Book Four

1. Of the things which have been discussed in the first book.

1. On the things discussed in the first book.

Having begun to speak of the city of God, I have thought it necessary first of all to reply to its enemies, who, eagerly pursuing earthly joys, and gaping after transitory things, throw the blame of all the sorrow they suffer in them—rather through the compassion of God in admonishing, than His severity in punishing—on the Christian religion, which is the one salutary and true religion. And since there is among them also an unlearned rabble, they are stirred up as by the authority of the learned to hate us more bitterly, thinking in their inexperience that things which have happened unwontedly in their days were not wont to happen in other times gone by; and whereas this opinion of theirs is confirmed even by those who know that it is false, and yet dissemble their knowledge in order that they may seem to have just cause for murmuring against us, it was necessary, from books in which their authors recorded and published the history of bygone times that it might be known, to demonstrate that it is far otherwise than they think; and at the same time to teach that the false gods, whom they openly worshipped, or still worship in secret, are most unclean spirits, and most malignant and deceitful demons, even to such a pitch that they take delight in crimes which, whether real or only fictitious, are yet their own, which it has been their will to have celebrated in honour of them at their own festivals; so that human infirmity cannot be called back from the perpetration of damnable deeds, so long as authority is furnished for imitating them that seems even divine. These things we have proved, not from our own conjectures, but partly from recent memory, because we ourselves have seen such things celebrated, and to such deities, partly from the writings of those who have left these things on record to posterity, not as if in reproach, but as in honour of their own gods. Thus Varro, a most learned man among them, and of the weightiest authority, when he made separate books concerning things human and things divine, distributing some among the human, others among the divine, according to the special dignity of each, placed the scenic plays not at all among things human, but among things divine; though, certainly, if only there were good and honest men in the state, the scenic plays ought not to be allowed even among things human. And this he did not on his own authority, but because, being born and educated at Rome, he found them among the divine things. Now as we briefly stated in the end of the first book what we intended afterwards to discuss, and as we have disposed of a part of this in the next two books, we see what our readers will expect us now to take up.

Having begun to speak of the city of God, I thought it necessary first to answer its enemies. They eagerly pursue earthly joys and crave things that do not last. They blame the Christian religion, the one true religion that brings salvation, for all the sorrow they suffer in pursuing these things. Yet God causes this sorrow more out of compassion, to warn them, than out of severity, to punish them. Among these enemies is an unlearned crowd, stirred up to hate us more bitterly by the supposed authority of the learned. In their inexperience, they think that unusual events in their own days never happened in earlier times. Even those who know this is false encourage their belief. They conceal what they know so that they may appear to have just cause to complain against us. It was therefore necessary to show that the truth is quite different from what they think. I have done this using books whose authors recorded and published the history of past times so that it would be known. At the same time, I had to teach that the false gods are utterly unclean spirits and utterly malicious and deceitful demons. These are the gods that our enemies worshipped openly, or still worship in secret. These demons go so far as to delight in crimes that are their own, whether real or merely fictional. They have wished these crimes to be celebrated in their honor at their own festivals. Human weakness cannot be turned away from committing damnable deeds while people are given what seems divine authority to imitate them. We have proved these things, not from our own guesses, but partly from recent memory. We ourselves have seen such things celebrated, and in honor of such gods. We have also proved them from the writings of those who recorded them for later generations. They wrote about these things not as a reproach, but as an honor to their own gods. Varro, a man of great learning and the highest authority among them, wrote separate books on human and divine matters. He assigned some things to the human category and others to the divine, according to the particular dignity of each. He placed theatrical performances not among human matters at all, but among divine ones. Yet, if there were only good and honest people in the state, such performances should not be allowed even among human matters. He did not classify them this way on his own authority. Born and educated in Rome, he found that they were already counted among divine matters. At the end of the first book, we briefly stated what we intended to discuss afterward. We have dealt with part of it in the next two books. We can therefore see what our readers will expect us to take up now.

2. Of those things which are contained in Books Second and Third.

2. What Books Two and Three contain.

We had promised, then, that we would say something against those who attribute the calamities of the Roman republic to our religion, and that we would recount the evils, as many and great as we could remember or might deem sufficient, which that city, or the provinces belonging to its empire, had suffered before their sacrifices were prohibited, all of which would beyond doubt have been attributed to us, if our religion had either already shone on them, or had thus prohibited their sacrilegious rites. These things we have, as we think, fully disposed of in the second and third books, treating in the second of evils in morals, which alone or chiefly are to be accounted evils; and in the third, of those which only fools dread to undergo—namely, those of the body or of outward things—which for the most part the good also suffer. But those evils by which they themselves become evil, they take, I do not say patiently, but with pleasure. And how few evils have I related concerning that one city and its empire! Not even all down to the time of Cæsar Augustus. What if I had chosen to recount and enlarge on those evils, not which men have inflicted on each other, such as the devastations and destructions of war, but which happen in earthly things, from the elements of the world itself? Of such evils Apuleius speaks briefly in one passage of that book which he wrote, De Mundo, saying that all earthly things are subject to change, overthrow, and destruction.¹⁵⁶ For, to use his own words, by excessive earthquakes the ground has burst asunder, and cities with their inhabitants have been clean destroyed: by sudden rains whole regions have been washed away; those also which formerly had been continents, have been insulated by strange and new-come waves, and others, by the subsiding of the sea, have been made passable by the foot of man: by winds and storms cities have been overthrown; fires have flashed forth from the clouds, by which regions in the East being burnt up have perished; and on the western coasts the like destructions have been caused by the bursting forth of waters and floods. So, formerly, from the lofty craters of Etna, rivers of fire kindled by God have flowed like a torrent down the steeps. If I had wished to collect from history wherever I could, these and similar instances, where should I have finished what happened even in those times before the name of Christ had put down those of their idols, so vain and hurtful to true salvation? I promised that I should also point out which of their customs, and for what cause, the true God, in whose power all kingdoms are, had deigned to favour to the enlargement of their empire; and how those whom they think gods can have profited them nothing, but much rather hurt them by deceiving and beguiling them; so that it seems to me I must now speak of these things, and chiefly of the increase of the Roman empire. For I have already said not a little, especially in the second book, about the many evils introduced into their manners by the hurtful deceits of the demons whom they worshipped as gods. But throughout all the three books already completed, where it appeared suitable, we have set forth how much succour God, through the name of Christ, to whom the barbarians beyond the custom of war paid so much honour, has bestowed on the good and bad, according as it is written, "Who maketh His sun to rise on the good and the evil, and giveth rain to the just and the unjust."¹⁵⁷

We promised to answer those who blame our religion for the disasters of the Roman republic. We also promised to recount the many great evils we could remember, or considered enough to mention. These were evils suffered by Rome or the provinces of its empire before their sacrifices were forbidden. People would surely have blamed all of them on us if our religion had already shone upon them or forbidden their sacrilegious rites. We believe we have dealt fully with these matters in the second and third books. In the second, we discussed moral evils, which alone, or above all, should be considered evils. In the third, we discussed the evils that only fools fear to suffer. These are evils affecting the body or outward circumstances, which good people also suffer for the most part. But the evils that make these people themselves evil, they accept not merely patiently but with pleasure. And how few evils I have described concerning that one city and its empire! I have not even described all those that occurred up to the time of Caesar Augustus. What if I had chosen to recount and elaborate on other evils? I mean not those people inflict on one another, such as the devastation and destruction of war. I mean those that happen on earth through the elements of the world itself. Apuleius briefly mentions such evils in one passage of his book De Mundo. He says that all earthly things are subject to change, ruin, and destruction.¹⁵⁶ In his own words, violent earthquakes have split the ground and completely destroyed cities and their inhabitants. Sudden rains have washed away whole regions. Strange new waves have turned former stretches of mainland into islands. Elsewhere, the sea has receded, making places passable on foot. Winds and storms have destroyed cities. Fire has flashed from the clouds, burning up and destroying regions in the East. On the western coasts, surging waters and floods have caused similar destruction. So too, in former times, rivers of fire kindled by God poured from Etna's high craters. They flowed down its steep slopes like a torrent. What if I had tried to collect these and similar examples from every historical source I could find? When would I have finished recounting even those that happened before Christ's name put down their idols' names? Those idols are so empty and harmful to true salvation. I also promised to show which Roman customs the true God chose to favor, and why, in expanding their empire. All kingdoms are in his power. I promised to show, too, that those they consider gods could not have helped them at all. Rather, they did them much harm by deceiving and misleading them. So it seems to me that I must now discuss these matters, especially the growth of the Roman empire. I have already said quite a lot, especially in the second book, about the many evils brought into Roman morals. These came through the harmful deceits of the demons they worshipped as gods. But in all three books already completed, wherever it seemed fitting, we have shown how much help God gave through the name of Christ. The barbarians honored that name far beyond what the customs of war required. God gave this help to good and bad alike, as it is written: "Who maketh his sun to rise on the good and the evil, and giveth rain to the just and the unjust."¹⁵⁷

Now, therefore, let us see how it is that they dare to ascribe the very great extent and duration of the Roman empire to those gods whom they contend that they worship honourably, even by the obsequies of vile games and the ministry of vile men: although I should like first to inquire for a little what reason, what prudence, there is in wishing to glory in the greatness and extent of the empire, when you cannot point out the happiness of men who are always rolling, with dark fear and cruel lust, in warlike slaughters and in blood, which, whether shed in civil or foreign war, is still human blood; so that their joy may be compared to glass in its fragile splendour, of which one is horribly afraid lest it should be suddenly broken in pieces. That this may be more easily discerned, let us not come to nought by being carried away with empty boasting, or blunt the edge of our attention by loud-sounding names of things, when we hear of peoples, kingdoms, provinces. But let us suppose a case of two men; for each individual man, like one letter in a language, is as it were the element of a city or kingdom, however far-spreading in its occupation of the earth. Of these two men let us suppose that one is poor, or rather of middling circumstances; the other very rich. But the rich man is anxious with fears, pining with discontent, burning with covetousness, never secure, always uneasy, panting from the perpetual strife of his enemies, adding to his patrimony indeed by these miseries to an immense degree, and by these additions also heaping up most bitter cares. But that other man of moderate wealth is contented with a small and compact estate, most dear to his own family, enjoying the sweetest peace with his kindred neighbours and friends, in piety religious, benignant in mind, healthy in body, in life frugal, in manners chaste, in conscience secure. I know not whether any one can be such a fool, that he dare hesitate which to prefer. As, therefore, in the case of these two men, so in two families, in two nations, in two kingdoms, this test of tranquillity holds good; and if we apply it vigilantly and without prejudice, we shall quite easily see where the mere show of happiness dwells, and where real felicity. Wherefore if the true God is worshipped, and if He is served with genuine rites and true virtue, it is advantageous that good men should long reign both far and wide. Nor is this advantageous so much to themselves, as to those over whom they reign. For, so far as concerns themselves, their piety and probity, which are great gifts of God, suffice to give them true felicity, enabling them to live well the life that now is, and afterwards to receive that which is eternal. In this world, therefore, the dominion of good men is profitable, not so much for themselves as for human affairs. But the dominion of bad men is hurtful chiefly to themselves who rule, for they destroy their own souls by greater licence in wickedness; while those who are put under them in service are not hurt except by their own iniquity. For to the just all the evils imposed on them by unjust rulers are not the punishment of crime, but the test of virtue. Therefore the good man, although he is a slave, is free; but the bad man, even if he reigns, is a slave, and that not of one man, but, what is far more grievous, of as many masters as he has vices; of which vices when the divine Scripture treats, it says, "For of whom any man is overcome, to the same he is also the bond-slave."¹⁵⁸

Now let us consider how they dare to credit the vast size and long duration of the Roman Empire to those gods. They claim to worship these gods honorably, even through the performance of vile games and the service of vile men. But first, I would like to ask what reason or wisdom there is in boasting about the empire’s greatness and extent. You cannot point to the happiness of people constantly caught up in the slaughter and bloodshed of war. They are driven by dark fear and cruel desire. Whether the blood is shed in civil or foreign war, it is still human blood. Their joy is like glass, splendid but fragile. One is terribly afraid that it may suddenly shatter. To see this more clearly, let us not lose ourselves in empty boasting. Nor should we let grand-sounding words dull our attention when we hear of peoples, kingdoms, and provinces. Instead, let us imagine two men. Each individual is like a letter in a language, an element of a city or kingdom, however widely it extends across the earth. Suppose one of these men is poor, or rather, has moderate means. The other is very rich. Yet the rich man is troubled by fears, consumed by discontent, and burning with greed. He is never secure and always uneasy, worn out by constant struggles with his enemies. Through these miseries he greatly increases his inherited wealth, but each addition brings more bitter cares. The other man is content with a small, modest estate. He is dearly loved by his family and enjoys the sweetest peace with his relatives, neighbors, and friends. He is devout in his faith, kind in spirit, and healthy in body. He lives frugally, behaves chastely, and has a clear conscience. I cannot imagine anyone so foolish as to hesitate over which man to prefer. The same test of peace applies to two families, two nations, or two kingdoms. If we apply it carefully and without prejudice, we will easily see where happiness is merely an appearance and where it is real. Therefore, if people worship the true God and serve him with genuine rites and true virtue, it is beneficial for good men to rule long and over vast lands. This benefits those they rule more than it benefits the rulers themselves. For the rulers, their piety and integrity, which are great gifts of God, are enough to bring true happiness. These gifts enable them to live well in this life and afterward receive eternal life. In this world, then, the rule of good men benefits human affairs more than it benefits the rulers themselves. But the rule of bad men harms the rulers most of all. Their greater freedom to do evil destroys their own souls. Those who serve under them are harmed only by their own wrongdoing. For the just, all the evils inflicted by unjust rulers are not punishment for crime, but a test of virtue. Therefore, a good man is free even if he is a slave. A bad man is a slave even if he rules. And he is not enslaved to one man. Far worse, he has as many masters as he has vices. Speaking of these vices, divine Scripture says, “For a man is a slave to whatever has overcome him.”¹⁵⁸

4. How like kingdoms without justice are to robberies.

4. How kingdoms without justice resemble bands of robbers.

Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor."¹⁵⁹

Without justice, what are kingdoms but large bands of robbers? And what are bands of robbers but small kingdoms? A band is made up of men. It is ruled by the authority of a leader and held together by an agreement among its members. The loot is divided according to rules they have agreed on. If enough lawless men join, this evil grows. It occupies territory, establishes settlements, takes cities, and conquers peoples. Then it more clearly takes on the name of a kingdom. It has become a kingdom, not because its greed has disappeared, but because it can now act without punishment. A captured pirate once gave Alexander the Great a fitting and truthful reply. The king asked him what he meant by controlling the sea through violence. The pirate answered boldly and proudly, "The same thing you mean by seizing the whole earth. But because I do it with a small ship, I am called a robber. You do it with a great fleet, so you are called an emperor."¹⁵⁹

5. Of the runaway gladiators whose power became like that of royal dignity.

5. The runaway gladiators whose power came to resemble that of kings.

I shall not therefore stay to inquire what sort of men Romulus gathered together, seeing he deliberated much about them,—how, being assumed out of that life they led into the fellowship of his city, they might cease to think of the punishment they deserved, the fear of which had driven them to greater villanies; so that henceforth they might be made more peaceable members of society. But this I say, that the Roman empire, which by subduing many nations had already grown great and an object of universal dread, was itself greatly alarmed, and only with much difficulty avoided a disastrous overthrow, because a mere handful of gladiators in Campania, escaping from the games, had recruited a great army, appointed three generals, and most widely and cruelly devastated Italy. Let them say what god aided these men, so that from a small and contemptible band of robbers they attained to a kingdom, feared even by the Romans, who had such great forces and fortresses. Or will they deny that they were divinely aided because they did not last long?¹⁶⁰ As if, indeed, the life of any man whatever lasted long. In that case, too, the gods aid no one to reign, since all individuals quickly die; nor is sovereign power to be reckoned a benefit, because in a little time in every man, and thus in all of them one by one, it vanishes like a vapour. For what does it matter to those who worshipped the gods under Romulus, and are long since dead, that after their death the Roman empire has grown so great, while they plead their causes before the powers beneath? Whether those causes are good or bad, it matters not to the question before us. And this is to be understood of all those who carry with them the heavy burden of their actions, having in the few days of their life swiftly and hurriedly passed over the stage of the imperial office, although the office itself has lasted through long spaces of time, being filled by a constant succession of dying men. If, however, even those benefits which last only for the shortest time are to be ascribed to the aid of the gods, these gladiators were not a little aided, who broke the bonds of their servile condition, fled, escaped, raised a great and most powerful army, obedient to the will and orders of their chiefs and much feared by the Roman majesty, and remaining unsubdued by several Roman generals, seized many places, and, having won very many victories, enjoyed whatever pleasures they wished, and did what their lust suggested, and, until at last they were conquered, which was done with the utmost difficulty, lived sublime and dominant. But let us come to greater matters.

I will not stop to ask what sort of men Romulus gathered. He gave much thought to how they might leave their former lives behind and join his city. He wanted them to stop thinking about the punishment they deserved, since fear of it had driven them to greater crimes. In this way, they might become more peaceful members of society. But I will say this. The Roman empire had already grown great by conquering many nations, and everyone feared it. Yet the empire itself was greatly alarmed and narrowly avoided a disastrous defeat. A mere handful of gladiators had escaped from the games in Campania. They raised a great army, appointed three generals, and devastated large parts of Italy with great cruelty. Let our opponents say which god helped these men. For they rose from a small and contemptible band of robbers to a kingdom feared even by the Romans, with all their great forces and fortresses. Or will they deny that the gods helped them because they did not last long?¹⁶⁰ As if anyone’s life lasted long! By that reasoning, the gods help no one to rule, since everyone soon dies. Nor should royal power be considered a benefit. In a short time it vanishes like vapor for each ruler, and so for all of them, one by one. Those who worshipped the gods under Romulus have long been dead. What does it matter to them that the Roman empire grew so great after their deaths? They now plead their cases before the powers below. Whether their cases are good or bad makes no difference to the question before us. The same is true of all who carry with them the heavy burden of their deeds. In the few days of their lives, they passed swiftly and hurriedly across the stage of imperial office. Yet the office itself has lasted through long ages, filled by an unbroken succession of men who die. But if even the shortest-lived benefits are to be credited to the gods’ help, these gladiators received considerable aid. They broke the bonds of slavery, fled, and escaped. They raised a great and powerful army, which obeyed the wishes and commands of its leaders. Rome’s mighty power feared it greatly. Several Roman generals failed to defeat them. They seized many places and won a great many victories. They enjoyed whatever pleasures they wished and did whatever their desires prompted. They lived in triumph and power until they were finally defeated, and even that was achieved only with the greatest difficulty. But let us turn to greater matters.

6. Concerning the covetousness of Ninus, who was the first who made war on his neighbours, that he might rule more widely.

6. On the greed of Ninus, who was the first to wage war on his neighbors to expand his rule.

Justinus, who wrote Greek or rather foreign history in Latin, and briefly, like Trogus Pompeius whom he followed, begins his work thus: "In the beginning of the affairs of peoples and nations the government was in the hands of kings, who were raised to the height of this majesty not by courting the people, but by the knowledge good men had of their moderation. The people were held bound by no laws; the decisions of the princes were instead of laws. It was the custom to guard rather than to extend the boundaries of the empire; and kingdoms were kept within the bounds of each ruler's native land. Ninus king of the Assyrians first of all, through new lust of empire, changed the old and, as it were, ancestral custom of nations. He first made war on his neighbours, and wholly subdued as far as to the frontiers of Libya the nations as yet untrained to resist." And a little after he says: "Ninus established by constant possession the greatness of the authority he had gained. Having mastered his nearest neighbours, he went on to others, strengthened by the accession of forces, and by making each fresh victory the instrument of that which followed, subdued the nations of the whole East." Now, with whatever fidelity to fact either he or Trogus may in general have written—for that they sometimes told lies is shown by other more trustworthy writers—yet it is agreed among other authors, that the kingdom of the Assyrians was extended far and wide by King Ninus. And it lasted so long, that the Roman empire has not yet attained the same age; for, as those write who have treated of chronological history, this kingdom endured for twelve hundred and forty years from the first year in which Ninus began to reign, until it was transferred to the Medes. But to make war on your neighbours, and thence to proceed to others, and through mere lust of dominion to crush and subdue people who do you no harm, what else is this to be called than great robbery?

Justinus wrote a brief history of Greece, or rather of foreign nations, in Latin. He followed Trogus Pompeius and began his work like this: “At the beginning of the history of peoples and nations, kings held power. They rose to this exalted position not by courting the people, but because good men knew they were moderate. No laws bound the people. The decisions of rulers served as laws. It was customary to defend the borders of an empire rather than expand them. Each kingdom remained within the borders of its ruler’s native land. Ninus, king of the Assyrians, was the first to change this ancient, almost ancestral custom of nations. He did so out of a new lust for empire. He was the first to wage war on his neighbors. He completely subdued nations as far as the borders of Libya, when they were still untrained to resist.” A little later, Justinus says: “Ninus secured the greatness of the power he had gained by holding it continually. After conquering his nearest neighbors, he moved on to others, strengthened by the forces he had gained. He used each new victory to win the next, and subdued the nations of the whole East.” Whatever the general accuracy of Justinus or Trogus, more trustworthy writers show that they sometimes told lies. Yet other authors agree that King Ninus greatly expanded the Assyrian kingdom. It lasted so long that the Roman Empire has not yet reached the same age. According to writers of chronological history, the kingdom lasted 1,240 years. This was from the first year of Ninus’s reign until the kingdom passed to the Medes. But what else can we call it but great robbery? Ninus made war on his neighbors, then went on to others. Out of a mere lust for dominion, he crushed and subdued people who had done him no harm.

7. Whether earthly kingdoms in their rise and fall have been either aided or deserted by the help of the gods.

7. Whether the gods helped or abandoned earthly kingdoms as they rose and fell.

If this kingdom was so great and lasting without the aid of the gods, why is the ample territory and long duration of the Roman empire to be ascribed to the Roman gods? For whatever is the cause in it, the same is in the other also. But if they contend that the prosperity of the other also is to be attributed to the aid of the gods, I ask of which? For the other nations whom Ninus overcame, did not then worship other gods. Or if the Assyrians had gods of their own, who, so to speak, were more skilful workmen in the construction and preservation of the empire, whether are they dead, since they themselves have also lost the empire; or, having been defrauded of their pay, or promised a greater, have they chosen rather to go over to the Medes, and from them again to the Persians, because Cyrus invited them, and promised them something still more advantageous? This nation, indeed, since the time of the kingdom of Alexander the Macedonian, which was as brief in duration as it was great in extent, has preserved its own empire, and at this day occupies no small territories in the East. If this is so, then either the gods are unfaithful, who desert their own and go over to their enemies, which Camillus, who was but a man, did not do, when, being victor and subduer of a most hostile state, although he had felt that Rome, for whom he had done so much, was ungrateful, yet afterwards, forgetting the injury and remembering his native land, he freed her again from the Gauls; or they are not so strong as gods ought to be, since they can be overcome by human skill or strength. Or if, when they carry on war among themselves, the gods are not overcome by men, but some gods who are peculiar to certain cities are perchance overcome by other gods, it follows that they have quarrels among themselves which they uphold, each for his own part. Therefore a city ought not to worship its own gods, but rather others who aid their own worshippers. Finally, whatever may have been the case as to this change of sides, or flight, or migration, or failure in battle on the part of the gods, the name of Christ had not yet been proclaimed in those parts of the earth when these kingdoms were lost and transferred through great destructions in war. For if, after more than twelve hundred years, when the kingdom was taken away from the Assyrians, the Christian religion had there already preached another eternal kingdom, and put a stop to the sacrilegious worship of false gods, what else would the foolish men of that nation have said, but that the kingdom which had been so long preserved, could be lost for no other cause than the desertion of their own religions and the reception of Christianity? In which foolish speech that might have been uttered, let those we speak of observe their own likeness, and blush, if there is any sense of shame in them, because they have uttered similar complaints; although the Roman empire is afflicted rather than changed,—a thing which has befallen it in other times also, before the name of Christ was heard, and it has been restored after such affliction,—a thing which even in these times is not to be despaired of. For who knows the will of God concerning this matter?

If this kingdom was so great and lasted so long without the gods’ help, why credit the Roman gods for the Roman Empire’s vast territory and long life? Whatever caused one also caused the other. But suppose they insist that the other kingdom’s prosperity was also due to the gods’ help. I ask, which gods? The other nations Ninus conquered did not worship different gods at that time. Or perhaps the Assyrians had gods of their own, who were, so to speak, better craftsmen at building and preserving an empire. Are those gods dead, since they too have lost the empire? Or were they cheated of their pay, or promised greater rewards? Did they therefore choose to go over to the Medes, and then to the Persians? Did Cyrus invite them and promise them something even better? Since the time of Alexander of Macedon’s kingdom, which was as short-lived as it was vast, the Persian nation has preserved its own empire. Even today it holds considerable territory in the East. If this is so, then either the gods are unfaithful, deserting their own people and going over to their enemies. Camillus, though only a man, did not do this. He defeated and subdued a bitterly hostile city, yet felt that Rome had been ungrateful for all he had done. Even so, he later forgot the wrong, remembered his homeland, and freed her again from the Gauls. Or else the gods are not as strong as gods should be, since human skill or strength can overcome them. Perhaps, however, when gods wage war among themselves, they are not overcome by humans. Instead, gods belonging to certain cities may be overcome by other gods. It follows that they quarrel among themselves, each fighting for his own side. A city should therefore not worship its own gods, but rather other gods who help their own worshippers. Whatever happened, whether the gods changed sides, fled, moved away, or failed in battle, Christ’s name had not yet been proclaimed in those lands. Yet these kingdoms were lost and passed to others through wars of great destruction. The Assyrians lost their kingdom after more than twelve hundred years. Suppose that the Christian religion had already preached another, eternal kingdom there and put an end to the sacrilegious worship of false gods. What would the foolish people of that nation have said? They would surely have claimed that their long-preserved kingdom could have been lost only because they abandoned their own religions and accepted Christianity. Let those we are speaking of see themselves in this foolish argument that might have been made. Let them blush, if they have any shame, for they have made similar complaints. Yet the Roman Empire has been afflicted rather than lost to another power. This has happened before, even before Christ’s name was heard, and the empire has recovered from such affliction. Even now, we need not despair of its recovery. For who knows God’s will in this matter?

Next let us ask, if they please, out of so great a crowd of gods which the Romans worship, whom in especial, or what gods they believe to have extended and preserved that empire. Now, surely of this work, which is so excellent and so very full of the highest dignity, they dare not ascribe any part to the goddess Cloacina;¹⁶¹ or to Volupia, who has her appellation from voluptuousness; or to Libentina, who has her name from lust; or to Vaticanus, who presides over the screaming of infants; or to Cunina, who rules over their cradles. But how is it possible to recount in one part of this book all the names of gods or goddesses, which they could scarcely comprise in great volumes, distributing among these divinities their peculiar offices about single things? They have not even thought that the charge of their lands should be committed to any one god: but they have entrusted their farms to Rusina; the ridges of the mountains to Jugatinus; over the downs they have set the goddess Collatina; over the valleys, Vallonia. Nor could they even find one Segetia so competent, that they could commend to her care all their corn crops at once; but so long as their seed-corn was still under the ground, they would have the goddess Seia set over it; then, whenever it was above ground and formed straw, they set over it the goddess Segetia; and when the grain was collected and stored, they set over it the goddess Tutilina, that it might be kept safe. Who would not have thought that goddess Segetia sufficient to take care of the standing corn until it had passed from the first green blades to the dry ears? Yet she was not enough for men, who loved a multitude of gods, that the miserable soul, despising the chaste embrace of the one true God, should be prostituted to a crowd of demons. Therefore they set Proserpina over the germinating seeds; over the joints and knots of the stems, the god Nodotus; over the sheaths enfolding the ears, the goddess Volutina; when the sheaths opened that the spike might shoot forth, it was ascribed to the goddess Patelana; when the stems stood all equal with new ears, because the ancients described this equalizing by the term hostire, it was ascribed to the goddess Hostilina; when the grain was in flower, it was dedicated to the goddess Flora; when full of milk, to the god Lacturnus; when maturing, to the goddess Matuta; when the crop was runcated,—that is, removed from the soil,—to the goddess Runcina. Nor do I yet recount them all, for I am sick of all this, though it gives them no shame. Only, I have said these very few things, in order that it may be understood they dare by no means say that the Roman empire has been established, increased, and preserved by their deities, who had all their own functions assigned to them in such a way, that no general oversight was entrusted to any one of them. When, therefore, could Segetia take care of the empire, who was not allowed to take care of the corn and the trees? When could Cunina take thought about war, whose oversight was not allowed to go beyond the cradles of the babies? When could Nodotus give help in battle, who had nothing to do even with the sheath of the ear, but only with the knots of the joints? Every one sets a porter at the door of his house, and because he is a man, he is quite sufficient; but these people have set three gods, Forculus to the doors, Cardea to the hinge, Limentinus to the threshold.¹⁶² Thus Forculus could not at the same time take care also of the hinge and the threshold.

Next, let us ask, if they please, which of the many gods the Romans worship they believe expanded and preserved their empire. Surely they would not dare credit any part of this magnificent and highly dignified work to the goddess Cloacina,¹⁶¹ or to Volupia, whose name comes from pleasure, or to Libentina, whose name comes from lust. Nor would they credit it to Vaticanus, who presides over the cries of infants, or Cunina, who rules over their cradles. But how can I list in one part of this book all the names of their gods and goddesses? They could scarcely fit them into large volumes, as they assigned each deity a special duty over individual things. They did not even think they could entrust their lands to one god. They entrusted their farms to Rusina and the mountain ridges to Jugatinus. They put the goddess Collatina over the hills and Vallonia over the valleys. Nor could they find even one Segetia capable enough to care for all their grain crops at once. While the seed was still underground, they put the goddess Seia over it. Once it emerged and formed stalks, they put the goddess Segetia over it. When the grain was gathered and stored, they put the goddess Tutilina over it to keep it safe. Who would not have thought Segetia sufficient to care for the growing grain, from its first green shoots to its dry heads? Yet she was not enough for people who loved a multitude of gods. The wretched soul, rejecting the chaste embrace of the one true God, was thus prostituted to a crowd of demons. So they put Proserpina over the sprouting seeds and the god Nodotus over the joints and knots of the stalks. They put the goddess Volutina over the sheaths enclosing the heads of grain. When the sheaths opened to let the heads emerge, they assigned this to the goddess Patelana. When the stalks stood evenly with their new heads, they assigned this to the goddess Hostilina. The ancients used the word hostire for this evening out. When the grain flowered, it was dedicated to the goddess Flora. When it was full of milk, it was dedicated to the god Lacturnus. When it ripened, it was dedicated to the goddess Matuta. When the crop was runcated, that is, removed from the soil, it was dedicated to the goddess Runcina. I still have not listed them all. I am sick of all this, though it gives them no shame. I have mentioned only these few to make one thing clear. They cannot possibly dare to say that their deities established, increased, and preserved the Roman Empire. Each deity was assigned particular duties, and none was entrusted with general oversight. When could Segetia care for the empire, when she was not allowed to care for the grain and the trees? When could Cunina think about war, when her oversight was not allowed to extend beyond babies’ cradles? When could Nodotus help in battle, when he had nothing to do even with the sheath of the grain head, but only with the knots at the joints? Everyone puts a porter at the door of his house, and one man is quite enough. But these people have put three gods there. Forculus looks after the doors, Cardea the hinge, and Limentinus the threshold.¹⁶² So Forculus could not also look after the hinge and the threshold.

9. Whether the great extent and long duration of the Roman empire should be ascribed to Jove, whom his worshippers believe to be the chief god.

9. Whether the Roman Empire's great size and long duration should be credited to Jove, whom his worshippers believe to be the chief god.

Therefore omitting, or passing by for a little, that crowd of petty gods, we ought to inquire into the part performed by the great gods, whereby Rome has been made so great as to reign so long over so many nations. Doubtless, therefore, this is the work of Jove. For they will have it that he is the king of all the gods and goddesses, as is shown by his sceptre and by the Capitol on the lofty hill. Concerning that god they publish a saying which, although that of a poet, is most apt, "All things are full of Jove."¹⁶³ Varro believes that this god is worshipped, although called by another name, even by those who worship one God alone without any image. But if this is so, why has he been so badly used at Rome (and indeed by other nations too), that an image of him should be made?—a thing which was so displeasing to Varro himself, that although he was overborne by the perverse custom of so great a city, he had not the least hesitation in both saying and writing, that those who have appointed images for the people have both taken away fear and added error.

Let us therefore set aside, for a little while, that crowd of minor gods. We should examine the part played by the great gods in making Rome so powerful. How did they enable it to rule so many nations for so long? Surely this must be the work of Jove. For they insist that he is the king of all the gods and goddesses. His scepter and the Capitol on its high hill show this. They repeat a saying about him that, although it comes from a poet, is most fitting: "All things are full of Jove."¹⁶³ Varro believes that even those who worship one God alone, without any image, worship this god under another name. But if this is so, why has Jove been treated so badly at Rome, and indeed by other nations too? Why have they made an image of him? This practice was so displeasing to Varro himself that he did not hesitate to condemn it. Though he was overruled by the perverse custom of so great a city, he spoke and wrote against it. He said that those who gave the people images had both taken away their fear and added to their error.

10. What opinions those have followed who have set divers gods over divers parts of the world.

10. What beliefs were held by those who assigned different gods to different parts of the world.

Why, also, is Juno united to him as his wife, who is called at once "sister and yokefellow?"¹⁶⁴ Because, say they, we have Jove in the ether, Juno in the air; and these two elements are united, the one being superior, the other inferior. It is not he, then, of whom it is said, "All things are full of Jove," if Juno also fills some part. Does each fill either, and are both of this couple in both of these elements, and in each of them at the same time? Why, then, is the ether given to Jove, the air to Juno? Besides, these two should have been enough. Why is it that the sea is assigned to Neptune, the earth to Pluto? And that these also might not be left without mates, Salacia is joined to Neptune, Proserpine to Pluto. For they say that, as Juno possesses the lower part of the heavens,—that is, the air,—so Salacia possesses the lower part of the sea, and Proserpine the lower part of the earth. They seek how they may patch up these fables, but they find no way. For if these things were so, their ancient sages would have maintained that there are three chief elements of the world, not four, in order that each of the elements might have a pair of gods. Now, they have positively affirmed that the ether is one thing, the air another. But water, whether higher or lower, is surely water. Suppose it ever so unlike, can it ever be so much so as no longer to be water? And the lower earth, by whatever divinity it may be distinguished, what else can it be than earth? Lo, then, since the whole physical world is complete in these four or three elements, where shall Minerva be? What should she possess, what should she fill? For she is placed in the Capitol along with these two, although she is not the offspring of their marriage. Or if they say that she possesses the higher part of the ether,—and on that account the poets have feigned that she sprang from the head of Jove,—why then is she not rather reckoned queen of the gods, because she is superior to Jove? Is it because it would be improper to set the daughter before the father? Why, then, is not that rule of justice observed concerning Jove himself toward Saturn? Is it because he was conquered? Have they fought then? By no means, say they; that is an old wife's fable. Lo, we are not to believe fables, and must hold more worthy opinions concerning the gods! Why, then, do they not assign to the father of Jove a seat, if not of higher, at least of equal honour? Because Saturn, say they, is length of time.¹⁶⁵ Therefore they who worship Saturn worship Time; and it is insinuated that Jupiter, the king of the gods, was born of Time. For is anything unworthy said when Jupiter and Juno are said to have been sprung from Time, if he is the heaven and she is the earth, since both heaven and earth have been made, and are therefore not eternal? For their learned and wise men have this also in their books. Nor is that saying taken by Virgil out of poetic figments, but out of the books of philosophers,

Why is Juno joined to him as his wife? She is called both his "sister and yokefellow."¹⁶⁴ They say it is because Jove is in the ether and Juno is in the air. These two elements are joined, one above and the other below. If Juno fills part of the universe, then Jove is not the one of whom it is said, "All things are full of Jove." Or does each fill both elements? Are both members of this pair in both elements, and in each one at the same time? If so, why give the ether to Jove and the air to Juno? Besides, these two should have been enough. Why is the sea assigned to Neptune and the earth to Pluto? And so that these gods would not be left without mates, Salacia is joined to Neptune and Proserpine to Pluto. They say that Juno possesses the lower part of the heavens, that is, the air. In the same way, Salacia possesses the lower part of the sea, and Proserpine the lower part of the earth. They try to find a way to patch up these stories, but they cannot. If these claims were true, their ancient sages would have taught that the world has three chief elements, not four. Then each element could have a pair of gods. But they have stated plainly that ether is one thing and air another. Water, however, is surely water, whether it is higher or lower. However different it may be, could it ever be so different that it is no longer water? And whatever god may distinguish the lower earth, what else can it be but earth? The whole physical world, then, is made up of these four or three elements. So where is Minerva to be? What is she to possess or fill? She is placed in the Capitol alongside Jove and Juno, although she is not the child of their marriage. Or perhaps they say she possesses the higher part of the ether. That would explain why the poets invented the story that she sprang from Jove's head. But then why is she not considered queen of the gods, since she is above Jove? Is it because it would be improper to put the daughter before the father? Then why is that rule of justice not observed when it comes to Jove and Saturn? Is it because Saturn was defeated? Did they fight, then? Certainly not, they say. That is an old wives' tale. So we must not believe such stories, and we must hold more worthy opinions of the gods! Why, then, do they not give Jove's father a place of honor, if not higher, at least equal to his? Because Saturn, they say, is the passage of time.¹⁶⁵ Therefore, those who worship Saturn worship Time. And this suggests that Jupiter, the king of the gods, was born of Time. For is there anything unworthy in saying that Jupiter and Juno came from Time, if he is heaven and she is earth? Both heaven and earth were made and are therefore not eternal. Their learned and wise men also teach this in their books. Nor did Virgil take the following words from poetic fictions, but from the books of philosophers,

—that is, into the bosom of Tellus, or the earth. Although here, also, they will have it that there are some differences, and think that in the earth herself Terra is one thing, Tellus another, and Tellumo another. And they have all these as gods, called by their own names, distinguished by their own offices, and venerated with their own altars and rites. This same earth also they call the mother of the gods, so that even the fictions of the poets are more tolerable, if, according, not to their poetical but sacred books, Juno is not only the sister and wife, but also the mother of Jove. The same earth they worship as Ceres, and also as Vesta; while yet they more frequently affirm that Vesta is nothing else than fire, pertaining to the hearths, without which the city cannot exist; and therefore virgins are wont to serve her, because as nothing is born of a virgin, so nothing is born of fire;—but all this nonsense ought to be completely abolished and extinguished by Him who is born of a virgin. For who can bear that, while they ascribe to the fire so much honour, and, as it were, chastity, they do not blush sometimes even to call Vesta Venus, so that honoured virginity may vanish in her handmaidens? For if Vesta is Venus, how can virgins rightly serve her by abstaining from venery? Are there two Venuses, the one a virgin, the other not a maid? Or rather, are there three, one the goddess of virgins, who is also called Vesta, another the goddess of wives, and another of harlots? To her also the Phenicians offered a gift by prostituting their daughters before they united them to husbands.¹⁶⁷ Which of these is the wife of Vulcan? Certainly not the virgin, since she has a husband. Far be it from us to say it is the harlot, lest we should seem to wrong the son of Juno and fellow-worker of Minerva. Therefore it is to be understood that she belongs to the married people; but we would not wish them to imitate her in what she did with Mars. "Again," say they, "you return to fables." What sort of justice is that, to be angry with us because we say such things of their gods, and not to be angry with themselves, who in their theatres most willingly behold the crimes of their gods? And,—a thing incredible, if it were not thoroughly well proved,—these very theatric representations of the crimes of their gods have been instituted in honour of these same gods.

That is, into the bosom of Tellus, or the earth. Yet even here they insist on certain distinctions. They think that within the earth itself, Terra, Tellus, and Tellumo are different things. They regard all of them as gods, each with its own name, duties, altars, and rites. They also call this same earth the mother of the gods. So even the poets’ fictions are more tolerable. For according to their sacred books, not their poetry, Juno is Jupiter’s mother as well as his sister and wife. They worship the same earth as Ceres and also as Vesta. Yet they more often say that Vesta is simply the fire of the hearth, without which a city cannot exist. For this reason, virgins serve her. Just as nothing is born of a virgin, they say, nothing is born of fire. But all this nonsense should be completely abolished and extinguished by him who was born of a virgin. They give fire so much honor and, as it were, chastity. Yet they are not ashamed sometimes to call Vesta Venus, so that the honored virginity of her attendants may disappear. Who can tolerate this? If Vesta is Venus, how can virgins properly serve her by abstaining from sex? Are there two Venuses, one a virgin and the other not? Or are there three? Is one the goddess of virgins, also called Vesta, another the goddess of wives, and another the goddess of prostitutes? The Phoenicians offered her a gift by prostituting their daughters before giving them in marriage.¹⁶⁷ Which of these is Vulcan’s wife? Certainly not the virgin, since she has a husband. Far be it from us to say it is the prostitute. We might seem to insult Juno’s son and Minerva’s fellow worker. So she must be the goddess of married people. But we would not want them to imitate what she did with Mars. "Once again," they say, "you return to fables." What kind of justice is this? They are angry with us for saying such things about their gods. Yet they are not angry with themselves for eagerly watching their gods’ crimes in the theater. Indeed, something that would be incredible if it were not so well established is true. These very theatrical performances of their gods’ crimes were instituted in honor of those same gods.

11. Concerning the many gods whom the pagan doctors defend as being one and the same Jove.

11. The many gods whom pagan scholars claim are all one and the same Jove.

Let them therefore assert as many things as ever they please in physical reasonings and disputations. One while let Jupiter be the soul of this corporeal world, who fills and moves that whole mass, constructed and compacted out of four, or as many elements as they please; another while, let him yield to his sister and brothers their parts of it: now let him be the ether, that from above he may embrace Juno, the air spread out beneath; again, let him be the whole heaven along with the air, and impregnate with fertilizing showers and seeds the earth, as his wife, and, at the same time, his mother (for this is not vile in divine beings); and yet again (that it may not be necessary to run through them all), let him, the one god, of whom many think it has been said by a most noble poet,

So let them make as many claims as they please in their arguments and debates about nature. At one moment, let Jupiter be the soul of this physical world. Let him fill and move its whole mass, formed and joined together from four elements, or as many as they please. At another moment, let him give his sister and brothers their shares of it. Now let him be the ether, embracing Juno, the air spread out beneath him. Again, let him be the whole heaven together with the air. Let him make the earth fertile with showers and seeds, as his wife and, at the same time, his mother. For this is not shameful among divine beings. And yet again, so that there is no need to go through every example, let him be the one god of whom many think a most noble poet said,

let it be him who in the ether is Jupiter; in the air, Juno; in the sea, Neptune; in the lower parts of the sea, Salacia; in the earth, Pluto; in the lower part of the earth, Proserpine; on the domestic hearths, Vesta; in the furnace of the workmen, Vulcan; among the stars, Sol, and Luna, and the Stars; in divination, Apollo; in merchandise, Mercury; in Janus, the initiator; in Terminus, the terminator; Saturn, in time; Mars and Bellona, in war; Liber, in vineyards; Ceres, in corn-fields; Diana, in forests; Minerva, in learning. Finally, let it be him who is in that crowd, as it were, of plebeian gods: let him preside under the name of Liber over the seed of men, and under that of Libera over that of women: let him be Diespiter, who brings forth the birth to the light of day: let him be the goddess Mena, whom they set over the menstruation of women: let him be Lucina, who is invoked by women in childbirth: let him bring help to those who are being born, by taking them up from the bosom of the earth, and let him be called Opis: let him open the mouth in the crying babe, and be called the god Vaticanus: let him lift it from the earth, and be called the goddess Levana; let him watch over cradles, and be called the goddess Cunina: let it be no other than he who is in those goddesses, who sing the fates of the new born, and are called Carmentes: let him preside over fortuitous events, and be called Fortuna: in the goddess Rumina, let him milk out the breast to the little one, because the ancients termed the breast ruma: in the goddess Potina, let him administer drink: in the goddess Educa, let him supply food: from the terror of infants, let him be styled Paventia: from the hope which comes, Venilia; from voluptuousness, Volupia; from action, Agenor: from the stimulants by which man is spurred on to much action, let him be named the goddess Stimula: let him be the goddess Strenia, for making strenuous; Numeria, who teaches to number; Camœna, who teaches to sing: let him be both the god Consus for granting counsel, and the goddess Sentia for inspiring sentences: let him be the goddess Juventas, who, after the robe of boyhood is laid aside, takes charge of the beginning of the youthful age: let him be Fortuna Barbata, who endues adults with a beard, whom they have not chosen to honour; so that this divinity, whatever it may be, should at least be a male god, named either Barbatus, from barba, like Nodotus, from nodus; or, certainly, not Fortuna, but because he has beards, Fortunius: let him, in the god Jugatinus, yoke couples in marriage; and when the girdle of the virgin wife is loosed, let him be invoked as the goddess Virginiensis: let him be Mutunus or Tuternus, who, among the Greeks, is called Priapus. If they are not ashamed of it, let all these which I have named, and whatever others I have not named (for I have not thought fit to name all), let all these gods and goddesses be that one Jupiter, whether, as some will have it, all these are parts of him, or are his powers, as those think who are pleased to consider him the soul of the world, which is the opinion of most of their doctors, and these the greatest. If these things are so (how evil they may be I do not yet meanwhile inquire), what would they lose, if they, by a more prudent abridgment, should worship one god? For what part of him could be contemned if he himself should be worshipped? But if they are afraid lest parts of him should be angry at being passed by or neglected, then it is not the case, as they will have it, that this whole is as the life of one living being, which contains all the gods together, as if they were its virtues, or members, or parts; but each part has its own life separate from the rest, if it is so that one can be angered, appeased, or stirred up more than another. But if it is said that all together,—that is, the whole Jove himself,—would be offended if his parts were not also worshipped singly and minutely, it is foolishly spoken. Surely none of them could be passed by if he who singly possesses them all should be worshipped. For, to omit other things which are innumerable, when they say that all the stars are parts of Jove, and are all alive, and have rational souls, and therefore without controversy are gods, can they not see how many they do not worship, to how many they do not build temples or set up altars, and to how very few, in fact, of the stars they have thought of setting them up and offering sacrifice? If, therefore, those are displeased who are not severally worshipped, do they not fear to live with only a few appeased, while all heaven is displeased? But if they worship all the stars because they are part of Jove whom they worship, by the same compendious method they could supplicate them all in him alone. For in this way no one would be displeased, since in him alone all would be supplicated. No one would be contemned, instead of there being just cause of displeasure given to the much greater number who are passed by in the worship offered to some; especially when Priapus, stretched out in vile nakedness, is preferred to those who shine from their supernal abode.

Let him be Jupiter in the upper sky, Juno in the air, Neptune in the sea, and Salacia in its depths. Let him be Pluto in the earth, Proserpine beneath it, Vesta on household hearths, and Vulcan in workers’ furnaces. Among the heavenly bodies, let him be Sol, Luna, and the Stars. Let him be Apollo in divination and Mercury in trade. Let him be Janus, who begins things, and Terminus, who ends them. Let him be Saturn in time, Mars and Bellona in war, Liber in vineyards, Ceres in grain fields, Diana in forests, and Minerva in learning. Finally, let him also be present in that crowd of common gods, as we might call them. Under the name Liber, let him preside over men’s seed, and under the name Libera, over women’s seed. Let him be Diespiter, who brings a baby into the light of day. Let him be the goddess Mena, whom they place in charge of women’s menstruation. Let him be Lucina, whom women call upon in childbirth. Let him help newborns by taking them up from the bosom of the earth, and be called Opis. Let him open the crying baby’s mouth and be called the god Vaticanus. Let him lift the baby from the earth and be called the goddess Levana. Let him watch over cradles and be called the goddess Cunina. Let it be he, and no other, who is present in the goddesses called the Carmentes, who sing the fates of newborns. Let him preside over chance events and be called Fortuna. As the goddess Rumina, let him draw milk from the breast for the baby, since the ancients called the breast ruma. As the goddess Potina, let him provide drink. As the goddess Educa, let him provide food. Let him be called Paventia because of infants’ fears, Venilia because of hope that comes, Volupia because of pleasure, and Agenor because of action. Let him be named the goddess Stimula for the impulses that spur people to much action. Let him be the goddess Strenia, who makes people vigorous, Numeria, who teaches counting, and Camœna, who teaches singing. Let him be both the god Consus, who gives counsel, and the goddess Sentia, who inspires judgments. Let him be the goddess Juventas, who takes charge when youth begins, after the robe of boyhood is put aside. Let him be Fortuna Barbata, who gives adults a beard. Yet they have not chosen to honor her in such a way that this deity, whatever it may be, is at least a male god. They might have named him Barbatus, from barba, just as Nodotus comes from nodus. Or, since he has beards, they might surely have called him Fortunius rather than Fortuna. As the god Jugatinus, let him join couples in marriage. When the virgin bride’s girdle is loosened, let him be invoked as the goddess Virginiensis. Let him be Mutunus or Tuternus, whom the Greeks call Priapus. If they are not ashamed of it, let all these gods and goddesses be that one Jupiter. This includes those I have named and all the others I have not named, since I have not thought it fitting to name them all. Some say that all these are parts of him. Others think they are his powers, and choose to regard him as the soul of the world. This is the opinion of most of their learned authorities, and of the greatest among them. If all this is true, what would they lose by taking the wiser, shorter course of worshipping one god? For now, I do not yet ask how evil these things may be. If they worshipped Jupiter himself, what part of him could be treated with contempt? But perhaps they fear that his parts might become angry if passed over or neglected. In that case, the whole is not like the life of one living being, as they claim. It does not contain all the gods together as its powers, limbs, or parts. Instead, each part has its own life, separate from the rest. This must be so if one can be angered, appeased, or stirred up more than another. But perhaps they say that all the parts together, that is, Jove himself as a whole, would be offended. He would be offended if his parts were not also worshipped individually and in detail. That is foolish. Surely none of them could be passed over if they worshipped him who alone possesses them all. Let us set aside countless other examples. They say that all the stars are parts of Jove. They say that all are alive and have rational souls, and therefore are unquestionably gods. Can they not see how many stars they do not worship? How many have no temples or altars built for them? In fact, they have thought to set these up and offer sacrifices to very few stars. If those not worshipped individually are displeased, are they not afraid to live with only a few appeased and all heaven displeased? But if they worship all the stars because they are part of Jove, whom they worship, they could use the same shortcut to pray to them all in him alone. Then none would be displeased, since all would be prayed to in him alone. None would be treated with contempt. Instead, by worshipping only some, they give the far greater number who are passed over just cause for displeasure. This is especially so when Priapus, stretched out in vile nakedness, is preferred to those who shine from their dwelling place above.

12. Concerning the opinion of those who have thought that God is the soul of the world, and the world is the body of God.

12. On the view of those who believe that God is the soul of the world, and the world is God's body.

Ought not men of intelligence, and indeed men of every kind, to be stirred up to examine the nature of this opinion? For there is no need of excellent capacity for this task, that putting away the desire of contention, they may observe that if God is the soul of the world, and the world is as a body to Him, who is the soul, He must be one living being consisting of soul and body, and that this same God is a kind of womb of nature containing all things in Himself, so that the lives and souls of all living things are taken, according to the manner of each one's birth, out of His soul which vivifies that whole mass, and therefore nothing at all remains which is not a part of God. And if this is so, who cannot see what impious and irreligious consequences follow, such as that whatever one may trample, he must trample a part of God, and in slaying any living creature, a part of God must be slaughtered? But I am unwilling to utter all that may occur to those who think of it, yet cannot be spoken without irreverence.

Should not intelligent people, indeed people of every kind, be urged to examine this belief? No exceptional ability is needed. They need only put aside their desire to argue and consider what follows. If God is the soul of the world, and the world is his body, then he must be one living being made up of soul and body. This same God is a kind of womb of nature, containing all things within himself. The lives and souls of all living things come from his soul, according to each creature’s manner of birth. His soul gives life to the whole mass. Therefore, nothing at all remains that is not a part of God. If this is so, who cannot see the impious and irreligious consequences that follow? Whatever anyone tramples, he must trample a part of God. Whenever anyone kills a living creature, a part of God must be slaughtered. But I am unwilling to say everything that may occur to those who consider this. Such things cannot be spoken without irreverence.

13. Concerning those who assert that only rational animals are parts of the one God.

13. About those who claim that only rational animals are parts of the one God.

But if they contend that only rational animals, such as men, are parts of God, I do not really see how, if the whole world is God, they can separate beasts from being parts of Him. But what need is there of striving about that? Concerning the rational animal himself,—that is, man,—what more unhappy belief can be entertained than that a part of God is whipped when a boy is whipped? And who, unless he is quite mad, could bear the thought that parts of God can become lascivious, iniquitous, impious, and altogether damnable? In brief, why is God angry at those who do not worship Him, since these offenders are parts of Himself? It remains, therefore, that they must say that all the gods have their own lives; that each one lives for himself, and none of them is a part of any one; but that all are to be worshipped,—at least as many as can be known and worshipped; for they are so many it is impossible that all can be so. And of all these, I believe that Jupiter, because he presides as king, is thought by them to have both established and extended the Roman empire. For if he has not done it, what other god do they believe could have attempted so great a work, when they must all be occupied with their own offices and works, nor can one intrude on that of another? Could the kingdom of men then be propagated and increased by the king of the gods?

But suppose they argue that only rational creatures, such as humans, are parts of God. If the whole world is God, I do not see how they can exclude animals from being parts of him. But why argue about that? Consider the rational creature himself, the human being. What more troubling belief could there be than that a part of God is whipped whenever a boy is whipped? Who but a madman could bear the thought that parts of God can become lustful, wicked, impious, and utterly deserving of damnation? In short, why is God angry with those who do not worship him, if these offenders are parts of himself? They must therefore say that all the gods have lives of their own. Each lives for himself, and none is part of another. Yet all must be worshipped, at least all who can be known and worshipped. There are so many that it is impossible to know and worship them all. Of all these gods, I believe they think Jupiter established and extended the Roman empire, because he rules as king. For if he did not do it, what other god do they believe could have attempted such a great work? All the gods must be occupied with their own duties and works, and none can interfere with another’s. Could the king of the gods, then, have spread and increased the kingdom of men?

Here, first of all, I ask, why even the kingdom itself is not some god? For why should not it also be so, if Victory is a goddess? Or what need is there of Jove himself in this affair, if Victory favours and is propitious, and always goes to those whom she wishes to be victorious? With this goddess favourable and propitious, even if Jove was idle and did nothing, what nations could remain unsubdued, what kingdom would not yield? But perhaps it is displeasing to good men to fight with most wicked unrighteousness, and provoke with voluntary war neighbours who are peaceable and do no wrong, in order to enlarge a kingdom? If they feel thus, I entirely approve and praise them.

First, I ask why the kingdom itself is not a god. Why should it not be, if Victory is a goddess? And what need is there for Jove himself in this matter? If Victory is favorable, she always goes to those she wishes to make victorious. With this goddess on their side, what nations could remain unconquered? What kingdom would not surrender, even if Jove sat idle and did nothing? But perhaps good people disapprove of fighting with such wicked injustice. Perhaps they disapprove of starting wars to enlarge a kingdom by attacking peaceful neighbors who have done no wrong. If they feel this way, I entirely approve and praise them.

15. Whether it is suitable for good men to wish to rule more widely.

15. Whether good men should wish to rule over more people.

Let them ask, then, whether it is quite fitting for good men to rejoice in extended empire. For the iniquity of those with whom just wars are carried on favours the growth of a kingdom, which would certainly have been small if the peace and justice of neighbours had not by any wrong provoked the carrying on of war against them; and human affairs being thus more happy, all kingdoms would have been small, rejoicing in neighbourly concord; and thus there would have been very many kingdoms of nations in the world, as there are very many houses of citizens in a city. Therefore, to carry on war and extend a kingdom over wholly subdued nations seems to bad men to be felicity, to good men necessity. But because it would be worse that the injurious should rule over those who are more righteous, therefore even that is not unsuitably called felicity. But beyond doubt it is greater felicity to have a good neighbour at peace, than to conquer a bad one by making war. Your wishes are bad, when you desire that one whom you hate or fear should be in such a condition that you can conquer him. If, therefore, by carrying on wars that were just, not impious or unrighteous, the Romans could have acquired so great an empire, ought they not to worship as a goddess even the injustice of foreigners? For we see that this has co-operated much in extending the empire, by making foreigners so unjust that they became people with whom just wars might be carried on, and the empire increased. And why may not injustice, at least that of foreign nations, also be a goddess, if Fear and Dread, and Ague have deserved to be Roman gods? By these two, therefore,—that is, by foreign injustice, and the goddess Victoria, for injustice stirs up causes of wars, and Victoria brings these same wars to a happy termination,—the empire has increased, even although Jove has been idle. For what part could Jove have here, when those things which might be thought to be his benefits are held to be gods, called gods, worshipped as gods, and are themselves invoked for their own parts? He also might have some part here, if he himself might be called Empire, just as she is called Victory. Or if empire is the gift of Jove, why may not victory also be held to be his gift? And it certainly would have been held to be so, had he been recognised and worshipped, not as a stone in the Capitol, but as the true King of kings and Lord of lords.

Let them ask, then, whether good people should really rejoice when an empire grows. Kingdoms grow because of the wrongdoing of those against whom just wars are fought. A kingdom would surely have remained small if its peaceful and just neighbors had done nothing to provoke war. Human affairs would have been happier. All kingdoms would have been small and enjoyed peace with their neighbors. There would have been very many kingdoms of nations in the world, just as there are very many citizens’ houses in a city. So, to bad people, waging war and extending a kingdom over completely conquered nations seems like happiness. To good people, it seems like a necessity. Yet it would be worse for those who do wrong to rule over those who are more just. For that reason, even conquest may rightly be called happiness. But surely it is greater happiness to have a good neighbor at peace than to conquer a bad one through war. Your wishes are evil when you want someone you hate or fear to be in a position where you can conquer him. If the Romans gained so great an empire through just wars, not wicked or unjust ones, should they not worship the injustice of foreigners as a goddess too? We can see that it did much to extend the empire. It made foreigners so unjust that the Romans could wage just wars against them and increase their empire. Why should injustice, at least the injustice of foreign nations, not be a goddess too? Fear, Dread, and Fever have all been considered worthy of being Roman gods. The empire grew through these two things, then. One was foreign injustice, which provided causes for war. The other was the goddess Victoria, who brought those wars to a happy end. And this happened even if Jove did nothing. What part could Jove have played, when things that might be thought his gifts are themselves considered gods, called gods, and worshipped as gods? Each is called upon to do its own part. Jove might have a part in this if he himself were called Empire, just as she is called Victory. Or, if empire is Jove’s gift, why should victory not also be considered his gift? It certainly would have been, had he been recognized and worshipped not as a stone in the Capitol, but as the true King of kings and Lord of lords.

But I wonder very much, that while they assigned to separate gods single things, and (well nigh) all movements of the mind; that while they invoked the goddess Agenoria, who should excite to action; the goddess Stimula, who should stimulate to unusual action; the goddess Murcia, who should not move men beyond measure, but make them, as Pomponius says, murcid—that is, too slothful and inactive; the goddess Strenua, who should make them strenuous; and that while they offered to all these gods and goddesses solemn and public worship, they should yet have been unwilling to give public acknowledgment to her whom they name Quies because she makes men quiet, but built her temple outside the Colline gate. Whether was this a symptom of an unquiet mind, or rather was it thus intimated that he who should persevere in worshipping that crowd, not, to be sure, of gods, but of demons, could not dwell with quiet; to which the true Physician calls, saying, "Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls?"

I find it very strange that they assigned separate gods to individual things and to nearly all movements of the mind. They called on the goddess Agenoria to spur people to action. They called on Stimula to spur them to unusual action. They called on Murcia to keep people from excessive activity and make them, as Pomponius says, murcid, or excessively lazy and inactive. They called on Strenua to make them energetic. They gave all these gods and goddesses solemn public worship. Yet they refused to give public recognition to the goddess they called Quies because she makes people quiet. Instead, they built her temple outside the Colline gate. Was this a sign of a restless mind? Or did it rather suggest that anyone who continued to worship that crowd could not live in peace? For they were not gods, but demons. The true Physician calls us to that peace, saying, "Learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls."

17. Whether, if the highest power belongs to Jove, Victoria also ought to be worshipped.

17. If Jove has the highest power, should Victoria also be worshiped?

Or do they say, perhaps, that Jupiter sends the goddess Victoria, and that she, as it were, acting in obedience to the king of the gods, comes to those to whom he may have despatched her, and takes up her quarters on their side? This is truly said, not of Jove, whom they, according to their own imagination, feign to be king of the gods, but of Him who is the true eternal King, because he sends, not Victory, who is no person, but His angel, and causes whom He pleases to conquer; whose counsel may be hidden, but cannot be unjust. For if Victory is a goddess, why is not Triumph also a god, and joined to Victory either as husband, or brother, or son? Indeed, they have imagined such things concerning the gods, that if the poets had feigned the like, and they should have been discussed by us, they would have replied that they were laughable figments of the poets not to be attributed to true deities. And yet they themselves did not laugh when they were, not reading in the poets, but worshipping in the temples such doating follies. Therefore they should entreat Jove alone for all things, and supplicate him only. For if Victory is a goddess, and is under him as her king, wherever he might have sent her, she could not dare to resist and do her own will rather than his.

Or perhaps they say that Jupiter sends the goddess Victory. Acting, as it were, under the king of the gods, she comes to those he sends her to and joins their side. This is indeed true, not of Jove, whom they imagine to be king of the gods, but of him who is the true eternal King. For he sends not Victory, who is not a person, but his angel, and gives victory to whomever he pleases. His purpose may be hidden, but it cannot be unjust. If Victory is a goddess, why is Triumph not also a god? Why is he not joined to Victory as her husband, brother, or son? They have imagined such things about the gods themselves. Yet if poets had invented similar stories and we had discussed them, they would have dismissed them as laughable fictions. They would have said that such things should not be attributed to true gods. Yet they did not laugh at such foolish nonsense when they worshipped it in temples, rather than reading it in poems. Therefore, they should ask Jove alone for everything and pray only to him. For if Victory is a goddess under his rule, she could not dare resist him wherever he sent her. She could not do her own will instead of his.

18. With what reason they who think Felicity and Fortune goddesses have distinguished them.

18. Why those who consider Felicity and Fortune goddesses distinguish between them.

What shall we say, besides, of the idea that Felicity also is a goddess? She has received a temple; she has merited an altar; suitable rites of worship are paid to her. She alone, then, should be worshipped. For where she is present, what good thing can be absent? But what does a man wish, that he thinks Fortune also a goddess and worships her? Is felicity one thing, fortune another? Fortune, indeed, may be bad as well as good; but felicity, if it could be bad, would not be felicity. Certainly we ought to think all the gods of either sex (if they also have sex) are only good. This says Plato; this say other philosophers; this say all estimable rulers of the republic and the nations. How is it, then, that the goddess Fortune is sometimes good, sometimes bad? Is it perhaps the case that when she is bad she is not a goddess, but is suddenly changed into a malignant demon? How many Fortunes are there then? Just as many as there are men who are fortunate, that is, of good fortune. But since there must also be very many others who at the very same time are men of bad fortune, could she, being one and the same Fortune, be at the same time both bad and good—the one to these, the other to those? She who is the goddess, is she always good? Then she herself is felicity. Why, then, are two names given her? Yet this is tolerable; for it is customary that one thing should be called by two names. But why different temples, different altars, different rituals? There is a reason, say they, because Felicity is she whom the good have by previous merit; but fortune, which is termed good without any trial of merit, befalls both good and bad men fortuitously, whence also she is named Fortune. How, therefore, is she good, who without any discernment comes both to the good and to the bad? Why is she worshipped, who is thus blind, running at random on any one whatever, so that for the most part she passes by her worshippers, and cleaves to those who despise her? Or if her worshippers profit somewhat, so that they are seen by her and loved, then she follows merit, and does not come fortuitously. What, then, becomes of that definition of fortune? What becomes of the opinion that she has received her very name from fortuitous events? For it profits one nothing to worship her if she is truly fortune. But if she distinguishes her worshippers, so that she may benefit them, she is not fortune. Or does Jupiter send her too, whither he pleases? Then let him alone be worshipped; because Fortune is not able to resist him when he commands her, and sends her where he pleases. Or, at least, let the bad worship her, who do not choose to have merit by which the goddess Felicity might be invited.

What more can we say about the idea that Felicity, or happiness, is also a goddess? She has been given a temple and an altar. She is honored with appropriate rites. If so, she alone should be worshipped. When she is present, what good thing can be missing? But what does a person want when he also regards Fortune as a goddess and worships her? Are happiness and fortune different things? Fortune can be bad as well as good. But if happiness could be bad, it would not be happiness. Surely we should think that all gods of either sex, if they have sexes, are only good. Plato says this, as do other philosophers. So do all respected rulers of the republic and the nations. How, then, can the goddess Fortune be sometimes good and sometimes bad? Perhaps when she is bad, she is no longer a goddess but suddenly becomes an evil demon? How many Fortunes are there, then? There are as many as there are fortunate people, that is, people with good fortune. But many others must have bad fortune at the very same time. Could one and the same Fortune be good to some and bad to others at once? Is the goddess herself always good? Then she is Felicity. Why, then, does she have two names? Still, that is acceptable, since one thing is often called by two names. But why have separate temples, altars, and rituals? They say there is a reason. Felicity comes to good people because of their earlier merits. But what is called good fortune comes by chance to both good and bad people, without regard to merit. That is why she is called Fortune. How, then, is she good, if she comes to good and bad people without distinction? Why worship her if she is so blind, rushing at random to anyone at all? For the most part, she passes over her worshippers and stays close to those who despise her. But perhaps her worshippers gain something, so that she notices and loves them. If so, she follows merit and does not come by chance. What, then, becomes of that definition of fortune? What becomes of the belief that she takes her very name from chance events? Worshipping her is no use if she is truly fortune. But if she singles out her worshippers to benefit them, she is not fortune. Or does Jupiter also send her wherever he pleases? Then let him alone be worshipped. Fortune cannot resist when he commands her and sends her where he pleases. Or, at least, let bad people worship her. They do not choose to acquire the merit that might draw the goddess Felicity to them.

19. Concerning Fortuna Muliebris.¹⁶⁹

19. About Fortuna Muliebris.¹⁶⁹

To this supposed deity, whom they call Fortuna, they ascribe so much, indeed, that they have a tradition that the image of her, which was dedicated by the Roman matrons, and called Fortuna Muliebris, has spoken, and has said, once and again, that the matrons pleased her by their homage; which, indeed, if it is true, ought not to excite our wonder. For it is not so difficult for malignant demons to deceive, and they ought the rather to advert to their wits and wiles, because it is that goddess who comes by haphazard who has spoken, and not she who comes to reward merit. For Fortuna was loquacious, and Felicitas mute; and for what other reason but that men might not care to live rightly, having made Fortuna their friend, who could make them fortunate without any good desert? And truly, if Fortuna speaks, she should at least speak, not with a womanly, but with a manly voice; lest they themselves who have dedicated the image should think so great a miracle has been wrought by feminine loquacity.

They attribute great power to this supposed deity, whom they call Fortuna. They have a tradition about an image of her dedicated by the Roman matrons and called Fortuna Muliebris. They say it spoke more than once, declaring that the matrons had pleased her by their worship. If this is true, it should not surprise us. Wicked demons can easily deceive. People should pay all the more attention to their cunning tricks because the goddess who spoke brings fortune by chance. She is not the goddess who rewards merit. Fortuna was talkative, while Felicitas was silent. Why else would this be, except to make people careless about living rightly? Once they had made Fortuna their friend, she could make them fortunate without any merit on their part. And surely, if Fortuna speaks, she should at least speak in a man's voice, not a woman's. Otherwise, those who dedicated the image might think this great miracle was merely the result of feminine chatter.

They have made Virtue also a goddess, which, indeed, if it could be a goddess, had been preferable to many. And now, because it is not a goddess, but a gift of God, let it be obtained by prayer from Him, by whom alone it can be given, and the whole crowd of false gods vanishes. But why is Faith believed to be a goddess, and why does she herself receive temple and altar? For whoever prudently acknowledges her makes his own self an abode for her. But how do they know what faith is, of which it is the prime and greatest function that the true God may be believed in? But why had not virtue sufficed? Does it not include faith also? Forasmuch as they have thought proper to distribute virtue into four divisions—prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance—and as each of these divisions has its own virtues, faith is among the parts of justice, and has the chief place with as many of us as know what that saying means, "The just shall live by faith."¹⁷⁰ But if Faith is a goddess, I wonder why these keen lovers of a multitude of gods have wronged so many other goddesses, by passing them by, when they could have dedicated temples and altars to them likewise. Why has temperance not deserved to be a goddess, when some Roman princes have obtained no small glory on account of her? Why, in fine, is fortitude not a goddess, who aided Mucius when he thrust his right hand into the flames; who aided Curtius, when for the sake of his country he threw himself headlong into the yawning earth; who aided Decius the sire, and Decius the son, when they devoted themselves for the army?—though we might question whether these men had true fortitude, if this concerned our present discussion. Why have prudence and wisdom merited no place among the gods? Is it because they are all worshipped under the general name of Virtue itself? Then they could thus worship the true God also, of whom all the other gods are thought to be parts. But in that one name of virtue is comprehended both faith and chastity, which yet have obtained separate altars in temples of their own.

They have also made Virtue a goddess. If she could be a goddess, she would indeed be preferable to many others. But she is not a goddess. She is a gift of God, so let it be sought in prayer from him, who alone can give it. Then the whole crowd of false gods vanishes. But why is Faith believed to be a goddess? Why does she have her own temple and altar? Anyone who wisely acknowledges her makes himself a home for her. But how do they know what faith is? Its first and greatest purpose is to make us believe in the true God. And why was Virtue not enough? Does she not include faith? They have chosen to divide virtue into four parts: prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. Each of these has its own virtues. Faith is part of justice. It holds the chief place among all of us who understand the saying, "The just shall live by faith."¹⁷⁰ But if Faith is a goddess, I wonder why these keen lovers of many gods have slighted so many other goddesses. They passed them over when they could have dedicated temples and altars to them too. Why has temperance not deserved to be a goddess? Some Roman rulers have won considerable glory because of her. And why is fortitude not a goddess? She aided Mucius when he thrust his right hand into the flames. She aided Curtius when he threw himself into the opening earth for his country. She aided Decius the father and Decius the son when they gave their lives for their army. Though, if it concerned our present discussion, we might question whether these men had true fortitude. Why have prudence and wisdom earned no place among the gods? Is it because they are all worshipped under the general name of Virtue itself? Then they could also worship the true God in this way, since all the other gods are thought to be parts of him. Yet the one name of virtue includes both faith and chastity, which have separate altars in temples of their own.

21. That although not understanding them to be the gifts of God, they ought at least to have been content with Virtue and Felicity.

21. Although they did not understand that Virtue and Happiness were gifts from God, they should at least have been content with them.

These, not verity but vanity has made goddesses. For these are gifts of the true God, not themselves goddesses. However, where virtue and felicity are, what else is sought for? What can suffice the man whom virtue and felicity do not suffice? For surely virtue comprehends all things we need do, felicity all things we need wish for. If Jupiter, then, was worshipped in order that he might give these two things,—because, if extent and duration of empire is something good, it pertains to this same felicity,—why is it not understood that they are not goddesses, but the gifts of God? But if they are judged to be goddesses, then at least that other great crowd of gods should not be sought after. For, having considered all the offices which their fancy has distributed among the various gods and goddesses, let them find out, if they can, anything which could be bestowed by any god whatever on a man possessing virtue, possessing felicity. What instruction could be sought either from Mercury or Minerva, when Virtue already possessed all in herself? Virtue, indeed, is defined by the ancients as itself the art of living well and rightly. Hence, because virtue is called in Greek ἀρετὴ, it has been thought the Latins have derived from it the term art. But if Virtue cannot come except to the clever, what need was there of the god Father Catius, who should make men cautious, that is, acute, when Felicity could confer this? Because, to be born clever belongs to felicity. Whence, although goddess Felicity could not be worshipped by one not yet born, in order that, being made his friend, she might bestow this on him, yet she might confer this favour on parents who were her worshippers, that clever children should be born to them. What need had women in childbirth to invoke Lucina, when, if Felicity should be present, they would have, not only a good delivery, but good children too? What need was there to commend the children to the goddess Ops when they were being born; to the god Vaticanus in their birth-cry; to the goddess Cunina when lying cradled; to the goddess Rumina when sucking; to the god Statilinus when standing; to the goddess Adeona when coming; to Abeona when going away; to the goddess Mens that they might have a good mind; to the god Volumnus, and the goddess Volumna, that they might wish for good things; to the nuptial gods, that they might make good matches; to the rural gods, and chiefly to the goddess Fructesca herself, that they might receive the most abundant fruits; to Mars and Bellona, that they might carry on war well; to the goddess Victoria, that they might be victorious; to the god Honor, that they might be honoured; to the goddess Pecunia, that they might have plenty money; to the god Aesculanus, and his son Argentinus, that they might have brass and silver coin? For they set down Aesculanus as the father of Argentinus for this reason, that brass coin began to be used before silver. But I wonder Argentinus has not begotten Aurinus, since gold coin also has followed. Could they have him for a god, they would prefer Aurinus both to his father Argentinus and his grandfather Aesculanus, just as they set Jove before Saturn. Therefore, what necessity was there on account of these gifts, either of soul, or body, or outward estate, to worship and invoke so great a crowd of gods, all of whom I have not mentioned, nor have they themselves been able to provide for all human benefits, minutely and singly methodized, minute and single gods, when the one goddess Felicity was able, with the greatest ease, compendiously to bestow the whole of them? nor should any other be sought after, either for the bestowing of good things, or for the averting of evil. For why should they invoke the goddess Fessonia for the weary; for driving away enemies, the goddess Pellonia; for the sick, as a physician, either Apollo or Æsculapius, or both together if there should be great danger? Neither should the god Spiniensis be entreated that he might root out the thorns from the fields; nor the goddess Rubigo that the mildew might not come,—Felicitas alone being present and guarding, either no evils would have arisen, or they would have been quite easily driven away. Finally, since we treat of these two goddesses, Virtue and Felicity, if felicity is the reward of virtue, she is not a goddess, but a gift of God. But if she is a goddess, why may she not be said to confer virtue itself, inasmuch as it is a great felicity to attain virtue?

Vanity, not truth, has made these into goddesses. They are gifts of the true God, not goddesses themselves. Where virtue and happiness are present, what more can anyone seek? What can satisfy someone who is not satisfied with virtue and happiness? Virtue surely includes everything we need to do. Happiness includes everything we need to wish for. If Jupiter was worshipped so that he might give these two things, why not recognize them as gifts of God? They are not goddesses. For if a vast and lasting empire is a good thing, it belongs to this same happiness. But if Virtue and Happiness are considered goddesses, at least there is no need to seek that great crowd of other gods. Let their worshippers consider all the duties they have imagined for the various gods and goddesses. Then let them find, if they can, anything any god could give someone who already has virtue and happiness. What teaching could anyone seek from Mercury or Minerva when Virtue already possessed it all? The ancients defined virtue itself as the art of living well and rightly. The Greek word for virtue is ἀρετὴ, and some have thought that the Latins derived art from it. But suppose Virtue can come only to those who are clever. Why, then, was Father Catius needed to make people shrewd, that is, quick-witted? Happiness could grant this, since being born clever is part of happiness. Of course, an unborn child could not worship the goddess Happiness and win her favor to receive this gift. Yet she could grant it to parents who worshipped her, so that clever children would be born to them. Why did women in labor need to call on Lucina? If Happiness were present, they would have not only a safe delivery but good children too. Why did they need to entrust children to the goddess Ops at birth, to the god Vaticanus for their first cry, to the goddess Cunina in the cradle, to the goddess Rumina while nursing, to the god Statilinus when standing, to the goddess Adeona when coming, and to Abeona when going away? Why call on the goddess Mens to give them good minds, or on the god Volumnus and the goddess Volumna to make them wish for good things? Why call on the marriage gods to give them good matches, or the rural gods, especially the goddess Fructesca herself, to give them abundant harvests? Why call on Mars and Bellona to help them wage war well, or the goddess Victoria to give them victory? Why call on the god Honor to bring them honor, or the goddess Pecunia to give them plenty of money? Why call on the god Aesculanus and his son Argentinus to give them bronze and silver coins? They make Aesculanus the father of Argentinus because bronze coins came into use before silver ones. But I wonder why Argentinus has not fathered Aurinus, since gold coins came later. If they could make him a god, they would prefer Aurinus to both his father Argentinus and his grandfather Aesculanus. In the same way, they put Jove before Saturn. Why, then, was it necessary to worship and call on such a crowd of gods for these gifts? I mean gifts of the mind, the body, or outward circumstances. I have not mentioned all these gods. Nor have their worshippers been able to assign a separate god to every single human benefit, however carefully they divided them. Yet the one goddess Happiness could have bestowed them all together with the greatest ease. No other god should be sought, either to grant good things or to turn away evil. Why call on the goddess Fessonia for the weary, or the goddess Pellonia to drive away enemies? Why call on Apollo or Aesculapius as a doctor for the sick, or on both together in great danger? There would be no need to ask the god Spiniensis to root thorns out of the fields. Nor would there be any need to ask the goddess Rubigo to keep mildew away. If Happiness alone were present and watching over them, either no evils would arise, or they would be driven away quite easily. Finally, since we are discussing these two goddesses, Virtue and Happiness, consider this. If happiness is the reward of virtue, she is not a goddess but a gift of God. But if she is a goddess, why could she not grant virtue itself? After all, attaining virtue is a great happiness.

22. Concerning the knowledge of the worship due to the gods, which Varro glories in having himself conferred on the Romans.

22. On the knowledge of how the gods should be worshiped, which Varro boasts of having given the Romans.

What is it, then, that Varro boasts he has bestowed as a very great benefit on his fellow-citizens, because he not only recounts the gods who ought to be worshipped by the Romans, but also tells what pertains to each of them? "Just as it is of no advantage," he says, "to know the name and appearance of any man who is a physician, and not know that he is a physician, so," he says, "it is of no advantage to know well that Æsculapius is a god, if you are not aware that he can bestow the gift of health, and consequently do not know why you ought to supplicate him." He also affirms this by another comparison, saying, "No one is able, not only to live well, but even to live at all, if he does not know who is a smith, who a baker, who a weaver, from whom he can seek any utensil, whom he may take for a helper, whom for a leader, whom for a teacher;" asserting, "that in this way it can be doubtful to no one, that thus the knowledge of the gods is useful, if one can know what force, and faculty, or power any god may have in anything. For from this we may be able," he says, "to know what god we ought to call to, and invoke for any cause; lest we should do as too many are wont to do, and desire water from Liber, and wine from Lymphs." Very useful, forsooth! Who would not give this man thanks if he could show true things, and if he could teach that the one true God, from whom all good things are, is to be worshipped by men?

What, then, is the great benefit Varro boasts of giving his fellow citizens? He not only lists the gods the Romans should worship, but also explains what belongs to each one. He says, "It does no good to know a man's name and appearance if you do not know he is a physician. In the same way, it does no good to know that Æsculapius is a god if you do not know that he can give health. Then you will not know why you should pray to him." He supports this point with another comparison. "No one can live well, or even live at all, without knowing who is a smith, a baker, or a weaver. He must know from whom he can obtain a utensil, and whom he can choose as a helper, a leader, or a teacher." In the same way, he says, no one can doubt that knowledge of the gods is useful when one knows what force, ability, or power each god has in any matter. "From this," he says, "we can know which god to call upon and invoke for any purpose. Otherwise, we might do what too many people usually do, and ask Liber for water and the Lymphs for wine." Very useful indeed! Who would not thank this man if he could show what is true? Who would not thank him if he could teach that people should worship the one true God, from whom all good things come?

But how does it happen, if their books and rituals are true, and Felicity is a goddess, that she herself is not appointed as the only one to be worshipped, since she could confer all things, and all at once make men happy? For who wishes anything for any other reason than that he may become happy? Why was it left to Lucullus to dedicate a temple to so great a goddess at so late a date, and after so many Roman rulers? Why did Romulus himself, ambitious as he was of founding a fortunate city, not erect a temple to this goddess before all others? Why did he supplicate the other gods for anything, since he would have lacked nothing had she been with him? For even he himself would neither have been first a king, then afterwards, as they think, a god, if this goddess had not been propitious to him. Why, therefore, did he appoint as gods for the Romans, Janus, Jove, Mars, Picus, Faunus, Tiberinus, Hercules, and others, if there were more of them? Why did Titus Tatius add Saturn, Ops, Sun, Moon, Vulcan, Light, and whatever others he added, among whom was even the goddess Cloacina, while Felicity was neglected? Why did Numa appoint so many gods and so many goddesses without this one? Was it perhaps because he could not see her among so great a crowd? Certainly king Hostilius would not have introduced the new gods Fear and Dread to be propitiated, if he could have known or might have worshipped this goddess. For, in presence of Felicity, Fear and Dread would have disappeared,—I do not say propitiated, but put to flight. Next, I ask, how is it that the Roman empire had already immensely increased before any one worshipped Felicity? Was the empire, therefore, more great than happy? For how could true felicity be there, where there was not true piety? For piety is the genuine worship of the true God, and not the worship of as many demons as there are false gods. Yet even afterwards, when Felicity had already been taken into the number of the gods, the great infelicity of the civil wars ensued. Was Felicity perhaps justly indignant, both because she was invited so late, and was invited not to honour, but rather to reproach, because along with her were worshipped Priapus, and Cloacina, and Fear and Dread, and Ague, and others which were not gods to be worshipped, but the crimes of the worshippers? Last of all, if it seemed good to worship so great a goddess along with a most unworthy crowd, why at least was she not worshipped in a more honourable way than the rest? For is it not intolerable that Felicity is placed neither among the gods Consentes,¹⁷¹ whom they allege to be admitted into the council of Jupiter, nor among the gods whom they term Select? Some temple might be made for her which might be pre-eminent, both in loftiness of site and dignity of style. Why, indeed, not something better than is made for Jupiter himself? For who gave the kingdom even to Jupiter but Felicity? I am supposing that when he reigned he was happy. Felicity, however, is certainly more valuable than a kingdom. For no one doubts that a man might easily be found who may fear to be made a king; but no one is found who is unwilling to be happy. Therefore, if it is thought they can be consulted by augury, or in any other way, the gods themselves should be consulted about this thing, whether they may wish to give place to Felicity. If, perchance, the place should already be occupied by the temples and altars of others, where a greater and more lofty temple might be built to Felicity, even Jupiter himself might give way, so that Felicity might rather obtain the very pinnacle of the Capitoline hill. For there is not any one who would resist Felicity, except, which is impossible, one who might wish to be unhappy. Certainly, if he should be consulted, Jupiter would in no case do what those three gods, Mars, Terminus, and Juventas, did, who positively refused to give place to their superior and king. For, as their books record, when king Tarquin wished to construct the Capitol, and perceived that the place which seemed to him to be the most worthy and suitable was preoccupied by other gods, not daring to do anything contrary to their pleasure, and believing that they would willingly give place to a god who was so great, and was their own master, because there were many of them there when the Capitol was founded, he inquired by augury whether they chose to give place to Jupiter, and they were all willing to remove thence except those whom I have named, Mars, Terminus, and Juventas; and therefore the Capitol was built in such a way that these three also might be within it, yet with such obscure signs that even the most learned men could scarcely know this. Surely, then, Jupiter himself would by no means despise Felicity as he was himself despised by Terminus, Mars, and Juventas. But even they themselves who had not given place to Jupiter, would certainly give place to Felicity, who had made Jupiter king over them. Or if they should not give place, they would act thus not out of contempt of her, but because they chose rather to be obscure in the house of Felicity, than to be eminent without her in their own places.

But if their books and rituals are true, and Felicity is a goddess, why is she not the only one appointed for worship? She could grant all things and make people happy all at once. After all, why does anyone want anything except to become happy? Why was it left to Lucullus to dedicate a temple to so great a goddess, so late and after so many Roman rulers? Why did Romulus himself not build her temple before all others? He was, after all, eager to found a fortunate city. Why did he ask the other gods for anything? If she had been with him, he would have lacked nothing. Indeed, without her favor, he would never have become first a king and then, as they believe, a god. Why, then, did he appoint Janus, Jove, Mars, Picus, Faunus, Tiberinus, Hercules, and any others as gods for the Romans? Why did Titus Tatius add Saturn, Ops, Sun, Moon, Vulcan, Light, and whatever others he added, including even the goddess Cloacina, while neglecting Felicity? Why did Numa appoint so many gods and goddesses without her? Was it perhaps because he could not see her in such a crowd? Surely King Hostilius would not have introduced the new gods Fear and Dread to be appeased, if he could have known or worshipped this goddess. In Felicity’s presence, Fear and Dread would have disappeared. They would not merely have been appeased, but driven away. Next, I ask how the Roman Empire had already grown so vast before anyone worshipped Felicity. Was the empire, then, more great than happy? How could true happiness exist where there was no true piety? For piety is the genuine worship of the true God, not the worship of as many demons as there are false gods. Yet even later, after Felicity had been counted among the gods, the great misery of the civil wars followed. Was Felicity perhaps justly angry because she was invited so late? And was she angry because she was invited not to be honored, but rather to be insulted? For Priapus, Cloacina, Fear, Dread, Ague, and others were worshipped alongside her. These were not gods to be worshipped, but the crimes of their worshippers. Finally, if people thought it right to worship so great a goddess alongside such an unworthy crowd, why was she not at least honored more than the rest? Is it not intolerable that Felicity is placed neither among the gods Consentes,¹⁷¹ whom they say are admitted to Jupiter’s council, nor among those they call Select? A temple could have been built for her that surpassed the others in the height of its site and the dignity of its design. Indeed, why not build her something better than Jupiter’s own temple? Who gave Jupiter his kingdom but Felicity? I am assuming that he was happy when he reigned. Yet Felicity is certainly more valuable than a kingdom. No one doubts that a person could easily be found who fears becoming a king. But no one can be found who is unwilling to be happy. So, if the gods are thought able to be consulted by augury or in some other way, they themselves should be asked whether they are willing to give place to Felicity. Perhaps the temples and altars of others already occupy the place where a greater and higher temple to her might be built. In that case, even Jupiter himself could give way, so that Felicity might have the very summit of the Capitoline Hill. No one would resist Felicity, except someone who wanted to be unhappy, and that is impossible. Surely, if Jupiter were consulted, he would never do what those three gods, Mars, Terminus, and Juventas, did. They flatly refused to give place to their superior and king. Their books tell the story. When King Tarquin wanted to build the Capitol, he saw that other gods already occupied the place he thought most worthy and suitable. He did not dare do anything against their wishes. He believed they would willingly give place to so great a god, who was also their master. Since many gods were there when the Capitol was founded, he asked by augury whether they would give place to Jupiter. All were willing to leave except Mars, Terminus, and Juventas, whom I have named. The Capitol was therefore built to include those three as well. Yet the signs of their presence were so obscure that even the most learned people could scarcely recognize them. Surely, then, Jupiter himself would never show Felicity the contempt that Terminus, Mars, and Juventas showed him. Even those gods who had not given place to Jupiter would certainly give place to Felicity, who had made Jupiter king over them. Or, if they did not give place, they would not refuse out of contempt for her. They would refuse because they preferred to be obscure in Felicity’s house rather than prominent in their own places without her.

Thus the goddess Felicity being established in the largest and loftiest place, the citizens should learn whence the furtherance of every good desire should be sought. And so, by the persuasion of nature herself, the superfluous multitude of other gods being abandoned, Felicity alone would be worshipped, prayer would be made to her alone, her temple alone would be frequented by the citizens who wished to be happy, which no one of them would not wish; and thus felicity, who was sought for from all the gods, would be sought for only from her own self. For who wishes to receive from any god anything else than felicity, or what he supposes to tend to felicity? Wherefore, if Felicity has it in her power to be with what man she pleases (and she has it if she is a goddess), what folly is it, after all, to seek from any other god her whom you can obtain by request from her own self! Therefore they ought to honour this goddess above other gods, even by dignity of place. For, as we read in their own authors, the ancient Romans paid greater honours to I know not what Summanus, to whom they attributed nocturnal thunderbolts, than to Jupiter, to whom diurnal thunderbolts were held to pertain. But, after a famous and conspicuous temple had been built to Jupiter, owing to the dignity of the building, the multitude resorted to him in so great numbers, that scarce one can be found who remembers even to have read the name of Summanus, which now he cannot once hear named. But if Felicity is not a goddess, because, as is true, it is a gift of God, that god must be sought who has power to give it, and that hurtful multitude of false gods must be abandoned which the vain multitude of foolish men follows after, making gods to itself of the gifts of God, and offending Himself whose gifts they are by the stubbornness of a proud will. For he cannot be free from infelicity who worships Felicity as a goddess, and forsakes God, the giver of felicity; just as he cannot be free from hunger who licks a painted loaf of bread, and does not buy it of the man who has a real one.

If the goddess Felicity were given the largest and most prominent place, citizens would learn where to seek help in fulfilling every good desire. Nature herself would persuade them to abandon the needless multitude of other gods. They would worship Felicity alone and pray only to her. All citizens who wished to be happy would visit her temple alone, and every citizen would wish to be happy. Happiness, which they sought from all the gods, would then be sought only from Felicity herself. For who asks any god for anything except happiness, or what he believes will lead to happiness? If Felicity can choose to be with anyone she pleases, and she can if she is a goddess, how foolish it is to seek her from another god! You could ask Felicity herself for her presence. Therefore, they ought to honor this goddess above the other gods, even by giving her the most prominent place. Their own writers tell us that the ancient Romans paid greater honors to some god named Summanus than to Jupiter. They attributed lightning at night to Summanus and lightning by day to Jupiter. But later, a famous and impressive temple was built for Jupiter. Because of the building’s grandeur, crowds flocked to him. Now it is hard to find anyone who remembers even reading the name of Summanus, and no one ever hears it mentioned. But Felicity is not a goddess, because happiness is in truth a gift of God. Therefore, they must seek the God who has power to give it. They must abandon that harmful multitude of false gods, whom the vain multitude of foolish people follow. These people make gods for themselves out of God’s gifts. In the stubbornness of their proud wills, they offend God himself, whose gifts these are. No one can be free from unhappiness who worships Felicity as a goddess and forsakes God, the giver of happiness. Such a person is like someone who licks a painted loaf of bread instead of buying a real one from the man who has it. That person cannot be free from hunger.

24. The reasons by which the pagans attempt to defend their worshipping among the gods the divine gifts themselves.

24. The reasons pagans give for worshiping divine gifts themselves as gods.

We may, however, consider their reasons. Is it to be believed, say they, that our forefathers were besotted even to such a degree as not to know that these things are divine gifts, and not gods? But as they knew that such things are granted to no one, except by some god freely bestowing them, they called the gods whose names they did not find out by the names of those things which they deemed to be given by them; sometimes slightly altering the name for that purpose, as, for example, from war they have named Bellona, not bellum; from cradles, Cunina, not cunæ; from standing corn, Segetia, not seges; from apples, Pomona, not pomum; from oxen, Bubona, not bos. Sometimes, again, with no alteration of the word, just as the things themselves are named, so that the goddess who gives money is called Pecunia, and money is not thought to be itself a goddess: so of Virtus, who gives virtue; Honor, who gives honour; Concordia, who gives concord; Victoria, who gives victory. So, they say, when Felicitas is called a goddess, what is meant is not the thing itself which is given, but that deity by whom felicity is given.

We may, however, consider their reasons. They ask, “Can we believe that our ancestors were so foolish that they did not know these things were divine gifts, rather than gods?” They knew that no one received such things unless a god freely gave them. When they did not know the names of those gods, they named them after the things they believed the gods gave. Sometimes they changed the word slightly for this purpose. For example, from war they named Bellona, not bellum. From cradles they named Cunina, not cunæ. From standing grain they named Segetia, not seges. From apples they named Pomona, not pomum. From oxen they named Bubona, not bos. At other times, they used the name of the thing itself without changing it. Thus, the goddess who gives money is called Pecunia, though money itself is not thought to be a goddess. The same is true of Virtus, who gives virtue, Honor, who gives honor, Concordia, who gives concord, and Victoria, who gives victory. So, they say, when Felicitas is called a goddess, the name does not mean the gift of happiness itself. It means the deity who gives happiness.

25. Concerning the one God only to be worshipped, who, although His name is unknown, is yet deemed to be the giver of felicity.

25. The one God alone should be worshipped. Though his name is unknown, he is believed to give happiness.

Having had that reason rendered to us, we shall perhaps much more easily persuade, as we wish, those whose heart has not become too much hardened. For if now human infirmity has perceived that felicity cannot be given except by some god; if this was perceived by those who worshipped so many gods, at whose head they set Jupiter himself; if, in their ignorance of the name of Him by whom felicity was given, they agreed to call Him by the name of that very thing which they believed He gave;—then it follows that they thought that felicity could not be given even by Jupiter himself, whom they already worshipped, but certainly by him whom they thought fit to worship under the name of Felicity itself. I thoroughly affirm the statement that they believed felicity to be given by a certain God whom they knew not: let Him therefore be sought after, let Him be worshipped, and it is enough. Let the train of innumerable demons be repudiated, and let this God suffice every man whom his gift suffices. For him, I say, God the giver of felicity will not be enough to worship, for whom felicity itself is not enough to receive. But let him for whom it suffices (and man has nothing more he ought to wish for) serve the one God, the giver of felicity. This God is not he whom they call Jupiter. For if they acknowledged him to be the giver of felicity, they would not seek, under the name of Felicity itself, for another god or goddess by whom felicity might be given; nor could they tolerate that Jupiter himself should be worshipped with such infamous attributes. For he is said to be the debaucher of the wives of others; he is the shameless lover and ravisher of a beautiful boy.

Now that this reason has been given to us, we may perhaps persuade those whose hearts have not grown too hard. Human weakness has come to see that only a god can grant happiness. Even those who worshipped many gods, with Jupiter himself at their head, saw this. They did not know the name of the one who gave happiness. So they agreed to call him by the name of the very thing they believed he gave. It follows that they thought even Jupiter, whom they already worshipped, could not grant happiness. They believed it could certainly be given by the one they thought fit to worship under the name of Happiness itself. I firmly affirm that they believed happiness was given by a certain God whom they did not know. So let him be sought and worshipped, and that is enough. Let the host of countless demons be rejected. Let this God be enough for everyone who is satisfied with his gift. If happiness itself is not enough for someone to receive, then God, its giver, will not be enough for him to worship. But whoever is satisfied with happiness should serve the one God who gives it. There is nothing more a person ought to wish for. This God is not the one they call Jupiter. If they had recognized him as the giver of happiness, they would not have sought another god or goddess to give it. They would not have sought that deity under the name of Happiness itself. Nor could they have tolerated the worship of Jupiter with such disgraceful attributes. For he is said to seduce other men's wives. He is the shameless lover and rapist of a beautiful boy.

26. Of the scenic plays, the celebration of which the gods have exacted from their worshippers.

26. Of the theatrical plays that the gods have demanded their worshippers perform.

"But," says Cicero, "Homer invented these things, and transferred things human to the gods: I would rather transfer things divine to us."¹⁷² The poet, by ascribing such crimes to the gods, has justly displeased the grave man. Why, then, are the scenic plays, where these crimes are habitually spoken of, acted, exhibited, in honour of the gods, reckoned among things divine by the most learned men? Cicero should exclaim, not against the inventions of the poets, but against the customs of the ancients. Would not they have exclaimed in reply, What have we done? The gods themselves have loudly demanded that these plays should be exhibited in their honour, have fiercely exacted them, have menaced destruction unless this was performed, have avenged its neglect with great severity, and have manifested pleasure at the reparation of such neglect. Among their virtuous and wonderful deeds the following is related. It was announced in a dream to Titus Latinius, a Roman rustic, that he should go to the senate and tell them to recommence the games of Rome, because on the first day of their celebration a condemned criminal had been led to punishment in sight of the people, an incident so sad as to disturb the gods who were seeking amusement from the games. And when the peasant who had received this intimation was afraid on the following day to deliver it to the senate, it was renewed next night in a severer form: he lost his son, because of his neglect. On the third night he was warned that a yet graver punishment was impending, if he should still refuse obedience. When even thus he did not dare to obey, he fell into a virulent and horrible disease. But then, on the advice of his friends, he gave information to the magistrates, and was carried in a litter into the senate, and having, on declaring his dream, immediately recovered strength, went away on his own feet whole.¹⁷³ The senate, amazed at so great a miracle, decreed that the games should be renewed at fourfold cost. What sensible man does not see that men, being put upon by malignant demons, from whose domination nothing save the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord sets free, have been compelled by force to exhibit to such gods as these, plays which, if well advised, they should condemn as shameful? Certain it is that in these plays the poetic crimes of the gods are celebrated, yet they are plays which were re-established by decree of the senate, under compulsion of the gods. In these plays the most shameless actors celebrated Jupiter as the corrupter of chastity, and thus gave him pleasure. If that was a fiction, he would have been moved to anger; but if he was delighted with the representation of his crimes, even although fabulous, then, when he happened to be worshipped, who but the devil could be served? Is it so that he could found, extend, and preserve the Roman empire, who was more vile than any Roman man whatever, to whom such things were displeasing? Could he give felicity who was so infelicitously worshipped, and who, unless he should be thus worshipped, was yet more infelicitously provoked to anger?

"But," Cicero says, "Homer made these things up and gave the gods human qualities. I would rather give us divine qualities."¹⁷² The poet rightly offended this serious man by attributing such crimes to the gods. Why, then, do the most learned men count theatrical plays among sacred things? These plays regularly speak of such crimes, act them out, and display them in honor of the gods. Cicero should protest not against the poets’ inventions, but against the customs of the ancients. Would they not have protested in reply, "What have we done? The gods themselves have loudly demanded that these plays be performed in their honor. They have fiercely insisted on them and threatened destruction unless they were performed. They have punished neglect of them with great severity and shown pleasure when that neglect was made good." The following story is told among their virtuous and wonderful deeds. Titus Latinius, a Roman farmer, was told in a dream to go to the senate. He was to tell its members to start the Roman games again. On the first day of the games, a condemned criminal had been led to punishment before the people. This sight was so sad that it upset the gods, who were seeking amusement from the games. The next day, the farmer was afraid to deliver the message to the senate. That night the message came again, with a harsher warning. He lost his son because he had neglected it. On the third night, he was warned that an even worse punishment awaited him if he still refused to obey. Even then, he did not dare obey, and he fell ill with a severe and terrible disease. On his friends’ advice, he finally informed the magistrates and was carried into the senate in a litter. As soon as he had told them his dream, his strength returned. He walked away on his own feet, completely well.¹⁷³ Astonished by such a great miracle, the senate decreed that the games should be held again at four times the cost. What sensible person does not see that malignant demons were deceiving these people? Nothing but the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord sets people free from the demons’ control. By force, they compelled people to put on plays for such gods, plays they should wisely have condemned as shameful. These plays certainly celebrate the crimes the poets attribute to the gods. Yet the senate decreed that they be held again, under pressure from the gods. In these plays, utterly shameless actors celebrated Jupiter as a violator of chastity, and so gave him pleasure. If it was fiction, he would have been angered. But if he delighted in the portrayal of his crimes, even if they were invented, then who but the devil was served when he was worshipped? Could he have founded, expanded, and preserved the Roman Empire? He was more vile than any Roman who was displeased by such things. Could he give happiness, when he was worshipped in such a miserable way? And unless he was worshipped in that way, he was provoked to an even more miserable anger.

27. Concerning the three kinds of gods about which the pontiff Scævola has discoursed.

27. On the three kinds of gods discussed by the pontiff Scaevola.

It is recorded that the very learned pontiff Scævola¹⁷⁴ had distinguished about three kinds of gods—one introduced by the poets, another by the philosophers, another by the statesmen. The first kind he declares to be trifling, because many unworthy things have been invented by the poets concerning the gods; the second does not suit states, because it contains some things that are superfluous, and some, too, which it would be prejudicial for the people to know. It is no great matter about the superfluous things, for it is a common saying of skilful lawyers, "Superfluous things do no harm."¹⁷⁵ But what are those things which do harm when brought before the multitude? "These," he says, "that Hercules, Æsculapius, Castor and Pollux, are not gods; for it is declared by learned men that these were but men, and yielded to the common lot of mortals." What else? "That states have not the true images of the gods; because the true God has neither sex, nor age, nor definite corporeal members." The pontiff is not willing that the people should know these things; for he does not think they are false. He thinks it expedient, therefore, that states should be deceived in matters of religion; which Varro himself does not hesitate even to say in his books about things divine. Excellent religion! to which the weak, who requires to be delivered, may flee for succour; and when he seeks for the truth by which he may be delivered, it is believed to be expedient for him that he be deceived. And, truly, in these same books, Scævola is not silent as to his reason for rejecting the poetic sort of gods,—to wit, "because they so disfigure the gods that they could not bear comparison even with good men, when they make one to commit theft, another adultery; or, again, to say or do something else basely and foolishly; as that three goddesses contested (with each other) the prize of beauty, and the two vanquished by Venus destroyed Troy; that Jupiter turned himself into a bull or swan that he might copulate with some one; that a goddess married a man, and Saturn devoured his children; that, in fine, there is nothing that could be imagined, either of the miraculous or vicious, which may not be found there, and yet is far removed from the nature of the gods." O chief pontiff Scævola, take away the plays if thou art able; instruct the people that they may not offer such honours to the immortal gods, in which, if they like, they may admire the crimes of the gods, and, so far as it is possible, may, if they please, imitate them. But if the people shall have answered thee, You, O pontiff, have brought these things in among us, then ask the gods themselves at whose instigation you have ordered these things, that they may not order such things to be offered to them. For if they are bad, and therefore in no way to be believed concerning the majority of the gods, the greater is the wrong done the gods about whom they are feigned with impunity. But they do not hear thee, they are demons, they teach wicked things, they rejoice in vile things; not only do they not count it a wrong if these things are feigned about them, but it is a wrong they are quite unable to bear if they are not acted at their stated festivals. But now, if thou wouldst call on Jupiter against them, chiefly for that reason that more of his crimes are wont to be acted in the scenic plays, is it not the case that, although you call him god Jupiter, by whom this whole world is ruled and administered, it is he to whom the greatest wrong is done by you, because you have thought he ought to be worshipped along with them, and have styled him their king?

The very learned pontiff Scævola¹⁷⁴ is said to have distinguished three kinds of gods. Poets introduced one kind, philosophers another, and statesmen a third. He calls the first kind trivial because poets have invented many unworthy stories about the gods. He says the second kind is unsuitable for states. It contains some things that are unnecessary and others that would harm the people if they knew them. The unnecessary things do not matter much. Skilled lawyers commonly say, "Unnecessary things do no harm."¹⁷⁵ But what things do harm when brought before the public? "These," he says, "that Hercules, Æsculapius, Castor, and Pollux are not gods. Learned men say they were only human and died like other mortals." What else? "That states do not have true images of the gods. The true God has neither sex nor age nor distinct bodily parts." The pontiff does not want the people to know these things, though he does not think they are false. He therefore thinks it useful for states to be deceived about religion. Varro himself does not hesitate to say this in his books about divine matters. What an excellent religion! The weak, who need deliverance, can turn to it for help. Yet when they seek the truth that might deliver them, it is thought useful to deceive them. In those same books, Scævola also gives his reason for rejecting the poets' gods. He says, "They portray the gods so badly that they cannot even bear comparison with good people. They make one commit theft, another adultery, and others say or do shameful and foolish things. They say that three goddesses competed for a prize for beauty. The two defeated by Venus then destroyed Troy. Jupiter turned himself into a bull or a swan to have sex with someone. A goddess married a man, and Saturn devoured his children. In short, every imaginable marvel or vice can be found in these stories. Yet all such things are far removed from the nature of the gods." Chief pontiff Scævola, get rid of the plays if you can. Teach the people not to offer such honors to the immortal gods. In these plays, they can admire the gods' crimes if they like. They can even imitate them, as far as possible, if they choose. But what if the people answer, "You, pontiff, introduced these things among us"? Then ask the gods themselves, at whose urging you ordered these performances, not to demand such offerings. If the stories are bad, they should certainly not be believed about most of the gods. And the gods suffer an even greater wrong when such stories are invented about them without consequence. But the gods do not listen to you. They are demons. They teach wicked things and delight in vile things. They do not merely accept these invented stories without taking offense. They cannot bear it when the stories are not performed at their appointed festivals. But suppose you call on Jupiter to oppose them, especially because the plays often portray more crimes of his. You call him the god Jupiter, who rules and governs the whole world. Yet is he not the one you wrong most? For you have thought he should be worshipped alongside them, and you have called him their king.

28. Whether the worship of the gods has been of service to the Romans in obtaining and extending the empire.

28. Whether worship of the gods helped the Romans gain and expand their empire.

Therefore such gods, who are propitiated by such honours, or rather are impeached by them (for it is a greater crime to delight in having such things said of them falsely, than even if they could be said truly), could never by any means have been able to increase and preserve the Roman empire. For if they could have done it, they would rather have bestowed so grand a gift on the Greeks, who, in this kind of divine things,—that is, in scenic plays,—have worshipped them more honourably and worthily, although they have not exempted themselves from those slanders of the poets, by whom they saw the gods torn in pieces, giving them licence to ill-use any man they pleased, and have not deemed the scenic players themselves to be base, but have held them worthy even of distinguished honour. But just as the Romans were able to have gold money, although they did not worship a god Aurinus, so also they could have silver and brass coin, and yet worship neither Argentinus nor his father Æsculanus; and so of all the rest, which it would be irksome for me to detail. It follows, therefore, both that they could not by any means attain such dominion if the true God was unwilling; and that if these gods, false and many, were unknown or contemned, and He alone was known and worshipped with sincere faith and virtue, they would both have a better kingdom here, whatever might be its extent, and whether they might have one here or not, would afterwards receive an eternal kingdom.

Therefore, such gods could never have expanded and preserved the Roman Empire. They are supposedly pleased by such honors, but these honors really accuse them. For it is a greater crime to enjoy having such things falsely said about them than if those things were true. If these gods could have granted such a gift, they would rather have given it to the Greeks. In religious matters of this kind, namely theatrical plays, the Greeks worshipped them more honorably and worthily. The Greeks did not protect even themselves from the slanders of the poets. They saw the poets tearing the gods to pieces, yet let them abuse anyone they pleased. Nor did they consider actors beneath them. Instead, they regarded them as worthy of distinguished honor. But the Romans could have gold coins without worshipping a god named Aurinus. In the same way, they could have silver and bronze coins without worshipping Argentinus or his father Aesculanus. The same is true of all the other gods, whom it would be tedious to list. It follows that the Romans could never have gained such dominion if the true God had been unwilling. If they had never known these many false gods, or had held them in contempt, things would have been better. If they had known and worshipped him alone, with sincere faith and virtue, their earthly kingdom would have been better, whatever its size. And whether or not they had an earthly kingdom, they would afterward receive an eternal one.

29. Of the falsity of the augury by which the strength and stability of the Roman empire was considered to be indicated.

29. The false omen that was thought to predict the strength and stability of the Roman Empire.

For what kind of augury is that which they have declared to be most beautiful, and to which I referred a little ago, that Mars, and Terminus, and Juventas would not give place even to Jove the king of the gods? For thus, they say, it was signified that the nation dedicated to Mars,—that is, the Roman,—should yield to none the place it once occupied; likewise, that on account of the god Terminus, no one would be able to disturb the Roman frontiers; and also, that the Roman youth, because of the goddess Juventas, should yield to no one. Let them see, therefore, how they can hold him to be the king of their gods, and the giver of their own kingdom, if these auguries set him down for an adversary, to whom it would have been honourable not to yield. However, if these things are true, they need not be at all afraid. For they are not going to confess that the gods who would not yield to Jove have yielded to Christ. For, without altering the boundaries of the empire, Jesus Christ has proved Himself able to drive them, not only from their temples, but from the hearts of their worshippers. But, before Christ came in the flesh, and, indeed, before these things which we have quoted from their books could have been written, but yet after that auspice was made under king Tarquin, the Roman army has been divers times scattered or put to flight, and has shown the falseness of the auspice, which they derived from the fact that the goddess Juventas had not given place to Jove; and the nation dedicated to Mars was trodden down in the city itself by the invading and triumphant Gauls; and the boundaries of the empire, through the falling away of many cities to Hannibal, had been hemmed into a narrow space. Thus the beauty of the auspices is made void, and there has remained only the contumacy against Jove, not of gods, but of demons. For it is one thing not to have yielded, and another to have returned whither you have yielded. Besides, even afterwards, in the oriental regions, the boundaries of the Roman empire were changed by the will of Hadrian; for he yielded up to the Persian empire those three noble provinces, Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria. Thus that god Terminus, who according to these books was the guardian of the Roman frontiers, and by that most beautiful auspice had not given place to Jove, would seem to have been more afraid of Hadrian, a king of men, than of the king of the gods. The aforesaid provinces having also been taken back again, almost within our own recollection the frontier fell back, when Julian, given up to the oracles of their gods, with immoderate daring ordered the victualling ships to be set on fire. The army being thus left destitute of provisions, and he himself also being presently killed by the enemy, and the legions being hard pressed, while dismayed by the loss of their commander, they were reduced to such extremities that no one could have escaped, unless by articles of peace the boundaries of the empire had then been established where they still remain; not, indeed, with so great a loss as was suffered by the concession of Hadrian, but still at a considerable sacrifice. It was a vain augury, then, that the god Terminus did not yield to Jove, since he yielded to the will of Hadrian, and yielded also to the rashness of Julian, and the necessity of Jovinian. The more intelligent and grave Romans have seen these things, but have had little power against the custom of the state, which was bound to observe the rites of the demons; because even they themselves, although they perceived that these things were vain, yet thought that the religious worship which is due to God should be paid to the nature of things which is established under the rule and government of the one true God, "serving," as saith the apostle, "the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for evermore."¹⁷⁶ The help of this true God was necessary to send holy and truly pious men, who would die for the true religion that they might remove the false from among the living.

What kind of omen was the one they called most beautiful, which I mentioned a little while ago? Mars, Terminus, and Juventas refused to give way even to Jupiter, the king of the gods. They say this meant that the nation dedicated to Mars, that is, Rome, would never yield the territory it had occupied. Likewise, because of the god Terminus, no one would be able to disturb Rome's borders. And because of the goddess Juventas, Rome's youth would yield to no one. Let them consider, then, how they can regard Jupiter as king of their gods and giver of their kingdom. For these omens portray him as an enemy whom it would have been honorable to resist. Yet if these things are true, they need not be afraid at all. For they will not admit that the gods who refused to yield to Jupiter have yielded to Christ. Without changing the empire's borders, Jesus Christ has shown that he can drive them from their temples and their worshippers' hearts. But before Christ came in the flesh, and even before these accounts could have been written in their books, events had already exposed the omen as false. This was after the omen was given under King Tarquin. The Roman army was scattered or put to flight many times, disproving the omen drawn from Juventas's refusal to yield to Jupiter. The nation dedicated to Mars was trampled in its own city by the invading and victorious Gauls. And when many cities went over to Hannibal, the empire's borders were confined to a narrow area. Thus the beauty of the omens has come to nothing. All that remains is defiance of Jupiter, not by gods, but by demons. For refusing to yield is one thing, and returning to a place you have surrendered is another. Even later, in the eastern regions, the borders of the Roman Empire were changed by Hadrian's decision. He surrendered three notable provinces, Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria, to the Persian Empire. According to their books, Terminus guarded the Roman borders. In that most beautiful omen, he had refused to yield to Jupiter. Yet he seems to have been more afraid of Hadrian, a king of men, than of the king of the gods. Those provinces were later recovered. But almost within our own memory, the frontier fell back again. Julian, devoted to the oracles of their gods, recklessly ordered the ships carrying supplies to be burned. The army was left without food, and Julian himself was soon killed by the enemy. The legions, dismayed by the loss of their commander, were hard pressed. They were reduced to such desperate straits that no one could have escaped without a peace treaty. That treaty established the empire's borders where they still remain. The loss was not as great as under Hadrian's agreement, but it was still considerable. So the omen that Terminus did not yield to Jupiter was empty. For he yielded to Hadrian's will, Julian's recklessness, and Jovinian's necessity. The more thoughtful and serious Romans saw these things. But they had little power against the customs of the state, which was bound to observe the rites of demons. Even they, though they saw that these things were empty, thought that the worship due to God should be offered to nature. Yet nature itself is subject to the rule and government of the one true God. As the apostle says, they were "serving the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for evermore."¹⁷⁶ The help of this true God was needed to send holy and truly devout men. They would die for the true religion so that they might remove the false religion from among the living.

30. What kind of things even their worshippers have owned they have thought about the gods of the nations.

30. The kinds of things even their worshippers have admitted thinking about the gods of the nations.

Cicero the augur laughs at auguries, and reproves men for regulating the purposes of life by the cries of crows and jackdaws.¹⁷⁷ But it will be said that an academic philosopher, who argues that all things are uncertain, is unworthy to have any authority in these matters. In the second book of his De Natura Deorum,¹⁷⁸ he introduces Lucilius Balbus, who, after showing that superstitions have their origin in physical and philosophical truths, expresses his indignation at the setting up of images and fabulous notions, speaking thus: "Do you not therefore see that from true and useful physical discoveries the reason may be drawn away to fabulous and imaginary gods? This gives birth to false opinions and turbulent errors, and superstitions well-nigh old-wifeish. For both the forms of the gods, and their ages, and clothing, and ornaments, are made familiar to us; their genealogies, too, their marriages, kinships, and all things about them, are debased to the likeness of human weakness. They are even introduced as having perturbed minds; for we have accounts of the lusts, cares, and angers of the gods. Nor, indeed, as the fables go, have the gods been without their wars and battles. And that not only when, as in Homer, some gods on either side have defended two opposing armies, but they have even carried on wars on their own account, as with the Titans or with the Giants. Such things it is quite absurd either to say or to believe: they are utterly frivolous and groundless." Behold, now, what is confessed by those who defend the gods of the nations. Afterwards he goes on to say that some things belong to superstition, but others to religion, which he thinks good to teach according to the Stoics. "For not only the philosophers," he says, "but also our forefathers, have made a distinction between superstition and religion. For those," he says, "who spent whole days in prayer, and offered sacrifice, that their children might outlive them, are called superstitious."¹⁷⁹ Who does not see that he is trying, while he fears the public prejudice, to praise the religion of the ancients, and that he wishes to disjoin it from superstition, but cannot find out how to do so? For if those who prayed and sacrificed all day were called superstitious by the ancients, were those also called so who instituted (what he blames) the images of the gods of diverse age and distinct clothing, and invented the genealogies of gods, their marriages, and kinships? When, therefore, these things are found fault with as superstitious, he implicates in that fault the ancients who instituted and worshipped such images. Nay, he implicates himself, who, with whatever eloquence he may strive to extricate himself and be free, was yet under the necessity of venerating these images; nor dared he so much as whisper in a discourse to the people what in this disputation he plainly sounds forth. Let us Christians, therefore, give thanks to the Lord our God,—not to heaven and earth, as that author argues, but to Him who has made heaven and earth; because these superstitions, which that Balbus, like a babbler,¹⁸⁰ scarcely reprehends, He, by the most deep lowliness of Christ, by the preaching of the apostles, by the faith of the martyrs dying for the truth and living with the truth, has overthrown, not only in the hearts of the religious, but even in the temples of the superstitious, by their own free service.

Cicero, who was himself an augur, laughs at augury. He criticizes people for directing their lives by the cries of crows and jackdaws.¹⁷⁷ But someone may say that an Academic philosopher has no authority in these matters, since he argues that everything is uncertain. In the second book of his De Natura Deorum,¹⁷⁸ Cicero presents Lucilius Balbus. Balbus shows that superstitions have their origin in truths about nature and philosophy. He then expresses outrage at the creation of images and myths. He says: "Do you not see, then, how true and useful discoveries about nature can lead reason astray? They can lead it to gods of fable and imagination. This gives rise to false opinions, disruptive errors, and superstitions almost fit for old wives' tales. We are made familiar with the gods' forms, ages, clothing, and ornaments. Their family lines, marriages, kinships, and everything else about them are lowered to the level of human weakness. They are even portrayed as having troubled minds. We hear of the gods' lusts, worries, and anger. According to the myths, the gods have even fought wars and battles. They did this not only when, as in Homer, gods on each side defended opposing armies. They also fought wars of their own, as against the Titans or the Giants. It is quite absurd either to say or believe such things. They are utterly frivolous and groundless." See what those who defend the gods of the nations admit. Balbus goes on to say that some things belong to superstition and others to religion. He thinks it right to teach religion according to the Stoics. "For not only philosophers," he says, "but also our ancestors, distinguished between superstition and religion. Those who spent whole days praying and offering sacrifices so that their children might outlive them were called superstitious."¹⁷⁹ Who can fail to see what he is doing? He fears public prejudice, so he tries to praise the religion of the ancients. He wants to separate it from superstition, but cannot find a way. The ancients called those who prayed and sacrificed all day superstitious. But did they also call superstitious those who established the very things Balbus criticizes? These people set up images of gods of different ages and in different clothing. They also invented the gods' family lines, marriages, and kinships. When Balbus criticizes these things as superstitious, he implicates the ancients who established and worshipped such images. Indeed, he also implicates himself. For all his eloquent efforts to free himself from this charge, he was still obliged to honor these images. He did not dare even whisper to the people in a public speech what he states plainly in this discussion. Let us Christians, then, give thanks to the Lord our God. Let us give thanks not to heaven and earth, as that author argues we should, but to him who made heaven and earth. Balbus, like a babbler,¹⁸⁰ barely criticizes these superstitions. Yet God has overthrown them through Christ's profound humility, the preaching of the apostles, and the faith of the martyrs. They died for the truth and live with the truth. God has overthrown these superstitions not only in the hearts of religious people but even in the temples of the superstitious, through their own willing service.

What says Varro himself, whom we grieve to have found, although not by his own judgment, placing the scenic plays among things divine? When in many passages he is exhorting, like a religious man, to the worship of the gods, does he not in doing so admit that he does not in his own judgment believe those things which he relates that the Roman state has instituted; so that he does not hesitate to affirm that if he were founding a new state, he could enumerate the gods and their names better by the rule of nature? But being born into a nation already ancient, he says that he finds himself bound to accept the traditional names and surnames of the gods, and the histories connected with them, and that his purpose in investigating and publishing these details is to incline the people to worship the gods, and not to despise them. By which words this most acute man sufficiently indicates that he does not publish all things, because they would not only have been contemptible to himself, but would have seemed despicable even to the rabble, unless they had been passed over in silence. I should be thought to conjecture these things, unless he himself, in another passage, had openly said, in speaking of religious rites, that many things are true which it is not only not useful for the common people to know, but that it is expedient that the people should think otherwise, even though falsely, and therefore the Greeks have shut up the religious ceremonies and mysteries in silence, and within walls. In this he no doubt expresses the policy of the so-called wise men by whom states and peoples are ruled. Yet by this crafty device the malign demons are wonderfully delighted, who possess alike the deceivers and the deceived, and from whose tyranny nothing sets free save the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

What does Varro himself say? We regret that he placed theatrical plays among sacred things, though he did not do so by his own judgment. In many passages, he urges people to worship the gods, like a religious man. Yet does he not admit that he does not personally believe the things he describes as established by the Roman state? He even says that, if he were founding a new state, he could better list the gods and their names according to nature. But he says he was born into an ancient nation. He therefore feels bound to accept the gods’ traditional names and titles and the stories connected with them. His purpose in studying and publishing these details is to encourage people to worship the gods, not despise them. These words show clearly enough that this very perceptive man does not publish everything. Some things would have been contemptible not only to him, but even to the common people, had he not kept silent about them. One might think I am guessing. But elsewhere he speaks openly about religious rites. He says that many things are true which it is not merely unhelpful for ordinary people to know. Indeed, he says it is useful for people to believe otherwise, even if their beliefs are false. That is why the Greeks kept their religious ceremonies and mysteries secret, behind walls. In this he surely expresses the policy of the so-called wise men who rule states and peoples. Yet this deception greatly delights the evil demons, who possess both the deceivers and the deceived. Nothing frees us from their tyranny except the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The same most acute and learned author also says, that those alone seem to him to have perceived what God is, who have believed Him to be the soul of the world, governing it by design and reason.¹⁸¹ And by this, it appears, that although he did not attain to the truth,—for the true God is not a soul, but the maker and author of the soul,—yet if he could have been free to go against the prejudices of custom, he could have confessed and counselled others that the one God ought to be worshipped, who governs the world by design and reason; so that on this subject only this point would remain to be debated with him, that he had called Him a soul, and not rather the creator of the soul. He says, also, that the ancient Romans, for more than a hundred and seventy years, worshipped the gods without an image.¹⁸² "And if this custom," he says, "could have remained till now, the gods would have been more purely worshipped." In favour of this opinion, he cites as a witness among others the Jewish nation; nor does he hesitate to conclude that passage by saying of those who first consecrated images for the people, that they have both taken away religious fear from their fellow-citizens, and increased error, wisely thinking that the gods easily fall into contempt when exhibited under the stolidity of images. But as he does not say they have transmitted error, but that they have increased it, he therefore wishes it to be understood that there was error already when there were no images. Wherefore, when he says they alone have perceived what God is who have believed Him to be the governing soul of the world, and thinks that the rites of religion would have been more purely observed without images, who fails to see how near he has come to the truth? For if he had been able to do anything against so inveterate an error, he would certainly have given it as his opinion both that the one God should be worshipped, and that He should be worshipped without an image; and having so nearly discovered the truth, perhaps he might easily have been put in mind of the mutability of the soul, and might thus have perceived that the true God is that immutable nature which made the soul itself. Since these things are so, whatever ridicule such men have poured in their writings against the plurality of the gods, they have done so rather as compelled by the secret will of God to confess them, than as trying to persuade others. If, therefore, any testimonies are adduced by us from these writings, they are adduced for the confutation of those who are unwilling to consider from how great and malignant a power of the demons the singular sacrifice of the shedding of the most holy blood, and the gift of the imparted Spirit, can set us free.

The same highly perceptive and learned author also says that only certain people seem to him to have understood what God is. They believed that he is the soul of the world, governing it by design and reason.¹⁸¹ This shows that, although he did not reach the truth, he came close. For the true God is not a soul, but the maker and creator of the soul. If he had been free to challenge customary prejudices, he could have acknowledged the one God. He could also have advised others to worship him, who governs the world by design and reason. Only one point would then remain for debate. He had called God a soul, rather than the creator of the soul. He also says that the ancient Romans worshipped the gods without images for more than 170 years.¹⁸² "And if this custom had lasted until now," he says, "the gods would have been worshipped more purely." Among other witnesses supporting this view, he cites the Jewish nation. He does not hesitate to conclude the passage with a judgment on those who first consecrated images for the people. He says they both took away their fellow citizens’ religious fear and increased error. He wisely thought that people easily come to despise the gods when they are shown as lifeless images. But he does not say that they passed on error. He says they increased it. He therefore means us to understand that error already existed when there were no images. He says that only those who believed God to be the governing soul of the world understood what God is. He also thinks that religious rites would have been practiced more purely without images. Who can fail to see how close he came to the truth? If he had been able to act against such a deeply rooted error, he would certainly have expressed his opinion. He would have said that the one God should be worshipped, and that he should be worshipped without an image. Having come so close to discovering the truth, perhaps he might easily have been reminded that the soul can change. He might then have seen that the true God is the unchanging being who made the soul itself. Since this is so, such men ridiculed the belief in many gods in their writings. They did so less to persuade others than because God’s hidden will compelled them to confess these things. If we cite passages from their writings, we do so to refute certain people. They are unwilling to consider how great and malignant the power of demons is. They are also unwilling to consider how the unique sacrifice of the shedding of the most holy blood, and the gift of the Spirit given to us, can set us free from that power.

32. In what interest the princes of the nations wished false religions to continue among the people subject to them.

32. Why the rulers of the nations wanted false religions to continue among the people they ruled.

Varro says also, concerning the generations of the gods, that the people have inclined to the poets rather than to the natural philosophers; and that therefore their forefathers,—that is, the ancient Romans,—believed both in the sex and the generations of the gods, and settled their marriages; which certainly seems to have been done for no other cause except that it was the business of such men as were prudent and wise to deceive the people in matters of religion, and in that very thing not only to worship, but also to imitate the demons, whose greatest lust is to deceive. For just as the demons cannot possess any but those whom they have deceived with guile, so also men in princely office, not indeed being just, but like demons, have persuaded the people in the name of religion to receive as true those things which they themselves knew to be false; in this way, as it were, binding them up more firmly in civil society, so that they might in like manner possess them as subjects. But who that was weak and unlearned could escape the deceits of both the princes of the state and the demons?

Varro also discusses the birth of the gods. He says that people have favored the poets over the natural philosophers. For this reason, their ancestors, the ancient Romans, believed that the gods had sexes and offspring. They also arranged marriages among them. Surely this seems to have been done for only one reason. Prudent and wise men considered it their business to deceive the people in matters of religion. In doing so, they not only worshiped demons but also imitated them. For the demons’ greatest desire is to deceive. Demons can possess only those whom they have deceived by trickery. In the same way, men in positions of power have persuaded the people, in the name of religion, to accept things the rulers themselves knew were false. These men were not just, but were like demons. By doing this, they bound the people more firmly together in civil society. In this way, they could possess them as subjects. But how could anyone weak and uneducated escape the deceit of both the rulers of the state and the demons?

33. That the times of all kings and kingdoms are ordained by the judgment and power of the true God.

33. The times of all kings and kingdoms are determined by the judgment and power of the true God.

Therefore that God, the author and giver of felicity, because He alone is the true God, Himself gives earthly kingdoms both to good and bad. Neither does He do this rashly, and, as it were, fortuitously,—because He is God, not fortune,—but according to the order of things and times, which is hidden from us, but thoroughly known to Himself; which same order of times, however, He does not serve as subject to it, but Himself rules as lord and appoints as governor. Felicity He gives only to the good. Whether a man be a subject or a king makes no difference: he may equally either possess or not possess it. And it shall be full in that life where kings and subjects exist no longer. And therefore earthly kingdoms are given by Him both to the good and the bad; lest His worshippers, still under the conduct of a very weak mind, should covet these gifts from Him as some great things. And this is the mystery of the Old Testament, in which the New was hidden, that there even earthly gifts are promised: those who were spiritual understanding even then, although not yet openly declaring, both the eternity which was symbolized by these earthly things, and in what gifts of God true felicity could be found.

Therefore God, the source and giver of happiness, gives earthly kingdoms to both good and bad people. He alone is the true God. He does not give kingdoms carelessly or by chance, for he is God, not fortune. He gives them according to the order of events and times. This order is hidden from us, but he knows it fully. He is not subject to it. Rather, he rules it as lord and directs it as governor. He gives happiness only to the good. It makes no difference whether a person is a subject or a king. Either may possess happiness or lack it. Happiness will be complete in that life where kings and subjects no longer exist. He gives earthly kingdoms to both the good and the bad for this reason. He does not want his worshippers, while their minds are still very weak, to desire these gifts as great things. This is the mystery of the Old Testament, in which the New was hidden. In the Old Testament, even earthly gifts are promised. Yet even then, spiritual people understood the eternal life symbolized by these earthly things. They also understood which gifts of God could bring true happiness, though they did not yet declare this openly.

34. Concerning the kingdom of the Jews, which was founded by the one and true God, and preserved by Him as long as they remained in the true religion.

34. About the kingdom of the Jews, which the one true God founded and preserved as long as they remained in the true religion.

Therefore, that it might be known that these earthly good things, after which those pant who cannot imagine better things, remain in the power of the one God Himself, not of the many false gods whom the Romans have formerly believed worthy of worship, He multiplied His people in Egypt from being very few, and delivered them out of it by wonderful signs. Nor did their women invoke Lucina when their offspring was being incredibly multiplied; and that nation having increased incredibly, He Himself delivered, He Himself saved them from the hands of the Egyptians, who persecuted them, and wished to kill all their infants. Without the goddess Rumina they sucked; without Cunina they were cradled; without Educa and Potina they took food and drink; without all those puerile gods they were educated; without the nuptial gods they were married; without the worship of Priapus they had conjugal intercourse; without invocation of Neptune the divided sea opened up a way for them to pass over, and overwhelmed with its returning waves their enemies who pursued them. Neither did they consecrate any goddess Mannia when they received manna from heaven; nor, when the smitten rock poured forth water to them when they thirsted, did they worship Nymphs and Lymphs. Without the mad rites of Mars and Bellona they carried on war; and while, indeed, they did not conquer without victory, yet they did not hold it to be a goddess, but the gift of their God. Without Segetia they had harvests; without Bubona, oxen; honey without Mellona; apples without Pomona: and, in a word, everything for which the Romans thought they must supplicate so great a crowd of false gods, they received much more happily from the one true God. And if they had not sinned against Him with impious curiosity, which seduced them like magic arts, and drew them to strange gods and idols, and at last led them to kill Christ, their kingdom would have remained to them, and would have been, if not more spacious, yet more happy, than that of Rome. And now that they are dispersed through almost all lands and nations, it is through the providence of that one true God; that whereas the images, altars, groves, and temples of the false gods are everywhere overthrown, and their sacrifices prohibited, it may be shown from their books how this has been foretold by their prophets so long before; lest, perhaps, when they should be read in ours, they might seem to be invented by us. But now, reserving what is to follow for the following book, we must here set a bound to the prolixity of this one.

God wanted to show that earthly goods are in his power alone. These are the goods eagerly sought by people who cannot imagine anything better. They are not in the power of the many false gods the Romans once thought worthy of worship. So God made his people multiply in Egypt, though they had been very few. Then he delivered them from Egypt through wonderful signs. Their women did not call on Lucina as they bore children in incredible numbers. Once the nation had grown so greatly, God himself delivered them. He saved them from the Egyptians, who persecuted them and wanted to kill all their infants. Their children nursed without the goddess Rumina and slept in cradles without Cunina. They ate and drank without Educa and Potina. They were raised without all those gods of childhood. They married without the gods of marriage and had sexual relations without worshiping Priapus. Without calling on Neptune, they saw the sea divide and open a path for them. Its returning waves drowned the enemies pursuing them. When they received manna from heaven, they did not dedicate it to the goddess Mannia. When they were thirsty and water flowed from the struck rock, they did not worship Nymphs or Lymphs. They fought wars without the frenzied rites of Mars and Bellona. They did not conquer without victory, of course, but they did not regard Victory as a goddess. They regarded victory as a gift from their God. They had harvests without Segetia, oxen without Bubona, honey without Mellona, and apples without Pomona. In short, the Romans thought they had to ask a vast crowd of false gods for everything. God's people received all these things far more happily from the one true God. They sinned against him through ungodly curiosity, which seduced them like magic. It drew them to foreign gods and idols and finally led them to kill Christ. Had they not sinned in this way, they would have kept their kingdom. It might not have been larger than Rome's, but it would have been happier. Now they are scattered among almost all lands and nations through the providence of that one true God. Images, altars, sacred groves, and temples of the false gods are being overthrown everywhere. Their sacrifices are also being forbidden. From the books of God's people, we can show that their prophets foretold this long ago. Otherwise, perhaps these prophecies might seem to be our inventions when read in our books. But we must leave what follows for the next book and bring this lengthy one to an end.