That We Must, Notwithstanding the Opinion of Apuleius, Reject the Worship of Demons.

Chapter 22.—That We Must, Notwithstanding the Opinion of Apuleius, Reject the Worship of Demons.

Caput XXII. De abiciendo cultu daemonum contra Apuleium.

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.

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.

Chapter 23.—What Hermes Trismegistus Thought Concerning Idolatry, and from What Source He Knew that the Superstitions of Egypt Were to Be Abolished.

Caput XXIII. Quid Hermes Trismegistus de idolatria senserit et unde scire potuerit superstitiones Aegyptias auferendas.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Chapter 24.—How Hermes Openly Confessed the Error of His Forefathers, the Coming Destruction of Which He Nevertheless Bewailed.

Caput XXIV. Quo modo Hermes parentum suorum sit confessus errorem, quem tamen doluerit destruendum.

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?

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?

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.”

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.

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.

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.

Chapter 25.—Concerning Those Things Which May Be Common to the Holy Angels and to Men.

Caput XXV. De his, quae sanctis angelis et hominibus bonis possunt esse communia.

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.

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.

Chapter 26.—That All the Religion of the Pagans Has Reference to Dead Men.

Caput XXVI. Quod omnis religio paganorum circa homines mortuos fuerit inplicata.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Chapter 27.—Concerning the Nature of the Honor Which the Christians Pay to Their Martyrs.

Caput XXVII. De modo honoris, quem Christiani martyribus inpendunt.

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.

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.

Book IX.

Liber IX

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.