That in All Natures, of Every Kind and Rank, God is Glorified.

Chapter 5.—That in All Natures, of Every Kind and Rank, God is Glorified.

Caput V. Quod in omni naturae specie ac modo laudabilis sit Creator.

All natures, then, inasmuch as they are, and have therefore a rank and species of their own, and a kind of internal harmony, are certainly good. And when they are in the places assigned to them by the order of their nature, they preserve such being as they have received. And those things which have not received everlasting being, are altered for better or for worse, so as to suit the wants and motions of those things to which the Creator’s law has made them subservient; and thus they tend in the divine providence to that end which is embraced in the general scheme of the government of the universe. So that, though the corruption of transitory and perishable things brings them to utter destruction, it does not prevent their producing that which was designed to be their result. And this being so, God, who supremely is, and who therefore created every being which has not supreme existence (for that which was made of nothing could not be equal to Him, and indeed could not be at all had He not made it), is not to be found fault with on account of the creature’s faults, but is to be praised in view of the natures He has made.

Naturae igitur omnes, quoniam sunt et ideo habent modum suum, speciem suam et quandam secum pacem suam, profecto bonae sunt; et cum ibi sunt, ubi esse per naturae ordinem debent, quantum acceperunt, suum esse custodiunt; et quae semper esse non acceperunt, pro usu motuque rerum, quibus Creatoris lege subduntur, in melius deteriusue mutantur, in eum diuina prouidentia tendentes exitum, quem ratio gubernandae uniuersitatis includit; ita ut nec tanta corruptio, quanta usque ad interitum naturas mutabiles mortalesque perducit, sic faciat non esse quod erat, ut non inde fiat consequenter quod esse debebat. Quae cum ita sint, Deus, qui summe est adque ob hoc ab illo facta est omnis essentia, quae non summe est (quia neque illi aequalis esse deberet, quae de nihilo facta esset, neque ullo modo esse posset, si ab illo facta non esset), nec ullorum uitiorum offensione uituperandus et omnium naturarum consideratione laudandus est.

Chapter 6.—What the Cause of the Blessedness of the Good Angels Is, and What the Cause of the Misery of the Wicked.

Caput VI. Quae causa sit beatitudinis angelorum bonorum et quae causa sit miseriae angelorum malorum.

Thus the true cause of the blessedness of the good angels is found to be this, that they cleave to Him who supremely is. And if we ask the cause of the misery of the bad, it occurs to us, and not unreasonably, that they are miserable because they have forsaken Him who supremely is, and have turned to themselves who have no such essence. And this vice, what else is it called than pride? For “pride is the beginning of sin.” They were unwilling, then, to preserve their strength for God; and as adherence to God was the condition of their enjoying an ampler being, they diminished it by preferring themselves to Him. This was the first defect, and the first impoverishment, and the first flaw of their nature, which was created, not indeed supremely existent, but finding its blessedness in the enjoyment of the Supreme Being; whilst by abandoning Him it should become, not indeed no nature at all, but a nature with a less ample existence, and therefore wretched.

Proinde causa beatitudinis angelorum bonorum ea uerissima reperitur, quod ei adhaerent qui summe est. Cum uero causa miseriae malorum angelorum quaeritur, ea merito occurrit, quod ab illo, qui summe est, auersi ad se ipsos conuersi sunt, qui non summe sunt; et hoc uitium quid aliud quam superbia nuncupetur? Initium quippe omnis peccati superbia. Noluerunt ergo ad illum custodire fortitudinem suam, et qui magis essent, si ei qui summe est adhaererent, se illi praeferendo id quod minus est praetulerunt. Hic primus defectus et prima inopia primumque uitium eius naturae, quae ita creata est, ut nec summe esset, et tamen ad beatitudinem habendam eo, qui summe est, frui posset, a quo auersa non quidem nulla, sed tamen minus esset adque ob hoc misera fieret. Huius porro malae uoluntatis causa efficiens si quaeratur, nihil inuenitur.

If the further question be asked, What was the efficient cause of their evil will? there is none. For what is it which makes the will bad, when it is the will itself which makes the action bad? And consequently the bad will is the cause of the bad action, but nothing is the efficient cause of the bad will. For if anything is the cause, this thing either has or has not a will. If it has, the will is either good or bad. If good, who is so left to himself as to say that a good will makes a will bad? For in this case a good will would be the cause of sin; a most absurd supposition. On the other hand, if this hypothetical thing has a bad will, I wish to know what made it so; and that we may not go on forever, I ask at once, what made the first evil will bad? For that is not the first which was itself corrupted by an evil will, but that is the first which was made evil by no other will. For if it were preceded by that which made it evil, that will was first which made the other evil. But if it is replied, “Nothing made it evil; it always was evil,” I ask if it has been existing in some nature. For if not, then it did not exist at all; and if it did exist in some nature, then it vitiated and corrupted it, and injured it, and consequently deprived it of good. And therefore the evil will could not exist in an evil nature, but in a nature at once good and mutable, which this vice could injure. For if it did no injury, it was no vice; and consequently the will in which it was, could not be called evil. But if it did injury, it did it by taking away or diminishing good. And therefore there could not be from eternity, as was suggested, an evil will in that thing in which there had been previously a natural good, which the evil will was able to diminish by corrupting it. If, then, it was not from eternity, who, I ask, made it? The only thing that can be suggested in reply is, that something which itself had no will, made the will evil. I ask, then, whether this thing was superior, inferior, or equal to it? If superior, then it is better. How, then, has it no will, and not rather a good will? The same reasoning applies if it was equal; for so long as two things have equally a good will, the one cannot produce in the other an evil will. Then remains the supposition that that which corrupted the will of the angelic nature which first sinned, was itself an inferior thing without a will. But that thing, be it of the lowest and most earthly kind, is certainly itself good, since it is a nature and being, with a form and rank of its own in its own kind and order. How, then, can a good thing be the efficient cause of an evil will? How, I say, can good be the cause of evil? For when the will abandons what is above itself, and turns to what is lower, it becomes evil—not because that is evil to which it turns, but because the turning itself is wicked. Therefore it is not an inferior thing which has made the will evil, but it is itself which has become so by wickedly and inordinately desiring an inferior thing. For if two men, alike in physical and moral constitution, see the same corporal beauty, and one of them is excited by the sight to desire an illicit enjoyment while the other steadfastly maintains a modest restraint of his will, what do we suppose brings it about, that there is an evil will in the one and not in the other? What produces it in the man in whom it exists? Not the bodily beauty, for that was presented equally to the gaze of both, and yet did not produce in both an evil will. Did the flesh of the one cause the desire as he looked? But why did not the flesh of the other? Or was it the disposition? But why not the disposition of both? For we are supposing that both were of a like temperament of body and soul. Must we, then, say that the one was tempted by a secret suggestion of the evil spirit? As if it was not by his own will that he consented to this suggestion and to any inducement whatever! This consent, then, this evil will which he presented to the evil suasive influence,—what was the cause of it, we ask? For, not to delay on such a difficulty as this, if both are tempted equally and one yields and consents to the temptation while the other remains unmoved by it, what other account can we give of the matter than this, that the one is willing, the other unwilling, to fall away from chastity? And what causes this but their own wills, in cases at least such as we are supposing, where the temperament is identical? The same beauty was equally obvious to the eyes of both; the same secret temptation pressed on both with equal violence. However minutely we examine the case, therefore, we can discern nothing which caused the will of the one to be evil. For if we say that the man himself made his will evil, what was the man himself before his will was evil but a good nature created by God, the unchangeable good? Here are two men who, before the temptation, were alike in body and soul, and of whom one yielded to the tempter who persuaded him, while the other could not be persuaded to desire that lovely body which was equally before the eyes of both. Shall we say of the successfully tempted man that he corrupted his own will, since he was certainly good before his will became bad? Then, why did he do so? Was it because his will was a nature, or because it was made of nothing? We shall find that the latter is the case. For if a nature is the cause of an evil will, what else can we say than that evil arises from good or that good is the cause of evil? And how can it come to pass that a nature, good though mutable, should produce any evil—that is to say, should make the will itself wicked?

Quid est enim quod facit uoluntatem malam, cum ipsa faciat opus malum? Ac per hoc mala uoluntas efficiens est operis mali, malae autem uoluntatis efficiens nihil est. Quoniam si res aliqua est, aut habet aut non habet aliquam uoluntatem; si habet, aut bonam profecto habet aut malam; si bonam, quis ita desipiat, ut dicat quod bona uoluntas faciat uoluntatem malam? Erit enim, si ita est, bona uoluntas causa peccati, quo absurdius putari nihil potest. Si autem res ista, quae putatur facere uoluntatem malam, ipsa quoque habet uoluntatem malam, etiam eam quae fecerit res consequenter interrogo, adque ita, ut sit aliquis inquirendi modus, causam primae malae uoluntatis inquiro. Non est enim prima uoluntas mala, quam fecit uoluntas mala; sed illa prima est, quam nulla fecit. Nam si praecessit a qua fieret, illa prior est, quae alteram fecit. Si respondetur quod eam nulla res fecerit et ideo semper fuerit: quaero utrum in aliqua natura fuerit. Si enim in nulla fuit, omnino non fuit; si autem in aliqua, uitiabat eam et corrumpebat eratque illi noxia ac per hoc bono priuabat. Et ideo in mala natura uoluntas mala esse non poterat, sed in bona, mutabili tamen, cui uitium hoc posset nocere. Si enim non nocuit, non utique uitium fuit, ac per hoc nec mala uoluntas fuisse dicenda est. Porro si nocuit, bonum auferendo uel minuendo utique nocuit. Non igitur esse potuit sempiterna uoluntas mala in ea re, in qua bonum naturale praecesserat, quod mala uoluntas nocendo posset adimere. Si ergo non erat sempiterna, quis eam fecerit quaero. Restat ut dicatur, quod ea res fecerit malam uoluntatem, in qua nulla uoluntas fuit. Haec utrum superior sit, requiro, an inferior, an aequalis. Sed superior utique melior; quo modo ergo nullius, ac non potius bonae uoluntatis? Hoc idem profecto et aequalis. Duo quippe quamdiu sunt pariter uoluntatis bonae, non facit alter in altero uoluntatem malam. Relinquitur ut inferior res, cui nulla uoluntas est, fecerit angelicae naturae, quae prima peccauit, uoluntatem malam. Sed etiam res ipsa quaecumque est inferior usque ad infimam terram, quoniam natura et essentia est, procul dubio bona est, habens modum et speciem suam in genere adque ordine suo. Quo modo ergo res bona efficiens est uoluntatis malae? Quo modo, inquam, bonum est causa mali? Cum enim se uoluntas relicto superiore ad inferiora conuertit, efficitur mala, non quia malum est, quo se conuertit, sed quia peruersa est ipsa conuersio. Idcirco non res inferior uoluntatem malam fecit, sed rem inferiorem praue adque inordinate, ipsa quia facta est, adpetiuit. Si enim aliqui duo aequaliter affecti animo et corpore uideant. unius corporis pulchritudinem, qua uisa unus eorum ad inlicite fruendum moueatur, alter in uoluntate pudica stabilis perseueret, quid putamus esse causae, ut in illo fiat, in illo non fiat uoluntas mala? Quae illam res fecit in quo facta est? Neque enim pulchritudo illa corporis; nam eam non fecit in ambobus, quando quidem amborum non dispariliter occurrit aspectibus. An caro intuentis in causa est? quur non et illius? An uero animus? quur non utriusque? Ambos enim et animo et corpore aequaliter affectos fuisse praediximus. An dicendum est alterum eorum occulta maligni spiritus suggestione tentatum, quasi non eidem suggestioni et qualicumque suasioni propria uoluntate consenserit? Hanc igitur consensionem, hanc malam quam male suadenti adhibuit uoluntatem, quae in eo res fecerit, quaerimus. Nam ut hoc quoque inpedimentum ab ista quaestione tollatur, si eadem tentatione ambo tententur, et unus ei cedat adque consentiat, alter idem qui fuerat perseueret: quid aliud apparet, nisi unum noluisse, alterum uoluisse a castitate deficere? Unde, nisi propria uoluntate. ubi eadem fuerat in utroque corporis et animi affectio? Amborum oculis pariter uisa est eadem pulchritudo, ambobus pariter institit occulta tentatio; propriam igitur in uno eorum uoluntatem malam res quae fecerit scire uolentibus, si bene intueantur, nihil occurrit. Si enim dixerimus quod ipse eam fecerit, quid erat ipse ante uoluntatem malam nisi natura bona, cuius auctor Deus, qui est inmutabile bonum? Qui ergo dicit eum, qui consensit tentanti adque suadenti, cui non consensit alius, ad inlicite utendum pulchro corpore, quod uidendum ambobus pariter adfuit, cum ante illam uisionem ac tentationem similes ambo animo et corpore fuerint, ipsum sibi fecisse uoluntatem malam, qui utique bonus ante uoluntatem malam fuerit: quaerat quur eam fecerit, utrum quia natura est, an quia ex nihilo facta est, et inueniet uoluntatem malam non ex eo esse incipere quod natura est, sed ex eo quod de nihilo facta natura est. Nam si natura causa est uoluntatis malae, quid aliud cogimur dicere, nisi a bono fieri malum et bonum esse causam mali? si quidem a natura bona fit uoluntas mala. Quod unde fieri potest, ut natura bona, quamuis mutabilis, antequam habeat uoluntatem malam, faciat aliquid mali, hoc est ipsam uoluntatem malam?

Chapter 7.—That We Ought Not to Expect to Find Any Efficient Cause of the Evil Will.

Caput VII. Causam efficientem malae uoluntatis non esse quaerendam.

Let no one, therefore, look for an efficient cause of the evil will; for it is not efficient, but deficient, as the will itself is not an effecting of something, but a defect. For defection from that which supremely is, to that which has less of being,—this is to begin to have an evil will. Now, to seek to discover the causes of these defections,—causes, as I have said, not efficient, but deficient,—is as if some one sought to see darkness, or hear silence. Yet both of these are known by us, and the former by means only of the eye, the latter only by the ear; but not by their positive actuality, but by their want of it. Let no one, then seek to know from me what I know that I do not know; unless he perhaps wishes to learn to be ignorant of that of which all we know is, that it cannot be known. For those things which are known not by their actuality, but by their want of it, are known, if our expression may be allowed and understood, by not knowing them, that by knowing them they may be not known. For when the eyesight surveys objects that strike the sense, it nowhere sees darkness but where it begins not to see. And so no other sense but the ear can perceive silence, and yet it is only perceived by not hearing. Thus, too, our mind perceives intelligible forms by understanding them; but when they are deficient, it knows them by not knowing them; for “who can understand defects?”

Nemo igitur quaerat efficientem causam malae uoluntatis; non enim est efficiens sed deficiens, quia nec illa effectio sed defectio. Deficere namque ab eo, quod summe est, ad id, quod minus est, hoc est incipere habere uoluntatem malam. Causas porro defectionum istarum, cum efficientes non sint, ut dixi, sed deficientes, uelle inuenire tale est, ac si quisquam uelit uidere tenebras uel audire silentium, quod tamen utrumque nobis notum est, neque illud nisi per oculos, neque hoc nisi per aures, non sane in specie, sed in speciei priuatione. Nemo ergo ex me scire quaerat, quod me nescire scio, nisi forte ut nescire discat, quod sciri non posse sciendum est. Ea quippe quae non in specie, sed in eius priuatione sciuntur, si dici aut intellegi potest, quodam modo nesciendo sciuntur, ut sciendo nesciantur. Cum enim acies etiam oculi corporalis currit per species corporales, nusquam tenebras uidet, nisi ubi coeperit non uidere. Ita etiam non ad aliquem alium sensum, sed ad solas aures pertinet sentire silentium, quod tamen nullo modo nisi non audiendo sentitur. Sic species intellegibiles mens quidem nostra intellegendo conspicit; sed ubi deficiunt, nesciendo condiscit. Delicta enim quis intellegit?

Chapter 8.—Of the Misdirected Love Whereby the Will Fell Away from the Immutable to the Mutable Good.

Caput VIII. De amore peruerso, quo uoluntas ab incommutabili bono ad mutabile bonum deficit.

This I do know, that the nature of God can never, nowhere, nowise be defective, and that natures made of nothing can. These latter, however, the more being they have, and the more good they do (for then they do something positive), the more they have efficient causes; but in so far as they are defective in being, and consequently do evil (for then what is their work but vanity?), they have deficient causes. And I know likewise, that the will could not become evil, were it unwilling to become so; and therefore its failings are justly punished, being not necessary, but voluntary. For its defections are not to evil things, but are themselves evil; that is to say, are not towards things that are naturally and in themselves evil, but the defection of the will is evil, because it is contrary to the order of nature, and an abandonment of that which has supreme being for that which has less. For avarice is not a fault inherent in gold, but in the man who inordinately loves gold, to the detriment of justice, which ought to be held in incomparably higher regard than gold. Neither is luxury the fault of lovely and charming objects, but of the heart that inordinately loves sensual pleasures, to the neglect of temperance, which attaches us to objects more lovely in their spirituality, and more delectable by their incorruptibility. Nor yet is boasting the fault of human praise, but of the soul that is inordinately fond of the applause of men, and that makes light of the voice of conscience. Pride, too, is not the fault of him who delegates power, nor of power itself, but of the soul that is inordinately enamored of its own power, and despises the more just dominion of a higher authority. Consequently he who inordinately loves the good which any nature possesses, even though he obtain it, himself becomes evil in the good, and wretched because deprived of a greater good.

Hoc scio, naturam Dei numquam, nusquam, nulla ex parte posse deficere, et ea posse deficere, quae ex nihilo facta sunt. Quae tamen quanto magis sunt et bona faciunt (tunc enim aliquid faciunt), causas habent efficientes; in quantum autem deficiunt et ex hoc mala faciunt (quid enim tunc faciunt nisi uana?). causas habent deficientes. Itemque scio, in quo fit mala uoluntas, id in eo fieri, quod si nollet non fieret, et ideo non necessarios, sed uoluntarios defectus iusta poena consequitur. Deficitur enim non ad mala, sed male, id est non ad malas naturas, sed ideo male, quia contra ordinem naturarum ab eo quod summe est ad id quod minus est. Neque enim auri uitium est auaritia, sed hominis peruerse amantis aurum iustitia derelicta, quae incomparabiliter auro debuit anteponi; nec luxuria uitium est pulchrorum suauiumque corporum, sed animae peruerse amantis corporeas uoluptates neglecta temperantia, qua rebus spiritaliter pulchrioribus et incorruptibiliter suauioribus coaptamur; nec iactantia uitium est laudis humanae, sed animae peruerse amantis laudari ab hominibus spreto testimonio conscientiae; nec superbia uitium est dantis potestatem uel ipsius etiam potestatis, sed animae peruerse amantis potestatem suam potentioris iustiore contemta. Ac per hoc qui peruerse amat cuiuslibet naturae bonum, etiamsi adipiscatur, ipse fit in bono malus et miser meliore priuatus.

Chapter 9.—Whether the Angels, Besides Receiving from God Their Nature, Received from Him Also Their Good Will by the Holy Spirit Imbuing Them with Love.

Caput IX. An sancti angeli, quem habent creatorem naturae, eundem habeant bonae uoluntatis auctorem per Spiritum sanctum in eis caritate diffusa.

There is, then, no natural efficient cause or, if I may be allowed the expression, no essential cause, of the evil will, since itself is the origin of evil in mutable spirits, by which the good of their nature is diminished and corrupted; and the will is made evil by nothing else than defection from God,—a defection of which the cause, too, is certainly deficient. But as to the good will, if we should say that there is no efficient cause of it, we must beware of giving currency to the opinion that the good will of the good angels is not created, but is co-eternal with God. For if they themselves are created, how can we say that their good will was eternal? But if created, was it created along with themselves, or did they exist for a time without it? If along with themselves, then doubtless it was created by Him who created them, and, as soon as ever they were created, they attached themselves to Him who created them, with the love He created in them. And they are separated from the society of the rest, because they have continued in the same good will; while the others have fallen away to another will, which is an evil one, by the very fact of its being a falling away from the good; from which, we may add, they would not have fallen away had they been unwilling to do so. But if the good angels existed for a time without a good will, and produced it in themselves without God’s interference, then it follows that they made themselves better than He made them. Away with such a thought! For without a good will, what were they but evil? Or if they were not evil, because they had not an evil will any more than a good one (for they had not fallen away from that which as yet they had not begun to enjoy), certainly they were not the same, not so good, as when they came to have a good will. Or if they could not make themselves better than they were made by Him who is surpassed by none in His work, then certainly, without His helpful operation, they could not come to possess that good will which made them better. And though their good will effected that they did not turn to themselves, who had a more stinted existence, but to Him who supremely is, and that, being united to Him, their own being was enlarged, and they lived a wise and blessed life by His communications to them, what does this prove but that the will, however good it might be, would have continued helplessly only to desire Him, had not He who had made their nature out of nothing, and yet capable of enjoying Him, first stimulated it to desire Him, and then filled it with Himself, and so made it better?

Cum ergo malae uoluntatis efficiens naturalis uel, si dici potest, essentialis nulla sit causa (ab ipsa quippe incipit spirituum mutabilium malum, quo minuitur adque deprauatur naturae bonum, nec talem uoluntatem facit nisi defectio, qua deseritur Deus. cuius defectionis etiam causa utique deficit): si dixerimus nullam esse efficientem causam etiam uoluntatis bonae, cauendum est, ne uoluntas bona bonorum angelorum non facta, sed Deo coaeterna esse credatur. Cum ergo ipsi facti sint, quo modo illa non esse facta dicetur? Porro quia facta est, utrum cum ipsis facta est, an sine illa fuerunt prius? Sed si cum ipsis, non dubium quod ab illo facta sit, a quo et ipsi; simulque ut facti sunt, ei. a quo facti sunt, amore. cum quo facti sunt, adhaeserunt; eoque sunt isti ab illorum societate discreti, quod illi in eadem bona uoluntate manserunt, isti ab ea deficiendo mutati sunt, mala scilicet uoluntate hoc ipso quod a bona defecerunt; a qua non defecissent. si utique noluissent. Si autem boni angeli fuerunt prius sine bona uoluntate eamque in se ipsi Deo non operante fecerunt, ergo meliores a se ipsis quam ab illo facti sunt. Absit. Quid enim erant sine bona uoluntate nisi mali? Aut si propterea non mali, quia nec mala uoluntas eis inerat (neque enim ab ea, quam nondum coeperant habere, defecerant), certe nondum tales, nondum tam boni quam esse cum bona uoluntate coeperunt. At si non potuerunt se ipsos facere meliores, quam eos ille fecerat, quo nemo melius quidquam facit: profecto et bonam uoluntatem, qua meliores essent, nisi operante adiutorio Creatoris habere non possent. Et cum id egit eorum uoluntas bona, ut non ad se ipsos, qui minus erant, sed ad illum, qui summe est, conuerterentur eique adhaerentes magis essent eiusque participatione sapienter beateque uiuerent: quid aliud ostenditur nisi uoluntatem quamlibet bonam inopem fuisse in solo desiderio remansuram, nisi ille, qui bonam naturam ex nihilo sui capacem fecerat, ex se ipso faceret inplendo meliorem, prius faciens excitando auidiorem? Nam et hoc discutiendum est, si boni angeli ipsi in se fecerunt bonam uoluntatem, utrum aliqua eam an nulla uoluntate fecerunt.

Besides, this too has to be inquired into, whether, if the good angels made their own will good, they did so with or without will? If without, then it was not their doing. If with, was the will good or bad? If bad, how could a bad will give birth to a good one? If good, then already they had a good will. And who made this will, which already they had, but He who created them with a good will, or with that chaste love by which they cleaved to Him, in one and the same act creating their nature, and endowing it with grace? And thus we are driven to believe that the holy angels never existed without a good will or the love of God. But the angels who, though created good, are yet evil now, became so by their own will. And this will was not made evil by their good nature, unless by its voluntary defection from good; for good is not the cause of evil, but a defection from good is. These angels, therefore, either received less of the grace of the divine love than those who persevered in the same; or if both were created equally good, then, while the one fell by their evil will, the others were more abundantly assisted, and attained to that pitch of blessedness at which they became certain they should never fall from it,—as we have already shown in the preceding book. We must therefore acknowledge, with the praise due to the Creator, that not only of holy men, but also of the holy angels, it can be said that “the love of God is shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto them.” And that not only of men, but primarily and principally of angels it is true, as it is written, “It is good to draw near to God.” And those who have this good in common, have, both with Him to whom they draw near, and with one another, a holy fellowship, and form one city of God—His living sacrifice, and His living temple. And I see that, as I have now spoken of the rise of this city among the angels, it is time to speak of the origin of that part of it which is hereafter to be united to the immortal angels, and which at present is being gathered from among mortal men, and is either sojourning on earth, or, in the persons of those who have passed through death, is resting in the secret receptacles and abodes of disembodied spirits. For from one man, whom God created as the first, the whole human race descended, according to the faith of Holy Scripture, which deservedly is of wonderful authority among all nations throughout the world; since, among its other true statements, it predicted, by its divine foresight, that all nations would give credit to it.

Si nulla, utique nec fecerunt. Si aliqua. utrum mala an bona? Si mala, quo modo esse potuit mala uoluntas bonae uoluntatis effectrix? Si bona, iam ergo habebant. Et istam quis fecerat nisi ille, qui eos cum bona uoluntate, id est cum amore casto quo illi adhaererent, creauit, simul eis et condens naturam et largiens gratiam? Unde sine bona uoluntate, hoc est Dei amore, numquam sanctos angelos fuisse credendum est. Isti autem, qui, cum boni creati essent, tamen mali sunt (mala propria uoluntate, quam bona natura non fecit, nisi cum a bono sponte defecit, ut mali causa non sit bonum, sed defectus a bono), aut minorem acceperunt diuini amoris gratiam quam illi, qui in eadem perstiterunt, aut si utrique boni aequaliter creati sunt, istis mala uoluntate cadentibus illi amplius adiuti ad eam beatitudinis plenitudinem, unde se numquam casuros certissimi fierent, peruenerunt; sicut iam etiam in libro, quem sequitur iste, tractauimus. Confitendum est igitur cum debita laude Creatoris non ad solos sanctos homines pertinere, uerum etiam de sanctis angelis posse dici, quod caritas Dei diffusa sit in eis per Spiritum sanctum, qui datus est eis; nec tantum hominum, sed primitus praecipueque angelorum bonum esse. quod scriptum est: Mihi autem adhaerere Deo bonum est. Hoc bonum quibus commune est, habent et cum illo cui adhaerent et inter se sanctam societatem et sunt una ciuitas Dei eademque uiuum sacrificium eius uiuumque templum eius. Cuius pars. quae coniungenda inmortalibus angelis ex mortalibus hominibus congregatur et nunc mortaliter peregrinatur in terris uel in eis, qui mortem obierunt, secretis animarum receptaculis sedibusque requiescit, eodem Deo creante quem ad modum exorta sit, sicut de angelis dictum est, iam uideo esse dicendum. Ex uno quippe homine. quem primum Deus condidit, humanum genus sumsit exordium secundum sanctae scripturae fidem. quae mirabilem auctoritatem non inmerito habet in orbe terrarum adque in omnibus gentibus, quas sibi esse credituras inter cetera uera, quae dixit, uera diuinitate praedixit.

Chapter 10.—Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past.

Caput X–XI. De opinione eorum, qui humanum genus sicut ipsum mundum semper fuisse existimant. De falsitate eius historiae, quae multa milia annorum praeteritis temporibus adscribit.

Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been. Thus Apuleius says when he is describing our race, “Individually they are mortal, but collectively, and as a race, they are immortal.” And when they are asked, how, if the human race has always been, they vindicate the truth of their history, which narrates who were the inventors, and what they invented, and who first instituted the liberal studies and the other arts, and who first inhabited this or that region, and this or that island? they reply, that most, if not all lands, were so desolated at intervals by fire and flood, that men were greatly reduced in numbers, and from these, again, the population was restored to its former numbers, and that thus there was at intervals a new beginning made, and though those things which had been interrupted and checked by the severe devastations were only renewed, yet they seemed to be originated then; but that man could not exist at all save as produced by man. But they say what they think, not what they know.

Omittamus igitur coniecturas hominum nescientium quid loquantur de natura uel institutione generis humani. Alii namque, sicut de ipso mundo crediderunt, semper fuisse homines opinantur. Unde et ait Apuleius, cum hoc animantium genus describeret: ‘Singillatim mortales, cuncti tamen uniuerso genere perpetui.’ Et cum illis dictum fuerit, si semper fuit humanum genus, quonam modo uerum eorum loquatur historia narrans qui fuerint quarumque rerum inuentores, qui primi liberalium disciplinarum aliarumque artium institutores. uel a quibus primum illa uel illa regio parsque terrarum. illa adque illa insula incoli coeperit, respondent diluuiis et conflagrationibus per certa interualla temporum non quidem omnia, sed plurima terrarum ita uastari, ut redigantur homines ad exiguam paucitatem, ex quorum progenie rursus multitudo pristina reparetur; ac sic identidem reperiri et institui quasi prima, cum restituantur potius, quae fuerant illis nimiis uastationibus interrupta et extincta; ceterum hominem nisi ex homine existere omnino non posse. Dicunt autem quod putant. non quod sciunt.

They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed. And, not to spend many words in exposing the baselessness of these documents, in which so many thousands of years are accounted for, nor in proving that their authorities are totally inadequate, let me cite only that letter which Alexander the Great wrote to his mother Olympias, giving her the narrative he had from an Egyptian priest, which he had extracted from their sacred archives, and which gave an account of kingdoms mentioned also by the Greek historians. In this letter of Alexander’s a term of upwards of 5000 years is assigned to the kingdom of Assyria; while in the Greek history only 1300 years are reckoned from the reign of Bel himself, whom both Greek and Egyptian agree in counting the first king of Assyria. Then to the empire of the Persians and Macedonians this Egyptian assigned more than 8000 years, counting to the time of Alexander, to whom he was speaking; while among the Greeks, 485 years are assigned to the Macedonians down to the death of Alexander, and to the Persians 233 years, reckoning to the termination of his conquests. Thus these give a much smaller number of years than the Egyptians; and indeed, though multiplied three times, the Greek chronology would still be shorter. For the Egyptians are said to have formerly reckoned only four months to their year; so that one year, according to the fuller and truer computation now in use among them as well as among ourselves, would comprehend three of their old years. But not even thus, as I said, does the Greek history correspond with the Egyptian in its chronology. And therefore the former must receive the greater credit, because it does not exceed the true account of the duration of the world as it is given by our documents, which are truly sacred. Further, if this letter of Alexander, which has become so famous, differs widely in this matter of chronology from the probable credible account, how much less can we believe these documents which, though full of fabu lous and fictitious antiquities, they would fain oppose to the authority of our well-known and divine books, which predicted that the whole world would believe them, and which the whole world accordingly has believed; which proved, too, that it had truly narrated past events by its prediction of future events, which have so exactly come to pass!

Fallunt eos etiam quaedam mendacissimae litterae, quas perhibent in historia temporum multa annorum milia continere, cum ex litteris sacris ab institutione hominis nondum conpleta annorum sex milia conputemus. Unde ne multa disputem quem ad modum illarum litterarum, in quibus longe plura annorum milia referuntur, uanitas refellatur et nulla in illis rei huius idonea reperiatur auctoritas: illa epistula Alexandri Magni ad Olympiadem matrem suam, quam scripsit narrationem cuiusdam Aegyptii sacerdotis insinuans, quam protulit ex litteris quae sacrae aput illos haberentur, continet etiam regna, quae Graeca quoque nouit historia; in quibus regnum Assyriorum in eadem epistula Alexandri quinque milia excedit annorum; in Graeca uero historia mille ferme et trecentos habet ab ipsius Beli principatu, quem regem et ille Aegyptius in eiusdem regni ponit exordio; Persarum autem et Macedonum imperium usque ad ipsum Alexandrum, cui loquebatur, plus quam octo annorum milia ille constituit, cum aput Graecos Macedonum usque ad mortem Alexandri quadringenti octoginta quinque reperiantur, Persarum uero, donec ipsius Alexandri uictoria finiretur, ducenti et triginta tres conputentur. Longe itaque hi numeri annorum illis Aegyptiis sunt minores. nec eis, etiamsi ter tantum conputarentur, aequarent. Perhibentur enim Aegyptii quondam tam breues annos habuisse, ut quaternis mensibus finirentur; unde annus plenior et uerior, qualis nunc et nobis et illis est, tres eorum annos conplectebatur antiquos. Sed ne sic quidem. ut dixi, Graeca Aegyptiae numero temporum concordat historia. Et ideo Graecae potius fides habenda est, quia ueritatem non excedit annorum, qui litteris nostris, quae uere sacrae sunt. continentur. Porro si haec epistula Alexandri, quae maxime innotuit, multum abhorret in spatiis temporum a probabili fide rerum: quanto minus credendum est illis litteris, quas. plenas fabulosis uelut antiquitatibus proferre uoluerint contra auctoritatem notissimorum diuinorumque librorum, quae totum orbem sibi crediturum esse praedixit, et cui totus orbis, sicut ab ea praedictum est, credidit; quae uera se narrasse praeterita ex his, quae futura praenuntiauit, cum tanta ueritate inplentur, ostendit.

Chapter 11.—Of Those Who Suppose that This World Indeed is Not Eternal, But that Either There are Numberless Worlds, or that One and the Same World is Perpetually Resolved into Its Elements, and Renewed at the Conclusion of Fixed Cycles.

Caput XII. De his, qui hunc quidem mundum non sempiternum putant, sed aut innumerabiles aut eundem unum certa conclusione saeculorum semper nasci et resolui opinantur.

There are some, again, who, though they do not suppose that this world is eternal, are of opinion either that this is not the only world, but that there are numberless worlds or that indeed it is the only one, but that it dies, and is born again at fixed intervals, and this times without number; but they must acknowledge that the human race existed before there were other men to beget them. For they cannot suppose that, if the whole world perish, some men would be left alive in the world, as they might survive in floods and conflagrations, which those other speculators suppose to be partial, and from which they can therefore reasonably argue that a few then survived whose posterity would renew the population; but as they believe that the world itself is renewed out of its own material, so they must believe that out of its elements the human race was produced, and then that the progeny of mortals sprang like that of other animals from their parents.

Alii uero, qui mundum istum non existimant sempiternum, siue non eum solum, sed innumerabiles opinentur. siue solum quidem esse, sed certis saeculorum interuallis innumerabiliter oriri et occidere, necesse est fateantur hominum genus prius sine hominibus gignentibus extitisse. Neque enim ut alluuioibus incendiisque terrarum, quas illi non putant toto prorsus orbe contingere, et ideo paucos homines, ex quibus multitudo pristina reparetur, semper remanere contendunt, ita et hi possunt putare, quod aliquid hominum pereunte mundo relinquatur in mundo; sed sicut ipsum mundum ex materia sua renasci existimant, ita in illo ex elementis eius genus humanum ac deinde a parentibus progeniem pullulare mortalium, sicut aliorum animalium.