--- title: "City of God · De civitate Dei" author: "Augustine" translator: "Marcus Dods" languages: [la, en] shelf: "Church Fathers" section: 23 of 116 url: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/23/ cite: "Augustine, tr. Marcus Dods, City of God · De civitate Dei, section 23. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/23/" --- # 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. ## 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. 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.