestionably this, “And he shut him up and set a seal upon him, till the thousand years should be fulfilled;” and the interposed clause, “that he should seduce the nations no more,” is not to be understood in the connection in which it stands, but separately, and as if added afterwards, so that the whole sentence might be read, “And He shut him up and set a seal upon him till the thousand years should be fulfilled, that he should seduce the nations no more,”—i.e., he is shut up till the thousand years be fulfilled, on this account, that he may no more deceive the nations.

> Latin: Neque. enim dictum est ut non seduceret aliquem, sed ut non seduceret, inquit, iam gentes. in quibus ecclesiam procul dubio uoluit intellegi, donec finiantur, inquit, mille anni, id est, aut quod remanet de sexto die, qui constat ex mille annis, aut omnes anni, quibus deinceps hoc saeculum peragendum est. Nec sic accipiendum est quod ait: Ut non Reduceret gentes, donec finiantur mille anni, quasi postea sit seducturus eas dumtaxat gentes, ex quibus praedestinata constat ecclesia, a quibus seducendis illo est uinculo claustroque prohibitus. Sed aut illa locutione dictum est, quae in scripturis aliquotiens inuenitur, qualis est in psalmo: Sic oculi nostri ad Dominum Deum nostrum, donec misereatur nostri; neque enim, cum misertus fuerit, non erunt oculi seruorum eius ad Dominum Deum suum; aut certe iste est ordo uerborum: Et clausit et signauit super eum, donec finiantur mille anni; quod uero interposuit: Ut non seduceret iam gentes, ita se habet, ut ab huius ordinis conexione sit liberum et seorsus intellegendum, uelut si post adderetur, ut sic se haberet tota sententia: Et clausit et signauit super eum, donec finiantur mille anni, ut non seduceret iam gentes; id est, ideo clausit donec finiantur mille anni, ut non seduceret iam gentes.

### Of the Binding and Loosing of the Devil.

[¶20] Chapter 8.—Of the Binding and Loosing of the Devil.

> Latin: Caput VIII. De adligatione et solutione diaboli.

[¶21] “After that,” says John, “he must be loosed a little season.” If the binding and shutting up of the devil means his being made unable to seduce the Church, must his loosing be the recovery of this ability? By no means. For the Church predestined and elected before the foundation of the world, the Church of which it is said, “The Lord knoweth them that are His,” shall never be seduced by him. And yet there shall be a Church in this world even when the devil shall be loosed, as there has been since the beginning, and shall be always, the places of the dying being filled by new believers. For a little after John says that the devil, being loosed, shall draw the nations whom he has seduced in the whole world to make war against the Church, and that the number of these enemies shall be as the sand of the sea. “And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. And the devil who seduced them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” This relates to the last judgment, but I have thought fit to mention it now, lest any one might suppose that in that short time during which the devil shall be loose there shall be no Church upon earth, whether because the devil finds no Church, or destroys it by manifold persecutions. The devil, then, is not bound during the whole time which this book embraces,—that is, from the first coming of Christ to the end of the world, when He shall come the second time,—not bound in this sense, that during this interval, which goes by the name of a thousand years, he shall not seduce the Church, for not even when loosed shall he seduce it. For certainly if his being bound means that he is not able or not permitted to seduce the Church, what can the loosing of him mean but his being able or permitted to do so? But God forbid that such should be the case! But the binding of the devil is his being prevented from the exercise of his whole power to seduce men, either by violently forcing or fraudulently deceiving them into taking part with him. If he were during so long a period permitted to assail the weakness of men, very many persons, such as God would not wish to expose to such temptation, would have their faith overthrown, or would be prevented from believing; and that this might not happen, he is bound.

> Latin: Post haec, inquit, oportet eum solui breui tempore. Si hoc est diabolo ligari et includi, ecclesiam non posse seducere, haec ergo erit solutio eius, ut possit? Absit: numquam enim ab illo ecclesia seducetur praedestinata et electa ante mundi constitutionem, de qua dictum est: Nouit Dominus qui sunt eius. Et tamen hic erit etiam illo tempore. quo soluendus est diabolus, sicut, ex quo est instituta, hic fuit et erit omni tempore, in suis utique qui succedunt nascendo monentibus. Nam paulo post dicit. quod solutus diabolus seductas gentes toto orbe terrarum adtrahet in bellum aduersus eam, quorum hostium numerus erit ut harena maris. Et adscenderunt, inquit, supra terrae latitudinem, et cinxerunt castra sanctorum et dilectam ciuitatem, et descendit ignis de caelo a Deo et comedit eos; et diabolus, qui seducebat eos, missus est in stagnum ignis et sulphuris, ubi et bestia et pseudopropheta; et cruciabuntur die et nocte in saecula saeculorum. Sed hoc iam ad iudicium nouissimum pertinet, quod nunc propterea commemorandum putaui, ne quis existimet eo ipso paruo tempore, quo soluetur diabolus, in hac terra ecclesiam non futuram, illo hic eam uel non inueniente, cum fuerit solutus, uel absumente, cum fuerit modis omnibus persecutus. Non itaque per totum hoc tempus, quod liber iste conplectitur, a primo scilicet aduentu Christi usque in saeculi finem, qui erit secundus eius aduentus, ita diabolus adligatur, ut eius haec ipsa sit adligatio, per hoc interuallum, quod mille annorum numero appellat, non seducere ecclesiam, quando quidem illam nec solutus utique seducturus est. Nam profecto ei si adligari est non posse seducere siue non permitti: quid erit solui nisi posse seducere siue permitti? Quod absit ut fiat; sed adligatio diaboli est non permitti exserere totam tentationem, quam potest uel ui uel dolo ad seducendos homines in partem suam cogendo uiolenter fraudulenterue fallendo. Quod si permitteretur in tam longo tempore et tanta infirmitate multorum, plurimos tales, quales Deus id perpeti non uult, et fideles deiceret et ne crederent inpediret; quod ne faceret, adligatus est.

[¶22] But when the short time comes he shall be loosed. For he shall rage with the whole force of himself and his angels for three years and six months; and those with whom he makes war shall have power to withstand all his violence and stratagems. And if he were never loosed, his malicious power would be less patent, and less proof would be given of the steadfast fortitude of the holy city: it would, in short, be less manifest what good use the Almighty makes of his great evil. For the Almighty does not absolutely seclude the saints from his temptation, but shelters only their inner man, where faith resides, that by outward temptation they may grow in grace. And He binds him that he may not, in the free and eager exercise of his malice, hinder or destroy the faith of those countless weak persons, already believing or yet to believe, from whom the Church must be increased and completed; and he will in the end loose him, that the city of God may see how mighty an adversary it has conquered, to the great glory of its Redeemer, Helper, Deliverer. And what are we in comparison with those believers and saints who shall then exist, seeing that they shall be tested by the loosing of an enemy with whom we make war at the greatest peril even when he is bound? Although it is also certain that even in this intervening period there have been and are some soldiers of Christ so wise and strong, that if they were to be alive in this mortal condition at the time of his loosing, they would both most wisely guard against, and most patiently endure, all his snares and assaults.

> Latin: Tunc autem soluetur, quando et breue tempus erit. (Nam tribus annis et sex mensibus legitur totis suis suorumque uiribus saeuiturus) et tales erunt, cum quibus ei belligerandum est, ut uinci tanto eius inpetu insidiisque non possint. Si autem numquam solueretur, minus appareret eius maligna potentia. minus sanctae ciuitatis fidelissima patientia probaretur, minus denique perspiceretur, quam magno eius malo tam bene fuerit usus Omnipotens, qui eum nec omnino abstulit a tentatione sanctorum, quamuis ab eorum interioribus hominibus, ubi in Deum creditur, foras missum, ut eius forinsecus obpugnatione proficerent; et in eis, qui sunt ex parte ipsius, adligauit, ne quantam posset effundendo et exercendo malitiam innumerabiles infirmos, ex quibus ecclesiam multiplicari et inpleri oportebat, alios credituros, alios iam credentes, a fide pietatis hos deterreret, hos frangeret: et soluet in fine, ut, quam fortem aduersarium Dei ciuitas superauerit, cum ingenti gloria sui redemtoris adiutoris liberatoris adspiciat. In eorum sane, qui tunc futuri sunt, sanctorum adque fidelium conparatione quid sumus? Quando quidem ad illos probandos tantus soluetur inimicus, cum quo nos ligato tantis periculis dimicamus. Quamuis et hoc temporis interuallo quosdam milites Christi tam prudentes et fortes fuisse adque esse non dubium est, ut, etiamsi tunc in ista mortalitate uiuerent, quando ille soluetur, omnes insidias eius adque inpetus et cauerent sapientissime et patientissime sustinerent.

[¶23] Now the devil was thus bound not only when the Church began to be more and more widely extended among the nations beyond Judea, but is now and shall be bound till the end of the world, when he is to be loosed. Because even now men are, and doubtless to the end of the world shall be, converted to the faith from the unbelief in which he held them. And this strong one is bound in each instance in which he is spoiled of one of his goods; and the abyss in which he is shut up is not at an end when those die who were alive when first he was shut up in it, but these have been succeeded, and shall to the end of the world be succeeded, by others born after them with a like hate of the Christians, and in the depth of whose blind hearts he is continually shut up as in an abyss. But it is a question whether, during these three years and six months when he shall be loose, and raging with all his force, any one who has not previously believed shall attach himself to the faith. For how in that case would the words hold good, “Who entereth into the house of a strong one to spoil his goods, unless first he shall have bound the strong one?” Consequently this verse seems to compel us to believe that during that time, short as it is, no one will be added to the Christian community, but that the devil will make war with those who have previously become Christians, and that, though some of these may be conquered and desert to the devil, these do not belong to the predestinated number of the sons of God. For it is not without reason that John, the same apostle as wrote this Apocalypse, says in his epistle regarding certain persons, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us.” But what shall become of the little ones? For it is beyond all belief that in these days there shall not be found some Christian children born, but not yet baptized, and that there shall not also be some born during that very period; and if there be such, we cannot believe that their parents shall not find some way of bringing them to the laver of regeneration. But if this shall be the case, how shall these goods be snatched from the devil when he is loose, since into his house no man enters to spoil his goods unless he has first bound him? On the contrary, we are rather to believe that in these days there shall be no lack either of those who fall away from, or of those who attach themselves to the Church; but there shall be such resoluteness, both in parents to seek baptism for their little ones, and in those who shall then first believe, that they shall conquer that strong one, even though unbound,—that is, shall both vigilantly comprehend, and patiently bear up against him, though employing such wiles and putting forth such force as he never before used; and thus they shall be snatched from him even though unbound. And yet the verse of the Gospel will not be untrue, “Who entereth into the house of the strong one to spoil his goods, unless he shall first have bound the strong one?” For in accordance with this true saying that order is observed—the strong one first bound, and then his goods spoiled; for the Church is so increased by the weak and strong from all nations far and near, that by its most robust faith in things divinely predicted and accomplished, it shall be able to spoil the goods of even the unbound devil. For as we must own that, “when iniquity abounds, the love of many waxes cold,” and that those who have not been written in the book of life shall in large numbers yield to the severe and unprecedented persecutions and stratagems of the devil now loosed, so we cannot but think that not only those whom that time shall find sound in the faith, but also some who till then shall be without, shall become firm in the faith they have hitherto rejected and mighty to conquer the devil even though unbound, God’s grace aiding them to understand the Scriptures, in which, among other things, there is foretold that very end which they themselves see to be arriving. And if this shall be so, his binding is to be spoken of as preceding, that there might follow a spoiling of him both bound and loosed; for it is of this it is said, “Who shall enter into the house of the strong one to spoil his goods, unless he shall first have bound the strong one?”

> Latin: Haec autem adligatio diaboli non solum facta est, ex quo coepit ecclesia praeter Iudaeam terram in nationes alias adque alias dilatari; sed etiam nunc fit et fiet usque ad terminum saeculi, quo soluendus est. quia et nunc homines ab infidelitate, in qua eos ipse possidebat, conuertuntur ad fidem et usque in illum finem sine dubio conuertentur; et utique unicuique iste fortis tunc adligatur, quando ab illo tamquam uas eius eripitur; et abyssus, ubi inclusus est, non in eis consumta est, quando sunt mortui, qui tunc erant quando esse coepit inclusus; sed successerunt eis alii nascendo adque succedunt, donec finiatur hoc saeculum, qui oderint Christianos, in quorum cottidie, uelut in abysso, caecis et profundis cordibus includatur. Utrum autem etiam illis ultimis tribus annis et mensibus sex, quando solutus totis uiribus saeuiturus est, aliquis, in qua non fuerat, sit accessurus ad fidem. nonnulla quaestio est. Quo modo enim stabit quod dictum est: Quis intrat in domum fortis, ut uasa eius eripiat, nisi prius adligauerit fortem, si etiam soluto eripiuntur? Ac per hoc ad hoc cogere uidetur ista sententia, ut credamus illo licet exiguo tempore neminem accessurum esse populo Christiano, sed cum eis, qui iam Christiani, reperti fuerint, diabolum pugnaturum; ex quibus etiamsi aliqui uicti secuti eum fuerint, non eos ad praedestinatum filiorum Dei numerum pertinere. Neque enim frustra idem Iohannes apostolus, qui et hanc apocalypsin scripsit, in epistula sua de quibusdam dicit: Ex nobis exierunt, sed non erant ex nobis; nam si fuissent ex nobis, mansissent utique nobiscum. Sed quid fit de paruulis? Nimium quippe incredibile est nullos iam natos et nondum baptizatos praeoccupari Christianorum filios illo tempore infantes, nullos etiam ipsis nasci iam diebus; aut si erunt, non eos a parentibus suis ad lauacrum regenerationis modo quocumque perduci. Quod si fiet, quo pacto soluto iam diabolo uasa ista eripientur, in cuius domum nemo intrat, ut uasa eius eripiat, nisi prius adligauerit eum? Immo uero id potius est credendum. nec qui cadant de ecclesia nec qui accedant ecclesiae illo tempore defuturos; sed profecto tam fortes erunt et parentes pro baptizandis paruulis suis et hi, qui tunc primitus credituri sunt, ut illum fortem uincant etiam non ligatum, id est omnibus, qualibus antea numquam, uel artibus insidiantem uel urgentem uiribus et uigilanter intellegant et toleranter ferant, ac sic illi etiam non ligato eripiantur. Nec ideo falsa erit euangelica illa sententia: Quis intrat in domum fortis. ut uasa eius eripiat, nisi prius adligauerit fortem? Secundum eius enim sententiae ueritatem ordo iste seruatus est, ut prius adligaretur fortis ereptisque uasis eius longe lateque in omnibus gentibus er firmis et infirmis ita multiplicaretur ecclesia, ut ex ipsa rerum diuinitus praedictarum et inpletarum robustissima fide etiam soluto uasa posset auferre. Sicut enim fatendum est multorum refrigescere caritatem, cura abundat iniquitas, et inusitatis maximisque persecutionibus adque fallaciis diaboli iam soluti eos, qui in libro uitae scripti non sunt, multos esse cessuros: ita cogitandum est non solum quos bonos fideles illud tempus inueniet, sed nonnullos etiam, qui foris adhuc erunt, adiuuante Dei gratia per considerationem scripturarum, in quibus et alia et finis ipse praenuntiatus est, quem uenire iam sentiunt, ad credendum quod non credebant futuros esse firmiores et ad uincendum etiam non ligatum diabolum fortiores. Quod si ita erit. propterea praecessisse dicenda est eius adligatio, ut et ligati et soluti exspoliatio sequeretur; quoniam de hac re tu m est: Quis intrabit in domum fortis, ut uasa eius eripiat. nisi prius adligauerit fortem?

## 100. What the Reign of the Saints with Christ for a Thousand Years Is, and How It Differs from the Eternal Kingdom.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/100/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/100/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 9.—What the Reign of the Saints with Christ for a Thousand Years Is, and How It Differs from the Eternal Kingdom.

> Latin: Caput IX. Quod sit regnum sanctorum cum Christo per mille annos, et in quo discernatur a regno aeterno.

[¶1] But while the devil is bound, the saints reign with Christ during the same thousand years, understood in the same way, that is, of the time of His first coming. For, leaving out of account that kingdom concerning which He shall say in the end, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, take possession of the kingdom prepared for you,” the Church could not now be called His kingdom or the kingdom of heaven unless His saints were even now reigning with Him, though in another and far different way; for to His saints He says, “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.” Certainly it is in this present time that the scribe well instructed in the kingdom of God, and of whom we have already spoken, brings forth from his treasure things new and old. And from the Church those reapers shall gather out the tares which He suffered to grow with the wheat till the harvest, as He explains in the words “The harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered together and burned with fire, so shall it be in the end of the world. The Son of man shall send His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all offenses.” Can He mean out of that kingdom in which are no offenses? Then it must be out of His present kingdom, the Church, that they are gathered. So He says, “He that breaketh one of the least of these commandments, and teacheth men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but he that doeth and teacheth thus shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” He speaks of both as being in the kingdom of heaven, both the man who does not perform the commandments which He teaches,—for “to break” means not to keep, not to perform,—and the man who does and teaches as He did; but the one He calls least, the other great. And He immediately adds, “For I say unto you, that except your righteousness exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees,”—that is, the righteousness of those who break what they teach; for of the scribes and Pharisees He elsewhere says, “For they say and do not;”—unless therefore, your righteousness exceed theirs that is, so that you do not break but rather do what you teach, “ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.” We must understand in one sense the kingdom of heaven in which exist together both he who breaks what he teaches and he who does it, the one being least, the other great, and in another sense the kingdom of heaven into which only he who does what he teaches shall enter. Consequently, where both classes exist, it is the Church as it now is, but where only the one shall exist, it is the Church as it is destined to be when no wicked person shall be in her. Therefore the Church even now is the kingdom of Christ, and the kingdom of heaven. Accordingly, even now His saints reign with Him, though otherwise than as they shall reign hereafter; and yet, though the tares grow in the Church along with the wheat, they do not reign with Him. For they reign with Him who do what the apostle says, “If ye be risen with Christ, mind the things which are above, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God. Seek those things which are above, not the things which are on the earth.” Of such persons he also says that their conversation is in heaven. In fine, they reign with Him who are so in His kingdom that they themselves are His kingdom. But in what sense are those the kingdom of Christ who, to say no more, though they are in it until all offenses are gathered out of it at the end of the world, yet seek their own things in it, and not the things that are Christ’s?

> Latin: Interea dum mille annis ligatus est diabolus, sancti regnant cum Christo etiam ipsis mille annis, eisdem sine dubio et eodem modo intellegendis, id est isto iam tempore prioris eius aduentus. Excepto quippe illo regno, de quo in fine dicturus est: Venite, benedicti patris mei, possidete paratum uobis regnum, nisi alio aliquo modo, longe quidem inpari, iam nunc regnarent cum illo sancti eius. quibus ait: Ecce ego uobiscum sum usque in consummationem saeculi: profecto non etiam nunc diceretur ecclesia regnum eius regnumue caelorum. Nam utique isto tempore in regno Dei eruditur scriba ille, qui profert de thensauro suo noua et uetera, de quo supra locuti sumus; et de ecclesia collecturi sunt zizania messores illi, quae permisit cum tritico simul crescere usque ad messem; quod exponens ait: Messis est finis saeculi, messores autem angeli sunt. Sicut ergo colliguntur zizania et igni comburuntur, sic erit in consummatione’ saeculi; mittet filius hominis angelos suos, et colligent de regno eius omnia scandala. Numquid de regno illo, ubi nulla sunt scandala? De isto ergo regno eius, quod est hic ecclesia, colligentur. Item dicit: Qui soluerit unum de mandatis istis minimis et docuerit sic homines, minimus uocabitur in regno caelorum; qui autem fecerit et sic docuerit, magnus uocabitur in regno caelorum. Utrumque dicit in regno caelorum, et qui non facit mandata quae docet (hoc est enim soluere: non seruare, non facere), et illum qui facit et sic docet; sed istum minimum, illum magnum. Et continuo secutus adiungit: Dico enim uobis quia, nisi abundauerit iustitia uestra super scribarum et Pharisaeorum, id est super eos, qui soluunt quod docent (de scribis enim et Pharisaeis dicit alio loco: Quoniam dicunt, et non faciunt), — nisi ergo super hos abundauerit iustitia uestra, id est, ut uos non soluatis, sed faciatis potius quod docetis, non intrabitis, inquit, in regnum caelorum. Alio modo igitur intellegendum est regnum caelorum, ubi ambo sunt, et ille scilicet qui soluit quod docet, et ille qui facit; sed ille minimus, ille magnus: alio modo autem regnum caelorum dicitur, quo non intrat nisi ille qui facit. Ac per hoc ubi utrumque genus est, ecclesia est, qualis nunc est: ubi autem illud solum erit, ecclesia est, qualis tunc erit, quando malus in ea non erit. Ergo et nunc ecclesia regnum Christi est regnumque caelorum. Regnant itaque cum illo etiam nunc sancti eius, aliter quidem, quam tunc regnabunt; nec tamen cum illo regnant zizania, quamuis in ecclesia cum tritico crescant. Regnant enim cum illo, qui faciunt quod ait apostolus: Si resurrexistis cum Christo, quae sursum sunt sapite, ubiChristus estin dexteraDeisedens; quae sursum sunt quaerite, non quae super terram; de qualibus item dicit, quod eorum conuersatio sit in caelis. Postremo regnant cum illo, qui eo modo sunt in regno eius, ut sint’ etiam ipsi regnum eius. Quo modo autem sunt regnum Christi, qui, ut alia taceam, quamuis ibi sint donec colligantur in fine saeculi de regno eius omnia scandala, tamen illic sua quaerunt, non quae Iesu Christi?

[¶2] It is then of this kingdom militant, in which conflict with the enemy is still maintained, and war carried on with warring lusts, or government laid upon them as they yield, until we come to that most peaceful kingdom in which we shall reign without an enemy, and it is of this first resurrection in the present life, that the Apocalypse speaks in the words just quoted. For, after saying that the devil is bound a thousand years and is afterwards loosed for a short season, it goes on to give a sketch of what the Church does or of what is done in the Church in those days, in the words, “And I saw seats and them that sat upon them, and judgment was given.” It is not to be supposed that this refers to the last judgment, but to the seats of the rulers and to the rulers themselves by whom the Church is now governed. And no better interpretation of judgment being given can be produced than that which we have in the words, “What ye bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what ye loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Whence the apostle says, “What have I to do with judging them that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?” “And the souls,” says John, “of those who were slain for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God,”—understanding what he afterwards says, “reigned with Christ a thousand years,”—that is, the souls of the martyrs not yet restored to their bodies. For the souls of the pious dead are not separated from the Church, which even now is the kingdom of Christ; otherwise there would be no remembrance made of them at the altar of God in the partaking of the body of Christ, nor would it do any good in danger to run to His baptism, that we might not pass from this life without it; nor to reconciliation, if by penitence or a bad conscience any one may be severed from His body. For why are these things practised, if not because the faithful, even though dead, are His members? Therefore, while these thousand years run on, their souls reign with Him, though not as yet in conjunction with their bodies. And therefore in another part of this same book we read, “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from henceforth and now, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors; for their works do follow them.” The Church, then, begins its reign with Christ now in the living and in the dead. For, as the apostle says, “Christ died that He might be Lord both of the living and of the dead.” But he mentioned the souls of the martyrs only, because they who have contended even to death for the truth, themselves principally reign after death; but, taking the part for the whole, we understand the words of all others who belong to the Church, which is the kingdom of Christ.

> Latin: De hoc ergo regno militiae, in quo adhuc cum hoste confligitur et aliquando repugnatur pugnantibus uitiis, aliquando cedentibus imperatur, donec ueniatur ad illud pacatissimum regnum, ubi sine hoste regnabitur, et de hac prima resurrectione, quae nunc est, liber iste sic loquitur. Cum enim dixisset adligari diabolum mille annis, et postea solui breui tempore, tum recapitulando quid in istis mille annis agat ecclesia uel agatur in ea: Et uidi, inquit, sedes et sedentes super eas, et iudicium datum est Non hoc putandum est de ultimo iudicio dici; sed sedes praepositorum et ipsi praepositi intellegendi sunt, per quos nunc ecclesia gubernatur. Iudicium autem datum nullum melius accipiendum uidetur, quam id quod dictum est: Quae ligaueritis in terra, ligata erunt et in caelo; et quae solueritis in terra, soluta erunt et in caelo. Unde apostolus: Quid enim mihi est, inquit, de his, qui foris sunt, iudicare? Nonne de his qui intus sunt uos iudicatis? Et animae, inquit, occisorum propter testimonium Iesu et propter uerbum Dei; subauditur quod postea dicturus est: Regnauerunt cum Iesu mille anuis; animae scilicet martyi-um nondum sibi corporibus suis redditis. Neque enim piorum animae mortuorum separantur ab ecclesia, quae nunc etiam est regnum Christi. Alioquin nec ad altare Dei fieret eorum memoria in communicatione corporis Christi; nec aliquid prodesset ad eius baptismum in periculis currere, ne sine illo finiatur haec uita; nec ad reconciliationem, si forte per paenitentiam malamue conscientiam quisque ab eodem corpore separatus est. Quur enim fiunt ista, nisi quia fideles etiam defuncti membra sunt eius? Quamuis ergo cum suis corporibus nondum, iam tamen eorum animae regnant cum illo, dum isti anni mille decurrunt. Unde in hoc eodem libro et alibi legitur: Beati mortui, qui in Domino moriuntur. Amodo etiam dicit Spiritus, ut requiescant a laboribus suis; nam opera eorum sequuntur eos. Regnat itaque cum Christo nunc primum ecclesia in uiuis et mortuis. Propterea enim, sicut dicit apostolus, mortuus est Christus, ut et uiuorum et mortuorum dominetur. Sed ideo tantummodo martyrum animas commemorauit, quia ipsi praecipue regnant mortui, qui usque ad mortem pro ueritate certarunt. Sed a parte totum etiam ceteros mortuos intellegimus pertinentes ad ecclesiam, quod est regnum Christi.

[¶3] As to the words following, “And if any have not worshipped the beast nor his image, nor have received his inscription on their forehead, or on their hand,” we must take them of both the living and the dead. And what this beast is, though it requires a more careful investigation, yet it is not inconsistent with the true faith to understand it of the ungodly city itself, and the community of unbelievers set in opposition to the faithful people and the city of God. “His image” seems to me to mean his simulation, to wit, in those men who profess to believe, but live as unbelievers. For they pretend to be what they are not, and are called Christians, not from a true likeness but from a deceitful image. For to this beast belong not only the avowed enemies of the name of Christ and His most glorious city, but also the tares which are to be gathered out of His kingdom, the Church, in the end of the world. And who are they who do not worship the beast and his image, if not those who do what the apostle says, “Be not yoked with unbelievers?” For such do not worship, i.e., do not consent, are not subjected; neither do they receive the inscription, the brand of crime, on their forehead by their profession, on their hand by their practice. They, then, who are free from these pollutions, whether they still live in this mortal flesh, or are dead, reign with Christ even now, through this whole interval which is indicated by the thousand years, in a fashion suited to this time.

> Latin: Quod uero sequitur: Et si qui non adorauerunt bestiamnecimaginemeius, nequeacceperunt inscriptionem in fronte aut in manu sua, simul de uiuis et mortuis debemus accipere. Quae sit porro ista bestia, quamuis sit diligentius requirendum, non tamen abhorret a fide recta. ut ipsa inpia ciuitas intellegatur et populus infidelium contrarius populo fideli et ciuitati Dei. Imago uero eius simulatio eius mihi uidetur, in eis uidelicet hominibus, qui uelut fidem profitentur et infideliter uiuunt. Fingunt enim se esse quod non sunt, uocanturque non ueraci effigie, sed fallaci imagine Christiani. Ad eandem namque bestiam pertinent non solum aperte inimici nominis Christi et eius gloriosissimae ciuitatis, sed etiam zizania, quae de regno eius, quod est ecclesia, in fine saeculi colligenda sunt. Et qui sunt qui non adorant bestiam nec imaginem eius, nisi qui faciunt quod ait apostolus: Ne sitis iugum ducentes cum infidelibus? Non adorant’ enim est non consentiunt, non subiciuntur; neque accipiunt inscriptionem>, notam scilicet criminis, in fronte’ propter professionem, (in manu’ propter operationem. Ab his igitur malis alieni, siue adhuc in ista mortali carne uiuentes siue defuncti, regnant cum Christo iam nunc modo quodam huic tempori congruo per totum hoc interuallum, quod numero mille significatur annorum. Reliqui eorum, inquit, non uixerunt.

[¶4] “The rest of them,” he says, “did not live.” For now is the hour when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live; and the rest of them shall not live. The words added, “until the thousand years are finished,” mean that they did not live in the time in which they ought to have lived by passing from death to life. And therefore, when the day of the bodily resurrection arrives, they shall come out of their graves, not to life, but to judgment, namely, to damnation, which is called the second death. For whosoever has not lived until the thousand years be finished, i.e., during this whole time in which the first resurrection is going on,—whosoever has not heard the voice of the Son of God, and passed from death to life,—that man shall certainly in the second resurrection, the resurrection of the flesh, pass with his flesh into the second death. For he goes to say “This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection,” or who experiences it. Now he experiences it who not only revives from the death of sin, but continues in this renewed life. “In these the second death hath no power.” Therefore it has power in the rest, of whom he said above, “The rest of them did not live until the thousand years were finished;” for in this whole intervening time called a thousand years, however lustily they lived in the body, they were not quickened to life out of that death in which their wickedness held them, so that by this revived life they should become partakers of the first resurrection, and so the second death should have no power over them.

> Latin: Hora enim nunc est, cum mortui audiunt uocem filii Dei, et qui audierint uiuent; reliqui ergo eorum non uiuent. Quod uero subdidit: Donec finiantur mille anni, intellegendum est, quod eo tempore non uixerunt, quo uiuere debuerunt, ad uitam scilicet de morte transeundo. Et ideo cum dies uenerit, quo fiat et corporum resurrectio, non ad uitam de monumentis procedent, sed ad iudicium; ad damnationem scilicet, quae secunda mors dicitur. Donec finiantur enim mille anni, quicumque non uixerit, id est, toto isto tempore, quo agitur prima resurrectio, non audierit uocem filii Dei et ad uitam de morte transierit, profecto in secunda resurrectione, quae carnis est, in mortem secundam cum ipsa carne transibit. Sequitur enim et dicit: Haec resurrectio prima est. Beatus et sanctus qui habet in hac prima resurrectione partem, id est particeps eius est. Ipse est autem particeps eius, qui non solum a morte, quae in peccatis est, reuiuescit, uerum etiam in eo, quod l’euixerit, permanebit. Iu istis, inquit, secunda mors non habet potestatem. Habet ergo in reliquis, de quibus superius ait: Reliqui eorum non uixerunt, donec finiantur mille anni; quoniam toto isto temporis interuallo, quod mille annos uocat, quantumcumque in eo quisque eorum uixit in corpore, non reuixit a morte, in qua eum tenebat inpietas, ut sic reuiuescendo primae resurrectionis particeps fieret adque in eo potestatem secunda mors non haberet.

### What is to Be Replied to Those Who Think that Resurrection Pertains Only to Bodies and Not to Souls.

[¶6] Chapter 10.—What is to Be Replied to Those Who Think that Resurrection Pertains Only to Bodies and Not to Souls.

> Latin: Caput X. Quid respondendum sit eis, qui putant resurrectionem ad sola corpora, non etiam ad animas pertinere.

[¶7] There are some who suppose that resurrection can be predicated only of the body, and therefore they contend that this first resurrection (of the Apocalypse) is a bodily resurrection. For, say they, “to rise again” can only be said of things that fall. Now, bodies fall in death. There cannot, therefore, be a resurrection of souls, but of bodies. But what do they say to the apostle who speaks of a resurrection of souls? For certainly it was in the inner and not the outer man that those had risen again to whom he says, “If ye have risen with Christ, mind the things that are above.” The same sense he elsewhere conveyed in other words, saying, “That as Christ has risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.” So, too, “Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.” As to what they say about nothing being able to rise again but what falls, whence they conclude that resurrection pertains to bodies only, and not to souls, because bodies fall, why do they make nothing of the words, “Ye that fear the Lord, wait for His mercy; and go not aside lest ye fall;” and “To his own Master he stands or falls;” and “He that thinketh he standeth, let him take heed lest he fall?” For I fancy this fall that we are to take heed against is a fall of the soul, not of the body. If, then, rising again belongs to things that fall, and souls fall, it must be owned that souls also rise again. To the words, “In them the second death hath no power,” are added the words, “but they shall be priests of God and Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years;” and this refers not to the bishops alone, and presbyters, who are now specially called priests in the Church; but as we call all believers Christians on account of the mystical chrism, so we call all priests because they are members of the one Priest. Of them the Apostle Peter says, “A holy people, a royal priesthood.” Certainly he implied, though in a passing and incidental way, that Christ is God, saying priests of God and Christ, that is, of the Father and the Son, though it was in His servant-form and as Son of man that Christ was made a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. But this we have already explained more than once.

> Latin: Sunt qui putant resurrectionem dici non posse nisi corporum ideoque istam quoque primam in corporibus futuram esse contendunt. Quorum enim est, inquiunt, cadere, eorum est resurgere. Cadunt autem corpora moriendo; nam et a cadendo cadauera nuncupantur. Non ergo animarum, inquiunt, resurrectio potest esse, sed corporum. Sed quid contra apostolum dicunt, qui eam resurrectionem appellat? Nam secundum interiorem, non secundum exteriorem hominem utique rosurrexerant, quibus ait: Si resurrexistis cum Christo. quae sursum sunt sapite. Quem sensum uerbis aliis alibi posuit dicens: Ut, quem ad modum Christus resurrexit a mortuis per gloriam Patris, sic et nos in nouitate uitae ambulemus. Hinc est et illud: Surge qui dormis et exsurge a mortuis, et inluminabit te Christus. Quod autem dicunt non posse resurgere, nisi qui cadunt, et ideo putant resurrectionem ad corpora, non ad animas pertinere, quia corporum est cadere: quur non audiunt: Non recedatis ab illo, ne cadatis, et: Suo Domino stat aut cadit; et: Qui se putat stare, caueat ne cadat? Puto enim quod in anima, non in corpore casus iste cauendus est. Si igitur cadentium est resurrectio, cadunt autem et animae: profecto et animas resurgere confitendum est. Quod autem, cum dixisset: In istis secunda mors non habet potestatem, adiunxit adque ait: Sed erunt sacerdotes Dei et Christi et regnabunt cum eo mille annis: non utique de solis episcopis et presbyteris dictum est, qui proprie iam uocantur in ecclesia sacerdotes; sed sicut omnes christos dicimus propter mysticum chrisma, sic omnes sacerdotes, quoniam membra sunt unius sacerdotis; de quibus apostolus Petrus: Plebs, inquit, sancta, regale sacerdotium. Sane, licet breuiter adque transeunter, insinuauit esse Deum Christum dicendo: Sacerdotes Dei et Christi, hoc est Patris et Filii; quamuis propter formam serui sicut hominis filius, ita etiam sacerdos Christus effectus sit in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech. De qua re in hoc opere non semel diximus.

### Of Gog and Magog, Who are to Be Roused by the Devil to Persecute the Church, When He is Loosed in the End of the World.

[¶9] Chapter 11.—Of Gog and Magog, Who are to Be Roused by the Devil to Persecute the Church, When He is Loosed in the End of the World.

> Latin: Caput XI.

[¶10] “And when the thousand years are finished, Satan shall be loosed from his prison, and shall go out to seduce the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, and shall draw them to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea.” This then, is his purpose in seducing them, to draw them to this battle. For even before this he was wont to use as many and various seductions as he could continue. And the words “he shall go out” mean, he shall burst forth from lurking hatred into open persecution. For this persecution, occurring while the final judgment is imminent, shall be the last which shall be endured by the holy Church throughout the world, the whole city of Christ being assailed by the whole city of the devil, as each exists on earth. For these nations which he names Gog and Magog are not to be understood of some barbarous nations in some part of the world, whether the Getæ and Massagetæ, as some conclude from the initial letters, or some other foreign nations not under the Roman government. For John marks that they are spread over the whole earth, when he says, “The nations which are in the four corners of the earth,” and he added that these are Gog and Magog. The meaning of these names we find to be, Gog, “a roof,” Magog, “from a roof,”—a house, as it were, and he who comes out of the house. They are therefore the nations in which we found that the devil was shut up as in an abyss, and the devil himself coming out from them and going forth, so that they are the roof, he from the roof. Or if we refer both words to the nations, not one to them and one to the devil, then they are both the roof, because in them the old enemy is at present shut up, and as it were roofed in; and they shall be from the roof when they break forth from concealed to open hatred. The words, “And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and encompassed the camp of the saints and the beloved city,” do not mean that they have come, or shall come, to one place, as if the camp of the saints and the beloved city should be in some one place; for this camp is nothing else than the Church of Christ extending over the whole world. And consequently wherever the Church shall be,—and it shall be in all nations, as is signified by “the breadth of the earth,”—there also shall be the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and there it shall be encompassed by the savage persecution of all its enemies; for they too shall exist along with it in all nations,—that is, it shall be straitened, and hard pressed, and shut up in the straits of tribulation, but shall not desert its military duty, which is signified by the word “camp.”

> Latin: Et cum finiti fuerint, inquit, mille anni, soluetur satanas de custodia sua, et exibit ad seducendas nationes, quae sunt in quattuor angulis terrae, Gog et Magog, et trahet eos in bellum, quorum numerus est ut harena maris. Ad hoc ergo tunc seducet, ut in hoc bellum trahat. Nam et antea modis quibus poterat per mala multa et uaria seducebat. Exibit autem dictum est <in apertam persecutionem de latebris erumpet odiorum.’ Haec enim erit nouissima persecutio, nouissimo inminente iudicio, quam sancta ecclesia toto terrarum orbe patietur, uniuersa scilicet ciuitas Christi ab uniuersa diaboli ciuitate, quantacumque erit utraque super terram. Gentes quippe istae, quas appellat Gog et Magog, non sic sunt accipiendae, tamquam sint aliqui in aliqua parte terrarum barbari constituti, siue quos quidam suspicantur Getas et Massagetas propter litteras horum nominum primas, siue aliquos alios alienigenas et a Romano iure seiunctos. Toto namque orbe terrarum significati sunt isti esse, cum dictum est nationes quae sunt in quattuor angulis terrae, easque subiecit esse Gog et Magog. Quorum interpretationem nominum esse comperimus Gog tectum, Magog de tecto; tamquam domus et ipse qui procedit de domo. Gentes ergo sunt, in quibus diabolum uelut in abysso superius intellegebamus inclusum, et ipse de illis quodam modo sese efferens et procedens; ut illae sint tectum, ipse de tecto. Si autem utrumque referamus ad gentes, non unum horum ad illas, alterum ad diabolum: et tectum ipsae sunt, quia in eis nunc includitur et quodam modo tegitur inimicus antiquus; et de tecto ipsae erunt, quando in apertum odium de operto erupturae sunt. Quod uero ait: Et adscenderunt supra terrae latitudinem et cinxerunt castra sanctorum et dilectam ciuitatem: non utique ad unum locum uenisse uel uenturi esse significati sunt, quasi uno aliquo loco futura sint castra sanctorum et dilecta ciuitas, cum haec non sit nisi Christi ecclesia toto terrarum orbe diffusa; ac per hoc ubicumque tunc erit, quae in omnibus gentibus erit, quod significatum est nomine latitudinis terrae, ibi erunt castra sanctorum, ibi erit dilecta Deo ciuitas eius, ibi ab omnibus inimicis suis, quia et ipsi in omnibus cum illa gentibus erunt. persecutionis illius inmanitate cingetur, hoc est, in angustias tribulationis artabitur urgebitur concludetur; nec militiam suam deseret, quae uocabulo est appellata castrorum.

### Whether the Fire that Came Down Out of Heaven and Devoured Them Refers to the Last Punishment of the Wicked.

[¶12] Chapter 12.—Whether the Fire that Came Down Out of Heaven and Devoured Them Refers to the Last Punishment of the Wicked.

> Latin: Caput XII. An ad ultimum supplicium pertineat inpiorum, quod descendisse ignis de caelo et eosdem comedisse memoratur.

[¶13] The words, “And fire came down out of heaven and devoured them,” are not to be understood of the final punishment which shall be inflicted when it is said, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire;” for then they shall be cast into the fire, not fire come down out of heaven upon them. In this place “fire out of heaven” is well understood of the firmness of the saints, wherewith they refuse to yield obedience to those who rage against them. For the firmament is “heaven,” by whose firmness these assailants shall be pained with blazing zeal, for they shall be impotent to draw away the saints to the party of Antichrist. This is the fire which shall devour them, and this is “from God;” for it is by God’s grace the saints become unconquerable, and so torment their enemies. For as in a good sense it is said, “The zeal of Thine house hath consumed me,” so in a bad sense it is said, “Zeal hath possessed the uninstructed people, and now fire shall consume the enemies.” “And now,” that is to say, not the fire of the last judgment. Or if by this fire coming down out of heaven and consuming them, John meant that blow wherewith Christ in His coming is to strike those persecutors of the Church whom He shall then find alive upon earth, when He shall kill Antichrist with the breath of His mouth, then even this is not the last judgment of the wicked; but the last judgment is that which they shall suffer when the bodily resurrection has taken place.

> Latin: Quod uero ait: Et descendit ignis de caelo et comedit eos: non extremum putandum est id esse supplicium, quod erit, cum dicetur: Discedite a me, maledicti, in ignem aeternum. Tunc quippe in ignem mittentur ipsi, non ignis de caelo ueniet in ipsos. Hic autem bene intellegitur ignis de caelo de ipsa firmitate sanctorum, qua non cessuri sunt saeuientibus, ut eorum faciant uoluntatem. Firmamentum est enim caelum, cuius firmitate illi cruciabuntur ardentissimo zelo, quoniam non poterunt adtrahere in partes Antichristi sanctos Christi. Et ipse erit ignis, qui comedet eos, et hoc a Deo, quia Dei munere insuperabiles fiunt sancti, unde excruciantur inimici. Sicut enim in bono positum est: Zelus domus tuae comedit me: ita e contrario: Zelus occupauit plebem ineruditam, et nunc ignis contrarios comedet. Et nunc utique, excepto scilicet ultimi illius igne iudicii. Aut si eam plagam, qua percutiendi sunt ecclesiae persecutores ueniente iam Christo, quos uiuentes inueniet super terram, quando interficiet Antichnstum spiritu oris sui, ignem appellauit descendentem de caelo eosque comedentem: neque hoc ultimum supplicium erit inpiorum, sed illud quod facta corporum resurrectione passuri sunt.

### Whether the Time of the Persecution or Antichrist Should Be Reckoned in the Thousand Years.

[¶15] Chapter 13.—Whether the Time of the Persecution or Antichrist Should Be Reckoned in the Thousand Years.

> Latin: Caput XIII. An tempus persecutionis Antichristi mille annis adnumerandum sit.

[¶16] This last persecution by Antichrist shall last for three years and six months, as we have already said, and as is affirmed both in the book of Revelation and by Daniel the prophet. Though this time is brief, yet not without reason is it questioned whether it is comprehended in the thousand years in which the devil is bound and the saints reign with Christ, or whether this little season should be added over and above to these years. For if we say that they are included in the thousand years, then the saints reign with Christ during a more protracted period than the devil is bound. For they shall reign with their King and Conqueror mightily even in that crowning persecution when the devil shall now be unbound and shall rage against them with all his might. How then does Scripture define both the binding of the devil and the reign of the saints by the same thousand years, if the binding of the devil ceases three years and six months before this reign of the saints with Christ? On the other hand, if we say that the brief space of this persecution is not to be reckoned as a part of the thousand years, but rather as an additional period, we shall indeed be able to interpret the words, “The priests of God and of Christ shall reign with Him a thousand years; and when the thousand years shall be finished, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison;” for thus they signify that the reign of the saints and the bondage of the devil shall cease simultaneously, so that the time of the persecution we speak of should be contemporaneous neither with the reign of the saints nor with the imprisonment of Satan, but should be reckoned over and above as a superadded portion of time. But then in this case we are forced to admit that the saints shall not reign with Christ during that persecution. But who can dare to say that His members shall not reign with Him at that very juncture when they shall most of all, and with the greatest fortitude, cleave to Him, and when the glory of resistance and the crown of martyrdom shall be more conspicuous in proportion to the hotness of the battle? Or if it is suggested that they may be said not to reign, because of the tribulations which they shall suffer, it will follow that all the saints who have formerly, during the thousand years, suffered tribulation, shall not be said to have reigned with Christ during the period of their tribulation, and consequently even those whose souls the author of this book says that he saw, and who were slain for the testimony of Jesus and the word of God, did not reign with Christ when they were suffering persecution, and they were not themselves the kingdom of Christ, though Christ was then pre-eminently possessing them. This is indeed perfectly absurd, and to be scouted. But assuredly the victorious souls of the glorious martyrs having overcome and finished all griefs and toils, and having laid down their mortal members, have reigned and do reign with Christ till the thousand years are finished, that they may afterwards reign with Him when they have received their immortal bodies. And therefore during these three years and a half the souls of those who were slain for His testimony, both those which formerly passed from the body and those which shall pass in that last persecution, shall reign with Him till the mortal world come to an end, and pass into that kingdom in which there shall be no death. And thus the reign of the saints with Christ shall last longer than the bonds and imprisonment of the devil, because they shall reign with their King the Son of God for these three years and a half during which the devil is no longer bound. It remains, therefore, that when we read that “the priests of God and of Christ shall reign with Him a thousand years; and when the thousand years are finished, the devil shall be loosed from his imprisonment,” that we understand either that the thousand years of the reign of the saints does not terminate, though the imprisonment of the devil does,—so that both parties have their thousand years, that is, their complete time, yet each with a different actual duration approriate to itself, the kingdom of the saints being longer, the imprisonment of the devil shorter, —or at least that, as three years and six months is a very short time, it is not reckoned as either deducted from the whole time of Satan’s imprisonment, or as added to the whole duration of the reign of the saints, as we have shown above in the sixteenth book regarding the round number of four hundred years, which were specified as four hundred, though actually somewhat more; and similar expressions are often found in the sacred writings, if one will mark them.

> Latin: Haec persecutio nouissima, quae futura est ab Antichristo (sicut iam diximus, quia et in hoc libro superius et aput Danielem prophetam positum est), tribus annis et sex mensibus erit. Quod tempus, quamuis exiguum, utrum ad mille annos pertineat, quibus et diabolum ligatum dicit et sanctos regnare cum Christo, an eisdem annis hoc paruum spatium superaddatur adque extra sit, merito ambigitur; quia, si dixerimus ad eosdem annos hoc pertinere, non tanto tempore, sed prolixiore cum Christo regnum sanctorum reperietur extendi quam diabolus adligari. Profecto enim sancti cum suo rege etiam in ipsa praecipue persecutione regnabunt mala tanta uincentes, quando iam diabolus non erit adligatus, ut eos persequi omnibus uiribus possit. Quo modo ergo ista scriptura eisdem mille annis utrumque determinat, diaboli scilicet adligationem regnumque sanctorum, cum trium annorum et sex mensum interuallo prius desinat adligatio diaboli quam regnum sanctorum in his annis mille cum Christo? Si autem dixerimus paruum persecutionis huius hoc spatium non conputandum in mille annis, sed eis inpletis potius adiciendum, ut proprie possit intellegi, quod, cum dixisset: Sacerdotes Dei et Christi regnabunt cum eo mille annis, adiecit: Et cum finiti fuerint mille anni, soluetur satanas de custodia sua; isto enim modo et regnum sanctorum et uinculum diaboli simul cessatura esse significat, ut deinde persecutionis illius tempus nec ad sanctorum regnum nec ad custodiam satanae, quorum utrumque in mille annis est, pertinere, sed superadditum et extra conputandum esse credatur: cogemur fateri sanctos in illa persecutione regnaturos non esse cum Christo; sed quis audeat tunc cum illo non regnatura sua membra, quando ei maxime adque fortissime cohaerebunt, et quo tempore, quanto erit acrior inpetus belli, tanto maior gloria non cedendi, tanto densior corona martyrii? Aut si propter tribulationes, quas passuri sunt, non dicendi sunt regnaturi: consequens erit, ut etiam superioribus diebus in eisdem mille annis, quicumque tribulabantur sanctorum, eo ipso tempore tribulationis suae cum Christo non regnasse dicantur; ac per hoc et illi, quorum animas auctor libri huius uidisse se scribit occisorum propter testimonium Iesu et propter uerbum Dei, non regnabant cum Christo, quando patiebantur persecutionem, et ipsi regnum Christi non erant, quos Christus excellentius possidebat. Absurdissimum id quidem et omni modo auersandum. Sed certe animae uictrices gloriosissimorum martyrum omnibus doloribus ac laboribus superatis adque finitis, postea quam mortalia membra posuerunt, cum Christo utique regnauerunt et regnant, donec finiantur mille anni, ut postea receptis etiam corporibus iam inmortalibus regnent. Proinde tribus illis annis adque dimidio animae occisorum pro eius martyrio, et quae antea de corporibus exierunt, et quae ipsa nouissima persecutione sunt exiturae, regnabunt cum illo, donec finiatur mortale saeculum et ad illud regnum, ubi mors non erit, transeatur. Quocirca cum Christo regnantium sanctorum plures anni erunt quam uinculi diaboli adque custodiae, quia illi cum suo rege Dei filio iam diabolo non ligato etiam per tres illos annos ac semissem regnabunt. Remanet igitur, ut, cum audimus: Sacerdotes Dei et Christi regnabunt cum eo mille annis. et cum finiti fuerint mille anni, soluetur satanas de custodia sua, aut non regni huius sanctorum intellegamus annos mille finiri, sed uinculi diaboli adque custodiae, ut annos mille, id est annos omnes suos, quaeque pars habeat diuersis ac propriis prolixitatibus finiendos, ampliore sanctorum regno, breuiore diaboli uinculo; aut certe, quoniam trium annorum et sex mensum breuissimum spatium est, conputari noluisse credatur, siue quod minus satanae uinculum, siue quod amplius uidetur regnum habere sanctorum, sicut de quadringentis annis in sexto decimo huius operis uolumine disputaui; quoniam plus aliquid erant, et tamen quadringenti sunt nuncupati; et talia saepe reperiuntur in litteris sacris. si quis aduertat.

### Of the Damnation of the Devil and His Adherents; And a Sketch of the Bodily Resurrection of All the Dead, and of the Final Retributive Judgment.

[¶18] Chapter 14.—Of the Damnation of the Devil and His Adherents; And a Sketch of the Bodily Resurrection of All the Dead, and of the Final Retributive Judgment.

> Latin: Caput XIV. De damnatione diaboli cum suis et per recapitulationem de resurrectione corporea omnium mortuorum et de iudicio ultimae retributionis.

[¶19] After this mention of the closing persecution, he summarily indicates all that the devil, and the city of which he is the prince, shall suffer in the last judgment. For he says, “And the devil who seduced them is cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, in which are the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” We have already said that by the beast is well understood the wicked city. His false prophet is either Antichrist or that image or figment of which we have spoken in the same place. After this he gives a brief narrative of the last judgment itself, which shall take place at the second or bodily resurrection of the dead, as it had been revealed to him: “I saw a throne great and white, and One sitting on it from whose face the heaven and the earth fled away, and their place was not found.” He does not say, “I saw a throne great and white, and One sitting on it, and from His face the heaven and the earth fled away,” for it had not happened then, i.e., before the living and the dead were judged; but he says that he saw Him sitting on the throne from whose face heaven and earth fled away, but afterwards. For when the judgment is finished, this heaven and earth shall cease to be, and there will be a new heaven and a new earth. For this world shall pass away by transmutation, not by absolute destruction. And therefore the apostle says, “For the figure of this world passeth away. I would have you be without anxiety.” The figure, therefore, passes away, not the nature. After John had said that he had seen One sitting on the throne from whose face heaven and earth fled, though not till afterwards, he said, “And I saw the dead, great and small: and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of the life of each man: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their deeds.” He said that the books were opened, and a book; but he left us at a loss as to the nature of this book, “which is,” he says, “the book of the life of each man.” By those books, then, which he first mentioned, we are to understand the sacred books old and new, that out of them it might be shown what commandments God had enjoined; and that book of the life of each man is to show what commandments each man has done or omitted to do. If this book be materially considered, who can reckon its size or length, or the time it would take to read a book in which the whole life of every man is recorded? Shall there be present as many angels as men, and shall each man hear his life recited by the angel assigned to him? In that case there will be not one book containing all the lives, but a separate book for every life. But our passage requires us to think of one only. “And another book was opened,” it says. We must therefore understand it of a certain divine power, by which it shall be brought about that every one shall recall to memory all his own works, whether good or evil, and shall mentally survey them with a marvellous rapidity, so that this knowledge will either accuse or excuse conscience, and thus all and each shall be simultaneously judged. And this divine power is called a book, because in it we shall as it were read all that it causes us to remember. That he may show who the dead, small and great, are who are to be judged, he recurs to this which he had omitted or rather deferred, and says, “And the sea presented the dead which were in it; and death and hell gave up the dead which were in them.” This of course took place before the dead were judged, yet it is mentioned after. And so, I say, he returns again to what he had omitted. But now he preserves the order of events, and for the sake of exhibiting it repeats in its own proper place what he had already said regarding the dead who were judged. For after he had said, “And the sea presented the dead which were in it, and death and hell gave up the dead which were in them,” he immediately subjoined what he had already said, “and they were judged every man according to their works.” For this is just what he had said before, “And the dead were judged according to their works.”

> Latin: Post hanc autem commemorationem nouissimae persecutionis breuiter conplectitur totum, quod ultimo iam iudicio diabolus et cum suo principe ciuitas inimica passura est. Dicit enim: Et diabolus, qui seducebat eos, missus est in stagnum ignis et sulphuris, quo et bestia et pseudopropheta; et cruciabuntur die ac nocte in saecula saeculorum. Bestiam bene intellegi ipsam inpiam ciuitatem supra diximus. Pseudopropheta uero eius aut Antichristus est aut imago illa, id est figmentum, de quo ibi locati sumus. Post haec ipsum nouissimum iudicium, quod erit in secunda resurrectione mortuorum, quae corporum est, recapitulando narrans quo modo sibi fuerit reuelatum: Et uidi. inquit, thronum magnum et candidum et sedentem super eum, cuius a facie fugit caelum et terra, et locus eorum inuentus non est. Non ait: lVidi thronum magnum et candidum et sedentem super eum, et ab eius facie fugit caelum et terra’, quoniam non tunc factum est, id est, antequam esset de uiuis et mortuis iudicatum; sed eum se uidisse dixit in throno sedentem, a cuius facie fugit caelum et terra, sed postea. Peracto quippe iudicio, tunc esse desinet hoc caelum et haec terra, quando incipiet esse caelum nouum et terra noua. Mutatione namque rerum, non omni modo interitu transibit hic mundus. Unde et apostolus dicit: Praeterit enim figura huius mundi, uolo uos sine sollicitudine esse. Figura ergo praeterit, non natura. Cum ergo se Iohannes uidisse dixisset sedentem super thronum, cuius a facie, quod postea futurum est, fugit caelum et terra: Et uidi, inquit, mortuos magnos et pusillos, et aperti sunt libri; et alius liber apertus est, qui est uitae uniuscuiusque; et iudicati sunt mortui ex ipsis scripturis librorum secundum facta sua. Libros dixit esse apertos et librum; sed librum cuius modi non tacuit: Qui est, inquit, uitae uniuscuiusque. Ergo illi libri, quos priore loco posuit, intellegendi sunt sancti, et ueteres et noui, ut in illis ostenderetur, quae Deus fieri sua mandata iussisset; in illo autem, qui est uitae uniuscuiusque, quid horum quisque non fecisset sine fecisset. Qui liber si carnaliter cogitetur, quis eius magnitudinem aut longitudinem ualeat aestimare? Aut quanto tempore legi poterit liber, in quo scriptae sunt uniuersae uitae uniuersorum ? An tantus angelorum numerus aderit, quantus hominum erit, et uitam suam quisque ab angelo sibi adhibito audiet recitari? Non ergo unus liber erit omnium, sed singuli singulorum. Scriptura uero ista unum uolens intellegi: Et alius, inquit, liber apertus est. Quaedam igitur uis est intellegenda diuina, qua fiet, ut cuique opera sua, uel bona uel mala, cuncta in memoriam reuocentur et mentis intuitu mira celeritate cernantur, ut accuset uel excuset scientia conscientiam adque ita simul et omnes et singuli iudicentur. Quae nimirum uis diuina libri nomen accepit. In ea quippe quodam modo legitur, quidquid ea faciente recolitur. Ut autem ostendat, qui mortui iudicandi sint, pusilli et magni, recapitulando dicit tamquam ad id rediens, quod praeterierat potiusue distulerat: Et exhibuit mortuos mare, qui in eo erant, et mors et infernus reddiderunt mortuos, quos in se habebant. Hoc procul dubio prius factum est, quam essent mortui iudicati; et tamen illud prius dictum est. Hoc est ergo quod dixi, recapitulando eum ad id redisse quod intermiserat. Nunc autem ordinem tenuit, adque ut explicaretur ipse ordo, commodius etiam de iudicatis mortuis, quod iam dixerat, suo repetiuit loco. Cum enim dixisset: Et ex hibuit mortuos mare, qui in eo erant, et mors et infernus reddiderunt mortuos, quos in se habebant: mox addidit quod paulo ante posuerat: Et iudicati sunt singuli secundum facta sua. Hoc est enim quod supra dixerat: Et iudicati sunt mortui secundum facta sua.

### Who the Dead are Who are Given Up to Judgment by the Sea, and by Death and Hell.

[¶21] Chapter 15.—Who the Dead are Who are Given Up to Judgment by the Sea, and by Death and Hell.

> Latin: Caput XV. Qui sint mortui, quos ad iudicium exhibuit mare, uel quos mors et inferi reddiderunt.

[¶22] But who are the dead which were in the sea, and which the sea presented? For we cannot suppose that those who die in the sea are not in hell, nor that their bodies are preserved in the sea; nor yet, which is still more absurd, that the sea retained the good, while hell received the bad. Who could believe this? But some very sensibly suppose that in this place the sea is put for this world. When John then wished to signify that those whom Christ should find still alive in the body were to be judged along with those who should rise again, he called them dead, both the good to whom it is said, “For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God,” and the wicked of whom it is said, “Let the dead bury their dead.” They may also be called dead, because they wear mortal bodies, as the apostle says, “The body indeed is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness;” proving that in a living man in the body there is both a body which is dead, and a spirit which is life. Yet he did not say that the body was mortal, but dead, although immediately after he speaks in the more usual way of mortal bodies. These, then, are the dead which were in the sea, and which the sea presented, to wit, the men who were in this world, because they had not yet died, and whom the world presented for judgment. “And death and hell,” he says, “gave up the dead which were in them.” The sea presented them because they had merely to be found in the place where they were; but death and hell gave them up or restored them, because they called them back to life, which they had already quitted. And perhaps it was not without reason that neither death nor hell were judged sufficient alone, and both were mentioned,—death to indicate the good, who have suffered only death and not hell; hell to indicate the wicked, who suffer also the punishment of hell. For if it does not seem absurd to believe that the ancient saints who believed in Christ and His then future coming, were kept in places far removed indeed from the torments of the wicked, but yet in hell, until Christ’s blood and His descent into these places delivered them, certainly good Christians, redeemed by that precious price already paid, are quite unacquainted with hell while they wait for their restoration to the body, and the reception of their reward. After saying, “They were judged every man according to their works,” he briefly added what the judgment was: “Death and hell were cast into the lake of fire;” by these names designating the devil and the whole company of his angels, for he is the author of death and the pains of hell. For this is what he had already, by anticipation, said in clearer language: “The devil who seduced them was cast into a lake of fire and brimstone.” The obscure addition he had made in the words, “in which were also the beast and the false prophet,” he here explains, “They who were not found written in the book of life were cast into the lake of fire.” This book is not for reminding God, as if things might escape Him by forgetfulness, but it symbolizes His predestination of those to whom eternal life shall be given. For it is not that God is ignorant, and reads in the book to inform Himself, but rather His infallible prescience is the book of life in which they are written, that is to say, known beforehand.

> Latin: Sed qui sunt mortui, quos exhibuit mare, qui in eo erant? Neque enim qui in mari moriuntur, non sunt in inferno, aut corpora eorum seruantur in mari, aut, quod est absurdius, mare habebat bonos mortuos et infernus malos. Quis hoc putauerit? Sed profecto conuenienter quidam hoc loco mare pro isto saeculo positum accipiunt. Cum ergo et quos hic inueniet Christus in corpore constitutos simul significaret cum eis, qui resurrecturi sunt, iudicandos, etiam ipsos mortuos appellauit, et bonos, quibus dicitur: Mortui enim estis, et uita uestra abscondita est cum Christo in Deo, et malos, de quibus dicitur: Sine mortuos sepelire mortuos suos. Possunt mortui etiam propter hoc dici, quod mortalia gerunt corpora; unde apostolus: Corpus quidem, inquit, mortuum est propter peccatum; spiritus autem uita est propter iustitiam, utrumque in homine uiuente adque in hoc corpore constituto esse demonstrans, et corpus mortuum et spiritum uitam. Nec tamen dixit corpus mortale, sed mortuum, quamuis eadem paulo post etiam mortalia corpora, sicut usitatius uocantur, appellet. Hos ergo mortuos exhibuit mare, qui in eo erant, id est, exhibuit homines hoc saeculum, quicumque in eo erant, quia nondum obierant. Et mors et infernus, inquit, reddiderunt mortuos, quos in se habebant. Mare exhibuit, quia, sicut inuenti sunt, adfuerunt; mors uero et infernus reddiderunt, quoniam uitae, de qua iam exierant, reuocarunt. Nec frustra fortasse non satis fuit ut diceret mors aut infernus, sed utrumque dictum est: mors propter bonos, qui tantummodo mortem perpeti potuerunt, non et infernum; infernus autem propter malos, qui etiam poenas aput inferos pendunt. Si enim non absurde credi uidetur antiquos etiam sanctos, qui uenturi Christi tenuerunt fidem, locis quidem a tormentis inpiorum remotissimis, sed aput inferos fuisse, donec eos inde Christi sanguis et ad ea loca descensus erueret, profecto deinceps boni fideles effuso illo pretio iam redemti prorsus inferos nesciunt, donec etiam receptis corporibus bona recipiant, quae merentur. Cum autem dixisset: Et iudicati sunt singuli secundum facta sua, breuiter subiecit, quem ad modum fuerint iudicati: Et mors et infernus, inquit, missi sunt in stagnum ignis, his nominibus significans diabolum, quoniam mortis est auctor infemarumqute poenarum, uniuersamque simul daemonum societatem. Hoc est enim quod supra euidentius praeoccupando iam dixerat: Et diabolus, qui seducebat eos, missus est in stagnum ignis et sulphuris. Quod uero ibi obscurius adiunxerat dicens: Quo et bestia etpseudopropheta, hic apertius: Et qui non sunt, inquit, inuenti in libro uitae scripti, missi sunt in stagnum ignis. Non Deum liber iste commemorat, ne obliuione fallatur; sed praedestinationem significat eorum, quibus aeterna dabitur uita. Neque enim nescit eos Deus et in hoc libro legit, ut sciat; sed potius ipsa eius praescientia de illis, quae falli non potest, liber est uitae, in quo sunt scripti, id est ante praecogniti.

## 101. Of the New Heaven and the New Earth.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/101/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/101/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 16.—Of the New Heaven and the New Earth.

> Latin: Caput XVI. De caelo nouo et terra noua.

[¶1] Having finished the prophecy of judgment, so far as the wicked are concerned, it remains that he speak also of the good. Having briefly explained the Lord’s words, “These will go away into everlasting punishment,” it remains that he explain the connected words, “but the righteous into life eternal.” “And I saw,” he says, “a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth have passed away; and there is no more sea.” This will take place in the order which he has by anticipation declared in the words, “I saw One sitting on the throne, from whose face heaven and earth fled.” For as soon as those who are not written in the book of life have been judged and cast into eternal fire,—the nature of which fire, or its position in the world or universe, I suppose is known to no man, unless perhaps the divine Spirit reveal it to some one,—then shall the figure of this world pass away in a conflagration of universal fire, as once before the world was flooded with a deluge of universal water. And by this universal conflagration the qualities of the corruptible elements which suited our corruptible bodies shall utterly perish, and our substance shall receive such qualities as shall, by a wonderful transmutation, harmonize with our immortal bodies, so that, as the world itself is renewed to some better thing, it is fitly accommodated to men, themselves renewed in their flesh to some better thing. As for the statement, “And there shall be no more sea,” I would not lightly say whether it is dried up with that excessive heat, or is itself also turned into some better thing. For we read that there shall be a new heaven and a new earth, but I do not remember to have anywhere read anything of a new sea, unless what I find in this same book, “As it were a sea of glass like crystal.” But he was not then speaking of this end of the world, neither does he seem to speak of a literal sea, but “as it were a sea.” It is possible that, as prophetic diction delights in mingling figurative and real language, and thus in some sort veiling the sense, so the words “And there is no more sea” may be taken in the same sense as the previous phrase, “And the sea presented the dead which were in it.” For then there shall be no more of this world, no more of the surgings and restlessness of human life, and it is this which is symbolized by the sea.

> Latin: Finito autem iudicio, quo praenuntiauit iudicandos malos, restat ut etiam de bonis dicat. Iam enim explicauit quod breuiter a Domino dictum est: Sic ibuntaisti in supplicium aeternum; sequitur ut explicet, quod etiam ibi conectitur: Iusti autem in uitam aeternam. Et uidi, inquit, caelum nouum et terram nouam. Nam primum caelum et terra recesserunt, et mare iam non est. Isto fiet ordine, quod superius praeoccupando iam dixit, uidisse se super thronum sedentem, cuius a facie fugit caelum et terra. Iudicatis quippe his, qui scripti non sunt in libro uitae, et in aeternum ignem missis (qui ignis cuius modi et in qua mundi uel rerum parte futurus sit, hominem scire arbitror neminem, nisi forte cui Spiritus diuinus ostendit), tunc figura huius mundi mundanorum ignium conflagratione praeteribit, sicut factum est mundanarum aquarum inundatione diluuium. Illa itaque, ut dixi, conflagratione mundana elementorum corruptibilium qualitates, quae corporibus nostris corruptibilibus congruebant, ardendo penitus interibunt. adque ipsa substantia eas qualitates habebit, quae corporibus inmortalibus mirabili mutatione conueniant; ut scilicet mundus in melius innouatus apte adcommodetur hominibus etiam carne in melius innouatis. Quod autem ait: Et mare iam non e 81: utrum maximo illo ardore siccetur an et ipsum uertatur in melius, non facile dixerim. Caelum quippe nonum et terram nonam futuram legimus, de mari autem nouo aliquid me uspiam legisse non recolo; nisi quod in hoc eodem libro reperitur: Tamquam mare uitreum simile crystallo. Sed tunc non de isto fine saeculi loquebatur, nec proprie dixisse uidetur mare, sed tamquam mare. Quamuis et nunc, sicut amat prophetica locutio propriis uerbis translata miscere ac sic quodam modo uelare quod dicitur, potuit de illo mari dicere: Et mare iam non est, de quo supra dixerat: Et exhibuit mortuos mare, qui in eo erant. Iam enim tunc non erit hoc saeculum uita mortalium turbulentum et procellosum, quod maris nomine figurauit.

### Of the Endless Glory of the Church.

[¶3] Chapter 17.—Of the Endless Glory of the Church.

> Latin: Caput XVII. De ecclesiae glorificatione sine fine post finem.

[¶4] “And I saw,” he says, “a great city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice from the throne, saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, but neither shall there be any more pain: because the former things have passed away. And He that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new.” This city is said to come down out of heaven, because the grace with which God formed it is of heaven. Wherefore He says to it by Isaiah, “I am the Lord that formed thee.” It is indeed descended from heaven from its commencement, since its citizens during the course of this world grow by the grace of God, which cometh down from above through the laver of regeneration in the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. But by God’s final judgment, which shall be administered by His Son Jesus Christ, there shall by God’s grace be manifested a glory so pervading and so new, that no vestige of what is old shall remain; for even our bodies shall pass from their old corruption and mortality to new incorruption and immortality. For to refer this promise to the present time, in which the saints are reigning with their King a thousand years, seems to me excessively barefaced, when it is most distinctly said, “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, but there shall be no more pain.” And who is so absurd, and blinded by contentious opinionativeness, as to be audacious enough to affirm that in the midst of the calamities of this mortal state, God’s people, or even one single saint, does live, or has ever lived, or shall ever live, without tears or pain,—the fact being that the holier a man is, and the fuller of holy desire, so much the more abundant is the tearfulness of his supplication? Are not these the utterances of a citizen of the heavenly Jerusalem: “My tears have been my meat day and night;” and “Every night shall I make my bed to swim; with my tears shall I water my couch;” and “My groaning is not hid from Thee;” and “My sorrow was renewed?” Or are not those God’s children who groan, being burdened, not that they wish to be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality may be swallowed up of life? Do not they even who have the first-fruits of the Spirit groan within themselves, waiting for the adoption, the redemption of their body? Was not the Apostle Paul himself a citizen of the heavenly Jerusalem, and was he not so all the more when he had heaviness and continual sorrow of heart for his Israelitish brethren? But when shall there be no more death in that city, except when it shall be said, “O death, where is thy contention? O death, where is thy sting? The sting of death is sin.” Obviously there shall be no sin when it can be said, “Where is”—But as for the present it is not some poor weak citizen of this city, but this same Apostle John himself who says, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” No doubt, though this book is called the Apocalypse, there are in it many obscure passages to exercise the mind of the reader, and there are few passages so plain as to assist us in the interpretation of the others, even though we take pains; and this difficulty is increased by the repetition of the same things, in forms so different, that the things referred to seem to be different, although in fact they are only differently stated. But in the words, “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, but there shall be no more pain,” there is so manifest a reference to the future world and the immortality and eternity of the saints,—for only then and only there shall such a condition be realized,—that if we think this obscure, we need not expect to find anything plain in any part of Scripture.

> Latin: Et ciuitatem, inquit, magnam Hierusalem nouam uidi descendentem de caelo a Deo, aptatam, quasi nouam nuptam ornatam marito suo. Et audiui uocem magnam de throno dicentem: Ecce tabernaculum Dei cum hominibus, et habitabit cum eis. et erunt ipsi populus eius, et ipse Deus erit cum eis. Et absterget omnem lacrimam ab oculis eorum: et mors iam non erit neque luctus neque clamor. sed nec dolor ullus, quia priora abierunt. Et dixit sedens in throno: Ecce noua facio omnia. De caelo descendere ista ciuitas dicitur, quoniam caelestis est gratia. qua Deus eam fecit. Propter quod ei dicit etiam per Esaiam: Ego sum Dominus faciens te. Et de caelo quidem ab initio sui descendit, ex quo per huius saeculi tempus gratia Dei desuper ueniente per lauacrum regenerationis in Spiritu sancto misso de caelo subinde ciues eius adcrescunt. Sed per iudicium Dei, quod erit nouissimum per eius filium Iesum Christum, tanta eius et tam noua de Dei munere claritas apparebit, ut nulla remaneant uestigia uetustatis; quando quidem et corpora ad incorruptionem adque inmortalitatem nouam ex uetere corruptione ac mortalitate transibunt. Nam hoc de isto tempore accipere, quo regnat cum rege suo mille annis, inpudentiae nimiae mihi uidetur, cum apertissime dicat: Absterget omnem lacrimam ab oculis eorum; et mors iam non erit neque luctus neque clamor, sed nec dolor ullus. Quis uero tam sit absurdus et obstinatissima contentione uesanus, qui audeat adfirmare in huius mortalitatis aerumnis, non dico populum sanctum, sed unumquemque sanctorum, qui hanc uel ducat uel ducturus sit uel duxerit uitam, nullas habentem lacrimas et dolores; cum potius quanto est quisque sanctior et desiderii sancti plenior, tanto sit eius in orando fletus uberior? An non est uox ciuitatis supernae Hierusalem: Factae sunt mihi lacrimae meae panis die ac nocte, et: Lauabo per singulas noctes lectum meum, in lacrimis meis stratum meum rigabo, et: Gemitus meus non est absconditus a te, et: Dolor meus renouatus est? Aut uero non eius filii sunt, qui ingemescunt grauati, in quo nolunt spoliari, sed superuestiri, ut absorbeatur mortale a uita? Nonne ipsi sunt, qui primitias habentes Spiritus in semet ipsis ingemescunt, adoptionem exspectantes, redemtionem corporis sui? An ipse apostolus Paulus non erat supernus Hierosolymitanus. uel non multo magis hoc erat, quando pro Israelitis carnalibus fratribus suis tristitia illi erat magna et continuus dolor cordi eius? Quando autem mors non erit in ista ciuitate, nisi quando dicetur: Ubi est, mors, contentio tua? Ubi est, mors, aculeus tuus? Aculeus autem mortis est peccatum. Quod tunc utique non erit, quando dicetur: Ubi est? Nunc uero non quilibet infimus ciuis illius ciuitatis, sed idem iste Iohannes in epistula sua clamat: Si dixerimus, quia peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus, et ueritas in nobis non est. Et in hoc quidem libro, cuius nomen est apocalypsis, obscure multa dicuntur, ut mentem legentis exerceant, et pauca in eo sunt, ex quorum manifestatione indagentur cetera cum labore; maxime quia sic eadem multis modis repetit, ut alia adque alia dicere uideatur, cum aliter adque aliter haec ipsa dicere uestigetur. Verum in his uerbis, ubi ait: Absterget omnem lacrimam ab oculis eorum, et mors iam non erit neque luctus neque clamor, sed nec dolor ullus, tanta luce dicta sunt de saeculo futuro et de inmortalitate adque aeternitate sanctorum (tunc enim solum adque ibi solum ista non erunt), ut nulla debeamus in litteris sacris quaerere uel legere manifesta, si haec putauerimus obscura.

### What the Apostle Peter Predicted Regarding the Last Judgment.

[¶6] Chapter 18.—What the Apostle Peter Predicted Regarding the Last Judgment.

> Latin: Caput XVIII. Quid apostolus Petrus de nouissimo Dei iudicio praedicarit.

[¶7] Let us now see what the Apostle Peter predicted concerning this judgment. “There shall come,” he says, “in the last days scoffers. . . . Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” There is nothing said here about the resurrection of the dead, but enough certainly regarding the destruction of this world. And by his reference to the deluge he seems as it were to suggest to us how far we should believe the ruin of the world will extend in the end of the world. For he says that the world which then was perished, and not only the earth itself, but also the heavens, by which we understand the air, the place and room of which was occupied by the water. Therefore the whole, or almost the whole, of the gusty atmosphere (which he calls heaven, or rather the heavens, meaning the earth’s atmosphere, and not the upper air in which sun, moon, and stars are set) was turned into moisture, and in this way perished together with the earth, whose former appearance had been destroyed by the deluge. “But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.” Therefore the heavens and the earth, or the world which was preserved from the water to stand in place of that world which perished in the flood, is itself reserved to fire at last in the day of the judgment and perdition of ungodly men. He does not hesitate to affirm that in this great change men also shall perish: their nature, however, shall notwithstanding continue, though in eternal punishments. Some one will perhaps put the question, If after judgment is pronounced the world itself is to burn, where shall the saints be during the conflagration, and before it is replaced by a new heavens and a new earth, since somewhere they must be, because they have material bodies? We may reply that they shall be in the upper regions into which the flame of that conflagration shall not ascend, as neither did the water of the flood; for they shall have such bodies that they shall be wherever they wish. Moreover, when they have become immortal and incorruptible, they shall not greatly dread the blaze of that conflagration, as the corruptible and mortal bodies of the three men were able to live unhurt in the blazing furnace.

> Latin: Nunc iam uideamus, quid etiam apostolus Petrus de hoc iudicio scripserit: Venient, inquit, in nouissimo dierum inlusione inludentes, secundum proprias concupiscentias suas euntes et dicentes: Ubi est promissum praesentiae ipsius? Ex quo enim patres dormierunt, sic omnia perseuerant ab initio creaturae. Latet enim illos hoc uolentes, quia caeli erant olim et terra de aqua, et per aquam constituta Dei uerbo, per quae. qui tunc erat mundus, aqua inundatus deperiit. Qui autem nunc sunt caeli et terra, eodem uerbo repositi sunt, igni reseruandi in diem iudicii et perditionis hominum inpiorum. Hoc unum uero non lateat uos, carissimi, quia unus dies aput Dominum sicut mille anni et mille anni sicut dies unus. Non tardat Dominus promissum, sicut quidam tarditatem existimant; sed patienter fert propter uos, nolens aliquem perire, sed omnes in paenitentiam conuerti. Veniet autem dies Domini ut fur, in quo caeli magno inpetu transcurrent, elementa autem ardentia resoluentur et terra et quae in ipsa sunt opera exurentur. His ergo omnibus pereuntibus quales oportet esse uos in sanctis conuersationibus exspectantes et properantes ad praesentiam diei Domini, per quam caeli ardentes soluentur et elementa ignis ardore decoquentur? Nouos uero caelos et terram nouam secundum promissa ipsius exspectamus, in quibus iustitia inhabitat. Nihil hic dixit de resurrectione mortuorum, sed sane de perditione mundi huius satis. Ubi etiam commemorans factum ante diluuium uidetur admonuisse quodam modo, quatenus in fine huius saeculi mundum istum periturum esse credamus. Nam et illo tempore perisse dixit, qui tunc erat, mundum; nec solum orbem terrae, uerum etiam caelos, quos utique istos aenos intellegimus, quorum locum ac spatium tunc aqua crescendo superauerat. Ergo totus aut paene totus aer iste uentosus (quod caelum uel potius caelos uocat, sed utique istos imos, non illos supremos, ubi sol et luna et sidera constituta sunt) conuersus fuerat in umidam qualitatem adque hoc modo cum terra perierat, cuius terrae utique prior facies fuerat deleta diluuio. Qui autem nunc sunt, inquit, caeli et terra, eodem uerbo repositi sunt, igni reseruandi in diem iudicii et perditionis hominum inpiorum. Proinde qui caeli et quae terra, id est, qui mundus pro eo mundo, qui diluuio periit, ex eadem aqua repositus est, ipse igni nouissimo reseruatur in diem iudicii et perditionis hominum inpiorum. Nam et hominum propter magnam quandam commutationem non dubitat dicere perditionem futuram, cum tamen eorum quamuis in aeternis poenis sit mansura natura. Quaerat forsitan aliquis, si post factum iudicium iste mundus ardebit, antequam pro illo caelum nouum et terra noua reponatur, eo ipso tempore conflagrationis eius ubi erunt sancti, cum eos habentes corpora in aliquo corporali loco esse necesse sit. Possumus respondere futuros eos esse in superioribus partibus, quo ita non adscendet flamma illius incendii, quem ad modum nec unda diluuii. Talia quippe illis inerunt corpora, ut illic sint, ubi esse uoluerint. Sed nec ignem conflagrationis illius pertimescent inmortales adque incorruptibiles facti, si uirorum trium corruptibilia corpora adque mortalia in camino ardenti inlaesa uiuere potuerunt.

### What the Apostle Paul Wrote to the Thessalonians About the Manifestation of Antichrist Which Shall Precede the Day of the Lord.

[¶9] Chapter 19.—What the Apostle Paul Wrote to the Thessalonians About the Manifestation of Antichrist Which Shall Precede the Day of the Lord.

> Latin: Caput XIX. Quid apostolus Paulus Thessalonicensibus scripserit de manifestatione Antichristi, cuius tempus dies Domini subsequetur.

[¶10] I see that I must omit many of the statements of the gospels and epistles about this last judgment, that this volume may not become unduly long; but I can on no account omit what the Apostle Paul says, in writing to the Thessalonians, “We beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,” etc.

[¶11] No one can doubt that he wrote this of Antichrist and of the day of judgment, which he here calls the day of the Lord, nor that he declared that this day should not come unless he first came who is called the apostate —apostate, to wit, from the Lord God. And if this may justly be said of all the ungodly, how much more of him? But it is uncertain in what temple he shall sit, whether in that ruin of the temple which was built by Solomon, or in the Church; for the apostle would not call the temple of any idol or demon the temple of God. And on this account some think that in this passage Antichrist means not the prince himself alone, but his whole body, that is, the mass of men who adhere to him, along with him their prince; and they also think that we should render the Greek more exactly were we to read, not “in the temple of God,” but “for” or “as the temple of God,” as if he himself were the temple of God, the Church. Then as for the words, “And now ye know what withholdeth,” i.e., ye know what hindrance or cause of delay there is, “that he might be revealed in his own time;” they show that he was unwilling to make an explicit statement, because he said that they knew. And thus we who have not their knowledge wish and are not able even with pains to understand what the apostle referred to, especially as his meaning is made still more obscure by what he adds. For what does he mean by “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now holdeth, let him hold until he be taken out of the way: and then shall the wicked be revealed?” I frankly confess I do not know what he means. I will nevertheless mention such conjectures as I have heard or read.

> Latin: Multas euangelicas apostolicasque sententias de diuino isto iudicio nouissimo uideo mihi esse praetereundas, ne hoc uolumen in nimiam longitudinem prouoluatur; sed nullo modo est praetereundus apostolus Paulus, qui scribens ad Thessalonicenses: Rogamus, inquit, uos, fratres, per aduentum Domini nostri Iesu Christi et nostrae congregationis in ipsum, ut non cito moueamini mente neque terreamini neque per spiritum neque per uerbum neque per epistulam tamquam per nos, quasi instet dies Domini, ne quis uos seducat ullo modo; quoniam nisi uenerit refuga primum et reuelatus fuerit homo peccati, filius interitus, qui aduersatur et superextollitur supra omne, quod dicitur Deus aut quod colitur, ita ut in templo dei sedeat, ostentans se tamquam sit Deus. Non retinetis in memoria, quod adhuc cum essem aput uos haec dicebantur uobis? et nunc quid. detineat scitis, ut reueletur in suo tempore. Iam enim mysterium iniquitatis operatur. Tantum qui modo tenet teneat, donec de medio fiat; et tunc reuelabitur iniquus, quem Dominus Iesus interficiet spiritu oris sui, et euacuabit inluminatione praesentiae suae eum, cuius est praesentia secundum operationem satanae, in omni uirtute et signis et prodigiis mendacii et in omni seductione iniquitatis his, qui pereunt, pro eo quod dilectionem ueritatis non receperunt, ut salui fierent. Et ideo mittet illis Deus operationem erroris, ut credant mendacio et iudicentur omnes, qui non crediderunt ueritati, sed consenserunt iniquitati. Nulli dubium est eum de Antichristo ista dixisse, diemque iudicii (hunc enim appellat diem Domini) non esse uenturum, nisi ille prior uenerit, quem refugam uocat, utique a Domino Deo. Quod si de omnibus inpiis merito dici potest, quanto magis de isto! Sed in quo templo Dei sit sessurus, incertum est; utrum in illa ruina templi, quod a Salomone rege constructum est, an uero in ecclesia. Non enim templum alicuius idoli aut daemonis templum Dei apostolus diceret.

[¶12] Some think that the Apostle Paul referred to the Roman empire, and that he was unwilling to use language more explicit, lest he should incur the calumnious charge of wishing ill to the empire which it was hoped would be eternal; so that in saying, “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work,” he alluded to Nero, whose deeds already seemed to be as the deeds of Antichrist. And hence some suppose that he shall rise again and be Antichrist. Others, again, suppose that he is not even dead, but that he was concealed that he might be supposed to have been killed, and that he now lives in concealment in the vigor of that same age which he had reached when he was believed to have perished, and will live until he is revealed in his own time and restored to his kingdom. But I wonder that men can be so audacious in their conjectures. However, it is not absurd to believe that these words of the apostle, “Only he who now holdeth, let him hold until he be taken out of the way,” refer to the Roman empire, as if it were said, “Only he who now reigneth, let him reign until he be taken out of the way.” “And then shall the wicked be revealed:” no one doubts that this means Antichrist. But others think that the words, “Ye know what withholdeth,” and “The mystery of iniquity worketh,” refer only to the wicked and the hypocrites who are in the Church, until they reach a number so great as to furnish Antichrist with a great people, and that this is the mystery of iniquity, because it seems hidden; also that the apostle is exhorting the faithful tenaciously to hold the faith they hold when he says, “Only he who now holdeth, let him hold until he be taken out of the way,” that is, until the mystery of iniquity which now is hidden departs from the Church. For they suppose that it is to this same mystery John alludes when in his epistle he says, “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us.” As therefore there went out from the Church many heretics, whom John calls “many antichrists,” at that time prior to the end, and which John calls “the last time,” so in the end they shall go out who do not belong to Christ, but to that last Antichrist, and then he shall be revealed.

> Latin: Unde nonnulli non ipsum principem, sed uniuersum quodam modo corpus eius, id est ad eum pertinentem hominum. multitudinem, simul cum ipso suo principe hoc loco intellegi Antichristum uolunt; rectiusque putant etiam Latine dici, sicut in Graeco est, non in templo Dei, sed in templum Dei sedeat, tamquam ipse sit templum Dei, quod est ecclesia; sicut dicimus; ‘Sedet in amicum’, id est uelut amicus, uel si quid aliud isto locutionis genere dici solet. Quod autem ait: Et nunc quid detineat scitis, id est, quid sit in mora, quae causa sit dilationis eius, ut reueletur in suo tempore, scitis: quoniam scire illos dixit, aperte hoc dicere noluit. Et ideo nos, qui nescimus quod illi sciebant, peruenire cum labore ad id, quod sensit apostolus, cupimus nec ualemus; praesertim quia et illa, quae addidit, hunc sensum faciunt obscuriorem. Nam quid est: Iam enim mysterium iniquitatis operatur. Tantum qui modo tenet teneat, donec de medio fiat; et tunc reuelabitur iniquus? Ego prorsus quid dixerit me fateor ignorare. Suspiciones tamen hominum, quas uel audire uel legere potui, non tacebo. Quidam putant hoc de imperio dictum fuisse Romano. et propterea Paulum apostolum non id aperte scribere uoluisse. ne calumniam uidelicet incurreret, quod Romano imperio male optauerit, cum speraretur aeternum; ut hoc quod dixit: Iam enim mysterium iniquitatis operatur, Neronem uoluerit intellegi, cuius iam facta uelut Antichristi uidebantur. Unde nonnulli ipsum resurrecturum et futurum Antichristum suspicantur; alii uero nec occisum putant, sed subtractum potius, ut putaretur occisus, et uiuum occultari in uigore ipsius aetatis, in qua fuit, cum crederetur exstinctus, donec suo tempore reueletur et restituatur in regnum. Sed multum mihi mira est haec opinantium tanta praesumtio. Illud tamen, quod ait apostolus: Tantum qui modo tenet teneat, donec de medio fiat, non absurde de ipso Romano imperio creditur dictum, tamquam dictum sit: ‘Tantum qui modo imperat imperet, donec de medio fiat’, id est de medio tollatur. Et tunc reuelabitur iniquus, quem significari Antichristum nullus ambigit. Alii uero et quod ait: Quid detineat scitis et mysterium operari iniquitatis non putant dictum nisi de malis et fictis, qui sunt in ecclesia, donec perueniant ad tantum numerum, qui Antichristo magnum populum faciat; et hoc esse mysterium iniquitatis, quia uidetur occultum; hortari autem apostolum fideles, ut in fide quam tenent tenaciter perseuerent, dicendo: Tantum qui modo tenet teneat, donec de medio fiat, hoc. est, donec exeat de medio ecclesiae mysterium iniquitatis, quod nunc occultum est.

[¶13] Thus various, then, are the conjectural explanations of the obscure words of the apostle. That which there is no doubt he said is this, that Christ will not come to judge quick and dead unless Antichrist, His adversary, first come to seduce those who are dead in soul; although their seduction is a result of God’s secret judgment already passed. For, as it is said “his presence shall be after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all seduction of unrighteousness in them that perish.” For then shall Satan be loosed, and by means of that Antichrist shall work with all power in a lying though a wonderful manner. It is commonly questioned whether these works are called “signs and lying wonders” because he is to deceive men’s senses by false appearances, or because the things he does, though they be true prodigies, shall be a lie to those who shall believe that such things could be done only by God, being ignorant of the devil’s power, and especially of such unexampled power as he shall then for the first time put forth. For when he fell from heaven as fire, and at a stroke swept away from the holy Job his numerous household and his vast flocks, and then as a whirlwind rushed upon and smote the house and killed his children, these were not deceitful appearances, and yet they were the works of Satan to whom God had given this power. Why they are called signs and lying wonders, we shall then be more likely to know when the time itself arrives. But whatever be the reason of the name, they shall be such signs and wonders as shall seduce those who shall deserve to be seduced, “because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved.” Neither did the apostle scruple to go on to say, “For this cause God shall send upon them the working of error that they should believe a lie.” For God shall send, because God shall permit the devil to do these things, the permission being by His own just judgment, though the doing of them is in pursuance of the devil’s unrighteous and malignant purpose, “that they all might be judged who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” Therefore, being judged, they shall be seduced, and, being seduced, they shall be judged. But, being judged, they shall be seduced by those secretly just and justly secret judgments of God, with which He has never ceased to judge since the first sin of the rational creatures; and, being seduced, they shall be judged in that last and manifest judgment administered by Jesus Christ, who was Himself most unjustly judged and shall most justly judge.

> Latin: Ad ipsum enim mysterium pertinere arbitrantur, quod ait in epistula sua Iohannes euangelista: Pueri, nouissima hora est; et sicut audistis, quod Antichristus sit uenturus, nunc autem Antichristi multi facti sunt; unde cognoscimus quod nouissima sit hora. Ex nobis exierunt; sed non erant ex nobis. Quod si fuissent ex nobis, permansissent utique nobiscum. Sicut ergo ante finem in hac hora, inquiunt, quam Iohannes nouissimam dicit, exierunt multi haeretici de medio ecclesiae, quos multos dicit Antichristos: ita omnes tunc inde exibunt, qui non ad Christum, sed ad illum nouissimum Antichristum pertinebunt, et tunc reuelabitur. Alius ergo sic, alius autem sic apostoli obscura uerba couiectant; quod tamen eum dixisse non dubium est: non ueniet ad uiuos et mortuos iudicandos Christus, nisi prius uenerit ad seducendos in anima mortuos aduersarius eius Antichristus; quamuis ad occultum iam iudicium Dei pertineat, quod ab illo seducentur. Praesentia quippe eius erit, sicut dictum est, secundum operationem satanae in omni uirtute et signis et prodigiis mendacii et in omni seductione iniquitatis his, qui pereunt. Tunc enim soluetur satanas et per illum Antichristum in omni sua uirtute mirabiliter quidem, sed mendaciter operabitur. Quae solet ambigi utrum propterea dicta sint signa et prodigia mendacii, quoniam mortales sensus per phantasmata decepturus est, ut quod non facit facere uideatur, an quia illa ipsa, etiamsi erunt uera prodigia, ad mendacium pertrahent credituros non ea potuisse nisi diuinitus fieri, uirtutem diaboli nescientes, maxime quando tantam, quantam numquam habuit, acceperit potestatem. Non enim quando de caelo ignis cecidit et tantam familiam cum tantis gregibus pecorum sancti Iob uno inpetu absumsit et turbo inruens et domum deiciens filios eius occidit, phantasmata fuerunt; quae tamen fuerunt opera satanae, cui Deus dederat hanc potestatem. Propter quid horum ergo dicta sint prodigia et signa mendacii, tunc potius apparebit. Sed propter quodlibet horum dictum sit. seducentur eis signis adque prodigiis. qui seduci merebuntur, pro eo quod dilectionem, inquit, ueritatis nonreceperunt, ut salui fierent. Nec dubitauit apostolus addere ac dicere: Ideo mittet illis Deus operationem erroris ut credant mendacio. Deus enim mittet, quia Deus diabolum facere ista permittet, iusto ipse iudicio, quamuis faciat ille iniquo malignoque consilio: Ut iudicentur, inquit, omnes, qui non crediderunt ueritati, sed consenserunt iniquitati. Proinde iudicati seducentur et seducti iudicabuntur. Sed iudicati seducentur illis iudiciis Dei occulte iustis, iuste occultis, quibus ab initio peccati rationa-. lis creaturae numquam iudicare cessauit; seducti autem iudicabuntur nouissimo manifestoque iudicio per Christum Iesum, iustissime iudicaturum, iniustissime iudicatum.

### What the Same Apostle Taught in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians Regarding the Resurrection of the Dead.

[¶15] Chapter 20.—What the Same Apostle Taught in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians Regarding the Resurrection of the Dead.

> Latin: Caput XX. Quid idem apostolus in prima ad eosdem epistula de resurrectione docuerit mortuorum.

[¶16] But the apostle has said nothing here regarding the resurrection of the dead; but in his first Epistle to the Thessalonians he says, “We would not have you to be ignorant brethren, concerning them which are asleep,” etc. These words of the apostle most distinctly proclaim the future resurrection of the dead, when the Lord Christ shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

> Latin: Sed hic apostolus tacuit de resurrectione mortuorum; ad eosdem autem scribens in epistula prima: Nolumus, inquit, ignorare uos, fratres, de dormientibus, ut non contristemini, sicut et ceteri, qui spem non habent. Nam si credimus, quod Iesus mortuus est et resurrexit: ita et Deus eos, qui dormierunt per Iesum, adducet cum illo.

[¶17] But it is commonly asked whether those whom our Lord shall find alive upon earth, personated in this passage by the apostle and those who were alive with him, shall never die at all, or shall pass with incomprehensible swiftness through death to immortality in the very moment during which they shall be caught up along with those who rise again to meet the Lord in the air? For we cannot say that it is impossible that they should both die and revive again while they are carried aloft through the air. For the words, “And so shall we ever be with the Lord,” are not to be understood as if he meant that we shall always remain in the air with the Lord; for He Himself shall not remain there, but shall only pass through it as He comes. For we shall go to meet Him as He comes, not where He remains; but “so shall we be with the Lord,” that is, we shall be with Him possessed of immortal bodies wherever we shall be with Him. We seem compelled to take the words in this sense, and to suppose that those whom the Lord shall find alive upon earth shall in that brief space both suffer death and receive immortality: for this same apostle says, “In Christ shall all be made alive;” while, speaking of the same resurrection of the body, he elsewhere says, “That which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die.” How, then, shall those whom Christ shall find alive upon earth be made alive to immortality in Him if they die not, since on this very account it is said, “That which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die?” Or if we cannot properly speak of human bodies as sown, unless in so far as by dying they do in some sort return to the earth, as also the sentence pronounced by God against the sinning father of the human race runs, “Earth thou art, and unto earth shalt thou return,” we must acknowledge that those whom Christ at His coming shall find still in the body are not included in these words of the apostle nor in those of Genesis; for, being caught up into the clouds, they are certainly not sown, neither going nor returning to the earth, whether they experience no death at all or die for a moment in the air.

> Latin: Hoc enim uobis dicimus in uerbo Domini, quia nos uiuentes, qui reliqui sumus in aduentum Domini, non praeueniemus eos, qui ante dormierunt; quoniam ipse Dominus in iussu et in uoce archangeli et in tuba Dei descendet de caelo, et mortui in Christo resurgent primo; deinde nos uiuentes, qui reliqui sumus, simul cum illis rapiemur in nubibus in obuiam Christi in aera, et ita semper cum Domino erimus. Haec uerba apostolica resurrectionem mortuorum futuram, quando ueniet Christus, utique ad uiuos et mortuos iudicandos, praeclarissime ostendunt. Sed quaeri solet, utrum illi, quos hic uiuentes inuenturus est Christus, quorum personam in se adque illos, qui tunc secum uiuebant, transfigurabat apostolus, numquam omnino morituri sint, an ipso temporis puncto, quo cum resurgentibus rapientur in nubibus in obuiam Christo in aera, ad inmortalitatem per mortem mira celeritate transibunt. Neque enim dicendum est fieri non posse, ut, dum per aera in sublime portantur, in illo spatio et moriantur et reuiuescant. Quod enim ait: Et ita semper cum Domino erimus, non sic accipiendum est, tamquam in aere nos dixerit semper cum Domino esse mansuros; quia nec ipse utique ibi manebit. quia ueniens transiturus est; uenienti quippe ibitur obuiam, non manenti; sed ita cum Domino erimus, id est, sic erimus habentes corpora sempiterna, ubicumque cum illo fuerimus. Ad hunc autem sensum, quo existimemus etiam illos, quos hic uiuos inuenturus est Dominus, in ipso paruo spatio et passuros mortem et accepturos inmortalitatem, ipse apostolus nos uidetur urgere, ubi dicit: In Christo omnes uiuificabuntur; cum alio loco de ipsa loquens resurrectione corporum dicat: Tu quod seminas, non uiuificatur. nisi moriatur. Quo modo igitur, quos uiuentes hic Christus inueniet, per inmortalitatem in illo uiuificabuntur, etsi non moriantur, cum uideamus propter hoc esse dictum: Tu quod seminas, non uiuificatur, nisi moriatur?

[¶18] But, on the other hand, there meets us the saying of the same apostle when he was speaking to the Corinthians about the resurrection of the body, “We shall all rise,” or, as other mss. read, “We shall all sleep.” Since, then, there can be no resurrection unless death has preceded, and since we can in this passage understand by sleep nothing else than death, how shall all either sleep or rise again if so many persons whom Christ shall find in the body shall neither sleep nor rise again? If, then, we believe that the saints who shall be found alive at Christ’s coming, and shall be caught up to meet Him, shall in that same ascent pass from mortal to immortal bodies, we shall find no difficulty in the words of the apostle, either when he says, “That which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die,” or when he says, “We shall all rise,” or “all sleep,” for not even the saints shall be quickened to immortality unless they first die, however briefly; and consequently they shall not be exempt from resurrection which is preceded by sleep, however brief. And why should it seem to us incredible that that multitude of bodies should be, as it were, sown in the air, and should in the air forthwith revive immortal and incorruptible, when we believe, on the testimony of the same apostle, that the resurrection shall take place in the twinkling of an eye, and that the dust of bodies long dead shall return with incomprehensible facility and swiftness to those members that are now to live endlessly? Neither do we suppose that in the case of these saints the sentence, “Earth thou art, and unto earth shalt thou return,” is null, though their bodies do not, on dying, fall to earth, but both die and rise again at once while caught up into the air. For “Thou shalt return to earth” means, Thou shalt at death return to that which thou wert before life began. Thou shalt, when examinate, be that which thou wert before thou wast animate. For it was into a face of earth that God breathed the breath of life when man was made a living soul; as if it were said, Thou art earth with a soul, which thou wast not; thou shalt be earth without a soul, as thou wast. And this is what all bodies of the dead are before they rot; and what the bodies of those saints shall be if they die, no matter where they die, as soon as they shall give up that life which they are immediately to receive back again. In this way, then, they return or go to earth, inasmuch as from being living men they shall be earth, as that which becomes cinder is said to go to cinder; that which decays, to go to decay; and so of six hundred other things. But the manner in which this shall take place we can now only feebly conjecture, and shall understand it only when it comes to pass. For that there shall be a bodily resurrection of the dead when Christ comes to judge quick and dead, we must believe if we would be Christians. But if we are unable perfectly to comprehend the manner in which it shall take place, our faith is not on this account vain. Now, however, we ought, as we formerly promised, to show, as far as seems necessary, what the ancient prophetic books predicted concerning this final judgment of God; and I fancy no great time need be spent in discussing and explaining these predictions, if the reader has been careful to avail himself of the help we have already furnished.

> Latin: Aut si recte non dicimus seminari nisi ea corpora hominum, quae moriendo quoquo modo reuertuntur in terram (sicut sese habet etiam illa in transgressorem patrem generis humani diuinitus prolata sententia: Terra es, et in terram ibis): fatendum est istos, quos nondum de corporibus egressos cum ueniet Christus inueniet, et istis uerbis apostoli et illis de genesi non teneri; quoniam sursum in nubibus rapti non utique seminantur, quia nec eunt in terram nec redeunt, siue nullam prorsus experiantur mortem siue paululum in aere moriantur. Sed aliud rursus occurrit, quod idem dixit apostolus, cum de resurrectione corporum ad Corinthios loqueretur: Omnes resurgemus, uel sicut alii codices habent: Omnes dormiemus. Cum ergo nec resurrectio fieri, nisi mors praecesserit, possit, nec dormitionem possimus illo loco intellegere nisi mortem: quo modo omnes uel dormient uel resurgent, si tam multi, quos in corpore inuenturus est Christus, nec dormient nec resurgent? Si ergo sanctos, qui reperientur Christo ueniente uiuentes eique in obuiam rapientur, crediderimus in eodem raptu de mortalibus corporibus exituros et ad eadem mox inmortalia redituros, nullas in uerbis apostoli patiemur angustias, siue ubi dicit: Tu quod seminas, non uiuificatur, nisi moriatur, siue ubi dicit: Omnes resurgemus ant: Omnes dormiemus; quia nec illi per inmortalitatem uiuificabuntur, nisi, quamlibet paululum, tamen ante moriantur, ac per hoc et a resurrectione non erunt alieni, quam dormitione praecedunt, quamuis breuissima, non tamen nulla. Quur autem nobis incredibile uideatur illam multitudinem corporum in aere quodam modo seminari adque ibi protinus inmortaliter adque incorruptibiliter reuiuescere, cum credamus, quod idem ipse apostolus apertissime dicit, in ictu oculi futuram resurrectionem et in membra sine fine uictura tanta facilitate tamque inaestimabili uelocitate rediturum antiquissimorum cadauerum puluerem? Nec ab illa sententia, qua homini dictum est: Terra es et in terram ibis, futuros illos sanetos arbitremur inmunes, si eorum morientium in terram non recident corpora, sed, sicut in ipso raptu morientur, ita et resurgent, dum ferentur in aera. In terram quippe ibis est ‘in hoc ibis amissa uita, quod eras antequam sumeres uitam’: id est, hoc eris exanimatus, quod eras antequam esses animatus (terrae quippe insufflauit Deus in faciem flatum uitae. cum factus est homo in animam uiuam); tamquam diceretur: <Terra es animata, quod non eras: terra eris exanimis, sicut eras’; quod sunt et antequam putrescant omnia corpora mortuorum; quod erunt et illa. si morientur. ubicumque moriantur, cum uita carebunt, quam continuo receptura sunt. Sic ergo ibunt in terram, quia ex uiuis hominibus terra erunt. quem ad modum it in cinerem, quod fit cinis; it in uetustatem, quod fit uetus; it in testam, quod ex luto fit testa: et alia sescenta sic loquimur. Quo modo autem sit futurum. quod nunc pro nostrae ratiunculae uiribus utcumque conicimus, tunc erit potius, ut nosse possimus. Resurrectionem quippe mortuorum futuram et in carne, quando Christus uenturus est uiuos iudicaturus et mortuos, oportet, si Christiani esse uolumus, ut credamus; sed non ideo de hac re inanis est fides nostra, si, quem ad modum futura sit, perfecte conprehendere non ualemus. Verum iam, sicut supra] promisimus, de hoc iudicio Dei nouissimo etiam prophetici ueteres libri quid praenuntiauerint, quantum satis esse uidebitur, debemus ostendere; quae, sicut arbitror, non tanta mora necesse erit tractari et exponi, si istis. quae praemisimus, lector curauerit adiuuari.

### Utterances of the Prophet Isaiah Regarding the Resurrection of the Dead and the Retributive Judgment.

[¶20] Chapter 21.—Utterances of the Prophet Isaiah Regarding the Resurrection of the Dead and the Retributive Judgment.

> Latin: Caput XXI. Quid Esaias propheta de mortuorum resurrectione et de retributione iudicii sit locutus.

[¶21] The prophet Isaiah says, “The dead shall rise again, and all who were in the graves shall rise again; and all who are in the earth shall rejoice: for the dew which is from Thee is their health, and the earth of the wicked shall fall.” All the former part of this passage relates to the resurrection of the blessed; but the words, “the earth of the wicked shall fall,” is rightly understood as meaning that the bodies of the wicked shall fall into the ruin of damnation. And if we would more exactly and carefully scrutinize the words which refer to the resurrection of the good, we may refer to the first resurrection the words, “the dead shall rise again,” and to the second the following words, “and all who were in the graves shall rise again.” And if we ask what relates to those saints whom the Lord at His coming shall find alive upon earth, the following clause may suitably be referred to them; “All who are in the earth shall rejoice: for the dew which is from Thee is their health.” By “health” in this place it is best to understand immortality. For that is the most perfect health which is not repaired by nourishment as by a daily remedy. In like manner the same prophet, affording hope to the good and terrifying the wicked regarding the day of judgment, says, “Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will flow down upon them as a river of peace, and upon the glory of the Gentiles as a rushing torrent; their sons shall be carried on the shoulders, and shall be comforted on the knees. As one whom his mother comforteth, so shall I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem. And ye shall see, and your heart shall rejoice, and your bones shall rise up like a herb; and the hand of the Lord shall be known by His worshippers, and He shall threaten the contumacious. For, behold, the Lord shall come as a fire, and as a whirlwind His chariots, to execute vengeance with indignation, and wasting with a flame of fire. For with fire of the Lord shall all the earth be judged, and all flesh with His sword: many shall be wounded by the Lord.” In His promise to the good he says that He will flow down as a river of peace, that is to say, in the greatest possible abundance of peace. With this peace we shall in the end be refreshed; but of this we have spoken abundantly in the preceding book. It is this river in which he says He shall flow down upon those to whom He promises so great happiness, that we may understand that in the region of that felicity, which is in heaven, all things are satisfied from this river. But because there shall thence flow, even upon earthly bodies, the peace of incorruption and immortality, therefore he says that He shall flow down as this river, that He may as it were pour Himself from things above to things beneath, and make men the equals of the angels. By “Jerusalem,” too, we should understand not that which serves with her children, but that which, according to the apostle, is our free mother, eternal in the heavens. In her we shall be comforted as we pass toilworn from earth’s cares and calamities, and be taken up as her children on her knees and shoulders. Inexperienced and new to such blandishments, we shall be received into unwonted bliss. There we shall see, and our heart shall rejoice. He does not say what we shall see; but what but God, that the promise in the Gospel may be fulfilled in us, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God?” What shall we see but all those things which now we see not, but believe in, and of which the idea we form, according to our feeble capacity, is incomparably less than the reality? “And ye shall see,” he says, “and your heart shall rejoice.” Here ye believe, there ye shall see.

> Latin: Propheta Esaias: Resurgent, inquit, mortui et resurgent qui erant in sepulcris, et laetabuntur omnes qui sunt in terra; ros enim, qui abs te est, sanitas illis est; terra uero inpiorum cadet. Totum illud superius ad resurrectionem pertinet beatorum. Quod autem ait: Terra uero inpiorum cadet, bene intellegitur dictum: ‘Corpora uero inpiorum ruina damnationis excipiet.’ Iam porro si de bonorum resurrectione quod dictum est diligentius et distinctius uelimus intueri, ad primam referendum est quod dictum est: Resurgent mortui; ad secundam uero quod sequitur: Et resurgent qui erant in sepulcris. Iam si et illos inquiramus sanctos, quos hic uiuos inuenturus est Dominus, eis congrue deputabitur quod adiunxit: Et laetabuntur omnes qui sunt in terra; ros enim, qui abs te est, sanitas illis est. Sanitatem loco isto inmortalitatem rectissime accipimus; ea namque est plenissima sanitas, quae non reficitur alimentis tamquam cottidianis medicamentis. Item de iudicii die spem prius dans bonis, deinde terrens malos idem propheta sic loquitur: Haec dicit Dominus: Ecce ego declino in eos ut flumen pacis et ut torrens inundans gloriam gentium. Filii eorum super umeros portabuntur et super genua consolabuntur. Quem ad modum si quem mater consoletur, ita ego uos consolabor; et in Hierusalem consolabimini, et uidebitis, et gaudebit cor uestrum et ossa uestra ut herba exorientur. Et cognoscetur manus Domini colentibus eum, et comminabitur contumacibus. Ecce enim Dominus ut ignis ueniet, et ut tempestas currus eius, reddere in indignatione uindictam et uastationem in flamma ignis. In igne enim Domini iudicabitur omnis terra et in gladio eius omnis caro; multi uulnerati erunt a Domino. In bonorum promissione flumen pacis profecto abundantiam pacis illius debemus accipere, qua maior esse non possit. Hac utique in fine rigabimur; de qua in praecedenti libro abundanter locuti sumus. Hoc flumen se in eos declinare dicit, quibus tantam beatitudinem pollicetur, ut intellegamus in illius felicitatis regione, quae in caelis est. hoc flumine omnia satiari; sed quia et terrenis corporibus pax incorruptionis adque inmortalitatis inde influet, ideo declinare se dixit hoc flumen, ut de supernis quodam modo etiam inferiora perfundat et homines aequales angelis reddat. Hierusalem quoque, non illam quae seruit cum filiis suis, sed liberam matrem nostram intellegamus secundum apostolum aeternam in caelis. Ibi post labores aerumnarum curarumque mortalium consolabimur, tamquam paruuli eius in umeris genibusque portati. Rudes enim nos et nouos blandissimis adiutoriis insolita nobis beatitudo illa suscipiet. 1m ib uidebimus, et gaudebit cor nostrum. Nec expressit quid uidebimus; sed quid nisi Deum? ut inpleatur in nobis promissum euangelicum: Beati mundicordes, quoniam ipsi Deum uidebunt, et omnia illa, quae nunc non uidemus, credentes autem pro modulo capacitatis humanae longe minus quam sunt adque incomparabiliter cogitamus. Et uidebitis, inquit, et gaudebit cor uestrum. Hic creditis, ibi uidebitis.

[¶22] But because he said, “Your heart shall rejoice,” lest we should suppose that the blessings of that Jerusalem are only spiritual, he adds, “And your bones shall rise up like a herb,” alluding to the resurrection of the body, and as it were supplying an omission he had made. For it will not take place when we have seen; but we shall see when it has taken place. For he had already spoken of the new heavens and the new earth, speaking repeatedly, and under many figures, of the things promised to the saints, and saying,“There shall be new heavens, and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered nor come into mind; but they shall find in it gladness and exultation. Behold, I will make Jerusalem an exultation, and my people a joy. And I will exult in Jerusalem, and joy in my people; and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her;” and other promises, which some endeavor to refer to carnal enjoyment during the thousand years. For, in the manner of prophecy, figurative and literal expressions are mingled, so that a serious mind may, by useful and salutary effort, reach the spiritual sense; but carnal sluggishness, or the slowness of an uneducated and undisciplined mind, rests in the superficial letter, and thinks there is nothing beneath to be looked for. But let this be enough regarding the style of those prophetic expressions just quoted. And now, to return to their interpretation. When he had said, “And your bones shall rise up like a herb,” in order to show that it was the resurrection of the good, though a bodily resurrection, to which he alluded, he added, “And the hand of the Lord shall be known by His worshippers.” What is this but the hand of Him who distinguishes those who worship from those who despise Him? Regarding these the context immediately adds, “And He shall threaten the contumacious,” or, as another translator has it, “the unbelieving.” He shall not actually threaten then, but the threats which are now uttered shall then be fulfilled in effect. “For behold,” he says, “the Lord shall come as a fire, and as a whirlwind His chariots, to execute vengeance with indignation, and wasting with a flame of fire. For with fire of the Lord shall all the earth be judged, and all flesh with His sword: many shall be wounded by the Lord.” By fire, whirlwind, sword, he means the judicial punishment of God. For he says that the Lord Himself shall come as a fire, to those, that is to say, to whom His coming shall be penal. By His chariots (for the word is plural) we suitably understand the ministration of angels. And when he says that all flesh and all the earth shall be judged with His fire and sword, we do not understand the spiritual and holy to be included, but the earthly and carnal, of whom it is said that they “mind earthly things,” and “to be carnally minded is death,” and whom the Lord calls simply flesh when He says, “My Spirit shall not always remain in these men, for they are flesh.” As to the words, “Many shall be wounded by the Lord,” this wounding shall produce the second death. It is possible, indeed, to understand fire, sword, and wound in a good sense. For the Lord said that He wished to send fire on the earth. And the cloven tongues appeared to them as fire when the Holy Spirit came. And our Lord says, “I am not come to send peace on earth, but a sword.” And Scripture says that the word of God is a doubly sharp sword, on account of the two edges, the two Testaments. And in the Song of Songs the holy Church says that she is wounded with love,—pierced, as it were, with the arrow of love. But here, where we read or hear that the Lord shall come to execute vengeance, it is obvious in what sense we are to understand these expressions.

> Latin: Sed quoniam dixit: Et gaudebit cor uestrum, ne putaremus illa bona Hierusalem ad nostrum tantummodo spiritum pertinere: Et ossa, inquit, uestra ut herba exorientur; ubi resurrectionem corporum strinxit, uelut quod non dixerat reddens; neque enim cum uiderimus fiet. sed cum fuerit facta uidebimus. Nam et de caelo nouo ac terra noua iam supra dixerat, dum ea, quae sanctis promittuntur in fine, saepe ac multiformiter diceret. Erit, inquit, caelum nouum et terra noua, et non erunt memores priorum, nec adscendet in cor ipsorum, sed laetitiam et exsultationem inuenient in ea. Ecce ego faciam Hierusalem exsultationem et populum meum laetitiam; et exsultabo in Hierusalem et laetabor in populo meo; et ultra non audietur in illa uox fletus, et cetera, quae quidam ad illos carnales mille annos referre conantur. Locutiones enim tropicae propriis prophetico more miscentur, ut ad intellectum spiritalem intentio sobria cum quodam utili ac salubri labore perueniat; pigritia uero carnalis uel ineruditae adque inexercitatae tarditas mentis contenta litterae superficie nihil putat interius requirendum. Haec de propheticis uerbis, quae ante istum locum scripta sunt, satis dixerim. In hoc autem loco, unde ad illa digressi sumus, cum dixisset: Et ossa uestra ut herba exorientur, ut resurrectionem carnis quidem, sed tamen bonorum se nunc commemorare monstraret, adiunxit: Et cognoscetur manus Domini colentibus eum. Quid est hoc nisi manus distinguentis cultores suos a contemtoribus suis? De quibus sequentia contexens: Et comminabitur, inquit. contumacibus, siue, ut ait alius interpres, incredulis. Nec tunc comminabitur, sed quae nunc dicuntur minaciter, tunc efficaciter inplebuntur. Ecce enim Dominus, inquit, ut ignis ueniet et ut tempestas currus eius, reddere in indignatione uindictam et uastationem in flamma ignis. In igne enim Domini iudicabitur omnis terra et in gladio eius omnis caro; multi uulnerati erunt a Domino. Siue igne, siue tempestate, siue gladio poenam iudicii significat: quando quidem ipsum Dominum quasi ignem dicit esse uenturum, eis profecto quibus poenalis erit eius aduentus. Currus uero eius (nam pluraliter dicti sunt) angelica ministeria non inconuenienter accipimus. Quod autem ait omnem terram et omnem carnem in eius igne et gladio iudicari, non etiam hic spiritales intellegamus et sanctos, sed terrenos adque carnales, de qualibus dictum est: Qui terrena sapiunt. et: Sapere secundum carnem mors est; et quales omnino caro appellantur a Domino, ubi dicit: Non permanebit spiritus meus in hominibus istis, quoniam caro sunt. Quod uero hic positum est: Multi uulnerati erunt a Domino, isto fiet uulnere mors secunda. Potest quidem et ignis et gladius et uulnus accipi in bono. Nam et ignem Dominus uelle se dixit mittere in mundum, et uisae sunt illis linguae diuisae uelut ignis, quando uenit Spiritus sanctus: et: Non ueni, inquit idem Dominus, pacem mittere in terram, sed gladium, et sermonem Dei dicit scriptura gladium bis acutum propter aciem geminam testamentorum duorum, et in cantico canticorum caritate se dicit sancta ecclesia uulneratam, uelut amoris inpetu sagittatam. Sed hic cum legimus uel audimus ultorem Dominum esse uenturum, quem ad modum haec intellegenda sint, clarum est.

[¶23] After briefly mentioning those who shall be consumed in this judgment, speaking of the wicked and sinners under the figure of the meats forbidden by the old law, from which they had not abstained, he summarily recounts the grace of the new testament, from the first coming of the Saviour to the last judgment, of which we now speak; and herewith he concludes his prophecy. For he relates that the Lord declares that He is coming to gather all nations, that they may come and witness His glory. For, as the apostle says, “All have sinned and are in want of the glory of God.” And he says that He will do wonders among them, at which they shall marvel and believe in Him; and that from them He will send forth those that are saved into various nations, and distant islands which have not heard His name nor seen His glory, and that they shall declare His glory among the nations, and shall bring the brethren of those to whom the prophet was speaking, i.e., shall bring to the faith under God the Father the brethren of the elect Israelites; and that they shall bring from all nations an offering to the Lord on beasts of burden and waggons (which are understood to mean the aids furnished by God in the shape of angelic or human ministry), to the holy city Jerusalem, which at present is scattered over the earth, in the faithful saints. For where divine aid is given, men believe, and where they believe, they come. And the Lord compared them, in a figure, to the children of Israel offering sacrifice to Him in His house with psalms, which is already everywhere done by the Church; and He promised that from among them He would choose for Himself priests and Levites, which also we see already accomplished. For we see that priests and Levites are now chosen, not from a certain family and blood, as was originally the rule in the priesthood according to the order of Aaron, but as befits the new testament, under which Christ is the High Priest after the order of Melchisedec, in consideration of the merit which is bestowed upon each man by divine grace. And these priests are not to be judged by their mere title, which is often borne by unworthy men, but by that holiness which is not common to good men and bad.

> Latin: Deinde breuiter commemoratis eis, qui per hoc iudicium consumentur, sub figura ciborum in lege uetere uetitorum, a quibus se non abstinuerunt, peccatores inpiosque significans recapitulat ab initio gratiam noui testamenti a primo Saluatoris aduentu usque ad ultimum iudicium, de quo nunc agimus, perducens finiensque sermonem. Narrat namque Dominum dicere se uenire, ut congreget omnes gentes, easque uenturas et uisuras eius gloriam. Omnes enim, sicut dicit apostolus, peccauerunt et egent gloria Dei. Et relicturum se dicit super eos signa, quae utique mirantes credant in eum: et emissurum ex illis saluatos in gentes diuersas et in longinquas insulas, quae non audierunt nomen eius neque uiderunt eius gloriam; et adnuntiaturos gloriam eius in gentibus et adducturos fratres istorum, quibus loquebatur, id est in fide sub Deo Patre fratres Israelitarum electorum; adducturos autem ex omnibus gentibus munus Domino in iumentis et uehiculis (quae iumenta et uehicula bene intel leguntur adiutoria esse diuina per cuiusque generis ministeria Dei, uel angelica uel humana) in sanctam ciuitatem Hierusalem, quae nunc in sanctis fidelibus est diffusa per terras. Ubi enim diuinitus adiuuantur, ibi credunt, et ubi credunt, ibi ueniunt. Conparauit autem illos Dominus tamquam per similitudinem filiis Israel offerentibus ei suas hostias cum psalmis in domo eius, quod ubique iam facit ecclesia: et promisit ab ipsis se accepturum sibi sacerdotes et Leuitas; quod nihilo minus fieri nunc uidemus. Non enim ex genere carnis et sanguinis, sicut erat primum secundum ordinem Aaron; sed, sicut oportebat in testamento nouo, ubi secundum ordinem Melchisedech summus sacerdos est Christus, pro cuiusque merito, quod in eum gratia diuina contulerit, sacerdotes et Leuitas eligi nunc uidemus; qui non isto nomine, quod saepe adsequuntur indigni, sed ea, quae non est bonis malisque communis, sanctitate pensandi sunt.

[¶24] After having thus spoken of this mercy of God which is now experienced by the Church, and is very evident and familiar to us, he foretells also the ends to which men shall come when the last judgment has separated the good and the bad, saying by the prophet, or the prophet himself speaking for God, “For as the new heavens and the new earth shall remain before me, said the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain, and there shall be to them month after month, and Sabbath after Sabbath. All flesh shall come to worship before me in Jerusalem, said the Lord. And they shall go out, and shall see the members of the men who have sinned against me: their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be for a spectacle to all flesh.” At this point the prophet closed his book, as at this point the world shall come to an end. Some, indeed, have translated “carcases” instead of “members of the men,” meaning by carcases the manifest punishment of the body, although carcase is commonly used only of dead flesh, while the bodies here spoken of shall be animated, else they could not be sensible of any pain; but perhaps they may, without absurdity, be called carcases, as being the bodies of those who are to fall into the second death. And for the same reason it is said, as I have already quoted, by this same prophet, “The earth of the wicked shall fall.” It is obvious that those translators who use a different word for men do not mean to include only males, for no one will say that the women who sinned shall not appear in that judgment; but the male sex, being the more worthy, and that from which the woman was derived, is intended to include both sexes. But that which is especially pertinent to our subject is this, that since the words “All flesh shall come,” apply to the good, for the people of God shall be composed of every race of men,—for all men shall not be present, since the greater part shall be in punishment,—but, as I was saying, since flesh is used of the good, and members or carcases of the bad, certainly it is thus put beyond a doubt that that judgment in which the good and the bad shall be allotted to their destinies shall take place after the resurrection of the body, our faith in which is thoroughly established by the use of these words.

> Latin: Haec cum de ista. quae nunc inpertitur ecclesiae, perspicua nobisque notissima Dei miseratione dixisset, promisit et fines, ad quos per ultimum iudicium facta bonorum malorumque discretione uenietur, dicens per prophetam, uel de Domino dicens ipse propheta: Quo modo enim caelum nouum et terra noua manebit coram me, dicit Dominus, sic stabit semen uestrum et nomen uestrum, et erit mensis ex mense et sabbatum ex sabbato. Veniet omnis caro in conspectu meo adorare in Hierusalem! dixit Dominus; et egredientur et uidebunt membra hominum, qui praeuaricati sunt in me. Vermis eorum non morietur, et ignis eorum non exstinguetur. et erunt uisui omni carni. Ad hoc iste propheta terminauit librum, ad quod terminabitur saeculum. Quidam sane non interpretati sunt: Membra hominum, sed cadauera uirorum, per cadauera significantes euidentem corporum poenam; quamuis cadauer nisi caro exanimis non soleat nuncupari, illa uero animata erunt corpora, alioquin nulla poterunt sentire tormenta; nisi forte, quia mortuorum erunt corpora, id est eorum, qui in secundam mortem cadent, ideo non absurde etiam cadauera dici possunt. Unde est et illud, quod ab eodem propheta dictum iam supra posui: Terra uero inpiorum cadet. Quis autem non uideat a cadendo esse appellata cadauera? Virorum autem pro eo posuisse illos interpretes, quod est hominum manifestum est. Neque enim quisquam dicturus est praeuaricatrices feminas in illo supplicio non futuras; sed ex potiore, praesertim de quo femina facta est, uterque sexus accipitur. Verum, quod ad rem maxime pertinet, cum et in bonis dicitur: Veniet omnis caro, quia ex omni genere hominum populus ille constabit (non enim omnes homines ibi erunt, quando in poenis plures erunt), — sed, ut dicere coeperam, cum et in bonis caro et in malis membra uel cadauera nominantur: profecto post resurrectionem carnis, cuius fides his rerum uocabulis omnino firmatur, illud, quo boni et mali suis finibus dirimentur, futurum esse iudicium declaratur.

## 102. What is Meant by the Good Going Out to See the Punishment of the Wicked.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/102/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/102/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 22.—What is Meant by the Good Going Out to See the Punishment of the Wicked.

> Latin: Caput XXII. Qualis futura sit egressio sanctorum ad uidendas poenas malorum.

[¶1] But in what way shall the good go out to see the punishment of the wicked? Are they to leave their happy abodes by a bodily movement, and proceed to the places of punishment, so as to witness the torments of the wicked in their bodily presence? Certainly not; but they shall go out by knowledge. For this expression, go out, signifies that those who shall be punished shall be without. And thus the Lord also calls these places “the outer darkness,” to which is opposed that entrance concerning which it is said to the good servant, “Enter into the joy of thy Lord,” that it may not be supposed that the wicked can enter thither and be known, but rather that the good by their knowledge go out to them, because the good are to know that which is without. For those who shall be in torment shall not know what is going on within in the joy of the Lord; but they who shall enter into that joy shall know what is going on outside in the outer darkness. Therefore it is said, “They shall go out,” because they shall know what is done by those who are without. For if the prophets were able to know things that had not yet happened, by means of that indwelling of God in their minds, limited though it was, shall not the immortal saints know things that have already happened, when God shall be all in all? The seed, then, and the name of the saints shall remain in that blessedness,—the seed, to wit, of which John says, “And his seed remaineth in him;” and the name, of which it was said through Isaiah himself, “I will give them an everlasting name.” “And there shall be to them month after month, and Sabbath after Sabbath,” as if it were said, Moon after moon, and rest upon rest, both of which they shall themselves be when they shall pass from the old shadows of time into the new lights of eternity. The worm that dieth not, and the fire that is not quenched, which constitute the punishment of the wicked, are differently interpreted by different people. For some refer both to the body, others refer both to the soul; while others again refer the fire literally to the body, and the worm figuratively to the soul, which seems the more credible idea. But the present is not the time to discuss this difference, for we have undertaken to occupy this book with the last judgment, in which the good and the bad are separated: their rewards and punishments we shall more carefully discuss elsewhere.

> Latin: Sed quo modo egredientur boni ad uidendas poenas malorum? Numquid corporis motu beatas illas relicturi sunt sedes et ad loca poenalia perrecturi, ut malorum tormenta conspiciant praesentia corporali? Absit; sed egredientur per scientiam. Hoc enim uerbo significatum est eos qui cruciabuntur extra futuros. Propter quod et Dominus ea loca tenebras exteriores uocat, quibus contrarius est ille ingressus, de quo dicitur seruo bono: Intra in gaudium Domini tui; ne illuc mali putentur ingredi, ut sciantur, sed ad illos potius uelut egredi scientia, qua eos cognituri sunt, boni, quia id quod extra est cognituri sunt. Qui enim erunt in poenis, quid agatur intus in gaudio Domini nescient; qui uero erunt in illo gaudio, quid agatur foris in illis tenebris exterioribus scient. Ideo dictum est: Egredientur, quia eos etiam qui foris ab eis erunt utique non latebunt. Si enim haec prophetae nondum facta nosse potuerunt per hoc, quod erat Deus, quantulumcumque erat, in eorum mortalium mentibus: quo modo inmortales sancti iam facta tunc nescient, cum Deus erit omnia in omnibus? Stabit ergo in illa beatitudine sanctorum semen in nomen; semen scilicet de quo Iohannes ait: Et semen eius in ipso manet; nomen uero de quo per hunc Esaiam dictum est: Nomen aeternum dabo eis Erit eis et mensis ex mense et sabbatum ex sabbato, tamquam luna ex luna et requies ex requie, quorum utrumque ipsi erunt cum ex his umbris ueteribus et temporalibus in illa lumina noua ac sempiterna transibunt. In poenis autem malorum et inexstinguibilis ignis et uiuacissimus uermis ab aliis adque aliis aliter adque aliter est expositus. Alii quippe utrumque ad corpus, alii utrumque ad animum rettulerunt; alii proprie ad corpus ignem, tropice ad animum uermem, quod esse credibilius uidetur. Sed nunc de hac differentia non est temporis disputare. De iudicio namque ultimo, quo fiet diremtio bonorum et malorum, hoc uolumen inplere suscepimus; de ipsis uero praemiis et poenis alias diligentius disserendum est.

### What Daniel Predicted Regarding the Persecution of Antichrist, the Judgment of God, and the Kingdom of the Saints.

[¶3] Chapter 23.—What Daniel Predicted Regarding the Persecution of Antichrist, the Judgment of God, and the Kingdom of the Saints.

> Latin: Caput XXIII. Quid prophetauerit Daniel de persecutione Antichristi et de iudicio Dei regnoque sanctorum.

[¶4] Daniel prophesies of the last judgment in such a way as to indicate that Antichrist shall first come, and to carry on his description to the eternal reign of the saints. For when in prophetic vision he had seen four beasts, signifying four kingdoms, and the fourth conquered by a certain king, who is recognized as Antichrist, and after this the eternal kingdom of the Son of man, that is to say, of Christ, he says, “My spirit was terrified, I Daniel in the midst of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me,” etc. Some have interpreted these four kingdoms as signifying those of the Assyrians, Persians, Macedonians, and Romans. They who desire to understand the fitness of this interpretation may read Jerome’s book on Daniel, which is written with a sufficiency of care and erudition. But he who reads this passage, even half asleep, cannot fail to see that the kingdom of Antichrist shall fiercely, though for a short time, assail the Church before the last judgment of God shall introduce the eternal reign of the saints. For it is patent from the context that the time, times, and half a time, means a year, and two years, and half a year, that is to say, three years and a half. Sometimes in Scripture the same thing is indicated by months. For though the word times seems to be used here in the Latin indefinitely, that is only because the Latins have no dual, as the Greeks have, and as the Hebrews also are said to have. Times, therefore, is used for two times. As for the ten kings, whom, as it seems, Antichrist is to find in the person of ten individuals when he comes, I own I am afraid we may be deceived in this, and that he may come unexpectedly while there are not ten kings living in the Roman world. For what if this number ten signifies the whole number of kings who are to precede his coming, as totality is frequently symbolized by a thousand, or a hundred, or seven, or other numbers, which it is not necessary to recount?

> Latin: Daniel de hoc ultimo iudicio sic prophetat, ut Antichristum quoque prius uenturum esse praenuntiet adque ad aeternum regnum sanctorum perducat narrationem suam. Cum enim uisione prophetica quattuor bestias significantes quattuor regna uidisset, ipsumque quartum a quodam rege superatum, qui Antichristus agnoscitur, et post haec aeternum regnum filii hominis, qui intellegitur Christus: Horruit, inquit, spiritus meus, ego Daniel, in habitudine mea, et uisus capitis mei conturbabant me. Et accessi, inquit, ad unum de stantibus, et ueritatem quaerebam ab eo de omnibus his, et dixit mihi ueritatem. Deinde, quid audierit ab illo, a quo de omnibus his quaesiuit, tamquam eo sibi exponente sic loquitur: Hae bestiae magnae quattuor quattuor regna surgent in terra, quae auferentur, et accipient regnum sancti Altissimi et obtinebunt illud usque in saeculum et usque in saeculum saeculorum. Et quaerebam, inquit, diligenter de bestia quarta, quae erat differens prae omni bestia, terribilis amplius — dentes eius ferrei et ungues eius aerei, manducans et comminuens et reliqua pedibus suis conculcans —, et de cornibus eius decem, quae, erant in capite eius, et de altero, quod adscendit et excussit de prioribus tria; cornu illud in quo erant oculi et os loquens magna, et uisus eius maior ceteris. Videbam, et cornu illud faciebat bellum cum sanctis, et praeualebat ad ipsos, donec uenit uetustus dierum, et regnum dedit sanctis Altissimi; et tempus peruenit, et regnum obtinuerunt sancti. Haec Daniel quaesisse se dixit. Deinde quid audierit continuo subiungens: Et dixit, inquit (id est ille, a quo quaesierat. respondit et dixit): Bestia quarta quartum regnum erit in terra, quod praeualebit omnibus regnis; et manducabit omnem terram, et conculcabit eam et con c ide t. Et decem cornua eius decem reges surgent; et post eos surget alius, qui superabit malis omnes, qui ante eum fuerunt; et tres reges humiliabit et uerba aduersus Altissimum loquetur et sanctos Altissimi conteret et suspicabitur mutare tempora et legem: et dabitur in manu eius usque ad tempus et tempora et dimidium tempus. Et iudicium sedebit, et principatum remouebunt ad exterminandum et perdendum usque in finem; et regnum et potestas et magnitudo regum, qui sub omni caelo sunt, data est sanctis Altissimi. Et regnum eius regnum sempiternum; et omnes principatus ipsi seruient et obaudient. Huc usque, inquit, finis sermonis. Ego Daniel; multum cogitationes meae conturbabant me, et forma mea inmutata est super me, et uerbum in corde meo conseruaui. Quattuor illa regna exposuerunt quidam Assyriorum, Persarum, Macedonum et Romanorum. Quam uero conuenienter id fecerint, qui nosse desiderant, legant presbyteri Hieronymi librum in Danielem satis erudite diligenterque conscriptum.

[¶5] In another place the same Daniel says, “And there shall be a time of trouble, such as was not since there was born a nation upon earth until that time: and in that time all Thy people which shall be found written in the book shall be delivered. And many of them that sleep in the mound of earth shall arise, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting confusion. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and many of the just as the stars for ever.” This passage is very similar to the one we have quoted from the Gospel, at least so far as regards the resurrection of dead bodies. For those who are there said to be “in the graves” are here spoken of as “sleeping in the mound of earth,” or, as others translate, “in the dust of earth.” There it is said, “They shall come forth;” so here, “They shall arise.” There, “They that have done good, to the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment;” here, “Some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting confusion.” Neither is it to be supposed a difference, though in place of the expression in the Gospel, “All who are in their graves,” the prophet does not say “all,” but “many of them that sleep in the mound of earth.” For many is sometimes used in Scripture for all. Thus it was said to Abraham, “I have set thee as the father of many nations,” though in another place it was said to him, “In thy seed shall all nations be blessed.” Of such a resurrection it is said a little afterwards to the prophet himself, “And come thou and rest: for there is yet a day till the completion of the consummation; and thou shall rest, and rise in thy lot in the end of the days.”

> Latin: Antichristi tamen aduersus ecclesiam saeuissimum regnum licet exiguo spatio temporis sustinendum, donec Dei ultimo iudicio regnum sancti accipiant sempiternum, qui uel dormitans haec legit, dubitare non sinitur. Tempus quippe et tempora et dimidium temporis unum annum esse et duo et dimidium ac per hoc tres annos et semissem etiam numero dierum posterius posito dilucescit, aliquando in scripturis et mensum numero declaratur. Videntur enim tempora indefinite hic dicta lingua Latina; sed per dualem numerum dicta sunt, quem Latini non habent. Sicut autem Graeci, ita hunc dicuntur habere et Hebraei. Sic ergo dicta sunt tempora, tamquam dicerentur duo tempora. Vereri me sane fateor, ne in decem regibus, quos tamquam decem homines uidetur inuenturus Antichristus, forte fallamur, adque ita [ne] ille inopinatus adueniat, non exsistentibus tot regibus in orbe Romano. Quid si enim numero isto denario uniuersitas regum significata est. post quos ille uenturus est; sicut millenario, centenario, septenario significatur plerumque uniuersitas, et aliis adque aliis numeris, quos nunc commemorare non est necesse? Alio loco idem Daniel: Et erit, inquit, tempus tribulationis, qualis non fuit ex quo nata est gens super terram usque ad tempus illud. Et in tempore illo saluabitur populus tuus omnis, qui inuentus fuerit scriptus in libro. Et multi dormientium in terrae aggere exsurgent: hi in uitam aeternam, et hi in obprobrium et in confusionem aeternam. Et intellegentes fulgebunt sicut claritas firmamenti, et ex iustis multi sicut stellae in saecula et adhuc. Sententiae illi euangelicae est locus iste simillimus de resurrectione dumtaxat corporum mortuorum. Nam qui illic dicti sunt esse in monumentis, ipsi hic dormientes in terrae aggere, uel, sicut alii interpretati sunt, in terrae puluere; et sicut ibi procedent dictum est, ita hic exsurgent; sicut ibi qui bona. fecerunt, in resurrectionem uiiae; qui autem mala egerunt, in resurrectionem iudicii: ita et isto loco hi in uitam aeternam, et hi in obprobrium et in confusionem aeternam. Non autem diuersum putetur, quod, cum ibi positum sit omnes qui sunt in monumentis, hic non ait propheta omnes, sed multi dormientium in terrae aggere. Ponit enim aliquando scriptura pro omnibus multos. Propterea et Abrahae dictum est: Patrem multarum gentium posui te, cui tamen alio loco: In semine, inquit, tuo benedicentur omnes gentes. De tali autem resurrectione huic quoque ipsi prophetae Danieli paulo post dicitur: Et tu ueni et requiesce; adhuc enim dies in conpletionem consummationis, et requiesces et resurges in sorte tua in fine dierum.

### Passages from the Psalms of David Which Predict the End of the World and the Last Judgment.

[¶7] Chapter 24.—Passages from the Psalms of David Which Predict the End of the World and the Last Judgment.

> Latin: Caput XXIV. In psalmis Dauidicis, quae de fine saeculi huius et nouissimo Dei iudicio prophetentur.

[¶8] There are many allusions to the last judgment in the Psalms, but for the most part only casual and slight. I cannot, however, omit to mention what is said there in express terms of the end of this world: “In the beginning hast Thou laid the foundations of the earth, O Lord; and the heavens are the work of Thy hands. They shall perish, but Thou shall endure; yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; and as a vesture Thou shall change them, and they shall be changed: but Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail.” Why is it that Porphyry, while he lauds the piety of the Hebrews in worshipping a God great and true, and terrible to the gods themselves, follows the oracles of these gods in accusing the Christians of extreme folly because they say that this world shall perish? For here we find it said in the sacred books of the Hebrews, to that God whom this great philosopher acknowledges to be terrible even to the gods themselves, “The heavens are the work of Thy hands; they shall perish.” When the heavens, the higher and more secure part of the world, perish, shall the world itself be preserved? If this idea is not relished by Jupiter, whose oracle is quoted by this philosopher as an unquestionable authority in rebuke of the credulity of the Christians, why does he not similarly rebuke the wisdom of the Hebrews as folly, seeing that the prediction is found in their most holy books? But if this Hebrew wisdom, with which Porphyry is so captivated that he extols it through the utterances of his own gods, proclaims that the heavens are to perish, how is he so infatuated as to detest the faith of the Christians partly, if not chiefly, on this account, that they believe the world is to perish?—though how the heavens are to perish if the world does not is not easy to see. And, indeed, in the sacred writings which are peculiar to ourselves, and not common to the Hebrews and us,—I mean the evangelic and apostolic books,—the following expressions are used: “The figure of this world passeth away;” “The world passeth away;” “Heaven and earth shall pass away,”—expressions which are, I fancy, somewhat milder than “They shall perish.” In the Epistle of the Apostle Peter, too, where the world which then was is said to have perished, being overflowed with water, it is sufficiently obvious what part of the world is signified by the whole, and in what sense the word perished is to be taken, and what heavens were kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. And when he says a little afterwards, “The day of the Lord will come as a thief; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great rush, and the elements shall melt with burning heat, and the earth and the works which are in it shall be burned up and then adds, “Seeing, then, that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be?”—these heavens which are to perish may be understood to be the same which he said were kept in store reserved for fire; and the elements which are to be burned are those which are full of storm and disturbance in this lowest part of the world in which he said that these heavens were kept in store; for the higher heavens in whose firmament are set the stars are safe, and remain in their integrity. For even the expression of Scripture, that “the stars shall fall from heaven,” not to mention that a different interpretation is much preferable, rather shows that the heavens themselves shall remain, if the stars are to fall from them. This expression, then, is either figurative, as is more credible, or this phenomenon will take place in this lowest heaven, like that mentioned by Virgil,—

> Latin: Multa de iudicio nouissimo dicuntur in psalmis, sed eorum plura transeunter et strictim. Hoc tamen quod de fine huius saeculi apertissime ibi dictum est, nequaquam silentio praeteribo. Principio terram tu fundasti, Domine, et opera manuum tuarum sunt caeli. Ipsi peribunt, tu autem permanes; et omnes sicut uestimentum ueterescent, et sicut opertorium mutabis eos, et mutabuntur: tu autem idem ipse es, et anni tui non deficient. Quid est quod Porphyrius, cum pietatem laudet Hebraeorum, qua magnus et uerus et ipsis numinibus terribilis ab eis colitur Deus, Christianos ob hoc arguit maximae stultitiae etiam ex oraculis deorum suorum, quod istum mundum dicunt esse periturum? Ecce in litteris pietatis Hebraeorum dicitur Deo. quem confitente tanto philosopho etiam ipsa numina perhorrescunt: Opera manuum tuarum sunt caeli, ipsi peribunt. Numquid quando caeli peribunt, mundus, cuius idem caeli superior pars est et tutior, non peribit? Si haec sententia Ioui displicet, cuius, ut scribit iste philosophus, uelut grauioris auctoritatis oraculo in Christianorum credulitate culpatur: quur non similiter sapientiam tamquam stultitiam culpat Hebraeorum, in quorum libris piissimis inuenitur? Porro si in illa sapientia, quae Porphyrio tam multum placet, ut eam deorum quoque suorum uocibus praedicet, legitur caelos esse perituros: quur usque adeo uana est ista fallacia, ut in fide Christianorum uel inter cetera uel prae ceteris hoc detestentur, quod in ea periturus creditur mundus, quo utique nisi pereunte caeli perire non possunt? Et in litteris quidem sacris, quae proprie nostrae sunt, non Hebraeis nobisque communes, id est in euangelicis et apostolicis libris legitur: Praeterit figura huius mundi; legitur: Mundus transit: legitur: Caelum et terra transibunt. Sed puto. quod praeterit, transit, transibunt aliquanto mitius dicta sunt quam peribunt. In epistula quoque apostoli Petri. ubi aqua inundatus qui tunc erat perisse dictus est mundus, satis clarum est, et quae pars mundi a toto significata. et quatenus perisse sit dicta, et qui caeli repositi igni reseruandi in diem iudicii et perditionis hominum inpiorum; et in eo quod paulo post ait: Veniet dies Domini ut fur, in quo caeli magno inpetu transcurrent, elementa autem ardentia resoluentur. et terra et quae in ipsa sunt opera exurentur: ac deinde subiecit: His omnibus pereuntibus quales oportet esse uos? possunt illi caeli intellegi perituri. quos dixit repositos igni reseruandos, et [ea] elementa accipi arsura. quae in hac ima mundi parte subsistunt procellosa et turbulenta, in qua eosdem caelos dixit esse repositos, saluis illis superioribus et in sua integritate manentibus, in quorum firmamento sunt sidera constituta. Nam et illud quod scriptum est, stellas de caelo esse casuras, praeter quod potest multo probabilius et aliter intellegi, magis ostendit mansuros esse illos caelos, si tamen stellae inde casurae sunt; cum uel tropica sit locutio, quod est credibilius, uel in isto imo caelo futurum sit, utique mirabilius quam nunc fit. Unde et illa stella Vergiliana facem ducens multa cum luce cucurrit, et Idaea se condidit silua.

[¶9] “A meteor with a train of light

[¶10] Athwart the sky gleamed dazzling bright,

> Latin: Hoc autem quod de psalmo commemoraui, nullum caelorum uidetur relinquere, quod periturum esse non dixerit.

[¶11] Then in Idæan woods was lost.”

[¶12] But the passage I have quoted from the psalm seems to except none of the heavens from the destiny of destruction; for he says, “The heavens are the works of Thy hands: they shall perish;” so that, as none of them are excepted from the category of God’s works, none of them are excepted from destruction. For our opponents will not condescend to defend the Hebrew piety, which has won the approbation of their gods, by the words of the Apostle Peter, whom they vehemently detest; nor will they argue that, as the apostle in his epistle understands a part when he speaks of the whole world perishing in the flood, though only the lowest part of it, and the corresponding heavens were destroyed, so in the psalm the whole is used for a part, and it is said “They shall perish,” though only the lowest heavens are to perish. But since, as I said, they will not condescend to reason thus, lest they should seem to approve of Peter’s meaning, or ascribe as much importance to the final conflagration as we ascribe to the deluge, whereas they contend that no waters or flames could destroy the whole human race, it only remains to them to maintain that their gods lauded the wisdom of the Hebrews because they had not read this psalm.

> Latin: Ubi enim dicitur: Opera manuum tuarum sunt caeli, ipsi peribunt. quam nullum eorum ab opere Dei, tam nullum eorum a perditione secernitur. Non enim dignabuntur de Petri apostoli locutione, quem uehementer oderunt, Hebraeorum defendere pietatem, deorum suorum oraculis adprobatam, ut saltem, ne totus mundus periturus esse credatur, sic a toto pars accipiatur in eo, quod dictum est: Ipsi peribunt, cum soli caeli infimi perituri sint, quem ad modum in apostolica illa epistula a toto pars accipitur, quod diluuio perisse dictus est mundus, quamuis sola eius cum suis caelis pars ima perierit. Sed quia hoc, ut dixi, non dignabuntur, ne uel apostoli Petri adprobent sensum, uel tantum concedant conflagrationi nouissimae, quantum dicimus ualuisse diluuium, qui nullis aquis, nullis flammis totum genus humanum perire posse contendunt: restat ut dicant, quod propterea di eorum Hebraeam sapientiam laudauerunt, quia istum psalmum non legerant. In psalmo etiam quadragensimo nono de iudicio Dei nouissimo intellegitur dictum: Deus manifestus ueniet, Deus noster, et non silebit.

[¶13] It is the last judgment of God which is re ferred to also in the 50th Psalm in the words, “God shall come manifestly, our God, and shall not keep silence: fire shall devour before Him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about Him. He shall call the heaven above, and the earth, to judge His people. Gather His saints together to Him; they who make a covenant with Him over sacrifices.” This we understand of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom we look for from heaven to judge the quick and the dead. For He shall come manifestly to judge justly the just and the unjust, who before came hiddenly to be unjustly judged by the unjust. He, I say, shall come manifestly, and shall not keep silence, that is, shall make Himself known by His voice of judgment, who before, when he came hiddenly, was silent before His judge when He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and, as a lamb before the shearer, opened not His mouth as we read that it was prophesied of Him by Isaiah, and as we see it fulfilled in the Gospel. As for the fire and tempest, we have already said how these are to be interpreted when we were explaining a similar passage in Isaiah. As to the expression, “He shall call the heaven above,” as the saints and the righteous are rightly called heaven, no doubt this means what the apostle says, “We shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air.” For if we take the bare literal sense, how is it possible to call the heaven above, as if the heaven could be anywhere else than above? And the following expression, “And the earth to judge His people,” if we supply only the words, “He shall call,” that is to say, “He shall call the earth also,” and do not supply “above,” seems to give us a meaning in accordance with sound doctrine, the heaven symbolizing those who will judge along with Christ, and the earth those who shall be judged; and thus the words, “He shall call the heaven above,” would not mean, “He shall catch up into the air,” but “He shall lift up to seats of judgment.” Possibly, too, “He shall call the heaven,” may mean, He shall call the angels in the high and lofty places, that He may descend with them to do judgment; and “He shall call the earth also” would then mean, He shall call the men on the earth to judgment. But if with the words “and the earth” we understand not only “He shall call,” but also “above,” so as to make the full sense be, He shall call the heaven above, and He shall call the earth above, then I think it is best understood of the men who shall be caught up to meet Christ in the air, and that they are called the heaven with reference to their souls, and the earth with reference to their bodies. Then what is “to judge His people,” but to separate by judgment the good from the bad, as the sheep from the goats? Then he turns to address the angels: “Gather His saints together unto Him.” For certainly a matter so important must be accomplished by the ministry of angels. And if we ask who the saints are who are gathered unto Him by the angels, we are told, “They who make a covenant with Him over sacrifices.” This is the whole life of the saints, to make a covenant with God over sacrifices. For “over sacrifices” either refers to works of mercy, which are preferable to sacrifices in the judgment of God, who says, “I desire mercy more than sacrifices,” or if “over sacrifices” means in sacrifices, then these very works of mercy are the sacrifices with which God is pleased, as I remember to have stated in the tenth book of this work; and in these works the saints make a covenant with God, because they do them for the sake of the promises which are contained in His new testament or covenant. And hence, when His saints have been gathered to Him and set at His right hand in the last judgment, Christ shall say, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, take possession of the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat,” and so on, mentioning the good works of the good, and their eternal rewards assigned by the last sentence of the Judge.

> Latin: Ignis in conspectu eius ardebit, et in circuitu eius tempestas ualida. Aduocabit caelum sursum et terram discernere populum suum. Congregate illi iustos eius, qui disponunt testamento eius super sacrificia. Hoc nos de Domino Iesu Christo intellegimus, quem speramus de caelo esse uenturum ad uiuos et mortuos iudicandos. Manifestus enim ueniet inter iustos et iniustos iudicaturus iuste, qui prius uenit occultus ab iniustis iudicandus iniuste. Ipse, inquam, manifestus ueniet et non silebit, id est, in uoce iudicis euidens apparebit, qui prius cum uenisset occultus, ante iudicem siluit, quando sicut ouis ad immolandum ductus est et sicut agnus coram tondente fuit sine uoce, quem ad modum de illo per Esaiam legimus prophetatum et in euangelio uidemus inpletum. De igne uero et tempestate, cum in Esaiae prophetia tale aliquid tractaremus, quo modo essent haec intellegenda, iam diximus. Quod uero dictum est: Aduocabit caelum sursum: quoniam sancti et iusti recte caelum appellantur, nimirum hoc est, quod ait apostolus: Simul cum illis rapiemur in nubibus in obuiam Christo in aera. Nam secundum litterae superficiem, quo modo aduocatur caelum sursum, quasi possit esse nisi sursum? Quod autem adiunctum est: Et terram discernere populum suum, si tantummodo subaudiatur aduocabit, id est aduocabit et terram, nec subaudiatur sursum, hunc uidetur habere sensum secundum rectam fidem, ut caelum intellegatur in eis, qui cum illo iudicaturi sunt, et terra in eis, qui iudicandi sunt; ut aduocabit caelum sursum non hic intellegamus ‘rapiet in aera’, sed ‘in iudiciarias eriget sedes’. Potest et illud intellegi aduocabit caelum sursum ‘aduocabit angelos in supernis et excelsis locis, cum quibus descendat ad faciendum iudicium’; aduocabit et terram, id est homines in terra utique iudicandos. Si autem utrumque subaudiendum est, cum dicitur et terram, id est et aduocabit. et sursum, ut iste sit sensus: Aduocabit caelum sursum, et terram aduocabit sursum: nihil melius intellegi existimo quam omnes qui rapientur in obuiam Christo in aera, sed caelum dictum propter animas, terram propter corpora. Discernere porro populum suum, quid est nisi per iudicium separare bonos a malis, tamquam oues ab haedis? Deinde conuersio sermonis ad angelos facta est: Congregate illi iustos eius; profecto enim per angelicum ministerium res tanta peragenda est. Si autem quaerimus, quos iustos ei congregaturi sunt angeli: Qui disponunt, inquit, testamentum eius super sacrificia. Haec est omnis uita iustorum: disponere testamentum Dei super sacrificia. Aut enim opera misericordiae sunt super sacrificia, id est sacrificiis praeponenda, iuxta sententiam Dei dicentis: Misericordiam uolo quam sacrificium; aut si super sacrificia (in sacrificiis) intellegitur dictum, quo modo super terram fieri dicitur quod fit utique in terra: profecto ipsa opera misericordiae sunt sacrificia, quibus placetur Deo, sicut in libro huius operis decimo me disseruisse reminiscor; in quibus operibus disponunt iusti testamentum Dei, quia propter promissiones, quae nouo eius testamento continentur, haec faciunt. Unde congregatis sibi iustis suis et ad suam dexteram constitutis nouissimo utique iudicio dicturus est Christus: Venite, benedicti patris mei, possidete paratum uobis regnum a constitutione mundi. Esuriui enim, et dedistis mihi manducare. et cetera quae ibi proferuntur de bonorum operibus bonis et eorum praemiis sempiternis per ultimam sententiam iudicantis.

### Of Malachi’s Prophecy, in Which He Speaks of the Last Judgment, and of a Cleansing Which Some are to Undergo by Purifying Punishments.

[¶15] Chapter 25.—Of Malachi’s Prophecy, in Which He Speaks of the Last Judgment, and of a Cleansing Which Some are to Undergo by Purifying Punishments.

> Latin: Caput XXV. De prophetia Malachielis, qua Dei iudicium ultimum declaratur et quorundam dicitur per purificatorias poenas facienda mundatio.

[¶16] The prophet Malachi or Malachias, who is also called Angel, and is by some (for Jerome tells us that this is the opinion of the Hebrews) identified with Ezra the priest, others of whose writings have been received into the canon, predicts the last judgment, saying, “Behold, He cometh, saith the Lord Almighty; and who shall abide the day of His entrance? . . . for I am the Lord your God, and I change not.” From these words it more evidently appears that some shall in the last judgment suffer some kind of purgatorial punishments; for what else can be understood by the word, “Who shall abide the day of His entrance, or who shall be able to look upon Him? for He enters as a moulder’s fire, and as the herb of fullers: and He shall sit fusing and purifying as if over gold and silver: and He shall purify the sons of Levi, and pour them out like gold and silver?” Similarly Isaiah says, “The Lord shall wash the filthiness of the sons and daughters of Zion, and shall cleanse away the blood from their midst, by the spirit of judgment and by the spirit of burning.” Unless perhaps we should say that they are cleansed from filthiness and in a manner clarified, when the wicked are separated from them by penal judgment, so that the elimination and damnation of the one party is the purgation of the others, because they shall henceforth live free from the contamination of such men. But when he says, “And he shall purify the sons of Levi, and pour them out like gold and silver, and they shall offer to the Lord sacrifices in righteousness; and the sacrifices of Judah and Jerusalem shall be pleasing to the Lord,” he declares that those who shall be purified shall then please the Lord with sacrifices of righteousness, and consequently they themselves shall be purified from their own unrighteousness which made them displeasing to God. Now they themselves, when they have been purified, shall be sacrifices of complete and perfect righteousness; for what more acceptable offering can such persons make to God than themselves? But this question of purgatorial punishments we must defer to another time, to give it a more adequate treatment. By the sons of Levi and Judah and Jerusalem we ought to understand the Church herself, gathered not from the Hebrews only, but from other nations as well; nor such a Church as she now is, when “if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us,” but as she shall then be, purged by the last judgment as a threshing-floor by a winnowing wind, and those of her members who need it being cleansed by fire, so that there remains absolutely not one who offers sacrifice for his sins. For all who make such offerings are assuredly in their sins, for the remission of which they make offerings, that having made to God an acceptable offering, they may then be absolved.

> Latin: Propheta Malachiel siue Malachi, qui et angelus dictus est, qui etiam Esdras sacerdos, cuius alia in canonem scripta recepta sunt, ab aliquibus creditur (nam de illo hanc esse Hebraeorum opinionem dicit Hieronymus), iudicium nouissimum prophetat dicens: Ecce uenit, dicit Dominus omnipotens; et quis sustinebit diem introitus -eius, aut quis ferre poterit ut adspiciat eum? Quia ipse ingreditur quasi ignis conflatorii et quasi herba lauantium; et sedebit conflans et emundans sicut argentum et sicut aurum, et emundabit filios Leui, et fundet eos sicut aurum et argentum; et erunt Domino offerentes hostias in iustitia, et placebit Domino sacrificium Iudae et Hierusalem, sicut diebus pristinis et sicut annis prioribus. Et accedam ad uos in iudicio, et ero testis uelox super maleficos et super adulteros et super eos, qui iurant in nomine meo mendaciter, et qui fraudant mercedem mercennario et obprimunt per potentiam uiduas et percutiunt pupillos et peruertunt iudicium aduenae, et qui non timent me, dicit Dominus omnipotens; quoniam ego Dominus Deus uester, et non mutor. Ex his quae dicta sunt uidetur euidentius apparere in illo iudicio quasdam quorundam purgatorias poenas futuras. Ubi enim dicitur: Quis sustinebit diem introitus eius, aut quis ferre poterit, ut adspiciat eum? Quia ipse ingreditur quasi ignis conflatorii et quasi herba lauantium; et sedebit conflans et emundans sicut argentum et sicut aurum et emundabit filios Leui, et fundet eos sicut aurum et argentum: quid aliud intellegendum est? Dicit tale aliquid et Esaias: Lauabit Dominus sordes filiorum et filiarum Sion, et sanguinem emundabit de medio eorum spiritu iudicii et spiritu combustionis. Nisi forte sic eos dicendum est emundari a sordibus et eliquari quodam modo, cum ab eis mali per poenale iudicium separantur, ut illorum segregatio adque damnatio purgatio sit istorum, quia sine talium de cetero permixtione uicturi sunt. Sed cum dicit: Et emundabit filios Leui et fundet eos sicut aurum et argentum; et erunt Domino offerentes hostias in iustitia, et placebit Domino sacrificium Iudae et Hierusalem, utique ostendit eos ipsos, qui emundabuntur, deinceps in sacrificiis iustitiae Domino esse placituros, ac per hoc ipsi a sua iniustitia mundabuntur, in qua Domino displicebant. Hostiae porro in plena perfectaque iustitia, cum mundati fuerint, ipsi erunt. Quid enim acceptius Deo tales offerunt quam se ipsos? Verum ista quaestio de purgatoriis poenis, ut diligentius pertractetur, in tempus aliud differenda est. Filios autem Leui et ludam et Hierusalem ipsam Dei ecclesiam debemus accipere, non ex Hebraeis tantum, sed ex aliis etiam gentibus congregatam; nec talem, qualis nunc est, ubi, si dixerimus, quia peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus, et ueritas in nobis non est; sed qualis tunc erit, uelut area per uentilationem, ita per iudicium purgata nouissimum, eis quoque igne mundatis, quibus talis mundatio necessaria est, ita ut nullus omnino sit, qui offerat sacrificium pro peccatis suis. Omnes enim qui sic offerunt, profecto in peccatis sunt, pro quibus dimittendis offerunt, ut, cum obtulerint acceptumque Deo fuerit, tunc dimittantur.

### Of the Sacrifices Offered to God by the Saints, Which are to Be Pleasing to Him, as in the Primitive Days and Former Years.

[¶18] Chapter 26.—Of the Sacrifices Offered to God by the Saints, Which are to Be Pleasing to Him, as in the Primitive Days and Former Years.

> Latin: Caput XXVI. De sacri’ficiis, quae sancti offerent Deo sic placitura. quo modo in diebus pristinis et annis prioribus placuerunt.

[¶19] And it was with the design of showing that His city shall not then follow this custom, that God said that the sons of Levi should offer sacrifices in righteousness,—not therefore in sin, and consequently not for sin. And hence we see how vainly the Jews promise themselves a return of the old times of sacrificing according to the law of the old testament, grounding on the words which follow, “And the sacrifice of Judah and Jerusalem shall be pleasing to the Lord, as in the primitive days, and as in former years.” For in the times of the law they offered sacrifices not in righteousness but in sins, offering especially and primarily for sins, so much so that even the priest himself, whom we must suppose to have been their most righteous man, was accustomed to offer, according to God’s commandments, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. And therefore we must explain how we are to understand the words, “as in the primitive days, and as in former years;” for perhaps he alludes to the time in which our first parents were in paradise. Then, indeed, intact and pure from all stain and blemish of sin, they offered themselves to God as the purest sacrifices. But since they were banished thence on account of their transgression, and human nature was condemned in them, with the exception of the one Mediator and those who have been baptized, and are as yet infants, “there is none clean from stain, not even the babe whose life has been but for a day upon the earth.” But if it be replied that those who offer in faith may be said to offer in righteousness, because the righteous lives by faith,—he deceives himself, however, if he says that he has no sin, and therefore he does not say so, because he lives by faith,—will any man say this time of faith can be placed on an equal footing with that consummation when they who offer sacrifices in righteousness shall be purified by the fire of the last judgment? And consequently, since it must be believed that after such a cleansing the righteous shall retain no sin, assuredly that time, so far as regards its freedom from sin, can be compared to no other period, unless to that during which our first parents lived in paradise in the most innocent happiness before their transgression. It is this period, then, which is properly understood when it is said, “as in the primitive days, and as in former years.” For in Isaiah, too, after the new heavens and the new earth have been promised, among other elements in the blessedness of the saints which are there depicted by allegories and figures, from giving an adequate explanation of which I am prevented by a desire to avoid prolixity, it is said, “According to the days of the tree of life shall be the days of my people.” And who that has looked at Scripture does not know where God planted the tree of life, from whose fruit He excluded our first parents when their own iniquity ejected them from paradise, and round which a terrible and fiery fence was set?

> Latin: Volens autem Deus ostendere ciuitatem suam tunc in ista consuetudine non futuram dixit filios Leui oblaturos hostias in iustitia; non ergo in peccato ac per hoc non pro peccato. Unde intellegi potest in eo quod secutus adiunxit adque ait: Et placebit Domino sacrificium Iudae et Hierusalem. sicut diebus pristinis et sicut annis prioribus, frustra sibi Iudaeos secundum legem ueteris testamenti sacrificiorum suorum praeterita tempora polliceri. Non enim tunc in iustitia, sed in peccatis hostias offerebant, quando pro peccatis praecipue ac primitus offerebant, usque adeo ut sacerdos ipse. quem debemus utique credere ceteris fuisse iustiorem, secundum Dei mandatum soleret pro suis primum offerre peccatis. deinde pro populi. Quapropter exponere nos oportet, quo modo sit accipiendum quod dictum est: Sicut diebus pristinis et sicut annis prioribus. Fortassis enim tempus illud commemorat, quo primi homines in paradiso fuerunt. Tunc enim puri adque integri ab omni sorde ac labe peccati se ipsos Deo mundissimas hostias offerebant; ceterum ex quo commissae praeuaricationis causa inde dimissi sunt adque humana in eis natura damnata est, excepto uno Mediatore et post lauacrum regenerationis quibusque adhuc paruulis nemo mundus a sorde, sicut scriptum est, nec infans. cuius est unius diei uita super terram. Quod si respondetur etiam eos merito dici posse offerre hostias in iustitia, qui offerunt in fide (iustus enim ex fide uiuit; quamuis se ipsum seducat, si dixerit se non habere peccatum, et ideo non dicat, quia ex fide uiuit): numquid dicturus est quispiam hoc fidei tempus illi fini esse coaequandum, quando igne iudicii nouissimi mundabuntur, qui offerant hostias in iustitia? Ac per hoc quoniam post talem mundationem nullum peccatum iustos habituros esse credendum est, profecto illud tempus, quantum adtinet ad non habere peccatum, nulli tempori conparandum est, nisi quando primi homines in paradiso ante praeuaricationem innocentissima felicitate uixerunt. Recte itaque intellegitur hoc significatum esse, cum dictum est: Sicut diebus pristinis et sicut annis prioribus. Nam et per Esaiam postea quam caelum nouum et terra noua promissa est, inter cetera, quae ibi de sanctorum beatitudine per allegorias et aenigmata exsequitur, quibus expositionem congruam reddere nos prohibuit uitandae longitudinis cura: Secundum dies, inquit, ligni uitae erunt dies populi mei. Quis autem sacras litteras adtigit et ignorat ubi Deus plantauerit lignum uitae, a cuius cibo separatis illis hominibus, quando eos sua de paradiso eiecit iniquitas, eidem ligno circumposita est ignea terribilisque custodia?

[¶20] But if any one contends that those days of the tree of life mentioned by the prophet Isaiah are the present times of the Church of Christ, and that Christ Himself is prophetically called the Tree of Life, because He is Wisdom, and of wisdom Solomon says, “It is a tree of life to all who embrace it;” and if they maintain that our first parents did not pass years in paradise, but were driven from it so soon that none of their children were begotten there, and that therefore that time cannot be alluded to in words which run, “as in the primitive days, and as in former years,” I forbear entering on this question, lest by discussing everything I become prolix, and leave the whole subject in uncertainty. For I see another meaning, which should keep us from believing that a restoration of the primitive days and former years of the legal sacrifices could have been promised to us by the prophet as a great boon. For the animals selected as victims under the old law were required to be immaculate, and free from all blemish whatever, and symbolized holy men free from all sin, the only instance of which character was found in Christ. As, therefore, after the judgment those who are worthy of such purification shall be purified even by fire, and shall be rendered thoroughly sinless, and shall offer themselves to God in righteousness, and be indeed victims immaculate and free from all blemish whatever, they shall then certainly be, “as in the primitive days, and as in former years,” when the purest victims were offered, the shadow of this future reality. For there shall then be in the body and soul of the saints the purity which was symbolized in the bodies of these victims.

> Latin: Quod si quisquam illos dies ligni uitae, quos commemorauit propheta Esaias, istos qui nunc aguntur ecclesiae Christi dies esse contendit ipsumque Christum lignum uitae prophetice dictum, quia ipse est sapientia Dei, de qua Salomon ait: Lignum uitae est omnibus amplectentibus eam; nec annos egisse aliquos in paradiso illos primos homines, unde tam cito eiecti sunt, ut nullum ibi gignerent filium, et ideo non posse illud tempus intellegi in eo quod dictum est: Sicut diebus pristinis et sicut annis prioribus: istam praetereo quaestionem, ne cogar, quod prolixum est, cuncta discutere, ut aliquid horum ueritas manifesta confirmet. Video quippe alterum sensum, ne dies pristinos et annos priores carnalium sacrificiorum nobis pro magno munere per prophetam promissos fuisse credamus. Hostiae namque illae ueteris legis in quibusque pecoribus inmaculatae ac sine ullo prorsus uitio iubebantur offerri, et significabant homines sanctos, qualis solus inuentus est Christus, sine ullo omnino peccato. Proinde quia post iudicium, cum fuerint etiam igne mundati, qui eius modi mundatione sunt digni, in omnibus sanctis nullum inuenietur omnino peccatum, adque ita se ipsos offerent in iustitia, ut tales hostiae omni modo inmaculatae ac sine ullo uitio sint futurae, erunt profecto sicut pristinis diebus et sicut annis prioribus, quando in umbra huius rei futurae mundissimae offerebantur hostiae. Haec erit namque munditia tunc in inmortali carne ac mente sanctorum, quae figurabatur in illarum corporibus hostiarum.

[¶21] Then, with reference to those who are worthy not of cleansing but of damnation, He says, “And I will draw near to you to judgment, and I will be a swift witness against evildoers and against adulterers;” and after enumerating other damnable crimes, He adds, “For I am the Lord your God, and I am not changed.” It is as if He said, Though your fault has changed you for the worse, and my grace has changed you for the better, I am not changed. And he says that He Himself will be a witness, because in His judgment He needs no witnesses; and that He will be “swift,” either because He is to come suddenly, and the judgment which seemed to lag shall be very swift by His unexpected arrival, or because He will convince the consciences of men directly and without any prolix harangue. “For,” as it is written, “in the thoughts of the wicked His examination shall be conducted.” And the apostle says, “The thoughts accusing or else excusing, in the day in which God shall judge the hidden things of men, according to my gospel in Jesus Christ.” Thus, then, shall the Lord be a swift witness, when He shall suddenly bring back into the memory that which shall convince and punish the conscience.

> Latin: Deinde propter eos, qui non mundatione, sed damnatione sunt digni: Et accedam, inquit. ad uos in iudicium, et ero testis uelox super maleficos et super adulteros. et cetera, quibus damnabilibus enumeratis criminibus addidit: Quoniam ego Dominus Deus uester, et non mutor; tamquam diceret: ‘Cum uos mutauerit et in deterius culpa uestra et in melius gratia mea, ego non mutor.’ Testem uero se dicit futurum, quia in iudicio suo non indiget testibus, eumque uelocem, siue quia repente uenturus est eritque iudicium ipso inopinato eius aduentu celerrimum, quod tardissimum uidebatur, siue quia ipsas conuincet sine ulla sermonis prolixitate conscientias. In cogitationibus enim, sicut scriptum est, inpii interrogatio erit; et apostolus: Cogitationibus, inquit, accusantibus uel etiam eicusantibus in die, qua iudicabit Deus occulta hominum secundum euangelium meum per legum Christum. Etiam sic ergo Dominus futurus testis intellegendus est uelox, cum sine mora reuocaturus est in memoriam, unde conuincat puniatque conscientiam.

### Of the Separation of the Good and the Bad, Which Proclaim the Discriminating Influence of the Last Judgment.

[¶23] Chapter 27.—Of the Separation of the Good and the Bad, Which Proclaim the Discriminating Influence of the Last Judgment.

> Latin: Caput XXVII. De separatione bonorum et malorum, per quam nouissimi iudicii discretio declaratur.

[¶24] The passage also which I formerly quoted for another purpose from this prophet refers to the last judgment, in which he says, “They shall be mine, saith the Lord Almighty, in the day in which I make up my gains,” etc. When this diversity between the rewards and punishments which distinguish the righteous from the wicked shall appear under that Sun of righteousness in the brightness of life eternal,—a diversity which is not discerned under this sun which shines on the vanity of this life,—there shall then be such a judgment as has never before been.

> Latin: • Illud etiam, quod aliud agens in octauo decimo libro ex isto propheta posui, ad iudicium nouissimum pertinet, ubi ait: Erunt mihi, dicit Dominus omnipotens, in die qua ego facio in adquisitionem, et eligam eos sicut eligit homo filium suum qui seruit ei; et conuertar et uidebitis quid sit inter iustum et iniquum, et inter seruientem Deo et eum qui non seruit ei. Quia ecce dies uenit ardens sicut clibanus et conburet eos, et erunt omnes alienigenae et uniuersi, qui faciunt iniquitatem, stipula, et succendet eos dies ueniens, dicit Dominus omnipotens, et non relinquetur in eis radix neque ramus. Et orietur uobis, qui timetis nomen meum, sol iustitiae, et sanitas in pinnis eius, et egrediemini et salietis sicut uituli de uinculis relaxati; et conculcabitis iniquos, et erunt cinis sub pedibus uestris, dicit Dominus omnipotens. Haec distantia praemiorum adque poenarum iustos dirimens ab iniustis, quae sub isto sole in huius uitae uanitate non cernitur, quando sub illo sole iustitiae in illius uitae manifestatione clarebit, tunc profecto erit iudicium quale numquam fuit.

## 103. That the Law of Moses Must Be Spiritually Understood to Preclude the Damnable Murmurs of a Carnal Interpretation.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/103/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/103/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 28.—That the Law of Moses Must Be Spiritually Understood to Preclude the Damnable Murmurs of a Carnal Interpretation.

> Latin: Caput XXVIII. De lege Moysi spiritaliter intellegenda, ne in damnabilia murmura carnalis sensus incurrat.

[¶1] In the succeeding words, “Remember the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded to him in Horeb for all Israel,” the prophet opportunely mentions precepts and statutes, after declaring the important distinction hereafter to be made between those who observe and those who despise the law. He intends also that they learn to interpret the law spiritually, and find Christ in it, by whose judgment that separation between the good and the bad is to be made. For it is not without reason that the Lord Himself says to the Jews, “Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.” For by receiving the law carnally without perceiving that its earthly promises were figures of things spiritual, they fell into such murmur ings as audaciously to say, “It is vain to serve God; and what profit is it that we have kept His ordinance, and that we have walked suppliantly before the face of the Lord Almighty? And now we call aliens happy; yea, they that work wickedness are set up.” It was these words of theirs which in a manner compelled the prophet to announce the last judgment, in which the wicked shall not even in appearance be happy, but shall manifestly be most miserable; and in which the good shall be oppressed with not even a transitory wretchedness, but shall enjoy unsullied and eternal felicity. For he had previously cited some similar expressions of those who said, “Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and such are pleasing to Him.” It was, I say, by understanding the law of Moses carnally that they had come to murmur thus against God. And hence, too, the writer of the 73d Psalm says that his feet were almost gone, his steps had well-nigh slipped, because he was envious of sinners while he considered their prosperity, so that he said among other things, How doth God know, and is there knowledge in the Most High? and again, Have I sanctified my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency? He goes on to say that his efforts to solve this most difficult problem, which arises when the good seem to be wretched and the wicked happy, were in vain until he went into the sanctuary of God, and understood the last things. For in the last judgment things shall not be so; but in the manifest felicity of the righteous and manifest misery of the wicked quite another state of things shall appear.

> Latin: Quod uero subiungit idem propheta: Mementote legis Moysi serui mei, quam mandaui ei in Choreb ad omnem Israel, praecepta et iudicia opportune commemorat post declaratum futurum tam magnum inter obseruatores legis contemtoresque discrimen; simul etiam ut discant legem spiritaliter intellegere et inueniant in ea Christum, per quem iudicem facienda est inter bonos et malos ipsa discretio. Non enim frustra idem Dominus aitludaeis: Si crederetis Moysi, crederetis et mihi; de me enim ille scripsit. Carnaliter ■ quippe accipiendo legem et eius promissa terrena rerum caelestium figuras esse nescientes in illa murmura conruerunt. ut dicere auderent: Vanus est qui seruit Deo, et quid amplius, quia custodiuimus mandata eius et quia ambulauimus supplices ante faciem Domini omnipotentis? Et nunc nos beatos dicimus alienos, et aedificantur omnes qui faciunt iniquitatem. Quibus eorum uerbis quodam modo propheta conpulsus est nouissimum praenuntiare iudicium, ubi mali nec saltem falso sint beati. sed apertissime miserrimi appareant, et boni nulla temporali saltem miseria laborent, sed clara ac sempiterna beatitudine perfruantur. Dixerat quippe istorum talia quaedam uerba etiam superius dicentium: Omnis, qui facit malum, bonus est in conspectu Domini, et tales ei placent. Ad haec, inquam, contra Deum murmura peruenerunt legem Moysi accipiendo carnaliter. Unde et ille in psalmo septuagensimo secundo paene commotos dicit fuisse pedes suos et effusos gressus suos, utique in lapsum, quia zelauit in peccatoribus, pacem peccatorum intuens; ita ut inter cetera diceret: Quo modo sciuit Deus, et si est scientia in Altissimo? diceret etiam: Numquid uano iustificaui cor meum et laui in innocentibus manus meas? Ut autem solueret hanc difficillimam quaestionem, quae fit, cum uidentur boni esse miseri et felices mali: Hoc, inquit, labor est ante me, donec introeam in sanctuarium Dei et intellegam in nouissima. Iudicio quM)e nouissimo non sic erit; sed in aperta iniquorum miseria et aperta felicitate iustorum longe quam nunc est aliud apparebit.

### Of the Coming of Elias Before the Judgment, that the Jews May Be Converted to Christ by His Preaching and Explanation of Scripture.

[¶3] Chapter 29.—Of the Coming of Elias Before the Judgment, that the Jews May Be Converted to Christ by His Preaching and Explanation of Scripture.

> Latin: Caput XXIX. De aduentu Heliae ante iudicium, cuius praedicatione scripturarum secreta reserante Iudaei conuertentur ad Christum.

[¶4] After admonishing them to give heed to the law of Moses, as he foresaw that for a long time to come they would not understand it spiritually and rightly, he went on to say, “And, behold, I will send to you Elias the Tishbite before the great and signal day of the Lord come: and he shall turn the heart of the father to the son, and the heart of a man to his next of kin, lest I come and utterly smite the earth.” It is a familiar theme in the conversation and heart of the faithful, that in the last days before the judgment the Jews shall believe in the true Christ, that is, our Christ, by means of this great and admirable prophet Elias who shall expound the law to them. For not without reason do we hope that before the coming of our Judge and Saviour Elias shall come, because we have good reason to believe that he is now alive; for, as Scripture most distinctly informs us, he was taken up from this life in a chariot of fire. When, therefore, he is come, he shall give a spiritual explanation of the law which the Jews at present understand carnally, and shall thus “turn the heart of the father to the son,” that is, the heart of fathers to their children; for the Septuagint translators have frequently put the singular for the plural number. And the meaning is, that the sons, that is, the Jews, shall understand the law as the fathers, that is, the prophets, and among them Moses himself, understood it. For the heart of the fathers shall be turned to their children when the children understand the law as their fathers did; and the heart of the children shall be turned to their fathers when they have the same sentiments as the fathers. The Septuagint used the expression, “and the heart of a man to his next of kin,” because fathers and children are eminently neighbors to one another. Another and a preferable sense can be found in the words of the Septuagint translators, who have translated Scripture with an eye to prophecy, the sense, viz., that Elias shall turn the heart of God the Father to the Son, not certainly as if he should bring about this love of the Father for the Son, but meaning that he should make it known, and that the Jews also, who had previously hated, should then love the Son who is our Christ. For so far as regards the Jews, God has His heart turned away from our Christ, this being their conception about God and Christ. But in their case the heart of God shall be turned to the Son when they themselves shall turn in heart, and learn the love of the Father towards the Son. The words following, “and the heart of a man to his next of kin,”—that is, Elias shall also turn the heart of a man to his next of kin,—how can we understand this better than as the heart of a man to the man Christ? For though in the form of God He is our God, yet, taking the form of a servant, He condescended to become also our next of kin. It is this, then, which Elias will do, “lest,” he says, “I come and smite the earth utterly.” For they who mind earthly things are the earth. Such are the carnal Jews until this day; and hence these murmurs of theirs against God, “The wicked are pleasing to Him,” and “It is a vain thing to serve God.”

> Latin: Cum autem admonuisset, ut meminissent legis Moysi (quoniam praeuidebat eos multo adhuc tempore non eam spiritaliter, sicut oportuerat, accepturos), continuo subiecit? Et ecce ego mittam uobis Heliam Thesbiten, antequam ueniat dies Domini magnus et inlustris, qui conuertet cor patris ad filium et cor hominis ad proximum suum, ne forte ueniens percutiam terram penitus. Per hunc Heliam magnum mirabilemque prophetam exposita sibi lege ultimo tempore ante iudicium Iudaeos in Christum uerum, id est in Christum nostrum, esse credituros, celeberrimum est in sermonibus cordibusque fidelium. Ipse quippe ante aduentum iudicis Saluatoris non inmerito speratur esse uenturus, quia etiam nunc uiuere non inmerito creditur. Curru namque igneo raptus est de rebus humanis, quod euidentissime sancta scriptura testatur. Cum uenerit ergo, exponendo legem spiritaliter, quam nunc Iudaei carnaliter sapiunt, conuertet cor patris ad filium, id est cor patrum ad filios: singularem quippe pro numero plurali interpretes septuaginta posuerunt; et est sensus, ut etiam filii sic intellegant legem, id est Iudaei, quem ad modum eam patres intellexerunt. id est prophetae, in quibus erat et ipse Moyses; sic enim cor patrum conuertetur ad filios, cum intellegentia patrum perducetur ad intellegentiam filiorum; et cor filiorum ad patres eorum, dum in id, quod senserunt illi, consentiunt et isti ; ubi Septuaginta dixerunt: Et cor hominis ad proximum s u u m. Sunt enim inter se ualde proximi patres et filii. Quamquam in uerbis septuaginta interpretum, qui prophetice interpretati sunt. potest alius sensus idemque electior inueniri. ut intellegatur Helias cor Dei Patris conuersurus ad Filium: non utique agendo ut Pater diligat Filium, sed docendo quod Pater diligat Filium; ut et Iudaei, quem prius oderant, diligant eundem, qui noster est, Christum. Iudaeis enim nunc auersum cor habet Deus a Christo nostro, quia hoc putant. Eis ergo tunc cor eius conuertetur ad Filium, cum ipsi conuerso corde didicerint dilectionem Patris in Filium. Quod uero sequitur: Et cor hominis ad proximum suum, id est, conuertet Helias et cor hominis ad proximum suum: quid melius intellegitur quam cor hominis ad hominem Christum? Cum enim sit in forma Dei Deus noster, formam serui accipiens esse dignatus est etiam proximus noster. Hoc ergo faciet Helias. Ne forte, inquit, ueniam et percutiam terram penitus. Terra sunt enim, qui terrena sapiunt, sicut Iudaei carnales usque nunc; ex quo uitio contra Deum murmura illa uenerunt: Quia mali ei placent, et: Vanus est qui seruit Deo.

### That in the Books of the Old Testament, Where It is Said that God Shall Judge the World, the Person of Christ is Not Explicitly Indicated, But It Plainly Appears from Some Passages in Which the Lord God Speaks that Christ is Meant.

[¶6] Chapter 30.—That in the Books of the Old Testament, Where It is Said that God Shall Judge the World, the Person of Christ is Not Explicitly Indicated, But It Plainly Appears from Some Passages in Which the Lord God Speaks that Christ is Meant.

> Latin: Caput XXX. Quod in libris ueteris testamenti, cum Deus legitur iudicaturus, non euidenter Christi persona monstretur, sed ex quibusdam testimoniis, ubi Dominus Deus loquitur, appareat non dubie, quod ipse sit Christus.

[¶7] There are many other passages of Scripture bearing on the last judgment of God,—so many, indeed, that to cite them all would swell this book to an unpardonable size. Suffice it to have proved that both Old and New Testament enounce the judgment. But in the Old it is not so definitely declared as in the New that the judgment shall be administered by Christ, that is, that Christ shall descend from heaven as the Judge; for when it is therein stated by the Lord God or His prophet that the Lord God shall come, we do not necessarily understand this of Christ. For both the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the Lord God. We must not, however, leave this without proof. And therefore we must first show how Jesus Christ speaks in the prophetical books under the title of the Lord God, while yet there can be no doubt that it is Jesus Christ who speaks; so that in other passages where this is not at once apparent, and where nevertheless it is said that the Lord God will come to that last judgment, we may understand that Jesus Christ is meant. There is a passage in the prophet Isaiah which illustrates what I mean. For God says by the prophet, “Hear me, Jacob and Israel, whom I call. I am the first, and I am for ever: and my hand has founded the earth, and my right hand has established the heaven. I will call them, and they shall stand together, and be gathered, and hear. Who has declared to them these things? In love of thee I have done thy pleasure upon Babylon, that I might take away the seed of the Chaldeans. I have spoken, and I have called: I have brought him, and have made his way prosperous. Come ye near unto me, and hear this. I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; when they were made, there was I. And now the Lord God and His Spirit hath sent me.” It was Himself who was speaking as the Lord God; and yet we should not have understood that it was Jesus Christ had He not added, “And now the Lord God and His Spirit hath sent me.” For He said this with reference to the form of a servant, speaking of a future event as if it were past, as in the same prophet we read, “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter,” not “He shall be led;” but the past tense is used to express the future. And prophecy constantly speaks in this way.

> Latin: Multa alia sunt scripturarum testimonia diuinarum de nouissimo iudicio Dei, quae si omnia colligam, nimis longum erit. Satis ergo sit, quod et nouis et ueteribus litteris sacris hoc praenuntiatum esse probauimus. Sed ueteribus per Christum futurum esse iudicium, id est iudicem Christum de caelo esse uenturum, non tam, quam nouis, euidenter expressum est, propterea quia, cum ibi dicit Dominus Deus se esse uenturum uel Dominum Deum dicitur esse uenturum, non consequenter intellegitur Christus. Dominus enim Deus et Pater est et Filius et Spiritus sanctus; neque hoc tamen intestatum relinquere nos oportet. Primo itaque demonstrandum est, quem ad modum Iesus Christus tamquam Dominus Deus loquatur in propheticis libris, et tamen Iesus Christus euidenter appareat, ut et quando non sic apparet et tamen ad illud ultimum iudicium Dominus Deus dicitur esse uenturus, possit Iesus Christus intellegi. Est locus aput Esaiam prophetam, qui hoc quod dico euidenter ostendit. Deus enim per prophetam: Audi me, inquit, Iacob et Israel quem ego uoco. Ego sum primus et ego in sempiternum, et manus mea fundauit terram, et dextera mea firmauit caelum. Vocabo eos, et stabunt simul, et congregabuntur omnes et audient. Quis ei nuntiauit haec? Diligens te feci uoluntatem tuam super Babylonem, ut auferrem semen Chaldaeorum. Et locutus sum et ego uocaui; adduxi eum et prosperam feci uiam eius. Accedite ad me et audite haec. Non a principio in abscondito locutus sum; quando fiebant, ibi eram. Et nunc Dominus Deus misit me et Spiritus eius. Nempe ipse est, qui loquebatur sicut Dominus Deus; nec tamen intellegeretur Iesus Christus, nisi addidisset: Et nunc Dominus Deus misit me et Spiritus eius. Dixit hoc enim secundum formam serui, de re futura utens praeteriti temporis uerbo, quem ad modum aput eundem prophetam legitur: Sicut ouis ad immolandum ductus est. Non enim ait: […] sed pro eo, quod futurum erat, praeteriti temporis uerbum posuit. Et adsidue prophetia sic loquitur.

[¶8] There is also another passage in Zechariah which plainly declares that the Almighty sent the Almighty; and of what persons can this be understood but of God the Father and God the Son? For it is written, “Thus saith the Lord Almighty, After the glory hath He sent me unto the nations which spoiled you; for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of His eye. Behold, I will bring mine hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants: and ye shall know that the Lord Almighty hath sent me.” Observe, the Lord Almighty saith that the Lord Almighty sent Him. Who can presume to understand these words of any other than Christ, who is speaking to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? For He says in the Gospel, “I am not sent save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” which He here compared to the pupil of God’s eye, to signify the profoundest love. And to this class of sheep the apostles themselves belonged. But after the glory, to wit, of His resurrection,—for before it happened the evangelist said that “Jesus was not yet glorified,”—He was sent unto the nations in the persons of His apostles; and thus the saying of the psalm was fulfilled, “Thou wilt deliver me from the contradictions of the people; Thou wilt set me as the head of the nations,” so that those who had spoiled the Israelites, and whom the Israelites had served when they were subdued by them, were not themselves to be spoiled in the same fashion, but were in their own persons to become the spoil of the Israelites. For this had been promised to the apostles when the Lord said, “I will make you fishers of men.” And to one of them He says, “From henceforth thou shalt catch men.” They were then to become a spoil, but in a good sense, as those who are snatched from that strong one when he is bound by a stronger.

> Latin: Est [et] alius locus aput Zachariam, qui hoc euidenter ostendit, quod omnipotentem misit omnipotens: quis quem. nisi Deus Pater Deum Filium? Nam ita scriptum est: Haec dicit Dominus omnipotens: Post gloriam misit me super gentes, quae spoliauerunt uos; quia qui tetigerit uos, quasi [qui] tangit pupillam oculi eius. Ecce ego inferam manum meam super eos, et erunt spolia his, qui seruierant eis;et cognoscetis quia Dominus omnipotens misit me. Ecce dicit Dominus omnipotens a Domino omnipotente se missum. Quis hic audeat intellegere nisi Christum loquentem, scilicet ouibus quae perierant domus Israel? Ait namque in euangelio: Non sum missus nisi ad oues quae perierunt domus Israel; quas hic comparauit pupillae oculi Dei propter excellentissimum dilectionis adfectum; ex quo genere ouium etiam ipsi apostoli fuerunt. Sed post gloriam resurrectionis utique suae (quae antequam fieret, ait euangelista: Iesus nondum erat glorificatus) etiam super gentes missus est in apostolis suis, ac sic inpletum est quod in psalmo legitur: Erues me de contradictionibus populi, constitues me in caput gentium, ut, qui spoliauerant Israelitas quibusque Israelitae seruierant, quando sunt gentibus subditi, non uicissim eodem modo spoliarentur, sed ipsi spolia fierent Israelitarum (hoc enim apostolis promiserat dicens: Faciam uos piscatores hominum, et uni eorum: Ex hoc iam, inquit, homines eris capiens); spolia ergo fierent, sed in bonum, tamquam erepta uasa illi forti, sed fortius adligato.

[¶9] In like manner the Lord, speaking by the same prophet, says, “And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and mercy; and they shall look upon me because they have insulted me, and they shall mourn for Him as for one very dear, and shall be in bitterness as for an only-begotten.” To whom but to God does it belong to destroy all the nations that are hostile to the holy city Jerusalem, which “come against it,” that is, are opposed to it, or, as some translate, “come upon it,” as if putting it down under them; or to pour out upon the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and mercy? This belongs doubtless to God, and it is to God the prophet ascribes the words; and yet Christ shows that He is the God who does these so great and divine things, when He goes on to say, “And they shall look upon me because they have insulted me, and they shall mourn for Him as if for one very dear (or beloved), and shall be in bitterness for Him as for an only-begotten.” For in that day the Jews—those of them, at least, who shall receive the spirit of grace and mercy—when they see Him coming in His majesty, and recognize that it is He whom they, in the person of their parents, insulted when He came before in His humiliation, shall repent of insulting Him in His passion: and their parents themselves, who were the perpetrators of this huge impiety, shall see Him when they rise; but this will be only for their punishment, and not for their correction. It is not of them we are to understand the words, “And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and mercy, and they shall look upon me because they have insulted me;” but we are to understand the words of their descendants, who shall at that time believe through Elias. But as we say to the Jews, You killed Christ, although it was their parents who did so, so these persons shall grieve that they in some sort did what their progenitors did. Although, therefore, those that receive the spirit of mercy and grace, and believe, shall not be condemned with their impious parents, yet they shall mourn as if they themselves had done what their parents did. Their grief shall arise not so much from guilt as from pious affection. Certainly the words which the Septuagint have translated, “They shall look upon me because they insulted me,” stand in the Hebrew,“They shall look upon me whom they pierced.” And by this word the crucifixion of Christ is certainly more plainly indicated. But the Septuagint translators preferred to allude to the insult which was involved in His whole passion. For in point of fact they insulted Him both when He was arrested and when He was bound, when He was judged, when He was mocked by the robe they put on Him and the homage they did on bended knee, when He was crowned with thorns and struck with a rod on the head, when He bore His cross, and when at last He hung upon the tree. And therefore we recognize more fully the Lord’s passion when we do not confine ourselves to one interpretation, but combine both, and read both “insulted” and “pierced.”

> Latin: Item per eundem prophetam Dominus loquens: Et erit, inquit, in die illa quaeram auferre omnes gentes quae ueniunt contra Hierusalem, et effundam super domum Dauid et super habitatores Hierusalemspiritumgratiaeetraisericordiaejetadspicient ad me pro eo quod insultauerunt, et plangent super eo planctum quasi super carissimum, et dolebunt dolore quasi super unigenitum. Numquid nisi Dei est auferre omnes gentes inimicas sanctae ciuitatis Hierusalem, quae ueniunt contra eam, id est contrariae sunt ei, uel, sicut alii sunt interpretati, ueniunt super... eam, id est, ut eam sibi subiciant; aut effundere super domum Dauid et super habitatores eiusdem ciuitatis spiritum gratiae et misericordiae? Hoc utique Dei est, et ex persona Dei dicitur per prophetam; et tamen hunc Deum haec tam magna et tam diuina facientem se Christus ostendit adiungendo adque dicendo: Et adspicient ad me pro eo quod insultauerunt, et plangent super eo planctum quasi super carissimum (siue dilectum) et dolebunt dolore quasi super unigenitum. Paenitebit quippe Iudaeos in die illa, etiam eos, qui accepturi sunt spiritum gratiae et misericordiae, quod in eius passione insultauerint Christo, cum ad eum adspexerint in sua maiestate uenientem eumque esse cognouerint, quem prius humilem in suis parentibus inluserunt; quamuis et ipsi parentes eorum tantae illius inpietatis auctores resurgentes uidebunt eum, sed puniendi iam. non adhuc corrigendi. Non itaque hoc loco ipsi intellegendi sunt, ubi dictum est: Et effundam super domum Dauid et super habitatores Hierusalem spiritum gratiae et misericordiae; et adspicient ad me pro eo quod insultauerunt; sed tamen de illorum stirpe uenientes, qui per Heliam illo tempore credituri sunt. Sed sicut dicimus Iudaeis: ‘Vos occidistis Christum’, quamuis hoc parentes eorum fecerint: sic et isti se dolebunt fecisse quodam modo, quod fecerunt illi, ex quorum stirpe descendunt. Quamuis ergo accepto spiritu gratiae et misericordiae iam fideles non damnabuntur cum inpiis parentibus suis, dolebunt tamen tamquam ipsi fecerint, quod ab illis factum est. Non igitur dolebunt reatu criminis, sed pietatis adfectu. Sane ubi dixerunt septuaginta interpretes: Et adspicient ad me pro eo quod insultauerunt, sic interpretatum est ex Hebraeo: Et adspicient ad me, quem confixerunt; quo quidem uerbo euidentius Christus crucifixus apparet. Sed illa insultatio, quam septuaginta ponere maluerunt, eius uniuersae non defuit passioni. Nam et detento et adligato et adiudicato et obprobrio ignominiosae uestis induto et spinis coronato et calamo in capite percusso et inridenter fixis genibus adorato et crucem suam portanti et in ligno iam pendenti utique insultauerunt. Proinde interpretationem non sequentes unam, sed utramque iungentes, cum et insultauerunt et confixerunt legimus, plenius ueritatem dominicae passionis agnoscimus.

[¶10] When, therefore, we read in the prophetical books that God is to come to do judgment at the last, from the mere mention of the judgment, and although there is nothing else to determine the meaning, we must gather that Christ is meant; for though the Father will judge, He will judge by the coming of the Son. For He Himself, by His own manifested presence, “judges no man, but has committed all judgment to the Son;” for as the Son was judged as a man, He shall also judge in human form. For it is none but He of whom God speaks by Isaiah under the name of Jacob and Israel, of whose seed Christ took a body, as it is written, “Jacob is my servant, I will uphold Him; Israel is mine elect, my Spirit has assumed Him: I have put my Spirit upon Him; He shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor cease, neither shall His voice be heard without. A bruised reed shall He not break, and the smoking flax shall He not quench: but in truth shall He bring forth judgment. He shall shine and shall not be broken, until He sets judgment in the earth: and the nations shall hope in His name.” The Hebrew has not “Jacob” and “Israel;” but the Septuagint translators, wishing to show the significance of the expression “my servant,” and that it refers to the form of a servant in which the Most High humbled Himself, inserted the name of that man from whose stock He took the form of a servant. The Holy Spirit was given to Him, and was manifested, as the evangelist testifies, in the form of a dove. He brought forth judgment to the Gentiles, because He predicted what was hidden from them. In His meekness He did not cry, nor did He cease to proclaim the truth. But His voice was not heard, nor is it heard, without, because He is not obeyed by those who are outside of His body. And the Jews themselves, who persecuted Him, He did not break, though as a bruised reed they had lost their integrity, and as smoking flax their light was quenched; for He spared them, having come to be judged and not yet to judge. He brought forth judgment in truth, declaring that they should be punished did they persist in their wickedness. His face shone on the Mount, His fame in the world. He is not broken nor overcome, because neither in Himself nor in His Church has persecution prevailed to annihilate Him. And therefore that has not, and shall not, be brought about which His enemies said or say, “When shall He die, and His name perish?” “until He set judgment in the earth.” Behold, the hidden thing which we were seeking is discovered. For this is the last judgment, which He will set in the earth when He comes from heaven. And it is in Him, too, we already see the concluding expression of the prophecy fulfilled: “In His name shall the nations hope.” And by this fulfillment, which no one can deny, men are encouraged to believe in that which is most impudently denied. For who could have hoped for that which even those who do not yet believe in Christ now see fulfilled among us, and which is so undeniable that they can but gnash their teeth and pine away? Who, I say, could have hoped that the nations would hope in the name of Christ, when He was arrested, bound, scourged, mocked, crucified, when even the disciples themselves had lost the hope which they had begun to have in Him? The hope which was then entertained scarcely by the one thief on the cross, is now cherished by nations everywhere on the earth, who are marked with the sign of the cross on which He died that they may not die eternally.

> Latin: Cum ergo in propheticis litteris ad nouissimum iudicium faciendum Deus legitur esse uenturus, etsi eius alia distinctio non ponatur, tantummodo propter ipsum iudicium Christus debet intellegi, quia etsi Pater iudicabit, per aduentum filii hominis iudicabit. Nam ipse per suae praesentiae manifestationem non iudicat quemquam, sed omne iudicium dedit Filio, qui manifestabitur homo iudicaturus, sicut homo est iudicatus. Quis est enim alius, de quo item Deus loquitur per Esaiam sub nomine Iacob et Israel, de cuius semine corpus accepit? quod ita scriptum est: Iacob puer meus, suscipiam illum; Israel electus meus, adsumsit eum anima mea. Dedi Spiritum meum in illum, iudicium gentibus proferet. Non clamabit neque cessabit neque audietur foris uox eius. Calamum quassatum non conteret et linum fumans non exstinguet; sed in ueritate proferet iudicium. Refulgebit et non confringetur, donec ponat in terra iudicium; et in nomine eius gentes sperabunt. In Hebraeo non legitur Iacob et Israel: sed quod ibi legitur seruus meus, nimirum septuaginta interpretes uolentes admonere quatenus id accipiendum sit, quia scilicet propter formam serui dictum est, in qua se Altissimus humillimum praebuit, ipsius hominis nomen ad eum significandum posuerunt, de cuius genere eadem serui forma suscepta est. Datus est in eum Spiritus sanctus, quod et columbae specie euangelio teste monstratum est; iudicium gentibus protulit, quia praenuntiauit futurum, quod gentibus erat occultum; mansuetudine non clamauit, nec tamen in praedicanda ueritate cessauit; sed non est audita foris uox eius nec auditur, quando quidem ab eis, qui foris ab eius corpore praecisi sunt, non illi oboeditur; ipsosque suos persecutores Iudaeos, qui calamo quassato perdita integritate [et] lino fumanti amisso lumine conparati sunt, non contriuit, non exstinxit, quia pepercit eis, qui nondum uenerat eos iudicare, sed iudicari ab eis. In ueritate sane protulit iudicium praedicens eis, quando puniendi essent, si in sua malignitate persisterent. Refulsit in monte facies eius, in orbe fama eius; nec confractus siue contritus est, quia neque in se neque in ecclesia sua, ut esse desisteret, persecutoribus cessit; et ideo non est factum nec fiet, quod inimici eius dixerunt uel dicunt: Quando morietur et peribit nomen eius? donec ponat in terra iudicium. Ecce manifestatum est quod absconditum quaerebamus; hoc enim est nouissimum iudicium, quod ponet in terra, cum uenerit ipse de caelo, de quo iam uidemus inpletum, quod hic ultimum positum est: Et nomine eius gentes sperabunt. Per hoc certe quod negari non potest etiam illud credatur quod inpudenter negatur. Quis enim speraret, quod etiam hi, qui nolunt adhuc credere in Christum, iam nobiscum uident et. quoniam negare non possunt, dentibus suis frendent et tabescunt? Quis, inquam, speraret gentes in Christi nomine speraturas, quando tenebatur ligabatur, caedebatur inludebatur, crucifigebatur, quando et ipsi discipuli spem perdiderant, quam in illo habere iam coeperant? Quod tunc uix unus latro sperauit in cruce, nunc. sperant gentes longe lateque diffusae, et ne in aeternum moriantur, ipsa in qua ille mortuus est cruce signantur.

[¶11] That the last judgment, then, shall be administered by Jesus Christ in the manner predicted in the sacred writings is denied or doubted by no one, unless by those who, through some incredible animosity or blindness, decline to believe these writings, though already their truth is demonstrated to all the world. And at or in connection with that judgment the following events shall come to pass, as we have learned: Elias the Tishbite shall come; the Jews shall believe; Antichrist shall persecute; Christ shall judge; the dead shall rise; the good and the wicked shall be separated; the world shall be burned and renewed. All these things, we believe, shall come to pass; but how, or in what order, human understanding cannot perfectly teach us, but only the experience of the events themselves. My opinion, however, is, that they will happen in the order in which I have related them.

> Latin: Nullus igitur uel negat uel dubitat per Christum Iesum tale, quale istis sacris litteris praenuntiatur, nouissimum futurum esse iudicium, nisi qui eisdem litteris nescio qua incredibili animositate seu caecitate non credit, quae iam ueritatem suam orbi demonstrauere terrarum. In illo itaque iudicio uel circa illud iudicium has res didicimus esse uenturas, Heliam Thesbiten, fidem Iudaeorum, Antichristum persecuturum, Christum iudicaturum, mortuorum resurrectionem, bonorum malorumque diremtionem, mundi conflagrationem eiusdemque renouationem. Quae omnia quidem uentura esse credendum est; sed quibus modis et quo ordine ueniant, magis tunc docebit rerum experientia, quam nunc ad perfectum hominum intellegentia ualet consequi.

[¶12] Two books yet remain to be written by me, in order to complete, by God’s help, what I promised. One of these will explain the punishment of the wicked, the other the happiness of the righteous; and in them I shall be at special pains to refute, by God’s grace, the arguments by which some unhappy creatures seem to themselves to undermine the divine promises and threatenings, and to ridicule as empty words statements which are the most salutary nutriment of faith. But they who are instructed in divine things hold the truth and omnipotence of God to be the strongest arguments in favor of those things which, however incredible they seem to men, are yet contained in the Scriptures, whose truth has already in many ways been proved; for they are sure that God can in no wise lie, and that He can do what is impossible to the unbelieving.

> Latin: Existimo tamen eo quo a me commemorata sunt ordine esse uentura. Duo nobis ad hoc opus pertinentes reliqui sunt libri, ut adiuuante Domino promissa conpleamus; quorum erit unus de malorum supplicio, alius de felicitate iustorum; in quibus maxime, sicut Deus donauerit, argumenta refellentur humana, quae contra praedicta ac promissa diuina sapienter sibi miseri rodere uidentur et salubris fidei nutrimenta uelut falsa et ridenda contemnunt. Qui uero secundum Deum sapiunt, omnia, quae incredibilia uidentur hominibus et tamen scripturis sanctis, quarum iam ueritas multis modis adserta est, continentur, maximum argumentum tenent ueracem Dei omnipotentiam, quem certum habent nullo modo in eis potuisse mentiri et posse facere quod inpossibile est infideli.

### Of the eternal punishment of the wicked in hell, and of the various objections urged against it.

[¶14] Book XXI.

> Latin: Liber XXI

[¶15] Argument—Of the end reserved for the city of the devil, namely, the eternal punishment of the damned; and of the arguments which unbelief brings against it.

### Of the Order of the Discussion, Which Requires that We First Speak of the Eternal Punishment of the Lost in Company with the Devil, and Then of the Eternal Happiness of the Saints.

[¶17] Chapter 1.—Of the Order of the Discussion, Which Requires that We First Speak of the Eternal Punishment of the Lost in Company with the Devil, and Then of the Eternal Happiness of the Saints.

> Latin: Caput I. De ordine disputationis, qua prius disserendum est de perpetuo supplicio damnatorum cum diabolo quam de aeterna felicitate sanctorum.

[¶18] I Propose, with such ability as God may grant me, to discuss in this book more thoroughly the nature of the punishment which shall be assigned to the devil and all his retainers, when the two cities, the one of God, the other of the devil, shall have reached their proper ends through Jesus Christ our Lord, the Judge of quick and dead. And I have adopted this order, and preferred to speak, first of the punishment of the devils, and afterwards of the blessedness of the saints, because the body partakes of either destiny; and it seems to be more incredible that bodies endure in everlasting torments than that they continue to exist without any pain in everlasting felicity. Consequently, when I shall have demonstrated that that punishment ought not to be incredible, this will materially aid me in proving that which is much more credible, viz., the immortality of the bodies of the saints which are delivered from all pain. Neither is this order out of harmony with the divine writings, in which sometimes, indeed, the blessedness of the good is placed first, as in the words, “They that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment;” but sometimes also last, as, “The Son of man shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things which offend, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth, Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of His Father;” and that, “These shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.” And though we have not room to cite instances, any one who examines the prophets will find that they adopt now the one arrangement and now the other. My own reason for following the latter order I have given.

> Latin: Cum per Christum Dominum nostrum, iudicem uiuorum adque mortuorum, ad debitos fines ambae peruenerint ciuitates, quarum est una Dei, altera diaboli, cuius modi supplicium sit futurum diaboli et omnium ad eum pertinentium. in hoc libro nobis, quantum ope diuina ualebimus, diligentius disputandum est. Ideo autem hunc tenere ordinem malui, ut postea disseram de felicitate sanctorum, quoniam utrumque cum corporibus erit et incredibilius uidetur esse in aeternis corpora durare cruciatibus quam sine dolore ullo in aeterna beatitudine permanere; ac per hoc cum illam poenam non debere esse incredibilem demonstrauero, adiuuabit me pluriu mum, ut multo facilius omni carens molestia inmortalitas corporum in sanctis futura credatur. Nec a diuinis ordo iste abhorret eloquiis, ubi aliquando quidem bonorum beatitudo prius ponitur, ut est illud: Qui bona fecerunt, in resurrectionem uitae; qui autem mala egerunt, in resurrectionem iudicii; sed aliquando et posterius, ut est: Mittet filius hominis angelos suos, et colligent de regno eius omnia scandala et mittent in caminum ignis ardentem; illic erit fletus et stridor dentium; tunc iusti fulgebunt sicut sol in regno Patris sui, et illud: Sic ibunt isti in supplicium aeternum, iusti autem in uitam ‘aeternam; et in prophetis, quod commemorare longum est, nunc ille, nunc iste ordo, si quis inspiciat, inuenitur. Sed ego istum qua causa elegerim, dixi.

### Whether It is Possible for Bodies to Last for Ever in Burning Fire.

[¶20] Chapter 2.—Whether It is Possible for Bodies to Last for Ever in Burning Fire.

> Latin: Caput II. An possint corpora in ustione ignis esse perpetua.

[¶21] What, then, can I adduce to convince those who refuse to believe that human bodies, animated and living, can not only survive death, but also last in the torments of everlasting fires? They will not allow us to refer this simply to the power of the Almighty, but demand that we persuade them by some example. If, then, we reply to them, that there are animals which certainly are corruptible, because they are mortal, and which yet live in the midst of flames; and likewise, that in springs of water so hot that no one can put his hand in it with impunity a species of worm is found, which not only lives there, but cannot live elsewhere; they either refuse to believe these facts unless we can show them, or, if we are in circumstances to prove them by ocular demonstration or by adequate testimony, they contend, with the same scepticism, that these facts are not examples of what we seek to prove, inasmuch as these animals do not live for ever, and besides, they live in that blaze of heat without pain, the element of fire being congenial to their nature, and causing it to thrive and not to suffer,—just as if it were not more incredible that it should thrive than that it should suffer in such circumstances. It is strange that anything should suffer in fire and yet live, but stranger that it should live in fire and not suffer. If, then, the latter be believed, why not also the former?

> Latin: Quid igitur ostendam, unde conuincantur increduli, posse humana corpora animata adque uiuentia non solum numquam morte dissolui, sed in aeternorum quoque ignium durare tormentis? Nolunt enim hoc ad Omnipotentis nos referre potentiam, sed aliquo exemplo persuaderi sibi flagitant. Quibus si respondebimus esse animalia profecto corruptibilia, quia mortalia. quae tamen in mediis ignibus uiuant; nonnullum etiam genus uermium in aquarum calidarum scaturrigine reperiri, quarum feruorem nemo inpune contrectat; illos autem non solum sine ulla sui laesione ibi esse, sed extra esse non posse: aut nolunt credere, si ostendere non ualemus; aut, si ualuerimus sine oculis demonstrare res ipsas siue per testes idoneos edocere, non satis esse hoc ad exemplum rei, de qua quaestio est, eadem infidelitate contendent, quia haec animalia nec semper uiuunt et in illis femoribus sine doloribus uiuunt: suae quippe naturae conuenientibus uegetantur illis, non cruciantur elementis; quasi non incredibilius sit uegetari quam cruciari talibus rebus. Mirabile est enim dolere in ignibus et tamen uiuere, sed mirabilius uiuere in ignibus nec dolere. Si autem hoc creditur, quur non et illud?

## 104. Whether Bodily Suffering Necessarily Terminates in the Destruction of the Flesh.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/104/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/104/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 3.—Whether Bodily Suffering Necessarily Terminates in the Destruction of the Flesh.

> Latin: Caput III. An consequens sit, ut corporeum dolorem sequatur carnis interitus.

[¶1] But, say they, there is no body which can suffer and cannot also die. How do we know this? For who can say with certainty that the devils do not suffer in their bodies, when they own that they are grievously tormented? And if it is replied that there is no earthly body—that is to say, no solid and perceptible body, or, in one word, no flesh—which can suffer and cannot die, is not this to tell us only what men have gathered from experience and their bodily senses? For they indeed have no acquaintance with any flesh but that which is mortal; and this is their whole argument, that what they have had no experience of they judge quite impossible. For we cannot call it reasoning to make pain a presumption of death, while, in fact, it is rather a sign of life. For though it be a question whether that which suffers can continue to live for ever, yet it is certain that everything which suffers pain does live, and that pain can exist only in a living subject. It is necessary, therefore, that he who is pained be living, not necessary that pain kill him; for every pain does not kill even those mortal bodies of ours which are destined to die. And that any pain kills them is caused by the circumstance that the soul is so connected with the body that it succumbs to great pain and withdraws; for the structure of our members and vital parts is so infirm that it cannot bear up against that violence which causes great or extreme agony. But in the life to come this connection of soul and body is of such a kind, that as it is dissolved by no lapse of time, so neither is it burst asunder by any pain. And so, although it be true that in this world there is no flesh which can suffer pain and yet cannot die, yet in the world to come there shall be flesh such as now there is not, as there will also be death such as now there is not. For death will not be abolished, but will be eternal, since the soul will neither be able to enjoy God and live, nor to die and escape the pains of the body. The first death drives the soul from the body against her will: the second death holds the soul in the body against her will. The two have this in common, that the soul suffers against her will what her own body inflicts.

> Latin: Sed nullum est, inquiunt, corpus, quod dolere possit nec possit mori. Et hoc unde scimus? Nam de corporibus quis certus est daemonum, utrum in eis doleant, quando se adfligi magnis cruciatibus confitentur? Quod si respondetur terrenum corpus solidum scilicet adque conspicuum nullum esse, adque ut uno potius nomine id explicem, nullam esse carnem, quae dolere possit morique non possit: quid aliud dicitur, nisi quod sensu corporis homines et experientia collegerunt? Nullam namque carnem nisi mortalem sciunt; et haec est eorum tota ratio, ut, quod experti non sunt, nequaquam esse posse arbitrentur. Nam cuius rationis est dolorem facere mortis argumentum, cum uitae potius sit indicium? Etsi enim quaerimus, utrum semper possit uiuere: certum tamen est uiuere omne quod dolet doloremque omnem nisi in re uiuente esse non posse. Necesse est ergo ut uiuat dolens, non est necesse ut occidat dolor, quia nec corpora ista mortalia et utique moritura omnis dolor occidit, et ut dolor aliquis possit occidere. illa causa est, quoniam sic est anima conexa huic corpori, ut summis doloribus cedat adque discedat; quoniam et ipsa conpago membrorum adque uitalium sic infirma est, ut eam uim, quae magnum uel summum dolorem facit, non ualeat sustinere. Tunc autem tali corpori anima et eo conectetur modo, ut illud uinculum, sicut nulla temporis longitudine soluetur, ita nullo dolore rumpatur. Proinde etiamsi caro nunc talis nulla est, quae sensum doloris perpeti possit mortemque non possit: erit tamen tunc talis caro, qualis nunc non est, sicut talis erit et mors qualis nunc non est. Non enim nulla, sed sempiterna mors erit, quando nec uiuere anima poterit Deum non habendo nec doloribus corporis carere moriendo. Prima mors animam nolentem pellit e corpore, secunda mors animam nolentem tenet in corpore; ab utraque morte communiter id habetur, ut quod non uult anima de suo corpore patiatur.

[¶2] Our opponents, too, make much of this, that in this world there is no flesh which can suffer pain and cannot die; while they make nothing of the fact that there is something which is greater than the body. For the spirit, whose presence animates and rules the body, can both suffer pain and cannot die. Here then is something which, though it can feel pain, is immortal. And this capacity, which we now see in the spirit of all, shall be hereafter in the bodies of the damned. Moreover, if we attend to the matter a little more closely, we see that what is called bodily pain is rather to be referred to the soul. For it is the soul not the body, which is pained, even when the pain originates with the body,—the soul feeling pain at the point where the body is hurt. As then we speak of bodies feeling and living, though the feeling and life of the body are from the soul, so also we speak of bodies being pained, though no pain can be suffered by the body apart from the soul. The soul, then, is pained with the body in that part where something occurs to hurt it; and it is pained alone, though it be in the body, when some invisible cause distresses it, while the body is safe and sound. Even when not associated with the body it is pained; for certainly that rich man was suffering in hell when he cried, “I am tormented in this flame.” But as for the body, it suffers no pain when it is soulless; and even when animate it can suffer only by the soul’s suffering. If, therefore, we might draw a just presumption from the existence of pain to that of death, and conclude that where pain can be felt death can occur, death would rather be the property of the soul, for to it pain more peculiarly belongs. But, seeing that that which suffers most cannot die, what ground is there for supposing that those bodies, because destined to suffer, are therefore, destined to die? The Platonists indeed maintained that these earthly bodies and dying members gave rise to the fears, desires, griefs, and joys of the soul. “Hence,” says Virgil (i.e., from these earthly bodies and dying members),

> Latin: Adtendunt autem isti contradictores nullam esse nunc caris, quae dolorem pati possit mortemque non possit, et non adtendunt esse tamen aliquid tale quod corpore maius sit. Ipse quippe animus, cuius praesentia corpus uiuit et regitur, et dolorem pati potest et mori non potest. Ecce inuenta res est, quae, cum sensum doloris habeat, inmortalis est. Hoc igitur erit tunc etiam in corporibus damnatorum, quod nunc esse scimus in animis omnium. Si autem consideremus diligentius, dolor, qui dicitur corporis, magis ad animam pertinet. Animae est enim dolere, non corporis, etiam quando ei dolendi causa exsistit a corpore, cum in eo loco dolet, ubi laeditur corpus. Sicut ergo dicimus corpora sentientia et corpora uiuentia, cum ab anima sit corpori sensus et uita: ita corpora dicimus et dolentia, cum dolor corpori nisi ab anima esse non possit. Dolet itaque anima cum corpore in eo loco eius, ubi aliquid contingit ut doleat; dolet et sola, quamuis sit in corpore, cum aliqua causa etiam inuisibili tristis est ipsa corpore incolumi; dolet etiam non in corpore constituta; nam utique dolebat diues ille aput inferos, quando dicebat: Crucior in hac flamma. Corpus autem nec exanime dolet nec animatum sine anima dolet. Si ergo a dolore argumentum recte sumeretur ad mortem, ut ideo mors possit accidere. quia potuit accidere et dolor, magis ad animam pertineret mori, ad quam magis pertinet et dolere. Cum uero illa, quae magis dolere potest, non possit mori, quid momenti adfert quur illa corpora, quoniam futura sunt in doloribus, ideo etiam moritura esse credamus?

[¶3] “Hence wild desires and grovelling fears,

> Latin: Dixerunt quidem Platonici ex terrenis corporibus moribundisque membris esse animae et metuere et cupere et dolere adque gaudere; unde Vergilius: lHinc, inquit, (id est ex moribundis terreni corporis membris) metuunt cupiuntque, dolent gaudentque.’ Sed conuicimus eos in duodecimo huius operis libro, habere animas secundum ipsos ab omni etiam corporis labe purgatas diram cupiditatem. quae rursus incipiunt in corpora uelle reuerti.

[¶4] And human laughter, human tears.”

[¶5] But in the fourteenth book of this work we have proved that, according to the Platonists’ own theory, souls, even when purged from all pollution of the body, are yet pos sessed by a monstrous desire to return again into their bodies. But where desire can exist, certainly pain also can exist; for desire frustrated, either by missing what it aims at or losing what it had attained, is turned into pain. And therefore, if the soul, which is either the only or the chief sufferer, has yet a kind of immortality of its own, it is inconsequent to say that because the bodies of the damned shall suffer pain, therefore they shall die. In fine, if the body causes the soul to suffer, why can the body not cause death as well as suffering, unless because it does not follow that what causes pain causes death as well? And why then is it incredible that these fires can cause pain but not death to those bodies we speak of, just as the bodies themselves cause pain, but not therefore death, to the souls? Pain is therefore no necessary presumption of death.

> Latin: Ubi autem potest esse cupiditas, profecto etiam dolor potest. Frustrata quippe cupiditas, siue non perueniendo quo tendebat, siue amittendo quo peruenerat, uertitur in dolorem. Quapropter si anima, quae uel sola uel maxime dolet, habet tamen quandam pro suo modo inmortalitatem suam, non ideo mori poterunt illa corpora, quia dolebunt. Postremo si corpora faciunt, ut animae doleant, quur eis dolorem possunt. mortem uero inferre non possunt, nisi quia non est consequens, ut mortem faciat quod dolorem facit? Quur ergo incredibile est ita ignes illis corporibus dolorem posse inferre, non mortem, sicut ipsa corpora dolere animas faciunt, quas tamen non ideo mori cogunt? Non est igitur necessarium futurae mortis argumentum dolor.

### Examples from Nature Proving that Bodies May Remain Unconsumed and Alive in Fire.

[¶7] Chapter 4.—Examples from Nature Proving that Bodies May Remain Unconsumed and Alive in Fire.

> Latin: Caput IV. De naturalibus exemplis, quorum consideratio doceat posse inter cruciatus uiuentia corpora permanere.

[¶8] If, therefore, the salamander lives in fire, as naturalists have recorded, and if certain famous mountains of Sicily have been continually on fire from the remotest antiquity until now, and yet remain entire, these are sufficiently convincing examples that everything which burns is not consumed. As the soul too, is a proof that not everything which can suffer pain can also die, why then do they yet demand that we produce real examples to prove that it is not incredible that the bodies of men condemned to everlasting punishment may retain their soul in the fire, may burn without being consumed, and may suffer without perishing? For suitable properties will be communicated to the substance of the flesh by Him who has endowed the things we see with so marvellous and diverse properties, that their very multitude prevents our wonder. For who but God the Creator of all things has given to the flesh of the peacock its antiseptic property? This property, when I first heard of it, seemed to me incredible; but it happened at Carthage that a bird of this kind was cooked and served up to me, and, taking a suitable slice of flesh from its breast, I ordered it to be kept, and when it had been kept as many days as make any other flesh stinking, it was produced and set before me, and emitted no offensive smell. And after it had been laid by for thirty days and more, it was still in the same state; and a year after, the same still, except that it was a little more shrivelled, and drier. Who gave to chaff such power to freeze that it preserves snow buried under it, and such power to warm that it ripens green fruit?

> Latin: Quapropter si, ut scripserunt qui naturas animalium curiosius indagarunt, salamandra in ignibus uiuit et quidam notissimi Siciliae montes, qui tanta temporis diuturnitate ac uetustate usque nunc ac deinceps flammis aestuant adque integri perseuerant, satis idonei testes sunt non omne, quod ardet, absumi et anima indicat non omne, quod dolere potest, posse etiam mori: quid adhuc a nobis rerum poscuntur exempla, quibus doceamus non esse incredibile, ut hominum corpora sempiterno supplicio punitorum et in igne animam non amittant et sine detrimento ardeant et sine interitu doleant? Habebit enim tunc istam carnis substantia qualitatem ab illo inditam, qui tam miras et uarias tot rebus indidit, quas uidemus, ut eas, quia multae sunt, non miremur. Quis enim nisi Deus creator omnium dedit carni pauonis mortui ne putesceret? Quod cum auditum incredibile uideretur, euenit ut aput Carthaginem nobis cocta adponeretur haec auis, de cuius pectore pulparum, quantum uisum est, decerptum seruari iussimus; quod post dierum tantum spatium, quanto alia caro quaecumque cocta putesceret, prolatum adque oblatum nihilo nostrum offendit olfactum. Itemque repositum post dies amplius quam triginta idem quod erat inuentum est, idemque post annum, nisi quod aliquantum corpulentiae siccioris et contractioris fuit.

[¶9] But who can explain the strange properties of fire itself, which blackens everything it burns, though itself bright; and which, though of the most beautiful colors, discolors almost all it touches and feeds upon, and turns blazing fuel into grimy cinders? Still this is not laid down as an absolutely uniform law; for, on the contrary, stones baked in glowing fire themselves also glow, and though the fire be rather of a red hue, and they white, yet white is congruous with light, and black with darkness. Thus, though the fire burns the wood in calcining the stones, these contrary effects do not result from the contrariety of the materials. For though wood and stone differ, they are not contraries, like black and white, the one of which colors is produced in the stones, while the other is produced in the wood by the same action of fire, which imparts its own brightness to the former, while it begrimes the latter, and which could have no effect on the one were it not fed by the other. Then what wonderful properties do we find in charcoal, which is so brittle that a light tap breaks it and a slight pressure pulverizes it, and yet is so strong that no moisture rots it, nor any time causes it to decay. So enduring is it, that it is customary in laying down landmarks to put charcoal underneath them, so that if, after the longest interval, any one raises an action, and pleads that there is no boundary stone, he may be convicted by the charcoal below. What then has enabled it to last so long without rotting, though buried in the damp earth in which [its original] wood rots, except this same fire which consumes all things?

> Latin: Quis paleae dedit uel tam frigidam uim, ut obrutas niues seruet, uel tam feruidam, ut poma inmatura maturet? De ipso igne mira quis explicet, quo quaeque adusta nigrescunt, cum ipse sit lucidus, et paene omnia, quae ambit et lambit, colore pulcherrimus decolorat adque ex pruna fulgida carbonem taeterrimum reddit? Neque id quasi regulariter definitum est; nam e contrario lapides igne candente percocti et ipsi fiunt candidi, et quamuis magis ille rubeat, illi albicent, congruit tamen luci quod album est, sicut nigrum tenebris. Cum itaque ignis in lignis ardeat, ut lapides coquat, contrarios habet non in contrariis rebus effectus. Etsi enim lapides et ligna diuersa sunt, contraria tamen non sunt, sicut album et nigrum, quorum in lapidibus unum facit, alterum in lignis, clarus illos clarificans, haec obfuscans, cum in illis deficeret, nisi in istis uiueret. Quid, in carbonibus nonne miranda est et tanta infirmitas, ut ictu leuissimo frangantur, pressu facillimo conterantur, et tanta firmitas, ut nullo umore corrumpantur, nulla aetate uincantur, usque adeo ut eos substernere soleant, qui limites figunt, ad conuincendum litigatorem, quisquis post quantalibet tempora exstiterit fixumque lapidem limitem non esse contenderit? Quis eos in terra umida infossos, ubi ligna putescerent, tamdiu durare incorruptibiliter posse nisi rerum ille corruptor ignis effecit?

[¶10] Again, let us consider the wonders of lime; for besides growing white in fire, which makes other things black, and of which I have already said enough, it has also a mysterious property of conceiving fire within it. Itself cold to the touch, it yet has a hidden store of fire, which is not at once apparent to our senses, but which experience teaches us, lies as it were slumbering within it even while unseen. And it is for this reason called “quick lime,” as if the fire were the invisible soul quickening the visible substance or body. But the marvellous thing is, that this fire is kindled when it is extinguished. For to disengage the hidden fire the lime is moistened or drenched with water, and then, though it be cold before, it becomes hot by that very application which cools what is hot. As if the fire were departing from the lime and breathing its last, it no longer lies hid, but appears; and then the lime lying in the coldness of death cannot be requickened, and what we before called “quick,” we now call “slaked.” What can be stranger than this? Yet there is a greater marvel still. For if you treat the lime, not with water, but with oil, which is as fuel to fire, no amount of oil will heat it. Now if this marvel had been told us of some Indian mineral which we had no opportunity of experimenting upon, we should either have forthwith pronounced it a falsehood, or certainly should have been greatly astonished. But things that daily present themselves to our own observation we despise, not because they are really less marvellous, but because they are common; so that even some products of India itself, remote as it is from ourselves, cease to excite our admiration as soon as we can admire them at our leisure.

> Latin: Intueamur etiam miraculum calcis. Excepto eo, de quo iam satis diximus, quod igne candicat, quo alia taetra redduntur, etiam occultissime ab igne ignem concipit eumque iam gleba tangentibus frigida tam latenter seruat, ut nulli nostro sensui prorsus appareat, sed conpertus experimento. etiam dum non apparet, sciatur inesse sopitus. Propter quod eam uiuam calcem loquimur, uelut ipse ignis latens anima sit inuisibilis uisibilis corporis. Iam uero quam mirum est, quod, cum exstinguitur, tunc accenditur! Ut enim occulto igne careat, aquae infunditur aquaue perfunditur, et cum ante sit frigida, inde feruescit, unde feruentia cuncta frigescunt. Velut exspirante ergo illa gleba discedens ignis, qui latebat, apparet, ac deinde tamquam morte sic frigida est, ut adiecta unda non sit arsura et quam calcem uocabamus uiuam, uocemus exstinctam. Quid est quod huic miraculo addi posse uideatur? et tamen additur. Nam si non adhibeas aquam, sed oleum, quod magis fomes est ignis, nulla eius perfusione uel infusione feruescit. Hoc miraculum si de aliquo Indico lapide legeremus siue audiremus et in nostrum experimentum uenire non posset, profecto aut mendacium putaremus aut certe granditer miraremur. Quarum uero rerum ante nostros oculos cottidiana documenta uersantur, non genere minus mirabili, sed ipsa adsiduitate uilescunt, ita ut ex ipsa India, quae remota est pars orbis a nobis, desierimus nonnulla mirari, quae ad nos potuerunt miranda perduci.

[¶11] The diamond is a stone possessed by many among ourselves, especially by jewellers and lapidaries, and the stone is so hard that it can be wrought neither by iron nor fire, nor, they say, by anything at all except goat’s blood. But do you suppose it is as much admired by those who own it and are familiar with its properties as by those to whom it is shown for the first time? Persons who have not seen it perhaps do not believe what is said of it, or if they do, they wonder as at a thing beyond their experience; and if they happen to see it, still they marvel because they are unused to it, but gradually familiar experience [of it] dulls their admiration. We know that the loadstone has a wonderful power of attracting iron. When I first saw it I was thunderstruck, for I saw an iron ring attracted and suspended by the stone; and then, as if it had communicated its own property to the iron it attracted, and had made it a substance like itself, this ring was put near another, and lifted it up; and as the first ring clung to the magnet, so did the second ring to the first. A third and a fourth were similarly added, so that there hung from the stone a kind of chain of rings, with their hoops connected, not interlinking, but attached together by their outer surface. Who would not be amazed at this virtue of the stone, subsisting as it does not only in itself, but transmitted through so many suspended rings, and binding them together by invisible links? Yet far more astonishing is what I heard about this stone from my brother in the episcopate, Severus bishop of Milevis. He told me that Bathanarius, once count of Africa, when the bishop was dining with him, produced a magnet, and held it under a silver plate on which he placed a bit of iron; then as he moved his hand with the magnet underneath the plate, the iron upon the plate moved about accordingly. The intervening silver was not affected at all, but precisely as the magnet was moved backwards and forwards below it, no matter how quickly, so was the iron attracted above. I have related what I myself have witnessed; I have related what I was told by one whom I trust as I trust my own eyes. Let me further say what I have read about this magnet. When a diamond is laid near it, it does not lift iron; or if it has already lifted it, as soon as the diamond approaches, it drops it. These stones come from India. But if we cease to admire them because they are now familiar, how much less must they admire them who procure them very easily and send them to us? Perhaps they are held as cheap as we hold lime, which, because it is common, we think nothing of, though it has the strange property of burning when water, which is wont to quench fire, is poured on it, and of remaining cool when mixed with oil, which ordinarily feeds fire.

> Latin: Adamantem lapidem multi aput nos habent et maxime aurifices insignitoresque gemmarum, qui lapis nec ferro nec igni nec alia ui ulla perhibetur praeter hircino sanguine uinci. Sed qui eum habent adque nouerunt, numquid ita mirantur ut hi, quibus primum potentia eius ostenditur? Quibus autem non ostenditur, fortasse nec credunt; aut si credunt, inexperta mirantur; et si contigerit experiri, adhuc quidem mirantur insolita, sed adsiduitas experiendi paulatim subtrahit admirationis incitamentum. Magnetem lapidem nouimus mirabilem ferri esse raptorem; quod cum primum uidi, uehementer inhorrui. Quippe cernebam a lapide ferreum anulum raptum adque suspensum; deinde tamquam ferro, quod rapuerat, uim dedisset suam communemque fecisset, idem anulus alteri admotus est eundemque suspendit, adque ut ille prior lapidi, sic alter anulus priori anulo cohaerebat; accessit eodem modo tertius, accessit et quartus; iamque sibi per mutua circulis nexis non inplicatorum intrinsecus, sed extrinsecus adhaerentium quasi catena pependerat anulorum. Quis istam uim lapidis non stuperet, quae illi non solum inerat, uerum etiam per tot suspensa transibat et inuisibilibus ea uinculis subligabat? Sed multo est mirabilius, quod a fratre et coepiscopo meo Seuero Mileuitano de isto lapide comperi. Se ipsum namque uidisse narrauit, quem ad modum Bathanarius quondam comes Africae, cum aput eum conuiuaretur episcopus, eundem protulerit lapidem et tenuerit sub argento ferrumque super argentum posuerit; deinde sicut subter mouebat manum, qua lapidem tenebat, ita ferrum desuper mouebatur, adque argento medio nihilque patiente concitatissimo cursu ac recursu infra lapis ab homine, supra ferrum rapiebatur a lapide. Dixi quod ipse conspexi, dixi quod ab illo audiui, cui tamquam ipse uiderim credidi. Quid etiam de isto magnete legerim dicam. Quando iuxta eum ponitur adamans, non rapit femlID. et si iam rapuerat, ut ei propinquauerit, mox remittit. India mittit hos lapides; sed si eos nos cognitos iam desistimus admirari, quanto magis illi, a quibus ueniunt, si eos facillimos habent, sic forsitan habent, ut nos calcem, quam miro modo aqua feruescentem, qua solet ignis exstingui, et oleo non feruescentem, quo solet ignis accendi, quia in promtu ‘nobis est, non miramur.

### That There are Many Things Which Reason Cannot Account For, and Which are Nevertheless True.

[¶13] Chapter 5.—That There are Many Things Which Reason Cannot Account For, and Which are Nevertheless True.

> Latin: Caput V. Quanta sint, quorum ratio nequeat agnosci, et tamen eadem uera esse non sit ambiguum.

[¶14] Nevertheless, when we declare the miracles which God has wrought, or will yet work, and which we cannot bring under the very eyes of men, sceptics keep demanding that we shall explain these marvels to reason. And because we cannot do so, inasmuch as they are above human comprehension, they suppose we are speaking falsely. These persons themselves, therefore, ought to account for all these marvels which we either can or do see. And if they perceive that this is impossible for man to do, they should acknowledge that it cannot be concluded that a thing has not been or shall not be because it cannot be reconciled to reason, since there are things now in existence of which the same is true. I will not, then, detail the multitude of marvels which are related in books, and which refer not to things that happened once and passed away, but that are permanent in certain places, where, if any one has the desire and opportunity, he may ascertain their truth; but a few only I recount. The following are some of the marvels men tell us:—The salt of Agrigentum in Sicily, when thrown into the fire, becomes fluid as if it were in water, but in the water it crackles as if it were in the fire. The Garamantæ have a fountain so cold by day that no one can drink it, so hot by night no one can touch it. In Epirus, too, there is a fountain which, like all others, quenches lighted torches, but, unlike all others, lights quenched torches. There is a stone found in Arcadia, and called asbestos, because once lit it cannot be put out. The wood of a certain kind of Egyptian fig-tree sinks in water, and does not float like other wood; and, stranger still, when it has been sunk to the bottom for some time, it rises again to the surface, though nature requires that when soaked in water it should be heavier than ever. Then there are the apples of Sodom which grow indeed to an appearance of ripeness, but, when you touch them with hand or tooth, the peal cracks, and they crumble into dust and ashes. The Persian stone pyrites burns the hand when it is tightly held in it and so gets its name from fire. In Persia too, there is found another stone called selenite, because its interior brilliancy waxes and wanes with the moon. Then in Cappadocia the mares are impregnated by the wind, and their foals live only three years. Tilon, an Indian island, has this advantage over all other lands, that no tree which grows in it ever loses its foliage.

> Latin: Verum tamen homines infideles, qui, cum diuina uel praeterita uel futura miracula praedicamus, quae illis experienda non ualemus ostendere, rationem a nobis earum flagitant rerum, quam quoniam non possumus reddere (excedunt enim uires mentis humanae), existimant falsa esse quae dicimus, ipsi de tot mirabilibus rebus, quas uel uidere possumus uel uidemus, debent reddere rationem. Quod si fieri ab homine non posse peruiderint, fatendum est eis non ideo aliquid non fuisse uel non futurum esse, quia ratio inde non potest reddi. quando quidem sunt ista, de quibus similiter non potest. Non itaque pergo per plurima, quae mandata sunt litteris, non gesta adque transacta, sed in locis quibusque manentia; quo si quisquam ire uoluerit et potuerit, utrum uera sint, explorabit; sed pauca commemoro. Agrigentinum Siciliae salem perhibent, cum fuerit admotus igni, uelut in aqua fluescere; cum uero ipsi aquae, uelut in igne crepitare. Aput Garamantas quendam fontem tam frigidum diebus, ut non bibatur, tam feruidum noctibus, ut non tangatur. In Epiro alium fontem, in quo faces, ut in ceteris, exstinguuntur accensae, sed, non ut in ceteris, accenduntur exstinctae. Asbeston Arcadiae lapidem propterea sic uocari, quod accensus semel iam non possit exstingui. Lignum cuiusdam ficus Aegyptiae, non ut ligna cetera in aquis natare, sed mergi; et, quod est mirabilius, cum in imo aliquamdiu fuerit, inde ad aquae superficiem rursus emergere, quando madefactum debuit umoris pondere praegrauari. Poma in terra Sodomorum gigni quidem et ad maturitatis faciem peruenire; sed morsu pressuue tentata in fumum ac fauillam corio fatiscente uanescere. Pyriten lapidem Persicum tenentis manum, si uehementius prematur, adurere, propter quod ab igne nomen accepit. In eadem Perside gigni etiam lapidem seleniten, cuius interiorem candorem cum luna crescere adque deficere. In Cappadocia etiam uento equas concipere, eosdemque fetus non amplius triennio uiuere. Tylon Indiae insulam eo praeferri ceteris terris, quod omnis arbor, quae in ea gignitur, numquam nudatur tegmine foliorum.

[¶15] These and numberless other marvels recorded in the history, not of past events, but of permanent localities, I have no time to enlarge upon and diverge from my main object; but let those sceptics who refuse to credit the divine writings give me, if they can, a rational account of them. For their only ground of unbelief in the Scriptures is, that they contain incredible things, just such as I have been recounting. For, say they, reason cannot admit that flesh burn and remain unconsumed, suffer without dying. Mighty reasoners, indeed, who are competent to give the reason of all the marvels that exist! Let them then give us the reason of the few things we have cited, and which, if they did not know they existed, and were only assured by us they would at some future time occur, they would believe still less than that which they now refuse to credit on our word. For which of them would believe us if, instead of saying that the living bodies of men hereafter will be such as to endure everlasting pain and fire without ever dying, we were to say that in the world to come there will be salt which becomes liquid in fire as if it were in water, and crackles in water as if it were in fire; or that there will be a fountain whose water in the chill air of night is so hot that it cannot be touched, while in the heat of day it is so cold that it cannot be drunk; or that there will be a stone which by its own heat burns the hand when tightly held, or a stone which cannot be extinguished if it has been lit in any part; or any of those wonders I have cited, while omitting numberless others? If we were to say that these things would be found in the world to come, and our sceptics were to reply, “If you wish us to believe these things, satisfy our reason about each of them,” we should confess that we could not, because the frail comprehension of man cannot master these and such-like wonders of God’s working; and that yet our reason was thoroughly convinced that the Almighty does nothing without reason, though the frail mind of man cannot explain the reason; and that while we are in many instances uncertain what He intends, yet that it is always most certain that nothing which He intends is impossible to Him; and that when He declares His mind, we believe Him whom we cannot believe to be either powerless or false. Nevertheless these cavillers at faith and exactors of reason, how do they dispose of those things of which a reason cannot be given, and which yet exist, though in apparent contrariety to the nature of things? If we had announced that these things were to be, these sceptics would have demanded from us the reason of them, as they do in the case of those things which we are announcing as destined to be. And consequently, as these present marvels are not non-existent, though human reason and discourse are lost in such works of God, so those things we speak of are not impossible because inexplicable; for in this particular they are in the same predicament as the marvels of earth.

> Latin: De bis adque aliis innumerabilibus mirabilibus, quae historia non factorum et transactorum, sed manentium locorum tenet, mihi autem aliud agenti ea persequi nimis longum est, reddant rationem, si possunt, infideles isti, qui nolunt diuinis litteris credere; quid aliud quam non putantes eas esse diuinas, eo quod res habeant incredibiles, sicuti hoc est unde nunc agimus. Non enim admittit, inquiunt, ulla ratio, ut caro ardeat nec absumatur, doleat neque moriatur; ratiocinatores uidelicet magni, qui de omnibus rebus, quas esse mirabiles constat, possint reddere rationem. lieddant ergo de his, quae pauca posuimus, quae procul dubio si esse nescirent et ea futura esse diceremus, multo minus crederent quam quod nunc dicentibus nobis nolunt credere aliquando uenturum. Quis enim eorum nobis crederet, si, quem ad modum dicimus futura hominum uiua corpora, quae semper arsura adque dolitura nec tamen aliquando moritura sint, ita diceremus in futuro saeculo futurum salem, quem faceret ignis uelut in aqua fluescere, eundemque faceret aqua uelut in igne crepitare; aut futurum fontem, cuius aqua in refrigerio noctis sic ardeat, ut non possit tangi, in aestibus uero diei sic algeat, ut non possit bibi; aut futurum lapidem, uel eum qui suo calore manum constringentis adureret, uel eum qui undecumque accensus exstingui omnino non posset, et cetera quae praetermissis aliis innumeris commemoranda interim duxi? Haec ergo in illo saeculo, quod futurum est, si diceremus futura nobisque increduli responderent: ‘Si uultis ut ea credamus, de singulis reddite rationem’: nos non posse confiteremur, eo quod istis et similibus Dei miris operibus infirma mortalium ratiocinatio uinceretur; fixam tamen aput nos esse rationem, non sine ratione Omnipotentem facere, unde animus humanus infirmus rationem non potest reddere; et in multis quidem rebus incertum nobis esse quid uelit, illud tamen esse certissimum, nihil eorum illi esse inpossibile, quaecumque uoluerit; eique nos credere praedicenti, quem neque inpotentem neque mentientem possumus credere. Hi tamen fidei reprehensores exactoresque rationis quid ad ista respondent, de quibus ratio reddi ab homine non potest, et tamen sunt, et ipsi rationi naturae uidentur esse contraria? Quae si futura esse diceremus, similiter a nobis, sicut eorum quae futura esse dicimus, ab infidelibus ratio posceretur. Ac per hoc, cum in talibus operibus Dei deficiat ratio cordis et sermonis humani, sicut ista non ideo non sunt, sic non ideo etiam illa non erunt, quoniam ratio de utrisque ab homine non potest reddi.

## 105. That All Marvels are Not of Nature’s Production, But that Some are Due to Human Ingenuity and Others to Diabolic Contrivance.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/105/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/105/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 6.—That All Marvels are Not of Nature’s Production, But that Some are Due to Human Ingenuity and Others to Diabolic Contrivance.

> Latin: Caput VI. Quod non omnia miracula naturalia sint, sed pleraque humano ingenio modificata, pleraque autem daemonum arte conposita.

[¶1] At this point they will perhaps reply, “These things have no existence; we don’t believe one of them; they are travellers’ tales and fictitious romances;” and they may add what has the appearance of argument, and say, “If you believe such things as these, believe what is recorded in the same books, that there was or is a temple of Venus in which a candelabrum set in the open air holds a lamp, which burns so strongly that no storm or rain extinguishes it, and which is therefore called, like the stone mentioned above, the asbestos or inextinguishable lamp.” They may say this with the intention of putting us into a dilemma: for if we say this is incredible, then we shall impugn the truth of the other recorded marvels; if, on the other hand, we admit that this is credible, we shall avouch the pagan deities. But, as I have already said in the eighteenth book of this work, we do not hold it necessary to believe all that profane history contains, since, as Varro says, even historians themselves disagree on so many points, that one would think they intended and were at pains to do so; but we believe, if we are disposed, those things which are not contradicted by these books, which we do not hesitate to say we are bound to believe. But as to those permanent miracles of nature, whereby we wish to persuade the sceptical of the miracles of the world to come, those are quite sufficient for our purpose which we ourselves can observe or of which it is not difficult to find trustworthy witnesses. Moreover, that temple of Venus, with its inextinguishable lamp, so far from hemming us into a corner, opens an advantageous field to our argument. For to this inextinguishable lamp we add a host of marvels wrought by men, or by magic,—that is, by men under the influence of devils, or by the devils directly,—for such marvels we cannot deny without impugning the truth of the sacred Scriptures we believe. That lamp, therefore, was either by some mechanical and human device fitted with asbestos, or it was arranged by magical art in order that the worshippers might be astonished, or some devil under the name of Venus so signally manifested himself that this prodigy both began and became permanent. Now devils are attracted to dwell in certain temples by means of the creatures (God’s creatures, not theirs), who present to them what suits their various tastes. They are attracted not by food like animals, but, like spirits, by such symbols as suit their taste, various kinds of stones, woods, plants, animals, songs, rites. And that men may provide these attractions, the devils first of all cunningly seduce them, either by imbuing their hearts with a secret poison, or by revealing themselves under a friendly guise, and thus make a few of them their disciples, who become the instructors of the multitude. For unless they first instructed men, it were impossible to know what each of them desires, what they shrink from, by what name they should be invoked or constrained to be present. Hence the origin of magic and magicians. But, above all, they possess the hearts of men, and are chiefly proud of this possession when they transform themselves into angels of light. Very many things that occur, therefore, are their doing; and these deeds of theirs we ought all the more carefully to shun as we acknowledge them to be very surprising. And yet these very deeds forward my present arguments. For if such marvels are wrought by unclean devils, how much mightier are the holy angels! and what can not that God do who made the angels themselves capable of working miracles!

> Latin: Hic forte respondeant: Trorsus nec ista sunt nec ista credimus; falsa de his dicta, falsa conscripta sunt’; et adiciant ratiocinantes adque dicentes: ‘Si talia credenda sunt, credite et uos quod in easdem litteras est relatum, fuisse uel esse quoddam Veneris fanum adque ibi candelabrum et in eo lucernam sub diuo sic ardentem, ut eam nulla tempestas, nullus imber exstingueret, unde sicut ille lapis, ita ista λύχνος ἄσβεστος, t id est lucerna inexstinguibilis, nominata est.’ Quod propterea poterunt dicere, ut respondendi nobis angustias ingerant; quia si dixerimus non esse credendum, scripta illa miraculorum infirmabimus; si autem credendum esse concesserimus, firmabimus numina paganorum. Sed nos, sicut iam in libro duodeuicensimo huius operis dixi, non habemus necesse omnia credere, quae historia continet gentium, cum et ipsi inter se historici, sicut ait Varro, quasi data opera et quasi ex industria per multa dissentiant; sed ea, si uolumus. credimus, quae non aduersantur libris, quibus non dubitamus oportere nos credere. De his autem miraculorum locis nobis ad ea, quae futura persuadere incredulis uolumus, satis illa sufficiunt, quae nos quoque possumus experiri, et eorum testes idoneos non difficile est inuenire. De isto autem fano Veneris et lucerna inexstinguibili non solum in nullas coartamur angustias, uerum etiam latitudinis nobis campus aperitur. Addimus enim ad istam lucernam inexstinguibilem et humanarum et magicarum, id est per homines daemonicarum artium et ipsorum per se ipsos daemonum multa miracula; quae si negare uoluerimus, eidem ipsi cui credimus sacrarum litterarum aduersabimur ueritati. Aut ergo in lucerna illa mechanicum aliquid de lapide asbesto ars humana molita est aut arte magica factum est, quod homines illo mirarentur in templo, aut daemon quispiam sub nomine Veneris tanta se efficacia praesentauit, ut hoc ibi prodigium et appareret hominibus et diutius permaneret. Inliciuntur autem daemones ad inhabitandum per creaturas, quas non ipsi, sed Deus condidit, delectabilibus pro sua diuersitate diuersis, non ut animalia cibis, sed ut spiritus signis, quae cuiusque delectationi congruunt, per uaria genera lapidum herbarum, lignorum animalium, carminum rituum. Ut autem inliciantur ab hominibus, prius eos ipsi astutissima calliditate seducunt, uel inspirando eorum cordibus uirus occultum uel etiam fallacibus amicitiis apparendo, eorumque paucos discipulos suos faciunt plurimorumque doctores. Neque enim potuit, nisi primum ipsis docentibus, disci quid quisque illorum adpetat, quid exhorreat, quo inuitetur nomine, quo cogatur; unde magicae artes earumque artifices exstiterunt. Maxime autem possident corda mortalium, qua potissimum possessione gloriantur, cum se transfigurant in angelos lucis. Sunt ergo facta eorum plurima, quae quanto magis mirabilia confitemur, tanto cautius uitare debemus; sed ad hoc, unde nunc agimus, nobis etiam ipsa proficiunt. Si enim haec inmundi daemones possunt, quanto potentiores sunt sancti angeli, quanto potentior est his omnibus Deus, qui tantorum miraculorum effectores etiam ipsos angelos fecit!

[¶2] If, then, very many effects can be contrived by human art, of so surprising a kind that the uninitiated think them divine, as when, e.g., in a certain temple two magnets have been adjusted, one in the roof, another in the floor, so that an iron image is suspended in mid-air between them, one would suppose by the power of the divinity, were he ignorant of the magnets above and beneath; or, as in the case of that lamp of Venus which we already mentioned as being a skillful adaptation of asbestos; if, again, by the help of magicians, whom Scripture calls sorcerers and enchanters, the devils could gain such power that the noble poet Virgil should consider himself justified in describing a very powerful magician in these lines:

[¶3] “Her charms can cure what souls she please,

> Latin: Quam ob rem si tot et tanta mirifica, quae μηχανήματα appellant, Dei creatura utentibus humanis artibus fiunt, ut ea qui nesciunt opinentur esse diuina (unde factum est,’ ut in quodam templo lapidibus magnetibus in solo et camera proportione magnitudinis positis simulacrum ferreum aeris illius medio inter utrumque lapidem ignorantibus, quid sursum esset ac deorsum, quasi numinis potestate penderet: quale aliquid etiam in illa lucerna Veneris de lapide asbesto ab artifice fieri potuisse iam diximus); si magorum opera, quos nostra scriptura ueneficos et incantatores uocat, in tantum daemones extollere potuerunt, ut congruere hominum sensibus sibi nobilis poeta uideretur, de quadam femina, quae tali arte polleret, dicens: Haec se carminibus promittit soluere mentes Quas uelit, ast aliis duras inmittere curas, Sistere aquam fluuiis et uertere sidera retro;- Nocturnosque ciet manes: mugire uidebis Sub pedibus terram et descendere montibus ornos: quanto magis Deus potens est facere quae infidelibus sunt incredibilia, sed illius facilia potestati; quando quidem ipse lapidum aliarumque uim rerum et hominum ingenia, qui ea miris utuntur modis, angelicasque naturas omnibus terrenis potentiores animantibus condidit, uniuersa mirabilia mirabili uincente uirtute et operandi iubendi sinendique sapientia, utens omnibus tam mirabiliter, quam creauit.

[¶4] Rob other hearts of healthful ease,

[¶5] Turn rivers backward to their source,

[¶6] And make the stars forget their course,

[¶7] And call up ghosts from night:

[¶8] The ground shall bellow ’neath your feet:

[¶9] The mountain-ash shall quit its seat,

[¶10] And travel down the height;”—

[¶11] if this be so, how much more able is God to do those things which to sceptics are incredible, but to His power easy, since it is He who has given to stones and all other things their virtue, and to men their skill to use them in wonderful ways; He who has given to the angels a nature more mighty than that of all that lives on earth; He whose power surpasses all marvels, and whose wisdom in working, ordaining, and permitting is no less marvellous in its governance of all things than in its creation of all!

### That the Ultimate Reason for Believing Miracles is the Omnipotence of the Creator.

[¶13] Chapter 7.—That the Ultimate Reason for Believing Miracles is the Omnipotence of the Creator.

> Latin: Caput VII. Quod in rebus miris summa credendi ratio sit omnipotentia Creatoris.

[¶14] Why, then, cannot God effect both that the bodies of the dead shall rise, and that the bodies of the damned shall be tormented in everlasting fire,—God, who made the world full of countless miracles in sky, earth, air, and waters, while itself is a miracle unquestionably greater and more admirable than all the marvels it is filled with? But those with whom or against whom we are arguing, who believe both that there is a God who made the world, and that there are gods created by Him who administer the world’s laws as His viceregents,—our adversaries, I say, who, so far from denying emphatically, assert that there are powers in the world which effect marvellous results (whether of their own accord, or because they are invoked by some rite or prayer, or in some magical way), when we lay before them the wonderful properties of other things which are neither rational animals nor rational spirits, but such material objects as those we have just cited, are in the habit of replying, This is their natural property, their nature; these are the powers naturally belonging to them. Thus the whole reason why Agrigentine salt dissolves in fire and crackles in water is that this is its nature. Yet this seems rather contrary to nature, which has given not to fire but to water the power of melting salt, and the power of scorching it not to water but to fire. But this they say, is the natural property of this salt, to show effects contrary to these. The same reason, therefore, is assigned to account for that Garamantian fountain, of which one and the same runlet is chill by day and boiling by night, so that in either extreme it cannot be touched. So also of that other fountain which, though it is cold to the touch, and though it, like other fountains, extinguishes a lighted torch, yet, unlike other fountains, and in a surprising manner, kindles an extinguished torch. So of the asbestos stone, which, though it has no heat of its own, yet when kindled by fire applied to it, cannot be extinguished. And so of the rest, which I am weary of reciting, and in which, though there seems to be an extraordinary property contrary to nature, yet no other reason is given for them than this, that this is their nature,—a brief reason truly, and, I own, a satisfactory reply. But since God is the author of all natures, how is it that our adversaries, when they refuse to believe what we affirm, on the ground that it is impossible, are unwilling to accept from us a better explanation than their own, viz., that this is the will of Almighty God,—for certainly He is called Almighty only because He is mighty to do all He will,—He who was able to create so many marvels, not only unknown, but very well ascertained, as I have been showing, and which, were they not under our own observation, or reported by recent and credible witnesses, would certainly be pronounced impossible? For as for those marvels which have no other testimony than the writers in whose books we read them, and who wrote without being divinely instructed, and are therefore liable to human error, we cannot justly blame any one who declines to believe them.

> Latin: Quur itaque facere non possit Deus, ut et resurgant corpora mortuorum et igne aeterno crucientur corpora damnatorum, qui fecit mundum in caelo in terra, in aere in aquis innumerabilibus miraculis plenum, cum sit omnibus quibus plenus est procul dubio maius et excellentius etiam mundus ipse miraculum? Sed isti, cum quibus uel contra quos agimus, qui et Deum esse credunt, a quo factus est mundus, et deos ab illo factos, per quos ab illo administratur mundus, et miraculorum effectrices siue spontaneorum siue cultu et ritu quolibet inpetratorum siue etiam magicorum mundanas uel non negant uel insuper et praedicant potestates, quando eis rerum uim mirabilem proponimus aliarum, quae nec animalia sunt rationalia nec ulla ratione praediti spiritus, sicut sunt ea, quorum pauca commemorauimus, respondere adsolent: <Vis est ista naturae, natura eorum sic se habet, propriarum sunt istae efficaciae naturarum.’ Tota itaque ratio est, quur Agrigentinum salem flamma fluere faciat, aqua crepitare, quia haec est natura eius. At hoc esse potius contra naturam uidetur, quae non igni, sed aquae dedit salem soluere, torrere autem igni, non aquae. Sed ista, inquiunt, salis huius naturalis est uis, ut his contraria patiatur. Haec igitur ratio redditur et de illo fonte Garamantico, ubi una uena friget diebus, noctibus feruet, ui utraque molesta tangentibus; haec et de illo alio, qui cum sit contrectantibus frigidus et facem sicut alii fontes exstinguat accensam, dissimiliter tamen adque mirabiliter idem ipse accendit exstinctam; haec et de lapide asbesto, qui cum ignem nullum habeat proprium, accepto tamen sic ardet alieno, ut non possit exstingui; haec de ceteris, quae piget retexere, quibus licet uis insolita contra naturam inesse uideatur, alia tamen de illis non redditur ratio, nisi ut dicatur hanc eorum esse naturam. Breuis sane ista est ratio, fateor, sufficiensque responsio. Sed cum Deus auctor sit naturarum omnium, quur nolunt fortiorem nos reddere rationem, quando aliquid uelut inpossibile nolunt credere eisque redditionem rationis poscentibus respondemus hanc esse uoluntatem omnipotentis Dei? qui certe non ob aliud uocatur omnipotens, nisi quoniam quidquid uult potest, qui potuit creare tam multa, quae nisi ostenderentur aut a credendis hodieque dicerentur testibus, profecto inpossibilia putarentur, non solum quae ignotissima aput nos, uerum etiam quae notissima posui. Illa enim quae [aput nos] praeter eos, quorum de his libros legimus, non habent testem et ab eis conscripta sunt, qui non sunt diuinitus docti adque humanitus falli forte potuerunt, licet cuique sine recta reprehensione non credere.

[¶15] For my own part, I do not wish all the marvels I have cited to be rashly accepted, for I do not myself believe them implicitly, save those which have either come under my own observation, or which any one can readily verify, such as the lime which is heated by water and cooled by oil; the magnet which by its mysterious and insensible suction attracts the iron, but has no affect on a straw; the peacock’s flesh which triumphs over the corruption from which not the flesh of Plato is exempt; the chaff so chilling that it prevents snow from melting, so heating that it forces apples to ripen; the glowing fire, which, in accordance with its glowing appearance, whitens the stones it bakes, while, contrary to its glowing appearance, it begrimes most things it burns (just as dirty stains are made by oil, however pure it be, and as the lines drawn by white silver are black); the charcoal, too, which by the action of fire is so completely changed from its original, that a finely marked piece of wood becomes hideous, the tough becomes brittle, the decaying incorruptible. Some of these things I know in common with many other persons, some of them in common with all men; and there are many others which I have not room to insert in this book. But of those which I have cited, though I have not myself seen, but only read about them, I have been unable to find trustworthy witnesses from whom I could ascertain whether they are facts, except in the case of that fountain in which burning torches are extinguished and extinguished torches lit, and of the apples of Sodom, which are ripe to appearance, but are filled with dust. And indeed I have not met with any who said they had seen that fountain in Epirus, but with some who knew there was a similar fountain in Gaul not far from Grenoble. The fruit of the trees of Sodom, however, is not only spoken of in books worthy of credit, but so many persons say that they have seen it that I cannot doubt the fact. But the rest of the prodigies I receive without definitely affirming or denying them; and I have cited them because I read them in the authors of our adversaries, and that I might prove how many things many among themselves believe, because they are written in the works of their own literary men, though no rational explanation of them is given, and yet they scorn to believe us when we assert that Almighty God will do what is beyond their experience and observation; and this they do even though we assign a reason for His work. For what better and stronger reason for such things can be given than to say that the Almighty is able to bring them to pass, and will bring them to pass, having predicted them in those books in which many other marvels which have already come to pass were predicted? Those things which are regarded as impossible will be accomplished according to the word, and by the power of that God who predicted and effected that the incredulous nations should believe incredible wonders.

> Latin: Nam nec ego uolo temere credi cuncta quae posui, quia nec a me ipso ita creduntur, tamquam nulla de illis sit in mea cogitatione dubitatio, exceptis his, quae uel ipse sum expertus et cuiuis facile est experiri; sicut de calce, quod feruet in aqua, in oleo frigida est; de magnete lapide, quod nescio qua sorbitione insensibili stipulam non moueat et ferrum rapiat; de carne non putescente pauonis, cum putuerit et Platonis; de palea sic frigente, ut Suescere niuem non sinat, sic calente ut maturescere poma conpellat; de igne fulgido, quod secundum suam fulgorem lapides coquendo candificet et contra eundem suum fulgorem urendo plurima obfuscet. Tale est et quod nigrae maculae offunduntur ex oleo splendido, similiter nigrae lineae de candido inprimuntur argento, de carbonibus etiam, quod accendente igne sic uertantur in contrarium, ut de lignis pulcherrimis taetri, fragiles de duris, inputribiles de putribilibus fiant. Haec ipse quaedam cum multis, quaedam cum omnibus noui, et alia plurima, quae huic libro inserere longum fuit. De his autem, quae posui non experta, sed lecta, praeter de fonte illo, ubi faces exstinguuntur ardentes et accenduntur exstinctae, et de pomis terrae Sodomorum forinsecus quasi maturis, intrinsecus fumeis, nec testes aliquos idoneos, a quibus utrum uera essent audirem, potui reperire. Et illum quidem fontem non inueni qui in Epiro uidisse se dicerent, sed qui in Gallia similem nossent non longe a Gratianopoli ciuitate. De fructibus autem arborum Sodomitarum non tantum litterae fide dignae indicant, uerum etiam tam multi se loquuntur expertos, ut hinc dubitare non possim. Cetera uero sic’ habeo, ut neque neganda neque adfirmanda decreuerim; sed ideo etiam ipsa posui, quoniam aput eorum, contra quos agimus, historicos legi, ut ostenderem qualia multa multique illorum nulla reddita ratione in suorum litteratorum scripta litteris credant, qui nobis credere, quando id, quod eorum experientiam sensumque transgreditur, omnipotentem Deum dicimus esse facturum, nec reddita ratione dignantur. Nam quae melior et ualidior ratio de rebus talibus redditur, quam cum Omnipotens ea posse facere perhibetur et facturus dicitur, quae praenuntiasse ibi legitur, ubi alia multa praenuntiauit, quae fecisse monstratur? Ipse quippe faciet, quia se facturum esse praedixit, quae inpossibilia putantur, qui promisit et fecit ut ab incredulis gentibus incredibilia crederentur.

### That It is Not Contrary to Nature That, in an Object Whose Nature is Known, There Should Be Discovered an Alteration of the Properties Which Have Been Known as Its Natural Properties.

[¶17] Chapter 8.—That It is Not Contrary to Nature That, in an Object Whose Nature is Known, There Should Be Discovered an Alteration of the Properties Which Have Been Known as Its Natural Properties.

> Latin: Caput VIII. Non esse contra naturam, cum in aliqua re, cuius natura innotuit, aliquid ab eo quod erat notum incipit esse diuersum.

[¶18] But if they reply that their reason for not believing us when we say that human bodies will always burn and yet never die, is that the nature of human bodies is known to be quite otherwise constituted; if they say that for this miracle we cannot give the reason which was valid in the case of those natural miracles, viz., that this is the natural property, the nature of the thing,—for we know that this is not the nature of human flesh,—we find our answer in the sacred writings, that even this human flesh was constituted in one fashion before there was sin,—was constituted, in fact, so that it could not die,—and in another fashion after sin, being made such as we see it in this miserable state of mortality, unable to retain enduring life. And so in the resurrection of the dead shall it be constituted differently from its present well-known condition. But as they do not believe these writings of ours, in which we read what nature man had in paradise, and how remote he was from the necessity of death,—and indeed, if they did believe them, we should of course have little trouble in debating with them the future punishment of the damned,—we must produce from the writings of their own most learned authorities some instances to show that it is possible for a thing to become different from what it was formerly known characteristically to be.

> Latin: Si autem respondent propterea se non credere quae de humanis semper arsuris nec umquam morituris corporibus dicimus, quia humanorum corporum naturam nouimus longe aliter institutam, unde nec illa ratio hinc reddi potest, quae de illis naturis mirabilibus reddebatur, ut dici possit: ‘Vis ista naturalis est, rei huius ista natura est’; quoniam scimus humanae carnis istam non esse naturam: habemus quidem quod respondeamus de litteris sacris, hanc ipsam scilicet humanam carnem aliter institutam fuisse ante peccatum, id est, ut posset numquam perpeti mortem; aliter autem post peccatum, qualis in aerumna huius mortalitatis innotuit, ut perpetem uitam tenere non possit; sic ergo aliter, quam nobis nota est, instituetur in resurrectione mortuorum. Sed quoniam istis non credunt litteris, ubi legitur qualis in paradiso uixerit homo quantumque fuerit a necessitate mortis alienus (quibus utique si crederent, non cum illis de poena damnatorum, quae futura est, operosius ageremus): de litteris eorum. qui doctissimi aput illos fuerunt, aliquid proferendum est, quo appareat posse fieri, ut aliter se habeat quaeque res, quam prius in rebus innotuerat suae determinatione naturae.

[¶19] From the book of Marcus Varro, entitled, Of the Race of the Roman People, I cite word for word the following instance: “There occurred a remarkable celestial portent; for Castor records that, in the brilliant star Venus, called Vesperugo by Plautus, and the lovely Hesperus by Homer, there occurred so strange a prodigy, that it changed its color, size, form, course, which never happened before nor since. Adrastus of Cyzicus, and Dion of Naples, famous mathematicians, said that this occurred in the reign of Ogyges.” So great an author as Varro would certainly not have called this a portent had it not seemed to be contrary to nature. For we say that all portents are contrary to nature; but they are not so. For how is that contrary to nature which happens by the will of God, since the will of so mighty a Creator is certainly the nature of each created thing? A portent, therefore, happens not contrary to nature, but contrary to what we know as nature. But who can number the multitude of portents recorded in profane histories? Let us then at present fix our attention on this one only which concerns the matter in hand. What is there so arranged by the Author of the nature of heaven and earth as the exactly ordered course of the stars? What is there established by laws so sure and inflexible? And yet, when it pleased Him who with sovereignty and supreme power regulates all He has created, a star conspicuous among the rest by its size and splendor changed its color, size, form, and, most wonderful of all, the order and law of its course! Certainly that phenomenon disturbed the canons of the astronomers, if there were any then, by which they tabulate, as by unerring computation, the past and future movements of the stars, so as to take upon them to affirm that this which happened to the morning star (Venus) never happened before nor since. But we read in the divine books that even the sun itself stood still when a holy man, Joshua the son of Nun, had begged this from God until victory should finish the battle he had begun; and that it even went back, that the promise of fifteen years added to the life of king Hezekiah might be sealed by this additional prodigy. But these miracles, which were vouchsafed to the merits of holy men, even when our adversaries believe them, they attribute to magical arts; so Virgil, in the lines I quoted above, ascribes to magic the power to

> Latin: Est in Marci Varronis libris, quorum inscriptio est: De gente populi Romani, quod eisdem uerbis, quibus ibi legitur, et hic ponam: ‘In caelo, inquit, mirabile exstitit portentum: nam stellam Veneris nobilissimam, quam Plautus Vesperugiuem, Homerus Hesperon appellat, pulcherrimam dicens, Castor scribit tantum portentum exstitisse, ut mutaret colorem, magnitudinem, figuram, cursum; quod factum ita neque antea nec postea sit. Hoc factum Ogygo rege dicebant Adrastos Cyzicenos et Dion Neapolites, mathematici nobiles.’ Hoc certe Varro tantus auctor portentum non appellaret, nisi esse contra naturam uideretur. Omnia quippe portenta contra naturam dicimus esse; sed non sunt. Quo modo est enim contra naturam, quod Dei fit uoluntate, cum uoluntas tanti utique conditoris conditae rei cuiusque natura sit? Portentum ergo fit non contra naturam, sed contra quam est nota natura. Quis autem portentorum numerat multitudinem, quae historia gentium continetur? Sed nunc in hoc uno adtendamus, quod ad rem, de qua agimus, pertinet. Quid ita dispositum est ab auctore naturae caeli et terrae, quem ad modum cursus ordinatissimus siderum? Quid tam ratis legibus fixisque firmatum? Et tamen, quando ille uoluit, qui summo regit imperio ac potestate quod condidit. stella prae ceteris magnitudine ac splendore notissima colorem, magnitudinem, figuram et (quod est mirabilius) sui cursus ordinem legemque mutauit. Turbauit profecto tunc, si ulli iam fuerunt, canones astrologorum, quos uelut inerrabili conputatione de praeteritis ac futuris astrorum motibus conscriptos habent, quos canones sequendo ausi sunt dicere. hoc, quod de Lucifero contigit, nec antea nec postea contigisse. Nos autem in diuinis libris legimus etiam solem ipsum et stetisse, cum hoc a Domino Deo petiuisset uir sanctus Iesus Naue, donec coeptum proelium uictoria terminaret, et retrorsum redisse, ut regi Ezechiae quindecim anni ad uiuendum additi hoc etiam prodigio promissioni Dei significarentur adiuncto.

[¶20] “Turn rivers backward to their source,

> Latin: Sed ista quoque miracula, quae meritis sunt concessa sanctorum, quando credunt isti facta, magicis artibus tribuunt.

[¶21] And make the stars forget their course.”

[¶22] For in our sacred books we read that this also happened, that a river “turned backward,” was stayed above while the lower part flowed on, when the people passed over under the above-mentioned leader, Joshua the son of Nun; and also when Elias the prophet crossed; and afterwards, when his disciple Elisha passed through it: and we have just mentioned how, in the case of king Hezekiah the greatest of the “stars forgot its course.” But what happened to Venus, according to Varro, was not said by him to have happened in answer to any man’s prayer.

> Latin: Unde illud est, quod superius commemoraui dixisse Vergilium: Sistere aquam fluuiis et uertere sidera retro. Nam et fluuium stetisse superius inferiusque fluxisse, cum populus Dei ductore supra memorato Iesu Naue uiam carperet, et Helia propheta transeunte ac postea discipulo eius Helisaeo id esse factum in sacris litteris legimus, et retro uersum fuisse maximum sidus regnante Ezechia modo commemorauimus.

[¶23] Let not the sceptics then benight themselves in this knowledge of the nature of things, as if divine power cannot bring to pass in an object anything else than what their own experience has shown them to be in its nature. Even the very things which are most commonly known as natural would not be less wonderful nor less effectual to excite surprise in all who beheld them, if men were not accustomed to admire nothing but what is rare. For who that thoughtfully observes the countless multitude of men, and their similarity of nature, can fail to remark with surprise and admiration the individuality of each man’s appearance, suggesting to us, as it does, that unless men were like one another, they would not be distinguished from the rest of the animals; while unless, on the other hand, they were unlike, they could not be distinguished from one another, so that those whom we declare to be like, we also find to be unlike? And the unlikeness is the more wonderful consideration of the two; for a common nature seems rather to require similarity. And yet, because the very rarity of things is that which makes them wonderful, we are filled with much greater wonder when we are introduced to two men so like, that we either always or frequently mistake in endeavoring to distinguish between them.

> Latin: Quod uero de Lucifero Varro scripsit, non est illic dictum alicui petenti homini id fuisse concessum. Non ergo de notitia naturarum caliginem sibi faciant infideles, quasi non possit in aliqua re diuinitus fieri aliud, quamdiu eius natura per humanam suam experientiam cognouerunt; quamuis et ipsa, quae in rerum natura omnibus nota sunt, non minus mira sint, essentque stupenda considerantibus cunctis, si, solerent homines mirari mira nisi rara. Quis enim consulta ratione non uideat in hominum innumerabili numerositate et tanta naturae similitudine ualde mirabiliter sic habere singulos singulas facies, ut nisi inter se similes essent, non discerneretur species eorum ab animalibus ceteris; et rursus nisi inter se dissimiles essent, non discernerentur singuli ab hominibus ceteris? Quos ergo similes confitemur, eosdem dissimiles inuenimus. Sed mirabilior est consideratio dissimilitudinis, quoniam similitudinem iustius uidetur exposcere natura communis. Et tamen quoniam quae sunt rara ipsa sunt mira, multo amplius admiramur quando duos ita similes reperimus, ut in eis discernendis aut semper aut frequenter erremus.

[¶24] But possibly, though Varro is a heathen historian, and a very learned one, they may disbelieve that what I have cited from him truly occurred; or they may say the example is invalid, because the star did not for any length of time continue to follow its new course, but returned to its ordinary orbit. There is, then, another phenomenon at present open to their observation, and which, in my opinion, ought to be sufficient to convince them that, though they have observed and ascertained some natural law, they ought not on that account to prescribe to God, as if He could not change and turn it into something very different from what they have observed. The land of Sodom was not always as it now is; but once it had the appearance of other lands, and enjoyed equal if not richer fertility; for, in the divine narrative, it was compared to the paradise of God. But after it was touched [by fire] from heaven, as even pagan history testifies, and as is now witnessed by those who visit the spot, it became unnaturally and horribly sooty in appearance; and its apples, under a deceitful appearance of ripeness, contain ashes within. Here is a thing which was of one kind, and is of another. You see how its nature was converted by the wonderful transmutation wrought by the Creator of all natures into so very disgusting a diversity,—an alteration which after so long a time took place, and after so long a time still continues. As therefore it was not impossible to God to create such natures as He pleased, so it is not impossible to Him to change these natures of His own creation into whatever He pleases, and thus spread abroad a multitude of those marvels which are called monsters, portents, prodigies, phenomena, and which if I were minded to cite and record, what end would there be to this work? They say that they are called “monsters,” because they demonstrate or signify something; “portents,” because they portend something; and so forth. But let their diviners see how they are either deceived, or even when they do predict true things, it is because they are inspired by spirits, who are intent upon entangling the minds of men (worthy, indeed, of such a fate) in the meshes of a hurtful curiosity, or how they light now and then upon some truth, because they make so many predictions. Yet, for our part, these things which happen contrary to nature, and are said to be contrary to nature (as the apostle, speaking after the manner of men, says, that to graft the wild olive into the good olive, and to partake of its fatness, is contrary to nature), and are called monsters, phenomena, portents, prodigies, ought to demonstrate, portend, predict that God will bring to pass what He has foretold regarding the bodies of men, no difficulty preventing Him, no law of nature prescribing to Him His limit. How He has foretold what He is to do, I think I have sufficiently shown in the preceding book, culling from the sacred Scriptures, both of the New and Old Testaments, not, indeed, all the passages that relate to this, but as many as I judged to suffice for this work.

> Latin: Sed quod dixi scriptum a Varrone, licet eorum sit historicus idemque doctissimus, fortasse uere factum esse non credunt; aut quia non diu mansit alius eiusdem sideris cursus, sed reditum est ad solitum, minus isto mouentur exemplo. Habent ergo aliud, quod etiam nunc possit ostendi eisque puto debere sufficere, quo commoneantur, cum aliquid aduerterint in aliqua institutione naturae eamque sibi notissimam fecerint, non se inde Deo debere praescribere, quasi eam non possit in longe aliud, quam eis cognita est, uertere adque mutare. Terra Sodomorum non fuit utique ut nunc est, sed iacebat simili ceteris facie eademque uel etiam uberiore fecunditate pollebat; nam Dei paradiso in diuinis eloquiis conparata est. Haec postea quam tacta de caelo est, sicut illorum quoque adtestatur historia et nunc ab eis qui ueniunt ad loca illa conspicitur, prodigiosa fuligine horrori est et poma eius interiorem fauillam mendaci superficie maturitatis includunt. Ecce non erat talis, et talis est. Ecce a conditore naturarum natura eius in hanc foedissimam diuersitatem mirabili mutatione conuersa est; et quod post tam longum accidit tempus, tam longo tempore perseuerat. Sicut ergo non fuit inpossibile Deo, quas uoluit instituere, sic ei non est inpossibile, in quidquid uoluerit, quas instituit, mutare naturas. Unde illorum quoque miraculorum multitudo siluescit, quae monstra ostenta, portenta prodigia nuncupantur; quae recolere et commemorare si uelim, huius operis quis erit finis? Monstra sane dicta perhibent a monstrando, quod aliquid significando demonstrent, et ostenta ab ostendendo, et portenta a portendendo, id est praeostendendo, et prodigia, quod porro dicant, id est futura praedicant. Sed uiderint eorum coniectores, quo modo ex eis siue fallantur siue instinctu spirituum, quibus cura est tali poena dignos animos hominum noxiae curiositatis retibus inplicare, etiam uera praedicant, siue multa dicendo aliquando in aliquid ueritatis incurrant. Nobis tamen ista, quae uelut contra naturam fiunt et contra naturam fieri dicuntur (quo more hominum locutus est et apostolus dicendo contra naturam in olea insitum oleastrum factum esse participem pinguedinis oleae) et monstra ostenta, portenta prodigia nuncupantur, hoc monstrare debent, hoc ostendere uel praeostendere, hoc praedicere, quod facturus sit Deus, quae de corporibus hominum se praenuntiauit esse facturum, nulla inpediente difficultate, nulla praescribente lege naturae. Quo modo autem praenuntiauerit, satis in libro superiore docuisse me existimo, decerpendo de scripturis sanctis et nouis et ueteribus non quidem omnia ad hoc pertinentia, sed quae sufficere huic operi iudicaui.

## 106. Of Hell, and the Nature of Eternal Punishments.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/106/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/106/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 9.—Of Hell, and the Nature of Eternal Punishments.

> Latin: Caput IX. De gehenna et aeternarum qualitate poenarum.

[¶1] So then what God by His prophet has said of the everlasting punishment of the damned shall come to pass—shall without fail come to pass,—“their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched.” In order to impress this upon us most forcibly, the Lord Jesus Himself, when ordering us to cut off our members, meaning thereby those persons whom a man loves as the most useful members of his body, says, “It is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where their worm dieth not, and their fire is not quenched.” Similarly of the foot: “It is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” So, too, of the eye: “It is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” He did not shrink from using the same words three times over in one passage. And who is not terrified by this repetition, and by the threat of that punishment uttered so vehemently by the lips of the Lord Himself?

> Latin: Quod igitur de sempiterno supplicio damnatorum per suum prophetam Deus dixit, fiet, omnino fiet: Vermis eorum non morietur et ignis eorum non exstinguetur. Ad hoc enim uehementius commendandum etiam Dominus Iesus, cum membra quae hominem scandalizant pro his hominibus poneret, quos ut sua membra dextra quis diligit, eaque praeciperet amputari: Bonum est tibi, inquit, debilem introire in uitam quam duas manus habentem ire in gehennam, in ignem inexstinguibilem, ubi uermis eorum non morietur et ignis non exstinguetur. Similiter de pede: Bonum est tibi, inquit, claudum introire in uitam aeternam quam duos pedes habentem mitti in gehennam ignis inexstinguibilis, ubi uermis eorum non moritur et ignis non exstinguitur. Non aliter ait et de oculo: Bonum est tibi luscum introire in regnum Dei quam duos oculos habentem mitti in gehennam ignis, ubi uermis eorum non moritur et ignis non exstinguitur. Non eum piguit uno loco eadem uerba ter dicere. Quem non terreat ista repetitio et illius poenae commonitio tam uehemens ore diuino?

[¶2] Now they who would refer both the fire and the worm to the spirit, and not to the body, affirm that the wicked, who are separated from the kindgdom of God, shall be burned, as it were, by the anguish of a spirit repenting too late and fruitlessly; and they contend that fire is therefore not inappropriately used to express this burning torment, as when the apostle exclaims “Who is offended, and I burn not?” The worm, too, they think, is to be similarly understood. For it is written they say, “As the moth consumes the garment, and the worm the wood, so does grief consume the heart of a man.” But they who make no doubt that in that future punishment both body and soul shall suffer, affirm that the body shall be burned with fire, while the soul shall be, as it were, gnawed by a worm of anguish. Though this view is more reasonable,—for it is absurd to suppose that either body or soul will escape pain in the future punishment,—yet, for my own part, I find it easier to understand both as referring to the body than to suppose that neither does; and I think that Scripture is silent regarding the spiritual pain of the damned, because, though not expressed, it is necessarily understood that in a body thus tormented the soul also is tortured with a fruitless repentance. For we read in the ancient Scriptures, “The vengeance of the flesh of the ungodly is fire and worms.” It might have been more briefly said, “The vengeance of the ungodly.” Why, then, was it said, “The flesh of the ungodly,” unless because both the fire and the worm are to be the punishment of the flesh? Or if the object of the writer in saying, “The vengeance of the flesh,” was to indicate that this shall be the punishment of those who live after the flesh (for this leads to the second death, as the apostle intimated when he said, “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die”, let each one make his own choice, either assigning the fire to the body and the worm to the soul,—the one figuratively, the other really,—or assigning both really to the body. For I have already sufficiently made out that animals can live in the fire, in burning without being consumed, in pain without dying, by a miracle of the most omnipotent Creator, to whom no one can deny that this is possible, if he be not ignorant by whom has been made all that is wonderful in all nature. For it is God Himself who has wrought all these miracles, great and small, in this world which I have mentioned, and incomparably more which I have omitted, and who has enclosed these marvels in this world, itself the greatest miracle of all. Let each man, then, choose which he will, whether he thinks that the worm is real and pertains to the body, or that spiritual things are meant by bodily representations, and that it belongs to the soul. But which of these is true will be more readily discovered by the facts themselves, when there shall be in the saints such knowledge as shall not require that their own experience teach them the nature of these punishments, but as shall, by its own fullness and perfection, suffice to instruct them in this matter. For “now we know in part, until that which is perfect is come;” only, this we believe about those future bodies, that they shall be such as shall certainly be pained by the fire.

> Latin: Utrumque autem horum, ignem scilicet adque uermem, qui uolunt ad animi poenas, non ad corporis pertinere, dicunt etiam uri dolore animi sero adque infructuose paenitentes eos, qui fuerint a regno Dei separati, et ideo ignem pro isto dolore urente non incongrue poni potuisse contendunt; unde illud apostoli est: Quis scandalizatur, et non ego uror? Eundem etiam uermem putant intellegendum esse. Nam scriptum est, inquiunt: Sicut tinea uestimentum et uermis lignum, sic maeror excruciat cor uiri. Qui uero poenas et animi et corporis in illo supplicio futuras esse non dubitant, igne uri corpus, animum autem rodi quodam modo uerme maeroris adfirmant. Quod etsi credibilius dicitur, quia utique absurdum est ibi dolorem aut corporis aut animi defuturum: ego tamen facilius est ut ad corpus dicam utrumque pertinere quam neutrum, et ideo tacitum in illis diuinae scripturae uerbis animi dolorem, quoniam consequens esse intellegitur, etiamsi non dicatur, ut corpore sic dolente animus quoque sterili paenitentia crucietur. Legitur quippe et in ueteribus scripturis: Vindicta carnis inpii, ignis et uermis. Potuit breuius dici: Vindicta inpii. Quur ergo dictum est: carnis inpii, nisi quia utrumque, id est et ignis et uermis, poena erit carnis? Aut si uindictam carnis propterea dicere uoluit, quia hoc in homine uindicabitur, quod secundum carnem uixerit (propter hoc enim ueniet in mortem secundam, quam significauit apostolus dicens: Si enim secundum carnem uixeritis, moriemini), eligat quisque quod placet, aut ignem tribuere corpori, animo uermem, hoc proprie, illud tropice, aut utrumque proprie corpori. Iam enim satis superius disputaui posse animalia etiam in ignibus uiuere, in ustione sine consumtione, in dolore sine morte. per miraculum omnipotentissimi Creatoris; cui hoc possibile esse qui negat, a quo sit quidquid in naturis omnibus miratur ignorat. Ipse est enim Deus, qui omnia in hoc mundo magna et parua miracula, quae commemorauimus, et inconparabiliter plura, quae non commemorauimus, fecit eademque ipso mundo uno adque omnium maximo miraculo inclusit. Eligat ergo unum e duobus quisque quod placet, utrum et uermem ad corpus proprie an ad animum translato a corporalibus ad incorporalia uocabulo existimet pertinere. Quid autem horum uerum sit, res ipsa expeditius indicabit, quando erit scientia tanta sanctorum, ut eis cognoscendarum illarum poenarum necessaria non sit experientia, sed ea, quae tunc erit plena adque perfecta, ad hoc quoque sciendum sapientia sola sufficiat (nunc enim ex parte scimus, donec ueniat quod perfectum est); dum tamen nullo modo illa corpora talia futura esse credamus, ut nullis ab igne adficiantur doloribus.

### Whether the Fire of Hell, If It Be Material Fire, Can Burn the Wicked Spirits, that is to Say, Devils, Who are Immaterial.

[¶4] Chapter 10.—Whether the Fire of Hell, If It Be Material Fire, Can Burn the Wicked Spirits, that is to Say, Devils, Who are Immaterial.

> Latin: Caput X. An ignis gehennae, si corporalis est, possit malignos spiritus, id est daemones incorporeos, tactu suo adurere.

[¶5] Here arises the question: If the fire is not to be immaterial, analogous to the pain of the soul, but material, burning by contact, so that bodies may be tormented in it, how can evil spirits be punished in it? For it is undoubtedly the same fire which is to serve for the punishment of men and of devils, according to the words of Christ: “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels;” unless, perhaps, as learned men have thought, the devils have a kind of body made of that dense and humid air which we feel strikes us when the wind is blowing. And if this kind of substance could not be affected by fire, it could not burn when heated in the baths. For in order to burn, it is first burned, and affects other things as itself is affected. But if any one maintains that the devils have no bodies, this is not a matter either to be laboriously investigated, or to be debated with keenness. For why may we not assert that even immaterial spirits may, in some extraordinary way, yet really be pained by the punishment of material fire, if the spirits of men, which also are certainly immaterial, are both now contained in material members of the body, and in the world to come shall be indissolubly united to their own bodies? Therefore, though the devils have no bodies, yet their spirits, that is, the devils themselves, shall be brought into thorough contact with the material fires, to be tormented by them; not that the fires themselves with which they are brought into contact shall be animated by their connection with these spirits, and become animals composed of body and spirit, but, as I said, this junction will be effected in a wonderful and ineffable way, so that they shall receive pain from the fires, but give no life to them. And, in truth, this other mode of union, by which bodies and spirits are bound together and become animals, is thoroughly marvellous, and beyond the comprehension of man, though this it is which is man.

> Latin: Hic occurrit quaerere: Si non erit ignis incorporalis, sicut est animi dolor, sed corporalis, tactu noxius, ut eo possint corpora cruciari: quo modo in eo erit etiam poena spirituum malignorum? Idem quippe ignis erit, supplicio scilicet hominum adtributus et daemonum, dicente Christo: Discedite a me. maledicti, in ignem aeternum, qui paratus est diabolo et angelis eius. Nisi quia sunt quaedam sua etiam daemonibus corpora, sicut doctis hominibus uisum est, ex isto aere crasso adque umido, cuius inpulsus uento flante sentitur. Quod genus elementi si nihil igne perpeti posset, non ureret feruefactus in balneis. Ut enim urat, prior uritur facitque cum patitur. Si autem quisquam nulla habere corpora daemones adseuerat, non est de hac re aut laborandum operosa inquisitione aut contentiosa disputatione certandum. Quur enim non dicamus, quamuis miris, tamen ueris modis etiam spiritus incorporeos posse poena corporalis ignis adfligi, si spiritus hominum, etiam ipsi profecto incorporei, et nunc potuerunt includi corporalibus membris et tunc poterunt corporum suorum uinculis insolubiliter adligari? Adhaerebunt ergo, si eis nulla sunt corpora, spiritus daemonum, immo spiritus daemones, licet incorporei corporeis ignibus cruciandi, non ut ignes ipsi, quibus adhaerebunt, eorum iunctura inspirentur et animalia fiant, quae constent spiritu et corpore, sed, ut dixi, miris et ineffabilibus modis adhaerendo, accipientes ex ignibus poenam, non dantes ignibus uitam; quia et iste alius modus, quo corporibus adhaerent spiritus et animalia fiunt, omnino mirus est nec conprehendi ab homine potest, et hoc ipse homo est.

[¶6] I would indeed say that these spirits will burn without any body of their own, as that rich man was burning in hell when he exclaimed, “I am tormented in this flame,” were I not aware that it is aptly said in reply, that that flame was of the same nature as the eyes he raised and fixed on Lazarus, as the tongue on which he entreated that a little cooling water might be dropped, or as the finger of Lazarus, with which he asked that this might be done,—all of which took place where souls exist without bodies. Thus, therefore, both that flame in which he burned and that drop he begged were immaterial, and resembled the visions of sleepers or persons in an ecstasy, to whom immaterial objects appear in a bodily form. For the man himself who is in such a state, though it be in spirit only, not in body, yet sees himself so like to his own body that he cannot discern any difference whatever. But that hell, which also is called a lake of fire and brimstone, will be material fire, and will torment the bodies of the damned, whether men or devils,—the solid bodies of the one, aerial bodies of the others; or if only men have bodies as well as souls, yet the evil spirits, though without bodies, shall be so connected with the bodily fires as to receive pain without imparting life. One fire certainly shall be the lot of both, for thus the truth has declared.

> Latin: Dicerem quidem sic arsuros sine ullo suo corpore spiritus, sicut ardebat aput inferos ille diues, quando dicebat: Crucior in hac flamma, nisi conuenienter responderi cernerem talem fuisse illam flammam, quales oculi quos leuauit et Lazarum uidit, qualis lingua cui umorem exiguum desiderauit infundi, qualis digitus Laxari de quo id sibi fieri postulauit; ubi tamen erant sine corporibus animae. Sic ergo incorporalis et illa flamma qua exarsit et illa guttula quam poposcit, qualia sunt etiam uisa dormientium siue in ecstasi cernentium res incorporales, habentes tamen similitudinem corporum. Nam et ipse homo cum spiritu, non corpore, sit in talibus uisis, ita se tamen tunc similem suo corpori uidet. ut discernere omnino non possit. At uero gehenna illa, quod etiam stagnum ignis et sulphuris dictum est, corporeus ignis erit et cruciabit corpora damnatorum, aut et hominum et daemonum, solida hominum, aeria daemonum, aut tantum hominum corpora cum spiritibus, daemones autem spiritus sine corporibus haerentes sumendo poenam, non inpertiendo uitam corporalibua ignibus. Unus quippe utrisque ignis erit, sicut Veritas dixit.

### Whether It is Just that the Punishments of Sins Last Longer Than the Sins Themselves Lasted.

[¶8] Chapter 11.—Whether It is Just that the Punishments of Sins Last Longer Than the Sins Themselves Lasted.

> Latin: Caput XI. An hoc ratio iustitiae habeat, ut non sint extensiora poenarum tempora, quam fuerint peccatorum.

[¶9] Some, however, of those against whom we are defending the city of God, think it unjust that any man be doomed to an eternal punishment for sins which, no matter how great they were, were perpetrated in a brief space of time; as if any law ever regulated the duration of the punishment by the duration of the offence punished! Cicero tells us that the laws recognize eight kinds of penalty,—damages, imprisonment, scourging, reparation, disgrace, exile, death, slavery. Is there any one of these which may be compressed into a brevity proportioned to the rapid commission of the offence, so that no longer time may be spent in its punishment than in its perpetration, unless, perhaps, reparation? For this requires that the offender suffer what he did, as that clause of the law says, “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” For certainly it is possible for an offender to lose his eye by the severity of legal retaliation in as brief a time as he deprived another of his eye by the cruelty of his own lawlessness. But if scourging be a reasonable penalty for kissing another man’s wife, is not the fault of an instant visited with long hours of atonement, and the momentary delight punished with lasting pain? What shall we say of imprisonment? Must the criminal be confined only for so long a time as he spent on the offence for which he is committed? or is not a penalty of many years’ confinement imposed on the slave who has provoked his master with a word, or has struck him a blow that is quickly over? And as to damages, disgrace, exile, slavery, which are commonly inflicted so as to admit of no relaxation or pardon, do not these resemble eternal punishments in so far as this short life allows a resemblance? For they are not eternal only because the life in which they are endured is not eternal; and yet the crimes which are punished with these most protracted sufferings are perpetrated in a very brief space of time. Nor is there any one who would suppose that the pains of punishment should occupy as short a time as the offense; or that murder, adultery, sacrilege, or any other crime, should be measured, not by the enor mity of the injury or wickedness, but by the length of time spent in its perpetration. Then as to the award of death for any great crime, do the laws reckon the punishment to consist in the brief moment in which death is inflicted, or in this, that the offender is eternally banished from the society of the living? And just as the punishment of the first death cuts men off from this present mortal city, so does the punishment of the second death cut men off from that future immortal city. For as the laws of this present city do not provide for the executed criminal’s return to it, so neither is he who is condemned to the second death recalled again to life everlasting. But if temporal sin is visited with eternal punishment, how, then, they say, is that true which your Christ says, “With the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again?” and they do not observe that “the same measure” refers, not to an equal space of time, but to the retribution of evil or, in other words, to the law by which he who has done evil suffers evil. Besides, these words could be appropriately understood as referring to the matter of which our Lord was speaking when He used them, viz., judgments and condemnation. Thus, if he who unjustly judges and condemns is himself justly judged and condemned, he receives “with the same measure” though not the same thing as he gave. For judgment he gave, and judgment he receives, though the judgment he gave was unjust, the judgment he receives just.

> Latin: Sic autem quidam eorum, contra quos defendimus ciuitatem Dei, iniustum putant, ut pro peccatis quamlibet magnis, paruo scilicet tempore perpetratis, poena quisque damnetur aeterna, quasi ullius id umquam iustitia legis adtendat, ut tanta mora temporis quisque puniatur, quanta mora temporis unde puniretur admisit. Octo genera poenarum in legibus esse scribit Tullius, damnum, uincla, uerbera, talionem, ignominiam, exsilium, mortem, seruitutem. Quid horum est quod in breue tempus pro cuiusque peccati celeritate coartetur, ut tanta uindicetur morula, quanta deprehenditur perpetratum, nisi forte talio? Id enim agit, ut hoc patiatur quisque quod fecit. Unde illud est legis: Oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente. Fieri enim potest, ut tam breui tempore quisque amittat oculum seueritate uindictae, quam tulit ipse alteri inprobitate peccati. Porro autem si alienae feminae osculum infixum rationis sit uerbere uindicare, nonne qui illud puncto temporis fecerit, inconparabili horarum spatio uerberatur et suauitas uoluptatis exiguae diuturno dolore punitur? Quid, in uinculis numquid tamdiu quisque iudicandus est esse debere, quamdiu fecit unde meruit adligari; cum iustissime annosas poenas seruus in conpedibus pendat, qui uerbo aut ictu celerrime transeunte uel lacessiuit dominum uel plagauit? Iam uero damnum, ignominia, exsilium, seruitus cum plerumque sic infliguntur, ut nulla uenia relaxentur, nonne pro huius uitae modo similia poenis uidentur aeternis? Ideo quippe aeterna esse non possunt, quia nec ipsa uita, quae his plectitur, porrigitur in aeternum; et tamen peccata, quae uindicantur longissimi temporis poenis, breuissimo tempore perpetrantur; nec quisquam exstitit qui censeret tam cito nocentium finienda esse tormenta, quam cito factum est uel homicidium uel adulterium uel sacrilegium uel quodlibet aliud scelus non temporis longitudine, sed iniquitatis et inpietatis magnitudine metiendum. Qui uero pro aliquo grandi crimine morte multatur, numquid mora qua occiditur, quae perbreuis est, eius supplicium leges aestimant et non quod eum in sempiternum auferunt de societate uiuentium? Quod est autem de ista ciuitate mortali homines supplicio primae mortis, hoc est de illa ciuitate inmortali homines supplicio secundae mortis auferre. Sicut enim non efficiunt leges huius ciuitatis, ut in eam quisque reuocetur occisus: sic nec illius, ut in uitam reuocetur aeternam secunda morte damnatus. Quo modo ergo uerum est, inquiunt, quod ait Christus uester: In qua mensura mensi fueritis, in ea remetietur uobis. si temporale peccatum supplicio punitur aeterno? Nec adtendunt non propter aequale temporis spatium, sed propter uicissitudinem mali, id est ut qui mala fecerit mala patiatur, eandem dictam fuisse mensuram. Quamuis hoc in ea re proprie possit accipi, de qua Dominus cum hoc diceret loquebatur, id est de iudiciis et condemnationibus. Proinde qui iudicat et condemnat iniuste, si iudicatur et condemnatur iuste, in eadem mensura recipit, quamuis non hoc quod dedit. Iudicio enim fecit, iudicio patitur; quamuis fecerit damnatione quod iniquum est, patiatur damnatione quod iustum est.

### Of the Greatness of the First Transgression, on Account of Which Eternal Punishment is Due to All Who are Not Within the Pale of the Saviour’s Grace.

[¶11] Chapter 12.—Of the Greatness of the First Transgression, on Account of Which Eternal Punishment is Due to All Who are Not Within the Pale of the Saviour’s Grace.

> Latin: Caput XII. De magnitudine praeuaricationis primae, ob quam aeterna poena omnibus debeatur, qui extra gratiam fuerint Saluatoris.

[¶12] But eternal punishment seems hard and unjust to human perceptions, because in the weakness of our mortal condition there is wanting that highest and purest wisdom by which it can be perceived how great a wickedness was committed in that first transgression. The more enjoyment man found in God, the greater was his wickedness in abandoning Him; and he who destroyed in himself a good which might have been eternal, became worthy of eternal evil. Hence the whole mass of the human race is condemned; for he who at first gave entrance to sin has been punished with all his posterity who were in him as in a root, so that no one is exempt from this just and due punishment, unless delivered by mercy and undeserved grace; and the human race is so apportioned that in some is displayed the efficacy of merciful grace, in the rest the efficacy of just retribution. For both could not be displayed in all; for if all had remained under the punishment of just condemnation, there would have been seen in no one the mercy of redeeming grace. And, on the other hand, if all had been transferred from darkness to light, the severity of retribution would have been manifested in none. But many more are left under punishment than are delivered from it, in order that it may thus be shown what was due to all. And had it been inflicted on all, no one could justly have found fault with the justice of Him who taketh vengeance; whereas, in the deliverance of so many from that just award, there is cause to render the most cordial thanks to the gratuitous bounty of Him who delivers.

> Latin: Sed poena aeterna ideo dura et iniusta sensibus uidetur humanis, quia in hac infirmitate moribundorum sensuum deest ille sensus altissimae purissimaeque sapientiae, quo sentiri possit quantum nefas in illa prima praeuaricatione commissum sit. Quanto enim magis homo fruebatur Deo, tanto maiore inpietate dereliquit Deum et factus est malo dignus aeterno, qui hoc in se peremit bonum, quod esse posset aeternum. Hinc est uniuersa generis humani massa damnata; quoniam, qui hoc primus admisit, cum ea quae in illo fuerat radicata sua stirpe punitus est, ut nullus ab hoc iusto debitoque supplicio nisi misericordi et indebita gratia liberetur adque ita dispertiatur genus humanum, ut in quibusdam demonstretur quid ualeat misericors gratia, in ceteris quid iusta uindicta. Neque enim utrumque demonstraretur in omnibus, quia, si omnes remanerent in poenis iustae damnationis, in nullo appareret misericors gratia; rursus si omnes a tenebris transferrentur in lucem, in nullo appareret ueritas ultionis. In qua propterea multo plures quam in illa sunt, ut sic ostendatur, quid omnibus deberetur. Quod si omnibus redderetur, iustitiam uindicantis iuste nemo reprehenderet; quia uero tam multi exinde liberantur, est unde agantur maximae gratiae gratuito muneri liberantis.

## 107. Against the Opinion of Those Who Think that the Punishments of the Wicked After Death are Purgatorial.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/107/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/107/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 13.—Against the Opinion of Those Who Think that the Punishments of the Wicked After Death are Purgatorial.

> Latin: Caput XIII. Contra opinionem eorum, qui putant criminosis supplicia post mortem causa purgationis adhiberi.

[¶1] The Platonists, indeed, while they maintain that no sins are unpunished, suppose that all punishment is administered for remedial purposes, be it inflicted by human or divine law, in this life or after death; for a man may be scathless here, or, though punished, may yet not amend. Hence that passage of Virgil, where, when he had said of our earthly bodies and mortal members, that our souls derive—

> Latin: Platonici quidem, quamuis inpunita nulla uelint esse peccata, tamen omnes poenas emendationi adhiberi putant, uel humanis inflictas legibus uel diuinis, siue in hac uita siue post mortem, si aut parcatur hic cuique aut ita plectatur ut hic non corrigatur.

[¶2] “Hence wild desires and grovelling fears,

[¶3] And human laughter, human tears;

[¶4] Immured in dungeon-seeming night,

[¶5] They look abroad, yet see no light,”

> Latin: Hinc est Maronis illa sententia, ubi, cum dixisset de terrenis corporibus moiibundisque membris, quod animae Hinc metuunt cupiuntque, dolent gaudentque, nec auras Suspiciunt, clausae tenebris et carcere caeco, secutus adiunxit adque ait: Quin et supremo cum lumine uita reliquit (id est cum die nouissimo reliquit eas ista uita), Non tamen (inquit) omne malum miseris, nec funditus omnes Corporeae excedunt pestes, penitusque necesse est Multa diu concreta modis inolescere miris.

[¶6] goes on to say:

[¶7] “Nay, when at last the life has fled,

[¶8] And left the body cold and dead,

[¶9] Ee’n then there passes not away

[¶10] The painful heritage of clay;

[¶11] Full many a long-contracted stain

[¶12] Perforce must linger deep in grain.

[¶13] So penal sufferings they endure

[¶14] For ancient crime, to make them pure;

[¶15] Some hang aloft in open view,

[¶16] For winds to pierce them through and through,

> Latin: Ergo exercentur poenis ueterumque malorum Supplicia expendunt; aliae panduntur inanes Suspensae ad uentos, aliis sub gurgite uasto Infectum eluitur scelus aut exuritur igni.

[¶17] While others purge their guilt deep-dyed

[¶18] In burning fire or whelming tide.”

[¶19] They who are of this opinion would have all punishments after death to be purgatorial; and as the elements of air, fire, and water are superior to earth, one or other of these may be the instrument of expiating and purging away the stain contracted by the contagion of earth. So Virgil hints at the air in the words, “Some hang aloft for winds to pierce;” at the water in “whelming tide;” and at fire in the expression “in burning fire.” For our part, we recognize that even in this life some punishments are purgatorial,—not, indeed, to those whose life is none the better, but rather the worse for them, but to those who are constrained by them to amend their life. All other punishments, whether temporal or eternal, inflicted as they are on every one by divine providence, are sent either on account of past sins, or of sins presently allowed in the life, or to exercise and reveal a man’s graces. They may be inflicted by the instrumentality of bad men and angels as well as of the good. For even if any one suffers some hurt through another’s wickedness or mistake, the man indeed sins whose ignorance or injustice does the harm; but God, who by His just though hidden judgment permits it to be done, sins not. But temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But of those who suffer temporary punishments after death, all are not doomed to those everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment; for to some, as we have already said, what is not remitted in this world is remitted in the next, that is, they are not punished with the eternal punishment of the world to come.

> Latin: Qui hoc opinantur, nullas poenas nisi purgatorias uolunt esse post mortem, ut, quoniam terris superiora sunt elementa aqua, aer, ignis, ex aliquo istorum mundetur per expiatorias poenas, quod terrena contagione contractum est. Aer quippe accipitur in eo quod ait: ‘Suspensae ad uentos’; aqua in eo quod ait: cSub gurgite uasto); ignis autem suo nomine expressus est, cum dixit: ‘Aut exuritur igni.’ Nos uero etiam in hac quidem mortali uita esse quasdam poenas purgatorias confitemur, non quibus adfliguntur, quorum uita uel non inde fit melior, uel potius inde fit peior; sed illis sunt purgatoriae, qui eis coherciti corriguntur. Ceterae omnes poenae, siue temporariae siue sempiternae, sicut unusquisque diuina prouidentia tractandus est, inferuntur uel pro peccatis siue praeteritis siue in quibus adhuc uiuit ille qui plectitur, uel pro exercendis declarandisque uirtutibus per homines et angelos seu bonos seu malos. Nam etsi quisque mali aliquid alterius inprobitate uel errore patiatur, peccat quidem homo, qui uel ignorantia uel iniustitia cuiquam mali aliquid facit; sed non peccat Deus, qui iusto, quamuis occulto, iudicio fieri sinit. Sed temporarias poenas alii in hac uita tantum, alii post mortem, alii et nunc et tunc, uerum tamen ante iudicium illud seuerissimum nouissimumque patiuntur. Non autem omnes ueniunt in sempiternas poenas, quae post illud iudicium sunt futurae, qui post mortem sustinent temporales. Nam quibusdam, quod in isto non remittitur, remitti in futuro saeculo, id est, ne futuri saeculi aeterno supplicio puniantur, iam supra diximus.

### Of the Temporary Punishments of This Life to Which the Human Condition is Subject.

[¶21] Chapter 14.—Of the Temporary Punishments of This Life to Which the Human Condition is Subject.

> Latin: Caput XIV. De poenis temporalibus istius uitae, quibus subiecta est humana condicio.

[¶22] Quite exceptional are those who are not punished in this life, but only afterwards. Yet that there have been some who have reached the decrepitude of age without experiencing even the slightest sickness, and who have had uninterrupted enjoyment of life, I know both from report and from my own observation. However, the very life we mortals lead is itself all punishment, for it is all temptation, as the Scriptures declare, where it is written, “Is not the life of man upon earth a temptation?” For ignorance is itself no slight punishment, or want of culture, which it is with justice thought so necessary to escape, that boys are compelled, under pain of severe punishment, to learn trades or letters; and the learning to which they are driven by punishment is itself so much of a punishment to them, that they sometimes prefer the pain that drives them to the pain to which they are driven by it. And who would not shrink from the alternative, and elect to die, if it were proposed to him either to suffer death or to be again an infant? Our infancy, indeed, introducing us to this life not with laughter but with tears, seems unconsciously to predict the ills we are to encounter. Zoroaster alone is said to have laughed when he was born, and that unnatural omen portended no good to him. For he is said to have been the inventor of magical arts, though indeed they were unable to secure to him even the poor felicity of this present life against the assaults of his enemies. For, himself king of the Bactrians, he was conquered by Ninus king of the Assyrians. In short, the words of Scripture, “An heavy yoke is upon the sons of Adam, from the day that they go out of their mother’s womb till the day that they return to the mother of all things,”—these words so infallibly find fulfillment, that even the little ones, who by the layer of regeneration have been freed from the bond of original sin in which alone they were held, yet suffer many ills, and in some instances are even exposed to the assaults of evil spirits. But let us not for a moment suppose that this suffering is prejudicial to their future happiness, even though it has so increased as to sever soul from body, and to terminate their life in that early age.

> Latin: Rarissimi sunt autem qui nullas in hac uita, sed tantum post eam poenas luunt. Fuisse tamen aliquos, qui usque ad decrepitam senectutem ne leuissimam quidem febriculam senserint quietamque duxerint uitam, et ipsi nouimus et audiuimus; quamquam uita ipsa mortalium tota poena sit, quia tota tentatio est, sicut sacrae litterae personant, ubi scriptum est: Numquid non tentatio est uita humana super terram? Non enim parua poena est ipsa insipientia uel inperitia, quae usque adeo fugienda merito iudicatur, ut per poenas doloribus plenas pueri cogantur quaeque artificia uel litteras discere; ipsumque discere, ad quod poenis adiguntur, tam poenale est eis, ut nonnumquam ipsas poenas, per quas conpelluntur discere, malint ferre quam discere. Quis autem non exhorreat et mori eligat, si ei proponatur aut mors perpetienda aut rursus infantia? Quae quidem quod non a risu, sed a fletu orditur hanc lucem, quid malorum ingressa sit nesciens prophetat quodam modo. Solum, quando natus est. ferunt risisse Zoroastrem, nec ei boni aliquid monstruosus risus ille portendit. Nam magicarum artium fuisse perhibetur inuentor; quae quidem illi nec ad praesentis uitae uanam felicitatem contra suos inimicos prodesse potuerunt; a Nino quippe rege Assyriorum. cum esset ipse Bactrianorum, bello superatus est. Prorsus quod scriptum est: Graue iugum super filios Adam a die exitus de uentre matris eorum usque in diem sepulturae in matrem omnium, usque adeo inpleri necesse est, ut ipsi paruuli per lauacrum regenerationis ab originalis peccati, quo solo tenebantur, uinculo iam soluti mala multa patientes nonnulli et incursus spirituum malignorum aliquando patiantur. Quae quidem passio absit ut eis obsit, si hanc uitam in illa aetate etiam ipsa passione ingrauescente et animam de corpore excludente finierint.

## 108. That Everything Which the Grace of God Does in the Way of Rescuing Us from the Inveterate Evils in Which We are Sunk, Pertains to the Future World, in Which All Things are Made New.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/108/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/108/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 15.—That Everything Which the Grace of God Does in the Way of Rescuing Us from the Inveterate Evils in Which We are Sunk, Pertains to the Future World, in Which All Things are Made New.

> Latin: Caput XV. Quod omne opus gratiae Dei eruentis nos de profunditate ueteris mali ad futuri saeculi pertineat nouitatem.

[¶1] Nevertheless, in the “heavy yoke that is laid upon the sons of Adam, from the day that they go out of their mother’s womb to the day that they return to the mother of all things,” there is found an admirable though painful monitor teaching us to be sober-minded, and convincing us that this life has become penal in consequence of that outrageous wickedness which was perpetrated in Paradise, and that all to which the New Testament invites belongs to that future inheritance which awaits us in the world to come, and is offered for our acceptance, as the earnest that we may, in its own due time, obtain that of which it is the pledge. Now, therefore, let us walk in hope, and let us by the spirit mortify the deeds of the flesh, and so make progress from day to day. For “the Lord know eth them that are His;” and “as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are sons of God,” but by grace, not by nature. For there is but one Son of God by nature, who in His compassion became Son of man for our sakes, that we, by nature sons of men, might by grace become through Him sons of God. For He, abiding unchangeable, took upon Him our nature, that thereby He might take us to Himself; and, holding fast His own divinity, He became partaker of our infirmity, that we, being changed into some better thing, might, by participating in His righteousness and immortality, lose our own properties of sin and mortality, and preserve whatever good quality He had implanted in our nature perfected now by sharing in the goodness of His nature. For as by the sin of one man we have fallen into a misery so deplorable, so by the righteousness of one Man, who also is God, shall we come to a blessedness inconceivably exalted. Nor ought any one to trust that he has passed from the one man to the other until he shall have reached that place where there is no temptation, and have entered into the peace which he seeks in the many and various conflicts of this war, in which “the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh.” Now, such a war as this would have had no existence if human nature had, in the exercise of free will, continued steadfast in the uprightness in which it was created. But now in its misery it makes war upon itself, because in its blessedness it would not continue at peace with God; and this, though it be a miserable calamity, is better than the earlier stages of this life, which do not recognize that a war is to be maintained. For better is it to contend with vices than without conflict to be subdued by them. Better, I say, is war with the hope of peace everlasting than captivity without any thought of deliverance. We long, indeed, for the cessation of this war, and, kindled by the flame of divine love, we burn for entrance on that well-ordered peace in which whatever is inferior is for ever subordinated to what is above it. But if (which God forbid) there had been no hope of so blessed a consummation, we should still have preferred to endure the hardness of this conflict, rather than, by our non-resistance, to yield ourselves to the dominion of vice.

> Latin: Verum tamen in graui iugo, quod positum est super filios Adam a die exitus de uentre matris eorum usque in diem sepulturae in matrem omnium, etiam hoc malum mirabile reperitur, ut sobrii simus adque intellegamus hanc uitam de peccato illo nimis nefario, quod in paradiso perpetratum est, factam nobis esse poenalem totumque, quod nobiscum agitur per testamentum nouum, non pertinere nisi ad noui saeculi hereditatem nouam, ut hic pignore accepto illud cuius hoc pignus est suo tempore consequamur, nunc autem ambulemus in spe et proficientes de die in diem spiritu facta carnis mortificemus. Nouit enim Dominus qui sunt eius; et quotquot spiritu Dei aguntur, hi filii sunt Dei, sed gratia, non natura. Unicus enim natura Dei filius propter nos misericordia factus est hominis filius, ut nos, natura filii hominis, filii Dei per illum gratia fieremus. Manens quippe ille inmutabilis naturam nostram, in qua nos susciperet, suscepit a nobis et tenax diuinitatis suae nostrae infirmitatis particeps factus est; ut nos in melius commutati, quod peccatores mortalesque sumus, eius inmortalis et iusti participatione amittamus et, quod in natura nostra bonum fecit, inpletum summo bono in eius naturae bonitate seruemus. Sicut enim per unum hominem peccantem in hoc tam graue malum deuenimus, ita per unum hominem eundemque Deum iustificantem ad illud bonum tam sublime ueniemus. Nec quisquam se debet ab isto ad illum transisse confidere, nisi cum ibi fuerit, ubi tentatio nulla erit; nisi pacem tenuerit, quam belli huius, in quo caro concupiscit aduersus spiritum et spiritus aduersus carnem, multis et uariis certaminibus quaerit. Hoc autem bellum numquam ullum esset, si natura humana per liberum arbitrium in rectitudine, in qua facta est, perstitisset. Nunc uero, quae pacem felix cum Deo habere noluit, secum pugnat infelix, et cum sit hoc malum miserabile, melius est tamen quam priora uitae huius. Melius confligitur quippe cum uitiis, quam sine ulla conflictione dominantur. Melius est, inquam, bellum cum spe pacis aeternae quam sine ulla liberationis’ cogitatione captiuitas. Cupimus quidem etiam hoc bello carere et ad capessendam ordinatissimam pacem, ubi firmissima stabilitate potioribus inferiora subdantur, igne diuini amoris accendimur. Sed si (quod absit) illius tanti boni spes nulla esset, malle debuimus in huius conftictationis molestia remanere quam uitiis in nos dominationem non eis resistendo permittere.

### The Laws of Grace, Which Extend to All the Epochs of the Life of the Regenerate.

[¶3] Chapter 16.—The Laws of Grace, Which Extend to All the Epochs of the Life of the Regenerate.

> Latin: Caput XVI. Sub quibus gratiae legibus omnes regeneratorum habeantur aetates.

[¶4] But such is God’s mercy towards the vessels of mercy which He has prepared for glory, that even the first age of man, that is, infancy, which submits without any resistance to the flesh, and the second age, which is called boyhood, and which has not yet understanding enough to undertake this warfare, and therefore yields to almost every vicious pleasure (because though this age has the power of speech, and may therefore seem to have passed infancy, the mind is still too weak to comprehend the commandment), yet if either of these ages has received the sacraments of the Mediator, then, although the present life be immediately brought to an end, the child, having been translated from the power of darkness to the kingdom of Christ, shall not only be saved from eternal punishments, but shall not even suffer purgatorial torments after death. For spiritual regeneration of itself suffices to prevent any evil consequences resulting after death from the connection with death which carnal generation forms. But when we reach that age which can now comprehend the commandment, and submit to the dominion of law, we must declare war upon vices, and wage this war keenly, lest we be landed in damnable sins. And if vices have not gathered strength, by habitual victory they are more easily overcome and subdued; but if they have been used to conquer and rule, it is only with difficulty and labor they are mastered. And indeed this victory cannot be sincerely and truly gained but by delighting in true righteousness, and it is faith in Christ that gives this. For if the law be present with its command, and the Spirit be absent with His help, the presence of the prohibition serves only to increase the desire to sin, and adds the guilt of transgression. Sometimes, indeed, patent vices are overcome by other and hidden vices, which are reckoned virtues, though pride and a kind of ruinous self-sufficiency are their informing principles. Accordingly vices are then only to be considered overcome when they are conquered by the love of God, which God Himself alone gives, and which He gives only through the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who became a partaker of our mortality that He might make us partakers of His divinity. But few indeed are they who are so happy as to have passed their youth without committing any damnable sins, either by dissolute or violent conduct, or by following some godless and unlawful opinions, but have subdued by their greatness of soul everything in them which could make them the slaves of carnal pleasures. The greater number having first become transgressors of the law that they have received, and having allowed vice to have the ascendency in them, then flee to grace for help, and so, by a penitence more bitter, and a struggle more violent than it would otherwise have been, they subdue the soul to God, and thus give it its lawful authority over the flesh, and become victors. Whoever, therefore, desires to escape eternal punishment, let him not only be baptized, but also justified in Christ, and so let him in truth pass from the devil to Christ. And let him not fancy that there are any purgatorial pains except before that final and dreadful judgment. We must not, however deny that even the eternal fire will be proportioned to the deserts of the wicked, so that to some it will be more, and to others less painful, whether this result be accomplished by a variation in the temperature of the fire itself, graduated according to every one’s merit, or whether it be that the heat remains the same, but that all do not feel it with equal intensity of torment.

> Latin: Verum tamen tanta est Dei misericordia in uasa misericordiae, quae praeparauit in gloriam, ut etiam prima hominis aetas, id est infantia, quae sine ullo renisu subiacet carni. et secunda, quae pueritia nuncupatur, ubi nondum ratio suscepit hanc pugnam et fere sub omnibus uitiosis delectationibus iacet, quia, licet fari iam ualeat et ideo infantiam transisse uideatur, nondum in ea est praecepti capax infirmitas mentis, si sacramenta Mediatoris acceperit, etiamsi hanc in eis annis uitam finiat, translata scilicet a potestate tenebrarum in regnum Christi non solum poenis non praeparetur aeternis, sed ne ulla quidem post mortem purgatoria tormenta patiatur. Sufficit enim sola spiritalis regeneratio, ne post mortem obsit quod carnalis generatio cum morte contraxit. Cum autem uentum fuerit ad aetatem, quae praeceptum iam capit et subdi potest legis imperio, suscipiendum est bellum contra uitia et gerendum acriter, ne ad damnabilia peccata perducat. Et si quidem nondum uictoriarum consuetudine roborata sunt, facilius uincuntur et cedunt; si autem uincere adque imperare consuerunt, laboriosa difficultate superantur. Neque id fit ueraciter adque sinceriter nisi uerae delectatione iustitiae; haec est autem in fide Christi. Nam si lex iubens adsit et spiritus iuuans desit, per ipsam prohibitionem desiderio crescente adque uincente peccati etiam reatus praeuaricationis accedit. Nonnumquam sane apertissima uitia aliis uitiis uincuntur occultis, quae putantur esse uirtutes, in quibus regnat superbia et quaedam sibi placendi altitudo ruinosa. Tunc itaque uicta uitia deputanda sunt, cum Dei amore uincuntur, quem nisi Deus ipse non donat nec aliter nisi per mediatorem Dei et hominum, hominem Christum Iesum, qui factus est particeps mortalitatis nostrae, ut nos participes faceret diuinitatis suae. Paucissimi autem sunt tantae felicitatis, ut ab ipsa ineunte adulescentia nulla damnabilia peccata committant uel in flagitiis uel in facinoribus uel in nefariae cuiusquam inpietatis errore, sed magna spiritus largitate obprimant, quidquid eis posset carnali delectatione dominari. Plurimi uero praecepto legis accepto, cum prius uicti fuerint praeualentibus uitiis et praeuaricatores eius effecti, tunc ad gratiam confugiunt adiuuantem, qua fiant et amarius paenitendo et uehementius pugnando prius Deo subdita adque ita carni praeposita mente uictores. Quisquis igitur cupit poenas euadere sempiternas, non solum baptizetur, uerum etiam iustificetur in Christo, ac sic uere transeat a diabolo ad Christum. Purgatorias autem poenas nullas futuras opinetur, nisi ante illud ultimum tremendumque iudicium. Nequaquam tamen negandum est etiam ipsum aeternum ignem pro diuersitate meritorum quamuis malorum aliis leuiorem, aliis futurum esse grauiorem, siue ipsius uis adque ardor pro poena digna cuiusque uarietur, siue ipse aequaliter ardeat, sed non aequali molestia sentiatur.

### Of Those Who Fancy that No Men Shall Be Punished Eternally.

[¶6] Chapter 17.—Of Those Who Fancy that No Men Shall Be Punished Eternally.

> Latin: Caput XVII. De his, qui putant nullorum hominum poenas in aeternum esse mansuras.

[¶7] I must now, I see, enter the lists of amicable controversy with those tender-hearted Christians who decline to believe that any, or that all of those whom the infallibly just Judge may pronounce worthy of the punishment of hell, shall suffer eternally, and who suppose that they shall be delivered after a fixed term of punishment, longer or shorter according to the amount of each man’s sin. In respect of this matter, Origen was even more indulgent; for he believed that even the devil himself and his angels, after suffering those more severe and prolonged pains which their sins deserved, should be delivered from their torments, and associated with the holy angels. But the Church, not without reason, condemned him for this and other errors, especially for his theory of the ceaseless alternation of happiness and misery, and the interminable transitions from the one state to the other at fixed periods of ages; for in this theory he lost even the credit of being merciful, by allotting to the saints real miseries for the expiation of their sins, and false happiness, which brought them no true and secure joy, that is, no fearless assurance of eternal blessedness. Very different, however, is the error we speak of, which is dictated by the tenderness of these Christians who suppose that the sufferings of those who are condemned in the judgment will be temporary, while the blessedness of all who are sooner or later set free will be eternal. Which opinion, if it is good and true because it is merciful, will be so much the better and truer in proportion as it becomes more merciful. Let, then, this fountain of mercy be extended, and flow forth even to the lost angels, and let them also be set free, at least after as many and long ages as seem fit! Why does this stream of mercy flow to all the human race, and dry up as soon as it reaches the angelic? And yet they dare not extend their pity further, and propose the deliverance of the devil himself. Or if any one is bold enough to do so, he does indeed put to shame their charity, but is himself convicted of error that is more unsightly, and a wresting of God’s truth that is more perverse, in proportion as his clemency of sentiment seems to be greater.

> Latin: Nunc iam cum misericordibus nostris agendum esse uideo et pacifice disputandum, qui uel omnibus illis hominibus. quos iustissimus iudex dignos gehennae supplicio iudicabit, uel quibusdam eorum nolunt credere poenam sempiternam futuram, sed post certi temporis metas pro cuiusque peccati quantitate longioris siue breuioris eos inde existimant liberandos. Qua in re misericordior profecto fuit Origenes, qui et ipsum diabolum adque angelos eius post grauiora pro meritis et diuturniora supplicia ex illis cruciatibus eruendos et sociandos sanctis angelis credidit. Sed illum et propter hoc et propter alia nonnulla et maxime propter alternantes sine cessatione beatitudines et miserias et statutis saeculorum interuallis ab istis ad illas adque ab illis ad istas itus ac reditus interminabiles non inmerito reprobauit ecclesia; quia et hoc, quod misericors uidebatur, amisit faciendo sanctis ueras miserias, quibus poenas luerent. et falsas beatitudines, in quibus uerum ac securum, hoc est sine timore certum, sempiterni boni gaudium non haberent. Longe autem aliter istorum misericordia humano errat adfectu, qui hominum illo iudicio damnatorum miserias temporales, omnium uero qui uel citius uel tardius liberantur aeternam felicitatem putant. Quae sententia si propterea bona et uera quia misericors est, tanto erit melior et uerior quanto misericordior. Extendatur ergo ac profundatur fons huius misericordiae usque ad damnatos angelos saltem post multa adque prolixa quantumlibet saecula liberandos. Quur usque uniuersam naturam manat humanam, et cum ad angelicam uentum fuerit, mox arescit? Non audent tamen se ulterius miserando porrigere et ad liberationem ipsius quoque diaboli peruenire. Verum si aliquis audeat, uincit nempe istos. Et tamen tanto inuenitur errare deformius et contra recta Dei uerba peruersius, quanto sibi uidetur sentire clementius.

### Of Those Who Fancy That, on Account of the Saints’ Intercession, Man Shall Be Damned in the Last Judgment.

[¶9] Chapter 18.—Of Those Who Fancy That, on Account of the Saints’ Intercession, Man Shall Be Damned in the Last Judgment.

> Latin: Caput XVIII. De his. qui nouissimo iudicio propter intercessionem sanctorum neminem hominum putant esse damnandum.

[¶10] There are others, again, with whose opinions I have become acquainted in conversation, who, though they seem to reverence the holy Scriptures, are yet of reprehensible life, and who accordingly, in their own interest, attribute to God a still greater compassion towards men. For they acknowledge that it is truly predicted in the divine word that the wicked and unbelieving are worthy of punishment, but they assert that, when the judgment comes, mercy will prevail. For, say they, God, having compassion on them, will give them up to the prayers and intercessions of His saints. For if the saints used to pray for them when they suffered from their cruel hatred, how much more will they do so when they see them prostrate and humble suppliants? For we cannot, they say, believe that the saints shall lose their bowels of compassion when they have attained the most perfect and complete holiness; so that they who, when still sinners, prayed for their enemies, should now, when they are freed from sin, withhold from interceding for their suppliants. Or shall God refuse to listen to so many of His beloved children, when their holiness has purged their prayers of all hindrance to His answering them? And the passage of the psalm which is cited by those who admit that wicked men and infidels shall be punished for a long time, though in the end delivered from all sufferings, is claimed also by the persons we are now speaking of as making much more for them. The verse runs: “Shall God forget to be gracious? Shall He in anger shut up His tender mercies?” His anger, they say, would condemn all that are unworthy of everlasting happiness to endless punishment. But if He suffer them to be punished for a long time, or even at all, must He not shut up His tender mercies, which the Psalmist implies He will not do? For he does not say, Shall He in anger shut up His tender mercies for a long period? but he implies that He will not shut them up at all.

> Latin: Sunt etiam, quales in conlocutionibus nostris ipse sum expertus, qui, cum uenerari uideantur scripturas sanctas, moribus inprobandi sunt et agendo causam suam multo maiorem quam isti misericordiam Deo tribuunt erga humanum genus. Dicunt enim de malis et infidelibus hominibus diuinitus quidem uerum praedictum esse, quod digni sunt; sed cum ad iudicium uentum fuerit, misericordiam esse superaturam. Donabit enim eos, inquiunt, misericors Deus precibus et intercessionibus sanctorum suorum. Si enim orabant pro illis, quando eos patiebantur inimicos, quanto magis quando uidebunt humiles supplicesque prostratos! Neque enim credendum est, aiunt, tunc amissuros sanctos uiscera misericordiae, cum fuerint plenissimae ac perfectissimae sanctitatis, ut, qui tunc orabant pro inimicis suis, quando et ipsi sine peccato non erant, tunc non orent pro supplicibus suis, quando nullum coeperint habere peccatum. Aut uero Deus tunc eos non exaudiet tot et tales filios suos, quando in tanta eorum sanctitate nullum inueniet orationis inpedimentum? Testimonium uero psalmi et illi quidem, qui permittunt infideles adque inpios homines saltem longo tempore cruciari et postea de malis omnibus erui, sed magis isti pro se dicunt esse, ubi legitur: Numquid obliuiscetur misereri Deus aut continebit in ira sua miserationes suas? Ira eius est, inquiunt, ut omnes indigni beatitudine sempiterna ipso iudicante puniantur supplicio sempiterno. Sed si uel longum uel prorsus ullum esse permiserit, profecto, ut possit hoc fieri, continebit in ira sua miserationes suas, quod eum psalmus dicit non esse facturum. Non enim ait: ‘Numquid diu continebit in ira sua miserationes suas?) sed quod prorsus non continebit ostendit.

[¶11] And they deny that thus God’s threat of judgment is proved to be false even though He condemn no man, any more than we can say that His threat to overthrow Nineveh was false, though the destruction which was absolutely predicted was not accomplished. For He did not say, “Nineveh shall be overthrown if they do not repent and amend their ways,” but without any such condition He foretold that the city should be overthrown. And this prediction, they maintain, was true because God predicted the punishment which they deserved, although He was not to inflict it. For though He spared them on their repentance yet He was certainly aware that they would repent, and, notwithstanding, absolutely and definitely predicted that the city should be overthrown. This was true, they say, in the truth of severity, because they were worthy of it; but in respect of the compassion which checked His anger, so that He spared the suppliants from the punishment with which He had threatened the rebellious, it was not true. If, then, He spared those whom His own holy prophet was provoked at His sparing, how much more shall He spare those more wretched suppliants for whom all His saints shall intercede? And they suppose that this conjecture of theirs is not hinted at in Scripture, for the sake of stimulating many to reformation of life through fear of very protracted or eternal sufferings, and of stimulating others to pray for those who have not reformed. However, they think that the divine oracles are not altogether silent on this point; for they ask to what purpose is it said, “How great is Thy goodness which Thou hast hidden for them that fear Thee,” if it be not to teach us that the great and hidden sweetness of God’s mercy is concealed in order that men may fear? To the same purpose they think the apostle said, “For God hath concluded all men in unbelief, that He may have mercy upon all,” signifying that no one should be condemned by God. And yet they who hold this opinion do not extend it to the acquittal or liberation of the devil and his angels. Their human tenderness is moved only towards men, and they plead chiefly their own cause, holding out false hopes of impunity to their own depraved lives by means of this quasi compassion of God to the whole race. Consequently they who promise this impunity even to the prince of the devils and his satellites make a still fuller exhibition of the mercy of God.

> Latin: Sic ergo isti uolunt iudicii Dei comminationem non esse mendacem, quamuis sit neminem damnaturus, quem ad modum eius comminationem, qua dixit euersurum se esse Nineuen ciuitatem, mendacem non possumus dicere; et tamen factum non est, inquiunt, quod sine ulla condicione praedixit. Non enim ait: ‘Nineue euertetur, si non egerint paenitentiam seque correxerint); sed hoc non addito praenuntiauit futuram euersionem illius ciuitatis. Quam comminationem propterea ueracem putant, quia hoc praedixit Deus quod uere digni erant pati, quamuis hoc non esset ipse facturus. Nam etsi paenitentibus pepercit, inquiunt, utique illos paenitentiam non ignorabat acturos, et tamen absolute ac definite eorum euersionem futuram esse praedixit. Hoc ergo erat, inquiunt, in ueritate seueritatis, quia id erant digni; sed in ratione miserationis non erat, quam non continuit in ira sua, ut ab ea poena supplicibus parceret, quam fuerat contumacibus comminatus. Sic ergo tunc pepercit, aiunt, quando sanctum suum prophetam fuerat parcendo contristaturus, quanto magis tunc miserabilius supplicantibus parcet, quando ut parcat omnes sancti eius orabunt! Sed hoc, quod ipsi suis cordibus suspicantur, ideo putant scripturas tacuisse diuinas, ut multi se corrigant uel prolixarum uel aeternarum timore poenarum, et sint qui possint orare pro eis, qui non se correxerint; nec tamen opinantur omni modo id eloquia diuina tacuisse. Nam quo pertinet, inquiunt, quod scriptum est: Quam multa multitudo dulcedinis tuae, Domine, quam abscondisti timentibus te, nisi ut intellegamus propter timorem fuisse absconditam misericordiae diuinae tam multam secretamque dulcedinem? Addunt etiam propterea dixisse apostolum: Conclusit enim Deus omnes in infidelitate, ut omnium misereatur, quo significaret, quod ab illo nemo damnabitur. Nec isti tamen, qui hoc sentiunt, hanc opinionem suam usque ad liberationem uel nullam damnationem diaboli adque angelorum eius extendunt; humana quippe circa solos homines mouentur misericordia et causam maxime agunt suam, per generalem in genus humanum quasi Dei miserationem inpunitatem falsam suis perditis moribus pollicentes; ac per hoc superabunt eos in praedicanda Dei misericordia, qui hanc inpunitatem etiam principi daemonum et eius satellitibus pollicentur.

### Of Those Who Promise Impunity from All Sins Even to Heretics, Through Virtue of Their Participation of the Body of Christ.

[¶13] Chapter 19.—Of Those Who Promise Impunity from All Sins Even to Heretics, Through Virtue of Their Participation of the Body of Christ.

> Latin: Caput XIX. De his, qui inpunitatem omnium peccatorum promittunt etiam haereticis propter participationem corporis Christi.

[¶14] So, too, there are others who promise this deliverance from eternal punishment, not, indeed, to all men, but only to those who have been washed in Christian baptism, and who become partakers of the body of Christ, no matter how they have lived, or what heresy or impiety they have fallen into. They ground this opinion on the saying of Jesus, “This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that if any man eat thereof, he shall not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If a man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever.” Therefore, say they, it follows that these persons must be delivered from death eternal, and at one time or other be introduced to everlasting life.

> Latin: Item sunt alii ab aeterno supplicio liberationem nec ipsis saltem omnibus hominibus promittentes, sed tantummodo Christi baptismate ablutis, qui participes fiunt corporis eius. quomodolibet uixerint, in quacumque haeresi uel inpietate fuerint, propter illud quod ait Iesus: Hic est panis qui de caelo descendit, ut, si quis ex ipso manducauerit, non moriatur. Ego sum panis uiuus, qui de caelo descendi. Si quis manducauerit ex hoc pane, uiuet in aeternum. Ab aeterna ergo morte, inquiunt, necesse est istos erui et ad uitam aeternam quandocumque perduci.

### Of Those Who Promise This Indulgence Not to All, But Only to Those Who Have Been Baptized as Catholics, Though Afterwards They Have Broken Out into Many Crimes and Heresies.

[¶16] Chapter 20.—Of Those Who Promise This Indulgence Not to All, But Only to Those Who Have Been Baptized as Catholics, Though Afterwards They Have Broken Out into Many Crimes and Heresies.

> Latin: Caput XX. De his, qui non omnibus, sed eis tantum qui aput catholicos sunt renati, etiamsi postea in multa crimina erroresque proruperint, indulgentiam pollicentur.

[¶17] There are others still who make this promise not even to all who have received the sacraments of the baptism of Christ and of His body, but only to the catholics, however badly they have lived. For these have eaten the body of Christ, not only sacramentally but really, being incorporated in His body, as the apostle says, “We, being many, are one bread, one body;” so that, though they have afterwards lapsed into some heresy, or even into heathenism and idolatry, yet by virtue of this one thing, that they have received the baptism of Christ, and eaten the body of Christ, in the body of Christ, that is to say, in the catholic Church, they shall not die eternally, but at one time or other obtain eternal life; and all that wickedness of theirs shall not avail to make their punishment eternal, but only proportionately long and severe.

> Latin: Item sunt, qui hoc nec omnibus habentibus baptismatis Christi et eius corporis sacramentum, sed solis catholicis quamuis male uiuentibus pollicentur, quia non solo sacramento, sed re ipsa manducauerunt corpus Christi, in ipso eius corpore constituti, de quo dicit apostolus: Unus panis, unum corpus multi sumus; ut, etiamsi postea in aliquam haeresim uel etiam in gentilium idolatriam lapsi fuerint, tantum quia in corpore Christi, id est in catholica ecclesia, sumserunt baptismum Christi et manducauerunt corpus Christi, non moriantur in aeternum, sed uitam quandoque consequantur aeternam; adque illa omnis inpietas, quanto maior fuerit, non eis ualeat ad aeternitatem, sed ad diuturnitatem magnitudinemque poenarum.

### Of Those Who Assert that All Catholics Who Continue in the Faith Even Though by the Depravity of Their Lives They Have Merited Hell Fire, Shall Be Saved on Account of the ‘Foundation’ Of Their Faith.

[¶19] Chapter 21.—Of Those Who Assert that All Catholics Who Continue in the Faith Even Though by the Depravity of Their Lives They Have Merited Hell Fire, Shall Be Saved on Account of the “Foundation” Of Their Faith.

> Latin: Caput XXI. De his, qui eos, qui permanent in catholica fide, etiamsi pessime uixerint et ob hoc uri meruerint, tamen propter fidei fundamentum saluandos esse definiunt.

[¶20] There are some, too, who found upon the expression of Scripture, “He that endureth to the end shall be saved,” and who promise salvation only to those who continue in the Church catholic; and though such persons have lived badly, yet, say they, they shall be saved as by fire through virtue of the foundation of which the apostle says, “For other foundation hath no man laid than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day of the Lord shall declare it, for it shall be revealed by fire; and each man’s work shall be proved of what sort it is. If any man’s work shall endure which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. But if any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as through fire.” They say, accordingly, that the catholic Christian, no matter what his life be, has Christ as his foundation, while this foundation is not possessed by any heresy which is separated from the unity of His body. And therefore, through virtue of this foundation, even though the catholic Christian by the inconsistency of his life has been as one building up wood, hay, stubble, upon it, they believe that he shall be saved by fire, in other words, that he shall be delivered after tasting the pain of that fire to which the wicked shall be condemned at the last judgment.

> Latin: Sunt autem, qui propter id quod scriptum est: Qui perseuerauerit usque in finem, hic saluus erit, non nisi in ecclesia catholica perseuerantibus, quamuis in ea male uiuentibus, hoc promittunt, per ignem uidelicet saluandis merito fundamenti, de quo ait apostolus: Fundamentum enim aliud nemo potest ponere praeter id, quod positum est, quod est Christus Iesus. Si quis autem aedificat super fundamentum aurum, argentum, lapides pretiosos, ligna, fenum, stipulam: uniuscuiusque opus manifestabitur; dies enim declarabit, quoniam in igne reuelabitur, et uniuscuiusque opus quale sit ignis probabit. Si cuius opus permanserit quod superaedificauit, mercedem accipiet. Si cuius autem opus arserit, damnum patietur; ipse autem saluus erit, sic tamen quasi per ignem. Dicunt ergo cuiuslibet uitae catholicum Christianum Christum habere in fundamento, quod fundamentum nulla haeresis habet a corporis eius unitate praecisa; et ideo propter hoc fundamentum, etiamsi malae uitae fuerit catholicus Christianus, uelut qui superaediifcauerit ligna, fenum, stipulam, putant eum saluum fieri per ignem, id est post poenas ignis illius liberari, quo igne in ultimo iudicio punientur mali.

### Of Those Who Fancy that the Sins Which are Intermingled with Alms-Deeds Shall Not Be Charged at the Day of Judgment.

[¶22] Chapter 22.—Of Those Who Fancy that the Sins Which are Intermingled with Alms-Deeds Shall Not Be Charged at the Day of Judgment.

> Latin: Caput XXII. De his, qui putant ea crimina, quae inter elemosynarum opera committuntur, ad damnationis iudicium non uocari.

[¶23] I have also met with some who are of opinion that such only as neglect to cover their sins with alms-deeds shall be punished in everlasting fire; and they cite the words of the Apostle James, “He shall have judgment without mercy who hath shown no mercy.” Therefore, say they, he who has not amended his ways, but yet has intermingled his profligate and wicked actions with works of mercy, shall receive mercy in the judgment, so that he shall either quite escape condemnation, or shall be liberated from his doom after some time shorter or longer. They suppose that this was the reason why the Judge Himself of quick and dead declined to mention anything else than works of mercy done or omitted, when awarding to those on His right hand life eternal, and to those on His left everlasting punishment. To the same purpose, they say, is the daily petition we make in the Lord’s prayer, “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” For, no doubt, whoever pardons the person who has wronged him does a charitable action. And this has been so highly commended by the Lord Himself, that He says, “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” And so it is to this kind of alms-deeds that the saying of the Apostle James refers, “He shall have judgment without mercy that hath shown no mercy.” And our Lord, they say, made no distinction of great and small sins, but “Your Father will forgive your sins, if ye forgive men theirs.” Consequently they conclude that, though a man has led an abandoned life up to the last day of it, yet whatsoever his sins have been, they are all remitted by virtue of this daily prayer, if only he has been mindful to attend to this one thing, that when they who have done him any injury ask his pardon, he forgive them from his heart.

> Latin: Comperi etiam quosdam putare eos tantummodo arsuros illius aeternitate supplicii, qui pro peccatis suis facere dignas elemosynas neglegunt, iuxta illud apostoli Iacobi: Iudicium autem sine misericordia illi, qui non fecit misericordiam. Qui ergo fecit, inquiunt, quamuis mores in melius non mutauerit, sed inter ipsas suas elemosynas nefarie ac nequiter uixerit, iudicium illi cum misericordia futurum est, ut aut nulla damnatione plectatur aut post aliquod tempus siue paruum siue prolixum ab illa damnatione liberetur. Ideo iudicem ipsum uiuorum adque mortuorum noluisse existimant aliud commemorare se esse dicturum siue dextris, quibus est uitam daturus aeternam, siue sinistris, quos aeterno supplicio damnaturus, nisi elemosynas sine factas sine non factas. Ad hoc pertinere aiunt et in oratione Dominica cottidianam postulationem: Dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Quisquis enim illi. qui in eum peccauit, dimittit ignoscendo peccatum, procul dubio elemosynam facit. Quam rem Dominus ipse sic commendauit, ut diceret: Si enim dimiseritis peccata hominibus, dimittet uobis et pater uester peccata uestra; si autem non dimiseritis hominibus, neque pater uester, qui in caelis est, dimittet uobis. Ergo et ad hoc genus elemosynarum pertinet quod ait apostolus Iacobus iudicium futurum sine misericordia ei, qui non fecit misericordiam. Nec dixit Dominus, inquiunt, magna uel parua, sed: Dimittet uobis pater uester peccata uestra, si et uos dimiseritis hominibus. Ac per hoc putant etiam eis, qui perdite uixerint, donec claudant diem uitae huius extremum, per hanc orationem, qualiacumque et quantacumque fuerint, omnia cottidie peccata dimitti, sicut ipsa cottidie frequentatur oratio, si hoc tantummodo custodire meminerint, ut, quando ab eis ueniam petunt, qui eos peccato qualicumque laeserunt, ex corde dimittant.

[¶24] When, by God’s help, I have replied to all these errors, I shall conclude this (twenty-first) book.

> Latin: Cum ad haec omnia Deo donante respondero, liber iste claudendus est.

## 109. Against Those Who are of Opinion that the Punishment Neither of the Devil Nor of Wicked Men Shall Be Eternal.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/109/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/109/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 23.—Against Those Who are of Opinion that the Punishment Neither of the Devil Nor of Wicked Men Shall Be Eternal.

> Latin: Caput XXIII. Contra opinionem eorum, qui dicunt nec diaboli nec hominum malorum perpetua futura supplicia.

[¶1] First of all, it behoves us to inquire and to recognize why the Church has not been able to tolerate the idea that promises cleansing or indulgence to the devil even after the most severe and protracted punishment. For so many holy men, imbued with the spirit of the Old and New Testament, did not grudge to angels of any rank or character that they should enjoy the blessedness of the heavenly kingdom after being cleansed by suffering, but rather they perceived that they could not invalidate nor evacuate the divine sentence which the Lord predicted that He would pronounce in the judgment, saying, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.” For here it is evident that the devil and his angels shall burn in everlasting fire. And there is also that declaration in the Apocalypse, “The devil their deceiver was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where also are the beast and the false prophet. And they shall be tormented day and night for ever.” In the former passage “everlasting” is used, in the latter “for ever;” and by these words Scripture is wont to mean nothing else than endless duration. And therefore no other reason, no reason more obvious and just, can be found for holding it as the fixed and immovable belief of the truest piety, that the devil and his angels shall never return to the justice and life of the saints, than that Scripture, which deceives no man, says that God spared them not, and that they were condemned beforehand by Him, and cast into prisons of darkness in hell, being reserved to the judgment of the last day, when eternal fire shall receive them, in which they shall be tormented world without end. And if this be so, how can it be believed that all men, or even some, shall be withdrawn from the endurance of punishment after some time has been spent in it? how can this be believed without enervating our faith in the eternal punishment of the devils? For if all or some of those to whom it shall be said, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels,” are not to be always in that fire, then what reason is there for believing that the devil and his angels shall always be there? Or is perhaps the sentence of God, which is to be pronounced on wicked men and angels alike, to be true in the case of the angels, false in that of men? Plainly it will be so if the conjectures of men are to weigh more than the word of God. But because this is absurd, they who desire to be rid of eternal punishment ought to abstain from arguing against God, and rather, while yet there is opportunity, obey the divine commands. Then what a fond fancy is it to suppose that eternal punishment means long continued punishment, while eternal life means life without end, since Christ in the very same passage spoke of both in similar terms in one and the same sentence, “These shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal!” If both destinies are “eternal,” then we must either understand both as long-continued but at last terminating, or both as endless. For they are correlative,—on the one hand, punishment eternal, on the other hand, life eternal. And to say in one and the same sense, life eternal shall be endless, punishment eternal shall come to an end, is the height of absurdity. Wherefore, as the eternal life of the saints shall be endless, so too the eternal punishment of those who are doomed to it shall have no end.

> Latin: Ac primum quaeri oportet adque cognosci, quur ecclesia ferre nequiuerit hominum disputationem diabolo etiam post maximas et diuturnissimas poenas purgationem uel indulgentiam pollicentem. Neque enim tot sancti et sacris ueteribus ac nouis litteris eruditi mundationem et regni caelorum beatitudinem post qualiacumque et quantacumque supplicia qualibuscumque et quantiscumque angelis inuiderunt, sed potius uiderunt diuinam uacuari uel infirmari non posse sententiam, quam se Dominus praenuntiauit in iudicio prolaturum adque dicturum: Discedite a me, maledicti, in ignem aeternum, qui paratus est diabolo et angelis eius (sic quippe ostendit aeterno igne diabolum et angelos eius arsuros); et quod scriptum est in apocalypsi: Diabolus, qui seducebat eos, missus est in stagnum ignis et sulphuris, quo et bestia et pseudopropheta; et cruciabuntur die ac nocte in saecula saeculorum. Quod ibi dictum est aeternum, hic dictum est in sae. cula saecul orum, quibus uerbis nihil scriptura diuina significare consueuit, nisi quod finem non habet temporis. Quam ob rem prorsus nec alia causa nec iustior adque manifestior inueniri potest, quur uerissima pietate teneatur fixum et inmobile nullum regressum ad iustitiam uitamque sanctorum diabolum et angelos eius habituros, nisi quia scriptura, quae neminem fallit, dicit eis Deum non pepercisse. et sic ab illo esse interim praedamnatos, ut carceribus caliginis inferi retrusi traderentur seruandi adque ultimo iudicio puniendi, quando eos aeternus ignis accipiet, ubi cruciabuntur in saecula saeculorum. Quod si ita est, quo modo ab hnitis aeternitate poenae uel uniuersi uel quidam homines post quantumlibet temporis subtrahentur, ac non statim eneruabitur fides, qua creditur sempiternum daemonum futurum esse supplicium? Si enim quibus dicetur: Discedite a me. maledicti, in ignem aeternum, qui paratus est diabolo et angelis eius, uel uniuersi uel aliqui eorum non semper ibi erunt, quid causae est quur diabolus et angeli eius semper ibi futuri esse credantur? An forte Dei sententia. quae in malos et angelos et homines proferetur, in angelos uera erit, in homines falsa? Ita plane hoc erit, si non quod Deus dixit, sed quod suspicantur homines plus ualebit. Quod fieri quia non potest, non argumentari aduersus Deum, sed diuino potius, dum tempus est, debent parere praecepto, qui sempiterno cupiunt carere supplicio. Deinde quale est aeternum supplicium pro igne diuturni temporis existimare et uitam aeternam credere sine fine, cum Christus eodem ipso loco, in una eademque sententia dixerit utrumque conplexus: Sic ibunt isti in supplicium aeternum, iusti autem in uitam aeternam? Si utrumque aeternum, profecto aut utrumque cum fine diuturnum aut utrumque sine fine perpetuum debet intellegi. Par pari enim relata sunt, hinc supplicium aeternum, inde uita aeterna. Dicere autem in hoc uno eodemque sensu: ‘Vita aeterna sine fine erit, supplicium aeternum finem habebit’ multum absurdum est. Unde, quia uita aeterna sanctorum sine fine erit, supplicium quoque aeternum quibus erit finem procul dubio non habebit.

### Against Those Who Fancy that in the Judgment of God All the Accused Will Be Spared in Virtue of the Prayers of the Saints.

[¶3] Chapter 24.—Against Those Who Fancy that in the Judgment of God All the Accused Will Be Spared in Virtue of the Prayers of the Saints.

> Latin: Caput XXIV. Contra eorum sensum, qui in iudicio Dei omnibus reis propter sanctorum preces putant esse parcendum.

[¶4] And this reasoning is equally conclusive against those who, in their own interest, but under the guise of a greater tenderness of spirit, attempt to invalidate the words of God, and who assert that these words are true, not because men shall suffer those things which are threatened by God, but because they deserve to suffer them. For God, they say, will yield them to the prayers of His saints, who will then the more earnestly pray for their enemies, as they shall be more perfect in holiness, and whose prayers will be the more efficacious and the more worthy of God’s ear, because now purged from all sin whatsoever. Why, then, if in that perfected holiness their prayers be so pure and all-availing, will they not use them in behalf of the angels for whom eternal fire is prepared, that God may mitigate His sentence and alter it, and extricate them from that fire? Or will there, perhaps, be some one hardy enough to affirm that even the holy angels will make common cause with holy men (then become the equals of God’s angels), and will intercede for the guilty, both men and angels, that mercy may spare them the punishment which truth has pronounced them to deserve? But this has been asserted by no one sound in the faith; nor will be. Otherwise there is no reason why the Church should not even now pray for the devil and his angels, since God her Master has ordered her to pray for her enemies. The reason, then, which prevents the Church from now praying for the wicked angels, whom she knows to be her enemies, is the identical reason which shall prevent her, however perfected in holiness, from praying at the last judgment for those men who are to be punished in eternal fire. At present she prays for her enemies among men, because they have yet opportunity for fruitful repentance. For what does she especially beg for them but that “God would grant them repentance,” as the apostle says, “that they may return to soberness out of the snare of the devil, by whom they are held captive according to his will?” But if the Church were certified who those are, who, though they are still abiding in this life, are yet predestinated to go with the devil into eternal fire, then for them she could no more pray than for him. But since she has this certainty regarding no man, she prays for all her enemies who yet live in this world; and yet she is not heard in behalf of all. But she is heard in the case of those only who, though they oppose the Church, are yet predestinated to become her sons through her intercession. But if any retain an impenitent heart until death, and are not converted from enemies into sons, does the Church continue to pray for them, for the spirits, i.e., of such persons deceased? And why does she cease to pray for them, unless because the man who was not translated into Christ’s kingdom while he was in the body, is now judged to be of Satan’s following?

> Latin: Hoc autem et aduersus eos ualet, qui suas agentes causas contra Dei uenire uerba uelut misericordia maiore conantur, ut ideo uidelicet uera sint, quia ea, quae dixit homines esse passuros, pati digni sunt, non quia passuri sunt. Donabit enim eos, inquiunt, precibus sanctorum suorum, etiam tunc tanto magis orantium pro inimicis suis, quanto sunt utique sanctiores, eorumque efficacior est oratio et exauditione Dei dignior, iam nullum habentium omnino peccatum. Quur ergo eadem perfectissima sanctitate et cuncta inpetrare ualentibus mundissimis et misericordissimis precibus etiam pro angelis non orabunt, quibus paratus est ignis aeternus, ut Deus sententiam suam mitiget et reflectat in melius eosque ab illo igne faciat alienos? An erit forsitan quisquam, qui et hoc futurum esse praesumat adfirmans etiam sanctos angelos simul cum sanctis hominibus, qui tunc aequales erunt angelis Dei, pro damnandis et angelis et hominibus oraturos, ut misericordia non patiantur, quod ueritate merentur pati? Quod nemo sanae fidei dixit, nemo dicturus est. Alioquin nulla causa est, quur non etiam nunc pro diabolo et angelis eius oret ecclesia, quam magister Deus pro inimicis suis iussit orare. Haec igitur causa, qua fit ut nunc ecclesia non oret pro malis angelis, quos suos esse nouit inimicos, eadem ipsa causa est, qua fiet ut in illo tunc iudicio etiam pro hominibus aeterno igne cruciandis, quamuis perfecta sit sanctitate. non oret. Nunc enim propterea pro eis orat, quos in genere humano habet inimicos, quia tempus est paenitentiae fructuosae. Nam quid maxime pro eis orat, nisi ut det illis Deus, sicut dicit apostolus, paenitentiam et resipiscant de diaboli laqueis, a quo captiui tenentur secundum ipsius uoluntatem? Denique si de aliquibus ita certa esset, ut qui sint illi etiam nosset, qui licet adhuc in hac uita sint constituti, tamen praedestinati sunt in aeternum ignem ire cum diabolo: tam pro eis non oraret, quam nec pro ipso. Sed quia de nullo certa est, orat pro omnibus dumtaxat hominibus inimicis suis in hoc corpore constitutis; nec tamen pro omnibus exauditur. Pro his enim solis exauditur. qui, etsi aduersantur ecclesiae, ita sunt tamen praedestinati. ut pro eis exaudiatur ecclesia et filii efficiantur ecclesiae. Si qui autem usque ad mortem habebunt cor inpaenitens nec ex inimicis conuertentur in filios, numquid tamen pro eis, id est pro talium defunctorum spiritibus, orat ecclesia? Quid ita, nisi quia in parte iam diaboli conputatur, qui cum esset in corpore non est translatus ad Christum?

[¶5] It is then, I say, the same reason which prevents the Church at any time from praying for the wicked angels, which prevents her from praying hereafter for those men who are to be punished in eternal fire; and this also is the reason why, though she prays even for the wicked so long as they live, she yet does not even in this world pray for the unbelieving and godless who are dead. For some of the dead, indeed, the prayer of the Church or of pious individuals is heard; but it is for those who, having been regenerated in Christ, did not spend their life so wickedly that they can be judged unworthy of such compassion, nor so well that they can be considered to have no need of it. As also, after the resurrection, there will be some of the dead to whom, after they have endured the pains proper to the spirits of the dead, mercy shall be accorded, and acquittal from the punishment of the eternal fire. For were there not some whose sins, though not remitted in this life, shall be remitted in that which is to come, it could not be truly said, “They shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in that which is to come.” But when the Judge of quick and dead has said, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world,” and to those on the other side, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels,” and “These shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life,” it were excessively presumptuous to say that the punishment of any of those whom God has said shall go away into eternal punishment shall not be eternal, and so bring either despair or doubt upon the corresponding promise of life eternal.

> Latin: Eadem itaque causa est, quur non oretur tunc pro hominibus aeterno igne puniendis, quae causa est, ut neque nunc neque tunc oretur pro angelis malis; quae itidem causa est, ut, quamuis pro hominibus, tamen iam nec nunc oretur pro infidelibus inpiisque defunctis. Nam pro defunctis quibusdam uel ipsius ecclesiae uel quorundam piorum exauditur oratio, sed pro his, quorum in Christo regeneratorum nec usque adeo uita in corpore male gesta est, ut tali misericordia iudicentur digni non esse, nec usque adeo bene, ut talem misericordiam reperiantur necessariam non habere; sicut etiam facta resurrectione mortuorum non deerunt, quibus post poenas, quas patiuntur spiritus mortuorum, inpertiatur misericordia, ut in ignem non mittantur aeternum. Neque enim de quibusdam ueraciter diceretur, quod non eis remittatur neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro, nisi essent quibus, etsi non in isto, tamen remittitur in futuro. Sed cum dictum fuerit a iudice uiuorum adque mortuorum: Venite, benedicti patris mei, possidete paratum uobis regnum a constitutione mundi, et aliis e contrario: Discedite a me, maledicti, in ignem aeternum, qui paratus est diabolo et angelis eius, et ierint isti in supplicium aeternum, iusti autem in uitam aeternam: nimiae praesumtionis est dicere cuiquam eorum aeternum supplicium non futurum, quos Deus ituros in supplicium dixit aeternum, et per huius praesumtionis persuasionem facere, ut de ipsa quoque uita uel desperetur uel dubitetur aeterna.

[¶6] Let no man then so understand the words of the Psalmist, “Shall God forget to be gracious? shall He shut up in His anger His tender mercies” as if the sentence of God were true of good men, false of bad men, or true of good men and wicked angels, but false of bad men. For the Psalmist’s words refer to the vessels of mercy and the children of the promise, of whom the prophet himself was one; for when he had said, “Shall God forget to be gracious? shall He shut up in His anger His tender mercies?” and then immediately subjoins, “And I said, Now I begin: this is the change wrought by the right hand of the Most High,” he manifestly explained what he meant by the words, “Shall he shut up in His anger His tender mercies?” For God’s anger is this mortal life, in which man is made like to vanity, and his days pass as a shadow. Yet in this anger God does not forget to be gracious, causing His sun to shine and His rain to descend on the just and the unjust; and thus He does not in His anger cut short His tender mercies, and especially in what the Psalmist speaks of in the words, “Now I begin: this change is from the right hand of the Most High;” for He changes for the better the vessels of mercy, even while they are still in this most wretched life, which is God’s anger, and even while His anger is manifesting itself in this miserable corruption; for “in His anger He does not shut up His tender mercies.” And since the truth of this divine canticle is quite satisfied by this application of it, there is no need to give it a reference to that place in which those who do not belong to the city of God are punished in eternal fire. But if any persist in extending its application to the torments of the wicked, let them at least understand it so that the anger of God, which has threatened the wicked with eternal punishment, shall abide, but shall be mixed with mercy to the extent of alleviating the torments which might justly be inflicted; so that the wicked shall neither wholly escape, nor only for a time endure these threatened pains, but that they shall be less severe and more endurable than they deserve. Thus the anger of God shall continue, and at the same time He will not in this anger shut up His tender mercies. But even this hypothesis I am not to be supposed to affirm because I do not positively oppose it.

> Latin: Nemo itaque sic intellegat psalmum canentem: Numquid obliuiscetur misereri Deus, aut continebit in ira sua miserationes suas? ut opinetur de hominibus bonis ueram. de malis falsam, aut de bonis hominibus et malis angelis ueram, de malis autem hominibus falsam Dei esse sententiam. Hoc enim, quod ait psalmus, ad uasa misericordiae pertinet et ad filios promissionis, quorum erat unus etiam ipse pro pheta, qui cum dixisset: Numquid obliuiscetur misereri Deus aut continebit in ira sua miserationes suas? continuo subiecit: Et dixi: Nunc coepi, haec est inmutatio dexterae Excelsi. Exposuit profecto quid dixerit: Numquid continebit in ira sua miserationes suas? Ira enim Dei est etiam ista uita mortalis, ubi homo uanitati similis factus est: dies eius uelut umbra praetereunt. In qua tamen ira non obliuiscitur misereri Deus, faciendo solem suum oriri super bonos et malos et pluendo super iustos et iniustos, ac sic non continet in ira sua miserationes suas; maximeque in eo, quod expressit hic psalmus dicendo: Nunc coepi, haec est inmutatio dexterae Excelsi, quoniam in hac ipsa aerumnosissima uita, quae ira Dei est, uasa misericordiae mutat in melius, quamuis adhuc in huius corruptionis miseria maneat ira eius, quia nec in ipsa ira sua continet miserationes suas. Cum ergo isto modo conpleatur dimni illius cantici ueritas, non est eam necesse etiam illic intellegi, ubi non pertinentes ad ciuitatem Dei sempiterno supplicio punientur. Sed quibus placet istam sententiam usque ad illa inpiorum tormenta protendere, saltem sic intellegant. ut manente in eis ira Dei, quae in aeterno est praenuntiata supplicio, non contineat Deus in hac ira sua miserationes suas et faciat eos non tanta quanta digni sunt poenarum atrocitate cruciari; non ut eas poenas uel numquam subeant uel aliquando finiant, sed ut eas mitiores quam merita sunt eorum leuioresque patiantur. Sic enim et ira Dei manebit, et in ipsa ira sua miserationes suas non continebit.

[¶7] As for those who find an empty threat rather than a truth in such passages as these: “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire;” and “These shall go away into eternal punishment;” and “They shall be tormented for ever and ever;” and “Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched,”—such persons, I say, are most emphatically and abundantly refuted, not by me so much as by the divine Scripture itself. For the men of Nineveh repented in this life, and therefore their repentance was fruitful, inasmuch as they sowed in that field which the Lord meant to be sown in tears that it might afterwards be reaped in joy. And yet who will deny that God’s prediction was fulfilled in their case, if at least he observes that God destroys sinners not only in anger but also in compassion? For sinners are destroyed in two ways,—either, like the Sodomites, the men themselves are punished for their sins, or, like the Ninevites, the men’s sins are destroyed by repentance. God’s prediction, therefore, was fulfilled,—the wicked Nineveh was overthrown, and a good Nineveh built up. For its walls and houses remained standing; the city was overthrown in its depraved manners. And thus, though the prophet was provoked that the destruction which the inhabitants dreaded, because of his prediction, did not take place, yet that which God’s foreknowledge had predicted did take place, for He who foretold the destruction knew how it should be fulfilled in a less calamitous sense.

> Latin: Quod quidem non ideo confirmo, quoniam non resisto. Ceterum eos, qui putant minaciter potius quam ueraciter dictum: Discedite a me, maledicti, in ignem aeternum, et: Ibunt isti in supplicium aeternum, et: Cruciabuntur in saecula saeculorum, et: Vermis eorum non morietur et ignis non exstinguetur, et cetera huius modi, non tam ego, quam ipsa scriptura diuina planissime adque plenissime redarguit ac refellit. Nineuitae quippe in hac uita egerunt paenitentiam et ideo fructuosam, uelut in hoc agro seminantes, in quo Deus uoluit cum lacrimis seminari, quod postea cum laetitia meteretur; et tamen quis negabit, quod Dominus praedixit in eis fuisse conpletum, nisi parum aduertat, quem ad modum peccatores Deus non solum iratus, uerum etiam miseratus euertat? Euertuntur enim peccatores duobus modis, aut sicut Sodomitae, ut pro peccatis suis ipsi homines puniantur, aut sicut Nineuitae, ut ipsa hominum peccata paenitendo destruantur. Factum est ergo quod praedixit Deus; euersa est Nineue quae mala erat, et bona aedificata est quae non erat. Stantibus enim moenibus adque domibus euersa est ciuitas in perditis moribus. Ac sic, quamuis propheta fuerit contristatus, quia non est factum quod illi homines timuerunt illo prophetante uenturum, factum est tamen quod fuerat Deo praesciente praedictum, quoniam nouerat qui praedixit, quo modo in melius esset inplendum.

[¶8] But that these perversely compassionate persons may see what is the purport of these words, “How great is the abundance of Thy sweetness, Lord, which Thou hast hidden for them that fear Thee,” let them read what follows: “And Thou hast perfected it for them that hope in Thee.” For what means, “Thou hast hidden it for them that fear Thee,” “Thou hast perfected it for them that hope in Thee,” unless this, that to those who through fear of punishment seek to establish their own righteousness by the law, the righteousness of God is not sweet, because they are ignorant of it? They have not tasted it. For they hope in themselves, not in Him; and therefore God’s abundant sweetness is hidden from them. They fear God, indeed, but it is with that servile fear “which is not in love; for perfect love casteth out fear.” Therefore to them that hope in Him He perfecteth His sweetness, inspiring them with His own love, so that with a holy fear, which love does not cast out, but which endureth for ever, they may, when they glory, glory in the Lord. For the righteousness of God is Christ, “who is of God made unto us,” as the apostle says, “wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.” This righteousness of God, which is the gift of grace without merits, is not known by those who go about to establish their own righteousness, and are therefore not subject to the righteousness of God, which is Christ. But it is in this righteousness that we find the great abundance of God’s sweetness, of which the psalm says, “Taste and see how sweet the Lord is.” And this we rather taste than partake of to satiety in this our pilgrimage. We hunger and thirst for it now, that hereafter we may be satisfied with it when we see Him as He is, and that is fulfilled which is written, “I shall be satisfied when Thy glory shall be manifested.” It is thus that Christ perfects the great abundance of His sweetness to them that hope in Him. But if God conceals His sweetness from them that fear Him in the sense that these our objectors fancy, so that men’s ignorance of His purpose of mercy towards the wicked may lead them to fear Him and live better, and so that there may be prayer made for those who are not living as they ought, how then does He perfect His sweetness to them that hope in Him, since, if their dreams be true, it is this very sweetness which will prevent Him from punishing those who do not hope in Him? Let us then seek that sweetness of His, which He perfects to them that hope in Him, not that which He is supposed to perfect to those who despise and blaspheme Him; for in vain, after this life, does a man seek for what he has neglected to provide while in this life.

> Latin: Ut autem nouerint isti in peruersum misericordes quo pertineat quod scriptum est: Quam multa multitudo dulcedinis tuae, Domine, quam abscondisti timentibus te! legant quod sequitur: Perfecisti autem sperantibus in te. Quid est abscondisti timentibus, perfecisti sperantibus, nisi quia illis, qui timore poenarum suam iustitiam uolunt constituere quae in lege est, non est iustitia Dei dulcis, quia nesciunt eam? Non enim gustauerunt eam. In se namque sperant, non in ipso, et ideo eis absconditur multitudo dulcedinis Dei; quoniam timent quidem Deum, sed illo timore seruili, qui non est in caritate, quia perfecta caritas foras mittit timorem. Ideo sperantibus in eum perficit dulcedinem suam inspirando eis caritatem suam, ut timore casto, non quem caritas foras mittit, sed permanente in saeculum saeculi, cum gloriantur, in Domino glorientur. Iustitia quippe Dei Christus est, qui factus est nobis, sicut dicit apostolus, sapientia a Deo et iustitia et sanctificatio et redemtio, ut, quem ad modum scriptum est, qui gloriatur, in Domino glorietur. Hanc Dei iustitiam, quam donat gratia sine meritis, nesciunt illi, qui suam iustitiam uolunt constituere, et ideo iustitiae Dei, quod est Christus. non sunt subiecti. In qua iustitia est multa multitudo dulcedinis Dei, propter quam dicitur in psalmo: Gustate et uidete quam dulcis est Dominus. Et hanc quidem in hac peregrinatione gustantes, non ad satietatem sumentes, esurimus eam potius ac sitimus, ut ea postea saturemur, cum uidebimus eum, sicuti est, et inplebitur quod scriptum est: Saturabor, cum manifestabitur gloria tua. Ita perficit Christus multam multitudinem dulcedinis suae sperantibus in eum. Porro autem si eam, quam illi putant, dulcedinem suam Deus abscondit timentibus eum, qua non est inpios damnaturus, ut hoc nescientes et damnari timentes recte uiuant ac sic possint esse qui orent pro non recte uiuentibus: quo modo eam perficit sperantibus in eum, quando quidem, sicut somniant, per hanc dulcedinem non damnaturus est eos, qui non sperant in eum? Illa igitur eius dulcedo quaeratur, quam perficit sperantibus in eum, non quam perficere putatur contemnentibus et blasphemantibus eum. Frustra itaque homo post hoc corpus inquirit, quod in hoc corpore sibi conparare neglexit.

[¶9] Then, as to that saying of the apostle, “For God hath concluded all in unbelief, that He may have mercy upon all,” it does not mean that He will condemn no one; but the foregoing context shows what is meant. The apostle composed the epistle for the Gentiles who were already believers; and when he was speaking to them of the Jews who were yet to believe, he says, “For as ye in times past believed not God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief; even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.” Then he added the words in question with which these persons beguile themselves: “For God concluded all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all.” All whom, if not all those of whom he was speaking, just as if he had said, “Both you and them?” God then concluded all those in unbelief, both Jews and Gentiles, whom He foreknew and predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that they might be confounded by the bitterness of unbelief, and might repent and believingly turn to the sweetness of God’s mercy, and might take up that exclamation of the psalm, “How great is the abundance of Thy sweetness, O Lord, which Thou hast hidden for them that fear Thee, but hast perfected to them that hope,” not in themselves, but “in Thee.” He has mercy, then, on all the vessels of mercy. And what means “all?” Both those of the Gentiles and those of the Jews whom He predestinated, called, justified, glorified: none of these will be condemned by Him; but we cannot say none of all men whatever.

> Latin: Illud quoque apostolicum: Conclusit enim Deus omnes in infidelitate, ut omnium misereatur, non ideo dictum est, quod sit neminem damnaturus, sed superius apparet unde sit dictum. Nam cum de Iudaeis postea credituris apostolus loqueretur ad gentes, ad quas utique iam credentes conscribebat epistulas: Sicut enim uos, inquit, aliquando non credidistis Deo, nunc autem misericordiam consecuti estis illorum incredulitate: sic et hi nunc non crediderunt in uestram misericordiam, ut et ipsi misericordiam consequantur. Deinde subiecit, unde isti sibi errando blandiuntur, adque ait: Conclusit enim Deus omnes in infidelitate, ut omnium misereatur. Quos omnes, nisi de quibus loquebatur, tamquam dicens: Et uos et illos? Deus ergo et gentiles et Iudaeos, quos praesciuit et praedestinauit conformes imaginis filii sui, omnes in infidelitate conclusit, ut de amaritudine infidelitatis suae paenitendo confusi et ad dulcedinem misericordiae Dei credendo conuersi clamarent illud in psalmo: Quam multa multitudo dulcedinis tuae, Domine, quam abscondisti timentibus te. perfecisti autem sperantibus, non in se, sed in te! Omnium itaque miseretur uasorum misericordiae. Quid est omnium? Et eorum scilicet quos ex gentibus, et eorum quos ex Iudaeis praedestinauit uocauit, iustificauit glorificauit, non hominum omnium, sed istorum omnium neminem damnaturus.

### Whether Those Who Received Heretical Baptism, and Have Afterwards Fallen Away to Wickedness of Life; Or Those Who Have Received Catholic Baptism, But Have Afterwards Passed Over to Heresy and Schism; Or Those Who Have Remained in the Catholic Church in Which They Were Baptized, But Have Continued to Live Immorally,—May Hope Through the Virtue of the Sacraments for the Remission of Eternal Punishment.

[¶11] Chapter 25.—Whether Those Who Received Heretical Baptism, and Have Afterwards Fallen Away to Wickedness of Life; Or Those Who Have Received Catholic Baptism, But Have Afterwards Passed Over to Heresy and Schism; Or Those Who Have Remained in the Catholic Church in Which They Were Baptized, But Have Continued to Live Immorally,—May Hope Through the Virtue of the Sacraments for the Remission of Eternal Punishment.

> Latin: Caput XXV. An hi, qui inter haereticos baptizati sunt et deteriores postea male uiuendo sunt facti, uel hi, qui aput catholicos renati ad haereses aut schismata transierunt, uel hi, qui a catholicis aput quos renati sunt non recedentes criminose uiuere perstiterunt. possint priuilegio sacramentorum remissionem aeterni sperare supplicii.

[¶12] But let us now reply to those who promise deliverance from eternal fire, not to the devil and his angels (as neither do they of whom we have been speaking), nor even to all men whatever, but only to those who have been washed by the baptism of Christ, and have become partakers of His body and blood, no matter how they have lived, no matter what heresy or impiety they have fallen into. But they are contradicted by the apostle, where he says, “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variances, emulations, wrath, strife, heresies, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and the like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, for they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” Certainly this sentence of the apostle is false, if such persons shall be delivered after any lapse of time, and shall then inherit the kingdom of God. But as it is not false, they shall certainly never inherit the kingdom of God. And if they shall never enter that kingdom, then they shall always be retained in eternal punishment; for there is no middle place where he may live unpunished who has not been admitted into that kingdom.

> Latin: Sed iam respondeamus etiam illis, qui non solum diabolo et angelis eius, sicut nec isti, sed ne ipsis quidem omnibus hominibus liberationem ab aeterno igne promittunt, uerum eis tantum, qui Christi baptismate abluti et corporis eius et sanguinis participes facti sunt, quomodolibet uixerint, in quacumque haeresi uel inpietate fuerint. Sed contradicit eis apostolus dicens: Manifesta autem sunt opera carnis, quae sunt fornicatio, inmunditia, luxuria, idolorum seruitus, ueneficia, inimicitiae, contentiones, aemulationes, animositates, dissensiones, haereses, inuidiae, ebrietates, comisationes et his similia; quae praedico uobis, sicut praedixi, quoniam qui talia agunt regnum Dei non possidebunt. Haec profecto apostolica falsa sententia est, si tales post quantalibet tempora liberati regnum Dei possidebunt. Sed quoniam falsa non est, profecto regnum Dei non possidebunt. Et si in regni Dei possessione numquam erunt, aeterno supplicio tenebuntur; quoniam non est medius locus, ubi non sit in supplicio, qui illo non fuerit constitutus in regno.

[¶13] And therefore we may reasonably inquire how we are to understand these words of the Lord Jesus: “This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever.” And those, indeed, whom we are now answering, are refuted in their interpretation of this passage by those whom we are shortly to answer, and who do not promise this deliverance to all who have received the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s body, but only to the catholics, however wickedly they live; for these, say they, have eaten the Lord’s body not only sacramentally, but really, being constituted members of His body, of which the apostle says, “We being many are one bread, one body.” He then who is in the unity of Christ’s body (that is to say, in the Christian membership), of which body the faithful have been wont to receive the sacrament at the altar, that man is truly said to eat the body and drink the blood of Christ. And consequently heretics and schismatics being separate from the unity of this body, are able to receive the same sacrament, but with no profit to themselves,—nay, rather to their own hurt, so that they are rather more severely judged than liberated after some time. For they are not in that bond of peace which is symbolized by that sacrament.

> Latin: Quam ob rem quod ait Dominus Iesus: Hic est panis qui de caelo descendit, ut, si quis ex ipso manducauerit, non moriatur. Ego sum panis uiuus, qui de caelo descendi; si quis manducauerit ex hoc pane, uiuet in aeternum, quo modo sit accipiendum, merito quaeritur. Et ab istis quidem, quibus nunc respondemus, hunc intellectum auferunt illi, quibus deinde respondendum est; hi sunt autem, qui hanc liberationem nec omnibus habentibus sacramentum baptismatis et corporis Christi, sed solis catholicis, quamuis male uiuentibus, pollicentur, quia non solo, inquiunt, sacramento, sed re ipsa manducauerunt corpus Christi, in ipso scilicet eius corpore constituti; de quo corpore ait apostolus: Unus panis, unum corpus multi sumus. Qui ergo est in eius corporis unitate, id est in Christianorum conpage membrorum, cuius corporis sacramentum fideles communicantes de altari sumere consuerunt, ipse uere dicendus est manducare corpus Christi et bibere sanguinem Christi. Ac per hoc haeretici et schismatici ab huius unitate corporis separati possunt idem percipere sacramentum, sed non sibi utile, immo uero etiam noxium, quo iudicentur grauius. quam uel tardius liberentur. Non sunt quippe in eo uinculo pacis, quod illo exprimitur sacramento.

[¶14] But again, even those who sufficiently understand that he who is not in the body of Christ cannot be said to eat the body of Christ, are in error when they promise liberation from the fire of eternal punishment to persons who fall away from the unity of that body into heresy, or even into heathenish superstition. For, in the first place, they ought to consider how intolerable it is, and how discordant with sound doctrine, to suppose that many, indeed, or almost all, who have forsaken the Church catholic, and have originated impious heresies and become heresiarchs, should enjoy a destiny superior to those who never were catholics, but have fallen into the snares of these others; that is to say, if the fact of their catholic baptism and original reception of the sacrament of the body of Christ in the true body of Christ is sufficient to deliver these heresiarchs from eternal punishment. For certainly he who deserts the faith, and from a deserter becomes an assailant, is worse than he who has not deserted the faith he never held. And, in the second place, they are contradicted by the apostle, who, after enumerating the works of the flesh, says with reference to heresies, “They who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

> Latin: Sed rursus etiam isti, qui recte intellegunt, non dicendum esse manducare corpus Christi, qui in corpore non est Christi. non recte promittunt eis, qui uel in haeresim uel etiam in gentilium superstitionem ex illius corporis unitate labuntur, liberationem quandoque ab aeterni igne supplicii; primum. quia debent adtendere, quam sit intolerabile adque a sana doctrina nimis deuium, ut multi ac paene omnes, qui haereses inpias condiderunt exeuntes de catholica ecclesia et facti sunt haeresiarchae. meliores habeant causas, quam hi, qui numquam fuerunt catholici, cum in eorum laqueos incidissent. si illos haeresiarchas hoc facit liberari a supplicio sempiterno. quod in catholica ecclesia baptizari sunt et sacramentum corporis Christi in uero Christi corpore primitus acceperunt; cum peior sit utique desertor fidei et ex desertore obpugnator eius effectus quam ille, qui non deseruit quod numquam tenuit; deinde quia et his occurrit apostolus eadem uerba proferens et enumeratis illis carnis operibus eadem ueritate praedicens: Quoniam qui talia agunt, regnum Dei non possidebunt.

[¶15] And therefore neither ought such persons as lead an abandoned and damnable life to be confident of salvation, though they persevere to the end in the communion of the Church catholic, and comfort themselves with the words, “He that endureth to the end shall be saved.” By the iniquity of their life they abandon that very righteousness of life which Christ is to them, whether it be by fornication, or by perpetrating in their body the other uncleannesses which the apostle would not so much as mention, or by a dissolute luxury, or by doing any one of those things of which he says, “They who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” Consequently, they who do such things shall not exist anywhere but in eternal punishment, since they cannot be in the kingdom of God. For, while they continue in such things to the very end of life, they cannot be said to abide in Christ to the end; for to abide in Him is to abide in the faith of Christ. And this faith, according to the apostle’s definition of it, “worketh by love.” And “love,” as he elsewhere says, “worketh no evil.” Neither can these persons be said to eat the body of Christ, for they cannot even be reckoned among His members. For, not to mention other reasons, they cannot be at once the members of Christ and the members of a harlot. In fine, He Himself, when He says, “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him,” shows what it is in reality, and not sacramentally, to eat His body and drink His blood; for this is to dwell in Christ, that He also may dwell in us. So that it is as if He said, He that dwelleth not in me, and in whom I do not dwell, let him not say or think that he eateth my body or drinketh my blood. Accordingly, they who are not Christ’s members do not dwell in Him. And they who make themselves members of a harlot, are not members of Christ unless they have penitently abandoned that evil, and have returned to this good to be reconciled to it.

> Latin: Unde nec illi in perditis et damnabilibus moribus debent esse securi, qui usque in finem quidem uelut in communione ecclesiae catholicae perseuerant, intuentes quod dictum est: Qui perseuerauerit usque in finem, hic saluus erit. et per uitae iniquitatem ipsam uitae iustitiam, quod eis Christus est, deserunt, siue fornicando siue alias inmunditias flagitiorum, quas nec exprimere apostolus uoluit, in suo corpore perpetrando, siue turpitudine luxuriae diffluendo siue aliquid aliud eorum agendo, de quibus ait: Quoniam qui talia agunt, regnum Dei non possidebunt; ac per hoc, quicumque agunt talia, nisi in sempiterno supplicio non erunt, quia in Dei regno esse non poterunt. In his enim perseuerando usque in huius uitae finem non utique dicendi sunt in Christo perseuerasse usque in finem, quia in Christo perseuerare est in eius fide perseuerare; quae fides, ut eam definit idem apostolus, per dilectionem operatur; dilectio autem, sicut ipse alibi dicit, malum non operatur. Nec isti ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi, quoniam nec in membris conputandi sunt Christi. Ut enim alia taceam, non possunt simul esse et membra Christi et membra meretricis. Denique ipse dicit: Qui manducat carnem meam et bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet, et ego in eo. Ostendit quid sit non sacramento tenus, sed re uera corpus Christi manducare et eius sanguinem bibere; hoc est enim in Christo manere, ut in illo maneat et Christus. Sic enim hoc dixit, tamquam diceret: ‘Qui non in me manet, et in quo ego] non maneo, non se dicat aut existimet manducare corpus meum aut bibere sanguinem meum.’ Non itaque manent in Christo, qui non sunt membra eius. Non sunt autem membra Christi, qui se faciunt membra meretricis, nisi malum illud paenitendo esse destiterint et ad hoc bonum reconciliatione redierint.

### What It is to Have Christ for a Foundation, and Who They are to Whom Salvation as by Fire is Promised.

[¶17] Chapter 26.—What It is to Have Christ for a Foundation, and Who They are to Whom Salvation as by Fire is Promised.

> Latin: Caput XXVI. Quid sit in fundamento habere Christum et quibus spondeatur salus quasi per ignis usturam.

[¶18] But, say they, the catholic Christians have Christ for a foundation, and they have not fallen away from union with Him, no matter how depraved a life they have built on this foundation, as wood, hay, stubble; and accordingly the well-directed faith by which Christ is their foundation will suffice to deliver them some time from the continuance of that fire, though it be with loss, since those things they have built on it shall be burned. Let the Apostle James summarily reply to them: “If any man say he has faith, and have not works, can faith save him?” And who then is it, they ask, of whom the Apostle Paul says, “But he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire?” Let us join them in their inquiry; and one thing is very certain, that it is not he of whom James speaks, else we should make the two apostles contradict one another, if the one says, “Though a man’s works be evil, his faith will save him as by fire,” while the other says, “If he have not good works, can his faith save him?”

> Latin: Sed habent, inquiunt, Christiani catholici in fundamento Christum, a cuius unitate non recesserunt, tametsi huic fundamento superaediifcauemnt quamlibet pessimam uitam, uelut ligna, fenum, stipulam; recta itaque fides, per quam Christus est fundamentum, quamuis cum damno, quoniam illa, quae superaedificata sunt, exurentur, tamen poterit eos quandoque ab illius ignis perpetuitate saluare. Respondeat eis breuiter apostolus Iacobus: Si quis dicat se fidem habere, opera autem non habeat, numquid poterit fides saluare eum? Et quis est, inquiunt, de quo dicit apostolus Paulus: Ipse autem saluus erit, sic tamen quasi per ignem? Simul quis iste sit, inquiramus; hunc tamen non esse certissimum est, ne duorum apostolorum sententias mittamus in rixam, si unus dicit: ‘Etiamsi mala opera quis habuerit, saluabit eum per ignem fides’; alius autem: Si opera non habeat, numquid poterit fides saluare eum?

[¶19] We shall then ascertain who it is who can be saved by fire, if we first discover what it is to have Christ for a foundation. And this we may very readily learn from the image itself. In a building the foundation is first. Whoever, then, has Christ in his heart, so that no earthly or temporal things—not even those that are legitimate and allowed—are preferred to Him, has Christ as a foundation. But if these things be preferred, then even though a man seem to have faith in Christ, yet Christ is not the foundation to that man; and much more if he, in contempt of wholesome precepts, seek forbidden gratifications, is he clearly convicted of putting Christ not first but last, since he has despised Him as his ruler, and has preferred to fulfill his own wicked lusts, in contempt of Christ’s commands and allowances. Accordingly, if any Christian man loves a harlot, and, attaching himself to her, becomes one body, he has not now Christ for a foundation. But if any one loves his own wife, and loves her as Christ would have him love her, who can doubt that he has Christ for a foundation? But if he loves her in the world’s fashion, carnally, as the disease of lust prompts him, and as the Gentiles love who know not God, even this the apostle, or rather Christ by the apostle, allows as a venial fault. And therefore even such a man may have Christ for a foundation. For so long as he does not prefer such an affection or pleasure to Christ, Christ is his foundation, though on it he builds wood, hay, stubble; and therefore he shall be saved as by fire. For the fire of affliction shall burn such luxurious pleasures and earthly loves, though they be not damnable, because enjoyed in lawful wedlock. And of this fire the fuel is bereavement, and all those calamities which consume these joys. Consequently the superstructure will be loss to him who has built it, for he shall not retain it, but shall be agonized by the loss of those things in the enjoyment of which he found pleasure. But by this fire he shall be saved through virtue of the foundation, because even if a persecutor demanded whether he would retain Christ or these things, he would prefer Christ. Would you hear, in the apostle’s own words, who he is who builds on the foundation gold, silver, precious stones? “He that is unmarried,” he says, “careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord.” Would you hear who he is that buildeth wood, hay, stubble? “But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. “Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it,”—the day, no doubt, of tribulation—“because,” says he, “it shall be revealed by fire.” He calls tribulation fire, just as it is elsewhere said, “The furnace proves the vessels of the potter, and the trial of affliction righteous men.” And “The fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide”—for a man’s care for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord, abides—“which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward,”—that is, he shall reap the fruit of his care. “But if any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss,”—for what he loved he shall not retain:—“ but he himself shall be saved,”—for no tribulation shall have moved him from that stable foundation,—“yet so as by fire;” for that which he possessed with the sweetness of love he does not lose without the sharp sting of pain. Here, then, as seems to me, we have a fire which destroys neither, but enriches the one, brings loss to the other, proves both.

> Latin: Inueniemus ergo quis possit saluari per ignem, si prius inuenerimus quid sit habere in fundamento Christum. Quod ut de ipsa similitudine quantocius aduertamus: nihil in aedificio praeponitur fundamento; quisquis itaque sic habet in corde Christum, ut ei terrena et temporalia nec ea quae licita sunt adque concessa praeponat, fundamentum habet Christum: si autem praeponit, etsi uideatur habere fidem Christi, non est tamen in eo fundamentum Christus, cui talia praeponuntur: quanto magis, si salutaria praecepta contemnens committat inlicita, non praeposuisse Christum, sed postposuisse conuincitur, quem posthabuit imperantem siue concedentem, dum contra eius imperata siue concessa suam per flagitia delegit explere libidinem! Si quis itaque Christianus diligit meretricem eique adhaerens unum corpus efficitur. iam in fundamento non habet Christum. Si quis autem diligit uxorem suam, si secundum Christum, quis ei dubitet in fundamento esse Chri stum? si uero secundum hoc saeculum, si carnaliter, si in morbo concupiscentiarum, sicut et gentes quae ignorant Deum, etiam hoc secundum ueniam concedit apostolus, immo per apostolum Christus. Potest ergo et iste in fundamento habere Christum. Si enim nihil ei talis adfectionis uoluptatisque praeponat, quamuis superaedificet ligna. fenum, stipulam, Christus est fundamentum, propter hoc saluus erit per ignem. Delicias quippe huius modi amoresque terrenos, propter coniugalem quidem copulam non damnabiles, tribulationis ignis exuret; ad quem pertinent ignem et orbitates et quaecumque calamitates quae auferunt haec. Ac per hoc ei, qui aedificauit, erit aedificatio ista damnosa, quia non habebit, quod superaedificauit, et eorum amissione cruciabitur, quibus fruendo utique laetabatur; sed per hunc ignem saluus erit merito fundamenti, quia, etsi utrum id habere mallet an Christum a persecutore proponeretur, illud Christo non praeponeretur. Vide in apostoli uerbis hominem aedificantem super fundamentum aurum, argentum, lapides pretiosos: Qui sine uxore est, inquit, cogitat quae sunt Dei, quo modo placeat Deo. Vide alium aedificantem ligna, fanum, stipulam: Qui autem matrimonio iunctus est, inquit, cogitat quae sunt mundi, quo modo placeat uxori. Uniuscuiusque opus manifestabitur; dies enim declarabit (dies utique tribulationis), quoniam in igne, inquit, reuelabitur. Eandem tribulationem ignem uocat. sicut alibi legitur: Vasa figuli probat fornax et homines iustos tentatio tribulationis. Et uniuscuiusque opus quale sit, ignis probabit. Si cuius opus permanserit (permanet enim quod quisque cogitat quae sunt Dei, quo modo placeat Deo), quod superaedificauit mercedem accipiet (id est, unde cogitauit, hoc sumet); si cuius autem opus arserit, damnum patietur (quoniam quod dilexerat non habebit), ipse autem saluus erit (quia nulla eum tribulatio ab illius fundamenti stabilitate semouit); sic tamen quasi per ignem (quod enim sine inliciente amore non habuit, sine urente dolore non perdit). Ecce, quantum mihi uidetur, inuentus est ignis, qui nullum eorum damnet, sed unum ditet, alterum damnificet, ambos probet.

[¶20] But if this passage [of Corinthians] is to interpret that fire of which the Lord shall say to those on His left hand, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire,” so that among these we are to believe there are those who build on the foundation wood, hay, stubble, and that they, through virtue of the good foundation, shall after a time be liberated from the fire that is the award of their evil deserts, what then shall we think of those on the right hand, to whom it shall be said, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you,” unless that they are those who have built on the foundation gold, silver, precious stones? But if the fire of which our Lord speaks is the same as that of which the apostle says, “Yet so as by fire,” then both—that is to say, both those on the right as well as those on the left—are to be cast into it. For that fire is to try both, since it is said, “For the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.” If, therefore, the fire shall try both, in order that if any man’s work abide—i.e., if the superstructure be not consumed by the fire—he may receive a reward, and that if his work is burned he may suffer loss, certainly that fire is not the eternal fire itself. For into this latter fire only those on the left hand shall be cast, and that with final and everlasting doom; but that former fire proves those on the right hand. But some of them it so proves that it does not burn and consume the structure which is found to have been built by them on Christ as the foundation; while others of them it proves in another fashion, so as to burn what they have built up, and thus cause them to suffer loss, while they themselves are saved because they have retained Christ, who was laid as their sure foundation, and have loved Him above all. But if they are saved, then certainly they shall stand at the right hand, and shall with the rest hear the sentence, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you;” and not at the left hand, where those shall be who shall not be saved, and shall therefore hear the doom, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire.” For from that fire no man shall be saved, because they all shall go away into eternal punishment, where their worms shall not die, nor their fire be quenched, in which they shall be tormented day and night for ever.

> Latin: Si autem ignem illum loco isto uoluerimus accipere, de quo Dominus dicet sinistris: Discedite a me, maledicti. in ignem aeternum; ut in eis etiam isti esse credantur. qui aedificant super fundamentum ligna, fenum, stipulam, eosque ex illo igne post tempus pro malis meritis inpertitum liberet boni meritum fundamenti: quid arbitrabimur dextros quibus dicetur: Venite, benedicti patris mei, possidete paratum uobis regnum, nisi eos, qui aedificauerunt super fundamentum aurum, argentum, lapides pretiosos? Sed in illum ignem, de quo dictum est: Sic tamen quasi per ignem, si hoc modo est intellegendus, utrique mittendi sunt, et dextri scilicet et sinistri. Illo quippe igne utrique probandi sunt, de quo dictum est: Dies enim declarabit, quoniam in igne reuelabitur, et uniuscuiusque opus quale sit, ignis probabit. Si ergo utrumque probabit ignis, ut, si cuius opus permanserit, id est non fuerit igne consumtum, quod superaedificauit mercedem accipiat; si cuius autem opus arserit, damnum patiatur: profecto non est ipse aeternus ille ignis. In illum enim soli sinistri nouissima et perpetua damnatione mittentur, iste autem dextros probat. Sed alios eorum sic probat, ut aedificium, quod super Christum fundamentum ab eis inuenerit esse constructum, non exurat adque consumat; alios autem aliter, id est, ut quod superaediifcauerunt ardeat damnumque inde patiantur, salui fiant autem, quoniam Christum in fundamento stabiliter positum praecellenti caritate tenuerunt. Si autem salui fient, profecto et ad dexteram stabunt et cum ceteris audient: Venite, benedicti patris mei, possidete paratum uobis reg num, non ad sinistram, ubi illi erunt, qui salui non erunt et ideo audient: Discedite a me, maledicti, in ignem aeternum. Nemo quippe ab illo igne saluabitur, quia in supplicium aeternum ibunt illi omnes, ubi uermis eorum non moritur et ignis non exstinguitur, quo cruciabuntur die ac nocte in saecula saeculorum.

[¶21] But if it be said that in the interval of time between the death of this body and that last day of judgment and retribution which shall follow the resurrection, the bodies of the dead shall be exposed to a fire of such a nature that it shall not affect those who have not in this life indulged in such pleasures and pursuits as shall be consumed like wood, hay, stubble, but shall affect those others who have carried with them structures of that kind; if it be said that such worldliness, being venial, shall be consumed in the fire of tribulation either here only, or here and hereafter both, or here that it may not be hereafter,—this I do not contradict, because possibly it is true. For perhaps even the death of the body is itself a part of this tribulation, for it results from the first transgression, so that the time which follows death takes its color in each case from the nature of the man’s building. The persecutions, too, which have crowned the martyrs, and which Christians of all kinds suffer, try both buildings like a fire, consuming some, along with the builders themselves, if Christ is not found in them as their foundation, while others they consume without the builders, because Christ is found in them, and they are saved, though with loss; and other buildings still they do not consume, because such materials as abide for ever are found in them. In the end of the world there shall be in the time of Antichrist tribulation such as has never before been. How many edifices there shall then be, of gold or of hay, built on the best foundation, Christ Jesus, which that fire shall prove, bringing joy to some, loss to others, but without destroying either sort, because of this stable foundation! But whosoever prefers, I do not say his wife, with whom he lives for carnal pleasure, but any of those relatives who afford no delight of such a kind, and whom it is right to love,—whosoever prefers these to Christ, and loves them after a human and carnal fashion, has not Christ as a foundation, and will therefore not be saved by fire, nor indeed at all; for he shall not possibly dwell with the Saviour, who says very explicitly concerning this very matter, “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” But he who loves his relations carnally, and yet so that he does not prefer them to Christ, but would rather want them than Christ if he were put to the proof, shall be saved by fire, because it is necessary that by the loss of these relations he suffer pain in proportion to his love. And he who loves father, mother, sons, daughters, according to Christ, so that he aids them in obtaining His kingdom and cleaving to Him, or loves them because they are members of Christ, God forbid that this love should be consumed as wood, hay, stubble, and not rather be reckoned a structure of gold, silver, precious stones. For how can a man love those more than Christ whom he loves only for Christ’s sake?

> Latin: Post istius sane corporis mortem, donec ad illum ueniatur, qui post resurrectionem corporum futurus est damnationis et remunerationis ultimus dies, si hoc temporis interuallo spiritus defunctorum eius modi ignem dicuntur perpeti, quem non sentiant illi, qui non habuerunt tales mores et amores v in huius corporis uita, ut eorum ligna, fenum, stipula consumatur; alii uero sentiant, qui eius modi secum aedificia portauerunt, siue ibi tantum, siue et hic et ibi, siue ideo hic ut non ibi saecularia, quamuis a damnatione uenialia. concremantem ignem transitoriae tribulationis inueniant: non redarguo, quia forsitan uerum est. Potest quippe ad istam tribulationem pertinere etiam mors ipsa carnis, quae de primi peccati perpetratione concepta est, ut secundum cuiusque aedificium tempus quod eam sequitur ab unoquoque sentiatur. Persecutiones quoque, quibus martyres coronati sunt et quas patiuntur quicumque Christiani, probant utraque aedificia uelut ignis et alia consumunt cum ipsis aedificatoribus, si Christum in eis non inueniunt fundamentum; alia sine ipsis. si inueniunt, quia licet cum damno salui erunt ipsi; alia uero non’ consumunt, quia talia reperiunt quae maneant in. aeternum. Erit etiam in fine saeculi tribulatio tempore Antichristi, qualis numquam antea fuit. Quam multa erunt tunc aedificia, siue aurea siue fenea, super optimum fundamentum. quod est Christus Iesus, ut ignis ille probet utraque et de aliis gaudium, de aliis inferat damnum, neutros tamen perdat., in quibus haec inueniet, propter stabile fundamentum! Quicumque autem, non dico uxorem, cuius etiam commixtione carnis ad carnalem utitur uoluptatem, sed ipsa quae ab eius modi delectationibus aliena sunt nomina pietatis humano more carnaliter diligendo Christo anteponit, non eum habet in fundamento et ideo non per ignem saluus erit, sed saluus non erit, quia esse cum Saluatore non poterit, qui de hac re apertissime loquens ait: Qui’ amat patrem aut matrem plus quam me, non est me dignus; et qui amat filium aut filiam super me, non est me dignus. Verum qui has necessitudines sic amat carnaliter ut tamen eas Christo Domino non praeponat, malitque ipsis. carere quam Christo, si ad hunc fuerit articulum tentationis adductus, per ignem erit saluus, quia et earum amissione tantum necesse est urat dolor, quantum haeserat amor. Porro qui patrem matrem, filios filias secundum Christum dilexerit. ut ad eius regnum obtinendum eique cohaerendum illis consulat, uel hoc in eis diligat, quod membra sunt Christi: absit ut ista dilectio reperiatur in lignis, feno, stipula consumenda. sed prorsus aedificio aureo, argenteo, gemmeo deputabitur. Quo modo autem potest eos plus amare quam Christum, quos amat utique propter Christum?

## 110. Against the Belief of Those Who Think that the Sins Which Have Been Accompanied with Almsgiving Will Do Them No Harm.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/110/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/110/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 27.—Against the Belief of Those Who Think that the Sins Which Have Been Accompanied with Almsgiving Will Do Them No Harm.

> Latin: Caput XXVII. Contra eorum persuasionem, qui putant sibi non obfutura peccata, in quibus, cum elemosynas facerent, permanserunt.

[¶1] It remains to reply to those who maintain that those only shall burn in eternal fire who neglect alms-deeds proportioned to their sins, resting this opinion on the words of the Apostle James, “He shall have judgment without mercy that hath showed no mercy.” Therefore, they say, he that hath showed mercy, though he has not reformed his dissolute conduct, but has lived wickedly and iniquitously even while abounding in alms, shall have a merciful judgment, so that he shall either be not condemned at all, or shall be delivered from final judgment after a time. And for the same reason they suppose that Christ will discriminate between those on the right hand and those on the left, and will send the one party into His kingdom, the other into eternal punishment, on the sole ground of their attention to or neglect of works of charity. Moreover, they endeavor to use the prayer which the Lord Himself taught as a proof and bulwark of their opinion, that daily sins which are never abandoned can be expiated through alms-deeds, no matter how offensive or of what sort they be. For, say they, as there is no day on which Christians ought not to use this prayer, so there is no sin of any kind which, though committed every day, is not remitted when we say, “Forgive us our debts,” if we take care to fulfill what follows, “as we forgive our debtors.” For, they go on to say, the Lord does not say, “If ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will forgive you your little daily sins,” but “will forgive you your sins.” Therefore, be they of any kind or magnitude whatever, be they perpetrated daily and never abandoned or subdued in this life, they can be pardoned, they presume, through alms-deeds.

> Latin: Restat eis respondere, qui dicunt aeterno igne illos tantummodo arsuros, qui pro peccatis suis facere dignas elemosynas neglegunt, propter illud quod ait apostolus Iacobus: ludicium autem sine misericordia illi, qui non fecit misericordiam. Qui ergo fecit, inquiunt, quamuis non correxerit perditos mores, sed nefarie ac nequiter inter ipsas suas elemosynas uixerit, cum misericordia illi futurum est iudicium, ut aut non damnetur omnino aut post aliquod tempus a damnatione nouissima liberetur. Nec ob aliud existimant Christum de solo dilectu adque neglectu elemosynarum discretionem inter dextros et sinistros esse facturum, quorum alios in regnum, alios in supplicium mittat aeternum. Ut autem cottidiana sibi opinentur, quae facere omnino non cessant, qualiacumque et quantacumque sint, per elemosynas dimitti posse peccata, orationem, quam docuit ipse Dominus, et suffragatricem sibi adhibere conantur et testem. Sicut enim nullus est, inquiunt, dies, quo a Christianis haec oratio non dicatur: ita nullum est cottidianum qualecumque peccatum, quod per illam non dimittatur, cum dicimus: Dimitte nobis debita nostra, si quod sequitur facere curemus: Sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Non enim ait Dominus, inquiunt: Si dimiseritis peccata hominibus, dimittet uobis Pater uester cottidiana parua peccata, sed: Dimittet, inquit, uobis peccata uestra. Qualicumque ergo uel quantacumque sint, etiamsi cottidie perpetrentur nec ab eis uita discedat in melius commutata: per elemosynam ueniae non negatae remitti sibi posse praesumunt.

[¶2] But they are right to inculcate the giving of aims proportioned to past sins; for if they said that any kind of alms could obtain the divine pardon of great sins committed daily and with habitual enormity, if they said that such sins could thus be daily remitted, they would see that their doctrine was absurd and ridiculous. For they would thus be driven to acknowledge that it were possible for a very wealthy man to buy absolution from murders, adulteries, and all manner of wickedness, by paying a daily alms of ten paltry coins. And if it be most absurd and insane to make such an acknowledgment, and if we still ask what are those fitting alms of which even the forerunner of Christ said, “Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance,” undoubtedly it will be found that they are not such as are done by men who undermine their life by daily enormities even to the very end. For they suppose that by giving to the poor a small fraction of the wealth they acquire by extortion and spoliation they can propitiate Christ, so that they may with impunity commit the most damnable sins, in the persuasion that they have bought from Him a license to transgress, or rather do buy a daily indulgence. And if they for one crime have distributed all their goods to Christ’s needy members, that could profit them nothing unless they desisted from all similar actions, and attained charity which worketh no evil He therefore who does alms-deeds proportioned to his sins must first begin with himself. For it is not reasonable that a man who exercises charity towards his neighbor should not do so towards himself, since he hears the Lord saying, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” and again, “Have compassion on thy soul, and please God.” He then who has not compassion on his own soul that he may please God, how can he be said to do alms-deeds proportioned to his sins? To the same purpose is that written, “He who is bad to himself, to whom can he be good?” We ought therefore to do alms that we may be heard when we pray that our past sins may be forgiven, not that while we continue in them we may think to provide ourselves with a license for wickedness by alms-deeds.

> Latin: Sed bene, quod isti dignas pro peccatis elemosynas commonent esse faciendas; quoniam si dicerent qualescumque elemosynas pro peccatis et cottidianis et magnis et quantacumque scelerum consuetudine misericordiam posse inpetrare diuinam. ut ea cottidiana remissio sequeretur, uiderent se rem dicere absurdam adque ridiculam. Sic enim cogerentur fateri fieri posse, ut opulentissimus homo decem nummulis diurnis in elemosynas inpensis homicidia et adulteria et nefaria quaeque facta redimeret. Quod si absurdissimum adque insanissimum est dicere, profecto si quaeratur, quae dignae sint pro peccatis elemosynae, de quibus etiam Christi praecursor ille dicebat: Facite ergo fructus dignos paenitentiae, procul dubio non inuenientur eas facere, qui uitam suam usque ad mortem cottidianorum criminum perpetratione confodiunt: primum, quia in auferendis rebus alienis longe plura diripiunt, ex quibus perexigua pauperibus largiendo Christum se ad hoc pascere existimant, ut licentiam malefactorum ab illo se emisse uel cottidie potius emere credentes securi damnabilia tanta committant. Qui si pro uno scelere omnia sua distribuerent indigentibus membris Christi, nisi desisterent a talibus factis habendo caritatem, quae non agit perperam, aliquid eis prodesse non potest. Qui ergo dignas pro suis peccatis elemosynas facit, prius eas facere incipit a se ipso. Indignum est enim, ut in se non faciat, qui facit in proximum, cum audiat dicentem Deum: Diliges proximum tuum tamquam te ipsum: itemque audiat: Miserere animae tuae placens Deo. Hanc elemosynam, id est, ut Deo placeat, non faciens animae suae quo modo dignas pro peccatis suis elemosynas facere dicendus est? Ad hoc enim et illud scriptum est: Qui sibi malignus est, cui bonus erit?

[¶3] The reason, therefore, of our predicting that He will impute to those on His right hand the alms-deeds they have done, and charge those on His left with omitting the same, is that He may thus show the efficacy of charity for the deletion of past sins, not for impunity in their perpetual commission. And such persons, indeed, as decline to abandon their evil habits of life for a better course cannot be said to do charitable deeds. For this is the purport of the saying, “Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.” He shows them that they do not perform charitable actions even when they think they are doing so. For if they gave bread to a hungering Christian because he is a Christian, assuredly they would not deny to themselves the bread of righteousness, that is, Christ Himself; for God considers not the person to whom the gift is made, but the spirit in which it is made. He therefore who loves Christ in a Christian extends alms to him in the same spirit in which he draws near to Christ, not in that spirit which would abandon Christ if it could do so with impunity. For in proportion as a man loves what Christ disapproves does he himself abandon Christ. For what does it profit a man that he is baptized, if he is not justified? Did not He who said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God,” say also, “Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven?” Why do many through fear of the first saying run to baptism, while few through fear of the second seek to be justified? As therefore it is not to his brother a man says, “Thou fool,” if when he says it he is indignant not at the brotherhood, but at the sin of the offender,—for otherwise he were guilty of hell fire,—so he who extends charity to a Christian does not extend it to a Christian if he does not love Christ in him. Now he does not love Christ who refuses to be justified in Him. Or, again, if a man has been guilty of this sin of calling his brother Fool, unjustly reviling him without any desire to remove his sin, his alms-deeds go a small way towards expiating this fault, unless he adds to this the remedy of reconciliation which the same passage enjoins. For it is there said, “Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” Just so it is a small matter to do alms-deeds, no matter how great they be, for any sin, so long as the offender continues in the practice of sin.

> Latin: Orationes quippe adiuuant elemosynae; et utique intuendum est quod legimus: Fili, peccasti, ne adicias iterum et de praeteritis deprecare, ut tibi dimittantur. Propter hoc ergo elemosynae faciendae sunt, ut, cum de praeteritis peccatis deprecamur, exaudiamur; non ut in eis perseuerantes licentiam malefaciendi nos per elemosynas conparare credamus. Ideo autem Dominus et dextris elemosynas ab eis factas et sinistris non factas se inputaturum esse praedixit, ut hinc ostenderet quantum ualeant elemosynae ad priora delenda, non ad perpetua inpune committenda peccata. Tales autem elemosynas non dicendi sunt facere, qui uitam nolunt a consuetudine scelerum in melius commutare. Quia et in hoc quod ait: Quando uni ex minimis meis non fecistis, mihi non fecistis. ostendit eos non facere etiam quando se facere existimant. Si enim Christiano esurienti panem tamquam Christiano darent, profecto sibi panem iustitiae, quod ipse Christus est, non negarent; quoniam Deus, non cui detur, sed quo animo detur, adtendit. Qui ergo Christum diligit in Christiano, hoc animo ei porrigit elemosynam, quo accedit ad Christum, non quo uult recedere inpunitus a Christo. Tanto enim magis quisque deserit Christum, quanto magis diligit quod inprobat Christus. Nam quid cuiquam prodest, quod baptizatur, si non iustificatur? Nonne qui dixit: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu, non intrabit in regnum Dei, ipse etiam dixit: Nisi abundauerit iustitia uestra super scribarum et Pharisaeorum, non intrabitis in regnum caelorum? Quur illud timendo multi currunt baptizari, et hoc non timendo non multi curant iustificari? Sicut ergo non fratri suo dicit: Fatue. qui cum hoc dicit non ipse fraternitati, sed peccato eius infensus est (alioquin reus erit gehennae ignis): ita e contrario, qui porrigit elemosynam Christiano, non Christiano porrigit, qui non in eo diligit Christum; non autem diligit Christum, qui iustificari recusat in Christo.

[¶4] Then as to the daily prayer which the Lord Himself taught, and which is therefore called the Lord’s prayer, it obliterates indeed the sins of the day, when day by day we say, “Forgive us our debts,” and when we not only say but act out that which follows, “as we forgive our debtors;” but we utter this petition because sins have been committed, and not that they may be. For by it our Saviour designed to teach us that, however righteously we live in this life of infirmity and darkness, we still commit sins for the remission of which we ought to pray, while we must pardon those who sin against us that we ourselves also may be pardoned. The Lord then did not utter the words, “If ye forgive men their trespasses, your Father will also forgive you your trespasses,” in order that we might contract from this petition such confidence as should enable us to sin securely from day to day, either putting ourselves above the fear of human laws, or craftily deceiving men concerning our conduct, but in order that we might thus learn not to suppose that we are without sins, even though we should be free from crimes; as also God admonished the priests of the old law to this same effect regarding their sacrifices, which He commanded them to offer first for their own sins, and then for the sins of the people. For even the very words of so great a Master and Lord are to be intently considered. For He does not say, If ye forgive men their sins, your Father will also forgive you your sins, no matter of what sort they be, but He says, your sins; for it was a daily prayer He was teaching, and it was certainly to disciples already justified He was speaking. What, then, does He mean by “your sins,” but those sins from which not even you who are justified and sanctified can be free? While, then, those who seek occasion from this petition to indulge in habitual sin maintain that the Lord meant to include great sins, because He did not say, He will forgive you your small sins, but “your sins,” we, on the other hand, taking into account the character of the persons He was addressing, cannot see our way to interpret the expression “your sins” of anything but small sins, because such persons are no longer guilty of great sins. Nevertheless not even great sins themselves—sins from which we must flee with a total reformation of life—are forgiven to those who pray, unless they observe the appended precept, “as ye also forgive your debtors.” For if the very small sins which attach even to the life of the righteous be not remitted without that condition, how much further from obtaining indulgence shall those be who are involved in many great crimes, if, while they cease from perpetrating such enormities, they still inexorably refuse to remit any debt incurred to themselves, since the Lord says, “But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses?” For this is the purport of the saying of the Apostle James also, “He shall have judgment without mercy that hath showed no mercy.” For we should remember that servant whose debt of ten thousand talents his lord cancelled, but afterwards ordered him to pay up, because the servant himself had no pity for his fellow-servant, who owed him an hundred pence. The words which the Apostle James subjoins,“And mercy rejoiceth against judgment,” find their application among those who are the children of the promise and vessels of mercy. For even those righteous men, who have lived with such holiness that they receive into the eternal habitations others also who have won their friendship with the mammon of unrighteousness, became such only through the merciful deliverance of Him who justifies the ungodly, imputing to him a reward according to grace, not according to debt. For among this number is the apostle, who says, “I obtained mercy to be faithful.”

> Latin: Et quem ad modum si quis praeoccupatus fuerit hoc delicto, ut fratri suo dicat: Fatue, id est, non eius peccatum nolens auferre conuicietur iniuste, parum est illi ad hoc redimendum elemosynas facere, nisi etiam quod ibi sequitur remedium reconciliationis adiungat (ibi enim sequitur: Si ergo offeres munus tuum ad altare et ibi recordatus fueris, quia frater tuus habet aliquid aduersum te, reIinque ibi munus tuum ad altare et uade prius, reconciliari fratri tuo, et tunc ueniens offeres munus tuum): ita parum est elemosynas quantaslibet facere pro quocumque scelere et in consuetudine scelerum permanere, Oratio uero cottidiana, quam docuit ipse Iesus, unde et dominica nominatur, delet quidem cottidiana peccata, cam cottidie dicitur: Dimitte nobis debita nostra, adque id quod sequitur non solum dicitur, sed etiam fit: Sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris; sed quia fiunt peccata, ideo dicitur, non ut ideo fiant, quia dicitur. Per hanc enim nobis uoluit Saluator ostendere, quantumlibet iuste in huius uitae caligine adque infirmitate uiuamus, non nobis deesse peccata, pro quibus dimittendis debeamus orare et eis, qui in nos peccant, ut et nobis ignoscatur, ignoscere. Non utique propterea Dominus ait: Si dimiseritis peccata hominibus, dimittet uobis et Pater uester peccata uestra, ut de hac oratione confisi securi cottidiana scelera faceremus, uel potentia qua non timeremus hominum leges uel astutia qua ipsos homines falleremus; sed ut per illam disceremus non putare nos esse sine peccatis, etiamsi a criminibus essemus inmunes; sicut etiam legis ueteris sacerdotes hoc ipsum Deus de sacrificiis admonuit, quae iussit eos primum pro suis, deinde pro populi offerre peccatis. Nam et ipsa uerba tanti magistri et Domini nostri uigilanter intuenda sunt. Non enim ait: (Si dimiseritis peccata hominibus, et Pater uester dimittet uobis qualiacumque peccata’, sed ait: Peccata uestra. Cottidianam quippe orationem docebat et iustificatis utique discipulis loquebatur. Quid est ergo : Peccata uestra nisi ‘peccata sine quibus nec uos eritis, qui iustificati et sanctificati estis’? Ubi ergo illi, qui per hanc orationem occasionem perpetrandorum cottidie scelerum quaerunt, dicunt Dominum significasse etiam magna peccata, quoniam non dixit: ‘Dimittet uobis parua sed peccata uestra: ibi nos considerantes qualibus loquebatur et audientes dictum peccata uestra nihil aliud debemus existimare quam parua, quoniam talium iam non erant magna. Verum tamen nec ipsa magna, a quibus omnino mutatis in melius moribus recedendum est, dimittuntur orantibus, nisi fiat quod ibi dicitur: Sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Si enim minima peccata, sine quibus non est etiam uita iustorum, aliter non remittuntur: quanto magis multis et magnis criminibus inuoluti, etiamsi ea perpetrare iam desinant, nullam indulgentiam consequuntur. si ad remittendum aliis, quod in eis quisque peccauerit, inexorabiles fuerint, cum dicat Dominus: Si autem non dimiseritis hominibus, neque Pater uester dimittet uobis. Ad hoc enim ualet quod etiam Iacobus apostolus ait, iudicium futurum sine misericordia illi, qui non fecit misericordiam. Venire quippe debet in mentem etiam seruus ille. cui debitori dominus eius relaxauit decem milia talentorum. quae postea iussit ut redderet, quia ipse non misertus est conserui sui, qui ei debebat centum denarios. In his ergo, qui filii sunt promissionis et uasa misericordiae. ualet quod ait idem apostolus consequenter adiungens: Superexsultat autem misericordia iudicio, quoniam et illi iusti. qui tanta sanctitate uixerunt, ut alios quoque recipiant in tabernacula aeterna, a quibus amici facti sunt de mammona iniquitatis, ut tales essent, misericordia liberati sunt ab eo, qui iustificat inpium, inputans mercedem secundum gratiam, non secundum debitum.

[¶5] But it must be admitted, that those who are thus received into the eternal habitations are not of such a character that their own life would suffice to rescue them without the aid of the saints, and consequently in their case especially does mercy rejoice against judgment. And yet we are not on this account to suppose that every abandoned profligate, who has made no amendment of his life, is to be received into the eternal habitations if only he has assisted the saints with the mammon of unrighteousness,—that is to say, with money or wealth which has been unjustly acquired, or, if rightfully acquired, is yet not the true riches, but only what iniquity counts riches, because it knows not the true riches in which those persons abound, who even receive others also into eternal habitations. There is then a certain kind of life, which is neither, on the one hand, so bad that those who adopt it are not helped towards the kingdom of heaven by any bountiful alms-giving by which they may relieve the wants of the saints, and make friends who could receive them into eternal habitations, nor, on the other hand, so good that it of itself suffices to win for them that great blessedness, if they do not obtain mercy through the merits of those whom they have made their friends. And I frequently wonder that even Virgil should give expression to this sentence of the Lord, in which He says, “Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that they may receive you into everlasting habitations;” and this very similar saying, “He that receiveth a prophet, in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man, in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a righteous man’s reward.” For when that poet described the Elysian fields, in which they suppose that the souls of the blessed dwell, he placed there not only those who had been able by their own merit to reach that abode, but added,—

> Latin: In eorum quippe numero est apostolus. qui dicit: Misericordiam consecutus sum, ut fidelis essem. Illi autem, qui recipiuntur a talibus in tabernacula aeterna, fatendum est quod non sint his moribus praediti, ut eis liberandis sine suffragio sanctorum sua possit uita sufficere, ac per hoc multo amplius in eis superexsultat misericordia iudicio. Nec tamen ideo putandus est quisquam sceleratissimus, nequaquam uita uel bona uel tolerabiliore mutatus, recipi in tabernacula aeterna, quoniam obsecutus est sanctis de mammona iniquitatis, id est de pecunia uel diuitiis, quae male fuerant adquisitae, aut etiamsi bene, non tamen ueris, sed quas iniquitas putat esse diuitias, quoniam nescit quae sint uerae diuitiae, quibus illi abundant, qui et alios recipiunt in tabernacula aeterna. Est itaque quidam uitae modus nec tam malae, ut his qui eam uiuunt nihil prosit ad capessendum regnum caelorum largitas elemosynarum, quibus etiam iustorum sustentatur inopia et fiunt amici qui in tabernacula aeterna suscipiant, nec tam bonae, ut ad tantam beatitudinem adipiscendam eis ipsa sufficiat, nisi eorum meritis, quos amicos fecerint, misericordiam consequantur. (Mirari autem soleo etiam aput Vergilium reperiri istam Domini sententiam, ubi ait: Facite uobis amicos de mammona iniquitatis, ut et ipsi recipiant uos in tabernacula aeterna; cui est et illa simillima: Qui recipit prophetam in nomine prophetae, mercedem prophetae accipiet; et qui recipit iustum in nomine iusti, mercedem iusti accipiet.

[¶6] “And they who grateful memory won

[¶7] By services to others done;”

[¶8] that is, they who had served others, and thereby merited to be remembered by them. Just as if they used the expression so common in Christian lips, where some humble person commends himself to one of the saints, and says, Remember me, and secures that he do so by deserving well at his hand. But what that kind of life we have been speaking of is, and what those sins are which prevent a man from winning the kingdom of God by himself, but yet permit him to avail himself of the merits of the saints, it is very difficult to ascertain, very perilous to define. For my own part, in spite of all investigation, I have been up to the present hour unable to discover this. And possibly it is hidden from us, lest we should become careless in avoiding such sins, and so cease to make progress. For if it were known what these sins are which, though they continue, and be not abandoned for a higher life, do yet not prevent us from seeking and hoping for the intercession of the saints, human sloth would presumptuously wrap itself in these sins, and would take no steps to be disentangled from such wrappings by the deft energy of any virtue, but would only desire to be rescued by the merits of other people, whose friendship had been won by a bountiful use of the mammon of unrighteousness. But now that we are left in ignorance of the precise nature of that iniquity which is venial, even though it be persevered in, certainly we are both more vigilant in our prayers and efforts for progress, and more careful to secure with the mammon of unrighteousness friends for ourselves among the saints.

> Latin: Nam cum Elysios campos poeta ille describeret, ubi putant habitare animas beatorum, non solum ibi posuit eos, qui propriis meritis ad illas sedes peruenire potuerunt, sed adiecit adque ait: Quique sui memores alios fecere merendo, id est, qui promeruerunt alios eosque sui memores promerendo fecerunt; prorsus tamquam eis dicerent, quod frequentatur ore Christiano, cum se cuique sanctorum humilis quisque commendat et dicit: ‘Memor mei esto’, adque id ut esse possit promerendo efficit.) Sed quis ite sit modus, et quae sint ipsa peccata, quae ita inpediunt peruentionem ad regnum Dei. ut tamen sanctorum amicorum meritis inpetrent indulgentiam, difficillimum est inuenire, periculosissimum definire. Ego certe usque ad hoc tempus cum inde satagerem ad eorum indaginem peruenire non potui. Et fortassis propterea latent, ne studium proficiendi ad omnia cauenda peccata pigrescat. Quoniam si scirentur quae uel qualia sint delicta. pro quibus etiam permanentibus nec prouectu uitae melioris absumtis intercessio sit inquirenda et speranda iustorum, eis secura se obuolueret humana segnitia, nec euolui talibus inplicamentis ullius uirtutis expeditione curaret, sed tantummodo quaereret aliorum meritis liberari, quos amicos sibi de mammona iniquitatis elemosynarum largitate fecisset. Nunc uero dum uenialis iniquitatis, etiamsi perseueret, ignoratur modus, profecto et studium in meliora proficiendi orando et instando uigilantius adhibetur et faciendi de mammona iniquitatis sanctos amicos cura non spernitur.

[¶9] But this deliverance, which is effected by one’s own prayers, or the intercession of holy men, secures that a man be not cast into eternal fire, but not that, when once he has been cast into it, he should after a time be rescued from it. For even those who fancy that what is said of the good ground bringing forth abundant fruit, some thirty, some sixty, some an hundred fold, is to be referred to the saints, so that in proportion to their merits some of them shall deliver thirty men, some sixty, some an hundred,—even those who maintain this are yet commonly inclined to suppose that this deliverance will take place at, and not after the day of judgment. Under this impression, some one who observed the unseemly folly with which men promise themselves impunity on the ground that all will be included in this method of deliverance, is reported to have very happily remarked, that we should rather endeavor to live so well that we shall be all found among the number of those who are to intercede for the liberation of others, lest these should be so few in number, that, after they have delivered one thirty, another sixty, another a hundred, there should still remain many who could not be delivered from punishment by their intercessions, and among them every one who has vainly and rashly promised himself the fruit of another’s labor. But enough has been said in reply to those who acknowledge the authority of the same sacred Scriptures as ourselves, but who, by a mistaken interpretation of them, conceive of the future rather as they themselves wish, than as the Scriptures teach. And having given this reply, I now, according to promise, close this book.

> Latin: Verum ista liberatio, quae fit siue suis quibusque orationibus siue intercedentibus sanctis, id agit ut in ignem quisque non mittatur aeternum, non ut, cum fuerit missus, post quantumcumque inde tempus ematur. Nam et illi, qui putant sic intellegendum esse quod scriptum est, adferre terram bonam uberem fructum, aliam tricenum, aliam sexagenum, aliam centenum, ut sancti pro suorum diuersitate meritorum alii tricenos homines liberent, alii sexagenos, alii centenos, hoc in die iudicii futurum suspicari solent, non post iudicium. Qua opinione quidam cum uideret homines inpunitatem sibi peruersissime pollicentes, eo quod omnes isto modo ad liberationem pertinere posse uideantur, elegantissime respondisse perhibetur, bene potius esse uiuendum, ut inter eos quisque reperiatur, qui pro aliis intercessuri sunt liberandis, ne tam pauci sint, ut cito ad numerum suum uel tricenum uel sexagenum uel centenum unoquoque eorum perueniente multi remaneant, qui erui iam de poenis illorum intercessione non possint et in eis inueniatur quisquis sibi spem fructus alieni temeritate uanissima pollicetur. Haec me illis respondisse suffecerit, qui sacrarum litterarum, quas communes habemus, auctoritatem non spernunt, sed eas male intellegendo non quod illae loquuntur, sed hoc potius putant futurum esse quod ipsi uolunt. Hac itaque responsione reddita librum, sicut promisimus, terminamus.

### Of the eternal happiness of the saints, the resurrection of the body, and the miracles of the early Church.

[¶11] Book XXII.

> Latin: Liber XXII

[¶12] Argument—This book treats of the end of the city of God, that is to say, of the eternal happiness of the saints; the faith of the resurrection of the body is established and explained; and the work concludes by showing how the saints, clothed in immortal and spiritual bodies, shall be employed.

### Of the Creation of Angels and Men.

[¶14] Chapter 1.—Of the Creation of Angels and Men.

> Latin: Caput I.

[¶15] As we promised in the immediately preceeding book, this, the last of the whole work, shall contain a discussion of the eternal blessedness of the city of God. This blessedness is named eternal, not because it shall endure for many ages, though at last it shall come to an end, but because, according to the words of the gospel, “of His kingdom there shall be no end.” Neither shall it enjoy the mere appearance of perpetuity which is maintained by the rise of fresh generations to occupy the place of those that have died out, as in an evergreen the same freshness seems to continue permanently, and the same appearance of dense foliage is preserved by the growth of fresh leaves in the room of those that have withered and fallen; but in that city all the citizens shall be immortal, men now for the first time enjoying what the holy angels have never lost. And this shall be accomplished by God, the most almighty Founder of the city. For He has promised it, and cannot lie, and has already performed many of His promises, and has done many unpromised kindnesses to those whom He now asks to believe that He will do this also.

> Latin: Sicut in proximo libro superiore promisimus, iste huius totius operis ultimus disputationem de ciuitatis Dei aeterna beatitudine continebit, quae non propter aetatis per multa saecula longitudinem tamen quandocumque finiendam aeternitatis nomen accepit, sed quem ad modum scriptum est in euangelio, regni eius non erit finis; nec ita ut aliis moriendo decedentibus, aliis succedentibus oriendo species in ea perpetuitatis appareat, sicut in arbore, quae perenni fronde uestitur, eadem uidetur uiriditas permanere, dum labentibus? et cadentibus foliis subinde alia, quae nascuntur. faciem conseruant opacitatis; sed omnes in ea ciues inmortales erunt. adipiscentibus et hominibus, quod numquam sancti angeli perdiderunt. Faciet hoc Deus omnipotentissimus eius conditor. Promisit enim nec mentiri potest, et quibus fidem hinc quoque faceret, multa sua et non promissa et promissa iam fecit.

[¶16] For it is He who in the beginning created the world full of all visible and intelligible beings, among which He created nothing better than those spirits whom He endowed with intelligence, and made capable of contemplating and enjoying Him, and united in our society, which we call the holy and heavenly city, and in which the material of their sustenance and blessedness is God Himself, as it were their common food and nourishment. It is He who gave to this intellectual nature free-will of such a kind, that if he wished to forsake God, i.e., his blessedness, misery should forthwith result. It is He who, when He foreknew that certain angels would in their pride desire to suffice for their own blessedness, and would forsake their great good, did not deprive them of this power, deeming it to be more befitting His power and goodness to bring good out of evil than to prevent the evil from coming into existence. And indeed evil had never been, had not the mutable nature—mutable, though good, and created by the most high God and immutable Good, who created all things good—brought evil upon itself by sin. And this its sin is itself proof that its nature was originally good. For had it not been very good, though not equal to its Creator, the desertion of God as its light could not have been an evil to it. For as blindness is a vice of the eye, and this very fact indicates that the eye was created to see the light, and as, consequently, vice itself proves that the eye is more excellent than the other members, because it is capable of light (for on no other supposition would it be a vice of the eye to want light), so the nature which once enjoyed God teaches, even by its very vice, that it was created the best of all, since it is now miserable because it does not enjoy God. It is he who with very just punishment doomed the angels who voluntarily fell to everlasting misery, and rewarded those who continued in their attachment to the supreme good with the assurance of endless stability as the meed of their fidelity. It is He who made also man himself upright, with the same freedom of will,—an earthly animal, indeed, but fit for heaven if he remained faithful to his Creator, but destined to the misery appropriate to such a nature if he forsook Him. It is He who when He foreknew that man would in his turn sin by abandoning God and breaking His law, did not deprive him of the power of free-will, because He at the same time foresaw what good He Himself would bring out of the evil, and how from this mortal race, deservedly and justly condemned, He would by His grace collect, as now He does, a people so numerous, that He thus fills up and repairs the blank made by the fallen angels, and that thus that beloved and heavenly city is not defrauded of the full number of its citizens, but perhaps may even rejoice in a still more overflowing population.

> Latin: Ipse est enim, qui in principio condidit mundum, plenum bonis omnibus uisibilibus adque intellegibilibus rebus, in quo nihil melius instituit quam spiritus, quibus intellegentiam dedit et suae contemplationis habiles capacesque sui praestitit adque una societate deuinxit, quam sanctam et supernam dicimus ciuitatem, in qua res, qua sustententur beatique sint, Deus ipse illis est, tamquam uita uictusque communis: qui liberum arbitrium eidem intellectuali naturae tribuit tale, ut, si uellet deserere Deum, beatitudinem scilicet suam, continuo miseria sequeretur; qui cum praesciret angelos quosdam per elationem, qua ipsi sibi ad beatam uitam sufficere uellent, tanti boni desertores futuros, non eis ademit hanc potestatem, potentius et melius esse iudicans etiam de malis bene facere quam mala esse non sinere. Quae omnino nulla essent. nisi natura mutabilis, quamuis bona et a summo Deo adque incommutabili bono, qui bona omnia condidit, instituta, peccando ea sibi ipsa fecisset; quo etiam peccato suo teste conuincitur bonam conditam se esse naturam. Nisi enim magnum et ipsa, licet non aequale Conditori, bonum esset, profecto desertio Dei tamquam luminis sui malum eius esse non posset. Nam sicut caecitas oculi uitium est et idem ipsum indicat ad lumen uidendum esse oculum creatum ac per hoc etiam ipso uitio suo excellentius ostenditur ceteris membris membrum capax luminis (non enim alia causa esset uitium eius carere lumine): ita natura. quae fruebatur Deo, optimam se institutam docet etiam ipso uitio, quo ideo misera est quia non fruitur Deo; qui casum angelorum uoluntarium iustissima poena sempiternae infelicitatis obstrinxit adque in eo summo bono permanentibus ceteris, ut de sua sine fine permansione certi essent, tamquam ipsius praemium permansionis dedit. Qui fecit hominem etiam ipsum rectum cum eodem libero arbitrio, terrenum quidem animal, sed caelo dignum, si suo cohaereret auctori, miseria similiter, si eum desereret, secutura, qualis naturae huius modi conueniret. Quem similiter cum praeuaricatione legis Dei per Dei desertionem peccaturum esse praesciret, nec illi ademit liberi arbitrii potestatem, simul praeuidens, quid boni de malo eius esset ipse facturus: qui de mortali progenie merito iusteque damnata tantum populum gratia sua colligit, ut inde subpleat et instauret partem, quae lapsa est angelorum, ac sic illa dilecta et superna ciuitas non fraudetur suorum numero ciuium, quin etiam fortassis et uberiore laetetur.

### Of the Eternal and Unchangeable Will of God.

[¶18] Chapter 2.—Of the Eternal and Unchangeable Will of God.

> Latin: Caput II. De aeterna Dei et incommutabili uoluntate.

[¶19] It is true that wicked men do many things contrary to God’s will; but so great is His wisdom and power, that all things which seem adverse to His purpose do still tend towards those just and good ends and issues which He Himself has foreknown. And consequently, when God is said to change His will, as when, e.g., He becomes angry with those to whom He was gentle, it is rather they than He who are changed, and they find Him changed in so far as their experience of suffering at His hand is new, as the sun is changed to injured eyes, and becomes as it were fierce from being mild, and hurtful from being delightful, though in itself it remains the same as it was. That also is called the will of God which He does in the hearts of those who obey His commandments; and of this the apostle says, “For it is God that worketh in you both to will.” As God’s “righteousness” is used not only of the righteousness wherewith He Himself is righteous, but also of that which He produces in the man whom He justifies, so also that is called His law, which, though given by God, is rather the law of men. For certainly they were men to whom Jesus said, “It is written in your law,” though in another place we read, “The law of his God is in his heart.” According to this will which God works in men, He is said also to will what He Himself does not will, but causes His people to will; as He is said to know what He has caused those to know who were ignorant of it. For when the apostle says, “But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God,” we cannot suppose that God there for the first time knew those who were foreknown by Him before the foundation of the world; but He is said to have known them then, because then He caused them to know. But I remember that I discussed these modes of expression in the preceding books. According to this will, then, by which we say that God wills what He causes to be willed by others, from whom the future is hidden, He wills many things which He does not perform.

> Latin: Multa enim fiunt quidem a malis contra uoluntatem Dei; sed tantae est ille sapientiae tantaeque uirtutis, ut in eos exitus siue fines, quos bonos et iustos ipse praesciuit, tendant omnia, quae uoluntati eius uidentur aduersa. Ac per hoc cum Deus mutare dicitur uoluntatem, ut quibus lenis erat uerbi gratia reddatur iratus, illi potius quam ipse mutantur et eum quodam modo mutatum in his quae patiuntur inueniunt; sicut mutatur sol oculis sauciatis et asper quodam modo ex miti et ex delectabili molestus efficitur, cum ipse aput se ipsum maneat idem qui fuit. Dicitur etiam uoluntas Dei, quam facit in cordibus oboedientium mandatis eius, de qua dicit apostolus: Deus est enim, qui operatur in uobis et uelle. Sicut iustitia Dei non solum qua ipse iustus est dicitur, sed illa etiam quam in homine, qui ab illo iustificatur. facit: sic et lex eius uocatur, ‘quae potius est hominum, sfld ab ipso data; nam utique homines erant, quibus ait Iesus: In lege uestra scriptum est, cum alio loco legamus: Lex Dei eius in corde eius. Secundum hanc uoluntatem quam Deus operatur in hominibus, etiam uelle dicitur, quod non ipse uult, sed suos id uolentes facit; sicut dicitur cognouisse, quod ut cognosceretur fecit, a quibus ignorabatur. Neque enim dicente apostolo: Nunc autem cognoscentes Deum, immo cogniti a Deo, fas est ut credamus, quod eos tunc cognouerit Deus praecognitos ante constitutionem mundi; sed tunc cognouisse dictus est, quod tunc ut cognosceretur effecit. De his locutionum modis iam et in superioribus libris memini disputatum. Secundum hanc ergo uoluntatem, qua Deum uelle dicimus quod alios efficit uelle, quibus futura nesciuntur, multa uult nec facit.

[¶20] Thus His saints, inspired by His holy will, desire many things which never happen. They pray, e.g., for certain individuals—they pray in a pious and holy manner—but what they request He does not perform, though He Himself by His own Holy Spirit has wrought in them this will to pray. And consequently, when the saints, in conformity with God’s mind, will and pray that all men be saved, we can use this mode of expression: God wills and does not perform,—meaning that He who causes them to will these things Himself wills them. But if we speak of that will of His which is eternal as His foreknowledge, certainly He has already done all things in heaven and on earth that He has willed,—not only past and present things, but even things still future. But before the arrival of that time in which He has willed the occurrence of what He foreknew and arranged before all time, we say, It will happen when God wills. But if we are ignorant not only of the time in which it is to be, but even whether it shall be at all, we say, It will happen if God wills,—not because God will then have a new will which He had not before, but because that event, which from eternity has been prepared in His unchangeable will, shall then come to pass.

> Latin: Multa enim uolunt fieri sancti eius ab illo inspirata sancta uoluntate, nec fiunt, sicut orant pro quibusdam pie sancteque. et quod orant non facit, cum ipse in eis hanc orandi uoluntatem sancto Spiritu suo fecerit. Ac per hoc, quando secundum Deum uolunt et orant sancti, ut quisque sit saluusr possumus illo modo locutionis dicere: ‘Vult Deus et non facit’; ut ipsum dicamus uelle, qui ut uelint isti facit. Secundum illam uero uoluntatem suam, quae cum eius praescientia sempiterna est, profecto in caelo et in terra omnia quaecumque uoluit non solum praeterita uel praesentia, sed etiam futura iam fecit. Verum antequam ueniat tempus, quo uoluit ut fieret, quod ante tempora uniuersa praesciuit adque disposuit, dicimus: <Fiet quando Deus uoluerit’; si autem non solum tempus quo futurum est, uerum etiam utrum futurum sit ignoramus, dicimus: ‘Fiet, si Deus uoluerit’; non quia Deus nouam uoluntatem, quam non habuit, tunc habebit; sed quia id, quod ex aeternitate in eius inmutabili praeparatum est uoluntate, tunc erit.

### Of the Promise of Eternal Blessedness to the Saints, and Everlasting Punishment to the Wicked.

[¶22] Chapter 3.—Of the Promise of Eternal Blessedness to the Saints, and Everlasting Punishment to the Wicked.

> Latin: Caput III. De promissione aeternae beatitudinis sanctorum et perpetuis suppliciis inpiorum.

[¶23] Wherefore, not to mention many other instances besides, as we now see in Christ the fulfillment of that which God promised to Abraham when He said, “In thy seed shall all nations be blessed,” so this also shall be fulfilled which He promised to the same race, when He said by the prophet, “They that are in their sepulchres shall rise again,” and also, “There shall be a new heaven and a new earth: and the former shall not be mentioned, nor come into mind; but they shall find joy and rejoicing in it: for I will make Jerusalem a rejoicing, and my people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people, and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her.” And by another prophet He uttered the same prediction: “At that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust” (or, as some interpret it, “in the mound”) “of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” And in another place by the same prophet: “The saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom, and shall possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.” And a little after he says, “His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom.” Other prophecies referring to the same subject I have advanced in the twentieth book, and others still which I have not advanced are found written in the same Scriptures; and these predictions shall be fulfilled, as those also have been which unbelieving men supposed would be frustrate. For it is the same God who promised both, and predicted that both would come to pass,—the God whom the pagan deities tremble before, as even Porphyry, the noblest of pagan philosophers, testifies.

> Latin: Quapropter, ut cetera tam multa praeteream, sicut nunc: in Christo uidemus inpleri quod promisit Abrahae dicens: In semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes: ita quod eidem semini eius promisit inplebitur, ubi ait per prophetam: Hesurgent qui erant in monumentis, et quod ait: Erit caelum nouum et terra noua, et non erunt memores priorum, nec adscendet in cor ipsorum. sed laetitiam et exsultationem inuenient in ea. Ecce ego faciam Hierusalem exsultationem et populum meum laetitiam; et exsultabo in Hierusalem et laetabor in populo meo, et ultra non audietur in illa uox fletus; et per alium prophetam quod praenuntiauit dicens eidem prophetae: In tempore illo saluabitur populus tuus omnis qui inuentus fuerit scriptus in libro. et multi dormientium in terrae puluere (siue. ut quidam interpretati sunt, aggere) exsurgent, hi in uitam aeternam et hi in obprobrium et in confusionem aeternam; et alio loco per eundem prophetam: Accipient regnum sancti Altissimi et obtinebunt illud usque in saeculum et usque in saeculum saeculorum; et paulo post: Regnum, inquit. -eius regnum sempiternum: et alia quae ad hoc pertinentia in libro uicensimo posui, siue quae non posui et tamen in eisdem litteris scripta sunt, uenient et haec, sicut ista uenerunt, quae increduli nOli putabant esse uentura. Idem quippe Deus utraque promisit, utraque uentura esse praedixit. quem perhorrescunt numina paganorum, etiam teste Porphyrio, nobilissimo philosopho paganorum.

## 111. Against the Wise Men of the World, Who Fancy that the Earthly Bodies of Men Cannot Be Transferred to a Heavenly Habitation.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/111/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/111/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 4.—Against the Wise Men of the World, Who Fancy that the Earthly Bodies of Men Cannot Be Transferred to a Heavenly Habitation.

> Latin: Caput IV. Contra sapientes mundi, qui putant terrena hominum corpora ad caeleste habitaculum non posse transferri.

[¶1] But men who use their learning and intellectual ability to resist the force of that great authority which, in fulfillment of what was so long before predicted, has converted all races of men to faith and hope in its promises, seem to themselves to argue acutely against the resurrection of the body while they cite what Cicero mentions in the third book De Republica. For when he was asserting the apotheosis of Hercules and Romulus, he says: “Whose bodies were not taken up into heaven; for nature would not permit a body of earth to exist anywhere except upon earth.” This, forsooth, is the profound reasoning of the wise men, whose thoughts God knows that they are vain. For if we were only souls, that is, spirits without any body, and if we dwelt in heaven and had no knowledge of earthly animals, and were told that we should be bound to earthly bodies by some wonderful bond of union, and should animate them, should we not much more vigorously refuse to believe this, and maintain that nature would not permit an incorporeal substance to be held by a corporeal bond? And yet the earth is full of living spirits, to which terrestrial bodies are bound, and with which they are in a wonderful way implicated. If, then, the same God who has created such beings wills this also, what is to hinder the earthly body from being raised to a heavenly body, since a spirit, which is more excellent than all bodies, and consequently than even a heavenly body, has been tied to an earthly body? If so small an earthly particle has been able to hold in union with itself something better than a heavenly body, so as to receive sensation and life, will heaven disdain to receive, or at least to retain, this sentient and living particle, which derives its life and sensation from a substance more excellent than any heavenly body? If this does not happen now, it is because the time is not yet come which has been determined by Him who has already done a much more marvellous thing than that which these men refuse to believe. For why do we not more intensely wonder that incorporeal souls, which are of higher rank than heavenly bodies, are bound to earthly bodies, rather than that bodies, although earthly, are exalted to an abode which, though heavenly, is yet corporeal, except because we have been accustomed to see this, and indeed are this, while we are not as yet that other marvel, nor have as yet ever seen it? Certainly, if we consult sober reason, the more wonderful of the two divine works is found to be to attach somehow corporeal things to incorporeal, and not to connect earthly things with heavenly, which, though diverse, are yet both of them corporeal.

> Latin: Sed uidelicet homines docti adque sapientes contra uim tantae auctoritatis, quae omnia genera hominum, sicut tanto) ante praedixit, in hoc credendum sperandumque conuertit. acute sibi argumentari uidentur aduersus corporum resurrectionem et dicere quod in tertio de re publica libro a Cicerone commemoratum est. Nam cum Herculem et Romulum ex hominibus deos esse factos adseueraret: ‘Quorum non corpora, inquit, sunt in caelum elata; neque enim natura pateretur, ut id quod esset e terra nisi in terra maneret.’ Haec est magna ratio sapientium, quorum Dominus nouit cogitationes, quoniam uanae sunt. Si enim animae tantummodo essemus, id est sine ullo corpore spiritus, et in caelo habitantes terrena animalia nesciremus nobisque futurum esse diceretur, ut terrenis corporibus animandis quodam uinculo mirabili necteremur: nonne multo fortius argumentaremur id credere recusantes et diceremus naturam non pati, ut res incorporea ligamento corporeo uinciretur? Et tamen plena est terra uegetantibus animis haec membra terrena, miro sibi modo conexa et inplicita. Quur ergo eodem uolente Deo, qui fecit hoc animal, non poterit terrenum corpus in. caeleste corpus adtolli, si animus omni ac per hoc etiam caelesti corpore praestabilior terreno corpori potuit inligari? An terrena particula tam exigua potuit aliquid caelesti corpore melius aput se tenere, ut sensum haberet et uitam, et eam sentientem adque uiuentem dedignabitur caelum suscipere aut susceptam non poterit sustinere, eum de re sentiat et uiuat ista meliore, quam est corpus omne caeleste? Sed ideo nunc non fit, quia nondum est tempus quo id fieri uoluit, qui hoc, quod uidendo iam uiluit, multo mirabilius quam illud, quod ab istis non creditur, fecit. Quur enim non uehementius admiramur incorporeos animos, caelesti corpore potiores, terrenis inligari corporibus quam corpora licet terrena sedibus quamnis caelestibus. tamen corporeis sublimari, nisi quia hoc uidere consueuimus et hoc sumus, illud uero nondum sumus nec aliquando adhuc uidimus? Nam profecto sobria ratione consulta rairabilioris esse diuini operis reperitur incorporalibus corporalia quodam modo adtexere quam licet diuersa, quia illa caelestia, ista terrestria, tamen corpora et corpora copulare.

### Of the Resurrection of the Flesh, Which Some Refuse to Believe, Though the World at Large Believes It.

[¶3] Chapter 5.—Of the Resurrection of the Flesh, Which Some Refuse to Believe, Though the World at Large Believes It.

> Latin: Caput V. De resurrectione carnis, quam quidam mundo credentenoncredunt.

[¶4] But granting that this was once incredible, behold, now, the world has come to the belief that the earthly body of Christ was received up into heaven. Already both the learned and unlearned have believed in the resurrection of the flesh and its ascension to the heavenly places, while only a very few either of the educated or uneducated are still staggered by it. If this is a credible thing which is believed, then let those who do not believe see how stolid they are; and if it is incredible, then this also is an incredible thing, that what is incredible should have received such credit. Here then we have two incredibles,—to wit, the resurrection of our body to eternity, and that the world should believe so incredible a thing; and both these incredibles the same God predicted should come to pass before either had as yet occurred. We see that already one of the two has come to pass, for the world has believed what was incredible; why should we despair that the remaining one shall also come to pass, and that this which the world believed, though it was incredible, shall itself occur? For already that which was equally incredible has come to pass, in the world’s believing an incredible thing. Both were incredible: the one we see accomplished, the other we believe shall be; for both were predicted in those same Scriptures by means of which the world believed. And the very manner in which the world’s faith was won is found to be even more incredible if we consider it. Men uninstructed in any branch of a liberal education, without any of the refinement of heathen learning, unskilled in grammar, not armed with dialectic, not adorned with rhetoric, but plain fishermen, and very few in number,—these were the men whom Christ sent with the nets of faith to the sea of this world, and thus took out of every race so many fishes, and even the philosophers themselves, wonderful as they are rare. Let us add, if you please, or because you ought to be pleased, this third incredible thing to the two former. And now we have three incredibles, all of which have yet come to pass. It is incredible that Jesus Christ should have risen in the flesh and ascended with flesh into heaven; it is incredible that the world should have believed so incredible a thing; it is incredible that a very few men, of mean birth and the lowest rank, and no education, should have been able so effectually to persuade the world, and even its learned men, of so incredible a thing. Of these three incredibles, the parties with whom we are debating refuse to believe the first; they cannot refuse to see the second, which they are unable to account for if they do not believe the third. It is indubitable that the resurrection of Christ, and His ascension into heaven with the flesh in which He rose, is already preached and believed in the whole world. If it is not credible, how is it that it has already received credence in the whole world? If a number of noble, exalted, and learned men had said that they had witnessed it, and had been at pains to publish what they had witnessed, it were not wonderful that the world should have believed it, but it were very stubborn to refuse credence; but if, as is true, the world has believed a few obscure, inconsiderable, uneducated persons, who state and write that they witnessed it, is it not unreasonable that a handful of wrong-headed men should oppose themselves to the creed of the whole world, and refuse their belief? And if the world has put faith in a small number of men, of mean birth and the lowest rank, and no education, it is because the divinity of the thing itself appeared all the more manifestly in such contemptible witnesses. The eloquence, indeed, which lent persuasion to their message, consisted of wonderful works, not words. For they who had not seen Christ risen in the flesh, nor ascending into heaven with His risen body, believed those who related how they had seen these things, and who testified not only with words but wonderful signs. For men whom they knew to be acquainted with only one, or at most two languages, they marvelled to hear speaking in the tongues of all nations. They saw a man, lame from his mother’s womb, after forty years stand up sound at their word in the name of Christ; that handkerchiefs taken from their bodies had virtue to heal the sick; that countless persons, sick of various diseases, were laid in a row in the road where they were to pass, that their shadow might fall on them as they walked, and that they forthwith received health; that many other stupendous miracles were wrought by them in the name of Christ; and, finally, that they even raised the dead. If it be admitted that these things occurred as they are related, then we have a multitude of incredible things to add to those three incredibles. That the one incredibility of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ may be believed, we accumulate the testimonies of countless incredible miracles, but even so we do not bend the frightful obstinacy of these sceptics. But if they do not believe that these miracles were wrought by Christ’s apostles to gain credence to their preaching of His resurrection and ascension, this one grand miracle suffices for us, that the whole world has believed without any miracles.

> Latin: Sed hoc incredibile fuerit aliquando: ecce iam credidit mundus sublatum terrenum Christi corpus in caelum; resurrectionem carnis et adscensionem in supernas sedes, paucissimis remanentibus adque stupentibus uel doctis uel indoctis. iam crediderunt et docti et indocti. Si rem credibilem crediderunt, uideant quam sint stolidi, qui non credunt; si autem res incredibilis credita est, etiam hoc utique incredibile est. sic creditum esse, quod incredibile est. Haec igitur duo incredibilia, resurrectionem scilicet nostri corporis in aeternum et rem tam incredibilem mundum esse crediturum, idem Deus, antequam uel unum horum fieret, ambo futura esse praedixit. Unum duorum incredibilium iam factum uidemus, ut, quod erat incredibile, crederet mundus: quur id quod reliquum est desperatur, ut etiam hoc ueniat, quod incredibile credidit mundus, sicut iam uenit, quod similiter incredibile fuit, ut rem tam incredibilem crederet mundus, quando quidem hoc utrumque incredibile, quorum uidemus unum, alterum credimus, in eisdem litteris praedictum sit, per quas credidit mundus? Et ipse modus, quo mundus credidit, si consideretur. incredibilior inuenitur. Ineruditos liberalibus disciplinis et omnino, quantum ad istorum doctrinas adtinet, inpolitos, non peritos grammatica, non armatos dialectica, non rhetorica in flatos, piscatores Christus cum retibus fidei ad mare huius saeculi paucissimos misit adque ita et ex omni genere tam multos pisces et tanto mirabiliores, quanto rariores, etiam. ipsos philosophos cepit. Duobus illis incredibilibus, si placet, immo quia placere debet, addamus hoc tertium. Iam ergo tria sunt incredibilia, quae tamen facta sunt. Incredibile est Christum resurrexisse in carne et in caelum adscendisse cum carne; incredibile est mundum rem tam incredibilem credidisse; incredibile est homines ignobiles, infimos, paucissimos, inperitos rem tam incredibilem tam efficaciter mundo et in illo etiam doctis persuadere potuisse. Horum trium incredibilium primum nolunt isti, cum quibus agimus, credere; secundum coguntur et cernere: quod non inueniunt unde sit factum, si non credunt tertium. Resurrectio certe Christi et in caelum cum carne in qua resurrexit adscensio toto iam mundo praedicatur et creditur; si credibilis non est, unde toto terrarum orbe iam credita est? Si multi, nobiles, sublimes. docti eam se uidisse dixerunt et quod uiderunt diffamare curarunt, eis mundum credidisse non mirum est [sed istos adhuc credere nolle perdurum est; si autem, ut uerum est, paucis, obscuris, minimis, indoctis eam se uidisse dicentibus et scribentibus credidit mundus, quur pauci obstinatissimi, qui remanserunt, ipsi mundo iam credenti adhuc usque non credunt? qui propterea numero exiguo ignobilium, infimorum, inperitorum hominum credidit, quia in tam contemtibilibus testibus multo mirabilius diuinitas se ipsa persuasit. Eloquia namque persuadentium, quae dicebant, mira fuerunt facta, non uerba Qui enim Christum in carne resurrexisse et cum illa in caelum adscendisse non uiderant, id se uidisse narrantibus non loquentibus tantum, sed etiam mirifica facientibus signa credebant. Homines quippe, quos unius uel, ut multum, duarum linguarum fuisse nouerant, repente linguis omnium gentium loquentes mirabiliter audiebant; claudum ab uberibus matris ad eorum uerbum in Christi nomine post quadraginta annos incolumem constitisse, sudaria de corporibus eorum ablata sanandis profuisse languentibus, in uia qua fuerant transituri positos in ordine innumerabiles morbis uariis laborantes, ut ambulantium super eos umbra transiret, continuo salutem solere recipere et alia multa stupenda in Christi nomine per eos facta, postremo etiam mortuos resun-exisse cernebant, Quae si, ut leguntur, gesta esse concedunt, ecce tot incredibilia tribus illis incredibilibus addimus, et ut credatur unum incredibile, quod de carnis resurrectione adque in caelum adscensione dicitur, multorum incredibilium testimonia tanta congerimus et nondum ad credendum horrenda duritia incredulos flectimus. Si uero per apostolos Christi, ut eis crederetur resurrectionem adque adscensionem praedicantibus Christi, etiam ista miracula facta esse non credunt, hoc nobis unum grande miraculum sufficit, quod eam terrarum orbis sine ullis miraculis credidit.

### That Rome Made Its Founder Romulus a God Because It Loved Him; But the Church Loved Christ Because It Believed Him to Be God.

[¶6] Chapter 6.—That Rome Made Its Founder Romulus a God Because It Loved Him; But the Church Loved Christ Because It Believed Him to Be God.

> Latin: Caput VI. Quod Roma conditorem suum Romulum diligendo deum fecerit, ecclesia autem Christum Deum credendo dilexerit.

[¶7] Let us here recite the passage in which Tully expresses his astonishment that the apotheosis of Romulus should have been credited. I shall insert his words as they stand: “It is most worthy of remark in Romulus, that other men who are said to have become gods lived in less educated ages, when there was a greater propensity to the fabulous, and when the uninstructed were easily persuaded to believe anything. But the age of Romulus was barely six hundred years ago, and already literature and science had dispelled the errors that attach to an uncultured age.” And a little after he says of the same Romulus words to this effect: “From this we may perceive that Homer had flourished long before Romulus, and that there was now so much learning in individuals, and so generally diffused an enlightenment, that scarcely any room was left for fable. For antiquity admitted fables, and sometimes even very clumsy ones; but this age [of Romulus] was sufficiently enlightened to reject whatever had not the air of truth.” Thus one of the most learned men, and certainly the most eloquent, M. Tullius Cicero, says that it is surprising that the divinity of Romulus was believed in, because the times were already so enlightened that they would not accept a fabulous fiction. But who believed that Romulus was a god except Rome, which was itself small and in its infancy? Then afterwards it was necessary that succeeding generations should preserve the tradition of their ancestors; that, drinking in this superstition with their mother’s milk, the state might grow and come to such power that it might dictate this belief, as from a point of vantage, to all the nations over whom its sway extended. And these nations, though they might not believe that Romulus was a god, at least said so, that they might not give offence to their sovereign state by refusing to give its founder that title which was given him by Rome, which had adopted this belief, not by a love of error, but an error of love. But though Christ is the founder of the heavenly and eternal city, yet it did not believe Him to be God because it was founded by Him, but rather it is founded by Him, in virtue of its belief. Rome, after it had been built and dedicated, worshipped its founder in a temple as a god; but this Jerusalem laid Christ, its God, as its foundation, that the building and dedication might proceed. The former city loved its founder, and therefore believed him to be a god; the latter believed Christ to be God, and therefore loved Him. There was an antecedent cause for the love of the former city, and for its believing that even a false dignity attached to the object of its love; so there was an antecedent cause for the belief of the latter, and for its loving the true dignity which a proper faith, not a rash surmise, ascribed to its object. For, not to mention the multitude of very striking miracles which proved that Christ is God, there were also divine prophecies heralding Him, prophecies most worthy of belief, which being already accomplished, we have not, like the fathers, to wait for their verification. Of Romulus, on the other hand, and of his building Rome and reigning in it, we read or hear the narrative of what did take place, not prediction which beforehand said that such things should be. And so far as his reception among the gods is concerned, history only records that this was believed, and does not state it as a fact; for no miraculous signs testified to the truth of this. For as to that wolf which is said to have nursed the twin-brothers, and which is considered a great marvel, how does this prove him to have been divine? For even supposing that this nurse was a real wolf and not a mere courtezan, yet she nursed both brothers, and Remus is not reckoned a god. Besides, what was there to hinder any one from asserting that Romulus or Hercules, or any such man, was a god? Or who would rather choose to die than profess belief in his divinity? And did a single nation worship Romulus among its gods, unless it were forced through fear of the Roman name? But who can number the multitudes who have chosen death in the most cruel shapes rather than deny the divinity of Christ? And thus the dread of some slight indignation, which it was supposed, perhaps groundlessly, might exist in the minds of the Romans, constrained some states who were subject to Rome to worship Romulus as a god; whereas the dread, not of a slight mental shock, but of severe and various punishments, and of death itself, the most formidable of all, could not prevent an immense multitude of martyrs throughout the world from not merely worshipping but also confessing Christ as God. The city of Christ, which, although as yet a stranger upon earth, had countless hosts of citizens, did not make war upon its godless persecutors for the sake of temporal security, but preferred to win eternal salvation by abstaining from war. They were bound, imprisoned, beaten, tortured, burned, torn in pieces, massacred, and yet they multiplied. It was not given to them to fight for their eternal salvation except by despising their temporal salvation for their Saviour’s sake.

> Latin: Recolamus etiam hoc loco illud, quod de Romuli credita diuinitate Tullius admiratur. Verba eius ut scripta sunt inseram. <Magis est, inquit, in Romulo admirandum, quod ceteri. qui di ex hominibus facti esse dicuntur, minus eruditis hominum saeculis fuerunt, ut fingendi procliuis esset ratio. cum inperiti facile ad credendum inpellerentur; Romuli autem aetatem minus his sescentis annis iam inueteratis litteris adque doctrinis omnique illo antiquo ex inculta hominum uita errore sublato fuisse cernimus.’ Et paulo post de eodem Romulo ita loquitur, quod ad hunc pertinet sensum: ‘Ex quointellegi potest, inquit, permultis annis ante Homerum fuisse quam Romulum. ut iam doctis hominibus ac temporibus ipsis eruditis ad fingendum uix quicquam esset loci. Antiquitas enim recipit fabulas, fictas etiam nonnumquam incondite; haec aetas autem iam exculta, praesertim eludens omne quodfieri non potest, respuit.’ Unus e numero doctissimorum hominum idemque eloquentissimus omnium Marcus Tullius Cicero propterea dicit diuinitatem Romuli mirabiliter creditam. quod erudita iam tempora fuerunt, quae falsitatem non reciperent fabularum. Quis autem Romulum deum nisi Roma credidit, adque id parua et incipiens? Tum deinde posteris seruare fuerat necesse quod acceperant a maioribus, ut cum ista superstitione in lacte quodam modo matris ebibita cresceret ciuitas adque ad tam magnum perueniret imperium, ut ex eius fastigio, uelut ex altiore quodam loco, alias quoque gentes, quibus dominaretur, hac sua opinione perfunderet, ut non quidem crederent, sed tamen dicerent deum Romulum, ne ciuitatem, cui seruiebant, de conditore eius offenderent. aliter eum nominando quam Roma, quae id non amore quidem huius erroris, sed tamen amoris errore crediderat. Christum autem quamquam sit caelestis et sempiternae conditor ciuitatis, non tamen eum, quoniam ab illo condita est, Deum credidit, sed ideo potius est condenda, quia credidit. Roma conditorem suum iam constructa et dedicata tamquam deum coluit in templo; haec autem Hierusalem conditorem suum Deum Christum, ut construi posset et dedicari, posuit in fidei fundamento. Illa illum amando esse deum credidit, ista istum Deum esse credendo amauit. Sicut ergo praecessit unde amaret illa et de amato iam libenter etiam falsum bonum crederet: ita praecessit unde ista crederet, ut recta fide non temere -quod falsum, sed quod uerum erat amaret. Exceptis enim tot et tantis miraculis, quae persuaserunt Deum esse Christum. prophetiae quoque diuinae fide dignissimae praecesserunt, quae in illo non sicut a patribus adhuc creduntur inplendae, sed iam demonstrantur inpletae; de Romulo autem, quia condidit Romam in eaque regnauit, auditur legiturue quod factum est. non quod antequam fieret prophetatum; sed quod sit receptus in deos, creditum tenent litterae, non factum docent. Nullis quippe rerum mirabilium signis id ei uere prouenisse monstratur. Lupa quippe illa nutrix, quod uidetur quasi magnum exstitisse portentum, quale aut quantum est ad demonstrandum deum? Certe enim etsi non meretrix fuit lupa illa, sed bestia. cum commune fuerit ambobus, frater tamen eius non habetur deus. Quis autem prohibitus est aut Romulum aut Herculem aut alios tales homines deos dicere et mori maluit quam non dicere? Aut uero aliqua gentium coleret inter deos suos Romulum, nisi Romani nominis metus cogeret? Quis porro numeret, quam multi quantalibet saeuitia crudelitatis occidi quam Christum Deum negare maluerunt? Proinde metus quamlibet leuis indignationis, quae ab animis Romanorum, si non fieret, posse putabatur exsistere, conpellebat aliquas ciuitates positas sub iure Romano tamquam deum colere Romulum; a Christo autem Deo non solum colendo, uerum etiam confitendo tantam per orbis terrae populos martyrum multitudinem metus reuocare non potuit non leuis offensionis animorum, sed inmensarum uariarumque poenarum et ipsius mortis, quae plus ceteris formidatur. Neque tunc ciuitas Christi, quamuis adhuc peregrinaretur in terris et haberet tamen magnorum agmina populorum, aduersus inpios persecutores suos pro temporali salute pugnauit; sed potius, ut obtineret aeternam, non repugnauit. Ligabantur includebantur, caedebantur torquebantur, urebantur laniabantur, trucidabantur — et multiplicabantur. Non erat eis pro salute pugnare nisi salutem pro Saluatore contemnere. Scio in libro Ciceronis tertio, nisi fallor, de re publica disputari nullum bellum suscipi a ciuitate optima, nisi aut pro fide aut pro salute.

[¶8] I am aware that Cicero, in the third book of his De Republica, if I mistake not, argues that a first-rate power will not engage in war except either for honor or for safety. What he has to say about the question of safety, and what he means by safety, he explains in another place, saying, “Private persons frequently evade, by a speedy death, destitution, exile, bonds, the scourge, and the other pains which even the most insensible feel. But to states, death, which seems to emancipate individuals from all punishments, is itself a punishment; for a state should be so constituted as to be eternal. And thus death is not natural to a republic as to a man, to whom death is not only necessary, but often even desirable. But when a state is destroyed, obliterated, annihilated, it is as if (to compare great things with small) this whole world perished and collapsed.” Cicero said this because he, with the Platonists, believed that the world would not perish. It is therefore agreed that, according to Cicero, a state should engage in war for the safety which preserves the state permanently in existence though its citizens change; as the foliage of an olive or laurel, or any tree of this kind, is perennial, the old leaves being replaced by fresh ones. For death, as he says, is no punishment to individuals, but rather delivers them from all other punishments, but it is a punishment to the state. And therefore it is reasonably asked whether the Saguntines did right when they chose that their whole state should perish rather than that they should break faith with the Roman republic; for this deed of theirs is applauded by the citizens of the earthly republic. But I do not see how they could follow the advice of Cicero, who tell us that no war is to be undertaken save for safety or for honor; neither does he say which of these two is to be preferred, if a case should occur in which the one could not be preserved without the loss of the other. For manifestly, if the Saguntines chose safety, they must break faith; if they kept faith, they must reject safety; as also it fell out. But the safety of the city of God is such that it can be retained, or rather acquired, by faith and with faith; but if faith be abandoned, no one can attain it. It is this thought of a most steadfast and patient spirit that has made so many noble martyrs, while Romulus has not had, and could not have, so much as one to die for his divinity.

> Latin: Quid autem dicat pro salute uel intellegi quam salutem uelit, alio loco demonstrans: ‘Sed his poenis, inquit, quas etiam stultissimi sentiunt, egestate exsilio, uinculis uerberibus, elabuntur saepe priuati oblata mortis celeritate; ciuitatibus autem mors ipsa poena est, quae uidetur a poena singulos uindicare. Debet enim constituta sic esse ciuitas, ut aeterna sit. Itaque nullus interitus est rei publicae naturalis, ut hominis, in quo mors non modo necessaria est, uerum etiam optanda persaepe. Ciuitas autem cum tollitur, deletur, exstinguitur: simile est quodam modo, ut parua magnis conferamus, ac si omnis hic mundus intereat et concidat.’ Hoc ideo dixit Cicero, quia mundum non interiturum cum Platonicis sentit. Constat ergo eum pro ea salute uoluisse bellum suscipi a ciuitate, qua fit ut maneat hic ciuitas, sicut dicit, aeterna, quamuis morientibus et nascentibus singulis. sicut perennis est opacitas oleae uel lauri adque huius modi ceterarum arborum singulorum lapsu ortuque foliorum. Mors quippe, ut dicit, non hominum singulorum, sed uniuersae poena est ciuitatis, quae a poena plerumque singulos uindicat. Unde merito quaeritur, utrum recte fecerint Saguntini, quando uniuersam ciuitatem suam interire maluerunt quam fidem frangere, qua cum ipsa Romana re publica tenebantur; in quo suo facto laudantur ab omnibus terrenae rei publicae ciuibus. Sed quo modo huic disputationi possent oboedire, non uideo. ubi dicitur nullum suscipiendum esse bellum nisi aut pro fide aut pro salute, nec dicitur, si in unum simul periculum ita duo ista concurrerint, ut teneri alterum sine alterius amissione non possit, quid sit potius eligendum. Profecto enim Saguntini si salutem eligerent, fides eis fuerat deserenda: si fides tenenda, amittenda utique salus, sicut factum est. Salus, autem ciuitatis Dei talis est, ut cum fide ac per fidem teneri uel potius adquiri possit; fide autem perdita ad eam quisque uenire non possit. Quae cogitatio firmissimi ac patientissimi cordis tot ac tantos martyres fecit, qualem ne unum quidem habuit uel habere potuit quando est deus creditus Romulus.

### That the World’s Belief in Christ is the Result of Divine Power, Not of Human Persuasion.

[¶10] Chapter 7.—That the World’s Belief in Christ is the Result of Divine Power, Not of Human Persuasion.

> Latin: Caput VII. Quod ut mundus in Christum crederet, uirtutis fuerit diuinae, non persuasionis humanae.

[¶11] But it is thoroughly ridiculous to make mention of the false divinity of Romulus as any way comparable to that of Christ. Nevertheless, if Romulus lived about six hundred years before Cicero, in an age which already was so enlightened that it rejected all impossibilities, how much more, in an age which certainly was more enlightened, being six hundred years later, the age of Cicero himself, and of the emperors Augustus and Tiberius, would the human mind have refused to listen to or believe in the resurrection of Christ’s body and its ascension into heaven, and have scouted it as an impossibility, had not the divinity of the truth itself, or the truth of the divinity, and corroborating miraculous signs, proved that it could happen and had happened? Through virtue of these testimonies, and notwithstanding the opposition and terror of so many cruel persecutions, the resurrection and immortality of the flesh, first in Christ, and subsequently in all in the new world, was believed, was intrepidly proclaimed, and was sown over the whole world, to be fertilized richly with the blood of the martyrs. For the predictions of the prophets that had preceded the events were read, they were corroborated by powerful signs, and the truth was seen to be not contradictory to reason, but only different from customary ideas, so that at length the world embraced the faith it had furiously persecuted.

> Latin: Sed ualde ridiculum est de Romuli falsa diuinitate, cum de Christo loquimur, facere mentionem. Verum tamen cum sescentis ferme annis ante Ciceronem Romulus fuerit adque illa aetas iam fuisse doctrinis dicatur exculta, ut quod fieri non potest omne respueret: quanto magis post sescentos annos ipsius tempore Ciceronis maximeque postea sub Augusto adque Tiberio, eruditioribus utique temporibus, resurrectionem carnis Christi adque in caelum adscensionem, tamquam id quod fieri non potest, mens humana ferre non posset eludensque ab auribus cordibusque respueret, nisi eam fieri potuisse adque factam esse diuinitas ipsius ueritatis uel diuinitatis ueritas et contestantia miraculorum signa monstrarent; ut terrentibus et contradicentibus tam multis tamque magnis persecutionibus praecedens in Christo, deinde in ceteris ad nouum saeculum secutura resurrectio adque inmortalitas carnis et fidelissime crederetur et praedicaretur intrepide et per orbem terrae pullulatura fecundius cum martyrum sanguine sereretur. Legebantur enim praeconia praecedentia prophetarum, concurrebant ostenta uirtutum, et persuadebatur ueritas noua consuetudini. non contraria rationi, donec orbis terrae, qui persequebatur furore, sequeretur fide.

## 112. Of Miracles Which Were Wrought that the World Might Believe in Christ, and Which Have Not Ceased Since the World Believed.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/112/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/112/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 8.—Of Miracles Which Were Wrought that the World Might Believe in Christ, and Which Have Not Ceased Since the World Believed.

> Latin: Caput VIII. De miraculis, quae ut mundus in Christum crederet facta sunt et fieri mundo credente non desinunt.

[¶1] Why, they say, are those miracles, which you affirm were wrought formerly, wrought no longer? I might, indeed, reply that miracles were necessary before the world believed, in order that it might believe. And whoever now-a-days demands to see prodigies that he may believe, is himself a great prodigy, because he does not believe, though the whole world does. But they make these objections for the sole purpose of insinuating that even those former miracles were never wrought. How, then, is it that everywhere Christ is celebrated with such firm belief in His resurrection and ascension? How is it that in enlightened times, in which every impossibility is rejected, the world has, without any miracles, believed things marvellously incredible? Or will they say that these things were credible, and therefore were credited? Why then do they themselves not believe? Our argument, therefore, is a summary one—either incredible things which were not witnessed have caused the world to believe other incredible things which both occurred and were witnessed, or this matter was so credible that it needed no miracles in proof of it, and therefore convicts these unbelievers of unpardonable scepticism. This I might say for the sake of refuting these most frivolous objectors. But we cannot deny that many miracles were wrought to confirm that one grand and health-giving miracle of Christ’s ascension to heaven with the flesh in which He rose. For these most trustworthy books of ours contain in one narrative both the miracles that were wrought and the creed which they were wrought to confirm. The miracles were published that they might produce faith, and the faith which they produced brought them into greater prominence. For they are read in congregations that they may be believed, and yet they would not be so read unless they were believed. For even now miracles are wrought in the name of Christ, whether by His sacraments or by the prayers or relics of His saints; but they are not so brilliant and conspicuous as to cause them to be published with such glory as accompanied the former miracles. For the canon of the sacred writings, which behoved to be closed, causes those to be everywhere recited, and to sink into the memory of all the congregations; but these modern miracles are scarcely known even to the whole population in the midst of which they are wrought, and at the best are confined to one spot. For frequently they are known only to a very few persons, while all the rest are ignorant of them, especially if the state is a large one; and when they are reported to other persons in other localities, there is no sufficient authority to give them prompt and unwavering credence, although they are reported to the faithful by the faithful.

> Latin: Quur, inquiunt, nunc illa miracula, quae praedicatis facta esse, non fiunt? Possem quidem dicere necessaria fuisse. priusquam crederet mundus, ad hoc ut crederet mundus. Quisquis adhuc prodigia ut credat inquirit, magnum est ipse prodigium, qui mundo credente non credit. Verum hoc ideo dicunt, ut nec tunc illa miracula facta fuisse credantur. Unde ergo tanta fide Christus usquequaque cantatur in caelum cum carne sublatus? Unde temporibus eruditis et omne quod fieri non potest respuentibus sine ullis miraculis nimium mirabiliter incredibilia credidit mundus? An forte credibilia fuisse et ideo credita esse dicturi sunt? Quur ergo ipsi non credunt? Breuis est igitur nostra conplexio: Aut incredibilis rei, quae non uidebatur, alia incredibilia, quae tamen fiebant et uidebantur, fecerunt fidem; aut certe res ita credibilis, ut nullis quibus persuaderetur miraculis indigeret, istorum nimiam redarguit infidelitatem. Hoc ad refellendos uanissimos dixerim. Nam facta esse multa miracula, quae adtestarentur illi uni grandi salubrique miraculo, quo Christus in caelum cum carne in qua resurrexit adscendit, negare non possumus. In eisdem quippe ueracissimis libris cuncta conscripta sunt, et quae facta sunt, et propter quod credendum facta sunt. Haec, ut fidem facerent, innotuerunt; haec per fidem, quam fecerunt, multo clarius innotescunt. Leguntur quippe in populis, ut credantur; nec in populis tamen nisi credita legerentur. Nam etiam nunc fiunt miracula in eius nomine, siue per sacramenta eius siue per orationes uel memorias sanctorum eius; sed non eadem claritate inlustrantur, ut tanta quanta illa gloria diffamentur. Canon quippe sacrarum litterarum, quem definitum esse oportebat, illa facit ubique recitari et memoriae cunctorum inhaerere populorum; haec autem ubicumque fiunt. ibi sciuntur uix a tota ipsa ciuitate uel quocumque commanentium loco. Nam plerumque etiam ibi paucissimi sciunt ignorantibus ceteris, maxime si magna sit ciuitas; et quando alibi aliisque narrantur, non tanta ea commendat auctoritas. ut sine difficultate uel dubitatione credantur, quamuis Christianis fidelibus a fidelibus indicentur.

[¶2] The miracle which was wrought at Milan when I was there, and by which a blind man was restored to sight, could come to the knowledge of many; for not only is the city a large one, but also the emperor was there at the time, and the occurrence was witnessed by an immense concourse of people that had gathered to the bodies of the martyrs Protasius and Gervasius, which had long lain concealed and unknown, but were now made known to the bishop Ambrose in a dream, and discovered by him. By virtue of these remains the darkness of that blind man was scattered, and he saw the light of day.

> Latin: Miraculum, quod Mediolani factum est, cum illic essemus, quando inluminatus est caecus, ad multorum notitiam potuit peruenire, quia et grandis est ciuitas et ibi erat tunc imperator et inmenso populo teste res gesta est concurrente ad corpora martyrum Protasii et Geruasii; quae cum laterent et penitus nescirentur, episcopo Ambrosio per somnium reuelata reperta sunt; ubi caecus ille depulsis ueteribus tenebris diem uidit. Aput Carthaginem autem quis nouit praeter admodum paucissimos salutem, quae facta est Innocentio, ex aduocato uicariae praefecturae, ubi nos interfuimus et oculis adspeximus nostris ?

[¶3] But who but a very small number are aware of the cure which was wrought upon Innocentius, ex-advocate of the deputy prefecture, a cure wrought at Carthage, in my presence, and under my own eyes? For when I and my brother Alypius, who were not yet clergymen, though already servants of God, came from abroad, this man received us, and made us live with him, for he and all his household were devotedly pious. He was being treated by medical men for fistulæ, of which he had a large number intricately seated in the rectum. He had already undergone an operation, and the surgeons were using every means at their command for his relief. In that operation he had suffered long-continued and acute pain; yet, among the many folds of the gut, one had escaped the operators so entirely, that, though they ought to have laid it open with the knife, they never touched it. And thus, though all those that had been opened were cured, this one remained as it was, and frustrated all their labor. The patient, having his suspicions awakened by the delay thus occasioned, and fearing greatly a second operation, which another medical man—one of his own domestics—had told him he must undergo, though this man had not even been allowed to witness the first operation, and had been banished from the house, and with difficulty allowed to come back to his enraged master’s presence,—the patient, I say, broke out to the surgeons, saying, “Are you going to cut me again? Are you, after all, to fulfill the prediction of that man whom you would not allow even to be present?” The surgeons laughed at the unskillful doctor, and soothed their patient’s fears with fair words and promises. So several days passed, and yet nothing they tried did him good. Still they persisted in promising that they would cure that fistula by drugs, without the knife. They called in also another old practitioner of great repute in that department, Ammonius (for he was still alive at that time); and he, after examining the part, promised the same result as themselves from their care and skill. On this great authority, the patient became confident, and, as if already well, vented his good spirits in facetious remarks at the expense of his domestic physician, who had predicted a second operation. To make a long story short, after a number of days had thus uselessly elapsed, the surgeons, wearied and confused, had at last to confess that he could only be cured by the knife. Agitated with excessive fear, he was terrified, and grew pale with dread; and when he collected himself and was able to speak, he ordered them to go away and never to return. Worn out with weeping, and driven by necessity, it occurred to him to call in an Alexandrian, who was at that time esteemed a wonderfully skillful operator, that he might perform the operation his rage would not suffer them to do. But when he had come, and examined with a professional eye the traces of their careful work, he acted the part of a good man, and persuaded his patient to allow those same hands the satisfaction of finishing his cure which had begun it with a skill that excited his admiration, adding that there was no doubt his only hope of a cure was by an operation, but that it was thoroughly inconsistent with his nature to win the credit of the cure by doing the little that remained to be done, and rob of their reward men whose consummate skill, care, and diligence he could not but admire when be saw the traces of their work. They were therefore again received to favor; and it was agreed that, in the presence of the Alexandrian, they should operate on the fistula, which, by the consent of all, could now only be cured by the knife. The operation was deferred till the following day. But when they had left, there arose in the house such a wailing, in sympathy with the excessive despondency of the master, that it seemed to us like the mourning at a funeral, and we could scarcely repress it. Holy men were in the habit of visiting him daily; Saturninus of blessed memory, at that time bishop of Uzali, and the presbyter Gelosus, and the deacons of the church of Carthage; and among these was the bishop Aurelius, who alone of them all survives,—a man to be named by us with due reverence,—and with him I have often spoken of this affair, as we conversed together about the wonderful works of God, and I have found that he distinctly remembers what I am now relating. When these persons visited him that evening according to their custom, he besought them, with pitiable tears, that they would do him the honor of being present next day at what he judged his funeral rather than his suffering. For such was the terror his former pains had produced, that he made no doubt he would die in the hands of the surgeons. They comforted him, and exhorted him to put his trust in God, and nerve his will like a man. Then we went to prayer; but while we, in the usual way, were kneeling and bending to the ground, he cast himself down, as if some one were hurling him violently to the earth, and began to pray; but in what a manner, with what earnestness and emotion, with what a flood of tears, with what groans and sobs, that shook his whole body, and almost prevented him speaking, who can describe! Whether the others prayed, and had not their attention wholly diverted by this conduct, I do not know. For myself, I could not pray at all. This only I briefly said in my heart: “O Lord, what prayers of Thy people dost Thou hear if Thou hearest not these?” For it seemed to me that nothing could be added to this prayer, unless he expired in praying. We rose from our knees, and, receiving the blessing of the bishop, departed, the patient beseeching his visitors to be present next morning, they exhorting him to keep up his heart. The dreaded day dawned. The servants of God were present, as they had promised to be; the surgeons arrived; all that the circumstances required was ready; the frightful instruments are produced; all look on in wonder and suspense. While those who have most influence with the patient are cheering his fainting spirit, his limbs are arranged on the couch so as to suit the hand of the operator; the knots of the bandages are untied; the part is bared; the surgeon examines it, and, with knife in hand, eagerly looks for the sinus that is to be cut. He searches for it with his eyes; he feels for it with his finger; he applies every kind of scrutiny: he finds a perfectly firm cicatrix! No words of mine can describe the joy, and praise, and thanksgiving to the merciful and almighty God which was poured from the lips of all, with tears of gladness. Let the scene be imagined rather than described!

> Latin: Venientes enim de transmarinis me et fratrem meum Alypium, nondum quidem clericos, sed iam Deo seruientes, ut erat cum tota domo sua religiosissimus, ipse susceperat, et aput eum tunc habitabamus. Curabatur a medicis fistulas, quas numerosas adque perplexas habuit in posteriore adque ima corporis parte. Iam secuerant eum et artis suae cetera medicamentis agebant. Passus autem fuerat in sectione illa et diuturnos et acerbos dolores. Sed unus inter multos sinus fefellerat medicos adque ita latuerat, ut eum non tangerent, quem ferro aperire debuerant. Denique sanatis omnibus, quae aperta curabant, iste remanserat solus, cui frustra inpendebatur labor. Quas moras ille suspectas habens multumque formidans, ne iterum secaretur (quod ei praedixerat alius medicus domesticus eius, quem non admiserant illi, ut saltem uideret, cum primum sectus est, quo modo id facerent, iratusque illum domo abiecerat uixque receperat), erupit adque ait: Iterum me secturi estis? Ad illius, quem noluistis esse praesentem, uerba uenturus sum? Inridere illi medicum inperitum metumque hominis bonis uerbis promissionibusque lenire. Praeterierunt alii dies plurimi nihilque proficiebat omne quod fiebat. Medici tamen in sua pollicitatione persistebant, non se illum sinum ferro, sed medicamentis esse clausuros. Adhibuerunt et alium grandaeuum iam medicum satisque in illa arte laudatum (adhuc enim uiuebat), Ammonium, qui loco inspecto idem quod illi ex eorum diligentia peritiaque promisit. Cuius ille factus auctoritate securus domestico soo medico, qui futuram praedixerat aliam sectionem, faceta hilaritate, uelut iam saluus, inlusit. Quid plura? Tot dies postea inaniter consumti transierunt, ut fessi adque confusi faterentur eum nisi ferro nullo modo posse sanari. Expauit, expalluit nimio timore turbatus, adque ubi se collegit farique potuit, abire illos iussit et ad se amplius non accedere; nec aliud occurrit fatigato lacrimis et illa iam necessitate constricto. nisi ut adhiberet Alexandrinum quendam, qui tunc chirurgus mirabilis habebatur, ut ipse faceret quod ab illis fieri nolebat iratus. Sed postea quam uenit ille laboremque illorum in cicatricibus sicut artifex uidit, boni uiri functus officio persuasit homini, ut illi potius, qui in eo tantum laborauerant, quantum ipse inspiciens mirabatur, suae curationis fine fruerentur, adiciens, quod re uera nisi sectus esset saluus esse non posset; ualde abhorrere a suis moribus, ut hominibus, quorum artificiosissimam operam industriam diligentiam mirans in cicatricibus eius uideret, propter exiguum quod remansit palmam tanti laboris auferret. Redditi sunt animo eius, et placuit ut eodem Alexandrino adsistente ipsi sinum illum ferro, qui iam consensu omnium aliter insanabilis putabatur, aperirent. Quae res dilata est in consequentem diem. Sed cum abissent illi, ex maerore nimio domini tantus est in domo illa exortus dolor, ut tamquam funeris planctus uix conprimeretur a nobis. Visitabant eum cottidie sancti uiri. episcopus tunc Uzalensis, beatae memoriae Saturninus, et presbyter Gulosus ac diaconi Carthaginensis ecclesiae; in quibus erat et ei quibus solus est nunc in rebus humanis iam episcopus cum honore a nobis debito nominandus Aurelius, cum quo recordantes mirabilia operum Dei de hac re saepe conlocuti sumus eumque ualde meminisse, quod commemoramus, inuenimus. Qui cum eum, sicut solebant, uespere uisitarent, rogauit eos miserabilibus lacrimis, ut mane dignarentur esse praesentes suo funeri potius quam dolori. Tantus enim eum metus ex prioribus inuaserat poenis, ut se inter medicorum manus non dubitaret esse moriturum. Consolati sunt eum illi et hortati, ut in Deo fideret eiusque uoluntatem uiriliter ferret. Inde ad orationem ingressi sumus; ubi nobis ex more genua figentibus adque incumbentibus terrae ille se ita proiecit, tamquam fuisset aliquo grauiter inpellente prostratus, et coepit orare: quibus modis, quo adfectu, quo motu animi, quo fluuio lacrimarum, quibus gemitibus adque singultibus subcutientibus omnia membra eius et paene intercludentibus spiritum, quis ullis explicet uerbis? Utrum orarent alii nec in haec eorum auerteretur intentio, nesciebam. Ego tamen prorsus orare non poteram; hoc tantummodo breuiter in corde meo dixi: ‘Domine, quas tuorum preces exaudis, si has non exaudis?’ Nihil enim mihi uidebatur addi iam posse, nisi ut exspiraret orando. Surreximus et accepta ab episcopo benedictione discessimus. rogante illo ut mane adessent, illis ut aequo animo esset hortantibus. Inluxit dies qui metuebatur, aderant serui Dei, sicut se adfuturos esse promiserant, ingressi sunt medici, parantur omnia quae hora illa poscebat, tremenda ferramenta proferuntur adtonitis suspensisque omnibus. Eis autem, quorum erat maior auctoritas, defectum animi eius consolando erigentibus ad manus sectori membra in lectulo conponuntur, soluuntur nodi ligamentorum, nudatur locus, inspicit medicus et secandum illum sinum armatus adque intentus inquirit Scrutatur oculis digitisque contrectat, tentat denique modis omnibus: inuenit firmissimam cicatricem. Iam laetitia illa et laus adque gratiarum actio misericordi et omnipotenti Deo, quae fusa est ore omnium lacrimantibus gaudiis, non est committenda meis uerbis: cogitetur potius quam dicatur. In eadem Carthagine Innocentia, religiosissima femina, de primariis ipsius ciuitatis, in mamilla cancrum habebat, rem. sicut medici dicunt, nullis medicamentis sanabilem. Aut ergo praecidi solet et a corpore separari membrum ubi nascitur, aut, ut aliquanto diutius homo uiuat, tamen inde morte quamlibet tardius adfutura, secundum Hippocratis ut ferunt sententiam omnis est omittenda curatio.

[¶4] In the same city of Carthage lived Innocentia, a very devout woman of the highest rank in the state. She had cancer in one of her breasts, a disease which, as physicians say, is incurable. Ordinarily, therefore, they either amputate, and so separate from the body the member on which the disease has seized, or, that the patient’s life may be prolonged a little, though death is inevitable even if somewhat delayed, they abandon all remedies, following, as they say, the advice of Hippocrates. This the lady we speak of had been advised to by a skillful physician, who was intimate with her family; and she betook herself to God alone by prayer. On the approach of Easter, she was instructed in a dream to wait for the first woman that came out from the baptistery after being baptized, and to ask her to make the sign of Christ upon her sore. She did so, and was immediately cured. The physician who had advised her to apply no remedy if she wished to live a little longer, when he had examined her after this, and found that she who, on his former examination, was afflicted with that disease was now perfectly cured, eagerly asked her what remedy she had used, anxious, as we may well believe, to discover the drug which should defeat the decision of Hippocrates. But when she told him what had happened, he is said to have replied, with reli gious politeness, though with a contemptuous tone, and an expression which made her fear he would utter some blasphemy against Christ, “I thought you would make some great discovery to me.” She, shuddering at his indifference, quickly replied, “What great thing was it for Christ to heal a cancer, who raised one who had been four days dead?” When, therefore, I had heard this, I was extremely indignant that so great a miracle wrought in that well-known city, and on a person who was certainly not obscure, should not be divulged, and I considered that she should be spoken to, if not reprimanded on this score. And when she replied to me that she had not kept silence on the subject, I asked the women with whom she was best acquainted whether they had ever heard of this before. They told me they knew nothing of it. “See,” I said, “what your not keeping silence amounts to, since not even those who are so familiar with you know of it.” And as I had only briefly heard the story, I made her tell how the whole thing happened, from beginning to end, while the other women listened in great astonishment, and glorified God.

> Latin: Hoc illa a perito medico et suae domui familiarissimo acceperat et ad solum Deum se orando conuerterat. Admonetur in somnis propinquante Pascha, ut in parte feminarum obseruanti ad baptisterium, quaecumque illi baptizata primitus occurrisset. -signaret ei locum signo Christi. Fecit, confestim sanitas consecuta est. Medicus sane, qui ei dixerat ut nihil curationis adhiberet. si paulo diutius uellet uiuere, cum inspexisset eam postea et sanissimam conperisset, quam prius habere illud malum tali inspectione cognouerat, quaesiuit ab ea uehementer quid adhibuisset [curationis], cupiens, quantum intellegi datur. nosse medicamentum, quo Hippocratis definitio uinceretur. Cumque ab ea quid factum esset audisset, uoce uelut contemnentis et uultu, ita ut illa metueret, ne aliquod contumeliosum uerbum proferret in Christum, religiosa urbanitate respondisse fertur: Tutabam, inquit, magnum aliquid te mihi fuisse dicturam.’ Adque illa iam exhorrescente, mox addidit: (Quid grande fecit Christus sanare cancrum, qui quadriduanum mortuum suscitauit?’ Hoc ego cum audissem et uehementer stomacharer in illa ciuitate adque in illa persona non utique obscura factum tam ingens miraculum sic latere, hinc eam et admonendam et paene obiurgandam putaui. Quae cum mihi respondisset non se inde tacuisse, quaesiui ab eis, quas forte tunc matronas amicissimas secum habebat, utrum hoc antea scissent. Responderunt se omnino nescisse. Ecce, inquam, quo modo non taces, ut nec istae audiant, quae tibi tanta familiaritate iunguntur. Et quia breuiter ab ea quaesiueram, feci ut, illis audientibus multumque mirantibus et glorificantibus Deum, totum ex ordine, quem ad modum gestum fuerit, indicaret.

[¶5] A gouty doctor of the same city, when he had given in his name for baptism, and had been prohibited the day before his baptism from being baptized that year, by black woolly-haired boys who appeared to him in his dreams, and whom he understood to be devils, and when, though they trod on his feet, and inflicted the acutest pain he had ever yet experienced, he refused to obey them, but overcame them, and would not defer being washed in the laver of regeneration, was relieved in the very act of baptism, not only of the extraordinary pain he was tortured with, but also of the disease itself, so that, though he lived a long time afterwards, he never suffered from gout; and yet who knows of this miracle? We, however, do know it, and so, too, do the small number of brethren who were in the neighborhood, and to whose ears it might come.

> Latin: Medicum quendam podagrum in eadem urbe fuisse scimus; qui cum dedisset nomen ad baptismum et pridie quam baptizaretur in somnis a pueris nigris cirratis, quos intellegebat daemones, baptizari eodem anno prohibitus fuisset eisque non obtemperans etiam conculcantibus pedes eius in dolorem acerrimum, qualem numquam expertus est, aestuasset, magisque eos uincens lauacro regenerationis, ut uouerat, ablui non distulisset, in baptismate ipso non solum dolore, quo ultra solitum cruciabatur, uerum etiam podagra caruisse nec amplius, cum diu postea uixisset, pedes doluisse quis nouit? Nos tamen nouimus et paucissimi fratres ad quos id potuit peruenire. Ex mimo quidam Curubitanus non solum a paralysi, uerum etiam ab informi pondere genitalium, cum baptizaretur, saluus effectus est et liberatus utraque molestia, tamquam mali nihil habuisset in corpore, de fonte regenerationis adscendit. Quis hoc praeter Curubim nouit et praeter rarissimos aliquos, qui hoc ubicumque audire potuerunt?

[¶6] An old comedian of Curubis was cured at baptism not only of paralysis, but also of hernia, and, being delivered from both afflictions, came up out of the font of regeneration as if he had had nothing wrong with his body. Who outside of Curubis knows of this, or who but a very few who might hear it elsewhere? But we, when we heard of it, made the man come to Carthage, by order of the holy bishop Aurelius, although we had already ascertained the fact on the information of persons whose word we could not doubt.

> Latin: Nos autem cum hoc conperissemus, iubente sancto episcopo Aurelio etiam ut ueniret Carthaginem fecimus, quamuis a talibus prius audierimus, de quorum fide dubitare non possemus. Vir tribunicius Hesperius aput nos est; habet in territorio Fussalensi fundum (Zubedi appellatur); ubi cum adflictione animalium et seruorum suorum domum suam spirituum malignorum uim noxiam perpeti conperisset, rogauit nostros me absente presbyteros, ut aliquis eorum illo pergeret, cuius orationibus cederent.

[¶7] Hesperius, of a tribunitian family, and a neighbor of our own, has a farm called Zubedi in the Fussalian district; and, finding that his family, his cattle, and his servants were suffering from the malice of evil spirits, he asked our presbyters, during my absence, that one of them would go with him and banish the spirits by his prayers. One went, offered there the sacrifice of the body of Christ, praying with all his might that that vexation might cease. It did cease forthwith, through God’s mercy. Now he had received from a friend of his own some holy earth brought from Jerusalem, where Christ, having been buried, rose again the third day. This earth he had hung up in his bedroom to preserve himself from harm. But when his house was purged of that demoniacal invasion, he began to consider what should be done with the earth; for his reverence for it made him unwilling to have it any longer in his bedroom. It so happened that I and Maximinus bishop of Synita, and then my colleague, were in the neighborhood. Hesperius asked us to visit him, and we did so. When he had related all the circumstances, he begged that the earth might be buried somewhere, and that the spot should be made a place of prayer where Christians might assemble for the worship of God. We made no objection: it was done as he desired. There was in that neighborhood a young countryman who was paralytic, who, when he heard of this, begged his parents to take him without delay to that holy place. When he had been brought there, he prayed, and forthwith went away on his own feet perfectly cured.

> Latin: Perrexit unus, obtulit ibi sacrificium corporis Christi, orans quantum potuit, ut cessaret illa uexatio: Deo protinus miserante cessauit. Acceperat autem ab amico suo terram sanctam de Hierosolymis adlatam, ubi sepultus Christus die tertio resurrexit, eamque suspenderat in cubiculo suo, ne quid mali etiam ipse pateretur. Ast ubi domus eius ab illa infestatione purgata est, quid de illa terra fieret, cogitabat, quam diutius in cubiculo suo reuerentiae causa habere nolebat. Forte accidit, ut ego et collega tunc meas, episcopus Sinitensis ecclesiae Maximinus, in proximo essemus; ut ueniremus rogauit, et uenimus. Cumque nobis omnia rettulisset. etiam hoc petiuit, ut infoderetur alicubi adque ibi orationum locus fieret, ubi etiam Christiani possent ad celebranda quae Dei sunt congregari. Non restitimus; factum est. Erat ibi iuuenis paralyticus rusticanus. Hoc audito petiuit a parentibus suis, ut illum ad eum locum sanctum non cunctanter adferrent. Quo cum fuisset adlatus, orauit, adque inde continuo pedibus suis saluus abscessit. Victoriana dicitur uilla, ab Hippone Regio minus triginta milibus abest. Memoria martyrum ibi est Mediolanensium Protasii et Geruasii.

[¶8] There is a country-seat called Victoriana, less than thirty miles from Hippo-regius. At it there is a monument to the Milanese martyrs, Protasius and Gervasius. Thither a young man was carried, who, when he was watering his horse one summer day at noon in a pool of a river, had been taken possession of by a devil. As he lay at the monument, near death, or even quite like a dead person, the lady of the manor, with her maids and religious attendants, entered the place for evening prayer and praise, as her custom was, and they began to sing hymns. At this sound the young man, as if electrified, was thoroughly aroused, and with frightful screaming seized the altar, and held it as if he did not dare or were not able to let it go, and as if he were fixed or tied to it; and the devil in him, with loud lamentation, besought that he might be spared, and confessed where and when and how he took possession of the youth. At last, declaring that he would go out of him, he named one by one the parts of his body which he threatened to mutilate as he went out and with these words he departed from the man. But his eye, falling out on his cheek, hung by a slender vein as by a root, and the whole of the pupil which had been black became white. When this was witnessed by those present (others too had now gathered to his cries, and had all joined in prayer for him), although they were delighted that he had recovered his sanity of mind, yet, on the other hand, they were grieved about his eye, and said he should seek medical advice. But his sister’s husband, who had brought him there, said, “God, who has banished the devil, is able to restore his eye at the prayers of His saints.” Therewith he replaced the eye that was fallen out and hanging, and bound it in its place with his handkerchief as well as he could, and advised him not to loose the bandage for seven days. When he did so, he found it quite healthy. Others also were cured there, but of them it were tedious to speak.

> Latin: Portatus est eo quidam adulescens, qui cum die medio tempore aestatis equum ablueret in fluminis gurgite, daemonem incurrit. Ibi cum iaceret uel morti proximus uel simillimus mortuo, ad uespertinos illuc hymnos et orationes cum ancillis suis et quibusdam sanctimonialibus ex more domina possessionis intrauit adque hymnos cantare coeperunt. Qua uoce ille quasi percussus excussus est et cum terribili fremitu altare adprehensum mouere non audens siue non ualens, tamquam eo fuerit adligatus aut adfixus, tenebat et cum grandi eiulatu parci sibi rogans confitebatur, ubi adulescentem et quando et quo modo inuaserit. Postremo se exiturum esse denuntians membra eius singula nominabat, quae se amputaturum exiens minabatur, adque inter haec uerba discessit ab homine. Sed oculus eius in maxillam fusus tenui uenula ab interiore quasi radice pendebat, totumque eius medium, quod nigellum fuerat, albicauerat. Quo uiso qui aderant (concurrerant autem etiam alii uocibus eius acciti et se omnes in orationem pro illo strauerant), quamuis eum sana mente stare gauderent, rursus tamen propter eius oculum contristati medicum quaerendum esse dicebant. Ibi maritus sororis eius, qui eum illo detulerat: Totens est, inquit, Deus sanctorum orationibus, qui fugauit daemonem, lumen reddere.’ Tum, sicut potuit, oculum lapsum adque pendentem loco suo reuocatum ligauit orario nec nisi post septem dies putauit esse soluendum. Quod cum fecisset, sanissimum inuenit. Sanati sunt illic et alii, de quibus dicere longum est. Hipponiensem quandam uirginem scio, cum se oleo perunxisset, cui pro illa orans presbyter instillauerat lacrimas suas, mox a daemonio fuisse sanatam.

[¶9] I know that a young woman of Hippo was immediately dispossessed of a devil, on anointing herself with oil, mixed with the tears of the prebsyter who had been praying for her. I know also that a bishop once prayed for a demoniac young man whom he never saw, and that he was cured on the spot.

> Latin: Scio etiam episcopum semel pro adulescente, quem non uidit, orasse illumque ilico daemone caruisse. Erat quidam senex Florentius Hipponiensis noster, homo religiosus et pauper; sartoris se arte pascebat; casulam perdiderat et unde sibi emeret non habebat; ad uiginti martyres. quorum memoria est aput nos celeberrima, clara uoce ut uestiretur orauit.

[¶10] There was a fellow-townsman of ours at Hippo, Florentius, an old man, religious and poor, who supported himself as a tailor. Having lost his coat, and not having means to buy another, he prayed to the Twenty Martyrs, who have a very celebrated memorial shrine in our town, begging in a distinct voice that he might be clothed. Some scoffing young men, who happened to be present, heard him, and followed him with their sarcasm as he went away, as if he had asked the martyrs for fifty pence to buy a coat. But he, walking on in silence, saw on the shore a great fish, gasping as if just cast up, and having secured it with the good-natured assistance of the youths, he sold it for curing to a cook of the name of Catosus, a good Christian man, telling him how he had come by it, and receiving for it three hundred pence, which he laid out in wool, that his wife might exercise her skill upon, and make into a coat for him. But, on cutting up the fish, the cook found a gold ring in its belly; and forthwith, moved with compassion, and influenced, too, by religious fear, gave it up to the man, saying, “See how the Twenty Martyrs have clothed you.”

> Latin: Audierunt eum adulescentes qui forte aderant inrisores eumque discedentem exagitantes prosequebantur: quasi a martyribus quinquagenos folles, unde uestimentum emeret, petiuisset. At ille tacitus ambulans eiectum grandem piscem palpitantem uidit in litore eumque illis fauentibus adque adiuuantibus adprehendit et cuidam coquo, Catoso nomine, bene Christiano, ad coquinam conditariam,. indicans quid gestum sit, trecentis follibus uendidit, lanam conparare inde disponens, ut uxor eius quo modo posset ei quo indueretur efficeret. Sed coquus concidens piscem anulum aureum in uentriculo eius inuenit moxque miseratione flexus et religione perterritus homini eum reddidit dicens: ‘Ecce quo modo te uiginti martyres uestierunt/ Ad aquas Tibilitanas episcopo adferente Praeiecto martyris gloriosissimi Stephani memoria ueniebat magnae multitudinis concursu et occursu.

[¶11] When the bishop Projectus was bringing the relics of the most glorious martyr Stephen to the waters of Tibilis, a great concourse of people came to meet him at the shrine. There a blind woman entreated that she might be led to the bishop who was carrying the relics. He gave her the flowers he was carrying. She took them, applied them to her eyes, and forthwith saw. Those who were present were astounded, while she, with every expression of joy, preceded them, pursuing her way without further need of a guide.

> Latin: Ibi caeca mulier, ut ad episcopum portantem duceretur, orauit; flores, quos ferebat, dedit, recepit. oculis admouit, protinus uidit. Stupentibus qui aderant praeibat exsultans, uiam carpens et uiae ducem ulterius non requirens. Memorati memoriam martyris, quae posita est in castello Sinitensi, quod Hipponiensi coloniae uicinum est, eiusdem loci Lucilius episcopus populo praecedente adque sequente portabat.

[¶12] Lucillus bishop of Sinita, in the neighborhood of the colonial town of Hippo, was carrying in procession some relics of the same martyr, which had been deposited in the castle of Sinita. A fistula under which he had long labored, and which his private physician was watching an opportunity to cut, was suddenly cured by the mere carrying of that sacred fardel,—at least, afterwards there was no trace of it in his body.

> Latin: Fistula, cuius molestia iam diu laborauerat et familiarissimi sui medici, qui eum secaret, opperiebatur manus, illius piae sarcinae uectatione repente sanata est; nam deinceps eam in suo corpore non inuenit. Eucharius est presbyter ex Hispania, Calamae habitat, uetere morbo calculi laborabat; per memoriam supradicti martyris, quam Possidius illo aduexit episcopus, saluus factus est.

[¶13] Eucharius, a Spanish priest, residing at Calama, was for a long time a sufferer from stone. By the relics of the same martyr, which the bishop Possidius brought him, he was cured. Afterwards the same priest, sinking under another disease, was lying dead, and already they were binding his hands. By the succor of the same martyr he was raised to life, the priest’s cloak having been brought from the oratory and laid upon the corpse.

> Latin: Idem ipse postea morbo alio praeualescente mortuus sic iacebat, ut ei iam pollices ligarentur; opitulatione memorati martyris, cum de memoria eius reportata esset et super iacentis corpus missa ipsius presbyteri tunica, suscitatus est. Fuit ibi uir in ordine suo primarius, nomine Martialis, aeuo iam grauis et multum abhorrens a religione Christiana.

[¶14] There was there an old nobleman named Martial, who had a great aversion to the Christian religion, but whose daughter was a Christian, while her husband had been baptized that same year. When he was ill, they besought him with tears and prayers to become a Christian, but he positively refused, and dismissed them from his presence in a storm of indignation. It occurred to the son-in-law to go to the oratory of St. Stephen, and there pray for him with all earnestness that God might give him a right mind, so that he should not delay believing in Christ. This he did with great groaning and tears, and the burning fervor of sincere piety; then, as he left the place, he took some of the flowers that were lying there, and, as it was already night, laid them by his father’s head, who so slept. And lo! before dawn, he cries out for some one to run for the bishop; but he happened at that time to be with me at Hippo. So when he had heard that he was from home, he asked the presbyters to come. They came. To the joy and amazement of all, he declared that he believed, and he was baptized. As long as he remained in life, these words were ever on his lips: “Christ, receive my spirit,” though he was not aware that these were the last words of the most blessed Stephen when he was stoned by the Jews. They were his last words also, for not long after he himself also gave up the ghost.

> Latin: Habebat sane fidelem filiam et generum eodem anno baptizatum. Qui cum eum aegrotantem multis et magnis lacrimis rogarent, ut fieret Christianus, prorsus abnuit eosque a se turbida indignatione submouit. Visum est genero eius, ut iret ad memoriam sancti Stephani et illic pro eo quantum posset oraret, ut Deus illi daret mentem bonam, qua credere non differret in Christum. Fecit hoc ingenti gemitu et fletu et sinceriter ardente pietatis adfectu; deinde abscedens aliquid de altari florum, quod occurrit, tulit eique, cum iam nox esset, ad caput posuit; tum domitum est. Et ecce ante diluculum clamat, ut ad episcopum curreretur, qui mecum forte tunc erat aput Hipponem. Cum ergo eum audisset absentem, uenire presbyteros postulauit. Venerunt, credere se dixit, admirantibus adque gaudentibus omnibus baptizatus est. Hoc, quamdiu uixit, in ore habebat: ‘Christe, accipe spiritum meum1; cum haec uerba beatissimi Stephani, quando lapidatus est a Iudaeis, ultima fuisse nesciret; quae huic quoque ultima fuerunt; nam non multo post etiam ipse defunctus est.

[¶15] There, too, by the same martyr, two men, one a citizen, the other a stranger, were cured of gout; but while the citizen was absolutely cured, the stranger was only informed what he should apply when the pain returned; and when he followed this advice, the pain was at once relieved.

> Latin: Sanati sunt illic per eundem martyrem etiam podagri duo ciues, peregrinus unus: sed ciues omni modo; peregrinus autem per reuelationem, quid adhiberet quando doleret, audiuit; et cum hoc fecerit, dolor continuo conquiescit Audurus nomen est fundi, ubi ecclesia et in ea memoria martyris Stephani.

[¶16] Audurus is the name of an estate, where there is a church that contains a memorial shrine of the martyr Stephen. It happened that, as a little boy was playing in the court, the oxen drawing a wagon went out of the track and crushed him with the wheel, so that immediately he seemed at his last gasp. His mother snatched him up, and laid him at the shrine, and not only did he revive, but also appeared uninjured.

> Latin: Puerum quendam paruulum, cum in area luderet, exorbitantes boues, qui uehiculum trahebant, rota obtriuerunt, et confestim palpitauit exspirans. Hunc mater arreptum ad eandem memoriam posuit, et non solum reuixit. uerum etiam inlaesus apparuit.

[¶17] A religious female, who lived at Caspalium, a neighboring estate, when she was so ill as to be despaired of, had her dress brought to this shrine, but before it was brought back she was gone. However, her parents wrapped her corpse in the dress, and, her breath returning, she became quite well.

> Latin: Sanctimonialis quaedam in uicina possessione, quae Caspaliana dicitur, cum aegritudine laboraret ac desperaretur, ad eandem memoriam tunica eius adlata est; quae antequam reuocaretur, illa defuncta est. Hac tamen tunica operuerunt cadauer eius parentes, et recepto spiritu salua facta est.

[¶18] At Hippo a Syrian called Bassus was praying at the relics of the same martyr for his daughter, who was dangerously ill. He too had brought her dress with him to the shrine. But as he prayed, behold, his servants ran from the house to tell him she was dead. His friends, however, intercepted them, and forbade them to tell him, lest he should bewail her in public. And when he had returned to his house, which was already ringing with the lamentations of his family, and had thrown on his daughter’s body the dress he was carrying, she was restored to life.

> Latin: Aput Hipponem Bassus quidam Syrus ad memoriam eiusdem martyris orabat pro aegrotante et periclitante filia eoque secum uestem eius adtulerat, cum ecce pueri de domo cucurrerunt, qui ei mortuam nuntiarent. Sed cum orante illo ab amicis eius exciperentur, prohibuerunt eos illi dicere, ne per publicum plangeret. Qui cum domum redisset iam suorum eiulatibus personantem et uestem filiae, quam ferebat, super eam proiecisset, reddita est uitae.

[¶19] There, too, the son of a man, Irenæus, one of our tax-gatherers, took ill and died. And while his body was lying lifeless, and the last rites were being prepared, amidst the weeping and mourning of all, one of the friends who were consoling the father suggested that the body should be anointed with the oil of the same martyr. It was done, and he revived.

> Latin: Rursus ibidem aput nos Irenaei cuiusdam collectarii filius aegritudine exstinctus est. Cumque corpus iaceret exanime adque a lugentibus et lamentantibus exsequiae pararentur, amicorum eius quidam inter aliorum consolantium uerba suggessit, ut eiusdem martyris oleo corpus perungueretur. Factum est, et reuixit.

[¶20] Likewise Eleusinus, a man of tribunitian rank among us, laid his infant son, who had died, on the shrine of the martyr, which is in the suburb where he lived, and, after prayer, which he poured out there with many tears, he took up his child alive.

> Latin: Itemque aput nos uir tribunicius Eleusinus super memoriam martyrum, quae in suburbano eius est, aegritudine exanimatum posuit infantulum filium, et post orationem, quam multis cum lacrimis ibi fudit, uiuentem leuauit. Quid faciam?

[¶21] What am I to do? I am so pressed by the promise of finishing this work, that I cannot record all the miracles I know; and doubtless several of our adherents, when they read what I have narrated, will regret that I have omitted so many which they, as well as I, certainly know. Even now I beg these persons to excuse me, and to consider how long it would take me to relate all those miracles, which the necessity of finishing the work I have undertaken forces me to omit. For were I to be silent of all others, and to record exclusively the miracles of healing which were wrought in the district of Calama and of Hippo by means of this martyr—I mean the most glorious Stephen—they would fill many volumes; and yet all even of these could not be collected, but only those of which narratives have been written for public recital. For when I saw, in our own times, frequent signs of the presence of divine powers similar to those which had been given of old, I desired that narratives might be written, judging that the multitude should not remain ignorant of these things. It is not yet two years since these relics were first brought to Hippo-regius, and though many of the miracles which have been wrought by it have not, as I have the most certain means of knowing, been recorded, those which have been published amount to almost seventy at the hour at which I write. But at Calama, where these relics have been for a longer time, and where more of the miracles were narrated for public information, there are incomparably more.

> Latin: Urget huius operis inplenda promissio, ut non hic possim omnia commemorare quae scio; et procul dubio plerique nostrorum, cum haec legent, dolebunt me praetermisisse tam multa, quae utique mecum sciunt. Quos iam nunc, ut ignoscant, rogo, et cogitent quam prolixi laboris sit facere. quod me hic non facere suscepti operis necessitas cogit. Si enim miracula sanitatum, ut alia taceam, ea tantummodo uelim scribere, quae per hunc martyrem, id est gloriosissimum Stephanum, facta sunt in colonia Calamensi et in nostra, plurimi conficiendi sunt libri, nec tamen omnia colligi poterunt, sed tantum de quibus libelli dati sunt, qui recitarentur in populis. Id namque fieri uoluimus, cum uideremus antiquis similia diuinarum signa uii-tutum etiam nostris temporibus frequentari et ea non debere multorum notitiae deperire. Nondum est autem biennium, ex quo aput Hipponem Regium coepit esse ista memoria, et multis, quod nobis certissimum est, non datis libellis de his, quae mirabiliter facta sunt, illi ipsi qui dati sunt ad septuaginta ferme numerum peruenerant, quando ista conscripsi. Calamae uero, ubi et ipsa memoria prius esse coepit et crebrius dantur, inconparabili multitudine superant.

[¶22] At Uzali, too, a colony near Utica, many signal miracles were, to my knowledge, wrought by the same martyr, whose relics had found a place there by direction of the bishop Evodius, long before we had them at Hippo. But there the custom of publishing narratives does not obtain, or, I should say, did not obtain, for possibly it may now have been begun. For, when I was there recently, a woman of rank, Petronia, had been miraculously cured of a serious illness of long standing, in which all medical appliances had failed, and, with the consent of the above-named bishop of the place, I exhorted her to publish an account of it that might be read to the people. She most promptly obeyed, and inserted in her narrative a circumstance which I cannot omit to mention, though I am compelled to hasten on to the subjects which this work requires me to treat. She said that she had been persuaded by a Jew to wear next her skin, under all her clothes, a hair girdle, and on this girdle a ring, which, instead of a gem, had a stone which had been found in the kidneys of an ox. Girt with this charm, she was making her way to the threshold of the holy martyr. But, after leaving Carthage, and when she had been lodging in her own demesne on the river Bagrada, and was now rising to continue her journey, she saw her ring lying before her feet. In great surprise she examined the hair girdle, and when she found it bound, as it had been, quite firmly with knots, she conjectured that the ring had been worn through and dropped off; but when she found that the ring was itself also perfectly whole, she presumed that by this great miracle she had received somehow a pledge of her cure, whereupon she untied the girdle, and cast it into the river, and the ring along with it. This is not credited by those who do not believe either that the Lord Jesus Christ came forth from His mother’s womb without destroying her virginity, and entered among His disciples when the doors were shut; but let them make strict inquiry into this miracle, and if they find it true, let them believe those others. The lady is of distinction, nobly born, married to a nobleman. She resides at Carthage. The city is distinguished, the person is distinguished, so that they who make inquiries cannot fail to find satisfaction. Certainly the martyr himself, by whose prayers she was healed, believed on the Son of her who remained a virgin; on Him who came in among the disciples when the doors were shut; in fine,—and to this tends all that we have been retailing,—on Him who ascended into heaven with the flesh in which He had risen; and it is because he laid down his life for this faith that such miracles were done by his means.

> Latin: Uzali etiam, quae colonia Uticae uicina est, multa praeclara per eundem martyrem facta cognouimus; cuius ibi memoria longe prius quam aput nos ab episcopo Euodio constituta est. Sed libellorum dandorum ibi consuetudo non est uel potius non fuit; nam fortasse nunc esse iam coepit. Cum enim nuper illic essemus, Petroniam, clarissimam feminam. quae ibi mirabiliter ex magno adque diuturno, in quo medicorum adiutoria cuncta defecerant, languore sanata est, hortati sumus, uolente supradicto loci episcopo, ut libellum daret, qui recitaretur in populo, et oboedientissime paruit. In quo. posuit etiam, quod hic reticere non possum, quamuis ad ea, quae hoc opus urgent, festinare conpellar. A quodam ludaeo dixit sibi fuisse persuasum, ut anulum capillacio uinculo insereret, quo sub omni ueste ad nuda corporis cingeretur; qui anulus haberet sub gemma lapidem in renibus inuentum bouis. Hoc adligata quasi remedio ad sancti martyris limina ueniebat. Sed profecta a Carthagine, cum in confinio fluminis Bagradae in sua possessione mansisset, surgens ut iter perageret ante pedes suos illum iacentem anulum uidit et capillaciam zonam, qua fuerat adligatus, mirata tentauit. Quam cum omnino suis nodis firmissimis, sicut erat, conperisset adstrictam, crepuisse adque exsiluisse anulum suspicata est; qui etiam ipse cum integerrimus fuisset inuentus, futurae salutis quodam modo pignus de tanto miraculo se accepisse praesumsit adque illud uinculum soluens simul cum eodem anulo proiecit in flumen. Non credant hoc, qui etiam Dominum legum per integra matris uirginalia enixum et ad discipulos ostiis clausis ingressum fuisse non credunt; sed hoc certe quaerant et, si uerum inuenerint, illa credant. Clarissima femina est, nobiliter nata, nobiliter nupta, Carthagini habitat; ampla ciuitas, ampla persona rem quaerentes latere non sinit. Martyr certe ipse, quo inpetrante illa sanata est, in filium permanentis uirginis credidit: in eum, qui ostiis clausis ad discipulos ingressus est, credidit; postremo. propter quod omnia ista dicuntur a nobis, in eum, qui adscendit in caelum cum carne, in qua resurrexerat, credidit; et ideo per eum tanta fiunt, quia pro ista fide animam posuit.

[¶23] Even now, therefore, many miracles are wrought, the same God who wrought those we read of still performing them, by whom He will and as He will; but they are not as well known, nor are they beaten into the memory, like gravel, by frequent reading, so that they cannot fall out of mind. For even where, as is now done among ourselves, care is taken that the pamphlets of those who receive benefit be read publicly, yet those who are present hear the narrative but once, and many are absent; and so it comes to pass that even those who are present forget in a few days what they heard, and scarcely one of them can be found who will tell what he heard to one who he knows was not present.

> Latin: Fiunt ergo etiam nunc multa miracula eodem Deo faciente per quos uult et quem ad modum uult, qui et illa quae legimus fecit: sed ista nec similiter innotescunt neque, ut non excidant animo, quasi glarea memoriae, crebra lectione tunduntur. Nam et ubi diligentia est, quae nunc aput nos esse coepit, ut libelli eorum, qui beneficia percipiunt, recitentur in populo, semel hoc audiunt qui adsunt pluresque non adsunt, ut nec illi, qui adfuerunt, post aliquot dies quod audierunt mente retineant et uix quisque reperiatur illorum, qui ei, quem non adfuisse cognouerit, indicet quod audiuit.

[¶24] One miracle was wrought among ourselves, which, though no greater than those I have mentioned, was yet so signal and conspicuous, that I suppose there is no inhabitant of Hippo who did not either see or hear of it, none who could possibly forget it. There were seven brothers and three sisters of a noble family of the Cappadocian Cæsarea, who were cursed by their mother, a new-made widow, on account of some wrong they had done her, and which she bitterly resented, and who were visited with so severe a punishment from Heaven, that all of them were seized with a hideous shaking in all their limbs. Unable, while presenting this loathsome appearance, to endure the eyes of their fellow-citizens, they wandered over almost the whole Roman world, each following his own direction. Two of them came to Hippo, a brother and a sister, Paulus and Palladia, already known in many other places by the fame of their wretched lot. Now it was about fifteen days before Easter when they came, and they came daily to church, and specially to the relics of the most glorious Stephen, praying that God might now be appeased, and restore their former health. There, and wherever they went, they attracted the attention of every one. Some who had seen them elsewhere, and knew the cause of their trembling, told others as occasion offered. Easter arrived, and on the Lord’s day, in the morning, when there was now a large crowd present, and the young man was holding the bars of the holy place where the relics were, and praying, suddenly he fell down, and lay precisely as if asleep, but not trembling as he was wont to do even in sleep. All present were astonished. Some were alarmed, some were moved with pity; and while some were for lifting him up, others prevented them, and said they should rather wait and see what would result. And behold! he rose up, and trembled no more, for he was healed, and stood quite well, scanning those who were scanning him. Who then refrained himself from praising God? The whole church was filled with the voices of those who were shouting and congratulating him. Then they came running to me, where I was sitting ready to come into the church. One after another they throng in, the last comer telling me as news what the first had told me already; and while I rejoiced and inwardly gave God thanks, the young man himself also enters, with a number of others, falls at my knees, is raised up to receive my kiss. We go in to the congregation: the church was full, and ringing with the shouts of joy, “Thanks to God! Praised be God!” every one joining and shouting on all sides, “I have healed the people,” and then with still louder voice shouting again. Silence being at last obtained, the customary lessons of the divine Scriptures were read. And when I came to my sermon, I made a few remarks suitable to the occasion and the happy and joyful feeling, not desiring them to listen to me, but rather to consider the eloquence of God in this divine work. The man dined with us, and gave us a careful ac count of his own, his mother’s, and his family’s calamity. Accordingly, on the following day, after delivering my sermon, I promised that next day I would read his narrative to the people. And when I did so, the third day after Easter Sunday, I made the brother and sister both stand on the steps of the raised place from which I used to speak; and while they stood there their pamphlet was read. The whole congregation, men and women alike, saw the one standing without any unnatural movement, the other trembling in all her limbs; so that those who had not before seen the man himself saw in his sister what the divine compassion had removed from him. In him they saw matter of congratulation, in her subject for prayer. Meanwhile, their pamphlet being finished, I instructed them to withdraw from the gaze of the people; and I had begun to discuss the whole matter somewhat more carefully, when lo! as I was proceeding, other voices are heard from the tomb of the martyr, shouting new congratulations. My audience turned round, and began to run to the tomb. The young woman, when she had come down from the steps where she had been standing, went to pray at the holy relics, and no sooner had she touched the bars than she, in the same way as her brother, collapsed, as if falling asleep, and rose up cured. While, then, we were asking what had happened, and what occasioned this noise of joy, they came into the basilica where we were, leading her from the martyr’s tomb in perfect health. Then, indeed, such a shout of wonder rose from men and women together, that the exclamations and the tears seemed like never to come to an end. She was led to the place where she had a little before stood trembling. They now rejoiced that she was like her brother, as before they had mourned that she remained unlike him; and as they had not yet uttered their prayers in her behalf, they perceived that their intention of doing so had been speedily heard. They shouted God’s praises without words, but with such a noise that our ears could scarcely bear it. What was there in the hearts of these exultant people but the faith of Christ, for which Stephen had shed his blood?

> Latin: Unum est aput nos factum, non maius quam illa quae dixi, sed tam clarum adque inlustre miraculum, ut nullum arbitrer esse Hipponiensium, qui hoc non uel uiderit uel didicerit, nullum qui obliuisci ulla ratione potuerit. Decem quidam fratres (quorum septem sunt mares, tres feminae) de Caesarea Cappadociae, suorum ciuium non ignobiles, maledicto matris recenti patris eorum obitu destitutae, quae iniuriam sibi ab eis factam acerbissime tulit, tali poena sunt diuinitus coherciti, ut horribiliter quaterentur omnes tremore membrorum; in qua foedissima specie oculos suorum ciuium non ferentes, quaqua uersum cuique ire uisum est, toto paene uagabantur orbe Romano. Ex his etiam ad nos uenerunt duo, frater et soror, Paulus et Palladia, multis aliis locis miseria diffamante iam cogniti. Venerunt autem ante Pascha ferme dies quindecim, ecclesiam cottidie et in ea memoriam gloriosissimi Stephani frequentabant, orantes ut iam sibi placaretur Deus et salutem pristinam redderet. Et illic et quacumque ibant conuertebant in se ciuitatis adspectum. Nonnulli. qui eos alibi uiderant causamque tremoris eorum nouerant, aliis. ut cuique poterant, indicabant. Venit et Pascha, adque ipso die dominico mane, cum iam frequens populus praesens esset et loci sancti cancellos, ubi martyrium erat, idem iuuenis orans teneret, repente prostratus est et dormienti simillimus iacuit, non tamen tremens, sicut etiam per somnum solebant. Stupentibus qui aderant adque aliis pauentibus, aliis dolentibus, cum eum quidam uellent erigere, nonnulli prohibuerunt et potius exitum exspectandum esse dixerunt. Et ecce surrexit, et non tremebat, quoniam sanatus erat, et stabat incolumis, intuens intuentes. Quis ergo se tenuit a laudibus Dei? Clamantium gratulantiumque uocibus ecclesia usquequaque conpleta est. Inde ad me curritur, ubi sedebam iam processurus; inruit alter quisque post alterum, omnis posterior quasi nouum, quod alius prior dixerat, nuntiantes; meque gaudente et aput me Deo gratias agente ingreditur etiam ipse cum pluribus, inclinatur ad genua mea, erigitur ad osculum meum. Procedimus ad populum, plena erat ecclesia, personabat uocibus gaudiorum: Deo gratias, Deo laudes ! nemine tacente hinc adque inde clamantium. Salutaui populum, et rursus eadem feruentiore uoce clamabant. Facto tandem silentio scripturarum diuinarum sunt lecta sollemnia. Ubi autem uentum est ad mei sermonis locum, dixi pauca pro tempore et pro illius iucunditate laetitiae. Magis enim eos in opere diuino quandam Dei eloquentiam non audire, sed considerare permisi. Nobiscum homo prandit et diligenter nobis omnem suae fraternaeque ac maternae calamitatis indicanit historiam. Sequenti itaque die post sermonem redditum narrationis eius libellum in crastinum populo recitandum promisi. Quod cum ex dominico Paschae die tertio fieret in gradibus exedrae, in qua de superiore loquebar loco, feci stare ambos fratres, cum eorum legeretur libellus. Intuebatur populus uniuersus sexus utriusque unum stantem sine deformi motu, alteram membris omnibus contrementem. Et qui ipsum non uiderant, quid in eo diuinae misericordiae factum esset, in eius sorore cernebant. Videbant enim quid in illo gratulandum, quid pro illa esset orandum. Inter haec recitato eorum libello de conspectu populi eos abire praecepi, et de tota ipsa causa aliquanto diligentius coeperam disputare, cum ecce me disputante uoces aliae de memoria martyris nouae gratulationis audiuntur. Conuersi sunt eo, qui me audiebant, coeperuntque concurrere. Illa enim, ubi de gradibus descendit in quibus steterat, ad sanctum martyrem orare perrexerat; quae mox ut cancellos adtigit, conlapsa similiter uelut in somnum sana surrexit. Dum ergo requireremus quid factum fuerit, unde iste strepitus laetus exstiterit, ingressi sunt cum illa in basilicam, ubi eramus, adducentes eam sanam de martyris loco. Tum uero tantus ab utroque sexu admirationis clamor exortus est, ut uox continuata cum lacrimis non uideretur posse finiri. Perducta est ad eum locum. ubi paulo ante steterat tremens. Exsultabant eam similem fratri, cui doluerant remansisse dissimilem, et nondum fusas preces suas pro illa, iam tamen praeuiam uoluntatem tam cito exauditam esse cernebant. Exsultabant in Dei laudem uoce sine uerbis, tanto sonitu, quantum nostrae aures ferre uix possent. Quid erat in cordibus exsultantium nisi fides Christi, pro qua Stephani sanguis effusus est?

## 113. That All the Miracles Which are Done by Means of the Martyrs in the Name of Christ Testify to that Faith Which the Martyrs Had in Christ.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/113/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/113/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 9.—That All the Miracles Which are Done by Means of the Martyrs in the Name of Christ Testify to that Faith Which the Martyrs Had in Christ.

> Latin: Caput IX. Quod uniuersa miracula, quae per martyres in Christi nomine fiunt, ei fidei testimonium ferant, qua in Christum martyres crediderunt.

[¶1] To what do these miracles witness, but to this faith which preaches Christ risen in the flesh, and ascended with the same into heaven? For the martyrs themselves were martyrs, that is to say, witnesses of this faith, drawing upon themselves by their testimony the hatred of the world, and conquering the world not by resisting it, but by dying. For this faith they died, and can now ask these benefits from the Lord in whose name they were slain. For this faith their marvellous constancy was exercised, so that in these miracles great power was manifested as the result. For if the resurrection of the flesh to eternal life had not taken place in Christ, and were not to be accomplished in His people, as predicted by Christ, or by the prophets who foretold that Christ was to come, why do the martyrs who were slain for this faith which proclaims the resurrection possess such power? For whether God Himself wrought these miracles by that wonderful manner of working by which, though Himself eternal, He produces effects in time; or whether He wrought them by servants, and if so, whether He made use of the spirits of martyrs as He uses men who are still in the body, or effects all these marvels by means of angels, over whom He exerts an invisible, immutable, incorporeal sway, so that what is said to be done by the martyrs is done not by their operation, but only by their prayer and request; or whether, finally, some things are done in one way, others in another, and so that man cannot at all comprehend them,—nevertheless these miracles attest this faith which preaches the resurrection of the flesh to eternal life.

> Latin: Cui, nisi huic fidei adtestantur ista miracula, in qua praedicatur Christus resurrexisse in carne et in caelum adscendisse cum carne? quia et ipsi martyres huius fidei martyres. id est huius fidei testes, fuerunt; huic fidei testimonium perhibentes mundum inimicissimum et crudelissimum pel’tulerunt, eumque non repugnando, sed moriendo uicerunt; pro ista fide mortui sunt, qui haec a Domino inpetrare possunt, propter cuius nomen occisi sunt; pro hac fide praecessit eorum mira patientia, ut in his miraculis tanta ista potentia sequeretur. Nam si carnis in aeternum resurrectio uel non praeuenit in Christo uel non uentura est, sicut praenuntiatur a Christo uel sicut praenuntiata est a prophetis, a quibus praenuntiatus est Christus: quur et mortui tanta possunt, qui pro ea fide, qua haec resurrectio praedicatur, occisi sunt? Siue enim Deus ipse per se ipsum miro modo, quo res temporales operatur aeternus, siue per suos ministros ista faciat; et eadem ipsa, quae per ministros facit, siue quaedam faciat etiam per martyrum spiritus, sicut per homines adhuc in corpore constitutos, siue omnia ista per angelos, quibus inuisibiliter, incorporaliter, inmutabiliter imperat, operetur, ut, quae per martyres fieri dicuntur, eis orantibus tantum et inpetrantibus, non etiam operantibus fiant; siue alia istis, alia illis modis, qui nullo modo conprehendi a mortalibus possunt: ei tamen adtestantur haec fidei, in qua carnis in aeternum resurrectio praedicatur.

### That the Martyrs Who Obtain Many Miracles in Order that the True God May Be Worshipped, are Worthy of Much Greater Honor Than the Demons, Who Do Some Marvels that They Themselves May Be Supposed to Be God.

[¶3] Chapter 10.—That the Martyrs Who Obtain Many Miracles in Order that the True God May Be Worshipped, are Worthy of Much Greater Honor Than the Demons, Who Do Some Marvels that They Themselves May Be Supposed to Be God.

> Latin: Caput X. Quanto dignius honorentur martyres, qui ideo multa mira obtinent, ut Deus uerus colatur, quam daemones, qui ob hoc quaedam faciunt, ut ipsi di esse credantur.

[¶4] Here perhaps our adversaries will say that their gods also have done some wonderful things, if now they begin to compare their gods to our dead men. Or will they also say that they have gods taken from among dead men, such as Hercules, Romulus, and many others whom they fancy to have been received into the number of the gods? But our martyrs are not our gods; for we know that the martyrs and we have both but one God, and that the same. Nor yet are the miracles which they maintain to have been done by means of their temples at all comparable to those which are done by the tombs of our martyrs. If they seem similar, their gods have been defeated by our martyrs as Pharaoh’s magi were by Moses. In reality, the demons wrought these marvels with the same impure pride with which they aspired to be the gods of the nations; but the martyrs do these wonders, or rather God does them while they pray and assist, in order that an impulse may be given to the faith by which we believe that they are not our gods, but have, together with ourselves, one God. In fine, they built temples to these gods of theirs, and set up altars, and ordained priests, and appointed sacrifices; but to our martyrs we build, not temples as if they were gods, but monuments as to dead men whose spirits live with God. Neither do we erect altars at these monuments that we may sacrifice to the martyrs, but to the one God of the martyrs and of ourselves; and in this sacrifice they are named in their own place and rank as men of God who conquered the world by confessing Him, but they are not invoked by the sacrificing priest. For it is to God, not to them, he sacrifices, though he sacrifices at their monument; for he is God’s priest, not theirs. The sacrifice itself, too, is the body of Christ, which is not offered to them, because they themselves are this body. Which then can more readily be believed to work miracles? They who wish themselves to be reckoned gods by those on whom they work miracles, or those whose sole object in working any miracle is to induce faith in God, and in Christ also as God? They who wished to turn even their crimes into sacred rites, or those who are unwilling that even their own praises be consecrated, and seek that everything for which they are justly praised be ascribed to the glory of Him in whom they are praised? For in the Lord their souls are praised. Let us therefore believe those who both speak the truth and work wonders. For by speaking the truth they suffered, and so won the power of working wonders. And the leading truth they professed is that Christ rose from the dead, and first showed in His own flesh the immortality of the resurrection which He promised should be ours, either in the beginning of the world to come, or in the end of this world.

> Latin: Hic forte dicturi sunt etiam deos suos aliqua mira fecisse. Bene, si iam incipiunt deos suos nostris mortuis hominibus conparare. An dicent etiam se habere deos ex hominibus mortuis, sicut Herculem, sicut Romulum, sicut alios multos, quos in deorum numerum receptos opinantur? Sed nobis martyres non sunt di, quia unum eundemque Deum et nostrum scimus et martyrum. Nec tamen miraculis, quae per memorias nostrorum martyrum fiunt, ullo modo sunt conparanda miracula, quae facta per templa perhibentur illorum. Verum si qua similia uidentur, sicut a Moyse magi Pharaonis, sic eorum di uicti sunt a martyribus nostris. Fecerunt autem illa daemones eo fastu inpurae superbiae, quo eorum di esse uoluerunt; faciunt autem ista martyres uel potius Deus aut cooperantibus aut orantibus eis, ut fides illa proficiat, qua eos non deos nostros esse, sed unum Deum nobiscum habere credamus. Denique illi talibus dis suis et templa aedificauerunt et statuerunt aras, et sacerdotes instituerunt et sacrificia fecerunt; nos autem martyribus nostris non templa sicut dis, sed memorias sicut hominibus mortuis. quorum aput Deum uiuunt spiritus, fabricamus; nec ibi erigimus altaria, in quibus sacrificemus martyribus, sed uni Deo et martyrum et nostro; ad quod sacrificium sicut homines Dei, qui mundum in eius confessione uicerunt, suo loco et ordine nominantur, non tamen a sacerdote, qui sacrificat, inuocantur. Deo quippe, non ipsis sacrificat, quamuis in memoria sacrificet eorum, quia Dei sacerdos est, non illorum. Ipsum uero sacrificium corpus est Christi, quod non offertur ipsis, quia hoc sunt et ipsi. Quibus igitur potius credendum est miracula facientibus? Eisne qui se ipsos uolunt haberi deos ab his quibus ea faciunt, an eis qui, ut in Deum credatur, quod et Christus est, faciunt quidquid mirabile faciunt? Eisne qui sacra sua etiam crimina sua esse uoluerunt, an eis qui nec laudes suas uolunt esse sacra sua, sed totum, quod ueraciter laudantur, ad eius gloriam proficere in quo laudantur? in Domino quippe laudantur animae eorum. Credamus ergo eis et uera dicentibus et mira facientibus. Dicendo enim uera passi sunt, ut possint facere mira. In eis ueris est praecipuum, quod Christus resurrexit a mortuis et inmortalitatem resurrectionis in sua carne primus ostendit, quam nobis adfuturam uel in principio noui saeculi uel in huius fine promisit.

### Against the Platonists, Who Argue from the Physical Weight of the Elements that an Earthly Body Cannot Inhabit Heaven.

[¶6] Chapter 11.—Against the Platonists, Who Argue from the Physical Weight of the Elements that an Earthly Body Cannot Inhabit Heaven.

> Latin: Caput XI. Contra Platonicos, qui de naturalibus elementorum ponderibus argumentantur terrenum corpus in caelo esse non posse.

[¶7] But against this great gift of God, these reasoners, “whose thoughts the Lord knows that they are vain” bring arguments from the weights of the elements; for they have been taught by their master Plato that the two greatest elements of the world, and the furthest removed from one another, are coupled and united by the two intermediate, air and water. And consequently they say, since the earth is the first of the elements, beginning from the base of the series, the second the water above the earth, the third the air above the water, the fourth the heaven above the air, it follows that a body of earth cannot live in the heaven; for each element is poised by its own weight so as to preserve its own place and rank. Behold with what arguments human infirmity, possessed with vanity, contradicts the omnipotence of God! What, then, do so many earthly bodies do in the air, since the air is the third element from the earth? Unless perhaps He who has granted to the earthly bodies of birds that they be carried through the air by the lightness of feathers and wings, has not been able to confer upon the bodies of men made immortal the power to abide in the highest heaven. The earthly animals, too, which cannot fly, among which are men, ought on these terms to live under the earth, as fishes, which are the animals of the water, live under the water. Why, then, can an animal of earth not live in the second element, that is, in water, while it can in the third? Why, though it belongs to the earth, is it forthwith suffocated if it is forced to live in the second element next above earth, while it lives in the third, and cannot live out of it? Is there a mistake here in the order of the elements, or is not the mistake rather in their reasonings, and not in the nature of things? I will not repeat what I said in the thirteenth book, that many earthly bodies, though heavy like lead, receive from the workman’s hand a form which enables them to swim in water; and yet it is denied that the omnipotent Worker can confer on the human body a property which shall enable it to pass into heaven and dwell there.

> Latin: Contra quod magnum Dei donum ratiocinatores isti, quorum cogitationes nouit Dominus quoniam uanae sunt, de ponderibus elementorum argumentantur; quoniam scilicet magistro Platone didicerunt mundi duo corpora maxima adque postrema duobus mediis, aere scilicet et aqua, esse copulata adque coniuncta. Ac per hoc, inquiunt, quoniam terra abhinc sursum uersus est prima, secunda aqua super terram, tertius aer super aquam, quartum super aera caelum, non potest esse terrenum corpus in caelo; momentis enim propriis, ut ordinem suum teneant, singula elementa librantur. Ecce qualibus argumentis omnipotentiae Dei humana contradicit infirmitas, quam possidet uanitas. Quid ergo faciunt in aere terrena tot corpora, cum a terra sit aer tertius? Nisi forte, qui per plumarum et pennarum leuitatem donauit auium terrenis corporibus, ut portentur in aere, inmortalibus factis corporibus hominum non poterit donare uirtutem, qua etiam in summo caelo ualeant habitare. Animalia quoque ipsa terrena, quae uolare non possunt, in quibus et homines sunt, sicut sub aqua pisces, quae sunt aquarum animalia, ita sub terra uiuere debuerunt. Quur ergo non saltem de secundo. id est de aquis, sed de elemento tertio terrenum animal carpit hanc uitam? Quare, cum pertineat ad terram, in secundo, quod super terram est, elemento uiuere si cogatur, continuo suffocatur et ut uiuat uiuit in tertio? An errat hic ordo elementorum, uel potius non in natura rerum, sed in istorum argumentationibus deficit? Omitto dicere, quod iam in tertio decimo libro dixi, quam multa grauia terrena sint corpora, sicut plumbum, et formam tamen ab artifice accipiant. qua natare ualeant super aquam; et ut accipiat qualitatem corpus humanum, qua ferri in caelum et esse possit in caelo. omnipotenti artifici contradicitur?.

[¶8] But against what I have formerly said they can find nothing to say, even though they introduce and make the most of this order of the elements in which they confide. For if the order be that the earth is first, the water second, the air third, the heaven fourth, then the soul is above all. For Aristotle said that the soul was a fifth body, while Plato denied that it was a body at all. If it were a fifth body, then certainly it would be above the rest; and if it is not a body at all, so much the more does it rise above all. What, then, does it do in an earthly body? What does this soul, which is finer than all else, do in such a mass of matter as this? What does the lightest of substances do in this ponderosity? this swiftest substance in such sluggishness? Will not the body be raised to heaven by virtue of so excellent a nature as this? and if now earthly bodies can retain the souls below, shall not the souls be one day able to raise the earthly bodies above?

> Latin: Iam uero contra illud, quod dixi superius, etiam istum considerantes adque tractantes elementorum ordinem, quo confidunt, non inueniunt omnino quod dicant. Sic est enim hinc sursum uersus terra prima, aqua secunda, tertius aer, quartum caelum, ut super omnia sit animae natura. Nam et Aristoteles quintum corpus eam dixit esse et Plato nullum. Si quintum esset, certe superius esset ceteris; cum uero nullum est, multo magis superat omnia. In terreno ergo quid facit corpore? In hac mole quid agit subtilior omnibus? In hoc pondere quid agit leuior omnibus? In hac tarditate quid agit celerior omnibus? Itane per huius tam excellentis naturae meritum non poterit effici, ut corpus eius leuetur in caelum, et cum ualeat nunc natura corporum terrenorum deprimere animas deorsum, aliquando et animae leuare sursum • terrena corpora non ualebunt?

[¶9] If we pass now to their miracles which they oppose to our martyrs as wrought by their gods, shall not even these be found to make for us, and help out our argument? For if any of the miracles of their gods are great, certainly that is a great one which Varro mentions of a vestal virgin, who, when she was endangered by a false accusation of unchastity, filled a sieve with water from the Tiber, and carried it to her judges without any part of it leaking. Who kept the weight of water in the sieve? Who prevented any drop from falling from it through so many open holes? They will answer, Some god or some demon. If a god, is he greater than the God who made the world? If a demon, is he mightier than an angel who serves the God by whom the world was made? If, then, a lesser god, angel, or demon could so sustain the weight of this liquid element that the water might seem to have changed its nature, shall not Almighty God, who Himself created all the elements, be able to eliminate from the earthly body its heaviness, so that the quickened body shall dwell in whatever element the quickening spirit pleases?

> Latin: Iam si ad eorum miracula ueniamus, quae facta a dis suis obponunt martyribus nostris, nonne etiam ipsa pro nobis facere et nobis reperientur omnino proficere? Nam inter magna miracula deorum suorum profecto magnum illud est, quod Varro commemorat, Vestalem uirginem, cum periclitaretur falsa suspicione de stupro, cribrum inplesse aqua de Tiberi et ad suos iudices nulla eius parte stillante portasse. Quis aquae pondus supra cribrum tenuit? Quis tot cauernis patentibus nihil inde in terram cadere permisit? Responsuri sunt: ‘Aliquis deus aut aliquis daemon.’ Si deus, numquid maior est Deo, qui fecit hunc mundum? Si daemon, numquid potentior est angelo, qui Deo seruit, a quo factus est mundus? Si ergo deus minor uel angelus uel daemon potuit pondus umidi elementi sic suspendere, ut aquarum uideatur mutata fuisse natura: itane Deus omnipotens, qui omnia ipsa creauit elementa, terreno corpori graue pondus auferre non poterit, ut in eodem elemento habitet uiuificatum corpus, in quo uoluerit uiuificans spiritus?

[¶10] Then, again, since they give the air a middle place between the fire above and the water beneath, how is it that we often find it between water and water, and between the water and the earth? For what do they make of those watery clouds, between which and the seas air is constantly found intervening? I should like to know by what weight and order of the elements it comes to pass that very violent and stormy torrents are suspended in the clouds above the earth before they rush along upon the earth under the air. In fine, why is it that throughout the whole globe the air is between the highest heaven and the earth, if its place is between the sky and the water, as the place of the water is between the sky and the earth?

> Latin: Deinde cum aera medium ponant inter ignem desuper et aquam subter, quid est quod eum inter aquam et aquam et inter aquam et terram saepe inuenimus? Quid enim uolunt esse aquosas nubes, inter quas et maria aer medius reperitur? Quonam, quaeso, elementorum pondere adque ordine efficitur, ut torrentes uiolentissimi adque undosissimi, antequam sub aere in terris currant, super aera in nubibus pendeant? Quur denique aer est medius inter summa caeli et nuda terrarum, quaqua uersum orbis extenditur, si locus eius inter caelum et aquas, sicut aquarum inter ipsum et terras est constitutus?

[¶11] Finally, if the order of the elements is so disposed that, as Plato thinks, the two extremes, fire and earth, are united by the two means, air and water, and that the fire occupies the highest part of the sky, and the earth the lowest part, or as it were the foundation of the world, and that therefore earth cannot be in the heavens, how is fire in the earth? For, according to this reasoning, these two elements, earth and fire, ought to be so restricted to their own places, the highest and the lowest, that neither the lowest can rise to the place of the highest, nor the highest sink to that of the lowest. Thus, as they think that no particle of earth is or shall ever be in the sky so we ought to see no particle of fire on the earth. But the fact is that it exists to such an extent, not only on but even under the earth, that the tops of mountains vomit it forth; besides that we see it to exist on earth for human uses, and even to be produced from the earth, since it is kindled from wood and stones, which are without doubt earthly bodies. But that [upper] fire, they say, is tranquil, pure, harmless, eternal; but this [earthly] fire is turbid, smoky, corruptible, and corrupting. But it does not corrupt the mountains and caverns of the earth in which it rages continually. But grant that the earthly fire is so unlike the other as to suit its earthly position, why then do they object to our believing that the nature of earthly bodies shall some day be made incorruptible and fit for the sky, even as now fire is corruptible and suited to the earth? They therefore adduce from their weights and order of the elements nothing from which they can prove that it is impossible for Almighty God to make our bodies such that they can dwell in the skies.

> Latin: Postremo si ita est elementorum ordo dispositus, ut secundum Platonem duobus mediis, id est aere et aqua, duo extrema, id est ignis et terra, iungantur caelique obtineat ille summi locum, haec autem imi uelut fundaminis mundi. et ideo in caelo esse non potest terra: quur est ipse ignis in terra? Secundum hanc quippe rationem ita ista duo elementa in locis propriis, imo ac summo, terra et ignis esse debuerunt, ut, quem ad modum nolunt in summo esse posse quod imi est, ita nec in imo posset esse quod summi est. Sicut ergo nullam putant uel esse uel futuram esse terrae particulam in caelo, ita nullam particulam uidere debuimus ignis in terra. Nunc uero non solum in terris, uerum etiam sub terris ita est, ut eum eructent uertices montium, praeter quod in usibus hominum et esse ignem in terra et eum nasci uidemus ex terra; quando quidem et de lignis et de lapidibus nascitur, quae sunt corpora sine dubitatione terrena. Sed ille, inquiunt, ignis est tranquillus, purus, innoxius, sempiternus; iste autem turbidus, fumeus, corruptibilis adque corruptor. Nec tamen corrumpit montes, in quibus iugiter aestuat. cauernasque terrarum. Verum esto, sit illi iste dissimilis, ut terrenis habitationibus congruat: quur ergo nolunt, ut credamus naturam corporum terrenorum aliquando incorruptibilem factam caelo conuenientem futuram, sicut nunc ignis corruptibilis his conuenit terris? Nihil igitur adferunt ex ponderibus adque ordine elementorum, unde omnipotenti Deo, quominus faciat corpora nostra talia, ut etiam in caelo possint habitare, praescribant.

### Against the Calumnies with Which Unbelievers Throw Ridicule Upon the Christian Faith in the Resurrection of the Flesh.

[¶13] Chapter 12.—Against the Calumnies with Which Unbelievers Throw Ridicule Upon the Christian Faith in the Resurrection of the Flesh.

> Latin: Caput XII. Contra calumnias infidelium, quibus Christianos de credita carnis resurrectione inrident.

[¶14] But their way is to feign a scrupulous anxiety in investigating this question, and to cast ridicule on our faith in the resurrection of the body, by asking, Whether abortions shall rise? And as the Lord says, “Verily I say unto you, not a hair of your head shall perish,” shall all bodies have an equal stature and strength, or shall there be differences in size? For if there is to be equality, where shall those abortions, supposing that they rise again, get that bulk which they had not here? Or if they shall not rise because they were not born but cast out, they raise the same question about children who have died in childhood, asking us whence they get the stature which we see they had not here; for we will not say that those who have been not only born, but born again, shall not rise again. Then, further, they ask of what size these equal bodies shall be. For if all shall be as tall and large as were the tallest and largest in this world, they ask us how it is that not only children but many full-grown persons shall receive what they here did not possess, if each one is to receive what he had here. And if the saying of the apostle, that we are all to come to the “measure of the age of the fullness of Christ,” or that other saying, “Whom He predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son,” is to be understood to mean that the stature and size of Christ’s body shall be the measure of the bodies of all those who shall be in His kingdom, then, say they, the size and height of many must be diminished; and if so much of the bodily frame itself be lost, what becomes of the saying, “Not a hair of your head shall perish?” Besides, it might be asked regarding the hair itself, whether all that the barber has cut off shall be restored? And if it is to be restored, who would not shrink from such deformity? For as the same restoration will be made of what has been pared off the nails, much will be replaced on the body which a regard for its appearance had cut off. And where, then, will be its beauty, which assuredly ought to be much greater in that immortal condition than it could be in this corruptible state? On the other hand, if such things are not restored to the body, they must perish; how, then, they say, shall not a hair of the head perish? In like manner they reason about fatness and leanness; for if all are to be equal, then certainly there shall not be some fat, others lean. Some, therefore, shall gain, others lose something. Consequently there will not be a simple restoration of what formerly existed, but, on the one hand, an addition of what had no existence, and, on the other, a loss of what did before exist.

> Latin: Sed scrupulosissime quaerere et fidem, qua credimus resurrecturam carnem, ita quaerendo adsolent inridere: utrum fetus abortiui resurgant; et quoniam Dominus ait: Arnen, dico uobis, capillus capitis uestri non peribit, utrum statura et robur aequalia futura sint omnibus an diuersae corporum quantitates. Si enim aequalitas erit corporum, unde habebunt quod hic non habuerunt in mole corporis illi abortiui, si resurgent et ipsi? Aut si non resurgent, quia nec nati sunt, sed effusi, eandem quaestionem de paruulis uersant, unde illis mensura corporis, quam nunc defuisse uidemus, accedat, cum in hac aetate moriuntur. Neque enim dicturi sumus eos non resurrecturos, qui non solum generationis, uerum etiam regenerationis capaces sunt. Deinde interrogant, quem modum ipsa aequalitas habitura sit. Si enim tam magni et tam longi erunt omnes, quam fuerunt quicumque hic fuerunt maximi adque longissimi, non solum de paruulis, sed de plurimis quaerunt, unde illis accessurum sit, quod hic defuit, si hoc quisque recipiat, quod hic habuit; si autem, quod ait apostolus, occursuros nos omnes in mensuram aetatis plenitudinis Christi, et illud alterum: Quos praedestinauit conformes imaginis filii sui, sic intellegendum est, ut statura et modus corporis Christi omnium, qui in regno eius erunt, humanorum corporum sit futurus: ‘Multis erit, inquiunt, de magnitudine et longitudine corporis detrahendum; et ubi iam erit: capillus capitis uestri non peribit, si de ipsa corporis quantitate tam multum peribit?’ Quamuis et de ipsis capillis possit inquiri, utrum redeat quidquid tondentibus decidit. Quod si rediturum est, quis non exhorreat illam deformitatem? Nam hoc et de unguibus uidetur necessario secuturum, ut redeat tam multum quod corporis curatura desecuit. Et ubi erit decus, quod certe maius, quam in ista esse corruptione potuit, in illa iam inmortalitate esse debebit? Si autem non redibit, ergo peribit Quo modo igitur, inquiunt, capillus capitis non peribit? De macie quoque uel pinguedine similiter disputant. Nam si aequales omnes erunt, non utique alii macri, alii pingues erunt. Accedet ergo aliis aliquid, aliis minuetur; ac per hoc non, quod erat, recipiendum, sed alicubi addendum est, quod non fuit, et alicubi perdendum, quod fuit.

[¶15] The difficulties, too, about the corruption and dissolution of dead bodies,—that one is turned into dust, while another evaporates into the air; that some are devoured by beasts, some by fire, while some perish by shipwreck or by drowning in one shape or other, so that their bodies decay into liquid, these difficulties give them immoderate alarm, and they believe that all those dissolved elements cannot be gathered again and reconstructed into a body. They also make eager use of all the deformities and blemishes which either accident or birth has produced, and accordingly, with horror and derision, cite monstrous births, and ask if every deformity will be preserved in the resurrection. For if we say that no such thing shall be reproduced in the body of a man, they suppose that they confute us by citing the marks of the wounds which we assert were found in the risen body of the Lord Christ. But of all these, the most difficult question is, into whose body that flesh shall return which has been eaten and assimilated by another man constrained by hunger to use it so; for it has been converted into the flesh of the man who used it as his nutriment, and it filled up those losses of flesh which famine had produced. For the sake, then, of ridiculing the resurrection, they ask, Shall this return to the man whose flesh it first was, or to him whose flesh it afterwards became? And thus, too, they seek to give promise to the human soul of alternations of true misery and false happiness, in accordance with Plato’s theory; or, in accordance with Porphyry’s, that, after many transmigrations into different bodies, it ends its miseries, and never more returns to them, not, however, by obtaining an immortal body, but by escaping from every kind of body.

> Latin: De ipsis etiam corruptionibus et dilapsionibus corporum mortuorum, cum aliud uertatur in puluerem, in auras aliud exhaletur, sint quos bestiae, sint quos ignis absumit, naufra. gio uel quibuscumque aquis ita quidam pereant, ut eorum carnes in umorem putredo dissoluat, non mediocriter permouentur adque omnia ista recolligi in carnem et redintegrari posse non credunt. Consectantur etiam quasque foeditates et uitia, siue accidant siue nascantur, ubi et monstrosos partus cum horrore adque inrisione commemorant, et requirunt, quaenam cuiusque deformitatis resurrectio sit futura. Si enim nihil tale redire in corpus hominis dixerimus, responsionem nostram de locis uulnerum, cum quibus Dominum Christum resurrexisse praedicamus, se confutaturos esse praesumunt. Sed inter haec omnia quaestio difficillima illa proponitur, in cuius carnem reditura sit caro, qua corpus alterius uescentis humana uiscera fame conpellente nutritur. In carnem quippe conuersa est eius, qui talibus uixit alimentis, et ea, quae macies ostenderat, detrimenta subpleuit. Utrum ergo illi redeat homini cuius caro prius fuit, an illi potius cuius postea facta est, ad hoc percontantur, ut fidem resurrectionis inludant ac sic animae humanae aut alternantes, sicut Plato, ueras infelicitates falsasque promittant beatitudines aut post multas itidem per diuersa corpora reuolutiones aliquando tamen eam, sicut Porphyrius, finire miserias et ad eas numquam redire fateantur; non tamen corpus habendo inmortale, sed corpus omne fugiendo.

### Whether Abortions, If They are Numbered Among the Dead, Shall Not Also Have a Part in the Resurrection.

[¶17] Chapter 13.—Whether Abortions, If They are Numbered Among the Dead, Shall Not Also Have a Part in the Resurrection.

> Latin: Caput XIII. An abortiui non pertineant ad resurrectionem, si pertinent ad numerum mortuorum.

[¶18] To these objections, then, of our adversaries which I have thus detailed, I will now reply, trusting that God will mercifully assist my endeavors. That abortions, which, even supposing they were alive in the womb, did also die there, shall rise again, I make bold neither to affirm nor to deny, although I fail to see why, if they are not excluded from the number of the dead, they should not attain to the resurrection of the dead. For either all the dead shall not rise, and there will be to all eternity some souls without bodies though they once had them,—only in their mother’s womb, indeed; or, if all human souls shall receive again the bodies which they had wherever they lived, and which they left when they died, then I do not see how I can say that even those who died in their mother’s womb shall have no resurrection. But whichever of these opinions any one may adopt concerning them, we must at least apply to them, if they rise again, all that we have to say of infants who have been born.

> Latin: Ad haec ergo, quae ab eorum parte contraria me digerente mihi uidentur obposita, misericordia Dei meis nisibus opem ferente respondeam. Abortiuos fetus, qui, cum iam uixissent in utero, ibi sunt mortui, resurrecturos ut adfirmare, ita negare non audeo; quamuis non uideam quo modo ad eos non pertineat resurrectio mortuorum, si non eximuntur de numero mortuorum. Aut enim non omnes mortui resurgent et erunt aliquae humanae animae sine corporibus in aeternum, quae corpora humana, quamuis intra uiscera materna, gestarunt; aut si omnes animae humanae recipient resurgentia sua corpora, quae habuerunt, ubicumque uiuentia et morientia reliquerunt, non inuenio quem ad modum dicam ad resurrectionem non pertinere mortuorum quoscumque mortuos etiam in uteris matrum. Sed utrumlibet de his quisque sentiat., quod de iam natis infantibus dixerimus, hoc etiam de illis intellegendum est, si resurgent.

### Whether Infants Shall Rise in that Body Which They Would Have Had Had They Grown Up.

[¶20] Chapter 14.—Whether Infants Shall Rise in that Body Which They Would Have Had Had They Grown Up.

> Latin: Caput XIV. An infantes in ea sint resurrecturi habitudine corporis, quam habituri erant aetatis accessu.

[¶21] What, then, are we to say of infants, if not that they will not rise in that diminutive body in which they died, but shall receive by the marvellous and rapid operation of God that body which time by a slower process would have given them? For in the Lord’s words, where He says, “Not a hair of your head shall perish,” it is asserted that nothing which was possessed shall be wanting; but it is not said that nothing which was not possessed shall be given. To the dead infant there was wanting the perfect stature of its body; for even the perfect infant lacks the perfection of bodily size, being capable of further growth. This perfect stature is, in a sense, so possessed by all that they are conceived and born with it,—that is, they have it potentially, though not yet in actual bulk; just as all the members of the body are potentially in the seed, though, even after the child is born, some of them, the teeth for example, may be wanting. In this seminal principle of every substance, there seems to be, as it were, the beginning of everything which does not yet exist, or rather does not appear, but which in process of time will come into being, or rather into sight. In this, therefore, the child who is to be tall or short is already tall or short. And in the resurrection of the body, we need, for the same reason, fear no bodily loss; for though all should be of equal size, and reach gigantic proportions, lest the men who were largest here should lose anything of their bulk and it should perish, in contradiction to the words of Christ, who said that not a hair of their head should perish, yet why should there lack the means by which that wonderful Worker should make such additions, seeing that He is the Creator, who Himself created all things out of nothing?

> Latin: Quid ergo de infantibus dicturi sumus, nisi quia non in ea resurrecturi sunt corporis exiguitate, qua mortui, sed quod eis tardius accessurum erat tempore, hoc sunt illo Dei opere miro adque celerrimo recepturi? In sententia quippe Domini, ubi ait: Capillus capitis uestri non peribit, dictum est non defuturum esse quod fuit, non autem negatum est adfuturum esse quod defuit. Defuit autem infanti mortuo perfecta quantitas sui corporis; perfecto quippe infanti deest utique perfectio magnitudinis corporalis, quae cum accesserit, iam statura longior esse non possit. Hunc perfectionis modum sic habent omnes, ut cum illo concipiantur adque nascantur; sed habent in ratione, non mole; sicut ipsa membra omnia iam sunt latenter in semine, cum etiam natis nonnulla adhuc desint, sicut dentes ac si quid eius modi. In qua ratione uniuscuiusque materiae indita corporali iam quodam modo, ut ita dicam, liciatum uidetur esse, quod nondum est, immo quod latet, sed accessu temporis erit uel potius apparebit. In hac ergo infans iam breuis aut longus est, qui breuis longusue futurus est. Secundum hanc rationem profecto in resurrectione corporis detrimenta corporis non timemus, quia. etsi aequalitas futura esset omnium, ita ut omnes usque ad giganteas magnitudines peruenirent. ne illi, qui maximi fuerunt, minus haberent aliquid in statura, quod eis contra sententiam Christi periret, qui dixit nec capillum capitis esse periturum, Creatori utique, qui creauit cuncta de nihilo, quo modo deesse posset unde adderet quod addendum esse mirus artifex nosset?

### Whether the Bodies of All the Dead Shall Rise the Same Size as the Lord’s Body.

[¶23] Chapter 15.—Whether the Bodies of All the Dead Shall Rise the Same Size as the Lord’s Body.

> Latin: Caput XV. An ad dominici corporis modum omnium mortuorum resurrectura sint corpora.

[¶24] It is certain that Christ rose in the same bodily stature in which He died, and that it is wrong to say that, when the general resurrection shall have arrived, His body shall, for the sake of equalling the tallest, assume proportions which it had not when He appeared to the disciples in the figure with which they were familiar. But if we say that even the bodies of taller men are to be reduced to the size of the Lord’s body, there will be a great loss in many bodies, though He promised that, not a hair of their head should perish. It remains, therefore, that we conclude that every man shall receive his own size which he had in youth, though he died an old man, or which he would have had, supposing he died before his prime. As for what the apostle said of the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ, we must either understand him to refer to something else, viz., to the fact that the measure of Christ will be completed when all the members among the Christian communities are added to the Head; or if we are to refer it to the resurrection of the body, the meaning is that all shall rise neither beyond nor under youth, but in that vigor and age to which we know that Christ had arrived. For even the world’s wisest men have fixed the bloom of youth at about the age of thirty; and when this period has been passed, the man begins to decline towards the defective and duller period of old age. And therefore the apostle did not speak of the measure of the body, nor of the measure of the stature, but of “the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ.”

> Latin: Sed utique Christus in ea mensura corporis, in qua mortuus est, resurrexit, nec fas est dicere, cum resurrectionis omnium tempus uenerit, accessuram corpori eius eam magnitudinem, quam non habuit, quando in ea discipulis, in qua illis erat notus, apparuit, ut longissimis fieri possit aequalis. Si autem dixerimus ad dominici corporis modum etiam quorumque maiora corpora redigenda, peribit de multorum corporibus plurimum, cum ipse nec capillum periturum esse promiserit. Restat ergo, ut suam recipiat quisque mensuram, quam uel habuit in iuuentute, etiamsi senex est mortuus, uel fuerat habiturus, si est ante defunctus, adque illud, quod commemorauit apostolus de mensura aetatis plenitudinis Christi, aut propter aliud intellegamus dictum esse, id est. ut illi capiti in populis Christianis accedente omnium perfectione membrorum aetatis eius mensura conpleatur, aut, si hoc de resurrectione corporum dictum est, sic accipiamus dictum, ut nec infra nec ultra iuuenalem formam resurgant corpora mortuorum, sed in eius aetate et robore, usque ad quam Christum hic peruenisse cognouimus (circa triginta quippe annos definierunt esse etiam saeculi huius doctissimi homines iuuentutem; quae cum fuerit spatio proprio terminata, inde iam hominem in detrimenta uergere grauioris ac senilis aetatis); et ideo non esse dictum in mensuram corporis uel in mensuram staturae. sed in mensuram aetatis plenitudinis Christi.

## 114. What is Meant by the Conforming of the Saints to the Image of The Son of God.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/114/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/114/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 16.—What is Meant by the Conforming of the Saints to the Image of The Son of God.

> Latin: Caput XVI. Qualis intellegenda sit sanctorum conformatio ad imaginem filii Dei.

[¶1] Then, again, these words, “Predestinate to be conformed to the image of the Son of God,” may be understood of the inner man. So in another place He says to us, “Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed in the renewing of your mind.” In so far, then, as we are transformed so as not to be conformed to the world, we are conformed to the Son of God. It may also be understood thus, that as He was conformed to us by assuming mortality, we shall be conformed to Him by immortality; and this indeed is connected with the resurrection of the body. But if we are also taught in these words what form our bodies shall rise in, as the measure we spoke of before, so also this conformity is to be understood not of size, but of age. Accordingly all shall rise in the stature they either had attained or would have attained had they lived to their prime, although it will be no great disadvantage even if the form of the body be infantine or aged, while no infirmity shall remain in the mind nor in the body itself. So that even if any one contends that every person will rise again in the same bodily form in which he died, we need not spend much labor in disputing with him.

> Latin: Illud etiam, quod ait praedestinatos conformes imaginis filii Dei. potest et secundum interiorem hominem intellegi (unde nobis alio loco dicit: Nolite conformari huic saeculo, sed reformamini in nouitate mentis uestrae; ubi ergo reformamur, ne conformemur huic saeculo, ibi conformamur Dei filio); potest et sic accipi, ut, quem ad modum nobis ille mortalitate, ita nos illi efficiamur inmortalitate conformes; quod quidem et ad ipsam resurrectionem corporum pertinet. Si autem etiam in his uerbis, qua forma resurrectura sint corpora, sumus admoniti, sicut illa mensura,_ ita et ista conformatio non quantitatis intellegenda est, sed aetatis. Resurgent itaque omnes tam magni corpore, quam uel erant uel futuri erant aetate iuuenali; quamuis nihiloberit, etiamsi erit infantilis uel senilis corporis forma, ubi nec mentis, nec ipsius corporis ulla remanebit infirmitas. Unde etiam si quis in eo corporis modo, in quo defunctus est, resurrecturum unumquemque contendit, non est cum illo laboriosa contradictione pugnandum.

### Whether the Bodies of Women Shall Retain Their Own Sex in the Resurrection.

[¶3] Chapter 17.—Whether the Bodies of Women Shall Retain Their Own Sex in the Resurrection.

> Latin: Caput XVII. An in suo sexu resuscitanda adque mansura sint corpora feminarum.

[¶4] From the words, “Till we all come to a perfect man, to the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ,” and from the words, “Conformed to the image of the Son of God,” some conclude that women shall not rise women, but that all shall be men, because God made man only of earth, and woman of the man. For my part, they seem to be wiser who make no doubt that both sexes shall rise. For there shall be no lust, which is now the cause of confusion. For before they sinned, the man and the woman were naked, and were not ashamed. From those bodies, then, vice shall be withdrawn, while nature shall be preserved. And the sex of woman is not a vice, but nature. It shall then indeed be superior to carnal intercourse and child-bearing; nevertheless the female members shall remain adapted not to the old uses, but to a new beauty, which, so far from provoking lust, now extinct, shall excite praise to the wisdom and clemency of God, who both made what was not and delivered from corruption what He made. For at the beginning of the human race the woman was made of a rib taken from the side of the man while he slept; for it seemed fit that even then Christ and His Church should be foreshadowed in this event. For that sleep of the man was the death of Christ, whose side, as He hung lifeless upon the cross, was pierced with a spear, and there flowed from it blood and water, and these we know to be the sacraments by which the Church is “built up.” For Scripture used this very word, not saying “He formed” or “framed,” but “built her up into a woman;” whence also the apostle speaks of the edification of the body of Christ, which is the Church. The woman, therefore, is a creature of God even as the man; but by her creation from man unity is commended; and the manner of her creation prefigured, as has been said, Christ and the Church. He, then, who created both sexes will restore both. Jesus Himself also, when asked by the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection, which of the seven brothers should have to wife the woman whom all in succession had taken to raise up seed to their brother, as the law enjoined, says, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.” And though it was a fit opportunity for His saying, She about whom you make inquiries shall herself be a man, and not a woman, He said nothing of the kind; but “In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” They shall be equal to the angels in immortality and happiness, not in flesh, nor in resurrection, which the angels did not need, because they could not die. The Lord then denied that there would be in the resurrection, not women, but marriages; and He uttered this denial in circumstances in which the question mooted would have been more easily and speedily solved by denying that the female sex would exist, if this had in truth been foreknown by Him. But, indeed, He even affirmed that the sex should exist by saying, “They shall not be given in marriage,” which can only apply to females; “Neither shall they marry,” which applies to males. There shall therefore be those who are in this world accustomed to marry and be given in marriage, only they shall there make no such marriages.

> Latin: Nonnulli propter hoc, quod dictum est: Donec occurramus omnes in uirum perfectum, in mensuram aetatis plenitudinis Christi, et: Conformes imaginis filii Dei, nec in sexu femineo resurrecturas feminas credunt, sed in uirili omnes aiunt, quoniam Deus solum uirum fecit ex limo, feminam ex uiro. Sed mihi melius sapere uidentur, qui utrumque sexum resurrecturum esse non dubitant. Non enim libido ibi erit, quae confusionis est causa. Nam priusquam peccassent, nudi erant, et non confundebantur uir et femina. Corporibus ergo illis uitia detrahentur, natura seruabitur. Non est autem uitium sexus femineus, sed natura, quae tunc quidem et a concubitu et a partu inmunis erit; erunt tamen membra feminea non adcommodata usui ueteri, sed decori nouo, quo non adliciatur adspicientis concupiscentia, quae nulla erit, sed Dei laudetur sapientia adque clementia, qui et quod non erat fecit et liberauit a corruptione quod fecit. Ut enim in exordio generis humani de latere uiri dormientis costa detracta femina fieret, Christum et ecclesiam tali facto iam tunc prophetari oportebat. Sopor quippe ille uiri mors erat Christi, cuius exanimis in cruce pendentis latus lancea perforatum est adque inde sanguis et aqua profluxit; quae sacramenta esse nouimus, quibus aedificatur ecclesia. Nam hoc etiam uerbo scriptura usa est, ubi non legitur cformauit) aut ‘finxitf, sed: Aedificauit eam in mulierem; unde et apostolus aedificationem dicit corporis Christi, quod est ecclesia. Creatura est ergo Dei femina sicut uir; sed ut de uiro fieret, unitas commendata; ut autem illo modo fieret, Christus, ut dictum est, et ecclesia figurata est. Qui ergo utrumque sexum instituit, utrumque restituet. Denique ipse Iesus interrogatus a Sadducaeis, qui negabant resurrectionem, cuius septem fratrum erit uxor, quam singuli habuerunt, dum quisque eorum uellet defuncti semen, sicut lex praeceperat, excitare: Erratis, inquit, nescientes scripturas, neque uirtutem Dei; et cum locus esset, ut diceret: ‘De qua enim me interrogatis, uir erit etiam ipsa, non mulier’, non hoc dixit, sed dixit: In resurrectione enim neque nubent neque uxores ducent, sed sunt sicut angeli Dei in caelo; aequales utique angelis inmortalitate ac felicitate, non carne; sicut nec resurrectione. qua non indiguerunt angeli, quoniam nec mori potuerunt Nuptias ergo Dominus futuras negauit esse in resurrectione, non feminas, et ibi negauit, ubi talis quaestio uertebatur, ut eam negato sexu muliebri celeriore facilitate dissolueret, si eum ibi praenosceret non futurum; immo etiam futurum esse firmauit dicendo: Non nubent, quod ad feminas pertinet nec uxores ducent, quod ad uiros. Erunt ergo, quae uel nubere hic solent, uel ducere uxores; sed ibi hoc non facient.

### Of the Perfect Man, that Is, Christ; And of His Body, that Is, The Church, Which is His Fullness.

[¶6] Chapter 18.—Of the Perfect Man, that Is, Christ; And of His Body, that Is, The Church, Which is His Fullness.

> Latin: Caput XVIII. De uiro perfecto, id est Christo, et corpore eius. id est ecclesia, quae est ipsius plenitudo.

[¶7] To understand what the apostle means when he says that we shall all come to a perfect man, we must consider the connection of the whole passage, which runs thus: “He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things. And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come to the unity of the faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in Him in all things, which is the Head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in love.” Behold what the perfect man is—the head and the body, which is made up of all the members, which in their own time shall be perfected. But new additions are daily being made to this body while the Church is being built up, to which it is said, “Ye are the body of Christ and His members;” and again, “For His body’s sake,” he says, “which is the Church;” and again, “We being many are one head, one body.” It is of the edification of this body that it is here, too, said, “For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edification of the body of Christ;” and then that passage of which we are now speaking is added, “Till we all come to the unity of the faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ,” and so on. And he shows of what body we are to understand this to be the measure, when he says, “That we may grow up into Him in all things, which is the Head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part.” As, therefore, there is a measure of every part, so there is a measure of the fullness of the whole body which is made up of all its parts, and it is of this measure it is said, “To the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ.” This fullness he spoke of also in the place where he says of Christ, “And gave Him to be the Head over all things to the Church, which is His body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.” But even if this should be referred to the form in which each one shall rise, what should hinder us from applying to the woman what is expressly said of the man, understanding both sexes to be included under the general term “man?” For certainly in the saying, “Blessed is he who feareth the Lord,” women also who fear the Lord are included.

> Latin: Proinde quod ait apostolus, occursuros nos omnes in uirum perfectum, totius ipsius circumstantiam lectionis considerare debemus, quae ita se habet: Qui descendit, inquit, ipse est et qui adscendit super omnes caelos, ut adinpleret omnia. Et ipse dedit quosdam quidem apostolos, quosdam autem prophetas, quosdam uero euangelistas, quosdam autem pastores et doctores ad consummationem sanctorum in opus ministerii, in aedificationem corporis Christi, donec occurramus omnes in unitatem fidei et agnitionem filii Dei, in uirum perfectum, in mensuram aetatis plenitudinis Christi; ut ultra non simus paruuli iactati et circumlati omni uento doctrinae, in inlusione hominum, in astutia ad machinationem erroris, ueritatem autem facientes in caritate augeamur in illo per omnia, qui est caput Christus; ex quo totum corpus conexum et conpactum per omnem tactum subministrationis secundum operationem in mensuram uniuscuiusque partis incrementum corporis facit in aedificationem sui in caritate. Ecce qui est uir perfectus, caput et corpus, quod constat omnibus membris, quae suo tempore conplebuntur, cottidie tamen eidem corpori accedunt, dum aedificatur ecclesia, cui dicitur: Vos autem estis corpus Christi et membra, et alibi: Pro corpore, inquit, eius quod est ecclesia, itemque alibi: Unus panis, unum corpus multi sumus. De cuius corporis aedificatione et hic dictum est: Ad consummationem sanctorum in opus ministerii, in aedificationem corporis Christi ac deinde subiectum unde nunc agimus: Donec occurramus omnes in unitatem fidei et agnitionem filii Dei, in uirum perfectum, in mensuram aetatis plenitudinis Christi, et cetera; donec eadem mensura in quo corpore intellegenda esset, ostenderet dicens: Augeamur in illo per omnia, qui est caput Christus; ex quo totum corpus conexum et conpactum per omnem tactum subministrationis secundum operationem in mensuram uniuscuiusque partis. Sicut ergo est mensura uniuscuiusque partis, ita totius corporis, quod omnibus suis partibus constat, est utique mensura plenitudinis, de qua dictum est: In mensuram aetatis plenitudinis Christi. Quam plenitudinem etiam illo commemorauit loco, ubi ait de Christo: Et ipsum dedit caput super omnia ecclesiae, quae est corpus eius, plenitudo eius, qui omnia in omnibus inpletur. Verum si hoc ad resurrectionis formam, in qua erit unusquisque, referendum esset, quid nos inpediret nominato uiro intellegere et feminam, ut uirum pro homine positum acciperemus? sicut in eo quod dictum est: Beatus uir qui timet Dominum, utique ibi sunt et feminae, quae timent Dominum.

### That All Bodily Blemishes Which Mar Human Beauty in This Life Shall Be Removed in the Resurrection, the Natural Substance of the Body Remaining, But the Quality and Quantity of It Being Altered So as to Produce Beauty.

[¶9] Chapter 19.—That All Bodily Blemishes Which Mar Human Beauty in This Life Shall Be Removed in the Resurrection, the Natural Substance of the Body Remaining, But the Quality and Quantity of It Being Altered So as to Produce Beauty.

> Latin: Caput XIX. Quod omnia corporis uitia, quae in hac uita humano contraria sunt decori, in resurrectione non sint futura, ubi manente naturali substantia in unam pulchritudinem et qualitas concurret et quantitas.

[¶10] What am I to say now about the hair and nails? Once it is understood that no part of the body shall so perish as to produce deformity in the body, it is at the same time understood that such things as would have produced a deformity by their excessive proportions shall be added to the total bulk of the body, not to parts in which the beauty of the proportion would thus be marred. Just as if, after making a vessel of clay, one wished to make it over again of the same clay, it would not be necessary that the same portion of the clay which had formed the handle should again form the new handle, or that what had formed the bottom should again do so, but only that the whole clay should go to make up the whole new vessel, and that no part of it should be left unused. Wherefore, if the hair that has been cropped and the nails that have been cut would cause a deformity were they to be restored to their places, they shall not be restored; and yet no one will lose these parts at the resurrection, for they shall be changed into the same flesh, their substance being so altered as to preserve the proportion of the various parts of the body. However, what our Lord said, “Not a hair of your head shall perish,” might more suitably be interpreted of the number, and not of the length of the hairs, as He elsewhere says, “The hairs of your head are all numbered.” Nor would I say this because I suppose that any part naturally belonging to the body can perish, but that whatever deformity was in it, and served to exhibit the penal condition in which we mortals are, should be restored in such a way that, while the substance is entirely preserved, the deformity shall perish. For if even a human workman, who has, for some reason, made a deformed statue, can recast it and make it very beautiful, and this without suffering any part of the substance, but only the deformity to be lost,—if he can, for example, remove some unbecoming or disproportionate part, not by cutting off and separating this part from the whole, but by so breaking down and mixing up the whole as to get rid of the blemish without diminishing the quantity of his material,—shall we not think as highly of the almighty Worker? Shall He not be able to remove and abolish all deformities of the human body, whether common ones or rare and monstrous, which, though in keeping with this miserable life, are yet not to be thought of in connection with that future blessedness; and shall He not be able so to remove them that, while the natural but unseemly blemishes are put an end to, the natural substance shall suffer no diminution?

> Latin: Quid iam respondeam de capillis adque unguibus? Semel quippe intellecto ita nihil periturum esse de corpore. ut deforme nihil sit in corpore, simul intellegitur ea, quae deformem factura fuerant enormitatem, massae ipsi accessura esse, non locis in quibus membrorum forma turpetur. Velut si de limo uas fieret, quod rursus in eundem limum redactum totum de toto iterum fieret, non esset necesse ut illa pars limi, quae in ansa fuerat, ad ansam rediret, aut quae fundum fecerat, ipsa rursus faceret fundum, dum tamen totum reuerteretur in totum, id est, totus ille limus in totum uas nulla sui perdita parte remearet. Quapropter si capilli totiens tonsi unguesue desecti ad sua loca deformiter redeunt, non redibunt; nec tamen cuique resurgenti peribunt, quia in eandem carnem, ut quemcumque ibi locum corporis teneant, seruata partium congruentia materiae mutabilitate uertentur. Quamuis quod ait Dominus: Capillus capitis uestri non peribit, non de longitudine, sed de numero capillorum dictum multo aptius possit intellegi; unde et alibi dicit: Capilli capitis uestri numerati sunt. Neque hoc ideo dixerim, quod aliquid existimem corpori cuique periturum, quod naturaliter inerat; sed quod deforme natum fuerat (non utique ob aliud, nisi ut hinc quoque ostenderetur, quam sit poenalis condicio ista mortalium), sic esse rediturum, ut seruata integritate substantiae deformitas pereat. Si enim statuam potest artifex homo, quam propter aliquam causam deformem fecerat, conflare et pulcherrimam reddere, ita ut nihil inde substantiae, sed sola deformitas pereat, ac si quid in illa figura priore indecenter exstabat nec parilitate partium congruebat, non de toto, unde fecerat, amputare adque separare, sed ita conspergere uniuerso adque miscere, ut nec foeditatem faciat nec minuat quantitatem: quid de omnipotenti artifice sentiendum est? Ergone non poterit quasque deformitates humanorum corporum, non modo usitatas, uerum etiam raras adque monstrosas, quae huic miserae uitae congruunt, abhorrent autem ab illa futura felicitate sanctorum, sic auferre ac perdere, ut, quascumque earum faciunt etsi naturalia, tamen indecora excrementa substantiae corporalis, nulla eius deminutione tollantur?

[¶11] And consequently overgrown and emaciated persons need not fear that they shall be in heaven of such a figure as they would not be even in this world if they could help it. For all bodily beauty consists in the proportion of the parts, together with a certain agreeableness of color. Where there is no proportion, the eye is offended, either because there is something awanting, or too small, or too large. And thus there shall be no deformity resulting from want of proportion in that state in which all that is wrong is corrected, and all that is defective supplied from resources the Creator wots of, and all that is excessive removed without destroying the integrity of the substance. And as for the pleasant color, how conspicuous shall it be where “the just shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father!” This brightness we must rather believe to have been concealed from the eyes of the disciples when Christ rose, than to have been awanting. For weak human eyesight could not bear it, and it was necessary that they should so look upon Him as to be able to recognize Him. For this purpose also He allowed them to touch the marks of His wounds, and also ate and drank,—not because He needed nourishment, but because He could take it if He wished. Now, when an object, though present, is invisible to persons who see other things which are present, as we say that that brightness was present but invisible by those who saw other things, this is called in Greek ἀορασία; and our Latin translators, for want of a better word, have rendered this cæcitas (blindness) in the book of Genesis. This blindness the men of Sodom suffered when they sought the just Lot’s gate and could not find it. But if it had been blindness, that is to say, if they could see nothing, then they would not have asked for the gate by which they might enter the house, but for guides who might lead them away.

> Latin: Ac per hoc non est macris pinguibusque metuendum, ne ibi etiam tales sint, quales si possent nec hic esse uoluissent. Omnis enim corporis pulchritudo est partium congruentia cum quadam coloris suauitate. Ubi autem non est partium congruentia, aut ideo quid offendit quia prauum est, aut ideo quia parum, aut ideo quia nimium. Proinde nulla erit deformitas, quam facit incongruentia partium, ubi et quae praua sunt corrigentur, et quod minus est quam decet, unde Creator nouit, inde subplebitur, et quod plus est quam decet, materiae seruata integritate detrahetur. Coloris porro suauitas quanta erit, ubi iusti fulgebunt sicut sol in regno Patris sui! Quae claritas in Christi corpore, cum resurrexit, ab oculis discipulorum potius abscondita fuisse quam defuisse credenda est. Non enim eam ferret humanus adque infirmus adspectus, quando ille a suis ita deberet adtendi, ut posset agnosci. Quo pertinuit etiam, ut contrectantibus ostenderet suorum uulnerum cicatrices, ut etiam cibum potumque sumeret, non alimentorum indigentia, sed ea qua et hoc poterat potestate. Cum autem aliquid non uidetur, quamuis adsit, a quibus alia, quae pariter adsunt, uidentur, sicut illam claritatem dicimus adfuisse non uisam, a quibus alia uidebantur: aopaata Graece dicitur, quod nostri interpretes Latine dicere non ualentes in libro geneseos caecitatem interpretati sunt. Hanc enim sunt passi Sodomitae, quando quaerebant ostium iusti uiri nec poterant inuenire. Quae si caecitas fuisset, qua fit ut nihil possit uideri, non ostium qua ingrederentur, sed duces itineris a quibus inde abducerentur, inquirerent.

[¶12] But the love we bear to the blessed martyrs causes us, I know not how, to desire to see in the heavenly kingdom the marks of the wounds which they received for the name of Christ, and possibly we shall see them. For this will not be a deformity, but a mark of honor, and will add lustre to their appearance, and a spiritual, if not a bodily beauty. And yet we need not believe that they to whom it has been said, “Not a hair of your head shall perish,” shall, in the resurrection, want such of their members as they have been deprived of in their martyrdom. But if it will be seemly in that new kingdom to have some marks of these wounds still visible in that immortal flesh, the places where they have been wounded or mutilated shall retain the scars without any of the members being lost. While, therefore, it is quite true that no blemishes which the body has sustained shall appear in the resurrection, yet we are not to reckon or name these marks of virtue blemishes.

> Latin: Nescio quo autem modo sic adficimur amore martyrum beatorum, ut uelimus in illo regno in eorum corporibus uidere uulnerum cicatrices, quae pro Christi nomine pertulerunt; et fortasse uidebimus. Non enim deformitas in eis, sed dignitas erit, et quaedam, quamuis in corpore, non corporis, sed uirtutis pulchritudo fulgebit. Nec ideo tamen si aliqua martyribus amputata et ablata sunt membra, sine ipsis membris erunt in resurrectione mortuorum, quibus dictum est: Capillus capitis uestri non peribit Sed si hoc decebit in illo nouo saeculo, ut indicia gloriosorum uulnerum in illa inmortali carne cernantur, ubi membra, ut praeciderentur, percussa uel secta sunt, ibi cicatrices, sed tamen eisdem membris redditis, non perditis, apparebunt. Quamuis itaque omnia quae acciderunt corpori uitia tunc non erunt, non sunt tamen deputanda uel appellanda uitia uirtutis indicia.

### That, in the Resurrection, the Substance of Our Bodies, However Disintegrated, Shall Be Entirely Reunited.

[¶14] Chapter 20.—That, in the Resurrection, the Substance of Our Bodies, However Disintegrated, Shall Be Entirely Reunited.

> Latin: Caput XX. Quod in resurrectione mortuorum natura corporum quibuslibet modis dissipatorum in integrum undecumque reuocanda sit.

[¶15] Far be it from us to fear that the omnipotence of the Creator cannot, for the resuscitation and reanimation of our bodies, recall all the portions which have been consumed by beasts or fire, or have been dissolved into dust or ashes, or have decomposed into water, or evaporated into the air. Far from us be the thought, that anything which escapes our observation in any most hidden recess of nature either evades the knowledge or transcends the power of the Creator of all things. Cicero, the great authority of our adversaries, wishing to define God as accurately as possible, says, “God is a mind free and independent, without materiality, perceiving and moving all things, and itself endowed with eternal movement.” This he found in the systems of the greatest philosophers. Let me ask, then, in their own language, how anything can either lie hid from Him who perceives all things, or irrevocably escape Him who moves all things?

> Latin: Absit autem, ut ad resuscitanda corpora uitaeque reddenda non possit omnipotentia Creatoris omnia reuocare, quae uel bestiae uel ignis absumsit, uel in puluerem cineremue conlapsum uel in umorem solutum uel in auras est exhalatum. Absit ut sinus ullus secretumque naturae ita recipiat aliquid subtractum sensibus nostris, ut omnium Creatoris aut cogni tionem lateat aut effugiat potestatem. Deum certe uolens, sicut poterat, definire Cicero, tantus auctor ipsorum: <Mens quaedam est, inquit, soluta et libera, secreta ab omni concretione mortali, omnia sentiens et mouens ipsaque praedita motu sempiterno.’ Hoc autem repperit in doctrinis magnorum philosophorum. Ut igitur secundum ipsos loquar, quo modo aliquid uel latet omnia sentientem uel inreuocabiliter fugit omnia mouentem?

[¶16] This leads me to reply to that question which seems the most difficult of all,—To whom, in the resurrection, will belong the flesh of a dead man which has become the flesh of a living man? For if some one, famishing for want and pressed with hunger, use human flesh as food,—an extremity not unknown, as both ancient history and the unhappy experience of our own days have taught us,—can it be contended, with any show of reason, that all the flesh eaten has been evacuated, and that none of it has been assimilated to the substance of the eater though the very emaciation which existed before, and has now disappeared, sufficiently indicates what large deficiencies have been filled up with this food? But I have already made some remarks which will suffice for the solution of this difficulty also. For all the flesh which hunger has consumed finds its way into the air by evaporation, whence, as we have said, God Almighty can recall it. That flesh, therefore, shall be restored to the man in whom it first became human flesh. For it must be looked upon as borrowed by the other person, and, like a pecuniary loan, must be returned to the lender. His own flesh, however, which he lost by famine, shall be restored to him by Him who can recover even what has evaporated. And though it had been absolutely annihilated, so that no part of its substance remained in any secret spot of nature, the Almighty could restore it by such means as He saw fit. For this sentence, uttered by the Truth, “Not a hair of your head shall perish,” forbids us to suppose that, though no hair of a man’s head can perish, yet the large portions of his flesh eaten and consumed by the famishing can perish.

> Latin: Unde iam etiam quaestio illa soluenda est, quae difficilior uidetur ceteris, ubi quaeritur, cum caro mortui hominis etiam alterius fit uiuentis caro, cui potius eorum in resurrectione reddatur. Si enim quispiam confectus fame adque conpulsus uescatur cadaueribus hominum, quod malum aliquotiens accidisse et uetus testatur historia et nostrorum temporum infelicia experimenta docuerunt: num quisquam ueridica ratione contendet totum digestum fuisse per imos meatus, nihil inde in eius carnem mutatum adque conuersum, cum ipsa macies, quae fuit et non est, satis indicet quae illis escis detrimenta subpleta sint? Iam itaque aliqua paulo ante praemisi, quae ad istum quoque nodum soluendum ualere debebunt. Quidquid enim carnium exhausit fames, utique in auras est exhalatum, unde diximus omnipotentem Deum posse reuocare. quod fugit. Reddetur ergo caro illa homini, in quo esse caro humana primitus coepit. Ab illo quippe altero tamquam mutuo sumta deputanda est; quae sicut aes alienum ei redhibenda est, unde sumta est. Sua uero illi, quem fames eIinanierat, ab eo. qui potest etiam exhalata reuocare, reddetur. Quamuis etsi omnibus perisset modis nec ulla eius materies in ullis naturae latebris remansisset, unde uellet, eam repararet Omnipotens. Sed propter sententiam Veritatis, qua dictum est: Capillus capitis uestri non peribit, absurdum est, ut putemus, cum capillus hominis perire non possit, tantas carie fame depastas adque consumtas perire potuisse.

[¶17] From all that we have thus considered, and discussed with such poor ability as we can command, we gather this conclusion, that in the resurrection of the flesh the body shall be of that size which it either had attained or should have attained in the flower of its youth, and shall enjoy the beauty that arises from preserving symmetry and proportion in all its members. And it is reasonable to suppose that, for the preservation of this beauty, any part of the body’s substance, which, if placed in one spot, would produce a deformity, shall be distributed through the whole of it, so that neither any part, nor the symmetry of the whole, may be lost, but only the general stature of the body somewhat increased by the distribution in all the parts of that which, in one place, would have been unsightly. Or if it is contended that each will rise with the same stature as that of the body he died in, we shall not obstinately dispute this, provided only there be no deformity, no infirmity, no languor, no corruption,—nothing of any kind which would ill become that kingdom in which the children of the resurrection and of the promise shall be equal to the angels of God, if not in body and age, at least in happiness.

> Latin: Quibus omnibus pro nostro modulo consideratis adque tractatis haec summa conficitur, ut in resurrectione carnis in aeternum eas mensuras habeat corporum magnitudo, quas habebat pei-ficiendae siue perfectae cuiusque indita corpori ratio iuuentutis, in membrorum quoque omnium modulis congruo decore seruato. Quod decus ut seruetur, si aliquid demtum fuerit indecenti alicui granditati in parte aliqua constitutae, quod per totum spargatur, ut neque id pereat et congruentia partium ubique teneatur: non est absurdum, ut aliquid inde etiam staturae corporis addi posse credamus, cum omnibus partibus, ut decorem custodiant, id distribuitur, quod si enormiter in una esset, utique non deceret. Aut si contenditur in ea quemque statura corporis resurrecturum esse, in qua defunctus est, non pugnaciter resistendum est; tantum absit omnis deformitas, omnis infirmitas, omnis tarditas omnisque corruptio, et si quid aliud illud non decet regnum, in quo resurrectionis et promissionis filii aequales erunt angelis Dei, si non corpore, non aetate, certe felicitate.

### Of the New Spiritual Body into Which the Flesh of the Saints Shall Be Transformed.

[¶19] Chapter 21.—Of the New Spiritual Body into Which the Flesh of the Saints Shall Be Transformed.

> Latin: Caput XXI. De nouitate corporis spiritalis, in quam sanctorum caro mutabitur.

[¶20] Whatever, therefore, has been taken from the body, either during life or after death shall be restored to it, and, in conjunction with what has remained in the grave, shall rise again, transformed from the oldness of the animal body into the newness of the spiritual body, and clothed in incorruption and immortality. But even though the body has been all quite ground to powder by some severe accident, or by the ruthlessness of enemies, and though it has been so diligently scattered to the winds, or into the water, that there is no trace of it left, yet it shall not be beyond the omnipotence of the Creator,—no, not a hair of its head shall perish. The flesh shall then be spiritual, and subject to the spirit, but still flesh, not spirit, as the spirit itself, when subject to the flesh, was fleshly, but still spirit and not flesh. And of this we have experimental proof in the deformity of our penal condition. For those persons were carnal, not in a fleshly, but in a spiritual way, to whom the apostle said, “I could not speak to you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal.” And a man is in this life spiritual in such a way, that he is yet carnal with respect to his body, and sees another law in his members warring against the law of his mind; but even in his body he will be spiritual when the same flesh shall have had that resurrection of which these words speak, “It is sown an animal body, it shall rise a spiritual body.” But what this spiritual body shall be and how great its grace, I fear it were but rash to pronounce, seeing that we have as yet no experience of it. Nevertheless, since it is fit that the joyfulness of our hope should utter itself, and so show forth God’s praise, and since it was from the profoundest sentiment of ardent and holy love that the Psalmist cried, “O Lord, I have loved the beauty of Thy house,” we may, with God’s help, speak of the gifts He lavishes on men, good and bad alike, in this most wretched life, and may do our best to conjecture the great glory of that state which we cannot worthily speak of, because we have not yet experienced it. For I say nothing of the time when God made man upright; I say nothing of the happy life of “the man and his wife” in the fruitful garden, since it was so short that none of their children experienced it: I speak only of this life which we know, and in which we now are, from the temptations of which we cannot escape so long as we are in it, no matter what progress we make, for it is all temptation, and I ask, Who can describe the tokens of God’s goodness that are extended to the human race even in this life?

> Latin: Restituetur ergo quidquid de corporibus uiuis uel post mortem de cadaueribus periit, et simul cum eo, quod in sepulcris remansit, in spiritalis corporis nouitatem ex animalis corporis uetustate mutatum resurget incorruptione adque inmortalitate uestitum. Sed etsi uel casu aliquo graui uel inimicorum inmanitate totum penitus conteratur in puluerem adque in auras uel in aquas dispersum, quantum fieri potest. nusquam esse sinatur omnino: nullo modo subtrahi poterit omnipotentiae Creatoris, sed capillus in eo capitis non peribit. Erit ergo spiritui subdita caro spiritalis, sed tamen caro, non spiritus; sicut carni subditus fuit spiritus ipse carnalis, sed tamen spiritus, non caro. Cuius rei habemus experimentum in nostrae poenae deformitate. Non enim secundum carnem, sed utique secundum spiritum carnales erant, quibus ait apostolus: Non potui uobis loqui quasi spiritalibus, sed quasi carnalibus; et homo spiritalis sic in hac uita dicitur, ut tamen corpore adhuc carnalis sit et uideat aliam legem in membris suis repugnantem legi mentis suae; erit autem etiam corpore spiritalis, cum eadem caro sic resurrexerit, ut fiat quod scriptum est: Seminatur corpus animale, resurget corpus spiritale. Quae sit autem et quam magna spiritalis corporis gratia, quoniam nondum uenit in experimentum, uereor ne temerarium sit omne, quod de illa profertur, eloquium. Verum tamen quia spei nostrae gaudium propter Dei laudem non est tacendum et de intimis ardentis sancti amoris medullis dictum est: Domine, dilexi decorem domus tuae: de donis eius, quae in hac aenJmnosissima uita bonis malisque largitur, ipso adiuuante coniciamus, ut possumus, quantum sit illud, quod nondum experti utique digne eloqui non ualemus. Omitto enim, quando fecit hominem rectum; omitto uitam illam duorum coniugum in paradisi fecunditate felicem, quoniam tam breuis fuit, ut ad nascentium sensum nec ipsa peruenerit: in hac, quam nouimus, in qua adhuc sumus, cuius tentationes, immo quam totam tentationem, quamdiu in ea sumus, quantumlibet proSciamus, perpeti non desinimus, quae sint indicia circa genus humanum bonitatis Dei, quis poterit explicare?

## 115. Of the Miseries and Ills to Which the Human Race is Justly Exposed Through the First Sin, and from Which None Can Be Delivered Save by Christ’s Grace.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/115/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/115/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 22.—Of the Miseries and Ills to Which the Human Race is Justly Exposed Through the First Sin, and from Which None Can Be Delivered Save by Christ’s Grace.

> Latin: Caput XXII. De miseriis ac malis, quibus humanum genus merito primae praeuaricationis obnoxium est et a quibus nemo nisi per Christi gratiam liberatur.

[¶1] That the whole human race has been condemned in its first origin, this life itself, if life it is to be called, bears witness by the host of cruel ills with which it is filled. Is not this proved by the profound and dreadful ignorance which produces all the errors that enfold the children of Adam, and from which no man can be delivered without toil, pain, and fear? Is it not proved by his love of so many vain and hurtful things, which produces gnawing cares, disquiet, griefs, fears, wild joys, quarrels, lawsuits, wars, treasons, angers, hatreds, deceit, flattery, fraud, theft, robbery, perfidy, pride, ambition, envy, murders, parricides, cruelty, ferocity, wickedness, luxury, insolence, impudence, shamelessness, fornications, adulteries, incests, and the numberless uncleannesses and unnatural acts of both sexes, which it is shameful so much as to mention; sacrileges, heresies, blasphemies, perjuries, oppression of the innocent, calumnies, plots, falsehoods, false witnessings, unrighteous judgments, violent deeds, plunderings, and whatever similar wickedness has found its way into the lives of men, though it cannot find its way into the conception of pure minds? These are indeed the crimes of wicked men, yet they spring from that root of error and misplaced love which is born with every son of Adam. For who is there that has not observed with what profound ignorance, manifesting itself even in infancy, and with what superfluity of foolish desires, beginning to appear in boyhood, man comes into this life, so that, were he left to live as he pleased, and to do whatever he pleased, he would plunge into all, or certainly into many of those crimes and iniquities which I mentioned, and could not mention?

> Latin: Nam quod ad primam originem pertinet, omnem mortalium progeniem fuisse damnatam, haec ipsa uita, si uita dicenda est, tot et tantis malis plena testatur. Quid enim aliud indicat horrenda quaedam profunditas ignorantiae, ex qua omnis error exsistit, qui omnes filios Adam tenebroso quodam sinu suscipit, ut homo ab illo liberari sine labore dolore timore non possit? Quid amor ipse tot rerum uanarum adque noxiarum et ex hoc mordaces curae, perturbationes, maerores, formidines, insana gaudia, discordiae, lites, bella, insidiae, iracundiae, inimicitiae, fallacia, adulatio, fraus, furtum, rapina, perfidia, superbia, ambitio, inuidentia, homicidia, parricidia, crudelitas, saeuitia, nequitia, luxuria, petulantia, inpudentia, inpudicitia. fornicationes, adulteria, incesta et contra naturam utriusque sexus tot stupra adque inmunditiae, quas turpe est etiam dicere, sacrilegia, haereses, blasphemiae, periuria, obpressiones innocentium, calumniae, circumuentiones, praeuaricationes, falsa testimonia, iniqua iudicia, uiolentiae, latrocinia et quidquid talium malorum in mentem non uenit et tamen de uita ista hominum non recedit? Verum haec hominum sunt malorum, ab illa tamen erroris et peruersi amoris radice uenientia, cum qua omnis filius Adam nascitur. Nam quis ignorat cum quanta ignorantia ueritatis, quae iam in infantibus manifesta est, et cum quanta abundantia uanae cupiditatis, quae in pueris incipit apparere, homo ueniat in hanc uitam, ita ut, si dimittatur uiuere ut uelit et facere quidquid uelit, in haec facinora et flagitia, quae commemoraui et quae commemorare non potui, uel cuncta uel multa perueniat?

[¶2] But because God does not wholly desert those whom He condemns, nor shuts up in His anger His tender mercies, the human race is restrained by law and instruction, which keep guard against the ignorance that besets us, and oppose the assaults of vice, but are themselves full of labor and sorrow. For what mean those multifarious threats which are used to restrain the folly of children? What mean pedagogues, masters, the birch, the strap, the cane, the schooling which Scripture says must be given a child, “beating him on the sides lest he wax stubborn,” and it be hardly possible or not possible at all to subdue him? Why all these punishments, save to overcome ignorance and bridle evil desires—these evils with which we come into the world? For why is it that we remember with difficulty, and without difficulty forget? learn with difficulty, and without difficulty remain ignorant? are diligent with difficulty, and without difficulty are indolent? Does not this show what vitiated nature inclines and tends to by its own weight, and what succor it needs if it is to be delivered? Inactivity, sloth, laziness, negligence, are vices which shun labor, since labor, though useful, is itself a punishment.

> Latin: Sed diuina gubernatione non omni modo deserente damnatos et Deo non continente in ira sua miserationes suas in ipsis sensibus generis humani prohibitio et eruditio contra istas, cum quibus nascimur, tenebras uigilant et contra hos inpetus obponuntur, plenae tamen etiam ipsae laborum et dolorum. Quid enim sibi uolunt multimodae formidines, quae cohibendis paruulorum uanitatibus adhibentur? Quid paedagogi, quid magistri, quid ferulae, quid lora, quid uirgae, quid disciplina illa, qua scriptum sancta dicit dilecti filii latera esse tundenda, ne crescat indomitus domarique iam durus aut uix possit aut fortasse nec possit? Quid agitur his poenis omnibus, nisi ut debelletur inperitia et praua cupiditas infrenetur, cum quibus malis in hoc saeculum uenimus? Quid est enim, quod cum labore meminimus, sine labore obliuiscimur; cum labore discimus, sine labore nescimus: cum labore strenui, sine labore inertes sumus ? Nonne hinc apparet, in quid uelut pondere suo quam procliuis et prona sit uitiosa natura et quanta ope, ut hinc liberetur, indigeat?

[¶3] But, besides the punishments of childhood, without which there would be no learning of what the parents wish,—and the parents rarely wish anything useful to be taught,—who can describe, who can conceive the number and severity of the punishments which afflict the human race,—pains which are not only the accompaniment of the wickedness of godless men, but are a part of the human condition and the common misery,—what fear and what grief are caused by bereavement and mourning, by losses and condemnations, by fraud and falsehood, by false suspicions, and all the crimes and wicked deeds of other men? For at their hands we suffer robbery, captivity, chains, imprisonment, exile, torture, mutilation, loss of sight, the violation of chastity to satisfy the lust of the oppressor, and many other dreadful evils. What numberless casualties threaten our bodies from without,—extremes of heat and cold, storms, floods, inundations, lightning, thunder, hail, earthquakes, houses falling; or from the stumbling, or shying, or vice of horses; from countless poisons in fruits, water, air, animals; from the painful or even deadly bites of wild animals; from the madness which a mad dog communicates, so that even the animal which of all others is most gentle and friendly to its own master, becomes an object of intenser fear than a lion or dragon, and the man whom it has by chance infected with this pestilential contagion becomes so rabid, that his parents, wife, children, dread him more than any wild beast! What disasters are suffered by those who travel by land or sea! What man can go out of his own house without being exposed on all hands to unforeseen accidents? Returning home sound in limb, he slips on his own doorstep, breaks his leg, and never recovers. What can seem safer than a man sitting in his chair? Eli the priest fell from his, and broke his neck. How many accidents do farmers, or rather all men, fear that the crops may suffer from the weather, or the soil, or the ravages of destructive animals? Commonly they feel safe when the crops are gathered and housed. Yet, to my certain knowledge, sudden floods have driven the laborers away, and swept the barns clean of the finest harvest. Is innocence a sufficient protection against the various assaults of demons? That no man might think so, even baptized infants, who are certainly unsurpassed in innocence, are sometimes so tormented, that God, who permits it, teaches us hereby to bewail the calamities of this life, and to desire the felicity of the life to come. As to bodily diseases, they are so numerous that they cannot all be contained even in medical books. And in very many, or almost all of them, the cures and remedies are themselves tortures, so that men are delivered from a pain that destroys by a cure that pains. Has not the madness of thirst driven men to drink human urine, and even their own? Has not hunger driven men to eat human flesh, and that the flesh not of bodies found dead, but of bodies slain for the purpose? Have not the fierce pangs of famine driven mothers to eat their own children, incredibly savage as it seems? In fine, sleep itself, which is justly called repose, how little of repose there sometimes is in it when disturbed with dreams and visions; and with what terror is the wretched mind overwhelmed by the appearances of things which are so presented, and which, as it were so stand out before the senses, that we can not distinguish them from realities! How wretchedly do false appearances distract men in certain diseases! With what astonishing variety of appearances are even healthy men sometimes deceived by evil spirits, who produce these delusions for the sake of perplexing the senses of their victims, if they cannot succeed in seducing them to their side!

> Latin: Desidia segnitia, pigritia neglegentia uitia sunt utique quibus labor fugitur, cum labor ipse, etiam qui est utilis, poena sit. Sed praeter pueriles poenas. sine quibus disci non potest quod maiores uolunt, qui uix aliquid utiliter uolunt, quot et quantis poenis genus agitetur humanum, quae non ad malitiam nequitiamque iniquorum, sed ad condicionem pertinent miseriamque communem, quis ullo sermone digerit? quis ulla cogitatione conprehendit? Quantus est metus, quanta calamitas ab orbitatibus adque luctu, a damnis et damnationibus, a deceptionibus et mendaciis hominum, a suspicionibus falsis, ab omnibus uiolentis facinoribus et sceleribus alienis! quando quidem ab eis et depraedatio et captiuitas, et uincula et carceres, et exsilia et cruciatus, et amputatio membrorum et priuatio sensuum, et obpressio corporis ad obscenam libidinem obprimentis explendam et alia multa horrenda saepe contingunt. Quid? ab innumeris casibus quae forinsecus corpori formidantur, aestibus et frigoribus, tempestatibus imbribus adluuionibus, coruscatione tonitru. grandine fulmine, motibus hiatibusque terrarum. obpressionibus ruinarum, ab offensionibus et pauore uel etiam malitia iumentorum, a tot uenenis fruticum aquarum, aurarum bestiarum, a ferarum uel tantummodo molestis uel etiam mortiferis morsibus, arabia quae contingit ex rabido cane, ut etiam blanda et amica suo domino bestia nonnumquam uehementius et amarius quam leones draconesque metuatur faciatque hominem, quem forte adtaminauerit, contagione pestifera ita rabiosum, ut a parentibus coniuge filiis peius omni bestia formidetur! Quae mala patiuntur nauigantes! quae terrena itinera gradientes! Quis ambulat ubicumque non inopinatis subiacens casibus? De foro quidam rediens domum sanis pedibus suis cecidit. pedem fregit et ex illo uulnere finiuit hanc uitam. Quid uidetur sedente securius? De sella, in qua sedebat, cecidit Heli sacerdos et mortuus est. Agricolae, immo uero omnes homines, quot et quantos a caelo et terra uel a perniciosis animalibus casus metuunt agrorum fructibus! Solent tamen de frumentis tandem collectis et reconditis esse securi. Sed ‘quibusdam, quod nouimus, prouentum optimum frumentorum fluuius inprouisus fugientibus hominibus de horreis eiecit adque abstulit. Contra milleformes daemonum incursus quis innocentia sua fidit? quando quidem, ne quis fideret, etiam paruulos baptizatos, quibus certe nihil est innocentius, aliquando sic uexant, ut in eis maxime Deo ista sinente monstretur huius uitae flenda calamitas et alterius desideranda felicitas. Iam uero de ipso corpore tot exsistunt morborum mala, ut nec libris medicorum cuncta conprehensa sint; in quorum pluribus ac paene omnibus etiam ipsa adiumenta et medicamenta tormenta sunt, ut homines a poenarum exitio poenali eruantur auxilio. Nonne ad hoc perduxit sitientes homines ardor inmanis, ut urinam quoque humanam uel etiam suam biberent? nonne ad hoc fames, ut a carnibus hominum se abstinere non possent nec inuentos homines mortuos, sed propter hoc a se occisos, nec quoslibet alienos, uerum etiam filios matres incredibili crudelitate, quam rabida esuries faciebat, absumerent? Ipse postremo somnus, qui proprie quietis nomen accepit, quis uerbis explicet. saepe somniorum uisis quam sit inquietus et quam magnis, licet falsarum rerum, terroribus, quas ita exhibet et quodam modo exprimit, ut a ueris eas discernere nequeamus, animam miseram sensusque perturbet?

[¶4] From this hell upon earth there is no escape, save through the grace of the Saviour Christ, our God and Lord. The very name Jesus shows this, for it means Saviour; and He saves us especially from passing out of this life into a more wretched and eternal state, which is rather a death than a life. For in this life, though holy men and holy pursuits afford us great consolations, yet the blessings which men crave are not invariably bestowed upon them, lest religion should be cultivated for the sake of these temporal advantages, while it ought rather to be cultivated for the sake of that other life from which all evil is excluded. Therefore, also, does grace aid good men in the midst of present calamities, so that they are enabled to endure them with a constancy proportioned to their faith. The world’s sages affirm that philosophy contributes something to this,—that philosophy which, according to Cicero, the gods have bestowed in its purity only on a few men. They have never given, he says, nor can ever give, a greater gift to men. So that even those against whom we are disputing have been compelled to acknowledge, in some fashion, that the grace of God is necessary for the acquisition, not, indeed, of any philosophy, but of the true philosophy. And if the true philosophy—this sole support against the miseries of this life—has been given by Heaven only to a few, it sufficiently appears from this that the human race has been condemned to pay this penalty of wretchedness. And as, according to their acknowledgment, no greater gift has been bestowed by God, so it must be believed that it could be given only by that God whom they themselves recognize as greater than all the gods they worship.

> Latin: Qua falsitate uisorum etiam uigilantes in quibusdam morbis et uenenis miserabilius agitantur; quamuis multimoda uarietate fallaciae homines etiam sanos maligni daemones nonnumquam decipiant talibus uisis, ut, etiamsi eos per haec ad sua traducere non potuerint, sensus tamen eorum solo adpetitu qualitercumque persuadendae falsitatis inludant. Ab huius tam miserae quasi quibusdam inferis uitae non liberat nisi gratia Saluatoris Christi, Dei ac Domini nostri (hoc enim nomen est ipse Iesus; interpretatur quippe Saluator), maxime ne post hanc miserior ac sempiterna suscipiat, non uita, sed mors. Nam in ista quamuis sint per sancta et sanctos curationum magna solacia, tamen ideo non semper etiam ipsa beneficia tribuuntur petentibus, ne propter hoc religio quaeratur, quae propter aliam magis uitam, ubi mala non erunt omnino ulla, quaerenda est; et ad hoc meliores quosque in his malis adiuuat gratia, ut quanto fideliore, tanto fortiore corde tolerentur. Ad quam rem etiam philosophiam prodesse dicunt docti huius saeculi, quam di quibusdam paucis, ait Tullius, ueram dederunt; nec hominibus, inquit, ab his aut datum est donum maius aut potuit ullum dari: usque adeo et ipsi, contra quos agimus, quoquo modo conpulsi sunt in habenda non quacumque, sed uera philosophia diuinam gratiam confiteri. Porro si paucis diuinitus datum est uerae philosophiae contra miserias huius uitae unicum auxilium, satis et hinc apparet humanum genus ad luendas miseriarum poenas esse damnatum. Sicut autem hoc, ut fatentur, nullum diuinum maius est donum. sic a nullo deo dari credendum est nisi ab illo, quo et ipsi qui multos deos colunt nullum dicunt esse maiorem.

### Of the Miseries of This Life Which Attach Peculiarly to the Toil of Good Men, Irrespective of Those Which are Common to the Good and Bad.

[¶6] Chapter 23.—Of the Miseries of This Life Which Attach Peculiarly to the Toil of Good Men, Irrespective of Those Which are Common to the Good and Bad.

> Latin: Caput XXIII. De his, quae praeter illa mala, quae bonis malisque communia sunt, ad iustorum laborem specialiter pertinent.

[¶7] But, irrespective of the miseries which in this life are common to the good and bad, the righteous undergo labors peculiar to themselves, in so far as they make war upon their vices, and are involved in the temptations and perils of such a contest. For though sometimes more violent and at other times slacker, yet without intermission does the flesh lust against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh, so that we cannot do the things we would, and extirpate all lust, but can only refuse consent to it, as God gives us ability, and so keep it under, vigilantly keeping watch lest a semblance of truth deceive us, lest a subtle discourse blind us, lest error involve us in darkness, lest we should take good for evil or evil for good, lest fear should hinder us from doing what we ought, or desire precipitate us into doing what we ought not, lest the sun go down upon our wrath, lest hatred provoke us to render evil for evil, lest unseemly or immoderate grief consume us, lest an ungrateful disposition make us slow to recognize benefits received, lest calumnies fret our conscience, lest rash suspicion on our part deceive us regarding a friend, or false suspicion of us on the part of others give us too much uneasiness, lest sin reign in our mortal body to obey its desires, lest our members be used as the instruments of unrighteousness, lest the eye follow lust, lest thirst for revenge carry us away, lest sight or thought dwell too long on some evil thing which gives us pleasure, lest wicked or indecent language be willingly listened to, lest we do what is pleasant but unlawful, and lest in this warfare, filled so abundantly with toil and peril, we either hope to secure victory by our own strength, or attribute it when secured to our own strength, and not to His grace of whom the apostle says, “Thanks be unto God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ;” and in another place he says, “In all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us.” But yet we are to know this, that however valorously we resist our vices, and however successful we are in overcoming them, yet as long as we are in this body we have always reason to say to God, Forgive us our debts.” But in that kingdom where we shall dwell for ever, clothed in immortal bodies, we shall no longer have either conflicts or debts,—as indeed we should not have had at any time or in any condition, had our nature continued upright as it was created. Consequently even this our conflict, in which we are exposed to peril, and from which we hope to be delivered by a final victory, belongs to the ills of this life, which is proved by the witness of so many grave evils to be a life under condemnation.

> Latin: Praeter haec autem mala huius uitae bonis malisque communia habent in ea iusti etiam proprios quosdam labores suos, quibus aduersus uitia militant et in talium proeliorum tentationibus periculisque uersantur. Aliquando enim concitatius, aliquando remissius, non tamen desinit caro concupiscere aduersus spiritum et spiritus aduersus carnem, ut non ea quae uolumus faciamus, omnem malam concupiscentiam consumendo, sed eam nobis, quantum diuinitus adiuti possumus. non ei consentiendo subdamus, uigiliis continuis excubantes. ne opinio ueri similis fallat, ne decipiat sermo uersutus, ne se tenebrae alicuius erroris offundant, ne quod bonum est malum aut quod malum est bonum esse credatur, ne ab his quae agenda sunt metus reuocet, ne in ea quae agenda non sunt cupido praecipitet, ne super iracundiam sol occidat, ne inimicitiae prouocent ad retributionem mali pro malo, ne absorbeat inhonesta uel inmoderata tristitia, ne inpertiendorum beneficiorum ingerat mens ingrata torporem, ne maledicis rumoribus bona conscientia fatigetur, ne temeraria de alio suspicio nos nostra decipiat, ne aliena de nobis falsa nos frangat, ne regnet peccatum in nostro mortali corpore ad oboediendum desideriis eius, ne membra nostra exhibeantur iniquitatis arma peccato, ne oculus sequatur concupiscentiam, ne uindicandi cupiditas uincat, ne in eo quod male delectat uel uisio uel cogitatio remoretur, ne inprobum aut indecens uerbum libenter audiatur, ne fiat quod non licet etiamsi libet, ne in hoc bello laborum periculorumque plenissimo uel de uiribus nostris speretur facienda uictoria uel uiribus nostris facta tribuatur, sed eius gratiae, de quo ait apostolus: Gratias autem Deo, qui dat nobis uictoriam per Dominum nostrum legum Christum; qui et alio loco: In his, inquit, omnibus superuincimus per eum qui dilexit nos. Sciamus tamen, quantalibet uirtute proeliandi uitiis repugnemus uel etiam uitia superemus et subiugemus, quamdiu sumus in hoc corpore, nobis deesse non posse unde dicamus Deo: Dimitte nobis debita nostra. In illo autem regno, ubi semper cum corporibus inmortalibus erimus, nec proelia nobis erunt ulla nec debita; quae nusquam et numquam essent, si natura nostra, sicut recta creata est, permaneret. Ac per hoc etiam noster iste conflictus, in quo periclitamur et de quo nos uictoria nouissima cupimus liberari, ad uitae huius mala pertinet, quam tot tantorumque testimonio malorum probamus esse damnatam.

### Of the Blessings with Which the Creator Has Filled This Life, Obnoxious Though It Be to the Curse.

[¶9] Chapter 24.—Of the Blessings with Which the Creator Has Filled This Life, Obnoxious Though It Be to the Curse.

> Latin: Caput XXIV. De bonis, quibus etiam hanc uitam damnationi obnoxiam Creator inpleuit.

[¶10] But we must now contemplate the rich and countless blessings with which the goodness of God, who cares for all He has created, has filled this very misery of the human race, which reflects His retributive justice. That first blessing which He pronounced before the fall, when He said, “Increase, and multiply, and replenish the earth,” He did not inhibit after man had sinned, but the fecundity originally bestowed remained in the condemned stock; and the vice of sin, which has involved us in the necessity of dying, has yet not deprived us of that wonderful power of seed, or rather of that still more marvellous power by which seed is produced, and which seems to be as it were inwrought and inwoven in the human body. But in this river, as I may call it, or torrent of the human race, both elements are carried along together,—both the evil which is derived from him who begets, and the good which is bestowed by Him who creates us. In the original evil there are two things, sin and punishment; in the original good, there are two other things, propagation and conformation. But of the evils, of which the one, sin, arose from our audacity, and the other, punishment, from God’s judgment, we have already said as much as suits our present purpose. I mean now to speak of the blessings which God has conferred or still confers upon our nature, vitiated and condemned as it is. For in condemning it He did not withdraw all that He had given it, else it had been annihilated; neither did He, in penally subjecting it to the devil, remove it beyond His own power; for not even the devil himself is outside of God’s government, since the devil’s nature subsists only by the supreme Creator who gives being to all that in any form exists.

> Latin: Iam nunc considerandum est hanc ipsam miseriam -generis humani, in qua laudatur iustitia punientis, qualibus et quam multis inpleuerit bonis eiusdem bonitas cuncta quae creauit administrantis. Primum benedictionem illam, quam protulerat ante peccatum dicens: Crescite et multiplicamini et inplete terram, nec post peccatum uoluit inhibere mansitque in stirpe damnata donata fecunditas; nec illam uim mirabilem seminum, immo etiam mirabiliorem qua efficiuntur et semina, inditam corporibus humanis et quodam modo intextam peccati uitium potuit auferre, quo nobis inpacta est etiam necessitas mortis; sed utrumque simul currit isto quasi fluuio adque torrente generis humani, malum quod a parente trahitur, et bonum quod a creante tribuitur. In originali malo duo sunt, peccatum adque supplicium; in originali bono alia duo, propagatio et conformatio. Sed quantum ad praesentem pertinet intentionem nostram, de malis, quorum unum de nostra uenit audacia, id est peccatum, alterum de iudicio Dei, id est supplicium, iam satis diximus. Nunc de bonis Dei, quae ipsi quoque uitiatae damnataeque naturae contulit siue usque nunc confert, dicere institui. Neque enim damnando aut totum abstulit quod dederat, alioquin nec esset omnino; aut eam remouit a sua potestate, etiam cum diabolo poenaliter subdidit, cum nec ipsum diabolum a suo alienant imperio; quando quidem, ut ipsius quoque diaboli natura subsistat, ille facit qui summe est et facit esse quidquid aliquo modo est.

[¶11] Of these two blessings, then, which we have said flow from God’s goodness, as from a fountain, towards our nature, vitiated by sin and condemned to punishment, the one, propagation, was conferred by God’s benediction when He made those first works, from which He rested on the seventh day. But the other, conformation, is conferred in that work of His wherein “He worketh hitherto.” For were He to withdraw His efficacious power from things, they should neither be able to go on and complete the periods assigned to their measured movements, nor should they even continue in possession of that nature they were created in. God, then, so created man that He gave him what we may call fertility, whereby he might propagate other men, giving them a congenital capacity to propagate their kind, but not imposing on them any necessity to do so. This capacity God withdraws at pleasure from individuals, making them barren; but from the whole race He has not withdrawn the blessing of propagation once conferred. But though not withdrawn on account of sin, this power of propagation is not what it would have been had there been no sin. For since “man placed in honor fell, he has become like the beasts,” and generates as they do, though the little spark of reason, which was the image of God in him, has not been quite quenched. But if conformation were not added to propagation, there would be no reproduction of one’s kind. For even though there were no such thing as copulation, and God wished to fill the earth with human inhabitants, He might create all these as He created one without the help of human generation. And, indeed, even as it is, those who copulate can generate nothing save by the creative energy of God. As, therefore, in respect of that spiritual growth whereby a man is formed to piety and righteousness, the apostle says, “Neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase,” so also it must be said that it is not he that generates that is anything, but God that giveth the essential form; that it is not the mother who carries and nurses the fruit of her womb that is anything, but God that giveth the increase. For He alone, by that energy wherewith “He worketh hitherto,” causes the seed to develop, and to evolve from certain secret and invisible folds into the visible forms of beauty which we see. He alone, coupling and connecting in some wonderful fashion the spiritual and corporeal natures, the one to command, the other to obey, makes a living being. And this work of His is so great and wonderful, that not only man, who is a rational animal, and consequently more excellent than all other animals of the earth, but even the most diminutive insect, cannot be considered attentively without astonishment and without praising the Creator.

> Latin: Duorum igitur illorum, quae diximus bona etiam in naturam peccato uitiatam supplicioque damnatam de bonitatis eius quodam ueluti fonte manare, propagationem in primis mundi operibus benedictione largitus est, a quibus operibus die septimo requieuit; conformatio uero in illo eius est opere, quo usque nunc operatur. Efficacem quippe potentiam suam si rebus subtrahat, nec progredi poterunt et suis dimensis motibus peragere tempora nec prorsus in eo quod creatae sunt aliquatenus permanebunt. Sic ergo creauit hominem Deus, ut ei adderet fertilitatem quandam, qua homines alios propagaret, congenerans eis etiam ipsam propagandi possibilitatem, non necessitatem: quibus tamen uoluit hominibus abstulit eam Deus, et steriles fuerunt; non tamen generi humano abstulit semel datam primis duobus coniugibus benedictione generali. Haec ergo propagatio quamuis peccato ablata non fuerit, non tamen etiam ipsa talis est, qualis fuisset, si nemo peccasset. Ex quo enim homo in honore positus, postea quam deliquit, conparatus est pecoribus, similiter generat; non in eo tamen penitus exstincta est quaedam uelut scintilla rationis, in qua factus est ad imaginem Dei. Huic autem propagationi si conformatio non adhiberetur, nec ipsa in sui generis formas modosque procederet. Si enim non concubuissent homines et nihilo minus Deus uellet inplere terras hominibus: quo modo creauit unum sine commixtione maris et feminae, sic posset omnes; concumbentes uero nisi illo creante generantes esse non possunt. Sicut ergo ait apostolus de institutione spiritali, qua homo ad pietatem iustitiamque formatur: Neque qui plantat, est aliquid, neque qui rigat, sed qui incrementum dat Deus: ita etiam hic dici potest: (Nec qui concumbit nec qui seminat, est aliquid, sed qui format Deus; nec mater, quae conceptum portat et partum nutrit, est aliquid, sed qui incrementum dat Deus.’ Ipsa namque operatione, qua usque nunc operatur, facit ut numeros suos explicent semina et a quibusdam latentibus adque inuisibilibus inuolucris in formas uisibiles huius quod adspicimus decoris euoluant; ipse incorpoream corporeamque naturam, illam praepositam, istam subiectam. miris modis copulans et conectens animantem facit. Quod opus eius tam magnum et mirabile est, ut non solum in homine, quod est animal rationale et ex hoc cunctis terrenis animantibus excellentius adque praestantius, sed in qualibet minutissima muscula bene consideranti stuporem mentis ingerat laudemque pariat Creatoris.

[¶12] It is He, then, who has given to the human soul a mind, in which reason and understanding lie as it were asleep during infancy, and as if they were not, destined, however, to be awakened and exercised as years increase, so as to become capable of knowledge and of receiving instruction, fit to understand what is true and to love what is good. It is by this capacity the soul drinks in wisdom, and becomes endowed with those virtues by which, in prudence, fortitude, temperance, and righteousness, it makes war upon error and the other inborn vices, and conquers them by fixing its desires upon no other object than the supreme and unchangeable Good. And even though this be not uniformly the result, yet who can competently utter or even conceive the grandeur of this work of the Almighty, and the unspeakable boon He has conferred upon our rational nature, by giving us even the capacity of such attainment? For over and above those arts which are called virtues, and which teach us how we may spend our life well, and attain to endless happiness,—arts which are given to the children of the promise and the kingdom by the sole grace of God which is in Christ,—has not the genius of man invented and applied countless astonishing arts, partly the result of necessity, partly the result of exuberant invention, so that this vigor of mind, which is so active in the discovery not merely of superfluous but even of dangerous and destructive things, betokens an inexhaustible wealth in the nature which can invent, learn, or employ such arts? What wonderful—one might say stupefying—advances has human industry made in the arts of weaving and building, of agriculture and navigation! With what endless variety are designs in pottery, painting, and sculpture produced, and with what skill executed! What wonderful spectacles are exhibited in the theatres, which those who have not seen them cannot credit! How skillful the contrivances for catching, killing, or taming wild beasts! And for the injury of men, also, how many kinds of poisons, weapons, engines of destruction, have been invented, while for the preservation or restoration of health the appliances and remedies are infinite! To provoke appetite and please the palate, what a variety of seasonings have been concocted! To express and gain entrance for thoughts, what a multitude and variety of signs there are, among which speaking and writing hold the first place! what ornaments has eloquence at command to delight the mind! what wealth of song is there to captivate the ear! how many musical instruments and strains of harmony have been devised! What skill has been attained in measures and numbers! with what sagacity have the movements and connections of the stars been discovered! Who could tell the thought that has been spent upon nature, even though, despairing of recounting it in detail, he endeavored only to give a general view of it? In fine, even the defence of errors and misapprehensions, which has illustrated the genius of heretics and philosophers, cannot be sufficiently declared. For at present it is the nature of the human mind which adorns this mortal life which we are extolling, and not the faith and the way of truth which lead to immortality. And since this great nature has certainly been created by the true and supreme God, who administers all things He has made with absolute power and justice, it could never have fallen into these miseries, nor have gone out of them to miseries eternal, —saving only those who are redeemed,—had not an exceeding great sin been found in the first man from whom the rest have sprung.

> Latin: Ipse itaque animae humanae mentem dedit, ubi ratio et intellegentia in infante sopita est quodam modo; quasi nulla sit, excitanda scilicet adque exserenda aetatis accessu, qua sit scientiae capax adque doctrinae et habilis perceptioni ueritatis et amoris boni; qua capacitate hauriat sapientiam uirtutibusque sit praedita, quibus prudenter, fortiter, temperanter et iuste aduersus errores et cetera ingenerata uitia dimicet eaque nullius rei desiderio nisi boni illius summi adque inmutabilis uincat. Quod etsi non faciat, ipsa talium bonorum capacitas in natura rationali diuinitus instituta quantum sit boni, quam mirabile opus Omnipotentis, quis conpetenter effatur aut cogitat? Praeter enim artes bene uiuendi et ad inmortalem perueniendi felicitatem, quae uirtutes uocantur et sola Dei gratia, quae in Christo est, filiis promissionis regnique donantur, nonne humano ingenio tot tantaeque artes sunt inuentae et exercitae, partim necessariae partim uoluptariae, ut tam excellens uis mentis adque rationis in his etiam rebus, quas superfluas, immo et periculosas perniciosasque adpetit. quantum bonum habeat in natura, unde ista potuit uel inuenire uel discere uel exercere. testetur? Vestimentorum et aedificiorum ad opera quam mirabilia, quam stupenda industria humana peruenerit; quo in agricultura, quo in nauigatione profecerit; quae in fabricatione quorumque uasorum uel etiam statuarum et picturarum uarietate excogitauerit et inpleuerit; quae in theatris mirabilia spectantibus, audientibus incredibilia facienda et exhibenda molita sit; in capiendis occidendis domandis inrationalibus animantibus quae et quanta reppererit; aduersus ipsos homines tot genera uenenorum, tot armorum. tot machinamentorum, et pro salute mortali tuenda adque reparanda quot medicamenta adque adiumenta conprehenderit: pro uoluptate faucium quot condimenta et gulae inritamenta reppererit; ad indicandas et suadendas cogitationes quam multitudinem uarietatemque signorum, ubi praecipuum locum uerba et litterae tenent; ad delectandos animos quos elocutionis ornatus, quam diuersorum carminum copiam; ad mulcendas aures quot organa musica, quos cantilenae modos excogitauerit; quantam peritiam dimensionum adque numerorum, meatusque et ordines siderum quanta sagacitate conprehenderit; quam multa rerum mundanarum cognitione se inpleuerit, quis possit eloqui, maxime si uelimus non aceruatim cuncta congerere, sed in singulis inmorari? In ipsis postremo erroribus et falsitatibus defendendis quam magna claruerint ingenia philosophorum adque haereticorum, quis aestimare sufficiat? Loquimur enim nunc de natura mentis humanae, qua ista uita mortalis ornatur, non de fide adque itinere ueritatis, qua illa inmortalis adquiritur. Huius tantae naturae conditor cum sit utique Deus uerus et summus, ipso cuncta quae fecit administrante et summam potestatem summamque habente iustitiam numquam profecto in has miserias decidisset adque ex his praeter eos solos qui liberabuntur in aeternas esset itura, nisi nimis grande peccatum in homine primo, de quo ceteri exorti sunt, praecessisset.

[¶13] Moreover, even in the body, though it dies like that of the beasts, and is in many ways weaker than theirs, what goodness of God, what providence of the great Creator, is apparent! The organs of sense and the rest of the members, are not they so placed, the appearance, and form, and stature of the body as a whole, is it not so fashioned, as to indicate that it was made for the service of a reasonable soul? Man has not been created stooping towards the earth, like the irrational animals; but his bodily form, erect and looking heavenwards, admonishes him to mind the things that are above. Then the marvellous nimbleness which has been given to the tongue and the hands, fitting them to speak, and write, and execute so many duties, and practise so many arts, does it not prove the excellence of the soul for which such an assistant was provided? And even apart from its adaptation to the work required of it, there is such a symmetry in its various parts, and so beautiful a proportion maintained, that one is at a loss to decide whether, in creating the body, greater regard was paid to utility or to beauty. Assuredly no part of the body has been created for the sake of utility which does not also contribute something to its beauty. And this would be all the more apparent, if we knew more precisely how all its parts are connected and adapted to one another, and were not limited in our observations to what appears on the surface; for as to what is covered up and hidden from our view, the intricate web of veins and nerves, the vital parts of all that lies under the skin, no one can discover it. For although, with a cruel zeal for science, some medical men, who are called anatomists, have dissected the bodies of the dead, and sometimes even of sick persons who died under their knives, and have inhumanly pried into the secrets of the human body to learn the nature of the disease and its exact seat, and how it might be cured, yet those relations of which I speak, and which form the concord, or, as the Greeks call it, “harmony,” of the whole body outside and in, as of some instrument, no one has been able to discover, because no one has been audacious enough to seek for them. But if these could be known, then even the inward parts, which seem to have no beauty, would so delight us with their exquisite fitness, as to afford a profounder satisfaction to the mind—and the eyes are but its ministers—than the obvious beauty which gratifies the eye. There are some things, too, which have such a place in the body, that they obviously serve no useful purpose, but are solely for beauty, as e.g. the teats on a man’s breast, or the beard on his face; for that this is for ornament, and not for protection, is proved by the bare faces of women, who ought rather, as the weaker sex, to enjoy such a defence. If, therefore, of all those members which are exposed to our view, there is certainly not one in which beauty is sacrificed to utility, while there are some which serve no purpose but only beauty, I think it can readily be concluded that in the creation of the human body comeliness was more regarded than necessity. In truth, necessity is a transitory thing; and the time is coming when we shall enjoy one another’s beauty without any lust,—a condition which will specially redound to the praise of the Creator, who, as it is said in the psalm, has “put on praise and comeliness.”

> Latin: Iam uero in ipso corpore, quamuis nobis sit cum beluis mortalitate commune multisque earum reperiatur infirmius, quanta Dei bonitas, quanta prouidentia tanti Creatoris apparet! Nonne ita sunt in eo loca sensuum et cetera membra disposita speciesque ipsa ac figura et statura totius corporis ita modificata, ut ad ministerium animae rationalis se indicet factum? Non enim ut animalia rationis expertia prona esse uidemus in terram, ita creatus est homo; sed erecta in caelum corporis forma admonet eum quae sursum sunt sapere. Porro mira mobilitas, quae linguae ac manibus adtributa est, ad loquendum et scribendum apta adque conueniens et ad opera artium plurimarum officiorumque conplenda, nonne satis ostendit, quali animae ut seruiret tale sit corpus adiunctum? quamquam et detractis necessitatibus operandi ita omnium. partium congruentia numerosa sit et pulchra sibi parilitate respondeat, ut nescias utrum in eo condendo maior sit utilitatis habita ratio quam decoris. Certe enim nihil creatum uidemus in corpore utilitatis causa, quod non habeat etiam decoris locum. Plus autem nobis id appareret, si numeros mensurarum, quibus inter se cuncta conexa sunt et coaptata, nossemus; quos forsitan data opera in his, quae foris eminent, humaua posset uestigare sollertia; quae uero tecta sunt adque a nostris remota conspectibus, sicuti est tanta perplexitas uenarum adque neruorum et uiscerum, secreta uitalium, inuenire nullus potest. Quia etsi medicorum diligentia nonnulla crudelis, quos anatomicos appellant, laniauit corpora mortuorum siue etiam inter manus secantis perscrutantisque morientium adque in carnibus humanis satis inhumane abdita cuncta rimata est, ut quid et quo modo quibus locis curandum esset addisceret: numeros tamen de quibus loquor, quibus coaptatio, quae i […] Graece dicitur, tamquam cuiusdam organi, extrinsecus adque intrinsecus totius corporis constat, quid dicam, nemo ualuit inuenire, quos nemo ausus est quaerere? qui si noti esse potuissent, in interioribus quoque uisceribus, quae nullum ostentant decus, ita delectaret pulchritudo rationis, ut omni formae apparenti, quae oculis placet, ipsius mentis, quae oculis utitur, praefen-etur arbitrio. Sunt uero quaedam ita posita in corpore, ut tantummodo decorem habeant, non et usum; sicut habet pectus uirile mamillas, sicut facies barbam, quam non esse munimento, sed uirili ornamento indicant purae facies feminarum, quas utique infirmiores muniri tutius conueniret. Si ergo nullum membrum est, in his quidem conspicuis (unde ambigit nemo), quod ita sit alicui operi adcommodatum, ut non etiam sit decorum; sunt autem nonnulla, quorum solum decus et nullus est usus: puto facile intellegi in condicione corporis dignitatem necessitati fuisse praelatam. Transitura est quippe necessitas tempusque uenturum, quando sola inuicem pulchritudine sine ulla libidine perfruamur: quod maxime ad laudem referendum est Conditoris, cui dicitur ir. psalmo: Confessionemetdecorem induisti.

[¶14] How can I tell of the rest of creation, with all its beauty and utility, which the divine goodness has given to man to please his eye and serve his purposes, condemned though he is, and hurled into these labors and miseries? Shall I speak of the manifold and various loveliness of sky, and earth, and sea; of the plentiful supply and wonderful qualities of the light; of sun, moon, and stars; of the shade of trees; of the colors and perfume of flowers; of the multitude of birds, all differing in plumage and in song; of the variety of animals, of which the smallest in size are often the most wonderful,—the works of ants and bees astonishing us more than the huge bodies of whales? Shall I speak of the sea, which itself is so grand a spectacle, when it arrays itself as it were in vestures of various colors, now running through every shade of green, and again becoming purple or blue? Is it not delightful to look at it in storm, and experience the soothing complacency which it inspires, by suggesting that we ourselves are not tossed and shipwrecked? What shall I say of the numberless kinds of food to alleviate hunger, and the variety of seasonings to stimulate appetite which are scattered everywhere by nature, and for which we are not indebted to the art of cookery? How many natural appliances are there for preserving and restoring health! How grateful is the alternation of day and night! how pleasant the breezes that cool the air! how abundant the supply of clothing furnished us by trees and animals! Who can enumerate all the blessings we enjoy? If I were to attempt to detail and unfold only these few which I have indicated in the mass, such an enumeration would fill a volume. And all these are but the solace of the wretched and condemned, not the rewards of the blessed. What then shall these rewards be, if such be the blessings of a condemned state? What will He give to those whom He has predestined to life, who has given such things even to those whom He has predestined to death? What blessings will He in the blessed life shower upon those for whom, even in this state of misery, He has been willing that His only-begotten Son should endure such sufferings even to death? Thus the apostle reasons concerning those who are predestined to that kingdom: “He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also give us all things?” When this promise is fulfilled, what shall we be? What blessings shall we receive in that kingdom, since already we have received as the pledge of them Christ’s dying? In what condition shall the spirit of man be, when it has no longer any vice at all; when it neither yields to any, nor is in bondage to any, nor has to make war against any, but is perfected, and enjoys undisturbed peace with itself? Shall it not then know all things with certainty, and without any labor or error, when unhindered and joyfully it drinks the wisdom of God at the fountain-head? What shall the body be, when it is in every respect subject to the spirit, from which it shall draw a life so sufficient, as to stand in need of no other nutriment? For it shall no longer be animal, but spiritual, having indeed the substance of flesh, but without any fleshly corruption.

> Latin: Iam cetera pulchritudo et utilitas creaturae, quae homini, licet in istos labores miseriasque proiecto adque damnato, spectanda adque sumenda diuina largitate concessa est, quo sermone terminari potest? in caeli et terrae et maris multimoda et uaria pulchritudine, in ipsius lucis tanta copia tamque mirabili specie, in sole ac luna et sideribus, in opacitatibus nemorum, in coloribus et odoribus florum, in diuersitate ac multitudine uolucrum garrularum adque pictarum. in multiformi specie tot tantarumque animantium, quarum illae plus habent admirationis, quae molis minimum (plus enim formicularum et apicularum opera stupemus quam inmensa corpora balaenarum), in ipsius quoque maris tam grandi spectaculo, cum sese diuersis coloribus uelut uestibus induit et aliquando uiride adque hoc multis modis, aliquando purpureum, aliquando caeruleum est. Quam porro delectabiliter spectatur etiam quandocumque turbatur, et fit inde maior suauitas, quia sic demulcet intuentem, ut non iactet et quatiat nauigantem! Quid ciborum usquequaque copia contra famem? quid saporum diuersitas contra fastidium, naturae diffusa diuitiis, non coquorum arte ac labore quaesita? quid in tam multis rebus tuendae aut recuperandae salutis auxilia! Quam grata uicissitudo diei alternantis et noctis! Aurarum quam blanda temperies! In fruticibus et pecoribus indumentorum conficiendorum quanta materies! Omnia commemorare quis possit? Haec autem sola, quae a me uelut in quendam sunt aggerem coartata, si uellem uelut conligata inuolucra soluere adque discutere, quanta mihi mora esset in singulis. quibus plurima continentur! Et haec omnia miserorum sunt damnatorumque solacia, non praemia beatorum. Quae igitur illa sunt, si tot et talia ac tanta sunt ista? Quid dabit eis quos praedestinauit ad uitam, qui haec dedit etiam eis quos praedestinauit ad mortem? Quae bona in illa beata uita faciet eos sumere, pro quibus in hac misera unigenitum suum filium uoluit usque ad mortem mala tanta perferre? Unde apostolus de ipsis in illud regnum praedestinatis loquens: Qui proprio, inquit, filio non pepercit, sed pro’nobis omnibus tradidit eum, quo modo non et cum illo omnia nobis donabit? Cum haec promissio conplebitur, quid erimus! quales erimus! Quae bona in illo regno accepturi sumus, quando quidem Christo moriente pro nobis tale iam pignus accepimus! Qualis erit spiritus hominis nullum omnino habens uitium, nec sub quo iaceat, nec cui cedat, nec contra quod saltem laudabiliter dimicet, pacatissima uirtute perfectus! Rerum ibi omnium quanta, quam speciosa, quam certa scientia, sine errore aliquo uel labore, ubi Dei sapientia de ipso suo fonte potabitur, cum summa felicitate, sine ulla difficultate!. Quale erit corpus, quod omni modo spiritui subditum et eo sufficienter uiuificatum nullis alimoniis indigebit! Non enim animale, sed spiritale erit, habens quidem carnis. sed sine ulla carnali corruptione substantiam.

### Of the Obstinacy of Those Individuals Who Impugn the Resurrection of the Body, Though, as Was Predicted, the Whole World Believes It.

[¶16] Chapter 25.—Of the Obstinacy of Those Individuals Who Impugn the Resurrection of the Body, Though, as Was Predicted, the Whole World Believes It.

> Latin: Caput XXV. De peruicacia quorundam, qui resurrectionem carnis, quam sicut praedictum est, totus mundus credit, inpugnant.

[¶17] The foremost of the philosophers agree with us about the spiritual felicity enjoyed by the blessed in the life to come; it is only the resurrection of the flesh they call in question, and with all their might deny. But the mass of men, learned and unlearned, the world’s wise men and its fools, have believed, and have left in meagre isolation the unbelievers, and have turned to Christ, who in His own resurrection demonstrated the reality of that which seems to our adversaries absurd. For the world has believed this which God predicted, as it was also predicted that the world would believe,—a prediction not due to the sorceries of Peter, since it was uttered so long before. He who has predicted these things, as I have already said, and am not ashamed to repeat, is the God before whom all other divinities tremble, as Porphyry himself owns, and seeks to prove, by testimonies from the oracles of these gods, and goes so far as to call Him God the Father and King. Far be it from us to interpret these predictions as they do who have not believed, along with the whole world, in that which it was predicted the world would believe in. For why should we not rather understand them as the world does, whose belief was predicted, and leave that handful of unbelievers to their idle talk and obstinate and solitary infidelity? For if they maintain that they interpret them differently only to avoid charging Scripture with folly, and so doing an injury to that God to whom they bear so notable a testimony, is it not a much greater injury they do Him when they say that His predictions must be understood otherwise than the world believed them, though He Himself praised, promised, accomplished this belief on the world’s part? And why cannot He cause the body to rise again, and live for ever? or is it not to be believed that He will do this, because it is an undesirable thing, and unworthy of God? Of His omnipotence, which effects so many great miracles, we have already said enough. If they wish to know what the Almighty cannot do, I shall tell them He cannot lie. Let us therefore believe what He can do, by refusing to believe what He cannot do. Refusing to believe that He can lie, let them believe that He will do what He has promised to do; and let them believe it as the world has believed it, whose faith He predicted, whose faith He praised, whose faith He promised, whose faith He now points to. But how do they prove that the resurrection is an undesirable thing? There shall then be no corruption, which is the only evil thing about the body. I have already said enough about the order of the elements, and the other fanciful objections men raise; and in the thirteenth book I have, in my own judgment, sufficiently illustrated the facility of movement which the incorruptible body shall enjoy, judging from the ease and vigor we experience even now, when the body is in good health. Those who have either not read the former books, or wish to refresh their memory, may read them for themselves.

> Latin: Verum de animi bonis, quibus post hanc uitam beatissimus perfruetur, non a nobis dissentiunt philosophi nobiles: de carnis resurrectione contendunt, hanc quantum possunt negant. Sed credentes multi negantes paucissimos reliquerunt et ad Christum, qui hoc quod istis uidetur absurdum in sua resurrectione monstrauit, fideli corde conuersi sunt, docti et indocti, sapientes mundi et insipientes. Hoc enim credidit mundus. quod praedixit Deus, qui etiam hoc praedixit, quod hanc rem mundus fuerat crediturus; neque enim Petri maleficiis eam cum laude credentium tanto ante praenuntiare conpulsus est. Ille est enim Deus, quem (sicut iam dixi aliquotiens, nec commonere me piget) confitente Porphyrio adque id oraculis deorum suorum probare cupiente ipsa numina perhorrescunt; quem sic laudauit, ut eum et Deum patrem et regem uocaret. Absit enim, ut sic intellegenda sint quae praedixit. quo modo uolunt hi, qui hoc cum mundo non crediderunt. quod mundum crediturum esse praedixit. Quur enim non potius ita, sicut crediturus tanto ante praedictus est mundus, non sicut paucissimi garriunt, qui hoc cum mundo, quod crediturus praedictus est, credere noluerunt? Si enim propterea dicunt alio modo esse credenda, ne, si dixerint uana esse conscripta, iniuriam faciant illi Deo, cui tam magnum perhibent testimonium: tantam prorsus ei uel etiam grauiorem faciunt iniuriam, si aliter dicunt esse intellegenda, non sicut mundus ea credidit, quem crediturum ipse laudauit, ipse promisit, ipse conpleuit. Utrum enim non potest facere ut resurgat caro et uiuat in aeternum, an propterea credendum non est id eum esse facturum, quia malum est adque indignum Deo? Sed de omnipotentia eius, qua tot et tanta facit incredibilia, iam multa diximus. Si uolunt inuenire quod omnipotens non potest, habent prorsus; ego dicam, mentiri non potest. Credamus ergo quod potest non credendo quod non potest. Non itaque credentes quod mentiri possit credant esse facturum quod se facturum esse promisit, et sic credant sicut id credidit mundus, quem crediturum esse praedixit, quem crediturum esse laudauit, quem crediturum esse promisit, quem credidisse iam ostendit. Hoc autem malum esse unde demonstrant ? Non erit illic ulla corruptio, quod est corporis malum. De ordine elementorum iam disputauimus; de aliis hominum coniecturis satis diximus; quanta sit futura in corpore incorruptibili facilitas motus, de praesentis bonae ualetudinis temperamento, quae utique nullo modo illi conparanda est inmortalitati, in libro tertio decimo satis, ut opinor, ostendimus. Legant superiora huius operis, qui uel non legerunt uel uolunt recolere quod legerunt.

### That the Opinion of Porphyry, that the Soul, in Order to Be Blessed, Must Be Separated from Every Kind of Body, is Demolished by Plato, Who Says that the Supreme God Promised the Gods that They Should Never Be Ousted from Their Bodies.

[¶19] Chapter 26.—That the Opinion of Porphyry, that the Soul, in Order to Be Blessed, Must Be Separated from Every Kind of Body, is Demolished by Plato, Who Says that the Supreme God Promised the Gods that They Should Never Be Ousted from Their Bodies.

> Latin: Caput XXVI. Quo modo Porphyrii definitio, qua beatis animis putat corpus omne fugiendum, ipsius Platonis sententia destruatur, qui dicit summum Deum dis promisisse, ut numquam corporibus exuerentur.

[¶20] But, say they, Porphyry tells us that the soul, in order to be blessed, must escape connection with every kind of body. It does not avail, therefore, to say that the future body shall be incorruptible, if the soul cannot be blessed till delivered from every kind of body. But in the book above mentioned I have already sufficiently discussed this. This one thing only will I repeat,—let Plato, their master, correct his writings, and say that their gods, in order to be blessed, must quit their bodies, or, in other words, die; for he said that they were shut up in celestial bodies, and that, nevertheless, the God who made them promised them immortality,—that is to say, an eternal tenure of these same bodies, such as was not provided for them naturally, but only by the further intervention of His will, that thus they might be assured of felicity. In this he obviously overturns their assertion that the resurrection of the body cannot be believed because it is impossible; for, according to him, when the uncreated God promised immortality to the created gods, He expressly said that He would do what was impossible. For Plato tells us that He said, “As ye have had a beginning, so you cannot be immortal and incorruptible; yet ye shall not decay, nor shall any fate destroy you or prove stronger than my will, which more effectually binds you to immortality than the bond of your nature keeps you from it.” If they who hear these words have, we do not say understanding, but ears, they cannot doubt that Plato believed that God promised to the gods He had made that He would effect an impossibility. For He who says, “Ye cannot be immortal, but by my will ye shall be immortal,” what else does He say than this, “I shall make you what ye cannot be?” The body, therefore, shall be raised incorruptible, immortal, spiritual, by Him who, according to Plato, has promised to do that which is impossible. Why then do they still exclaim that this which God has promised, which the world has believed on God’s promise as was predicted, is an impossibility? For what we say is, that the God who, even according to Plato, does impossible things, will do this. It is not, then, necessary to the blessedness of the soul that it be detached from a body of any kind whatever, but that it receive an incorruptible body. And in what incorruptible body will they more suitably rejoice than in that in which they groaned when it was corruptible? For thus they shall not feel that dire craving which Virgil, in imitation of Plato, has ascribed to them when he says that they wish to return again to their bodies. They shall not, I say, feel this desire to return to their bodies, since they shall have those bodies to which a return was desired, and shall, indeed, be in such thorough possession of them, that they shall never lose them even for the briefest moment, nor ever lay them down in death.

> Latin: Sed Porphyrius ait, inquiunt, ut beata sit anima, corpus esse omne fugiendum. Nihil ergo prodest, quia incorruptibile diximus futurum corpus, si anima beata non erit, nisi omne corpus effugerit. Sed iam et hinc in libro memorato quantum oportuit disputaui; uerum hic unum inde tantum commemorabo. Emendet libros suos istorum omnium magister Plato et dicat eorum deos, ut beati sint, sua corpora fugituros, id est esse morituros, quos in caelestibus corporibus dixit inclusos; quibus tamen Deus, a quo facti sunt, quo possent esse securi, inmortalitatem. id est in eisdem corporibus aeternam permansionem, non eorum natura id habente, sed suo consilio praeualente, promisit. Ubi etiam illud euertit quod dicunt. quoniam est inpossibilis, ideo resurrectionem carnis non esse credendam. Apertissime quippe iuxta eundem philosophum. ubi dis a se factis promisit Deus non factus inmortalitatem, quod inpossibile est se dixit esse facturum. Sic enim eum locutum narrat Plato: ‘Quoniam estis orti, inquit, inmortales esse et indissolubiles non potestis; non tamen dissoluemini neque uos ulla mortis fata periment nec erunt ualentiora quam consilium meum, quod maius est uinculum ad perpetuitatem uestram quam illa (quibus estis conligati.’ Si non solum absurdi, sed surdi non sunt qui haec audiunt non utique dubitant dis factis ab illo Deo qui eos fecit secundum Platonem quod est inpossibile fuisse promissum. Qui enim dicit: ‘Vos quidem inmortales esse non potestis, sed mea uoluntate inmortales eritis,’ quid aliud dicit quam ‘id quod fieri non potest me faciente tamen eritis’? Ille igitur carnem incorruptibilem, inmortalem, spiritalem resuscitabit, qui iuxta Platonem id quod inpossibile est se facturum esse promisit. Quid adhuc, quod promisit Deus, quod Deo promittenti credidit mundus, qui etiam ipse promissus est crediturus, esse inpossibile clamant, quando quidem nos Deum, qui etiam secundum Platonem facit inposnibilia, id facturum esse clamamus? Non ergo, ut beatae pint animae, corpus est omne fugiendum, sed corpus incorruptibile recipiendum. Et in quo conuenientius incorruptibili corpore laetabuntur, quam in quo corruptibili gemuerunt? Sic enim non in eis erit illa dira cupiditas, quam posuit ex Platone Vergilius, ubi ait: sic, inquam, cupiditatem reuertendi ad corpora non habebunt, cum corpora, in quae reuerti cupiunt, secum habebunt et sic habebunt, ut numquam non habeant, numquam ea prorsus uel ad exiguum quamlibet tempus ulla morte deponant.

### Of the Apparently Conflicting Opinions of Plato and Porphyry, Which Would Have Conducted Them Both to the Truth If They Could Have Yielded to One Another.

[¶22] Chapter 27.—Of the Apparently Conflicting Opinions of Plato and Porphyry, Which Would Have Conducted Them Both to the Truth If They Could Have Yielded to One Another.

> Latin: Caput XXVII. De contrariis definitionibus Platonis adque Porphyrii, in quibus si uterque alteri cederet, a ueritate neuter deuiaret.

[¶23] Statements were made by Plato and Porphyry singly, which if they could have seen their way to hold in common, they might possibly have became Christians. Plato said that souls could not exist eternally without bodies; for it was on this account, he said, that the souls even of wise men must some time or other return to their bodies. Porphyry, again, said that the purified soul, when it has returned to the Father, shall never return to the ills of this world. Consequently, if Plato had communicated to Porphyry that which he saw to be true, that souls, though perfectly purified, and belonging to the wise and righteous, must return to human bodies; and if Porphyry, again, had imparted to Plato the truth which he saw, that holy soul, shall never return to the miseries of a corruptible body, so that they should not have each held only his own opinion, but should both have held both truths, I think they would have seen that it follows that the souls return to their bodies, and also that these bodies shall be such as to afford them a blessed and immortal life. For, according to Plato, even holy souls shall return to the body; according to Porphyry, holy souls shall not return to the ills of this world. Let Porphyry then say with Plato, they shall return to the body; let Plato say with Porphyry, they shall not return to their old misery: and they will agree that they return to bodies in which they shall suffer no more. And this is nothing else than what God has promised,—that He will give eternal felicity to souls joined to their own bodies. For this, I presume, both of them would readily concede, that if the souls of the saints are to be reunited to bodies, it shall be to their own bodies, in which they have endured the miseries of this life, and in which, to escape these miseries, they served God with piety and fidelity.

> Latin: Singula quaedam dixerunt Plato adque Porphyrius, quae si inter se communicare potuissent, facti essent fortasse Christiani. Plato dixit sine corporibus animas in aeternum esse non posse. Ideo enim dixit etiam sapientum animas post quamlibet longum tempus, tamen ad corpora redituras. Porphyrius autem dixit animam purgatissimam, cum redierit ad Patrem, ad haec mala mundi numquam esse redituram. Ac per hoc, quod uerum uidit Plato, si dedisset Porphyrio. etiam iustorum adque sapientum purgatissimas animas ad humana corpora redituras; rursus quod uerum uidit Porphyrius, si dedisset Plato. numquam redituras ad miserias corruptibilis corporis animas sanctas; ut non singuli haec singula, sed ambo et singuli utrumque dicerent: puto quod uiderent esse iam consequens, ut et redirent animae ad corpora et talia reciperent corpora, in quibus beate adque inmortaliter uiuerent. Quoniam secundum Platonem etiam sanctae animae ad humana corpora redibunt; secundum Porphyrium ad mala mundi huius sanctae animae non redibunt: dicat itaque cum Platone Porphyrius: ‘Redibunt ad corpora’; dicat Plato cum Porphyrio: ‘Non redibunt ad mala’: et ad ea corpora redire consentient, in quibus nulla patiantur mala. Haec itaque non erunt nisi illa quae promittit Deus, beatas animas in aeternum cum sua aeterna carne facturus. Hoc enim, quantum existimo, iam facile nobis concederent ambo, ut, qui faterentur ad inmortalia corpora redituras animas esse sanctorum. ad sua illas redire permitterent, in quibus mala huius saeculi pertulerunt, in quibus Deum, ut his malis carerent, pie fideliterque coluerunt..

## 116. What Plato or Labeo, or Even Varro, Might Have Contributed to the True Faith of the Resurrection, If They Had Adopted One Another’s Opinions into One Scheme.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/116/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/116/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 28.—What Plato or Labeo, or Even Varro, Might Have Contributed to the True Faith of the Resurrection, If They Had Adopted One Another’s Opinions into One Scheme.

> Latin: Caput XXVIII. Quid ad ueram resurrectionis fidem uel Platouel Labeo uel etiam Varro conferre sibi potuerint, si opiniones eorum in unam sententiam conuenissent.

[¶1] Some Christians, who have a liking for Plato on account of his magnificent style and the truths which he now and then uttered, say that he even held an opinion similar to our own regarding the resurrection of the dead. Cicero, however, alluding to this in his Republic, asserts that Plato meant it rather as a playful fancy than as a reality; for he introduces a man who had come to life again, and gave a narrative of his experience in corroboration of the doctrines of Plato. Labeo, too, says that two men died on one day, and met at a cross-road, and that, being afterwards ordered to return to their bodies, they agreed to be friends for life, and were so till they died again. But the resurrection which these writers instance resembles that of those persons whom we have ourselves known to rise again, and who came back indeed to this life, but not so as never to die again. Marcus Varro, however, in his work On the Origin of the Roman People, records something more remarkable; I think his own words should be given. “Certain astrologers,” he says, “have written that men are destined to a new birth, which the Greeks call palingenesy. This will take place after four hundred and forty years have elapsed; and then the same soul and the same body, which were formerly united in the person, shall again be reunited.” This Varro, indeed, or those nameless astrologers,—for he does not give us the names of the men whose statement he cites,—have affirmed what is indeed not altogether true; for once the souls have returned to the bodies they wore, they shall never afterwards leave them. Yet what they say upsets and demolishes much of that idle talk of our adversaries about the impossibility of the resurrection. For those who have been or are of this opinion, have not thought it possible that bodies which have dissolved into air, or dust, or ashes, or water, or into the bodies of the beasts or even of the men that fed on them, should be restored again to that which they formerly were. And therefore, if Plato and Porphyry, or rather, if their disciples now living, agree with us that holy souls shall return to the body, as Plato says, and that, nevertheless, they shall not return to misery, as Porphyry maintains, —if they accept the consequence of these two propositions which is taught by the Christian faith, that they shall receive bodies in which they may live eternally without suffering any misery,—let them also adopt from Varro the opinion that they shall return to the same bodies as they were formerly in, and thus the whole question of the eternal resurrection of the body shall be resolved out of their own mouths.

> Latin: Nonnulli nostri propter quoddam praeclarissimum loquendi genus et propter nonnulla, quae ueraciter sensit, amantes Platonem dicunt eum aliquid simile nobis etiam de mortuorum resurrectione sensisse. Quod quidem sic tangit in libris de re publica Tullius, ut eum lusisse potius, quam quod id uerum esset, adfirmet dicere uoluisse. Inducit enim hominem reuixisse et narrasse quaedam, quae Platonicis disputationibus congruebant. Labeo etiam duos dicit uno die fuisse defunctos et occurrisse inuicem in quodam compito, deinde ad corpora sua iussos fuisse remeare et constituisse inter se amicos se esse uicturos, adque ita esse factum, donec postea morerentur. Sed isti auctores talem resurrectionem corporis factam fuisse narrarunt, quales fuerunt eorum, quos resurrexisse nouimus et huic quidem redditos uitae, sed non eo modo ut non morerentur ulterius. Mirabilius autem quiddam Marcus Vano ponit in libris, quos conscripsit de gente populi Romani, cuius putaui uerba ipsa ponenda. ‘Genethliaci quidam scripserunt, inquit, esse in renascendis hominibus quam appellant rcaXrnevsatav Graeci; hac scripserunt confici in annis numero quadringentis quadraginta, ut idem corpus et eadem anima, quae fuerint coniuncta in homine aliquando, eadem rursus redeant in coniunctionem.’ Iste Varro quidem siue illi genethliaci nescio qui (non enim nomina eorum prodidit, quorum commemorauit sententiam) aliquid dixerunt, quod licet falsum sit (cum enim semel ad eadem corpora quae gesserunt animae redierint, numquam ea sunt postea relicturae), tamen multa illius inpossibilitatis, qua contra nos isti garriunt. argumenta conuellit et destruit. Qui enim hoc sentiunt siue senserunt, non eis uisum est fieri non posse, ut dilapsa cadauera in auras in puluerem, in cinerem in umores, in corpora uescentium bestiarum uel ipsorum quoque hominum ad id rursus redeant, quod fuerunt. Quapropter Plato et Porphyrius, uel potius quicumque illos diligunt et adhuc uiuunt, si nobis consentiunt etiam sanctas animas ad corpora redituras, sicut ait Plato, nec tamen ad mala ulla redituras, sicut ait Porphyrius, ut ex his fiat consequens, quod fides praedicat Christiana, talia corpora recepturas, in quibus sine ullo malo in aeternum feliciter uiuant, adsumant etiam hoc de Varrone, ut ad eadem corpora redeant, in quibus antea fuerunt, et aput eos tota quaestio de carnis in aeternum resurrectione soluetur.

### Of the Beatific Vision.

[¶3] Chapter 29.—Of the Beatific Vision.

> Latin: Caput XXIX. De qualitate uisionis, qua in futuro saeculo sancti Deum uidebunt.

[¶4] And now let us consider, with such ability as God may vouchsafe, how the saints shall be employed when they are clothed in immortal and spiritual bodies, and when the flesh shall live no longer in a fleshly but a spiritual fashion. And indeed, to tell the truth, I am at a loss to understand the nature of that employment, or, shall I rather say, repose and ease, for it has never come within the range of my bodily senses. And if I should speak of my mind or understanding, what is our understanding in comparison of its excellence? For then shall be that “peace of God which,” as the apostle says, “passeth all understanding,”—that is to say, all human, and perhaps all angelic understanding, but certainly not the divine. That it passeth ours there is no doubt; but if it passeth that of the angels,—and he who says “all understanding” seems to make no exception in their favor,—then we must understand him to mean that neither we nor the angels can understand, as God understands, the peace which God Himself enjoys. Doubtless this passeth all understanding but His own. But as we shall one day be made to participate, according to our slender capacity, in His peace, both in ourselves, and with our neighbor, and with God our chief good, in this respect the angels understand the peace of God in their own measure, and men too, though now far behind them, whatever spiritual advance they have made. For we must remember how great a man he was who said, “We know in part, and we prophesy in part, until that which is perfect is come;” and “Now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face.” Such also is now the vision of the holy angels, who are also called our angels, because we, being rescued out of the power of darkness, and receiving the earnest of the Spirit, are translated into the kingdom of Christ, and already begin to belong to those angels with whom we shall enjoy that holy and most delightful city of God of which we have now written so much. Thus, then, the angels of God are our angels, as Christ is God’s and also ours. They are God’s, because they have not abandoned Him; they are ours, because we are their fellow-citizens. The Lord Jesus also said, “See that ye despise not one of these little ones: for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always see the face of my Father which is in heaven.” As, then, they see, so shall we also see; but not yet do we thus see. Wherefore the apostle uses the words cited a little ago, “Now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face.” This vision is reserved as the reward of our faith; and of it the Apostle John also says, “When He shall appear, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.” By “the face” of God we are to understand His manifestation, and not a part of the body similar to that which in our bodies we call by that name.

> Latin: . Nunc iam quid acturi sint in corporibus inmortalibus adque spiritalibus sancti, non adhuc eorum carne carnaliter, sed spiritaliter iam uiuente, quantum Dominus dignatur adiuuare uideamus. Et illa quidem actio uel potius quies adque otium quale futurum sit, si uerum uelim dicere, nescio. Non enim hoc umquam per sensus corporis uidi. Si autem mente, id est intellegentia, uidisse me dicam, quantum est aut quid est nostra intellegentia ad illam excellentiam ? Ibi est enim pax Dei, quae, sicut ait apostolus, superat omnem intellectum; quem nisi nostrum, aut fortasse etiam sanctorum angelorum? non enim et Dei. Si ergo sancti in Dei pace uicturi sunt, profecto in ea pace uicturi sunt, quae superat omnem intellectum. Quoniam nostrum quidem superat. non est dubium; si autem superat et angelorum, ut nec ipsos excepisse uideatur, qui ait omnem intellectum: secundum hoc dictum esse debemus accipere, quia pacem Dei, qua Deus. ipse pacatus est, sicut Deus nouit, non eam nos sic possumus nosse nec ulli angeli. Superat itaque omnem intellectum, non dubium quod praeter suum. Sed quia et nos pro modo nostro pacis eius participes facti summam in nobis adque inter nos et cum ipso pacem, quantum nostrum summum est obtinebimus: isto modo pro suo modo sciunt eam sancti angeli; homines autem nunc longe infra, quantumlibet prouectu mentis excellant. Considerandum est enim quantus uir dicebat: Ex parte scimus et ex parte prophetamus, donec ueniat quod perfectum est; et: Videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate, tunc autem facie ad faciem. Sic iam uident sancti angeli, qui etiam nostri angeli dicti sunt, quia eniti de potestate tenebrarum et accepto spiritus pignore translati ad regnum Christi ad eos angelos iam coepimus pertinere, cum quibus nobis erit sancta adque dulcissima, de qua iam tot libros scripsimus, Dei ciuitas ipsa communis. Sic sunt ergo angeli nostri, qui sunt angeli Dei, quem ad modum Christus Dei Christus est noster. Dei sunt, quia Deum non reliquerunt; nostri sunt quia suos ciues nos habere coeperunt. Dixit autem Dominus Iesus: Videte ne contemnatis unum de pusillis istis. Dico enim nobis, quia angeli eorum in caelis semper uident faciem patris mei, quia in caeIis est. Sicut ergo illi uident, ita et nos uisuri sumus; sed nondum ita uidemus. Propter quod ait apostolus, quod paulo ante dixi: Videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate, tunc autem facie ad faciem. Praemium itaque fidei nobis uisio ista seruatur, de qua et Iohannes apostolus loquens: Cum apparuerit, inquit, similes ei erimus, quoniam uidebimus eum sicuti est.

[¶5] And so, when I am asked how the saints shall be employed in that spiritual body, I do not say what I see, but I say what I believe, according to that which I read in the psalm, “I believed, therefore have I spoken.” I say, then, they shall in the body see God; but whether they shall see Him by means of the body, as now we see the sun, moon, stars, sea, earth, and all that is in it, that is a difficult question. For it is hard to say that the saints shall then have such bodies that they shall not be able to shut and open their eyes as they please; while it is harder still to say that every one who shuts his eyes shall lose the vision of God. For if the prophet Elisha, though at a distance, saw his servant Gehazi, who thought that his wickedness would escape his master’s observation and accepted gifts from Naaman the Syrian, whom the prophet had cleansed from his foul leprosy, how much more shall the saints in the spiritual body see all things, not only though their eyes be shut, but though they themselves be at a great distance? For then shall be “that which is perfect,” of which the apostle says, “We know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” Then, that he may illustrate as well as possible, by a simile, how superior the future life is to the life now lived, not only by ordinary men, but even by the foremost of the saints, he says, “When I was a child, I understood as a child, I spake as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. Now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” If, then, even in this life, in which the prophetic power of remarkable men is no more worthy to be compared to the vision of the future life than childhood is to manhood, Elisha, though distant from his servant, saw him accepting gifts, shall we say that when that which is perfect is come, and the corruptible body no longer oppresses the soul, but is incorruptible and offers no impediment to it, the saints shall need bodily eyes to see, though Elisha had no need of them to see his servant? For, following the Septuagint version, these are the prophet’s words: “Did not my heart go with thee, when the man came out of his chariot to meet thee, and thou tookedst his gifts?” Or, as the presbyter Jerome rendered it from the Hebrew, “Was not my heart present when the man turned from his chariot to meet thee?” The prophet said that he saw this with his heart, miraculously aided by God, as no one can doubt. But how much more abundantly shall the saints enjoy this gift when God shall be all in all? Nevertheless the bodily eyes also shall have their office and their place, and shall be used by the spirit through the spiritual body. For the prophet did not forego the use of his eyes for seeing what was before them, though he did not need them to see his absent servant, and though he could have seen these present objects in spirit, and with his eyes shut, as he saw things far distant in a place where he himself was not. Far be it, then, from us to say that in the life to come the saints shall not see God when their eyes are shut, since they shall always see Him with the spirit.

> Latin: Facies autem Dei manifestatio eius intellegenda est, non aliquod tale membrum, quale nos habemus in corpore adque isto nomine nuncupamus. Quapropter cum ex me quaeritur, quid acturi sint sancti in illo corpore spiritali, non dico quod iam uideo, sed dico quod credo, secundum illud quod in psalmo lego: Credidi, propter quod locutus sum. Dico itaque: Visuri sunt Deum in ipso corpore; sed utrum per ipsum, sicut per corpus nunc uidemus solem, lunam, stellas, mare ac terram et quae sunt in ea, non parua quaestio est. Durum est enim dicere, quod sancti talia corpora tunc habebunt, ut non possint oculos claudere adque aperire cum uolent; durius autem, quod ibi Deum, quisquis oculos clauserit, non uidebit. Si enim propheta Helisaeus puerum suum Giezi absens corpore uidit accipientem munera, quae dedit ei Naeman Syrus, quem propheta memoratus a leprae deformitate mundauerat, quod seruus nequam domino suo non uidente latenter se fecisse putauerat: quanto magis in illo corpore spiritali uidebunt sancti omnia, non solum si oculos claudant, uerum etiam unde sunt corpore absentes! Tunc enim erit perfectum illud, de quo loquens apostolus: Ex parte, inquit, scimus et ex parte prophetamus; cum autem uenerit quod perfectum est, quod ex parte est euacuabitur. Deinde ut quo modo posset aliqua similitudine ostenderet, quantum ab illa quae futura est distet haec uita, non qualiumcumque hominum, uerum etiam qui praecipua hic sanctitate sunt praediti: Cum essem, inquit, paruulus, quasi paruulus sapiebam, quasi paruulus loquebar, quasi paruulus cogitabam; cum autem factus sum uir, euacuaui ea quae paruuli erant. Videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate, tunc autem facie ad faciem. Nunc scio ex parte, tunc autem cognoscam sicut et cognitus sum. Si ergo in hac uita, ubi hominum mirabilium prophetia ita conparanda est illi uitae, quasi paruuli ad iuuenem, uidit tamen Helisaeus accipientem munera seruum suum, ubi ipse non erat: itane cum uenerit quod perfectum est, nec iam corpus corruptibile adgrauabit animam, sed incorruptibile nihil inpediet, illi sancti ad ea, quae uidenda sunt, oculis corporeis, quibus Helisaeus absens ad seruum suum uidendum non indiguit, indigebunt? Nam secundum interpretes septuaginta ista sunt ad Giezi uerba prophetae: Nonne cor meum iit tecum, quando conuersus est uir de curru suo in obuiam tibi et accepisti pecuniam? et cetera; sicut autem ex Hebraeo interpretatus est presbyter Hieronymus: Nonne cor meum, inquit, in prae senti erat, quando reuersus est homo de curru suo in occursum tui? Corde suo ergo se dixit hoc uidisse propheta, adiuto quidem mirabiliter nullo dubitante diuinitus. Sed quanto amplius tunc omnes munere isto abundabunt, cum Deus erit omnia in omnibus! Habebunt tamen etiam illi oculi corporei officium suum et in loco suo erunt, uteturque illis spiritus per spiritale corpus. Neque enim et ille propheta, quia non eis indiguit ut uideret absentem, non eis usus est ad uidenda praesentia; quae tamen spiritu uidere posset, etiamsi illos clauderet, sicut uidit absentia, ubi cum eis ipse non erat.

[¶6] But the question arises, whether, when their eyes are open, they shall see Him with the bodily eye? If the eyes of the spiritual body have no more power than the eyes which we now possess, manifestly God cannot be seen with them. They must be of a very different power if they can look upon that incorporeal nature which is not contained in any place, but is all in every place. For though we say that God is in heaven and on earth, as He, Himself says by the prophet, “I fill heaven and earth,” we do not mean that there is one part of God in heaven and another part on earth; but He is all in heaven and all on earth, not at alternate intervals of time, but both at once, as no bodily nature can be. The eye, then, shall have a vastly superior power,—the power not of keen sight, such as is ascribed to serpents or eagles, for however keenly these animals see, they can discern nothing but bodily substances,—but the power of seeing things incorporeal. Possibly it was this great power of vision which was temporarily communicated to the eyes of the holy Job while yet in this mortal body, when he says to God, “I have heard of Thee by the hearing of the ear; but now mine eye seeth Thee: wherefore I abhor myself, and melt away, and count myself dust and ashes;” although there is no reason why we should not understand this of the eye of the heart, of which the apostle says, “Having the eyes of your heart illuminated.” But that God shall be seen with these eyes no Christian doubts who believingly accepts what our God and Master says, “Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.” But whether in the future life God shall also be seen with the bodily eye, this is now our question.

> Latin: Absit ergo, ut dicamus illos sanctos in illa uita Deum clausis oculis non uisuros, quem spiritu semper uidebunt. Sed utrum uidebunt et per oculos corporis cum eos apertos habebunt, inde quaestio est. Si enim tantum poterunt in corpore spiritali eo modo utique etiam ipsi oculi spiritales, quantum possunt isti quales nunc habemus: procul dubio per eos Deus uideri non poterit. Longe itaque alterius erant potentiae, si per eos uidebitur incorporea illa natura, quae non continetur loco, sed ubique tota est. Non enim quia dicimus Deum et in caelo esse et in terra (ipse quippe ait per prophetam: Caelum et terram ego inpleo), aliam partem dicturi sumus eum in caelo habere et in terra aliam; sed totus in caelo est, totus in terra, non alternis temporibus. sed utrumque simul, quod nulla natura corporalis potest. Vis itaque praepollentior oculorum erit illorum, non ut acrius uideant, quam quidam perhibentur uidere serpentes uel aquilae (quantalibet enim acrimonia cernendi eadem quoque animalia nihil aliud possunt uidere quam corpora), sed ut uideant et incorporalia. Et fortasse ista uirtus magna cernendi data fuerit ad horam etiam in isto mortali corpore oculis sancti uiri Iob, quando ait ad Deum: In obauditu auris audiebam te prius, nunc autem oculus meus uidet te; propterea despexi memet ipsum et distabui et existimaui me terram et cinerem; quamuis nihilhic prohibeat oculum cordis intellegi, de quibus oculis ait apostolus: Inluminatos oculos habere cordis uestri. Ipsis autem uideri Deum, cum uidebitur, Christianus ambigit nemo, qui fideliter accipit, quod ait Deus ille magister: Beati mundi corde, quoniam ipsi Deum uidebunt.

[¶7] The expression of Scripture, “And all flesh shall see the salvation of God,” may without difficulty be understood as if it were said, “And every man shall see the Christ of God.” And He certainly was seen in the body, and shall be seen in the body when He judges quick and dead. And that Christ is the salvation of God, many other passages of Scripture witness, but especially the words of the venerable Simeon, who, when he had received into his hands the infant Christ, said, “Now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace, according to Thy word: for mine eyes have seen Thy salvation.” As for the words of the above-mentioned Job, as they are found in the Hebrew manuscripts, “And in my flesh I shall see God,” no doubt they were a prophecy of the resurrection of the flesh; yet he does not say “by the flesh.” And indeed, if he had said this, it would still be possible that Christ was meant by “God;” for Christ shall be seen by the flesh in the flesh. But even understanding it of God, it is only equivalent to saying, I shall be in the flesh when I see God. Then the apostle’s expression, “face to face,” does not oblige us to believe that we shall see God by the bodily face in which are the eyes of the body, for we shall see Him without intermission in spirit. And if the apostle had not referred to the face of the inner man, he would not have said, “But we, with unveiled face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image, from glory to glory, as by the spirit of the Lord.” In the same sense we understand what the Psalmist sings, “Draw near unto Him, and be enlightened; and your faces shall not be ashamed.” For it is by faith we draw near to God, and faith is an act of the spirit, not of the body. But as we do not know what degree of perfection the spiritual body shall attain,—for here we speak of a matter of which we have no experience, and upon which the authority of Scripture does not definitely pronounce,—it is necessary that the words of the Book of Wisdom be illustrated in us: “The thoughts of mortal men are timid, and our fore-castings uncertain.”

> Latin: Sed utrum etiam corporalibus ibi oculis uideatur, hoc in ista quaestione uersamus. Illud enim quod scriptum est: Et uidebit omnis caro salutare Dei, sine ullius nodo difficultatis sic intellegi potest, ac si dictum fuerit: (Et uidebit omnis homo Christum Dei’, qui utique in corpore uisus est et in corpore uidebitur, quando uiuos et mortuos iudicabit. Quod autem ipse sit salutare Dei, multa sunt et alia testimonia scripturarum; sed euidentius uenerandi illius senis Symeonis uerba declarant, qui, cum infantem Christum accepisset in manus suas: Nunc, inquit, dimittis, Domine, seruum tuum secundum uerbum tuum in pace, quoniam uiderunt oculi mei salutare tuum. Illud etiam, quod ait supra memoratus Iob, sicut in exemplaribus, quae ex Hebraeo sunt, inuenitur: Et in carne mea uidebo Deum, resurrectionem quidem carnis sine dubio prophetauit, non tamen dixit: (Ter carnem meam.’ Quod quidem si dixisset, posset Deus Christus intellegi, qui per carnem in carne uidebitur; nunc uero potest et sic accipi: In carne mea uidebo Deum, ac si dixisset: (In carne mea ero, cum uidebo Deum.’ Et illud, quod ait apostolus: Facie ad faciem, non cogit ut Deum per hanc faciem corporalem, ubi sunt oculi corporales, nos uisuros esse credamus, quem spiritu sine intermissione uidebimus. Nisi enim esset etiam interioris hominis facies, non diceret idem apostolus: Nos autem reuelata facie gloriam Domini speculantes in eandem imaginem transformamur, de gloria in gloriam, tamquam a Domini spiritu; nec aliter intellegimus et quod in psalmo canitur: Accedite ad eum et inluminamini, et facies uestrae non erubescent. Fide quippe acceditur ad Deum, quam cordis constat esse, non corporis. Sed quia spiritale corpus nescimus quantos habebit accessus (de re quippe inexperta loquimur), ubi aliqua, quae aliter intellegi nequeat, diuinarum scripturarum non occurrit et succurrit auctoritas, necesse est ut contingat in nobis quod legitur in libro Sapientiae: Cogitationes mortalium timidae etincertae prouidentiae nostrae.

[¶8] For if that reasoning of the philosophers, by which they attempt to make out that intelligible or mental objects are so seen by the mind, and sensible or bodily objects so seen by the body, that the former cannot be discerned by the mind through the body, nor the latter by the mind itself without the body,—if this reasoning were trustworthy, then it would certainly follow that God could not be seen by the eye even of a spiritual body. But this reasoning is exploded both by true reason and by prophetic authority. For who is so little acquainted with the truth as to say that God has no cognisance of sensible objects? Has He therefore a body, the eyes of which give Him this knowledge? Moreover, what we have just been relating of the prophet Elisha, does this not sufficiently show that bodily things can be discerned by the spirit without the help of the body? For when that servant received the gifts, certainly this was a bodily or material transaction, yet the prophet saw it not by the body, but by the spirit. As, therefore, it is agreed that bodies are seen by the spirit, what if the power of the spiritual body shall be so great that spirit also is seen by the body? For God is a spirit. Besides, each man recognizes his own life—that life by which he now lives in the body, and which vivifies these earthly members and causes them to grow—by an interior sense, and not by his bodily eye; but the life of other men, though it is invisible, he sees with the bodily eye. For how do we distinguish between living and dead bodies, except by seeing at once both the body and the life which we cannot see save by the eye? But a life without a body we cannot see thus.

> Latin: Ratiocinatio quippe illa philosophorum, qua disputant ita mentis adspectu intellegibilia uideri et sensu corporis sensibilia, id est corporalia, ut nec intellegibilia per corpus nec corporalia per se ipsam mens ualeat intueri, si posset nobis esse certissima, profecto certum esset per oculos corporis etiam spiritalis nullo modo posse uideri Deum. Sed istam ratiocinationem et uera ratio et prophetica inridet auctoritas. Quis enim ita sit auersus a uero, ut dicere audeat Deum corporalia ista nescire? Numquid ergo corpus habet, per cuius oculos ea possit addiscere? Deinde quod de propheta Helisaeo paulo ante diximus, nonne satis indicat etiam spiritu, non per corpus, corporalia posse cerni? Quando enim seruus ille munera accepit, utique corporaliter gestum est; quod tamen propheta non per corpus, sed per spiritum uidit. Sicut ergo constat corpora uideri spiritu, quid si tanta erit potentia spiritalis corporis, ut corpore uideatur et spiritus? Spiritus enim est Deus. Deinde uitam quidem suam, qua nunc uiuit in corpore et haec terrena membra uegetat facitque uiuentia, interiore sensu quisque, non per corporeos oculos nouit; aliorum uero uitas, cum sint inuisibiles, per corpus uidet. Nam unde uiuentia discernimus a non uiuentibus corpora, nisi corpora simul uitasque uideamus, quas nisi per corpus uidere non possumus? Vitae autem sine corporibus corporeis oculis non uidemus.

[¶9] Wherefore it may very well be, and it is thoroughly credible, that we shall in the future world see the material forms of the new heavens and the new earth in such a way that we shall most distinctly recognize God everywhere present and governing all things, material as well as spiritual, and shall see Him, not as now we understand the invisible things of God, by the things which are made, and see Him darkly, as in a mirror, and in part, and rather by faith than by bodily vision of material appearances, but by means of the bodies we shall wear and which we shall see wherever we turn our eyes. As we do not believe, but see that the living men around us who are exercising vital functions are alive, though we cannot see their life without their bodies, but see it most distinctly by means of their bodies, so, wherever we shall look with those spiritual eyes of our future bodies, we shall then, too, by means of bodily substances behold God, though a spirit, ruling all things. Either, therefore, the eyes shall possess some quality similar to that of the mind, by which they may be able to discern spiritual things, and among these God,—a supposition for which it is difficult or even impossible to find any support in Scripture,—or, which is more easy to comprehend, God will be so known by us, and shall be so much before us, that we shall see Him by the spirit in ourselves, in one another, in Himself, in the new heavens and the new earth, in every created thing which shall then exist; and also by the body we shall see Him in every body which the keen vision of the eye of the spiritual body shall reach. Our thoughts also shall be visible to all, for then shall be fulfilled the words of the apostle, “Judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the thoughts of the heart, and then shall every one have praise of God.”

> Latin: Quam ob rem fieri potest ualdeque credibile est sic nos esse uisuros mundana corpora tunc caeli noui et terrae nouae, ut Deum ubique praesentem et uniuersa etiam corporalia gubernantem per corpora quae gestabimus et quae conspiciemus, quaqua uersum oculos duxerimus, clarissima perspicuitate uideamus, non sicut nunc inuisibilia Dei per ea, quae facta sunt. intellecta conspiciuntur per speculum in aenigmate et ex parte, ubi plus in nobis ualet fides, qua credimus, quam rerum corporalium species, quam per oculos cernimus corporales. Sed sicut homines, inter quos uiuentes motusque uitales exserentes uiuimus, mox ut adspicimus, non credimus uiuere, sed uidemus, cum eorum uitam sine corporibus uidere nequeamus, quam tamen in eis per corpora remota omni ambiguitate conspicimus: ita quacumque spiritalia illa lumina corporum nostrorum circumferemus, incorporeum Deum omnia regentem etiam per corpora contuebimur. Aut ergo sic per illos oculos uidebitur Deus, ut aliquid habeant in tanta excellentia menti simile, quo et incOl-porea natura cernatur, quod ullis exemplis siue scripturarum testimoniis diuinarum uel difficile est uel inpossibile ostendere; aut, quod est ad intellegendum facilius, ita Deus nobis erit notus adque conspicuus, ut uideatur spiritu a singulis nobis in singulis nobis, uideatur ab altero in altero, uideatur in se ipso, uideatur in caelo nouo et terra noua adque in omni, quae tunc fuerit, creatura, uideatur et per corpora in omni corpore, quocumque fuerint spiritalis corporis oculi acie perueniente directi. Patebunt etiam cogitationes nostrae inuicem nobis. Tunc enim inplebitur, quod apostolus, cum dixisset: Nolite ante tempus iudicare quidquam, mox addidit: Donec ueniat Dominus, et inluminabit abscondita tenebrarum et manifestabit cogitationes cordis, et tunc laus erit unicuique a Deo.

### Of the Eternal Felicity of the City of God, and of the Perpetual Sabbath.

[¶11] Chapter 30.—Of the Eternal Felicity of the City of God, and of the Perpetual Sabbath.

> Latin: Caput XXX. De aeterna felicitate ciuitatis Dei sabbatoque perpetuo.

[¶12] How great shall be that felicity, which shall be tainted with no evil, which shall lack no good, and which shall afford leisure for the praises of God, who shall be all in all! For I know not what other employment there can be where no lassitude shall slacken activity, nor any want stimulate to labor. I am admonished also by the sacred song, in which I read or hear the words, “Blessed are they that dwell in Thy house, O Lord; they will be still praising Thee.” All the members and organs of the incorruptible body, which now we see to be suited to various necessary uses, shall contribute to the praises of God; for in that life necessity shall have no place, but full, certain, secure, everlasting felicity. For all those parts of the bodily harmony, which are distributed through the whole body, within and without, and of which I have just been saying that they at present elude our observation, shall then be discerned; and, along with the other great and marvellous discoveries which shall then kindle rational minds in praise of the great Artificer, there shall be the enjoyment of a beauty which appeals to the reason. What power of movement such bodies shall possess, I have not the audacity rashly to define, as I have not the ability to conceive. Nevertheless I will say that in any case, both in motion and at rest, they shall be, as in their appearance, seemly; for into that state nothing which is unseemly shall be admitted. One thing is certain, the body shall forthwith be wherever the spirit wills, and the spirit shall will nothing which is unbecoming either to the spirit or to the body. True honor shall be there, for it shall be denied to none who is worthy, nor yielded to any unworthy; neither shall any unworthy person so much as sue for it, for none but the worthy shall be there. True peace shall be there, where no one shall suffer opposition either from himself or any other. God Himself, who is the Author of virtue, shall there be its reward; for, as there is nothing greater or better, He has promised Himself. What else was meant by His word through the prophet, “I will be your God, and ye shall be my people,” than, I shall be their satisfaction, I shall be all that men honorably desire,—life, and health, and nourishment, and plenty, and glory, and honor, and peace, and all good things? This, too, is the right interpretation of the saying of the apostle, “That God may be all in all.” He shall be the end of our desires who shall be seen without end, loved without cloy, praised without weariness. This outgoing of affection, this employment, shall certainly be, like eternal life itself, common to all.

> Latin: Quanta erit illa felicitas, ubi nullum erit malum, nullum latebit bonum, uacabitur Dei laudibus, qui erit omnia in omnibus! Nam quid aliud agatur, ubi neque ulla desidia cessabitur neque ulla indigentia laborabitur, nescio. Admoneor etiam sancto cantico, ubi lego uel audio: Beati, qui habitant in domo tua, in saecula saeculorum laudabunt te. Omnia membra et uiscera incorruptibilis corporis, quae nunc uidemus per usus necessitatis uarios distributa, quoniam tunc non erit ipsa necessitas, sed plena certa, secura sempitema felicitas, proficient in laudibus Dei. Omnes quippe illi, de quibus iam sum locutus, qui nunc latent, harmoniae corporalis numeri non latebunt, intrinsecus et extrinsecus per corporis cuncta dispositi, et cum ceteris rebus, quae ibi magnae adque mirabiles uidebuntur, rationales mentes in tanti artificis laudem rationabilis pulchritudinis delectatione succendent. Qui motus illic talium corporum sint futuri, temere definire non audeo, quod excogitare non ualeo; tamen et motus et status, sicut ipsa species, decens erit, ubi quicumque erit, quod non decebit non erit. Certe ubi uolet spiritus, ibi erit protinus corpus; nec uolet aliquid spiritus, quod nec spiritum possit decere nec corpus. Vera ibi gloria erit, ubi laudantis nec errore quisquam nec adulatione laudabitur; uerus honor, qui nulli negabitur digno, nulli deferetur indigno; sed nec ad eum ambiet ullus indignus, ubi nullus permittetur esse nisi dignus; uera pax, ubi nihil aduersi nec a se ipso nec ab aliquo quisque patietur. Praemium uirtutis erit ipse, qui uirtutem dedit eique se ipsum, quo melius et maius nihil possit esse, promisit. Quid est enim aliud quod per prophetam dixit: Ero illorum Deus, et ipsi erunt mihi plebs, nisi: ‘Ego ero unde satientur, ego ero quaecumque ab hominibus honeste desiderantur, et uita et salus et uictus et copia et gloria et honor et pax et omnia bona’? Sic enim et illud recte intellegitur, quod ait apostolus: Ut sit Deus omnia in omnibus. Ipse finis erit desideriorum nostrorum, qui sine fine uidebitur, sine fastidio amabitur, sine fatigatione laudabitur. Hoc munus, hic adfectus, hic actus profecto erit omnibus, sicut ipsa uita aeterna, communis. Ceterum qui futuri sint pro meritis praemiorum etiam gradus honorum adque gloriarum, quis est idoneus cogitare, quanto magis dicere?

[¶13] But who can conceive, not to say describe, what degrees of honor and glory shall be awarded to the various degrees of merit? Yet it cannot be doubted that there shall be degrees. And in that blessed city there shall be this great blessing, that no inferior shall envy any superior, as now the archangels are not envied by the angels, because no one will wish to be what he has not received, though bound in strictest concord with him who has received; as in the body the finger does not seek to be the eye, though both members are harmoniously included in the complete structure of the body. And thus, along with his gift, greater or less, each shall receive this further gift of contentment to desire no more than he has.

> Latin: Quod tamen futuri sint, non est ambigendum. Adque id etiam beata illa ciuitas magnum in se bonum uidebit, quod nulli superiori ullus inferior inuidebit, sicut nunc non inuident archangelis angeli ceteri; tamque nolet esse unusquisque quod non accepit, quamuis sit pacatissimo concordiae uinculo ei qui accepit obstrictus, quam nec in corpore uult oculus esse qui est digitus, cum membrum utrumque contineat totius carnis pacata conpago. Sic itaque habebit donum alius alio minus, ut hoc quoque donum habeat, ne uelit amplius. Nec ideo liberum arbitrium non habebunt, quia peccata eos delectare non poterunt.

[¶14] Neither are we to suppose that because sin shall have no power to delight them, free will must be withdrawn. It will, on the contrary, be all the more truly free, because set free from delight in sinning to take unfailing delight in not sinning. For the first freedom of will which man received when he was created upright consisted in an ability not to sin, but also in an ability to sin; whereas this last freedom of will shall be superior, inasmuch as it shall not be able to sin. This, indeed, shall not be a natural ability, but the gift of God. For it is one thing to be God, another thing to be a partaker of God. God by nature cannot sin, but the partaker of God receives this inability from God. And in this divine gift there was to be observed this gradation, that man should first receive a free will by which he was able not to sin, and at last a free will by which he was not able to sin,—the former being adapted to the acquiring of merit, the latter to the enjoying of the reward. But the nature thus constituted, having sinned when it had the ability to do so, it is by a more abundant grace that it is delivered so as to reach that freedom in which it cannot sin. For as the first immortality which Adam lost by sinning consisted in his being able not to die, while the last shall consist in his not being able to die; so the first free will consisted in his being able not to sin, the last in his not being able to sin. And thus piety and justice shall be as indefeasible as happiness. For certainly by sinning we lost both piety and happiness; but when we lost happiness, we did not lose the love of it. Are we to say that God Himself is not free because He cannot sin? In that city, then, there shall be free will, one in all the citizens, and indivisible in each, delivered from all ill, filled with all good, enjoying indefeasibly the delights of eternal joys, oblivious of sins, oblivious of sufferings, and yet not so oblivious of its deliverance as to be ungrateful to its Deliverer.

> Latin: Magis quippe erit liberum a delectatione peccandi usque ad delectationem non peccandi indeclinabilem liberatum. Nam primum liberum arbitrium, quod homini datum est, quando primum creatus est rectus, potuit non peccare, sed potuit et peccare; hoc autem nouissimum eo potentius erit, quo peccare non poterit; uerum hoc quoque Dei munere, non suae possibilitate naturae. Aliud est enim esse Deum, aliud participem Dei. Deus natura peccare non potest; particeps uero Dei ab illo accipit, ut peccare non possit. Seruandi autem gradus erant diuini muneris, ut primum daretur liberum arbitrium, quo non peccare. homo posset, nouissimum, quo peccare non potest, adque illud ad conparandum meritum, hoc ad recipiendum praemium pertineret. Sed quia peccauit ista natura cum peccare potuit, largiore gratia liberatur, ut ad eam perducatur libertatem, in qua peccare non possit. Sicut enim prima inmortalitas fuit, quam peccando Adam perdidit, posse non mori, nouissima erit non posse mori: ita primum liberum arbitrium posse non peccare, nouissimum non posse peccare. Sic enim erit inamissibilis uoluntas pietatis et aequitatis, quo modo felicitatis. Nam utique peccando nec pietatem nec felicitatem tenuimus, uoluntatem uero felicitatis nec perdita felicitate perdidimus. Certe Deus ipse numquid, quoniam peccare non potest, ideo liberum arbitrium habere negandus est? Erit ergo illius ciuitatis et una in omnibus et inseparabilis in singulis uoluntas libera, ab omni malo liberata et inpleta omni bono, fruens indeficienter aeternorum iucunditate gaudiorum, oblita culparum, oblita poenarum; nec ideo tamen suae liberationis oblita, ut liberatori suo non sit ingrata: quantum ergo adtinet ad scientiam rationalem, memor praeteritorum etiam malorum suorum; quantum autem ad experientis sensum, prorsus inmemor.

[¶15] The soul, then, shall have an intellectual remembrance of its past ills; but, so far as regards sensible experience, they shall be quite forgotten. For a skillful physician knows, indeed, professionally almost all diseases; but experimentally he is ignorant of a great number which he himself has never suffered from. As, therefore, there are two ways of knowing evil things,—one by mental insight, the other by sensible experience, for it is one thing to understand all vices by the wisdom of a cultivated mind, another to understand them by the foolishness of an abandoned life,—so also there are two ways of forgetting evils. For a well-instructed and learned man forgets them one way, and he who has experimentally suffered from them forgets them another,—the former by neglecting what he has learned, the latter by escaping what he has suffered. And in this latter way the saints shall forget their past ills, for they shall have so thoroughly escaped them all, that they shall be quite blotted out of their experience. But their intellectual knowledge, which shall be great, shall keep them acquainted not only with their own past woes, but with the eternal sufferings of the lost. For if they were not to know that they had been miserable, how could they, as the Psalmist says, for ever sing the mercies of God? Certainly that city shall have no greater joy than the celebration of the grace of Christ, who redeemed us by His blood. There shall be accomplished the words of the psalm, “Be still, and know that I am God.” There shall be the great Sabbath which has no evening, which God celebrated among His first works, as it is written, “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it He had rested from all His work which God began to make.” For we shall ourselves be the seventh day, when we shall be filled and replenished with God’s blessing and sanctification. There shall we be still, and know that He is God; that He is that which we ourselves aspired to be when we fell away from Him, and listened to the voice of the seducer, “Ye shall be as gods,” and so abandoned God, who would have made us as gods, not by deserting Him, but by participating in Him. For without Him what have we accomplished, save to perish in His anger? But when we are restored by Him, and perfected with greater grace, we shall have eternal leisure to see that He is God, for we shall be full of Him when He shall be all in all. For even our good works, when they are understood to be rather His than ours, are imputed to us that we may enjoy this Sabbath rest. For if we attribute them to ourselves, they shall be servile; for it is said of the Sabbath, “Ye shall do no servile work in it.” Wherefore also it is said by Ezekiel the prophet, “And I gave them my Sabbaths to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord who sanctify them.” This knowledge shall be perfected when we shall be perfectly at rest, and shall perfectly know that He is God.

> Latin: Nam et peritissimus medicus, sicut arte sciuntur, omnes fere corporis morbos nouit; sicut autem corpore sentiuntur, plurimos nescit, quos ipse non passus est. Ut ergo scientiae malorum duae sunt, una, qua potentiam mentis non latent, altera, qua experientis sensibus inhaerent (aliter quippe sciuntur uitia omnia per sapientiae doctrinam, aliter per insipientis pessimam uitam): ita et obliuiones malorum duae sunt. Aliter ea namque obliuiscitur eruditus et doctus, aliter expertus et passus; ille, si peritiam neglegat, iste, si miseria careat. Secundum hanc obliuionem, quam posteriore loco posui, non erunt memores sancti praeteritorum malorum; carebunt enim omnibus, ita ut penitus deleantur de sensibus eorum. Ea tamen potentia scientiae. quae magna in eis erit, non solum sua praeterita, sed etiam damnatorum eos sempiterna miseria non latebit. Alioquin si se fuisse miseros nescituri sunt, quo modo, sicut ait psalmus, misericordias Domini in aeternum cantabunt? Quo cantico in gloriam gratiae Christi, cuius sanguine liberati sumus, nihil erit profecto illi iucundius ciuitati. Ibi perficietur: Vacate et uidete quoniam ego sum Deus; quod erit uere maximum sabbatum non habens uesperam, quod commendauit Dominus in primis operibus mundi, ubi legitur: Et requieuit Deus die septimo ab omnibus operibus suis, quae fecit, et benedixit Deus diem septimum et sanctifiicauit eum, quia in eo requieuit ab omnibus operibus suis, quae inchoauit Deus facere. Dies enim septimus etiam nos ipsi erimus, quando eius fuerimus benedictione et sanctificatione pleni adque refecti. Ibi uacantes uidebimus quoniam ipse est Deus; quod nobis ipsi esse uoluimus, quando ab illo cecidimus, audientes a seductore: Eritis sicut di et recedentes a uero Deo, quo faciente di essemus eius participatione, non desertione. Quid enim sine illo fecimus, nisi quod in ira eius defecimus? A quo refecti et gratia maiore perfecti uacabimus in aeternum, uidentes quia ipse est Deus, quo pleni erimus quando ipse erit omnia in omnibus. Nam et ipsa opera bona nostra, quando ipsius potius intelleguntur esse quam nostra, tunc nobis ad hoc sabbatum adipiscendum inputantur; quia si nobis ea tribuerimus, seruilia erunt, cum de sabbato dicatur: Omne opus seruile non facietis; propter quod et per Ezecbielem prophetam dicitur: Et sabbata mea dedi eis in signum inter me et inter eos, ut scirent quia ego Dominus qui sanctifico eos. Hoc perfecte tunc sciemus, quando perfecte uacabimus, et perfecte uidebimus quia ipse est Deus.

[¶16] This Sabbath shall appear still more clearly if we count the ages as days, in accordance with the periods of time defined in Scripture, for that period will be found to be the seventh. The first age, as the first day, extends from Adam to the deluge; the second from the deluge to Abraham, equalling the first, not in length of time, but in the number of generations, there being ten in each. From Abraham to the advent of Christ there are, as the evangelist Matthew calculates, three periods, in each of which are fourteen generations,—one period from Abraham to David, a second from David to the captivity, a third from the captivity to the birth of Christ in the flesh. There are thus five ages in all. The sixth is now passing, and cannot be measured by any number of generations, as it has been said, “It is not for you to know the times, which the Father hath put in His own power.” After this period God shall rest as on the seventh day, when He shall give us (who shall be the seventh day) rest in Himself. But there is not now space to treat of these ages; suffice it to say that the seventh shall be our Sabbath, which shall be brought to a close, not by an evening, but by the Lord’s day, as an eighth and eternal day, consecrated by the resurrection of Christ, and prefiguring the eternal repose not only of the spirit, but also of the body. There we shall rest and see, see and love, love and praise. This is what shall be in the end without end. For what other end do we propose to ourselves than to attain to the kingdom of which there is no end?

> Latin: Ipse etiam numerus aetatum, ueluti dierum, si secundum eos articulos temporis conputetur, qui scripturis uidentur expressi, iste sabbatismus euidentius apparebit, quoniam septimus inuenitur, ut prima aetas tamquam primus dies sit ab Adam usque ad diluuium, secunda inde usque ad Abraham, non aequalitate temporum, sed numero generationum; denas quippe. habere reperiuntur. Hinc iam, sicut Matthaeus euangelista determinat, tres aetates usque ad Christi subsequuntur aduentum, quae singulae denis et quaternis generationibus explicantur: ab Abraham usque ad Dauid una, altera inde usque ad transmigrationem in Babyloniam, tertia inde usque ad Christi carnalem natiuitatem. Fiunt itaque omnes quinque. Sexta nunc agitur nullo generationum numero metienda propter id quod dictum est: Non est uestrum scire tempora, quae Pater posuit in sua potestate. Post hanc tamquam in die septimo requiescet Deus, cum eundem diem septimum, quod nos erimus, in se ipso Deo faciet requiescere. De istis porro aetatibus singulis nunc diligenter longum est disputare; haec tamen septima erit sabbatum nostrum, cuius finis non erit uespera, sed dominicus dies uelut octauus aeternus, qui Christi resurrectione sacratus est, aeternam non solum spiritus, uerum etiam corporis requiem praefigurans. Ibi uacabimus et uidebimus, uidebimus et amabimus, amabimus et laudabimus. Ecce quod erit in fine sine fine. Nam quis alius noster est finis nisi peruenire ad regnum, cuius nullus est finis?

[¶17] I think I have now, by God’s help, discharged my obligation in writing this large work. Let those who think I have said too little, or those who think I have said too much, forgive me; and let those who think I have said just enough join me in giving thanks to God. Amen.

> Latin: Videor mihi debitum ingentis huius operis adiuuante Domino reddidisse. Quibus parum uel quibus nimium est, mihi ignoscant; quibus autem satis est, non mihi, sed Deo mecum gratias congratulantes agant. Arnen.