BOOK FOURTH.[155]

Argument

IN THIS BOOK IT IS PROVED THAT THE EXTENT AND LONG DURATION OF THE
ROMAN EMPIRE IS TO BE ASCRIBED, NOT TO JOVE OR THE GODS OF THE
HEATHEN, TO WHOM INDIVIDUALLY SCARCE EVEN SINGLE THINGS AND
THE VERY BASEST FUNCTIONS WERE BELIEVED TO BE ENTRUSTED, BUT TO
THE ONE TRUE GOD, THE AUTHOR OF FELICITY, BY WHOSE POWER AND
JUDGMENT EARTHLY KINGDOMS ARE FOUNDED AND MAINTAINED.

1. Of the things which have been 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[Pg 136]
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.

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

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[Pg 137]
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[Pg 138]
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]

3. Whether the great extent of the empire, which has been acquired only by wars,
is to be reckoned among the good things either of the wise or the happy.

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[Pg 139]
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]

4. How like kingdoms without justice are to robberies.

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[Pg 140]
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]

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

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[Pg 141]
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.

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

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[Pg 142]
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?

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

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,[Pg 143]
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?

8. Which of the gods can the Romans suppose presided over the increase and
preservation of their empire, when they have believed that even the care
of single things could scarcely be committed to single gods?

Next let us ask, if they please, out of so great a crowd of
gods which the Romans worship, whom in especial, or what[Pg 144]
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[Pg 145]
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.

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.

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[Pg 146]
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.

10. What opinions those have followed who have set divers gods over divers
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[Pg 147]
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,

“Then Ether, the Father Almighty, in copious showers descended

Into his spouse’s glad bosom, making it fertile,”[166]

—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[Pg 148]
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.

11. Concerning the many gods whom the pagan doctors defend as being
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[Pg 149]
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,

“For God pervadeth all things,

All lands, and the tracts of the sea, and the depth of the heavens,”[168]—

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[Pg 150]
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[Pg 151]
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.

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.

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.

13. Concerning those who assert 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[Pg 152]
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?

14. The enlargement of kingdoms is unsuitably ascribed to Jove; for if, as they
will have it, Victoria is a goddess, she alone would suffice for this business.

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.

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

Let them ask, then, whether it is quite fitting for good
men to rejoice in extended empire. For the iniquity of[Pg 153]
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.

[Pg 154]

16. What was the reason why the Romans, in detailing separate gods for all
things and all movements of the mind, chose to have the temple of Quiet
outside the gates.

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?”

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

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[Pg 155]
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.

18. With what reason they who think Felicity and Fortune goddesses have
distinguished 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,[Pg 156]
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.

19. Concerning 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.

20. Concerning Virtue and Faith, which the pagans have honoured with temples
and sacred rites, passing by other good qualities, which ought likewise to
have been worshipped, if deity was rightly attributed to these.

They have made Virtue also a goddess, which, indeed, if it[Pg 157]
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.

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

These, not verity but vanity has made goddesses. For
these are gifts of the true God, not themselves goddesses.[Pg 158]
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[Pg 159]
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?

22. Concerning the knowledge of the worship due to the gods, which Varro
glories in having himself conferred on 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[Pg 160]
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?

23. Concerning Felicity, whom the Romans, who venerate many gods, for a long
time did not worship with divine honour, though she alone would have
sufficed instead of all.

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[Pg 161]
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[Pg 162]
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.

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[Pg 163]
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.

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

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;[Pg 164]
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.

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

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[Pg 165]
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.

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

“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[Pg 166]
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?

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

It is recorded that the very learned pontiff Scævola[174] 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[Pg 167]
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[Pg 168]
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?

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

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

For what kind of augury is that which they have declared
to be most beautiful, and to which I referred a little ago, that[Pg 169]
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[Pg 170]
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.

30. What kind of things even their worshippers have owned they have thought
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[Pg 171]
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[Pg 172]
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.

31. Concerning the opinions of Varro, who, while reprobating the popular belief,
thought that their worship should be confined to one god, though he was
unable to discover the true God.

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[Pg 173]
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.

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?[Pg 174]
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.

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

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?

[Pg 175]

33. That the times of all kings and kingdoms are ordained 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.

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.

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[Pg 176]
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.

---

[Pg 177]