That the Name of Gods is Falsely Given to the Gods of the Gentiles, Though Scripture Applies It Both to the Holy Angels and Just Men.

Chapter 23.—That the Name of Gods is Falsely Given to the Gods of the Gentiles, Though Scripture Applies It Both to the Holy Angels and Just Men.

Caput XXIII. Nomen deorum falso adscribi dis gentium, quod tamen et angelis sanctis et homiuibus iustis ex diuinarum scripturarum auctoritate commune est.

If the Platonists prefer to call these angels gods rather than demons, and to reckon them with those whom Plato, their founder and master, maintains were created by the supreme God, they are welcome to do so, for I will not spend strength in fighting about words. For if they say that these beings are immortal, and yet created by the supreme God, blessed but by cleaving to their Creator and not by their own power, they say what we say, whatever name they call these beings by. And that this is the opinion either of all or the best of the Platonists can be ascertained by their writings. And regarding the name itself, if they see fit to call such blessed and immortal creatures gods, this need not give rise to any serious discussion between us, since in our own Scriptures we read, “The God of gods, the Lord hath spoken;” and again, “Confess to the God of gods;” and again, “He is a great King above all gods.” And where it is said, “He is to be feared above all gods,” the reason is forthwith added, for it follows, “for all the gods of the nations are idols, but the Lord made the heavens.” He said, “above all gods,” but added, “of the nations;” that is to say, above all those whom the nations count gods, in other words, demons. By them He is to be feared with that terror in which they cried to the Lord, “Hast Thou come to destroy us?” But where it is said, “the God of gods,” it cannot be understood as the god of the demons; and far be it from us to say that “great King above all gods” means “great King above all demons.” But the same Scripture also calls men who belong to God’s people “gods:” “I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you children of the Most High.” Accordingly, when God is styled God of gods, this may be understood of these gods; and so, too, when He is styled a great King above all gods.

Hos si Platonici malunt deos quam daemones dicere eisque adnumerare, quos a summo Deo conditos deos scribit eorum auctor et magister Plato: dicant quod uolunt; non enim cum eis de uerborum controuersia laborandum est. Si enim sic inmortales, ut tamen a summo Deo factos, et si non per se ipsos, sed ei, a quo facti sunt, adhaerendo beatos esse dicunt: hoc dicunt quod dicimus, quolibet eos nomine appellent. Hanc autem Platonicorum esse sententiam, siue omnium siue meliorum, in eorum litteris inueniri potest. Nam et de ipso nomine, quod huius modi inmortalem beatamque creaturam deos appellant, ideo inter nos et ipsos paene nulla dissensio est, quia et in nostris sacris litteris legitur: Deus deorum dominus locutus est, et alibi: Confitemini deo deorum, et alibi: Rex magnus super omnes deos. Illud autem ubi scriptum est: Terribilis est super omnes deos, quur dictum sit, deinceps ostenditur. Sequitur enim: Quoniam omnes di gentium daemonia, Dominus autem caelos fecit. Super omnes ergo deos dixit, sed gentium, id est quos gentes pro dis habent, quae sunt daemonia; ideo terribilis, sub quo terrore Domino dicebant: Venisti perdere nos? Illud uero, ubi dicitur: Deus deorum, non potest intellegi deus daemoniorum; et rex magnus super omnes deos absit ut dicatur rex magnus super omnia daemonia. Sed homines quoque in populo Dei eadem scriptura deos appellat. Ego, inquit, dixi, di estis et filii Excelsi omnes. Potest itaque intellegi horum deorum deus, qui dictus est deus deorum, et super hos deos rex magnus, qui dictus est rex magnus super omnes deos.

Nevertheless, some one may say, if men are called gods because they belong to God’s people, whom He addresses by means of men and angels, are not the immortals, who already enjoy that felicity which men seek to attain by worshipping God, much more worthy of the title? And what shall we reply to this, if not that it is not without reason that in holy Scripture men are more expressly styled gods than those immortal and blessed spirits to whom we hope to be equal in the resurrection, because there was a fear that the weakness of unbelief, being overcome with the excellence of these beings, might presume to constitute some of them a god? In the case of men this was a result that need not be guarded against. Besides, it was right that the men belonging to God’s people should be more expressly called gods, to assure and certify them that He who is called God of gods is their God; because, although those immortal and blessed spirits who dwell in the heavens are called gods, yet they are not called gods of gods, that is to say, gods of the men who constitute God’s people, and to whom it is said, “I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you the children of the Most High.” Hence the saying of the apostle, “Though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as there be gods many and lords many, but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him.”

Verum tamen cum a nobis quaeritur: si homines dicti sunt di, quod in populo Dei sunt, quem per angelos uel per homines adloquitur Deus, quanto magis inmortales eo nomine digni sunt, qui ea fruuntur beatitudine, ad quam Deum colendo cupiunt homines peruenire: quid respondebimus nisi non frustra in scripturis sanctis expressius homines nuncupatos deos, quam illos inmortales et beatos, quibus nos aequales futuros in resurrectione promittitur, ne scilicet propter illorum excellentiam aliquem eorum nobis constituere deum infidelis auderet infirmitas? Quod in homine facile est euitare. Et euidentius dici debuerunt homines di in populo Dei, ut certi ac fidentes fierent eum esse Deum suum, qui dictus est deus deorum; quia etsi appellentur di inmortales illi et beati, qui in caelis sunt, non tamen dicti sunt di deorum, id est di hominum in populo Dei constitutorum, quibus dictum est: Ego dixi, di estis et filii Excelsi omnes. Hinc est quod ait apostolus: Etsi sunt qui dicuntur di, siue in caelo siue in terra, sicuti sunt di multi et domini multi: nobis tamen unus Deus Pater, ex quo omnia et nos in ipso, et unus Dominus Iesus Christus, per quem omnia et nos per ipsum.

We need not, therefore, laboriously contend about the name, since the reality is so obvious as to admit of no shadow of doubt. That which we say, that the angels who are sent to announce the will of God to men belong to the order of blessed immortals, does not satisfy the Platonists, because they believe that this ministry is discharged, not by those whom they call gods, in other words, not by blessed immortals, but by demons, whom they dare not affirm to be blessed, but only immortal, or if they do rank them among the blessed immortals, yet only as good demons, and not as gods who dwell in the heaven of heavens remote from all human contact. But, though it may seem mere wrangling about a name, yet the name of demon is so detestable that we cannot bear in any sense to apply it to the holy angels. Now, therefore, let us close this book in the assurance that, whatever we call these immortal and blessed spirits, who yet are only creatures, they do not act as mediators to introduce to everlasting felicity miserable mortals, from whom they are severed by a twofold distinction. And those others who are mediators, in so far as they have immortality in common with their superiors, and misery in common with their inferiors (for they are justly miserable in punishment of their wickedness), cannot bestow upon us, but rather grudge that we should possess, the blessedness from which they themselves are excluded. And so the friends of the demons have nothing considerable to allege why we should rather worship them as our helpers than avoid them as traitors to our interests. As for those spirits who are good, and who are therefore not only immortal but also blessed, and to whom they suppose we should give the title of gods, and offer worship and sacrifices for the sake of inheriting a future life, we shall, by God’s help, endeavor in the following book to show that these spirits, call them by what name, and ascribe to them what nature you will, desire that religious worship be paid to God alone, by whom they were created, and by whose communications of Himself to them they are blessed.

Non multum ergo de nomine disceptandum est, cum res ipsa ita clareat, ut ab scrupulo dubitationis aliena sit. Illud uero, quod nos ex eorum inmortalium beatorum numero missos esse angelos dicimus, qui Dei uoluntatem hominibus adnuntiarent, illis autem non placet, quia hoc ministerium non per illos, quos deos appellant, id est inmortales et beatos, sed per daemones fieri credunt, quos inmortales tantum, non etiam beatos audent dicere, aut certe ita inmortales et beatos, ut tamen daemones bonos, non deos sublimiter conlocatos et ab humana contrectatione semotos, quamuis nominis controuersia uideatur, tamen ita detestabile est nomen daemonum, ut hoc modis omnibus a sanctis angelis nos remouere debeamus. Nunc ergo ita liber iste claudatur, ut sciamus inmortales et beatos, quodlibet uocentur, qui tamen facti et creati sunt, medios non esse ad inmortalem beatitudinem perducendis mortalibus miseris, a quibus utraque differentia separantur. Qui autem medii sunt communem habendo inmortalitatem cum superioribus, miseriam cum inferioribus, quoniam merito malitiae miseri sunt, beatitudinem, quam non habent, inuidere nobis possunt potius quam praebere. Unde nihil habent amici daemonum quod nobis dignum adferant, quur eos tamquam adiutores colere debeamus, quos potius ut deceptores uitare debemus. Quos autem bonos et ideo non solum inmortales, uerum etiam beatos deorum nomine sacris et sacrificiis propter uitam beatam post mortem adipiscendam colendos putant, qualescumque illi sint et quolibet uocabulo digni sint, non eos uelle per tale religionis obsequium nisi unum Deum coli, a quo creati et cuius participatione beati sunt, adiuuante ipso in sequenti libro diligentius disseremus.

Book X.

Liber X

Argument—In this book Augustin teaches that the good angels wish God alone, whom they themselves serve, to receive that divine honor which is rendered by sacrifice, and which is called “latreia.” He then goes on to dispute against Porphyry about the principle and way of the soul’s cleansing and deliverance.

Chapter 1.—That the Platonists Themselves Have Determined that God Alone Can Confer Happiness Either on Angels or Men, But that It Yet Remains a Question Whether Those Spirits Whom They Direct Us to Worship, that We May Obtain Happiness, Wish Sacrifice to Be Offered to Themselves, or to the One God Only.

Caput I. Veram beatitudinem siue angelis siue hominibus per unum Deum tribui etiam Platonicos definisse: sed utrum hi, quos ob hoc ipsum colendos putant, uni tantum Deo, an etiam sibi sacrificari uelint, esse quaerendum.

It is the decided opinion of all who use their brains, that all men desire to be happy. But who are happy, or how they become so, these are questions about which the weakness of human understanding stirs endless and angry controversies, in which philosophers have wasted their strength and expended their leisure. To adduce and discuss their various opinions would be tedious, and is unnecessary. The reader may remember what we said in the eighth book, while making a selection of the philosophers with whom we might discuss the question regarding the future life of happiness, whether we can reach it by paying divine honors to the one true God, the Creator of all gods, or by worshipping many gods, and he will not expect us to repeat here the same argument, especially as, even if he has forgotten it, he may refresh his memory by reperusal. For we made selection of the Platonists, justly esteemed the noblest of the philosophers, because they had the wit to perceive that the human soul, immortal and rational, or intellectual, as it is, cannot be happy except by partaking of the light of that God by whom both itself and the world were made; and also that the happy life which all men desire cannot be reached by any who does not cleave with a pure and holy love to that one supreme good, the unchangeable God. But as even these philosophers, whether accommodating to the folly and ignorance of the people, or, as the apostle says, “becoming vain in their imaginations,” supposed or allowed others to suppose that many gods should be worshipped, so that some of them considered that divine honor by worship and sacrifice should be rendered even to the demons (an error I have already exploded), we must now, by God’s help, ascertain what is thought about our religious worship and piety by those immortal and blessed spirits, who dwell in the heavenly places among dominations, principalities, powers, whom the Platonists call gods, and some either good demons, or, like us, angels,—that is to say, to put it more plainly, whether the angels desire us to offer sacrifice and worship, and to consecrate our possessions and ourselves, to them or only to God, theirs and ours.

Omnium certa sententia est, qui ratione quoquo modo uti possunt, beatos esse omnes homines uelle. Qui autem sint uel unde fiant dum mortalium quaerit infirmitas, multae magnaeque controuersiae concitatae sunt, in quibus philosophi sua studia et otia contriuerunt, quas in medium adducere adque discutere et longum est et non necessarium. Si enim recolit qui haec legit, quid in libro egerimus octauo in eligendis philosophis, cum quibus haec de beata uita, quae post mortem futura est, quaestio tractaretur, utrum ad eam uni Deo uero, qui etiam effector est deorum, an plurimis dis religione sacrisque seruiendo peruenire possimus: non etiam hic eadem repeti expectat, praesertim cum possit relegendo, si forte oblitus est, adminiculari memoriam. Elegimus enim Platonicos omnium philosophorum merito nobilissimos, propterea quia sapere potuerunt licet inmortalem ac rationalem uel intellectualem hominis animam nisi participato lumine illius Dei, a quo et ipsa et mundus factus est, beatam esse non posse; ita illud, quod omnes homines adpetunt, id est uitam beatam, quemquam isti adsecuturum negant, qui non illi uni optimo, quod est incommutabilis Deus, puritate casti amoris adhaeserit. Sed quia ipsi quoque siue cedentes uanitati errorique populorum siue, ut ait apostolus, euanescentes in cogitationibus suis multos deos colendos ita putauerunt uel putari uoluerunt, ut quidam eorum etiam daemonibus diuinos honores sacrorum et sacrificiorum deferendos esse censerent, quibus iam non parua ex parte respondimus: nunc uidendum ac disserendum est, quantum Deus donat, inmortales ac beati in caelestibus sedibus dominationibus, principatibus potestatibus constituti, quos isti deos et ex quibus quosdam uel bonos daemones uel nobiscum angelos nominant, quo modo credendi sint uelle a nobis religionem pietatemque seruari; hoc est, ut apertius dicam, utrum etiam sibi an tantum Deo suo, qui etiam noster est, placeat eis ut sacra faciamus et sacrificemus, uel aliqua nostra seu nos ipsos religionis ritibus consecremus.

For this is the worship which is due to the Divinity, or, to speak more accurately, to the Deity; and, to express this worship in a single word as there does not occur to me any Latin term sufficiently exact, I shall avail myself, whenever necessary, of a Greek word. Λατρεία, whenever it occurs in Scripture, is rendered by the word service. But that service which is due to men, and in reference to which the apostle writes that servants must be subject to their own masters, is usually designated by another word in Greek, whereas the service which is paid to God alone by worship, is always, or almost always, called λατρεία in the usage of those who wrote from the divine oracles. This cannot so well be called simply “cultus,” for in that case it would not seem to be due exclusively to God; for the same word is applied to the respect we pay either to the memory or the living presence of men. From it, too, we derive the words agriculture, colonist, and others. And the heathen call their gods “cœlicolæ,” not because they worship heaven, but because they dwell in it, and as it were colonize it,—not in the sense in which we call those colonists who are attached to their native soil to cultivate it under the rule of the owners, but in the sense in which the great master of the Latin language says, “There was an ancient city inhabited by Tyrian colonists.” He called them colonists, not because they cultivated the soil, but because they inhabited the city. So, too, cities that have hived off from larger cities are called colonies. Consequently, while it is quite true that, using the word in a special sense, “cult” can be rendered to none but God, yet, as the word is applied to other things besides, the cult due to God cannot in Latin be expressed by this word alone.

Hic est enim diuinitati uel, si expressius dicendum est, deitati debitus cultus, propter quem uno uerbo significandum, quoniam mihi satis idoneum non occurrit Latinum, Graeco ubi necesse est insinuo quid uelim dicere. Aatfistav quippe nostri, ubicumque sanctarum scripturarum positum est, interpretati sunt seruitutem. Sed ea seruitus, quae debetur hominibus, secundum quam praecipit apostolus seruos dominis suis subditos esse debere, alio nomine Graece nuncupari solet; Xatpeia uero secundum consuetudinem, qua locuti sunt qui nobis diuina eloquia condiderunt, aut semper aut tam frequenter ut paene semper ea dicitur seruitus, quae pertinet ad colendum Deum. Proinde si tantummodo cultus ipse dicatur, non soli Deo deberi uidetur. Dicimur enim colere etiam homines, quos honorifica uel recordatione uel praesentia frequentamus. Nec solum ea, quibus nos religiosa humilitate subicimus, sed quaedam etiam, quae subiecta sunt nobis, perhibentur coli. Nam ex hoc uerbo et agricolae et coloni et incolae uocantur, et ipsos de os non ob aliud appellant caelicolas, nisi quod caelum colant, non utique uenerando, sed inhabitando, tamquam caeli quosdam colonos; non sicut appellantur coloni. qui condicionem debent genitali solo, propter agriculturam sub dominio possessorum, sed, sicut ait quidam Latini eloquii magnus auctor: Urbs antiqua fuit, Tyrii tenuere coloni. Ab incolendo enim colonos uocauit, non ab agricultura. Hinc et ciuitates a maioribus ciuitatibus uelut populorum examinibus conditae coloniae nuncupantur.

The word “religion” might seem to express more definitely the worship due to God alone, and therefore Latin translators have used this word to represent θρησκεία; yet, as not only the uneducated, but also the best instructed, use the word religion to express human ties, and relationships, and affinities, it would inevitably introduce ambiguity to use this word in discussing the worship of God, unable as we are to say that religion is nothing else than the worship of God, without contradicting the common usage which applies this word to the observance of social relationships. “Piety,” again, or, as the Greeks say, εὐσέβεια, is commonly understood as the proper designation of the worship of God. Yet this word also is used of dutifulness to parents. The common people, too, use it of works of charity, which, I suppose, arises from the circumstance that God enjoins the performance of such works, and declares that He is pleased with them instead of, or in preference to sacrifices. From this usage it has also come to pass that God Himself is called pious, in which sense the Greeks never use εὐσεβεῖν, though εὐσέβεια is applied to works of charity by their common people also. In some passages of Scripture, therefore, they have sought to preserve the distinction by using not εὐσέβεια, the more general word, but θεοσέβεια, which literally denotes the worship of God. We, on the other hand, cannot express either of these ideas by one word. This worship, then, which in Greek is called λατρεία, and in Latin “servitus” [service], but the service due to God only; this worship, which in Greek is called θρησκεία, and in Latin “religio,” but the religion by which we are bound to God only; this worship, which they call θεοσέβεια, but which we cannot express in one word, but call it the worship of God,—this, we say, belongs only to that God who is the true God, and who makes His worshippers gods. And therefore, whoever these immortal and blessed inhabitants of heaven be, if they do not love us, and wish us to be blessed, then we ought not to worship them; and if they do love us and desire our happiness, they cannot wish us to be made happy by any other means than they themselves have enjoyed,—for how could they wish our blessedness to flow from one source, theirs from another?

Ac per hoc cultum quidem non deberi nisi Deo propria quadam notione uerbi huius omnino uerissimum est; sed quia et aliarum rerum dicitur cultus, ideo Latine uno uerbo significari cultus Deo debitus non potest. Nam et ipsa religio quamuis distinctius non quemlibet, sed Dei cultum significare uideatur (unde isto nomine interpretati sunt nostri eam, quae Graece ϑρησϰεία dicitur): tamen quia Latina loquendi consuetudine, non inperitorum, uerum etiam doctissimorum, et cognationibus humanis adque adfinitatibus et quibusque necessitudinibus dicitur exhibenda religio, non eo uocabulo uitatur ambiguum, cum de cultu deitatis uertitur quaestio, ut fidenter dicere ualeamus religionem non esse nisi cultum Dei, quoniam uidetur hoc uerbum a significanda obseruantia propinquitatis humanae insolenter auferri. Pietas quoque proprie Dei cultus intellegi solet, quam Graeci εὐσέβειαν uocant. Haec tamen et erga parentes officiose haberi dicitur. More autem uulgi hoc nomen etiam in operibus misericordiae frequentatur; quod ideo arbitror euenisse, quia haec fieri praecipue mandat Deus eaque sibi uel pro sacrificiis uel prae sacrificiis placere testatur. Ex qua loquendi consuetudine factum est, ut et Deus ipse dicatur pius; quem sane Graeci nullo suo sermonis usu εὐσεβῆν uocant, quamuis εὐσέβειαν pro misericordia illorum etiam uulgus usurpet. Unde in quibusdam scripturarum locis, ut distinctio certior appareret, non εὐσέβειαν, quod ex bono cultu, sed ϑεοσέβειαν, quod ei Dei cultu conpositum resonat, dicere maluerunt. Utrumlibet autem horum nos uno uerbo enuntiare non possumus. Quae itaque λατρεία Graece nuncupatur et Latine interpretatur seruitus, sed ea qua colimus Deum; uel quae θρησκεία Graece, Latine autem religio dicitur, sed ea quae nobis est erga Deum; uel quam illi εὐσέβειαν, nos uero non uno uerbo exprimere, sed Dei cultum possumus appellare: hanc ei tantum Deo deberi dicimus, qui uerus est Deus facitque suos cultores deos. Quicumque igitur sunt in caelestibus habitationibus inmortales et beati, si nos non amant nec beatos esse nos uolunt, colendi utique non sunt. Si autem amant et beatos uolunt, profecto inde uolunt, unde et ipsi sunt; an aliunde ipsi beati, aliunde nos?

Chapter 2.—The Opinion of Plotinus the Platonist Regarding Enlightenment from Above.

Caput II. De superna inluminatione quid Plotinus Platonicus senserit.

But with these more estimable philosophers we have no dispute in this matter. For they perceived, and in various forms abundantly expressed in their writings, that these spirits have the same source of happiness as ourselves,—a certain intelligible light, which is their God, and is different from themselves, and illumines them that they may be penetrated with light, and enjoy perfect happiness in the participation of God. Plotinus, commenting on Plato, repeatedly and strongly asserts that not even the soul which they believe to be the soul of the world, derives its blessedness from any other source than we do, viz., from that Light which is distinct from it and created it, and by whose intelligible illumination it enjoys light in things intelligible. He also compares those spiritual things to the vast and conspicuous heavenly bodies, as if God were the sun, and the soul the moon; for they suppose that the moon derives its light from the sun. That great Platonist, therefore, says that the rational soul, or rather the intellectual soul,—in which class he comprehends the souls of the blessed immortals who inhabit heaven,—has no nature superior to it save God, the Creator of the world and the soul itself, and that these heavenly spirits derive their blessed life, and the light of truth from their blessed life, and the light of truth, the source as ourselves, agreeing with the gospel where we read, “There was a man sent from God whose name was John; the same came for a witness to bear witness of that Light, that through Him all might believe. He was not that Light, but that he might bear witness of the Light. That was the true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world;” a distinction which sufficiently proves that the rational or intellectual soul such as John had cannot be its own light, but needs to receive illumination from another, the true Light. This John himself avows when he delivers his witness: “We have all received of His fullness.”

Sed non est nobis ullus cum his excellentioribus philosophis in hac quaestione conflictus. Viderunt enim suisque litteris multis modis copiosissime mandauerunt hinc illos, unde et nos, fieri beatos, obiecto quodam lumine intellegibili. quod Deus est illis et aliud est quam illi, a quo inlustrantur, ut clareant adque eius participatione perfecti beatique subsistant. Saepe multumque Plotinus adserit sensum Platonis explanans, ne illam quidem, quam credunt esse uniuersitatis animam, aliunde beatam esse quam nostram, idque esse lumen quod ipsa non est, sed a quo creata est et quo intellegibiliter inluminante intellegibiliter lucet. Dat etiam similitudinem ad illa incorporea de his caelestibus conspicuis araplisque corporibus, tamquam ille sit sol et ipsa sit luna. Lunam quippe solis obiectu inluminari putant. Dicit ergo ille magnus Platonicus animam rationalem, siue potius intellectualis dicenda sit, ex quo genere etiam inmortalium beatorumque animas esse intellegit, quos in caelestibus sedibus habitare non dubitat, non habere supra se naturam nisi Dei, qui fabricatus est mundum, a quo et ipsa facta est; nec aliunde illis supernis praeberi uitam beatam et lumen intellegentiae ueritatis, quam unde praebetur et nobis, consonans euangelio, ubi legitur: Fuit homo missus a Deo, cui nomen erat Iohannes; hic uenit in testimonium, ut testimonium per perhiberet de lumine, ut omnes crederent per eum. Non erat ille lumen, sed ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine. Erat lumen uerum, quod inluminat omnem hominem uenientem in hunc mundum. In qua differentia satis ostenditur animam rationalem uel intellectualem, qualis erat in Iohanne, sibi lumen esse non posse, sed alterius ueri luminis participatione lucere. Hoc et ipse Iohannes fatetur, ubi ei perhibens testimonium dicit: Nos omnes de plenitudine eius accepimus.

Chapter 3.—That the Platonists, Though Knowing Something of the Creator of the Universe, Have Misunderstood the True Worship of God, by Giving Divine Honor to Angels, Good or Bad.

Caput III. De uero Dei cultu, a quo Platonici, quamuis creatorem uniuersitatis intellexerint, deuiarunt colendo angelos seu bonos seu malos honore diuino.

This being so, if the Platonists, or those who think with them, knowing God, glorified Him as God and gave thanks, if they did not become vain in their own thoughts, if they did not originate or yield to the popular errors, they would certainly acknowledge that neither could the blessed immortals retain, nor we miserable mortals reach, a happy condition without worshipping the one God of gods, who is both theirs and ours. To Him we owe the service which is called in Greek λατρεία, whether we render it outwardly or inwardly; for we are all His temple, each of us severally and all of us together, because He condescends to inhabit each individually and the whole harmonious body, being no greater in all than in each, since He is neither expanded nor divided. Our heart when it rises to Him is His altar; the priest who intercedes for us is His Only-begotten; we sacrifice to Him bleeding victims when we contend for His truth even unto blood; to Him we offer the sweetest incense when we come before Him burning with holy and pious love; to Him we devote and surrender ourselves and His gifts in us; to Him, by solemn feasts and on appointed days, we consecrate the memory of His benefits, lest through the lapse of time ungrateful oblivion should steal upon us; to Him we offer on the altar of our heart the sacrifice of humility and praise, kindled by the fire of burning love. It is that we may see Him, so far as He can be seen; it is that we may cleave to Him, that we are cleansed from all stain of sins and evil passions, and are consecrated in His name. For He is the fountain of our happiness, He the end of all our desires. Being attached to Him, or rather let me say, re-attached,—for we had detached ourselves and lost hold of Him,—being, I say, re-attached to Him, we tend towards Him by love, that we may rest in Him, and find our blessedness by attaining that end. For our good, about which philosophers have so keenly contended, is nothing else than to be united to God. It is, if I may say so, by spiritually embracing Him that the intellectual soul is filled and impregnated with true virtues. We are enjoined to love this good with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our strength. To this good we ought to be led by those who love us, and to lead those we love. Thus are fulfilled those two commandments on which hang all the law and the prophets: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy mind, and with all thy soul;” and “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” For, that man might be intelligent in his self-love, there was appointed for him an end to which he might refer all his actions, that he might be blessed. For he who loves himself wishes nothing else than this. And the end set before him is “to draw near to God.” And so, when one who has this intelligent self-love is commanded to love his neighbor as himself, what else is enjoined than that he shall do all in his power to commend to him the love of God? This is the worship of God, this is true religion, this right piety, this the service due to God only. If any immortal power, then, no matter with what virtue endowed, loves us as himself, he must desire that we find our happiness by submitting ourselves to Him, in submission to whom he himself finds happiness. If he does not worship God, he is wretched, because deprived of God; if he worships God, he cannot wish to be worshipped in God’s stead. On the contrary, these higher powers acquiesce heartily in the divine sentence in which it is written, “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.”

Quae cum ita sint, si Platonici uel quicumque alii ista senserunt cognoscentes Deum sicut Deum glorificarent et gratias agerent nec euanescerent in cogitationibus suis nec populorum erroribus partim auctores fierent, partim resistere non auderent: profecto confiterentur et illis inmortalibus ac beatis et nobis mortalibus ac miseris, ut inmortales ac beati esse possimus, unum Deum deorum colendum, qui et noster est et illorum. Huic nos seruitutem, quae Xatpeia Graece dicitur, siue in quibusque sacramentis siue in nobis ipsis debemus. Huius enim templum simul omnes et singuli templa sumus, quia et omnium concordiam et singulos inhabitare dignatur; non in omnibus quam in singulis maior, quoniam nec mole distenditur nec partitione minuitur. Cum ad illum sursum est, eius est altare cor nostrum; eum Unigenito eius sacerdote placamus; ei cruentas uictimas caedimus, quando usque ad sanguinem pro eius ueritate certamus: eum suauissimo adolemus incenso, cum in eius conspectum pio sanctoque amore flagramus: ei dona eius in nobis quoque ipsos uouemus et reddimus; ei beneficiorum eius sollemnitatibus festis et diebus statutis dicamus sacramusque memoriam, ne uolumine temporum ingrata subrepat obliuio; ei sacrificamus hostiam humilitatis et laudis in ara cordis igne feruidam caritatis. Ad hunc uidendum, sicut uideri poterit, eique cohaerendum ab omni peccatorum et cupiditatum malarum labe mundamur et eius nomine consecramur. Ipse enim fons nostrae beatitudinis, ipse omnis adpetitionis est finis. Hunc eligentes uel potius religentes (amiseramus enim neglegentes) — hunc ergo religentes, unde et religio dicta perhibetur, ad eum dilectione tendimus, ut perueniendo quiescamus, ideo beati, quia illo fine perfecti. Bonum enim nostrum, de cuius fine inter philosophos magna contentio est, nullum est aliud quam illi cohaerere, cuius unius anima intellectualis incorporeo, si dici potest, amplexu ueris inpletur fecundaturque uirtutibus. Hoc bonum diligere in toto corde, in tota anima et in tota uirtute praecipimur; ad hoc bonum debemus et a quibus diligimur duci, et quos diligimus ducere. Sic conplentur duo illa praecepta, in quibus tota lex pendet et prophetae: Diliges Dominum Deum tuum in toto corde tuo et in tota anima tua et in tota mente tua, et: Diliges proximum tuum tamquam te ipsum. Ut enim homo se diligere nosset, constitutus est ei finis, quo referret omnia quae ageret, ut beatus esset; non enim qui se diligit aliud uult esse quam beatus. Hic autem finis est adhaerere Deo. Iam igitur scienti diligere se ipsum, cum mandatur de proximo diligendo sicut se ipsum, quid aliud mandatur, nisi ut ei, quantum potest, commendet diligendum Deum? Hic est Dei cultus, haec uera religio, haec recta pietas, haec tantum Deo debita seruitus. Quaecumque igitur inmortalis potestas quantalibet uirtute praedita si nos diligit sicut se ipsam, ei uult esse subditos, ut beati simus, cui et ipsa subdita beata est. Si ergo non colit Deum, misera est, quia priuatur Deo; si autem colit Deum, non uult se coli pro Deo. Illi enim potius diuinae sententiae suffragatur et dilectionis uiribus fauet, qua scriptum est: Sacrificans dis eradicabitur, nisi Domino soli.

Chapter 4.—That Sacrifice is Due to the True God Only.

Caput IV. Quod uni uero Deo sacrificium debeatur.

But, putting aside for the present the other religious services with which God is worshipped, certainly no man would dare to say that sacrifice is due to any but God. Many parts, indeed, of divine worship are unduly used in showing honor to men, whether through an excessive humility or pernicious flattery; yet, while this is done, those persons who are thus worshipped and venerated, or even adored, are reckoned no more than human; and who ever thought of sacrificing save to one whom he knew, supposed, or feigned to be a god? And how ancient a part of God’s worship sacrifice is, those two brothers, Cain and Abel, sufficiently show, of whom God rejected the elder’s sacrifice, and looked favorably on the younger’s.

Nam, ut alia nunc taceam, quae pertinent ad religionis obsequium, quo colitur Deus, sacrificium certe nullus hominum est qui audeat dicere deberi nisi deo. Multa denique de cultu diuino usurpata sunt, quae honoribus deferrentur humanis, siue humilitate nimia siue adulatione pestifera; ita tamen, ut, quibus ea deferrentur, homines haberentur, qui dicuntur colendi et uenerandi, si autem multum eis additur, et adorandi: quis uero sacrificandum censuit nisi ei, quem deum aut sciuit aut putauit aut finxit? Quam porro antiquus sit in sacrificando Dei cultus, duo illi fratres Cain et Abel satis indicant, quorum maioris Deus reprobauit sacrificium, minoris aspexit.

Chapter 5.—Of the Sacrifices Which God Does Not Require, But Wished to Be Observed for the Exhibition of Those Things Which He Does Require.

Caput V. De sacrificiis, quae Deus non requirit, sed ad significationem eorum offerri uoluit, quae requirit.

And who is so foolish as to suppose that the things offered to God are needed by Him for some uses of His own? Divine Scripture in many places explodes this idea. Not to be wearisome, suffice it to quote this brief saying from a psalm: “I have said to the Lord, Thou art my God: for Thou needest not my goodness.” We must believe, then, that God has no need, not only of cattle, or any other earthly and material thing, but even of man’s righteousness, and that whatever right worship is paid to God profits not Him, but man. For no man would say he did a benefit to a fountain by drinking, or to the light by seeing. And the fact that the ancient church offered animal sacrifices, which the people of God now-a-days read of without imitating, proves nothing else than this, that those sacrifices signified the things which we do for the purpose of drawing near to God, and inducing our neighbor to do the same. A sacrifice, therefore, is the visible sacrament or sacred sign of an invisible sacrifice. Hence that penitent in the psalm, or it may be the Psalmist himself, entreating God to be merciful to his sins, says, “If Thou desiredst sacrifice, I would give it: Thou delightest not in whole burnt-offerings. The sacrifice of God is a broken heart: a heart contrite and humble God will not despise.” Observe how, in the very words in which he is expressing God’s refusal of sacrifice, he shows that God requires sacrifice. He does not desire the sacrifice of a slaughtered beast, but He desires the sacrifice of a contrite heart. Thus, that sacrifice which he says God does not wish, is the symbol of the sacrifice which God does wish. God does not wish sacrifices in the sense in which foolish people think He wishes them, viz., to gratify His own pleasure. For if He had not wished that the sacrifices He requires, as, e.g., a heart contrite and humbled by penitent sorrow, should be symbolized by those sacrifices which He was thought to desire because pleasant to Himself, the old law would never have enjoined their presentation; and they were destined to be merged when the fit opportunity arrived, in order that men might not suppose that the sacrifices themselves, rather than the things symbolized by them, were pleasing to God or acceptable in us. Hence, in another passage from another psalm, he says, “If I were hungry, I would not tell thee; for the world is mine and the fullness thereof. Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?” as if He should say, Supposing such things were necessary to me, I would never ask thee for what I have in my own hand. Then he goes on to mention what these signify: “Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise, and pay thy vows unto the Most High. And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shall glorify me.” So in another prophet: “Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the High God? Shall I come before Him with burnt-offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? Hath He showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” In the words of this prophet, these two things are distinguished and set forth with sufficient explicitness, that God does not require these sacrifices for their own sakes, and that He does require the sacrifices which they symbolize. In the epistle entitled “To the Hebrews” it is said, “To do good and to communicate, forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.” And so, when it is written, “I desire mercy rather than sacrifice,” nothing else is meant than that one sacrifice is preferred to another; for that which in common speech is called sacrifice is only the symbol of the true sacrifice. Now mercy is the true sacrifice, and therefore it is said, as I have just quoted, “with such sacrifices God is well pleased.” All the divine ordinances, therefore, which we read concerning the sacrifices in the service of the tabernacle or the temple, we are to refer to the love of God and our neighbor. For “on these two commandments,” as it is written, “hang all the law and the prophets.”

Quis autem ita desipiat, ut existimet aliquibus usibus Dei esse necessaria, quae in sacrificiis offeruntur? Quod cum multis locis diuina scriptura testetur, ne longum faciamus, breue illud de psalmo commemorare suffecerit: Dixi Domino, Deus meus es tu, quoniam bonorum meorum non eges. Non solum igitur pecore uel qualibet alia re corruptibili adque terrena, sed ne ipsa quidem iustitia hominis Deus egere credendus est, totumque quod recte colitur Deus homini prodesse, non Deo. Neque enim fonti se quisquam dixerit consuluisse, si biberit; aut luci, si uiderit. Nec quod ab antiquis patribus alia sacrificia facta sunt in uictimis pecorum, quae nunc Dei populus legit, non facit, aliud intellegendum est, nisi rebus illis eas res fuisse significatas, quae aguntur in nobis, ad hoc ut inhaereamus Deo et ad eundem finem proximo consulamus. Sacrificium ergo uisibile inuisibilis sacrificii sacramentum, id est sacrum signum est. Unde ille paenitens aput prophetam uel ipse propheta quaerens Deum peccatis suis habere propitium: Si uoluisses, inquit, sacrificium, dedissem utique; holocaustis non delectaberis. Sacrificium Deo spiritus contribulatus: cor contritum et humiliatum Deus non spernet. Intueamur quem ad modum, ubi Deum dixit nolle sacrificium. ibi Deum ostendit uelle sacrificium. Non uult ergo sacrificium trucidati pecoris, sed uult sacrificium contriti cordis. Illo igitur quod eum nolle dixit, hoc significatur, quod eum uelle subiecit. Sic itaque illa Deum nolle dixit, quo modo ab stultis ea uelle creditur, uelut suae gratia uoluptatis. Nam si ea sacrificia quae uult (quorum hoc unum est: cor contritum et humiliatum dolore paenitendi) nollet eis sacrificiis significari, quae uelut sibi delectabilia desiderare putatus est: non utique de his offerendis in lege uetere praecepisset. Et ideo mutanda erant opportuno certoque iam tempore, ne ipsi Deo desiderabilia uel certe in nobis acceptabilia, ac non potius quae his significata sunt crederentur. Hinc et alio loco psalmi alterius: Si esuriero, inquit, non dicam tibi; meus est enim orbis terrae et plenitudo eius. Numquid manducabo carnes taurorum aut sanguinem hircorum potabo? Tamquam diceret: Utique si mihi essent necessaria, non a te peterem, quae habeo in potestate. Deinde subiungens quid illa significent: Immola, inquit, Deo sacrificium laudis et redde Altissimo uota tua et inuoca me in die tribulationis, et eripiam te et magnificabis me. Item aput alium prophetam: In quo, inquit, adprehendam dam Dominum, adsumam Deum meum excelsum? Si adprehendam illum in holocaustis, in uitulis anniculis? Si acceptauerit Dominus in milibus arietum aut in denis milibus hircorum pinguium? Si dedero primogenita mea inpietatis, fructum uentris mei pro peccato animae meae? Si adnuntiatum est tibi, homo, bonum? Aut quid Dominus exquirat a te nisi facere iudicium et diligere misericordiam et paratum esse ire cum Domino Deo tuo? Et in huius prophetae uerbis utrumque distinctum est satisque declaratum illa sacrificia per se ipsa non requirere Deum, quibus significantur haec sacrificia, quae requirit Deus. In epistula, quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos: Bene facere, inquit, et communicatores esse nolite obliuisci; talibus enim sacrificiis placetur Deo. Ac per hoc ubi scriptum est: Misericordiam uolo quam sacrificium nihil aliud quam sacrificium sacrificio praelatum oportet intellegi; quoniam illud, quod ab omnibus appellatur sacrificium, signum est ueri sacrificii. Porro autem misericordia uerum sacrificium est; unde dictum est, quod paulo ante commemoraui: Talibus enim sacrificiis placetur Deo. Quaecumque igitur in ministerio tabernaculi siue templi multis modis de sacrificiis leguntur diuinitus esse praecepta, ad dilectionem Dei et proximi significando referuntur. In his enim duobus praeceptis, ut scriptum est, tota lex pendet et prophetae.