--- title: "City of God · De civitate Dei" author: "Augustine" translator: "Marcus Dods" languages: [la, en] shelf: "Church Fathers" section: 59 of 116 url: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/59/ cite: "Augustine, tr. Marcus Dods, City of God · De civitate Dei, section 59. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/59/" --- # City of God · De civitate Dei *Augustine, tr. Marcus Dods* “Two loves have made two cities.” Augustine’s Latin, in Hoffmann’s critical text, beside Dods’s English, chapter by chapter. > Latin: Augustine, De civitate Dei, ed. Emanuel Hoffmann, CSEL 40 (Vienna: Tempsky, 1899–1900), as encoded by the Open Greek and Latin project, University of Leipzig (stoa0040.stoa003.opp-lat3, CC BY-SA 4.0); apparatus omitted. > English: Marcus Dods, The City of God (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first series, vol. 2, 1887). > Chapters are matched one to one except where the two editions divide them differently; within a chapter the Latin sentences are shared out over the English paragraphs by position. ## 59. Of the Impiety of Those Who Assert that the Souls Which Enjoy True and Perfect Blessedness, Must Yet Again and Again in These Periodic Revolutions Return to Labor and Misery. Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/59/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/59/#p-N [¶0] Chapter 20.—Of the Impiety of Those Who Assert that the Souls Which Enjoy True and Perfect Blessedness, Must Yet Again and Again in These Periodic Revolutions Return to Labor and Misery. > Latin: Caput XXI. De inpietate eorum, qui adserunt animas summae ueraeque beatitudinis participes iterum adque iterum per circuitus temporum ad easdem miserias laboresque redituras. [¶1] What pious ears could bear to hear that after a life spent in so many and severe distresses (if, indeed, that should be called a life at all which is rather a death, so utter that the love of this present death makes us fear that death which delivers us from it,) that after evils so disastrous, and miseries of all kinds have at length been expiated and finished by the help of true religion and wisdom, and when we have thus attained to the vision of God, and have entered into bliss by the contemplation of spiritual light and participation in His unchangeable immortality, which we burn to attain,—that we must at some time lose all this, and that they who do lose it are cast down from that eternity, truth, and felicity to infernal mortality and shameful foolishness, and are involved in accursed woes, in which God is lost, truth held in detestation, and happiness sought in iniquitous impurities? and that this will happen endlessly again and again, recurring at fixed intervals, and in regularly returning periods? and that this everlasting and ceaseless revolution of definite cycles, which remove and restore true misery and deceitful bliss in turn, is contrived in order that God may be able to know His own works, since on the one hand He cannot rest from creating and on the other, cannot know the infinite number of His creatures, if He always makes creatures? Who, I say, can listen to such things? Who can accept or suffer them to be spoken? Were they true, it were not only more prudent to keep silence regarding them, but even (to express myself as best I can) it were the part of wisdom not to know them. For if in the future world we shall not remember these things, and by this oblivion be blessed, why should we now increase our misery, already burdensome enough, by the knowledge of them? If, on the other hand, the knowledge of them will be forced upon us hereafter, now at least let us remain in ignorance, that in the present expectation we may enjoy a blessedness which the future reality is not to bestow; since in this life we are expecting to obtain life everlasting, but in the world to come are to discover it to be blessed, but not everlasting. > Latin: Quorum enim aures piorum ferant post emensam tot tantisque calamitatibus uitam (si tamen uita ista dicenda est, quae potius mors est, ita grauis, ut mors, quae ab hac liberat, mortis huius amore timeatur), post tam magna mala tamque multa et horrenda tandem aliquando per ueram religionem adque sapientiam expiata adque finita ita peruenire ad conspectum Dei adque ita fieri beatum contemplatione incorporeae lucis per participationem inmutabilis inmortalitatis eius, cuius adipiscendae amore flagramus, ut eam quandoque necesse sit deseri et eos, qui deserunt, ab illa aeternitate ueritate felicitate deiectos tartareae mortalitati, turpi stultitiae, miseriis exsecrabilibus inplicari, ubi Deus amittatur, ubi odio ueritas habeatur, ubi per inmundas nequitias beatitudo quaeratur, et hoc itidem adque itidem sine ullo fine priorum et posteriorum certis interuallis et dimensionibus saeculorum factum et futurum; et hoc propterea, ut possint Deo circuitibus definitis euntibus semper adque redeuntibus per nostras falsas beatitudines et ueras miserias alternatim quidem, sed reuolutione incessabili sempiternas nota esse opera sua, quoniam neque a faciendo quiescere neque sciendo potest ea, quae infinita sunt, indagare? Quis haec audiat? quis credat? quis ferat? Quae si uera essent, non solum tacerentur prudentius, uerum etiam (ut quo modo ualeo dicam quod uolo) doctius nescirentur. Nam si haec illic in memoria non habebimus et ideo beati erimus, quur hic per eorum scientiam grauatur amplius nostra miseria? Si autem ibi ea necessario scituri sumus, hic saltem nesciamus, ut hic felicior sit expectatio quam illic adeptio summi boni; quando hic aeterna uita consequenda expectatur; ibi autem beata, sed non aeterna, quandoque amittenda cognoscitur. [¶2] And if they maintain that no one can attain to the blessedness of the world to come, unless in this life he has been indoctrinated in those cycles in which bliss and misery relieve one another, how do they avow that the more a man loves God, the more readily he attains to blessedness,—they who teach what paralyzes love itself? For who would not be more remiss and lukewarm in his love for a person whom he thinks he shall be forced to abandon, and whose truth and wisdom he shall come to hate; and this, too, after he has quite attained to the utmost and most blissful knowledge of Him that he is capable of? Can any one be faithful in his love, even to a human friend, if he knows that he is destined to become his enemy? God forbid that there be any truth in an opinion which threatens us with a real misery that is never to end, but is often and endlessly to be interrupted by intervals of fallacious happiness. For what happiness can be more fallacious and false than that in whose blaze of truth we yet remain ignorant that we shall be miserable, or in whose most secure citadel we yet fear that we shall be so? For if, on the one hand, we are to be ignorant of coming calamity, then our present misery is not so short-sighted for it is assured of coming bliss. If, on the other hand, the disaster that threatens is not concealed from us in the world to come, then the time of misery which is to be at last exchanged for a state of blessedness, is spent by the soul more happily than its time of happiness, which is to end in a return to misery. And thus our expectation of unhappiness is happy, but of happiness unhappy. And therefore, as we here suffer present ills, and hereafter fear ills that are imminent, it were truer to say that we shall always be miserable than that we can some time be happy. > Latin: Si autem dicunt neminem posse ad illam beatitudinem peruenire, nisi hos circuitus, ubi beatitudo et miseria uicissim alternant, in huius uitae eruditione cognouerit: quo modo ergo fatentur, quanto plus quisque amauerit Deum, tanto eum facilius ad beatitudinem peruenturum, qui ea docent, quibus amor ipse torpescat? Nam quis non remissius et tepidius amet eum, quem se cogitat necessario deserturum et contra eius ueritatem sapientiamque sensurum, et hoc cum ad eius plenam pro sua capacitate notitiam beatitudinis perfectione peruenerit? quando nec hominem amicum possit quisque amare fideliter, cui se futurum nouit inimicum. Sed absit ut uera sint, quae nobis minantur ueram miseriam numquam finiendam, sed interpositionibus falsae beatitudinis saepe ac sine fine rumpendam. Quid enim illa beatitudine falsius adque fallacius, ubi nos futuros miseros aut in tanta ueritatis luce nesciamus aut in summa felicitatis arce timeamus? Si enim uenturam calamitatem ignoraturi sumus, peritior est hic nostra miseria, ubi uenturam beatitudinem nouimus; si autem nos illic clades inminens non latebit. beatius tempora transigit anima misera, quibus transactis ad beatitudinem subleuetur, quam beata, quibus transactis in miseriam reuoluatur. Adque ita spes nostrae infelicitatis est felix et felicitatis infelix. Unde fit, ut, quia hic mala praesentia patimur, ibi metuimus inminentia, uerius semper miseri quam beati aliquando esse possimus. [¶3] But these things are declared to be false by the loud testimony of religion and truth; for religion truthfully promises a true blessedness, of which we shall be eternally assured, and which cannot be interrupted by any disaster. Let us therefore keep to the straight path, which is Christ, and, with Him as our Guide and Saviour, let us turn away in heart and mind from the unreal and futile cycles of the godless. Porphyry, Platonist though he was, abjured the opinion of his school, that in these cycles souls are ceaselessly passing away and returning, either being struck with the extravagance of the idea, or sobered by his knowledge of Christianity. As I mentioned in the tenth book, he preferred saying that the soul, as it had been sent into the world that it might know evil, and be purged and delivered from it, was never again exposed to such an experience after it had once returned to the Father. And if he abjured the tenets of his school, how much more ought we Christians to abominate and avoid an opinion so unfounded and hostile to our faith? But having disposed of these cycles and escaped out of them, no necessity compels us to suppose that the human race had no beginning in time, on the ground that there is nothing new in nature which, by I know not what cycles, has not at some previous period existed, and is not hereafter to exist again. For if the soul, once delivered, as it never was before, is never to return to misery, then there happens in its experience something which never happened before; and this, indeed, something of the greatest consequence, to wit, the secure entrance into eternal felicity. And if in an immortal nature there can occur a novelty, which never has been, nor ever shall be, reproduced by any cycle, why is it disputed that the same may occur in mortal natures? If they maintain that blessedness is no new experience to the soul, but only a return to that state in which it has been eternally, then at least its deliverance from misery is something new, since, by their own showing, the misery from which it is delivered is itself, too, a new experience. And if this new experience fell out by accident, and was not embraced in the order of things appointed by Divine Providence, then where are those determinate and measured cycles in which no new thing happens, but all things are reproduced as they were before? If, however, this new experience was embraced in that providential order of nature (whether the soul was exposed to the evil of this world for the sake of discipline, or fell into it by sin), then it is possible for new things to happen which never happened before, and which yet are not extraneous to the order of nature. And if the soul is able by its own imprudence to create for itself a new misery, which was not unforeseen by the Divine Providence, but was provided for in the order of nature along with the deliverance from it, how can we, even with all the rashness of human vanity, presume to deny that God can create new things—new to the world, but not to Him—which He never before created, but yet foresaw from all eternity? If they say that it is indeed true that ransomed souls return no more to misery, but that even so no new thing happens, since there always have been, now are, and ever shall be a succession of ransomed souls, they must at least grant that in this case there are new souls to whom the misery and the deliverance from it are new. For if they maintain that those souls out of which new men are daily being made (from whose bodies, if they have lived wisely, they are so delivered that they never return to misery) are not new, but have existed from eternity, they must logically admit that they are infinite. For however great a finite number of souls there were, that would not have sufficed to make perpetually new men from eternity,—men whose souls were to be eternally freed from this mortal state, and never afterwards to return to it. And our philosophers will find it hard to explain how there is an infinite number of souls in an order of nature which they require shall be finite, that it may be known by God. > Latin: Sed quoniam haec falsa sunt clamante pietate, conuincente ueritate (illa enim nobis ueraciter promittitur uera felicitas, cuius erit semper retinenda et nulla infelicitate rumpenda certa securitas): uiam rectam sequentes, quod nobis est Christus, eo duce ac saluatore a uano et inepto inpiorum circuitu iter fidei mentemque auertamus. Si enim de istis circuitibus et sine cessatione alternantibus itionibus et reditionibus animarum Porphyrius Platonicus suorum opinionem sequi noluit, siue ipsius rei uanitate permotus siue iam tempora Christiana reueritus, et, quod in libro decimo commemoraui, dicere maluit animam propter cognoscenda mala traditam mundo, ut ab eis liberata adque purgata, cum ad Patrem redierit, nihil ulterius tale patiatur: quanto magis nos istam inimicam Christianae fidei falsitatem detestari ac deuitare debemus! His autem circuitibus euacuatis __ adque frustratis nulla necessitas nos conpellit ideo putare non habere initium temporis ex quo esse coeperit genus humanum, quia per nescio quos circuitus nihil sit in rebus noui, quod non et antea certis interuallis temporum fuerit et postea sit futurum. Si enim liberatur anima non reditura ad miserias, sicut numquam antea liberata est, fit in illa aliquid, quod antea numquam factum est, et hoc quidem ualde magnum, id est quae numquam desinat aeterna felicitas. Si autem in natura inmortali fit tanta nouitas nullo repetita, nullo repetenda circuitu, quur in rebus mortalibus fieri non posse contenditur? Si dicunt non fieri in anima beatitudinis nouitatem, quoniam ad eam reuertitur, in qua semper fuit, ipsa certe liberatio noua fit, cum de miseria liberatur in qua numquam fuit, et ipsa miseriae nouitas in ea facta est quae numquam fuit. Haec autem nouitas si non in rerum, quae diuina prouidentia gubernantur, ordinem uenit, sed casu potius euenit, ubi sunt illi determinati dimensique circuitus, in quibus nulla noua fiunt, sed repetuntur eadem quae fuerunt? Si autem et haec nouitas ab ordinatione prouidentiae non excluditur, siue data sit anima siue lapsa sit: possunt fieri noua, quae neque antea facta sint nec tamen a rerum ordine aliena sint. Et si potuit anima per inprudentiam facere sibi nouam miseriam, quae non esset inprouisa diuinae prouidentiae, ut hanc quoque in rerum ordine includeret et ab hac eam non inprouide liberaret: qua tandem temeritate humanae uanitatis audemus negare diuinitatem facere posse res, non sibi, sed mundo nouas, quas neque antea fecerit nec umquam habuerit inprouisas? Si autem dicunt liberatas quidem animas ad miseriam non reuersuras, sed cum hoc fit in rebus nihil noui fieri, quoniam semper aliae adque aliae liberatae sunt et liberantur et liberabuntur: hoc certe concedunt, si ita est, nouas animas fieri, quibus sit et noua miseria et noua liberatio. Nam si antiquas eas esse dicunt et retrorsum sempiternas, ex quibus cottidie noui fiant homines, de quorum corporibus, si sapienter uixerint, ita liberentur, ut numquam ad miserias reuoluantur, consequenter dicturi sunt infinitas. Quantuslibet namque finitus numerus fuisset animarum, infinitis retro saeculis sufficere non ualeret, ut ex illo semper homines fierent, quorum essent animae ab ista semper mortalitate liberandae, numquam ad eam deinceps rediturae. Nec ullo modo explicabunt, quo modo in rebus, quas, ut Deo notae esse possint, finitas uolunt, infinitus sit numerus animarum. [¶4] And now that we have exploded these cycles which were supposed to bring back the soul at fixed periods to the same miseries, what can seem more in accordance with godly reason than to believe that it is possible for God both to create new things never before created, and in doing so, to preserve His will unaltered? But whether the number of eternally redeemed souls can be continually increased or not, let the philosophers themselves decide, who are so subtle in determining where infinity cannot be admitted. For our own part, our reasoning holds in either case. For if the number of souls can be indefinitely increased, what reason is there to deny that what had never before been created, could be created? since the number of ransomed souls never existed before, and has yet not only been once made, but will never cease to be anew coming into being. If, on the other hand, it be more suitable that the number of eternally ransomed souls be definite, and that this number will never be increased, yet this number, whatever it be, did assuredly never exist before, and it cannot increase, and reach the amount it signifies, without having some beginning; and this beginning never before existed. That this beginning, therefore, might be, the first man was created. > Latin: Quapropter quoniam circuitus illi iam explosi sunt, quibus ad easdem miserias necessario putabatur anima reditura: quid restat conuenientius pietati quam credere non esse inpossibile Deo et ea, quae numquam fecerit, noua facere et ineffabili praescientia uoluntatem mutabilem non habere? Porro autem utrum animarum liberatarum nec ulterius ad miserias rediturarum numerus possit semper augeri, ipsi uiderint, qui de rerum infinitate cohibenda tam subtiliter disputant; nos uero ratiocinationem nostram ex utroque latere terminamus. Si enim potest, quid causae est, ut negetur creari potuisse quod numquam antea creatum esset, si liberatarum animarum numerus, qui numquam antea fuit, non solum factus est semel, sed fieri numquam desinet? Si autem oportet ut certus sit liberatarum aliquis numerus animarum, quae ad miseriam numquam redeant, neque iste numerus ulterius augeatur: etiam ipse sine dubio, quicumque erit, ante utique numquam fuit; qui profecto crescere et ad suae quantitatis terminum peruenire sine aliquo non posset initio; quod initium eo modo antea numquam fuit. Hoc ergo ut esset, creatus est homo, ante quem nullus fuit. ### That There Was Created at First But One Individual, and that the Human Race Was Created in Him. [¶6] Chapter 21.—That There Was Created at First But One Individual, and that the Human Race Was Created in Him. > Latin: Caput XXII. De conditione unius primi hominis adque in eo generis humani. [¶7] Now that we have solved, as well as we could, this very difficult question about the eternal God creating new things, without any novelty of will, it is easy to see how much better it is that God was pleased to produce the human race from the one individual whom He created, than if He had originated it in several men. For as to the other animals, He created some solitary, and naturally seeking lonely places,—as the eagles, kites, lions, wolves, and such like; others gregarious, which herd together, and prefer to live in company,—as pigeons, starlings, stags, and little fallow deer, and the like: but neither class did He cause to be propagated from individuals, but called into being several at once. Man, on the other hand, whose nature was to be a mean between the angelic and bestial, He created in such sort, that if he remained in subjection to His Creator as his rightful Lord, and piously kept His commandments, he should pass into the company of the angels, and obtain, without the intervention of death, a blessed and endless immortality; but if he offended the Lord his God by a proud and disobedient use of his free will, he should become subject to death, and live as the beasts do,—the slave of appetite, and doomed to eternal punishment after death. And therefore God created only one single man, not, certainly, that he might be a solitary, bereft of all society, but that by this means the unity of society and the bond of concord might be more effectually commended to him, men being bound together not only by similarity of nature, but by family affection. And indeed He did not even create the woman that was to be given him as his wife, as he created the man, but created her out of the man, that the whole human race might derive from one man. > Latin: Hac igitur quaestione difficillima propter aeternitatem Dei noua creantis sine nouitate aliqua uoluntatis, quantum potuimus, explicata non est arduum uidere multo fuisse melius quod factum est, ut ex uno homine, quem primum condidit, multiplicaret genus humanum, quam si id incohasset a pluribus. Nam cum animantes alias solitarias et quodam modo soliuagas, id est, quae solitudinem magis adpetant, sicuti sunt aquilae milui, leones lupi et quaecumque ita sunt, alias congreges instituerit, quae congregatae adque in gregibus malint uiuere, ut sunt columbi sturni, cerui damulae et cetera huius modi: utrumque tamen genus non ex singulis propagauit, sed plura simul iussit existere. Hominem uero, cuius naturam quodam modo mediam inter angelos bestiasque condebat, ut, si Creatori suo tamquam uero domino subditus praeceptum eius pia oboedientia custodiret, in consortium transiret angelicum, sine morte media beatam inmortalitatem absque ullo termino consecutus; si autem Dominum Deum suum libera uoluntate superbe adque inoboedienter usus offenderet, morti addictus bestialiter uiueret, libidinis seruus aeternoque post mortem supplicio destinatus, unum ac singulum creauit, non utique solum sine humana societate deserendum, sed ut eo modo uehementius ei commendaretur ipsius societatis unitas uinculumque concordiae, si non tantum inter se naturae similitudine, uerum etiam cognationis affectu homines necterentur; quando ne ipsam quidem feminam copulandam uiro sicut ipsum creare illi placuit, sed ex ipso, ut omnino ex homine uno diffunderetur genus humanum. ### That God Foreknew that the First Man Would Sin, and that He at the Same Time Foresaw How Large a Multitude of Godly Persons Would by His Grace Be Translated to the Fellowship of the Angels. [¶9] Chapter 22.—That God Foreknew that the First Man Would Sin, and that He at the Same Time Foresaw How Large a Multitude of Godly Persons Would by His Grace Be Translated to the Fellowship of the Angels. > Latin: Caput XXIII. Quod praescierit Deus hominem, quem primum condidit, peccaturum simulque praeuiderit, quantum piorum populum ex eius genere in angelicum consortium sua esset gratia translaturus. [¶10] And God was not ignorant that man would sin, and that, being himself made subject now to death, he would propagate men doomed to die, and that these mortals would run to such enormities in sin, that even the beasts devoid of rational will, and who were created in numbers from the waters and the earth, would live more securely and peaceably with their own kind than men, who had been propagated from one individual for the very purpose of commending concord. For not even lions or dragons have ever waged with their kind such wars as men have waged with one another. But God foresaw also that by His grace a people would be called to adoption, and that they, being justified by the remission of their sins, would be united by the Holy Ghost to the holy angels in eternal peace, the last enemy, death, being destroyed; and He knew that this people would derive profit from the consideration that God had caused all men to be derived from one, for the sake of showing how highly He prizes unity in a multitude. > Latin: Nec ignorabat Deus hominem peccaturum et morti iam obnoxium morituros propagaturum eoque progressuros peccandi inmanitate mortales, ut tutius adque pacatius inter se rationalis uoluntatis expertes bestiae sui generis uiuerent, quarum ex aquis et terris plurium pullulauit exordium, quam homines, quorum genus ex uno est ad commendandam concordiam propagatum. Neque enim umquam inter se leones aut inter se dracones, qualia homines, bella gesserunt. Sed praeuidebat etiam gratia sua populum piorum in adoptionem uocandum remissisque peccatis iustificatum Spiritu sancto sanctis angelis in aeterna pace sociandum, nouissima inimica morte destructa; cui populo esset huius rei consideratio profutura, quod ex uno homine Deus ad commendandum hominibus. quam ei grata sit etiam in pluribus unitas, genus instituisset humanum. ### Of the Nature of the Human Soul Created in the Image of God. [¶12] Chapter 23.—Of the Nature of the Human Soul Created in the Image of God. > Latin: Caput XXIV. De natura humanae animae creatae ad imaginem Dei. [¶13] God, then, made man in His own image. For He created for him a soul endowed with reason and intelligence, so that he might excel all the creatures of earth, air, and sea, which were not so gifted. And when He had formed the man out of the dust of the earth, and had willed that his soul should be such as I have said,—whether He had already made it, and now by breathing imparted it to man, or rather made it by breathing, so that that breath which God made by breathing (for what else is “to breathe” than to make breath?) is the soul,—He made also a wife for him, to aid him in the work of generating his kind, and her He formed of a bone taken out of the man’s side, working in a divine manner. For we are not to conceive of this work in a carnal fashion, as if God wrought as we commonly see artisans, who use their hands, and material furnished to them, that by their artistic skill they may fashion some material object. God’s hand is God’s power; and He, working invisibly, effects visible results. But this seems fabulous rather than true to men, who measure by customary and everyday works the power and wisdom of God, whereby He understands and produces without seeds even seeds themselves; and because they cannot understand the things which at the beginning were created, they are sceptical regarding them—as if the very things which they do know about human propagation, conceptions and births, would seem less incredible if told to those who had no experience of them; though these very things, too, are attributed by many rather to physical and natural causes than to the work of the divine mind. > Latin: Fecit ergo Deus hominem ad imaginem suam. Talem quippe illi animam creauit, qua per rationem adque intellegentiam omnibus esset praestantior animalibus terrestribus et natatilibus et uolatilibus, quae mentem huius modi non haberent. Et cum uirum terreno formasset ex puluere eique animam qualem dixi siue quam iam fecerat sufflando indidisset siue potius sufflando fecisset eumque flatum, quem sufflando fecit (nam quid est aliud sufflare quam flatum facere?), animam hominis esse uoluisset, etiam coniugem illi in adiutorium generandi ex eius latere osse detracto fecit, ut Deus. Neque enim haec carnali consuetudine cogitanda sunt, ut uidere solemus opifices ex materia quacumque terrena corporalibus membris. quod artis industria potuerint, fabricantes. Manus Dei potentia Dei est, qui etiam uisibilia inuisibiliter operatur. Sed haec fabulosa potius quam uera esse arbitrantur, qui uirtutem ac sapientiam Dei, qua nouit et potest etiam sine seminibus ipsa certe facere semina, ex his usitatis et cottidianis metiuntur operibus; ea uero, quae primitus instituta sunt, quoniam non nouerunt, infideliter cogitant; quasi non haec ipsa, quae nouerunt de humanis conceptibus adque partubus, si inexpertis narrarentur, incredibiliora uiderentur; quamuis et ea ipsa plerique magis naturae corporalibus causis quam operibus diuinae mentis adsignent. ### Whether the Angels Can Be Said to Be the Creators of Any, Even the Least Creature. [¶15] Chapter 24.—Whether the Angels Can Be Said to Be the Creators of Any, Even the Least Creature. > Latin: Caput XXV. An ullius uel minimae creaturae possint dici angeli creatores. [¶16] But in this book we have nothing to do with those who do not believe that the divine mind made or cares for this world. As for those who believe their own Plato, that all mortal animals—among whom man holds the pre-eminent place, and is near to the gods themselves—were created not by that most high God who made the world, but by other lesser gods created by the Supreme, and exercising a delegated power under His control,—if only those persons be delivered from the superstition which prompts them to seek a plausible reason for paying divine honors and sacrificing to these gods as their creators, they will easily be disentangled also from this their error. For it is blasphemy to believe or to say (even before it can be understood) that any other than God is creator of any nature, be it never so small and mortal. And as for the angels, whom those Platonists prefer to call gods, although they do, so far as they are permitted and commissioned, aid in the production of the things around us, yet not on that account are we to call them creators, any more than we call gardeners the creators of fruits and trees. > Latin: Sed cum his nullum nobis est in his libris negotium, qui diuinam mentem facere uel curare ista non credunt. Illi autem qui Platoni suo credunt non ab illo summo Deo, qui fabricatus est mundum, sed ab aliis minoribus, quos quidem ipse creauerit, permissu siue iussu eius animalia facta esse cuncta mortalia, in quibus homo praecipuum disque ipsis cognatum teneret locum, si superstitione careant, qua quaerunt unde iuste uideantur sacra et sacrificia facere quasi conditoribus suis, facile carebunt etiam huius opinionis errore. Neque enim fas est ullius naturae quamlibet minimae mortalisque creatorem nisi Deum credere ac dicere, et antequam possit intellegi. Angeli autem, quos illi deos libentius appellant, etiamsi adhibent uel iussi uel permissi operationem suam rebus quae gignuntur in mundo, tam non eos dicimus creatores animalium, quam nec agricolas frugum adque arborum. ### That God Alone is the Creator of Every Kind of Creature, Whatever Its Nature or Form. [¶18] Chapter 25.—That God Alone is the Creator of Every Kind of Creature, Whatever Its Nature or Form. > Latin: Caput XXVI. Omnem naturam et omnem speciem uniuersae creaturae non nisi opere Dei fieri adque formari. [¶19] For whereas there is one form which is given from without to every bodily substance,—such as the form which is constructed by potters and smiths, and that class of artists who paint and fashion forms like the body of animals,—but another and internal form which is not itself constructed, but, as the efficient cause, produces not only the natural bodily forms, but even the life itself of the living creatures, and which proceeds from the secret and hidden choice of an intelligent and living nature,—let that first-mentioned form be attributed to every artificer, but this latter to one only, God, the Creator and Originator who made the world itself and the angels, without the help of world or angels. For the same divine and, so to speak, creative energy, which cannot be made, but makes, and which gave to the earth and sky their roundness,—this same divine, effective, and creative energy gave their roundness to the eye and to the apple; and the other natural objects which we anywhere see, received also their form, not from without, but from the secret and profound might of the Creator, who said, “Do not I fill heaven and earth?” and whose wisdom it is that “reacheth from one end to another mightily; and sweetly doth she order all things.” Wherefore I know not what kind of aid the angels, themselves created first, afforded to the Creator in making other things. I cannot ascribe to them what perhaps they cannot do, neither ought I to deny them such faculty as they have. But, by their leave, I attribute the creating and originating work which gave being to all natures to God, to whom they themselves thankfully ascribe their existence. We do not call gardeners the creators of their fruits, for we read, “Neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase.” Nay, not even the earth itself do we call a creator, though she seems to be the prolific mother of all things which she aids in germinating and bursting forth from the seed, and which she keeps rooted in her own breast; for we likewise read, “God giveth it a body, as it hath pleased Him, and to every seed his own body.” We ought not even to call a woman the creatress of her own offspring; for He rather is its creator who said to His servant, “Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee.” And although the various mental emotions of a pregnant woman do produce in the fruit of her womb similar qualities,—as Jacob with his peeled wands caused piebald sheep to be produced,—yet the mother as little creates her offspring as she created herself. Whatever bodily or seminal causes, then, may be used for the production of things, either by the cooperation of angels, men, or the lower animals, or by sexual generation; and whatever power the desires and mental emotions of the mother have to produce in the tender and plastic fœtus corresponding lineaments and colors; yet the natures themselves, which are thus variously affected, are the production of none but the most high God. It is His occult power which pervades all things, and is present in all without being contaminated, which gives being to all that is, and modifies and limits its existence; so that without Him it would not be thus, or thus, nor would have any being at all. If, then, in regard to that outward form which the workman’s hand imposes on his work, we do not say that Rome and Alexandria were built by masons and architects, but by the kings by whose will, plan, and resources they were built, so that the one has Romulus, the other Alexander, for its founder; with how much greater reason ought we to say that God alone is the Author of all natures, since He neither uses for His work any material which was not made by Him, nor any workmen who were not also made by Him, and since, if He were, so to speak, to withdraw from created things His creative power, they would straightway relapse into the nothingness in which they were before they were created? “Before,” I mean, in respect of eternity, not of time. For what other creator could there be of time, than He who created those things whose movements make time? > Latin: Cum enim alia sit species, quae adhibetur extrinsecus cuicumque materiae corporali, sicut operantur homines figuli et fabri adque id genus opifices, qui etiam pingunt et effingunt formas similes corporibus animalium; alia uero, quae intrinsecus efficientes causas habet de secreto et occulto naturae uiuentis adque intellegentis arbitrio, quae non solum naturales corporum species, uerum etiam ipsas animantium animas, dum non fit, facit: supra dicta illa species artificibus quibusque tribuatur; haec autem altera non nisi uni artifici, creatori et conditori Deo, qui mundum ipsum et angelos sine ullo mundo et sine ullis angelis fecit. Qua enim ui diuina et, ut ita dicam, effectiua, quae fieri nescit, sed facere, accepit speciem, cum mundus fieret, rutunditas caeli et rutunditas solis: eadem ui diuina et effectiua, quae fieri nescit, sed facere, accepit speciem rutunditas oculi et rutunditas pomi et ceterae figurae naturales, quas uidemus in rebus quibusque nascentibus non extrinsecus adhiberi, sed intima Creatoris potentia, qui dixit: Caelum et terram ego inpleo, et cuius sapientia est, quae adtingit a fine usque ad finem fortiter et disponit omnia suauiter. Proinde facti primitus angeli cuius modi ministerium praebuerint Creatori cetera facienti nescio; nec tribuere illis audeo quod forte non possunt, nec debeo derogare quod possunt. Creationem tamen conditionemque omnium naturarum, qua fit ut omnino naturae sint, eis quoque fauentibus illi Deo tribuo, cui se etiam ipsi debere quod sunt cum gratiarum actione nouerunt. Non solum igitur agricolas non dicimus fructuum quorumque creatores, cum legamus: Neque qui plantat est aliquid neque qui rigat, sed qui incrementum dat Deus; sed ne ipsam quidem terram, quamuis mater omnium fecunda uideatur, quae germinibus erumpentia promouet et fixa radicibus continet, cum itidem legamus: Deus illi dat corpus quo modo uoluerit et unicuique seminum proprium corpus. Ita nec feminam sui puerperii creatricem appellare debemus, sed potius illum qui cuidam famulo suo dixit: Priusquam te formarem in utero, noui te. Et quamuis anima sic uel sic affecta praegnantis ualeat aliquibus uelut induere qualitatibus fetum, sicut de uirgis uariatis fecit Iacob, ut pecora colore uaria gignerentur: naturam tamen illam, quae gignitur, tam ipsa non fecit, quam nec ipsa se fecit. Quaelibet igitur corporales uel seminales causae gignendis rebus adhibeantur, siue operationibus angelorum aut hominum aut quorumque animalium siue marium feminarumque mixtionibus; quaelibet etiam desideria motusue animae matris ualeant aliquid liniamentorum aut colorum aspergere teneris mollibusque conceptibus: ipsas omnino naturas, quae sic uel sic in suo genere afficiantur, non facit nisi summus Deus, cuius occulta potentia cuncta penetrans incontaminabili praesentia facit esse quidquid aliquo modo est, in quantumcumque est; quia nisi faciente illo non tale uel tale esset, sed prorsus esse non posset. Quapropter si in illa specie, quam forinsecus corporalibus opifices rebus inponunt, urbem Romam et urbem Alexandriam non fabros et architectos, sed reges, quorum uoluntate consilio imperio fabricatae sunt, illam Romulum, illam Alexandrum habuisse dicimus conditores: quanto potius non nisi Deum debemus conditorem dicere naturarum, qui neque ex ea materia facit aliquid, quam ipse non fecerit, nec operarios habet, nisi quos ipse creauerit; et si potentiam suam, ut ita dicam, fabricatoriam rebus subtrahat, ita non erunt, sicut ante quam fierent non fuerunt. Sed ante dico aeternitate, non tempore. Quis enim alius creator est temporum, nisi qui fecit ea, quorum motibus currerent tempora? ### Of that Opinion of the Platonists, that the Angels Were Themselves Indeed Created by God, But that Afterwards They Created Man’s Body. [¶21] Chapter 26.—Of that Opinion of the Platonists, that the Angels Were Themselves Indeed Created by God, But that Afterwards They Created Man’s Body. > Latin: Caput XXVII. De Platonicorum opinione, qua putauerunt angelos quidem a Deo conditos, sed ipsos esse h’umanorum corporum conditores. [¶22] It is obvious, that in attributing the creation of the other animals to those inferior gods who were made by the Supreme, he meant it to be understood that the immortal part was taken from God Himself, and that these minor creators added the mortal part; that is to say, he meant them to be considered the creators of our bodies, but not of our souls. But since Porphyry maintains that if the soul is to be purified all entanglement with a body must be escaped from; and at the same time agrees with Plato and the Platonistsin thinking that those who have not spent a temperate and honorable life return to mortal bodies as their punishment (to bodies of brutes in Plato’s opinion, to human bodies in Porphyry’s); it follows that those whom they would have us worship as our parents and authors, that they may plausibly call them gods, are, after all, but the forgers of our fetters and chains,—not our creators, but our jailers and turnkeys, who lock us up in the most bitter and melancholy house of correction. Let the Platonists, then, either cease menacing us with our bodies as the punishment of our souls, or preaching that we are to worship as gods those whose work upon us they exhort us by all means in our power to avoid and escape from. But, indeed, both opinions are quite false. It is false that souls return again to this life to be punished; and it is false that there is any other creator of anything in heaven or earth, than He who made the heaven and the earth. For if we live in a body only to expiate our sins, how says Plato in another place, that the world could not have been the most beautiful and good, had it not been filled with all kinds of creatures, mortal and immortal? But if our creation even as mortals be a divine benefit, how is it a punishment to be restored to a body, that is, to a divine benefit? And if God, as Plato continually maintains, embraced in His eternal intelligence the ideas both of the universe and of all the animals, how, then, should He not with His own hand make them all? Could He be unwilling to be the constructor of works, the idea and plan of which called for His ineffable and ineffably to be praised intelligence? > Latin: Ita sane Plato minores et a summo Deo factos deos effectores esse uoluit animalium ceterorum, ut inmortalem partem ab ipso sumerent, ipsi uero mortalem adtexerent. Proinde animarum nostrarum eos creatores noluit esse, sed corporum. Unde quoniam Porphyrius propter animae purgationem dicit corpus omne fugiendum simulque cum suo Platone aliisque Platonicis sentit eos, qui inmoderate adque inhoneste uixerint, propter luendas poenas ad corpora redire mortalia, Plato quidem etiam bestiarum, Porphyrius tantummodo ad hominum: sequitur eos, ut dicant deos istos, quos a nobis uolunt quasi parentes et conditores nostros coli, nihil esse aliud quam fabros conpedum carcerumue nostrorum, nec institutores, sed inclusores adligatoresque nostros ergastulis aerumnosis et grauissimis uinculis. Aut ergo desinant Platonici poenas animarum ex istis corporibus comminari, aut eos nobis deos colendos non praedicent, quorum in nobis operationem, ut quantum possumus fugiamus et euadamus, hortantur, cum tamen sit utrumque falsissimum. Nam neque ita luunt poenas animae, cum ad istam uitam denuo reuoluuntur, et omnium uiuentium siue in caelo siue in terra nullus est conditor, nisi a quo facta sunt caelum et terra. Nam si nulla causa est uiuendi in hoc corpore nisi propter pendenda supplicia: quo modo dicit idem Plato aliter mundum fieri non potuisse pulcherrimum adque optimum, nisi omnium animalium, id est et inmortalium et mortalium, generibus inpleretur? Si autem nostra institutio, qua uel mortales conditi sumus, diuinum munus est: quo modo poena est ‘ad ista corpora, id est ad diuina beneficia, remeare? Et si Deus, quod adsidue Plato commemorat, sicut mundi uniuersi, ita omnium animalium species aeterna intellegentia continebat: quo modo non ipse cuncta condebat? An aliquorum esse artifex nollet, quorum efficiendorum artem ineffabilis eius et ineffabiliter laudabilis mens haberet?