Dom N. Le Nourry, Dissertatio praevia in septem Arnobii disputationum adversus gentes libros

PRELIMINARY DISSERTATION

On the Seven Books of Arnobius's Disputations

AGAINST THE GENTILES.

(BY DOM LE NOURRY.)

CHAPTER I.

Analysis of these books.

ARTICLE I.

Analysis of the first book.

From the very beginning of his work Arnobius declares that he undertook it in order to repel the old and oft-repeated calumny by which the heathen, because the Christians had renounced and rejected the worship of false gods, accused them, as falsely as rashly, of being the cause and authors of all public calamities and evils. And the graver this charge is, the more, he professes, he was driven to refute it, yet with party zeal set aside, lest, if all Christians kept silent, it should either seem true to some, or the heathen should boast that they had won their case.

He therefore makes it plain that from the rise of the Christian religion down to his own times nothing has been either changed, or loosened and dissolved, in the qualities of the elements, in the whole fabric of the world, in the course of the stars, in the succession of seasons, days and nights, in the fruitfulness of the earth and of animals, in the private and public affairs of men, and in the accustomed manner of living.

Nor does he allow the heathen to charge him that, because the gods are offended by the impiety, crimes and contempt of the Christians, the world is overwhelmed with pestilence, hailstorms, barrenness, wars and other calamities. For from the very histories and annals of the gentiles we know for certain that men, before the name of Christians was ever heard, were afflicted with the same, or more frequent and even greater, disasters: showers of stones, earthquakes and chasms, flood, fire, the cruelty of wild beasts, the venom of serpents, and the overthrow and ruin of whole cities. It is certain too that the wars once waged by the Atlantians, Assyrians, Bactrians, Persians, Greeks, Trojans and Romans, by Ninus, Zoroaster, Xerxes, Alexander the Great and others, were as cruel as wars have been lessened since the birth of Christ.

Whence then, said the heathen, is the world pressed by so many and such great evils, and all but crushed? What is that to me, answers Arnobius? It is not my office, he says, to lay open those hidden reasons, I who [set my mind] to writing

only so as to vindicate the Christian religion from most unjust calumnies. But what, he goes on, if these things are to be referred to natural causes, to the sharp and violent impulse of the elements, to the various motions of the stars, to fixed alternations of things, from which good and evil flow, ebb, and take their turns? Moreover, things that seem evil to men, who measure everything by their own convenience, are certainly useful to the whole of nature and to the world. This our author confirms by the authority of Plato and by various examples: of sailors, of the sun, of a torrent, of rain, of winter, of summer, of hellebore, of wolves and of serpents. From this he concludes that it belongs to a proud man to pry into these hidden causes, unless one first knows who and whence he himself is, and why the world was created.

How perversely the heathen cried out that all evils were to be laid upon the Christians, who had arisen some three hundred years before, he further shrewdly proves by this: that in the years and times between their rise [and his day] countless victories were won, the bounds of the Romans were extended, and there was the greatest abundance of corn.

Yet the gentiles pressed the contrary: that in those very times, through the gods' just hatred of the Christians, fields were sometimes laid waste by barrenness, and wars now and then ended unhappily. What then, says our author? Can the gods, with a truly astonishing inconstancy, be said to remember and to forget by turns the injuries done them by the Christians? Besides, the Christians lived everywhere on earth mingled with all nations. By what right, then, can it be ascribed to vengeance for them that the Alamanni, Persians and Scythians were conquered by the Romans; that Asia and Syria were gnawed and consumed by mice and locusts, but not at all Spain and Gaul; that the Getulians and Tinguitanians suffered from want of grain, while the Moors and Nomads were enriched by a most ample harvest; that, in short, some perished of hunger while others in the same city abounded in plenty of all things? For if there had been any equity and justice in the gods, the lot and fortune of all those peoples among whom the Christians lived on equal terms ought surely to have been one and the same.

After this Arnobius demonstrates by various arguments that anger cannot in any way befall the immortal gods. What then is more absurd to say than that they, so roused to anger on account of the injuries inflicted on them by the Christians, exacted the penalties for them both from the Christians themselves and from the innocent heathens, as they were living, without any distinction? For they could easily have visited the guilty with punishments separately, and the well-deserving with benefits. For the heavenly gods, if there are any, cannot either be soothed by the flattery of the gentiles, or grieve and be angry on account of the contempt of the Christians. Therefore our author concludes that these ridiculous accusations were made up solely by the avarice of the haruspices, soothsayers and seers.

With no less impudence the heathens alleged that the gods were raging against men for this reason, that the Christians had brought into the whole world certain forms of worship hitherto unheard of. For they venerate, worship, love and daily invoke one true God, the Lord of all things, Who knows the inmost thoughts of our heart. But whoever condemns the worship of this true God, whether he be called Jupiter or Apollo or something else, does not deserve the name of God. But because the time had not yet come to reveal what these and the other gods of the gentiles are, our author there openly declares that this is the sum of the whole Christian religion: to worship and adore that true and only God, as Christ taught, with a sincere mind and with body prostrate, and with prayers offered together to ask of Him true and honourable goods, and innocence of life and conduct. But who would deny that the cause of these men is better than that of those who adore and revere Grandules, Aii Locutii, Limentini, Fauni, Fatuae, the genii of cities, Pausi and Bellonae? Yet the gods let these go unpunished, and allow public rites to be performed for harlots and prostitutes, and magnificent temples to be built for cats, beetles and heifers, while, stirred to anger against the Christians, they forbid the supreme Father to be adored by them, from Whom those very gods of the gentiles must have received whatever divinity, power and immortality they are believed to have.

But that this may appear more plainly, Arnobius proves from His effects that that true God is the maker of all things, older than Apollo, Mercury and the others, than all the fictitious divinities, infinite, unbegotten, immortal, eternal, and bounded by no place and no bodily form. Wherefore, just as it is no wonder if it is not known Who, of what kind and how great He is, so it is the height of madness to call into doubt whether He really exists. Yet there have not been lacking philosophers who either denied it or were forever inquiring into it, or who supposed that all things were fashioned by chance happenings and the collisions of atoms. But since to contradict foolish assertions is a mark of greater folly, therefore Arnobius, passing these over, asserts that it is implanted in everyone by nature to acknowledge Him as supreme King and Ruler of all things. Indeed he affirms without hesitation that animals and the very stones, if perhaps they could speak, would cry this out openly and plainly. In vain, therefore, do the heathens proclaim Jove the supreme god. For the supreme God is unbegotten and eternal.

But who does not know that Jupiter had not only brothers, but also grandfathers and grandmothers, a father and a mother, of whom he was born in the usual manner of men? So if the heathen did not worship this Jupiter, but their religion and that of the Christians were one, there would no longer be any wrath of Jupiter, or, if there were any, it would lay bare the falseness of his divinity.

The heathen nevertheless insisted that their gods were hostile to the Christians, not indeed because they venerated the almighty God, but because, contending that a man who had been born, and put to death by the infamous punishment of the cross, was God, they adored Him with daily supplications. But Arnobius asks these same heathen who those gods are that took it ill that Christ is worshipped by us. Are they not, he says, Janus, Saturn, Fauna, the Good Goddess, the Indigetes, Aesculapius, Father Liber, Mercury, Diana, Apollo, Venus, Ceres, Proserpina, Hercules, the Titans, the Bocores, Apis or Serapis, Isis, and the sons of Ops, who, the most ancient histories of the gentiles have recorded, were begotten in human fashion, lived no differently from other men, and died? Did they then wish to be worshipped by the heathen, and, forgetful of their former condition, were they unable to bear the Christians worshipping Christ without the greatest outbursts of wrath?

But if it was lawful for the heathen to enrol certain persons in the number of the gods on account of benefits conferred, as they thought, upon themselves, namely Liber for the discovery of wine, Ceres of bread, Aesculapius of herbs, Minerva of the olive, Triptolemus of the plough, and Hercules for the monsters he overcame; how much more is Christ to be held in divine honour by men, Who conferred on them far greater and infinite things most abundantly, Who, by imbuing us with the true knowledge of God and by breaking our pride, led us across from false opinions and the impious worship of the gods to the true religion, as Arnobius himself had come to know by saving experience?

But He, said the heathen, perished fastened to the gibbet of the cross. What of it? For the death of Christ did not bring any harm, just as that of neither Pythagoras nor Socrates did, to their teaching and their excellent deeds. And what of the fact that an innocent man, like Aquilius, Trebonius and Regulus, can never be branded by any infamy of death? What, moreover, is more worthy of derision than this argument of the gentiles, who honoured with superstitious worship and with temples built for them Father Liber torn limb from limb by the Titans, Aesculapius struck by the thunderbolt, Hercules burnt alive, Atys castrated, Romulus slain by the senators?

Christ, moreover, sent to us by the supreme King, is proved to be true God, as certainly as evidently, by the innumerable miracles which He performed. For He did not accomplish them by magic power, as some most shamelessly lied; He Who by His word and name alone healed every kind of disease, put demons to flight, calmed the whirlwinds of winds and storms, trod the sea with dry foot, raised others and Himself from the dead, and afterwards showed Himself to be seen by very many; Who gave His disciples the faculty of speaking in the tongues of all peoples, even those unknown to them; Who the whole world with teaching

of His own suddenly filled; Who imposed silence on seers and soothsayers, and utterly crushed the arrogance of the magi.

Nor could the weak health of certain men, cured by the gods of the heathen, be set against these things. For, granting this freely for the moment, it was certain that never by any god of the Gentiles, as by Christ, had health been restored to sick men by the application of hand or voice alone. Arnobius also freely concedes that it could have happened that some god healed one or another sick man with certain medicines. But there are, he says, many thousands of men who, although lying prostrate very often in the temples, have wearied Aesculapius and the other gods with oft-repeated prayers and vows, yet have found not even the least relief; nay rather, they were even worse off afterwards.

Nor does he allow it to be objected to him by another Gentile that help is brought by the gods not indeed to wicked men, but to good and pious ones. For Christ comes to the aid of all the wicked equally with the good. And then, if the gods have been a help to the good only, this will without doubt have to be attributed not to divine power but to some chance happening.

Our author further shows that the miracles of Christ are true from that altogether wonderful power which He gave even to men of the lowest common people, to fishermen, craftsmen and rustics, of performing any prodigies whatever by His name alone. For neither Jupiter, nor Zoroaster, Armenius, Pamphilus, Apollonius, Damigerus, Dardanus, Velus, Julianus, Bebulus, nor anyone else whatever produced anything like these prodigies; indeed, none of them healed even a pimple in the same manner as Christ and His disciples. And truly, how great in magnitude and power Christ Himself is, sublime and God from His inmost root, although once unknown to men, has been most evidently demonstrated by the miracles which took place at His death alone.

Nor were the Gentiles to be listened to, who with altogether intolerable audacity kept crying out that these things were false. For most trustworthy witnesses, and not easily credulous, handed down to posterity things which, had they not been clearer than light itself, those men would surely not have been willing, by proclaiming them, to incur for nothing the common hatred of mankind. And truly, if these miracles are false, by what fatal desperation, I ask, and at certain peril of life were they made public by the disciples of Christ, and the Christian religion, established and confirmed by them, received within a very short time throughout the whole world?

But no one could ever say, except most absurdly, that these same miracles were either written down falsely or greatly exaggerated by our writers. For they had not committed to letters and to memory all the things which could lead the heathen to greater wonder or to unbelief. But if any writings are found corrupted or adulterated, Arnobius ascribes this to the malevolence of the demons, who by these depravations wished to weaken the truth of things actually done. But truly, the things that were written about Christ in our books are as true as the things the Gentiles have handed down about their gods are false.

But our writings, they insisted, are more ancient, and therefore truer. As if indeed, says Arnobius, that

antiquity had not been the mother of so many and such great errors and fables, with which the books of these same gentiles teem? And what of the fact that falsehood can be detected by everyone far more easily in more recent writings than in the most ancient?

The heathen pressed the charge that the books of the Christians, written down by unlearned men in rough and unpolished language, were everywhere foully defiled with solecisms and barbarisms. Be it so, Arnobius replies. Greater credence, surely, is for that very reason to be given to them, because they came forth from a simple mind, one ignorant of artful allurement. For truth does not pursue the repute, the pomp and the ornaments of elegant and more polished language, which are to be left to the forum. Then, this very truth, set amid the faults of language, like good fruit amid briars and thorns, always profits man. Moreover, when matters remote from display are being treated, what is said in substance, not how it is said, ought to be regarded. For this reason some men devoted to wisdom, although they could have spoken purely and ornately, nevertheless rejected all refinement of language. Finally, as Arnobius proves, no language is faulty by its own nature, but only by the good pleasure of men.

Since the heathen could not deny these things, they further demanded of the Christians why Christ, if He is God, put on human form and was slain in human fashion. To these Arnobius easily gives satisfaction, and says that Christ, because in His original and incorporeal nature He could never be seen by any man nor die, for that reason assumed human form, in which He might present Himself to be seen by them, might dwell among them, and might at length undergo death. But why He took human rather than some other nature, Arnobius admits there are hidden causes, which the obstinate unbelief and stubbornness of the gentiles did not allow to be explained.

But these again objected that it was utterly incredible, and darker than Cimmerian darkness, that Christ, God and man, seen only in human nature, and fastened to a gibbet, ended His life. But this refutation, says Arnobius, is futile. For if the Sibyl, Bacis, Helenus, Marcius and other seers of these same gentiles had been impiously slain, would they say that these, in whom they believed their gods had spoken, were slain for their own crimes? Moreover, Arnobius continues, the death of Christ was the death of the man assumed, not of Himself; of what was borne, not of the One bearing it. He adds, however, that He died of His own will on account of the loftiest mysteries; since no one could ever bring even the least force, much less violent hands, against Him by Whom so many miracles had been done. Christ, therefore, for the healing and instructing of men, suffered Himself to be slain by the impious with as much gentleness as freedom.

Wherefore Arnobius sharply rebukes the heathen, who, although they paid divine honours to tyrants defiled with every kind of impiety and crime, and extolled the authors of satirical books with the highest praises and presented them with statues, nevertheless persecuted Christ alone, the messenger of the greatest and most salutary things, with most unjust and implacable hatred. For what is more unjust and cruel than of all virtues

the Lord, and the destroyer of death, always to harass with most bitter war, Him Who, by allowing His own death, gave to all a sure hope of the future salvation of our souls, if we live piously?

Article II.

Analysis of the second book.

Having asked leave to depart for a little from his subject, Arnobius inquires of the heathen for what reason they so hate Christ, Who is guilty of no sin against them, that at merely hearing His name they at once blaze up with anger. But even if He were indeed not worthy that anyone should believe Him, He was nevertheless not to be scorned for this very reason, that He showed to all the way to heaven and to blessed immortality. The gentiles answered that He was supremely hateful to them for this reason, that He drove out of the whole world all worship of the gods and all the religion of their ancestors. Is Christ then impious, says Arnobius, Who, having overthrown an impious religion, brought in the true one, and taught us that the only true God is to be worshipped, Whom we know and testify by nature to be the source of all good things, and to have created all things, and therefore truly to exist?

Then, having put off to another time the discussion of the various superstitions of the gentiles, he shows that the heathen quite undeservedly refuse to believe the words of Christ on the ground that He does not convince us that He will ever in fact give the things He promises. But if, says Arnobius, no sure proof of future things can be brought forward, is it not better to believe those who give some hope rather than others who offer none? Then next he shows that we have at hand very many arguments, by no means uncertain, for the things which Christ promised. For first, His doctrine and religion was spread within a brief space of time through all the parts of the world, and even among the more barbarous nations, as He had promised. Then, however hard and harsh this doctrine may seem, orators, grammarians, rhetoricians, jurists, physicians and philosophers endowed with great talent nevertheless sought it eagerly. Third, His followers not only could not be forced by any punishments whatever, even the heaviest, to lay it aside, but through these their number always grew. Now since these things earlier promised by Christ have come to pass, there is no reason to doubt the fulfilment of the other things also promised by Him.

Moreover, so many men throughout the whole earth initiated into the Christian religion could not have seemed to others dull, stupid and foolish, unless these others boasted that they alone were endowed with wisdom and knowledge. But with what kind of wisdom and knowledge, says our author? With grammar, poetics, rhetoric, logic and dialectic? But how empty the display of these disciplines is, is plain from this, that man of himself cannot know the things which are divine or obscure, nor what he himself is, as Socrates says, nor whence, or by whom, and for what reason he was created, why he is oppressed by so many hardships and evils, what he does in dreams, what difference there is between sleep and waking, how sight or smell comes about, why the soul, although immortal, is dull in infants and worn out in the old. Finally, although

a man may sometimes have pronounced something true, he still does not hold even this very thing as certain.

With no reason, therefore, did the heathen, who were no more learned than others, reproach the Christians for believing their divine Master. For without prior faith no business whatever is undertaken by travellers, sailors or farmers. Without faith, too, no one is joined in marriage, no sick man sends for a physician, nor does a soldier wage war, nor a pupil listen to his master, nor does any pagan call upon his gods. Indeed the pagans even believed the opinions of the philosophers, who nevertheless put forward nothing certain and ascertained about the first principles of things and about other matters, and are always fighting among themselves. Is it not then fairer to believe Christ, Who established His teaching by such great miracles, than Plato, Cronius, Numenius, or others, however praiseworthy for integrity of morals and for knowledge of eloquence, logic, arithmetic, music and geometry, who were never able to do anything, even the least thing, like these? And certainly, if Christ had used merely human subtleties and arguments, all would have denied Him the faith which they were compelled to give because of the miracles performed by Him and His disciples among the Indians, Seres, Persians, Medes, Arabs, Egyptians, Galatians, Parthians and Phrygians, and in Asia, Syria, Achaia, Macedonia, Epirus, and everywhere in East and West, and above all at Rome, where Simon Magus, cast down by Peter from the high air, was hurled to the earth with his legs broken.

What more need be said? The faith of the Christians was certainly not to be harassed by the heathen, but rather to be praised on this account, because they held opinions in common with the leading philosophers about God, about the resurrection of bodies, about the salvation of souls, and about the future punishments of the wicked, although these are explained by them otherwise than by the Christians. And here Arnobius discusses of what nature our soul is, from what source it proceeds, and why it is made subject to various passions and vices.

Then next he beats down the arrogance of those who insolently boasted that our soul shares in the same immortality and nature as God the Father. For we are born, live, and are dissolved by diseases and old age in the same way as animals. To this is added that some held the opinion that the souls of the wicked migrate after death into the bodies of cattle.

But divine, they said, is the soul of man, who excels the other animals in reason. Very well indeed, says Arnobius, if man always made good use of this reason of his. But where is the excellence of the human soul? Is it because men build both houses and cities? But if animals had hands to serve the arts, they could certainly erect similar buildings. For by them other things are made which men have never been able to imitate. Do men surpass the beasts because they know how to provide for themselves clothing, furniture, and the other things necessary for sustaining human life? But all these are not the gifts of knowledge; they were invented by the most destitute necessity.

Moreover, since all the arts and sciences of men, gained by labour and experience, have nothing greatly to be wondered at in

themselves, nor do all know all things, it must surely be settled and fixed that human souls are neither divine, nor did they fly down from heaven into this world instructed in all knowledge. And hence came that same error, expressed only in other words, of Plato and of certain other philosophers, by which they dreamt that knowledge is the recollection of things known by man before he was born. For Arnobius overturns this false opinion with yet other weighty arguments. And first, indeed, because the knowledge, the recollection and the opinion of all men would be the same. Secondly, suppose some boy born in a most deserted and inaccessible solitude, and there brought up in the deepest silence by a mute nurse, then living on some very simple food, should never hear anyone speaking: then after thirty or forty years let him be brought out and come forth in public; then, duller than a stone, he will be able to answer nothing at all when questioned on any matter whatever, and he will have no knowledge of natural things, or of those which are believed necessary for the use of men, or for their delights and pleasure, and are enumerated by our author. Finally he will utter no articulate and distinct word. Is it not then evidently concluded from this that his soul did not come into the world instructed in all branches of knowledge?

Afterwards Arnobius splendidly refutes Plato's contrary argument, drawn from the boy questioned about numbers. For not only from this boy, but also from that one of whom it has been spoken, the man of forty years, if you inquire anything about multiplying or dividing numbers, or about triangles and squares, he will be altogether mute, or he will answer not indeed from a memory, invented by Plato, of things once known, but from those things which he has learned by daily use. For indeed men are taught by the instruction of their masters, just as animals are by use and constant practice. The human soul, therefore, did not arrive here instructed in all branches of knowledge. For it ought rather to teach than to be taught.

Nor should you say that the soul, when it is joined to a body, forgets its former things and, as they say, from learned becomes elementary, that is, must be imbued with the first elements. For first, as these same philosophers teach, it is of a simple and incorporeal substance. Therefore, when joined to a body, it can lose nothing of its spiritual nature and of its former knowledge. For it would then become mortal and corruptible. Next, when it animates the body, it remembers many things done and heard by it eighty and more years before; much more, therefore, ought it to recall those things which it had known before its coupling with the body. Lastly, if this conjunction brings it about that former knowledge falls away from the soul, how do they say that it knows itself to be incorporeal, immortal, and once imbued with all knowledge, but then forgetful of all that it had known?

Finally Arnobius, from these points thus argued, concludes that man is a proletarian, a classicus, one rated by head-count, and utterly destitute; that he is not to be enrolled in the first order, that is, the divine, nor is the same immortality as God's to be attributed to him. For otherwise, to no chance mishaps

liable, he will fear no punishments of the underworld, and, with the virtues despised, will throw himself headlong with impunity into every kind of pleasure and shameful deed.

By the same reasoning, moreover, Arnobius attacks and utterly overturns the contrary opinion of Epicurus, who chattered that our soul is mortal. For if that opinion is true, there will no longer be any reason why we should cultivate our minds with philosophy, give attention to the virtues, and flee the vices.

Concerning our soul, further, our Arnobius lays down as follows: that it is of a certain substance intermediate between mortal and divine nature, and that by the kindness of God it becomes long-lived and immortal. Wherefore Christians, leading a godly kind of life in this world, hope that after their death they will both migrate back to heaven, just as the heathen boasted of their return thither, and moreover obtain from God the reward of eternal happiness, promised by Christ with the most certain pledge of His miracles.

But in what way, they said, can the soul, if it is of that intermediate quality, ever become immortal! Arnobius replies that it is enough for us that almighty God, Whom nothing can resist, has made us surely certain of this immortality of our soul. What, indeed, of the fact that the heathen themselves were compelled to confess that their gods, or angels and demons, are of such an intermediate quality; since they held that these, having been born at some time, were afterwards made immortal by the supreme will of God the Father, as Plato teaches.

Our soul, therefore, was created by a certain supreme power, but it is neither of divine offspring nor the daughter of the highest God. For if it had been of such great perfection, nothing more could be wanting in it, nor would the opinions of men be divergent, nor would any soul of theirs have wished to be sent from the blessed abodes into a body.

But Arnobius does not allow it to be put to him as an objection that the world without man is imperfect, and that for that reason God sent into a human body the soul of each person, begotten from Himself. For by a twofold and long induction he endeavours to make plain that man was created not for the perfection of the world, which indeed could exist without him, but for the private benefit and advantage of man himself. And from these things he concludes that the soul is not divine, which was afterwards sent into some body by the highest God.

But, they say, it comes into the world by its own will, not by the command of God. Why then, Arnobius replies? Is it because, if God commanded that it come, God Himself would be called the cause of all the calamities by which man is oppressed in this world, and also of all the crimes which he commits? But this reasoning, he says, is of no weight. For since He does not prevent, as He can, man from coming into this world, He will no less have to be called the cause of those same crimes and calamities of his. But this cannot be declared of Him without the greatest impiety.

The heathen pressed: Tell us, then, whence the soul has been begotten or brought forth. But this, says Arnobius, like many other things too, we can be ignorant of, although it

is known to us to be neither divine nor the offspring of God. For we know that nothing could ever have been made by the supreme God except what is perfect in every respect. Nor do we know less certainly that men are nothing other than souls bound to a body, which are corrupted by every kind of vice. For although some are of blameless and excellent morals, these are certainly very few, and the whole human race is not to be judged by the small number of those whom Arnobius puts forward. But which men, he goes on, are perfect? Surely not the philosophers! Yet these, fighting daily against desires and the various passions of the mind, show that their soul is prone to vices and weak. Therefore neither their soul nor that of others is divine.

Nor is there any reason for the heathen to laugh if we deny that it is unknown to us how it was created. For no one is worthy of derision who does not know something, or who confesses that he does not know what he does not know. But he deserves to be derided who thinks he knows what is obscure and surpasses human understanding. Moreover, those who held that souls descend from the supreme King Himself into the body of man put forward nothing certain and ascertained, but only suspicions and conjectures, which are nothing other than uncertain opinion and ignorance of the thing itself.

Besides, the gentile philosophers themselves did not know whence and of what kind are the souls of elephants, deer, lions and other animals, indeed not even of locusts, mice, shrews and other little creatures of that sort; which certainly no one would say arose from Plato's fictitious mixing-bowl. Nor is it any more agreed among the philosophers by whom, and from what first things chiefly, our souls were made. But if they think it was piously and holily asserted by Plato that these were created not indeed by the supreme God but by certain lesser powers, why shall it not be lawful for us far more surely to assert that they are of an intermediate quality, which, although they were not produced by the principal powers and are subject to the laws of death, are nevertheless endowed with immortality by God?

Nor should you say that nothing at all comes about without the will of God. For beware lest it be concluded from this that God is the author of the so many and so great evils by which men are overwhelmed, and which it is not established arise from the inequality of the elements. Nor should you inquire too curiously whence those evils arise and why God permits them. For to know or not to know this matters little, provided we hold as quite certain that nothing is done by the true God that is evil, vicious and harmful, and that is not salutary to all and most full of love and joy. Nor ought our ignorance of so many other things to seem strange to anyone. For who does not know that there are such great disputes among all, and especially among the philosophers, on any matter whatever, on the origin and end of the world, on the first beginnings of things, on the gods, on the condition of our soul, that nothing is asserted by anyone which cannot at once be demolished and refuted by another?

Therefore, although the Christians did not know by whom and whence our soul was created, whence evil arises, or why God allows it, the gentiles could achieve nothing against them on that account, to whom far more things

are unknown, about the origin, place and position of the world; about snow, the sun, the moon and the stars; about rain, wind, the alternation of the seasons, about the salt sea; about certain lands that are sweet, bitter, cold, and about the composition of the human members. Nor do they know any better what owls, ossifrages, ants, brambles, darnel and other such things do in the world; why wheat, spelt, barley and the other things fit for human use have such a shape and no other, nor what, in the end, smell, taste and other qualities of that kind are. Rightly, then, does Christ, true God, speaking in the form of a man, bid us leave all these and other like questions behind and be lifted up with our whole mind to the Lord of all things, and keep Him perpetually in remembrance, Who, although He cannot be comprehended, yet no one but a madman doubts that He alone is God. Cruel torments after death therefore await the heathen who do not acknowledge Him, however much the Magi, the Etruscans or others may promise them that heaven lies open after death if they have lived piously. For it lies in the power of that God alone, and by no means of the others, however much they may be called gods, to confer immortality. Therefore Christ was sent by Him, to free us from destruction and ruin.

What then, the heathen argued, has become of the souls of those who died before the coming of Christ? Christ Himself, says Arnobius, has taught us that they were preserved and set free by Him at a fitting time, just as from Him alone we have learned when the human race began to be on earth, when souls were first bound to bodies, and who is the creator of man.

The heathen pressed: why then does He not set all souls free with equal kindness? He calls all equally, replies Arnobius, and has given them the power of coming to Him. It is therefore our fault, not God's, if we do not obtain His benefit. This indeed he confirms by the authority of Plato, and he adds that God, to Whom our salvation is not necessary, lays compulsion on no one.

They insisted: if God is powerful and merciful, why does He not bring it about that men believe His promises even against their will? That force, says Arnobius, would be not grace but injustice, by which there would be wrung from the unwilling what they do not want and shrink from, and what they could obtain if they wished.

So the Christian alone, said the heathen, can obtain blessed immortality by the help and aid of Christ. Rightly so, says Arnobius. For to him alone is this ability granted by God the Father. Nor indeed ought this to have seemed strange to the heathen, who supposed that certain particular powers had been given to each of their gods.

Arnobius then passes to the old and often rehearsed complaint of the gentiles, by which they protested that the religion of the Christians was new, and that ancient ancestral rites ought not to be exchanged for barbarous and foreign ones. By various arguments he shows that it has always been men's practice, by a wholesome change, to prefer things good and useful to things bad and useless. Therefore it is not the mere exchange of something, but the cause of the change, that must always be inquired into. And then, if changing old institutions is to be counted a crime, of this crime

Arnobius convicts the gentiles of being guilty by a long enumeration of the foods, customs, laws and sacred rites that they themselves have changed.

Moreover, even if the Christian religion had been spread abroad only a few days before, did not all human things, the arts, the sciences, the disciplines, some of which our author reviews, have a beginning? Did not their gods, Jupiter and the others whom he names one by one, begin to exist, as the heathen themselves admit? If, then, the Christian religion did not exist four hundred years ago, neither could they deny that two thousand years ago none of their gods existed.

But it is agreed, they said, that our religion is far older than the Christian one, and therefore truer. Arnobius, however, convicts this inference of falsehood on the ground that each is said to have had a beginning, and that two thousand years ought not to be reckoned as much if they are compared with the earlier ages gone by. Further, nothing is more ancient than the almighty and eternal God, and so what is worshipped in Him is not new and recent. And if we learned this late, and only in the time of Christ, nothing could be concluded from that against the Christians, or in favour of the heathen, who not so long ago had taken up the name of Serapis, Isis and Apollo, and the rites of the Phrygian Mother and of Ceres.

But the heathen demanded why Christ had been sent by God so late. Arnobius in turn asks them why winter, summer and rain sometimes return not always at their fixed and fitting time but later. Why did Hercules, Aesculapius, Mercury and the others come so late into the flock of the gods and into our knowledge? So although the reason why something was done cannot be given, it ought not on that account to be denied that it was done. What, moreover, of the fact that in eternity nothing is late or premature? What if the worse condition of mankind, and a weakness greater in the later ages than in the earlier, required it? Finally, each thing was done in the manner and at the time that God had determined by His unchangeable decree.

Lastly the gentiles asked why the God Whom the Christians served, if He is almighty, allows them to be harassed and crushed by every kind of persecution, penalty and torture. Arnobius in turn asks them why their gods allowed their own worshippers to be overwhelmed by like hardships and calamities. But the Christians, he says, to whom nothing has been promised in this life, having been taught to endure penalties, tortures and all hardships willingly, knew most certainly that by these nothing evil was brought upon them, but rather true liberation, by which they would attain eternal salvation. Having exhorted the gentiles to secure this, Arnobius brought the book to an end.

Article III.

Analysis of the third book.

Although the Christian religion had for so long a time been more than sufficiently upheld by distinguished defenders, and, needing no champion whatever, stands by itself wholly unshaken against all the assaults of its adversaries, Arnobius nevertheless judged it worthwhile

to satisfy the heathen, who were always asking why the Christians neither worshipped nor adored the gods. He replies, therefore, that in God, the Creator and Governor of all things, whatever is to be worshipped and adored is worshipped and adored by the Christians. If, then, there are any gods, they draw their origin from Him, and are worshipped in Him. But that they are truly gods could never be proved by the heathen, to whom it was always unknown either whence they received their names or how great their multitude is.

He goes further, however, and from the things which the heathen proclaimed about their gods he demonstrates most plainly that there are none. For, first, they venerated gods male and female. But that the divine nature is capable not of different sexes, nay, of no sex at all, he concludes not only from the testimony of Cicero, but also plainly from this, that the difference of the sexes was given for begetting offspring. And yet, although the name God is of the masculine gender, the gods of the gentiles can neither beget nor be begotten. For since they are feigned to be immortal and not subject to old age and other infirmities, if they could beget, their number would by now be infinite. Besides this, they would be defiled with foul pleasures and lusts. Finally, goddesses would suffer the shameful things of pregnancy and childbirth, and the other inconveniences of women. Why, then, the heathen should take it ill that such gods, begotten and begetting, are rejected by the Christians, there is no reason whatever.

Secondly, the same gentiles, like the Sadducees, were persuaded that the gods were shaped and composed in a bodily and human form. But surely whatever consists of a body must certainly be mortal. And what of the fact that Arnobius, having made an enumeration of the human members, shows that the gods cannot be composed of them? To this is added that the gods would have to be called either like or unlike one another. Not the first: for who could distinguish one from another? Not the second: for some, as they were represented by the heathen, would be big-headed, big-browed, boys, youths, old men, some formed with these features, others with others, some with this shape, others with another. But that is no less absurd than to attribute to them the forms of animals, which, done by the Egyptians, the rest of the gentiles rightly ridiculed.

Nor are certain of them to be listened to who answered that the human figure was fitted to the gods only for the sake of honour. For it is a worse error and a greater insult to ascribe to the gods forms which they are not believed to have. Arnobius adds, not without wit, that if beasts, at some time endowed with reason, wished to honour men, would men patiently endure being painted and displayed in a beast's form? Therefore there can be no appearance or figure of God, although He hears, sees and understands, or, if there is any, we are wholly ignorant of it. One thing we know: that there is nothing bodily, nothing of human features and affections, in God, Whose nature can be explained by no mortal speech.

Thirdly, the heathen introduced gods each one trained in some art and science, and presiding severally over human duties, business and other affairs, whether good or bad, whether honourable or shameful, which are here carefully enumerated by Arnobius. But these things

to Christians, however much they may be called impious and atheists, no one will ever persuade.

Fourthly, Arnobius clearly demonstrates that the gods of the gentiles are altogether fictitious, from their various opinions about Janus, Saturn, Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, Neptune, Mercury, the Great Mother, Vulcan, Diana and others, For since there can be only one eternal God, Whom some vainly thought to be this world, the falsity of all the other gods, as they were called, is most evidently shown from this variety of plainly ridiculous opinions.

Fifthly, then, Arnobius proves the same thing no less effectively from the perpetual and absurd contentions and disagreements of those same heathens concerning the origin and number of their gods, for instance of the Muses, the Novensiles, the Penates, the Lares. For amid such great dissensions no heathen man was able to discern which of them was the true God, which was to be invoked and honoured, which could ever bring help to those who asked for it.

Article IV.

Analysis of the fourth book.

Arnobius continues the disputation he had begun against the gods of the gentiles, and plainly shows that Piety, Concord, Safety, Honour, Virtue, Felicity and other deities of this kind, to which these same gentiles had built magnificent temples, cannot be said, whether in laughter or in jest, or seriously and affirmatively, to have divine power and to be added to the number of the gods. The same must plainly be decided concerning Victory, Peace and Equity. For all these things, just like their opposites, are located in the actions and feelings of men. No less perversely were some, as the heathens had dreamed, on account of benefits, several gods, such as Luperca, Praestana, or Panda, or Pantica, Pellonia, and other throngs of unknown deities, brought forth by them. For it is not benefactors, but solely the Creator of all things, Who is the true God.

Who, moreover, could hear without indignation those who chattered that certain gods were the guardians of the left-hand regions and enemies of the right-hand ones? For since the world is smooth and round, its left and right part, east and west, south and midday, can be so called only with respect to us, when we are at rest. By the same gentiles too certain gods were quite foolishly feigned, set over certain things and not over others: namely Lateranus, or the Genius, over hearths; Venus Militaris over the debaucheries of the camp and the violation of boys; Perfica, Pertunda, Tutunus over obscene matters; Puta over the pruning of trees; Nemestrinus over groves; Patellana and Patella over doors to be opened or already opened; Nodutis over the knots of the grain; Terensis over threshing it; Vibilia over wanderings from the road; Orbana over parents bereaved of their children; Naenia over the last moments of life; Ossilago over the strengthening of bones; Peta, Puta, Patella over bees; Mellonia over honey; the Lucrii over gain; Libentina and Liburnus over lust; Limentinus and Lima over thresholds; Limus over crookedness; Saturn over sowing; Montinus over mountains; Murcida over the sluggish; and the goddess Pecunia over money and riches. For if these and many other gods, whom our Author, so as not to be tedious to the reader, passed over,

preside over individual things, why are not likewise some gods set over gourds, turnips, the kitchen, cress, figs, beets, cabbages, nails, hairs and the other parts of bodies? For he showed brilliantly that the one is no more remote from the truth than the other, and that it is a disgrace to the gods.

Nor is there any ground for someone to object that they are gods for this reason, that when summoned by the haruspices they come at once and have given sure responses. For even if this be granted freely, who ever saw Mellonius or Limentinus inserted into the entrails of others in order to give responses? What if the responses were given by guile and fraud, or by the art and deceits of demons? Besides this, since so great a multitude of gods is put forward by the heathen, they could not know whether one god alone is not substituted for all the others whom they invoked. But who the true God is they ought not to ask, since the Egyptians, Persians, Indians and all the others have acknowledged Him.

But Arnobius presses on, and makes it plain that the heathen bring forward most absurd monstrosities of their gods, namely three Joves, five Suns, as many Mercuries, Minervas and Dionysuses; three Dianas and Aesculapiuses; four Vulcans and Venuses; three kinds of Castors and of Muses, six Herculeses, teams of three Cupids, and teams of four of the names of Apollo. But all these gods of the same name cannot exist, or else which of them is the true God is wholly unknown. Then again, if a sacrifice is made to one, for example to Minerva, and she is not called upon by name, will not the others try with foolish contention to claim it as made to themselves?

But if anyone should say that it is hidden from him whether the theologians and others wrote in their books things known and ascertained, or things false and invented at their pleasure: what is that to us? says Arnobius. It suffices that all those things which are said about the gods are convicted of falsehood. Therefore these ancient books of the theologians, the pontiffs and others must be removed out of the way, or the heathen must disclose to us those things which are found to be true in them.

But how could anything true be pointed out in those books, in which the same gods are everywhere and throughout subjected to the gravest insults? For there the gods are proclaimed to have been begotten no otherwise than men, after a marriage was first celebrated, or by adultery and incest, as Jupiter and his sons, or from eggs, as Castor and Pollux, or from the foam of the sea, as Venus. Must not, then, the public calamities of the human race be ascribed to these same heathen, who most obstinately assert these things and impiously worship these monstrosities of deities, and not to the Christians, who detest them with the horror that is fitting?

Yet the insane notion of the gentiles did not stop there. But in their books they further peddled Saturn bound, Jove as an infant preserved by the Curetes, seizing the kingdom of his father whom he had driven out, having unwittingly fed on human flesh; Vulcan a smith, lame in one foot; Aesculapius struck by a thunderbolt, Apollo enriched by false responses, Mercury and Laverna thieves, the Muses the little handmaids of Megaclo, Venus a harlot, the Palladium made from the remains of Pelops; the fatherland of Mars, his chains, and his adultery with Venus;

the mercenary servitude of Hercules, Apollo and Neptune; Minerva, in the secrets of marriage, as the attendant of the light; the wounds of Mars, Venus, Pluto and Juno; the burial of Jupiter, Saturn, Castor and Pollux, and these last living and dying by turns; Hercules burnt with fire; the unbridled lust of Neptune and Apollo towards women, who are called by their names by our author; the various transformations of Jupiter for that purpose; the raging wantonness of him and of other gods and goddesses towards males. Yet all these things are either false or true. If the first, the gods ought to have avenged such great and such shameless calumnies with the death of all the heathen. If the second, those same gods are proved to have been wretched, infamous and most wicked men.

What of the fact that their human nature is most plainly proved not only by the testimony of Euhemerus, Nicagoras, Leon, Theodorus, Hippo and Diagoras, but also by the deeds done by Jupiter, by the wars of Minerva and Diana, by the kingdom of the Indians sought after by Liber, and by the condition, labour, gain and marriages of the others. But Arnobius declares that he has not undertaken to demonstrate this, which was easy, but rather that the gods are assailed by no one more insultingly than by the heathen.

This indeed he proceeds to demonstrate, both from the solemn rites established in honour of these same gods, which certainly could not be called fictions of the poets, namely sacred rites, mysteries, ceremonies and games, and also from their shameful deeds, crimes, wounds and wars already reviewed. For the iniquity of the heathen was all the greater in that they punished with the utmost severity of the laws the authors of any defamatory saying, song or pamphlet, yet most patiently allowed such great disgraces and dishonours of the gods to be written and sung abroad, and listened with the greatest pleasure to those who wrote them, and also to the actors and mimes who represented the same things in the theatres and public spectacles, and rewarded them with praises and prizes.

What room for doubt, then, remained that the public calamities had arisen from such great mockery and such great derision of the gods? No man of sound mind, therefore, will ever deny that those writings of the gentiles ought rather to have been burnt than the books of the Christians, and their theatres rather than the meeting-places of the latter torn down. For in the meeting-places and synaxes of the Christians the true God is entreated, peace and pardon are asked for all, whether living or dead, and nothing is heard except what makes men humane, gentle, modest, chaste and pure. If therefore the gods are kindled with anger, as the heathen supposed, they ought to have been angry not with the Christians but with the heathen themselves, who set the disgrace and baseness of those gods before the eyes of all. But if they are free from anger, it is said in vain that they are angry with the Christians.

Article V.

Analysis of the fifth book.

Arnobius comes to another argument against the gods of the gentiles, and he draws it from the histories which, since the heathen kept them in daily use, celebrated them in annual festivals and represented them in images, those assuredly most true

they thought to be. The first is that of Numa Pompilius, who was said to have obtained from Jupiter Elicius, deceived by tricks and arts, the rite of expiating the thunderbolt. From all the circumstances of this story, however, our author makes it plain to all that nothing could be invented more remote from truth and from divinity.

The second is the story of Acdestis and Atys, which no one is unaware was most notorious for the most shameful outrages of Jupiter, of the Mother of the gods, of Nana and of Ia, for the ignominious castration of Atys, for his death and that of Ia, and for the other things connected with it. Against it, therefore, Arnobius argues in exactly the same way as against the others, and plainly shows that it cannot be convicted of falsehood by the heathen. For it had been handed down by their most ancient writers, and it was customarily celebrated with the greatest pomp and solemnity at the heathen's annual festival of the Mother of the gods. Yet there could have been no cause for so great a solemnity, unless they believed that all these things had in fact happened. But if there was some other, obscure reason for it, that reason must certainly, since the greatest turpitudes were enacted at that festival, be most obscene and most shameful.

Many others similar to these Arnobius declares that he passes over, deterred by their execrable foulness. Yet in a few words he touched on Fauna, or the Good Goddess, beaten with rods, the shameful birth of Servius, and the most foul and unspeakable things that used to be done in the Omophagia, the Corybantic rites, the Bacchanalia, and the Phrygian rites and mysteries. On occasion of these he shrewdly observes that so many and such great adulteries and other outrages are told of Jupiter that he seems to have been born for no other reason than that the filth of every infamy and of every most foul crime and wickedness might be channelled onto him. Then he goes on to other rites, namely the Thesmophoria, the Eleusinia and the Alimuntia, in which there was no less wantonness and licence than in the others. But after he has exposed these to the eyes and sight of all, he demands of the heathen whether Christians ought to be compelled by every kind of punishment, even the most dreadful, to perform these rites, and whether the heathen themselves wish to be like the gods whose crimes and outrages were recounted in those same mysteries, or to set them before their sons or wives as an example. He says, therefore, that it seems strange to him that one who denies or doubts that these are gods is called by them an atheist and sacrilegious. Finally, from all these things he concludes that gods of this kind ought to have been hostile, not to the Christians, who reject them, but to the heathen, who proclaim such great crimes of theirs.

Next Arnobius shows that the reply of the gentiles is futile and empty, who contended that all these stories are to be understood only in an allegorical sense. For to explode them it is plainly enough that they cannot be expounded in their natural sense without impiety. And then, why were they handed down to posterity by the writers so seriously, if they were not to be explained in their natural sense? Did these writers anywhere testify that they were to be taken only in a mystical and allegorical sense? But if several parts of the same story can be of a hidden allegorical sense, where have they, as to the [sense] in which precisely

they were to be understood, disclosed it to anyone? Are all the parts of a single story, or only some, to be expounded in an allegorical signification? Not all, certainly. For it would then be necessary for the heathen to interpret in an allegorical sense each and every deed, place, region, house, nation and the other things contained in these stories, and to demonstrate that they could be understood in no other. They would also be supposing without grounds that some parts of a single story are to be taken in that allegorical sense, others in the natural sense. For what part, rather than another, in the story of Summanus and Proserpina, or of Jupiter and Ceres, can be designated as one that ought to be explained in an allegorical or in a natural sense? What reason could be given why, in explaining certain parts of the story either of Jupiter or of Summanus, it is necessary to make a passage from the natural to the allegorical sense?

All things, therefore, that are contained in one and the same story ought to be understood in one and the same sense, whether natural or allegorical. But in this second, allegorical, signification not everything in one and the same story can be explained, as in the narrative of the Trojan War or of the battle of Cannae. For indeed the things that we read set down in writings about the gods are proved by this to have been actually and truly done, that solemn festivals were celebrated concerning them at an appointed time. For the origin of these festivals had to be constant and certain, and they were not instituted without some reason.

Suppose, however, if you will, that in the account of any story whatever something altogether different is signified from what the words express. That will certainly redound no less to the disgrace and dishonour of the gods. For what greater injury can be done to the gods than that, for example, by the wicked intercourse of Jupiter and Ceres the earth moistened by rain should be signified? Would it not have been far better for a man to be dumb than to call honourable and natural things by the most shameful crimes of the gods? But tell me, I ask, what prevented each natural thing from being signified by its own proper name, and not by some crime of the gods?

Nor, furthermore, is it to be said that the gods did not wish their mysteries to be made public, and that for this reason their stories were written in allegorical riddles. For these, wrapped in allegorical darkness, were indeed known to few, but the outrages of the gods were set before all quite openly, and gave men, already too inclined to vices, the occasion of doing the same. Then again, to what man did the gods ever declare that they wished the most obscene outrages ascribed to them to be paraded under the obscurity of allegorical interpretation? And who doubts that they always preferred that not shameful but honourable things be said of them? Moreover, if they called the sun by the name of Attis, what has become of him whom the stories report to have been born in Phrygia and to have done a great many things which are represented in the theatres and recalled in annual solemnities? And what has the sun done to deserve being called by the name of Attis, a castrated man? Finally, our Author shows that many things are read in the stories of the gods which cannot be explained in an allegorical sense. From which he concludes that it is utterly wrong for the gods, by the gentiles, if they were persuaded that they really exist,

to be called by the most shameful names, wholly unworthy of the divine majesty.

Article VI.

Analysis of the sixth book.

In this and the following book Arnobius refutes another charge of the heathen, by which they accused the Christians of the greatest impiety on the ground that they had no temples or images of the gods, nor ever offered any sacrifices to them. He begins with the temples of the gods, and openly admits that the Christians are without them, not out of contempt for the gods, if indeed any such exist; but because, since the gods ought always to be beneficent, most perfect in every kind of virtue, and capable of no anger or disturbance, the Christians hold all temples in great disdain. For these can be of no use to them, although, built by the slender ingenuity of men, they seem most magnificent to those same men alone. And Phoroneus, or Merops, or Aeacus is said to have been the first of all to build them. But with however great magnificence they have been constructed since then, what is more injurious and insulting to the gods than rashly to assert that Jupiter, or any other god whatever, is shut up in a temple, a little hut, a chamber and a cell?

But, said the heathen, we build temples to the gods so that we may converse with them, as being in some way present, not without great reverence, and, calling upon them from close at hand, may be more readily heard by them. But wrongly so, says Arnobius. For the true God knows all things, even the silent thoughts of our mind; He hears all things equally, is absent nowhere, nor does He go off to dine with the Ethiopians as Jupiter does; in a word, by His immensity He is present everywhere and is never moved from place to place.

To this is added that very many of the most costly and most august temples of the gods are nothing other than tombs of the dead. Such, indeed, are recorded to have been the monuments and common graves of Cecrops, Acrisius, Ericthonius, Daira and Immarus, of the daughters of Celeus, of Hyperoche and Laodice, of Clearchus, Leucophryne, Tesmessus, Cinyras, and very many others. Finally, the Capitol received its name from the head of Tolus that was found there. And from this Arnobius concludes that temples are built for the gods in vain, and against their honour.

Nor indeed is there any better reason for worshipping their images. For if the gods dwell in heaven, prayers are to be poured out to them, not to their images. But if it is doubtful whether they dwell there, an image of a doubtful thing is fashioned in vain. Moreover, he who believes that the gods exist has no need of images to show forth their presence.

Then Arnobius meets those who asserted that they worshipped and prayed to the gods through images. For, if that were so, they would never venerate them if there were no images of this kind. And what is more absurd than, when they could supplicate their gods themselves, as the heathen supposed, to ask something of them through a dead effigy, as though through some trust committed to another's good faith? For what is that, if not to know one god and to entreat an effigy devoid of all sense?

Moreover, the image of any thing ought to be like the thing itself, otherwise it will not be an image. Yet no heathen man can know whether any given god is really such as his image is. But we certainly know that the gods cannot be such as the sun, the moon, the winds and others were represented, with a lion's face or some other. Now the ancient men who worshipped as gods a river, a scimitar, a stone, a shapeless log or some such thing were with full justice derided by the heathen. But those very people are no less to be laughed at who paint Hammon with ram's horns, Saturn with a sickle, Venus naked, Vulcan with cap and hammer, Apollo with plectrum and lyre, and Neptune with a trident. For who does not see how far these things are removed from the true form of the gods? Moreover, if these are the proper ornaments of each god, when you have taken from one what is his and given it to another, neither will any longer be able to be distinguished.

Nor did the heathen give their gods only unworthy ornaments, but also the figure and features of certain men, and even of harlots. For they fashioned Mercury after the likeness of Alcibiades, and Venus after that of Cratina and Phryne. And what of the fact that Phidias, in wanton sport, inscribed on the finger of the Olympian Jupiter made by him the name of Pantarces, a boy he loved? He came to such a pitch of petulance and audacity because he knew that it was by his gift and by his art that Jupiter was adored by men. Therefore Arnobius exhorts the heathen that, returning to a sounder mind, they should at last understand that the images which they adored with such great honour are bones, stones, bronze, silver, gold, and more often the vilest material, and such as had served the most shameful uses. For who could bring his mind to think that to be a god which he himself has fashioned out of this very material.

Arnobius presses the point that no one is so mad as to worship and adore the parts of some image laid out separately. Why then did the heathen venerate them when joined together? Surely, joined, they have no greater divine power than divided. Add to this that if anyone should go into the inmost parts of the Olympian Jupiter, or of another image, what will he behold but plates, or pieces of wood and stone, held together and joined with poured lead, or with chains, hooks and clasps? Will he not see the head, the belly and the other parts hollow within, empty and unfinished? But if it is not permitted to see these things, does he not see the outer parts of the image discoloured by the reek and smoke, falling apart through mould, rust and rot, or through length of time, and befouled and defiled by mice, moths, spiders and swallows, and other small creatures?

You are wrong, said the heathen. We worship not the material of the images, but the gods dwelling in the images after their sacred dedication. But you yourselves, Arnobius replies, you Gentiles, are wrong by the whole way. For to whom will it be credible that the gods, having left their heavenly seats, dwell in images, and are compelled by some dedication of these to inhabit them? Then, if they always remain in them, nothing is more wretched than this dwelling. If they sometimes depart from them, it will certainly be uncertain when the images ought to be adored. But come now.

Do the gods, in small dedicated images, contract their body, and stretch it out in great and immense ones? Will one god, say Vulcan, be able to remain either multiplied or undivided in all his images set up and consecrated everywhere among the nations?

What more? If the gods truly dwell in these images of theirs, why do the gentiles protect them with bars, keys, bolts, dogs and geese, lest they suffer any injury, and guard them most diligently? Why did Jupiter and Aesculapius so patiently endure their images being despoiled by Antiochus and Dionysius? If you say that the gods cared nothing about these things, surely Venus ought to have repelled the incredible wantonness of Pygmalion and of another abandoned man towards her images. Ought not Capitoline Jupiter too, Argive Juno, Serapis, Ephesian Diana, Apollo and others to have kept the images and shrines in which they dwelt untouched by fire and other mishaps?

The last bulwark of the gentiles for retaining images, moreover, was that all these things had not escaped the ancients, but that the ignorant common people were to be held in duty and religion by that worship of images. But this falls and is overthrown by itself. For what had the populace, however ignorant, to dread from images of the gods that had been despoiled or plundered? What was to be feared from Saturn's sickle, the toothed key of two-headed Janus, Jove's tinder, Juno's girdle, Minerva's helmet, Ceres' breasts, and the other ridiculous insignia of the gods of this kind? What could these and other far more shameful things contribute towards retaining men's religion? So far indeed is it from having come about, that rather men could hitherto be restrained from crimes and outrages by no fear of severer laws, nor by any punishments. Finally Arnobius indicates that he must next treat of sacrifices, and brings the book to an end.

Article VII.

Analysis of the seventh book.

First in this book Arnobius proves, by the authority of Varro and then by reason, that no sacrifices are to be offered to the gods. For the gods, whether they are called true, or composed of bodily matter, or made by the hand and art of men, desire no sacrifices. For if any are true, they must be such as the Christians assert the Lord of all things, the almighty and unbegotten God, to be. But those who are such receive nothing at all from earthly matter by which they may be either nourished or delighted. No reason, therefore, can be brought forward for offering sacrifices to the gods. For they are not nourished by these sacrifices, since whatever is nourished is mortal. And what of the fact that, of the things brought to the altars, nothing reaches the gods?

Nor again are victims slain to the gods for the sake of pleasure. For he who is affected by delight of this kind is still mortal. And what allurement of pleasure can there be for the gods in the slaughter of harmless animals, from which even men often shrink?

It was indeed the popular and common opinion that the anger of the gods was appeased by sacrifices. But the motion of anger, unworthy of the gods,

cannot befall an immortal mind. Yet let it be granted that the gods are struck with anger: then certainly victims are not to be sacrificed to them before their mind has been seized by anger. For morsels and food are not to be offered to them as to wild beasts and brutes, lest their anger and fury be roused. Nor again after they have been inflamed with anger on account of the offence, if that can happen, of puny men. For besides the fact that the gods never laid down anything on this matter, it will be proved to no one that, when some beast has been slaughtered and offered, they either lay aside their anger or forget the wrongs done to them; or that, by these sacrifices, as if for an agreed fee, they grant pardon for the sins committed against them. For the multitude of sinning men would grow, if the favour of the gods in forgiving were thus for sale. Add to this that it seems unjust for an innocent animal to be killed in place of a guilty and sinful man.

Nor indeed is there ground for anyone to argue that victims are sacrificed to the gods so that they may bestow prosperity and remove adversity. For besides the fact that the most learned philosophers among the heathen held that all things happen by fate, surely, if it lies with the gods to bestow good and bad fortune on men, why do they with so ungrateful a mind allow very many, indeed almost countless people, who load their altars with continual sacrifices and victims, to be reduced to the utmost straits? Then, moreover, it is absurd to say that the gods sell their benefits for the price of sacrifices. For the rich man who slaughtered very many victims would have to receive more benefits from the gods, while the poor man, who offered a little incense, would receive none or very few. Furthermore, if two peoples contending in war offered exactly the same sacrifices to the gods, they could bring help to neither of them, nor even to either one without injustice.

Nor with better reason is it asserted that sacrifices are made to the gods for the sake of honour and of increasing their power. For why should not the same be said of the other actions of men? What, besides, of the fact that the increase of honour and power concerns men, inasmuch as they are weak and ambitious, but not gods?

Arnobius nevertheless admits that honour is to be paid to the true God, Who, just as He does not blaze with anger, so neither rejoices in honour bestowed nor is indignant when it is refused, nor thinks Himself made greater by the flatteries of others. Add, moreover, that no honour accrues to the gods from slaughtered animals, by whose smoke the images, and by whose blood and stench the temples and altars, are defiled.

But if you should nevertheless still contend that the gods are honoured by this blood of animals, why are elephants, camels, lions, eagles, storks and very many other animals not sacrificed to them? Nor does it help to reply that the gods are honoured only with those things which they kindly supply to us for food. For then cumin, cress, turnips and all other things which are of use to us will have to be offered in sacrifice to the same gods. Next, if it were supposed that dogs or other animals had received the use of reason, and were offering and sacrificing to men, as to their gods, the things by which they are fed, would not men judge this done as an insult to them rather than as an honour?

Arnobius further presses that, just as the gods are of one kind, so their judgement ought to be one; why then is one to one,

and another victim to another sacrificed? Is one pleasing to this one and another disagreeable to that one? Why are males sacrificed to this one and females to that, when there is no distinction of sex among the gods? Why is a white victim slain to the gods above, but one of black colour to those below? Can one colour be more pleasing to the gods than another? And what of the fact that the gods below, like the Manes, are nothing at all? But let us grant that they exist: if black victims please them, why are the teeth, bones and flesh of those same victims, why are incense, milk, oil and other things which are not of black colour, offered to them? Nor does Arnobius allow it to be answered him that different victims are sacrificed to different gods by some custom. For the question is not whether men, but whether the gods have decreed that some victim suits one god more than another, and whether those gods themselves have divided among themselves by pact and agreement the animals to be sacrificed.

Moreover, by the same right by which it is said that a pregnant sow suits Mother Earth and a virgin heifer the virgin Minerva, it will be concluded by the same reasoning that musicians are fitting for Apollo, physicians for Aesculapius, smiths for Vulcan and eloquent men for Mercury, and that therefore these are to be sacrificed to those, just as the sow to Earth and the heifer to Minerva.

The heathen, however, objected that one must sacrifice to the good gods that they may help, and to the evil that they may not harm. Arnobius answers that all gods must be good by their own nature. Therefore, since no god is evil by his own nature, even if he is shown no honour by men, he will nevertheless not be able on that account to do them ill or harm them. To this is added that, if this opinion of the heathen is true, it follows from it that a good god, if the victim due to him is not slaughtered, becomes evil, while an evil god, once sacrifice is made, becomes good. But what man of sound mind would say that the nature of God is changed?

Moreover, even if it could be lawful for bulls and other animals to be sacrificed to the gods, of what use to them could be the countless kinds of sausages, porridges, cakes and fritillae, enumerated by our author, which are employed in the mysteries and sacrifices of the heathen? Are all these things, which are called by obscure names so that they may be more august, pleasing to the palate of the gods and useful to a languid stomach? Why are they set out either separately, or now raw, now boiled, or roasted.

Nor is the reasoning for burning incense on their altars any better. For that rite is recent and was unknown in ancient times. Therefore either it must be judged useless, or the men of old sinned, to whom it is agreed that it never came into use. And what of the fact that it is vainly boasted that by giving incense some honour is paid to the gods? For incense is nothing but a gum flowing from certain barks. Why then is that which congeals from other trees not likewise burned to them? Is it because it is not of so sweet a smell? What follows from that? Are some odours pleasing to the gods, as to men, and others unpleasant and disagreeable? Not at all. For, as the philosophers admit, the gods are incorporeal and have no nostrils, nor can they be soothed by any odour of incense or of anything else.

In vain also, and led by no reason either,

the gentiles poured out unmixed wine in their rites as the companion of incense. For to gods, who suffer neither from thirst nor from hunger and who need no food at all, the use of wine is plainly useless. Wrongly, too, did the heathen suppose that it was poured out either in honour of the gods or so that they might become propitious: since it weakens the sinews of all the virtues, is opposed to chastity, modesty and shame, and if taken too greedily, hurls the mind into frenzy and madness. What, moreover, is more senseless than that some wine should be poured in libation with set words, lest any other wine whatever become sacred and be snatched away from human uses? Is not a law and condition thus imposed upon the gods, that they receive no more wine, and so no more honour, than pleases men?

Nor, Arnobius shows, is it less abominable to say that the gods are delighted or honoured with garlands, crowns, flowers, cymbals, tambourines, symphonies and songs. In like manner he also demonstrates that the heathen are plainly worthy of derision and pity, whose custom it was to celebrate the washing of the Mother of the gods, as though she grew dirty; the feast of Jupiter, as though he needed food; the vintage of Aesculapius, as though he tilled vineyards; the couch-banquet of Venus, as though she had need of a couch; the birthday of Tellus, as though she had at some time first come into life.

After this he attacks most sharply the rites of these same gentiles, and the Floral and Megalensian games instituted in honour of the gods, by which they prattled that the gods were appeased. He also proves that nothing is more foreign to right reason than to think that the gods are delighted, soothed and reconciled by the base and ridiculous comedies and tragedies which were then performed, and by the wicked and most obscene gestures of the mimes.

He makes it plain, moreover, that so many and such great monstrosities of opinion arose from this, that the heathen were utterly ignorant of what the nature of the true God is, and were falsely persuaded that their gods were of the same substance as themselves, were composed of the same members and the same body, and so, no differently from men, were born, rejoiced, grieved, were cleansed, gathered vintages, and were afflicted with the same diseases. Here, moreover, our author compares the opinion of the heathen and of the Christians with each other and sets them against one another, and thence concludes that the Christians are pious, but that the gentiles are in truth guilty and conscious of the demented impiety with which they reproached them.

Next he proceeds to overturn the last and, as it seemed, the stronger bulwark of the heathen, by which they strove to prove from various stories of miracles, as they said, that the gods, offended by the sins of men, had blazed with anger, but had afterwards been appeased by their satisfaction. For, first, they related that before the Circensian games, dedicated to Jupiter, were begun, a certain slave was beaten with rods through the middle of the arena of the circus and punished with the penalty of the gibbet. Then thereafter these games were celebrated, by which Jupiter was plainly offended. In vengeance, therefore, for so great a crime, as they said, a pestilence ravaged the city. But when, at the warning of the same Jupiter, these games had been duly renewed, then the plague ceased.

Secondly, it is handed down to memory, they said, that the Capitol was struck by lightning and the statue of Jupiter thrown down from its seat. But by the response of the haruspices, when

that thing had been set in a higher place facing the rising sun, then hidden things had come to light, and punishment had been exacted from the guilty as they deserved.

Thirdly, in the most adverse times of the commonwealth a dreadful plague was raging, and the Romans had almost been conquered by their enemies. But after the gods had been brought from nations overseas, namely the images of Aesculapius from Epidaurus to the Tiber island, and of the Mother of the gods from Phrygian Pessinus into the City, and after magnificent temples had been built for them, then at once the pestilence was checked; the enemy was driven out of Italy, the glory of the City was restored, the boundaries of the empire were extended far and wide, and, many things having been done splendidly at home and abroad, the name and majesty of the Roman people were established with unshaken firmness.

But to all these things Arnobius replies that they have indeed been handed down in writing, but that they display only the appearance of miracles. For, having carefully examined each of the circumstances of these stories, he demonstrates most plainly that nothing could ever be invented that is more unworthy of the supreme greatness, dignity and majesty of the gods, and even of their name, and that is more contrary to truth and deserves less belief.

Chapter II.

On the author and the date of these books, and for what reason they were composed by him.

Article I.

Who the author of these books was, and at what time and for what reason he turned his mind to composing them.

That Arnobius is the true author of these seven books is the sure and constant opinion of all. And indeed they are ascribed to him by Jerome in various places, soon to be cited, and thereafter by other writers, with so great and so unanimous an agreement that the point does not seem to need any further proof.

From the same Jerome we also learn that Arnobius was a native of Sicca, which was a city and colony of inland Africa, and that there, devoted to the impious religion of the heathen, he taught rhetoric in the reign of Diocletian. These are Jerome's own words: "Arnobius, under the emperor Diocletian, taught rhetoric with the greatest distinction at Sicca in Africa, and wrote the volumes against the heathen which are commonly extant (Jerome, On Ecclesiastical Writers, § 89)," which he published as pledges of the religion he had taken up. Arnobius himself, indeed, laments that he had been enslaved to the wicked worship of gods and idols (the same, Chronicle of Eusebius, at the year 2342); and he testifies that, not long before he wrote these books, he had been brought to the light of truth, with Christ as his teacher, in these words: "I used to venerate, O blindness! only lately, images just taken from the furnaces, gods made on anvils and from hammers, the bones of elephants; if ever I had caught sight of paintings, of ribbons on aged trees, of a smooth stone smeared with olive oil, as though a present power were in it, I fawned on it, I addressed it, and I begged favours from a block that felt nothing; and those very gods whom I had persuaded myself existed I treated with grave insults, when I believed them to be wood, stones,

and bones, or to dwell in the material of things of this kind. Now, led into the ways of truth by so great a teacher, I know what all these things are, I think worthy things of worthy beings, I do no insult to the divine name; and what is owed to each, whether person or head, I assign with unshaken degrees and authorities (Arnobius, book 1, pages 22 and 25)."

Endowed therefore with so great a light and so great a grace of Christ, and struck also by dreams, he asked of the bishop of Sicca leave to abjure his former errors and to profess the Christian religion publicly. But because he had always, as Jerome says, and that in his public schools, previously attacked it, the Bishop was unwilling to admit him to its profession before he had been made quite certain of the sincerity of his repentance. Impatient of the delay, therefore, and so that he might attain his wish as soon as possible, Arnobius applied his mind to writing these books, and, having given them as so many public hostages of his faith, he was admitted to make the most longed-for profession of the Christian religion publicly, and was initiated into our sacred mysteries by the same bishop. But it is better to hear Jerome himself still narrating these things: « Arnobius the rhetorician is held famous in Africa; while he was training young men in declamation in the city of Sicca, and, still a heathen, was being driven to belief by dreams, and could not obtain from the Bishop the faith which he had always attacked, he composed against his former religion most brilliant books, and at length, as by certain hostages, obtained the covenant of piety (Jerome, in the Chronicle, at the year 2342). But what he did afterwards either the injury of time or the negligence of writers has begrudged us. Yet certainly, since he embraced the Christian religion with such ardent zeal, there seems truly to be no room given for doubting that he fully satisfied all the duties of a true and pious Christian.

But at what precise time he wrote these books is brought into controversy and dispute by the most learned writers of our age. For the words of Jerome quoted by us are written in the Eusebian Chronicle immediately after the noting of the vicennalia of Constantine, celebrated at Nicomedia, as they say, in the year of Christ 326. On the other hand, however, the same Jerome by other words, which we reported earlier, seems to indicate quite plainly that these same books were published by Arnobius at the time when Diocletian was ruling the Romans. Yet Diocletian is held to have reigned about twenty years, namely from the year of Christ 284 to the year 304. Did not Jerome, then, judge that these books were published by Arnobius before the vicennalia of Constantine, that is, the year 326? To us, however, it seems that Jerome can easily be reconciled with himself. For in the Eusebian Chronicle, after noting the vicennalia of Constantine, he himself added: « Up to this point Eusebius, the companion of Pamphilus the martyr, writes the history, to which we have appended these things. » Then immediately: Arnobius, he says, the rhetorician, etc. Can it not be said, then, that these words of his were appended to the preceding ones of Eusebius so as not to interrupt his narrative, and that he did not there indicate the true age of Arnobius. But if anyone should object to us that by him there, just as also

afterwards, the order of the times is indicated, then certainly neither he nor anyone else will deny that he did not contradict himself, and that one must rather stand by those words of his which he wrote in his genuine work than by those he wrote in another's work.

But since he, in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers, said indeed that the books of our Arnobius were published while Diocletian was emperor, but not in what year of his reign, this must be inquired into more accurately by us. And it can be discerned from nowhere better than from the very books of our author himself. Now at the beginning of the first he speaks in this manner: "It is about three hundred years, somewhat less or more, since we began to be Christians and to be counted upon the earth (Arnob., bk. 1, p. 9)." From this it is plainly gathered, as all readily grant, that these books were written by him around the year of Christ 300. But no certain date for them is yet indicated there. Some therefore think that it can be detected from these words of his: "Why have our writings deserved to be given to the flames? Why have our meeting-places been savagely torn down? (Bk. 4, p. 152)" For where Eusebius treats of the times of Diocletian raging against the Christians, he says (Euseb., bk. 8, Eccl. Hist., ch. 8, p. 293): "Then we saw with our own eyes the sacred houses levelled to the ground and utterly overthrown, and the sacred books of the divine Scriptures burnt in the middle of the forum." These things took place, as we have noted elsewhere, when Diocletian for the ninth time and Maximian for the seventh, or, as some think, Diocletian for the eighth and Maximian for the sixth, were consuls, that is, in the year of Christ 303, or 302 (Dissert. on Lucius Caecilius, ch. 8, art. 3). For then by a law that was passed it was decreed that the sacred books of the Christians, or, as we read in the life of Felix, bishop of Tubzaca, the deific books, should be handed over to fire and flames (Optatus of Milevis, new edition, p. 227), and that their churches, or, as our author likes to say, their meeting-places, should be torn down. And from these things, which are confirmed by Augustine and Theodoret, some think it can be concluded that Arnobius applied himself to composing his books in this very year (Augustine, bk. 7, On Baptism against the Donatists, ch. 2, p. 187; and the Breviculus; Conference with the Donatists, ch. 15, pp. 569 and 573; Theodoret, bk. 5, Eccl. Hist., ch. 39, p. 248).

But others object to these that Arnobius made no mention of a law given against the meeting-places and books of the Christians, but only of books burnt and meeting-places overthrown. Granted, however, they say, that he had that in view, was there not earlier a similar remonstrance of Justin Martyr with the Gentiles about the proscription of our sacred books? "By the working," he says, "and instigation of the evil demons, the penalty of death has been established against the readers of the books of Hystaspes or of the Sibyl, or of the prophets, so that through fear men may be frightened away from them, lest, reading those writings, they gain knowledge of good things, and that they may instead be kept in servitude to them (Justin Martyr, Apology 1, p. 82)."

What, indeed, of the fact that Origen recorded that before the times of our Arnobius, and while Maximinus was reigning in the year 235, churches were burnt, and therefore, to use the words of our author, that there had been destroyed the Christians'

meeting-places? « We know », says Origen, « that among us an earthquake took place in certain localities, and that certain ruins were caused, so that those who were impious, outside the faith, said that the Christians were the cause of the earthquake, on account of which the churches both suffered persecutions and were set on fire (Origen, Tractate 8, on Matthew, p. 88). » What, then, prevents Arnobius from being understood as speaking of these things, which had happened long before and not merely once?

Nor do those make much progress who strive to establish that opinion by these words of Arnobius: « Of what age is the city of Rome stated in the annals to be? It counts a thousand and fifty years, or not much less than these (Book 2, p. 94). » For, first, he lays down nothing there of any certain and fixed time. Then he passed over in deep silence who and of what kind these annals were, and what method of reckoning the years from the founding of the City their authors follow.

But, you will say, it could not have been unknown to him in what year the foundations of Rome were laid. For he knew well that, not long before he set his hand to writing his books, the thousandth year of that royal city had been celebrated under the reign of Philip, that is, in the year of Christ, as they say, 247 or 248. When, therefore, he says: Or not much less than these, he indicates not obscurely that he sent these books forth into public light in the year 296 or 297.

Others, however, on the contrary, infer that these were published only after the three hundredth year of Christ, from the fact that elsewhere the heathen are introduced by him as arguing thus against the Christians: « Four hundred years ago your religion did not exist (ibid.). » For if these books had been completed before the three hundredth year of Christ, he would without doubt have said in them that the Christian religion did not exist not four hundred but three hundred years ago. It is indeed not hidden from us that it has seemed to some that through the carelessness of a copyist four hundred was put for three hundred. But this conjecture is confirmed by the testimony and authority of no manuscript codex or writer. And what if the heathen preferred, as is usual, to put forward a greater rather than a smaller number of years? Then certainly nothing certain can be concluded from it.

These differing opinions, moreover, on the age of these books, and the weight of the reasons on which they rest, we have set before you for examination, so that you may give your assent to the one which shall seem more like the truth. To us, however, nothing more certain or better ascertained has so far occurred than that Arnobius, in the words cited above and in other words of his about the cruel harassment of the Christians, the burning of their books and the overthrow of the churches, was aiming at the aforementioned edict of Diocletian, and that consequently his books were made public about the year of Christ 303. Yet we dare pronounce nothing with certainty, and we leave this entirely to the judgement of others.

Article II.

On the true title of these books, and their subject, and whether it is rightly treated by Arnobius; on his style, his learning, and the division of the whole work into books and chapters.

In the manuscript of these books of Arnobius, the

royal codex, from which the first page has been torn away, no title is now prefixed. But at the end of the first, third, fifth and seventh books we read: "Here ends the book of Arnobius." At the end of the fourth, however: "Here ends the fourth book of Arnovius the orator." Finally, at the foot of the second: "Here ends the second book of Arnovius against the Nations." In the first and second Roman editions of them, however, and in the Basel, Antwerp, Stewech, Paris and Hérauld editions, they are entitled: "Seven books of Arnobius against the Gentiles." In the last, moreover, published at Leiden: "Seven books of Arnobius the African against the Gentiles." We do not at all doubt that this last inscription was taken from Jerome, by whom the same heading is given more than once (Jerome, On Ecclesiastical Writers, § 89; and Letter 84, to Magnus). In the royal manuscript codex, however, and in another which Stewech mentions, there is written: "against the nations." But the reading "against the Gentiles" seems preferable, which Jerome had without doubt read in far more ancient manuscript codices. For the rest, since the sense of both inscriptions is the same, to spin out the thread of a longer discussion about it would be altogether useless and superfluous.

From each of those titles, moreover, we readily understand that the subject of these books, and Arnobius's aim and end in writing them, was nothing other than to demonstrate both that the religion of the gentiles is false and that the religion of the Christians is true. Nor is there need of further arguments to prove this, since it ought to be most manifest to all even from that analysis alone of these same books which we have given.

Some, however, are of the opinion that the two things were not done by Arnobius with equal success. For far more happily, they say, and more effectively did he show the falsity of the heathen religion than the truth of the Christian. And they think the reason for this to be that for Arnobius and other gentiles, very recently brought to the Christian faith, it was much easier to overturn utterly the impious and absurd rites and errors which they had known perfectly than to demonstrate the truth of Christian doctrine, whose mysteries they did not yet hold as sufficiently ascertained.

But what prevents those very persons to whom our sacred mysteries have not yet been unlocked from establishing and demonstrating most invincibly the truth of the Christian religion by general arguments, or, as the scholastics say, by motives of credibility? And below we shall demonstrate that it is vindicated by our author with the most powerful weight of reasons, which he draws from the true miracles of Christ and of His disciples, from the truly admirable and almost incredible constancy of innumerable martyrs, and from the most rapid propagation through the whole world of the Christian religion, which had long before been promised by the holy prophets. For the rest, not all the mysteries of the Christian religion were so unknown to Arnobius that he did not, as will be said in its place, rightly discuss the true nature of God, Christ the true Son of God, our Saviour, and some other tenets and teachings of that religion. For this reason, without doubt, Jerome calls his books "most brilliant"; because no

less brilliantly does he establish the truth of the Christian religion than he destroys the falsehood of the heathen (Jerome, in the Chronicle, at the year 2342).

But the more Jerome extols these books of our author for the force and weight of their arguments, the more he finds fault with his manner of writing and speaking. For he wrote to Paulinus in these words: "Arnobius is uneven and excessive, and confused through lack of any division of his work" (Letter 49, p. 567). But this judgement of Jerome displeased a certain more recent writer among the heterodox, and after quoting these very words of his he pronounces the contrary opinion thus, as if from the tripod: "To me Arnobius seems an eloquent author, and one who has treated his argument against the gentiles so accurately and elegantly that I can scarcely see how better things could be said against them than what was so well argued by the ancients" (Hoornbeek, Theological Exercises, book 1, chapter 1, 5, 11, p. 131). But tell me, I pray, learned theologian, where did Jerome say that that argument was not treated accurately and elegantly by Arnobius? Why does he call his books most brilliant, unless because he most abundantly fulfilled his purpose of establishing the Christian religion? But can you deny that in his books he is confused through lack of any division of his work? Does not that confusion occur everywhere throughout the first and second books? We grant indeed that in the third book the arguments are distinguished elegantly enough and accurately. Yet in all of them a clearer division is certainly wanting. I call as witnesses all who have read these books through, and unless they recognize this confusion, we shall confess that they have eyes more keen-sighted than the lynx of our Aristarchus.

Further, let the theologian praised by us explain to us what he understands by the word "eloquent": if learned and skilled, we readily grant him that Arnobius is eloquent; if speaking clearly and with polish, if a good author of Latinity, we deny it. For his kind of writing is not only uneven, excessive and redundant, but also uncultivated, rough, unpolished, and harsh and rugged with a great many obsolete words. Some offer a twofold reason for this unkempt and unadorned diction. First, that since Arnobius was an African by birth, he followed the African manner of speaking the more readily, the more quickly he wished to complete his books and, as we have already noted, to give them as hostages of his faith. Second, this very haste to finish them more quickly certainly prevented him from aiming everywhere at elegance and neatness of speech. Yet it cannot be denied that very many things occur here and there that are aptly, polishedly, elegantly and rhetorically said, and adorned and illustrated with most weighty words and sentences.

Most, indeed, extol with great praise the very great learning scattered everywhere throughout them. But it must be admitted that it concerns profane rather than sacred matters, in the manner we have described, as will become sufficiently clear to all from what is to be discussed below.

Now the whole work was divided by Arnobius himself into seven books. This is most clearly proved both by the authority of the manuscript codex and by that of Jerome. For already in the old royal codex this

division we have seen made. Jerome, moreover, wrote of our Arnobius in his letter to Magnus: "Seven books against the gentiles, and as many did his disciple Lactantius compose." (Jerome, Letter 83, p. 636).

These books, however, were never divided into any chapters or into any sections. And indeed this manner of writing in joined and continuous discourse seems to have contributed not a little to that confusion which we noted a little before. Therefore, if anyone in some new edition of these books divides them into chapters or sections, which is not so difficult, he will certainly both remedy this confusion and greatly relieve the weariness and labour of the reader.

Article III.

On the integrity of these books and the corruption of the text; whether, and from whom, Arnobius borrowed a number of things; whether he cited some testimonies of sacred Scripture.

This work of Arnobius has not come down to us whole and entirely complete. For it has already been observed by learned men that something is wanting at its end, either cut off, or omitted through the carelessness of copyists, or something which, having been effaced by the foul corruption of the earlier manuscripts, could no longer be read. We, for our part, have already observed that the first page of the royal manuscript has been taken away. And that something has likewise been passed over, or torn away, at the end of the whole work may be gathered from this: that there Arnobius refutes at length and invincibly various stories of the heathen, which they vaunted as full of miracles; yet to the one which he had himself put to himself as an objection, from the Capitol struck by a stroke of lightning and the statue of Jupiter cast down (book 7, p. 245), he makes no reply at all. For although by his reply to the earlier story he indicates clearly enough that all the others are overthrown from their foundations, yet since he refutes one by one all the rest which he had put forward, it will scarcely seem probable to anyone that this one alone was left by him wholly untouched and passed over without any reply.

Moreover, after refuting and overthrowing the arguments of the heathen drawn from stories of this kind, he is accustomed to draw some conclusion against them and in favour of the Christians. And if anywhere at all, this certainly ought to have been done in that place where, by refuting the argument which the gentiles thought the strongest, he put an end to his books. Nevertheless, if anyone contends that this slipped from him as he hastened to complete his books, we shall not resist him, if he proves this rightly. But he must first remember that for Arnobius, to draw a conclusion from what he had said there, there would surely have been no need of much delay and hesitation.

Furthermore, we read at the beginning of the second book a long fragment, taking up two pages and more, from these words: And not by love of all virtues, as far as these: impend over those who will believe (book 2, p. 43), which in the manuscript and the old editions had been transposed. For all the things contained there in no way at all cohere with the text of Arnobius. Wherefore in the latest editions each and every

seem to have been restored quite fittingly to their place, except for these words: that He did not both hold out the light of life over all and remove the danger of ignorance; which words, no one perhaps will deny, were omitted in certain editions and in the latest edition inserted in a place still foreign to them. Is this not, then, an indication by no means obscure to us that the preposterous restoration of that fragment was made on the private authority of those who presided over the latest editions of these books?

Furthermore, another segment before the end of the seventh book, from these words: We do not go so far as to deny, up to and including these: After [they had been] brought, etc., is presented in the royal manuscript codex and in the most ancient editions, in which many things that had been said earlier in scattered places are written out again in as many words. For this reason Stewechius, in his edition of these books of Arnobius, relegated all of it to the end of the work. In the most recent editions, however, it has been omitted entirely. But this omission ought to have been noted, or at least some reason for it given.

Someone will perhaps ask why a copyist dared to thrust so absurd a fragment into the text of Arnobius. But to bring forward the cause of rashness of this kind is very difficult. Yet could it not be said, not unfittingly, that in the earlier Arnobian codex, from which the first copyist transcribed his own, there was some gap, or words destroyed either by age or by some other mishap, which he wished to supply in whatever way he could, so that he might sell his codex at a higher price and persuade everyone that it was complete? However that may be, let it suffice to have pointed out that these things are not Arnobius's.

Very many places, moreover, occur here and there in the same text of Arnobius, foully corrupted by a drowsy and ignorant copyist. But to review them one by one would no doubt be as easy for us as it would be tiresome for others. We therefore now abstain from so long an enumeration of them the more willingly, since further on a more suitable occasion will repeatedly be given of correcting and emending the chief errors.

Meanwhile it is worth observing that authors neither few nor obscure are cited by Arnobius in these books. But from two above all, Cicero and Clement of Alexandria, the first of whom he quotes in one place with his name expressed, the other with his name suppressed, he has drawn a great deal. How much he culled from Cicero you will learn from these words of Jerome to Magnus: If you wish to read them, the books of Arnobius, you will find in them an epitome of the dialogues of Cicero, namely On the Nature of the Gods (Jerome, Letter 83, to Magnus, p. 656). What our author drew from Clement of Alexandria, on the other hand, he borrowed from Clement's own Exhortation to the Greeks. Furthermore, since the individual things that he transferred from each writer into his books are to be set out by us below, we have thought it right, so as not to repeat the same things, to forgo reviewing them now.

In these books, moreover, he brought forward no testimonies of sacred Scripture expressly, or with the author's name cited, except that one which he indicates as having come not so much from some sacred writer as from a certain common saying:

"Has that common saying never grazed your ears: that the wisdom of man is foolishness with God?" (Arnobius, book 2, p. 46)? For it will seem to some, not without reason, to have been taken from these words of Paul to the Corinthians: The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God (1 Cor. 1:19). However the matter stands, you will scarcely find any other testimony in all the books of Arnobius cited from sacred Scripture in exactly its own words, or under its author's name. He was unwilling, therefore, to fight against the heathen with the open authority of that same sacred Scripture, although others have used it with success in their disputations against them. For he doubtless feared to waste his effort against men who spurned it.

Accordingly he sets forth nearly all the miracles of Christ described in the books of the New Testament, not so much drawn from them as proved by certain, constant and public report and by the acknowledgement of all. But in one place, to note it in passing, he speaks thus of the loaves multiplied by Christ: "Five thousand of those following Him He satisfied with five loaves, and, lest these should seem conjuring tricks to those unbelieving and hard men, He heaped up the hollows of twice six hampers with the fragments of the leftovers." (Book 1, p. 26). But in the Gospel of Matthew and of Mark we read: Seven loaves.... and what was left over of the fragments they took up, seven hampers full. In Luke, however: Having taken the five loaves.... and what was left over to them was taken up, twelve baskets. Finally in John: They gathered therefore, and filled twelve baskets of fragments from the five barley loaves. (Matt. 15:34 ff.; Mark 8:6 ff.; Luke 9:17; John 6:13). Yet seven hampers, as some have remarked, held more than twelve baskets. See, therefore, whether Arnobius, when he wrote this, through a lapse of memory put there the name of hampers in place of that of baskets.

Article IV.

On certain errors ascribed to Arnobius.

It ought certainly to seem surprising to no one that Arnobius, not yet instructed in a perfect knowledge of divine Scripture and of the sacred mysteries of our religion, struck upon certain rocks of error when he was composing these books. But whether he is accused of them rightly or wrongly must be weighed. First, then, let Jerome come forward into the open, who wrote to Tranquillinus in these words: "I think that Origen should sometimes be read on account of his learning in the same way as Tertullian, Novatus, Arnobius, Apollinaris and some ecclesiastical writers, so that we may pick out their good things and avoid the contrary, according to the Apostle who says: Test all things; hold fast what is good" (Jerome, Letter 56, to Tranquillinus, p. 589). Thus that eminent man modestly admonished us that certain things in the books of our Arnobius, as also of certain others, are to be guarded against.

But certain more recent men, not so fair-minded towards our ancient writers as Jerome, boldly assert that Arnobius fell not into just any errors,

but into the gravest of all. For by Heraldus he is condemned for plainly intolerable ignorance and error, on the ground that, in disputing against the gentiles, he confesses that he does not know who the true gods are. Now these are Arnobius' words to the heathen: "Who, you say, are the true gods? To answer you with a common and simple word: We do not know" (Arnobius, book 7, p. 211). On which passage Heraldus says: "Indeed this ignorance is not tolerable, and from this it appears that Arnobius, when he was writing these books, was a stranger even to the chief heads of the faith." Could Arnobius truly, when he was composing these books, have erred not merely in one of the chief heads of religion, but in the first and foundation of them all? What else, I ask you, does he do in this whole work, except show that the gods of the gentiles are false, and that the one God alone is He Whom the Christians worshipped, having utterly rejected all those fictitious ones? Does he not show from this most evidently that the Christians were quite undeservedly harassed by the heathen on this account, and visited with every kind of punishment, even the most cruel?

Then again, when Arnobius answers the heathen who ask who the true gods are that he does not know, he immediately gives the reason, namely that he had never seen them. But he confesses that he has heard from the heathen that they are very many: and that these, if they exist anywhere, as the heathen supposed, or if they are true, as Terentius, doubtless Varro, believes, must certainly be such as they are named, unbegotten, eternal, desiring nothing of earthly pleasure, and such as is God almighty, Whom all Christians know and understand What then does this disputation against the heathen, and this explanation of the divine nature, contain that is intolerable, or that belongs to a man wholly a stranger to the chief heads of the faith? Is not that idea, explanation and description of God almighty true? Furthermore, we shall show clearly below that our author's opinion concerning God and the divine nature is sound.

But, you will say, he says that he does not know who the true gods are; what, then, is less to be tolerated than this ignorance? But who would not see that this is, as they say, an orator's figure, since, in the manner of rhetoricians, he proves from the very admission of his adversaries that the gods of the gentiles are false and non-existent, and consequently that their divinity, which could not exist at all, was known to no one, not even to himself.

There are indeed very many other errors of which Arnobius is accused, namely concerning the supreme God, concerning His wrath, concerning the soul of man, concerning sin, concerning the resurrection of the flesh, concerning the punishments of the impious, concerning the cause of public calamities, and other teachings of the Christian religion. But whether he is charged with all these errors rightly, deservedly or undeservedly, we shall examine below with our usual candour, where a more suitable place will present itself to us for disputing about those same doctrines and arguments of our holy religion.

Article 5.

On the various manuscript codices and editions of these books.

Of these books there remains to us only one manuscript

codex, preserved in the most richly furnished library of our Most Christian King, and there formerly marked with the number 1344, now 3975. In it, moreover, the Octavius of Minucius Felix is joined to the seven books of Arnobius, as though it were an eighth book of Arnobius. On this matter, and on the antiquity of this manuscript codex, we have argued sufficiently in the preceding dissertation (Dissertation on the Octavius of Minucius, ch. 2, art. 2). It was also observed by us in the same place that very many errors of a copyist wholly ignorant of Latin occur throughout this codex. But in these books of Arnobius they are far more frequent, and above all in writing out proper or less usual names that unlearned scribe erred more often and more grossly. It would, however, be a useless labour to unroll here the very long series of his errors. For many of those errors are noted in the notes of various [commentators], and very many more in the collections of variant readings published in the latest edition of these books. Others, however, passed over there, came to our notice as we read the same books with greater care, and these we shall point out later, when the occasion presents itself.

Besides this manuscript codex, Stewechius attests that another, ancient and of very good quality (Stewech., Letter to the Reader), was formerly in the possession of Flacius Illyricus and afterwards of Henricus Petraeus; and he testifies that from its variant readings, collected and sent to him by Franciscus Modius of Bruges, jurisconsult, he corrected the text of Arnobius in countless places and filled lacunae of great importance. But concerning the antiquity and elegance of this book, which we have not been permitted to see, we can establish nothing with certainty. Yet having made a collation of the Stewechian edition and of the other editions of this work, we have found that this codex is not much more correct than the other, the royal codex which we have used, and that it almost always teems with the same faults, is disfigured by transpositions and additions, and is defective and gaping with lacunae.

Now from the former, the royal manuscript codex, the first edition of these books of Arnobius was prepared at Rome in the year 1542 through the care of Faustus Sabaeus of Brescia, and from it almost all the later ones came forth. The second was printed at Basel by Froben in the year 1546 through the labour of Sigismundus Gelenius, who affirms that he corrected many errors of the earlier edition, thrust into the text of Arnobius by those who were not practised in reading ancient characters. But since he is silent as to whether he emended the text from some manuscript codex, can it not be inferred from this that he attempted to apply a healing hand to them by his own conjectures alone? Again, these books of Arnobius came out to the public from the same Froben press in the year 1560, in the same city, and afterwards at Paris in the year 1570.

Thereafter Theodorus Canterus made public a new edition of them, corrected, as he says, according to the reading of the royal manuscript and with the help of Clement of Alexandria, printed at Antwerp by Plantin in the year 1582. He admits, however, that sometimes, where better ones were not available, he followed the various readings of Gelenius, whom he nevertheless charges with having indulged too much in conjectures.

Then, in the fortieth year after the first edition of these books was published at Rome, namely in the year of Christ 1583, Fulvius Ursinus had another brought to light in the same city. He openly declares that, aided by the emendations of Giovanni Battista Sighicelli and of Pedro Chacón the Spaniard, he corrected in it very many depravations and alterations of the Germans, who had corrupted the text of Arnobius in countless places at their pleasure and whim. Yet he testifies that he admitted nothing into the author's text except what was most manifestly and without any controversy true, and approved by the judgement of many. But what did not seem so certain, he noted in the margin of the pages, adding some brief observations to confirm the conjectures.

Gebhart Elmenhorst published two editions of this work of Arnobius, one at Hanover in the year 1603, the other in larger type and format at Hamburg in the year 1610. In the earlier edition he informs us (Epistle to the Reader) that, while still a young man, he spent labour on editing these books, and that, having diligently collated his own copy with the edition of Fulvius Ursinus, he rendered them more polished. But what and of what kind that copy was, he passes over in complete silence. In the notice prefixed to the second edition, however, he declares that in revising it he used an old codex of Francesco Sabeo of Brescia, printed in Roman type in the year 1542. Where this was corrupt, he asserts that he had recourse to excerpts from manuscripts and to the emendations of learned men, and with these aids cleansed the books of Arnobius of countless blemishes; yet in such a way that he rarely inserted anything into its text. Nevertheless he openly declares that very many false and corrupt passages still remain, which, since they cannot be understood without the help of a better codex, he left untouched, to be corrected by happier talents. But he does not tell us what those codices were from which those various readings were excerpted. By the names of manuscripts and of learned men, however, he seems without doubt to have signified nothing other than the codex of the royal library, and those who had presided over the earlier editions, and the authors of certain observations.

Another edition of the same books, published at Antwerp in the year 1604, we owe to the labour of Godescalc Stewech (In the dedicatory epistle, at Trier, in the year 1587). He affirms that, by means of the various readings of an old manuscript sent, as we have observed, by Modius, he made it not only fuller in many places but also better, by emending countless errors. The differing readings, whether of the handwritten book or of other editions, he wrote in the margin of the pages; and he would have done the same, as he himself points out, with those things which the edition of Ursinus displays as well restored, if only Ursinus had separated others' contributions from his own, and had not claimed everything as his own by one and the same right. In the year 1634, moreover, Leander de Sancto Martino, a monk of the Order of Saint Benedict and president general of the English congregation of the same order, had the same edition of Stewech reprinted in new type at Douai. But to it he added nothing other than paratitla, or brief

summaries, by which the obscure text of Arnobius is explained and his errors are noted.

By the work and study of Desiderius Heraldus a new edition of these books was published at Paris in the year 1605, corrected against the Roman [edition], as he puts it, and in certain places enlarged and emended from the royal manuscript. But he devoted greater study to writing notes than to emending the text of Arnobius. He informs us, moreover, that he was driven to this because very many in his time had spent on restoring humane letters a labour the more successful the greater it was, but on illustrating sacred and ecclesiastical writings either the least labour or none. He was therefore persuaded that it was of far greater use to turn his mind to editing and explaining the writings of the ancient Fathers of the Church. First, therefore, he thought of publishing and emending the books of Tertullian. But, deterred by the magnitude of the labour, he preferred to make a trial on the Arnobian books: « And I set about the matter, he says, in such a way that, within the current month, the work undertaken going favourably, I found myself brought to the end of the book » (dedicatory epistle).

Afterwards, in the year 1651, these seven books of our author were published at Leiden, with the recension, as is written in the title, of a Most Celebrated Man, and with the complete commentaries of all. But although the name of this man is kept silent, Thysius is nevertheless said to have overseen this edition in part. In it, moreover, however much it is advertised as the most accurate of all, we have detected many slips not only of the printers, but also certain words entirely omitted.

The last edition of them was added by Priorius to the works of Cyprian in the year 1666. But since this, like the preceding one, was prepared only from the old editions, they are without doubt sprinkled and defiled with the same and with other new faults and errors of the printers.

Although, therefore, each and every one extols to the utmost the edition over which he was set, and boldly asserts that he has washed out countless blemishes of others, it is nevertheless certain that none has come down to us wholly perfect and complete in every respect. Such a one, however, can never be produced unless, besides the manuscript codex of our most Christian king mentioned by us, and perhaps another, other [codices] more accurately written by the copyists are found. If any can be dug out anywhere from the shelves of libraries, they must be most diligently compared with the editions; and, so that the confusion of the text may be removed as far as possible, it ought to be divided into chapters and sections, and clear summaries of the chapters and sections ought to be set out.

Article VI.

On the notes and observations of various men on these books.

Several who were set over editing the Arnobian books, and other learned men too, published notes and observations on them. For first Latinus Latinius left on them a few variant readings as well as observations and notes (Latinius, Sacred and Profane Library, p. 98). But he presents us with nothing other than his own conjectures and those of certain others. Then Meursius, in the year of age

his nineteenth, and in the year of Christ 1598, he published the Criticus Arnobianus, printed at Leiden by the Elzevir press. He informs us, moreover, that he did not wish to go ahead of Canter, who was contemplating the same thing, except with his permission, lest he be accused of having thrust his sickle into another man's harvest. In that work, further, he aimed at almost nothing else than to correct the errors of the text of Arnobius without any unpublished manuscript, but by his own effort and youthful talent. He admits, however, that he could not prevail upon himself not to run sometimes, intent upon the work and spurred on by it, beyond the limits he had set. With how happy a success he did this, the many learned writers certainly prove who afterwards, having tried with the help of manuscripts to heal countless faults and wounds in the text of our author, were compelled to leave it still disfigured by very many errors.

Therefore this Arnobian critique, worked out by Meursius, did not deter Theodorus Canter from publishing the notes and observations on the books of Arnobius which, as we have said, he had earlier resolved to make public. In them he gives an account of the text of Arnobius as corrected by himself, or as needing correction, and points out many things which Arnobius took chiefly from Clement of Alexandria. He explains few things, however, and certainly admits that by far the most remain which needed a fuller interpretation. For this reason he promised that he would shortly publish a very full commentary on these books of Arnobius. But whether he kept his word, or why he did not stand by his promises, is so far unknown to us.

Stewechius also wrote animadversions of two kinds on the books of our author, the first of which he calls the Syllabus electorum, the second the Electa. In the latter he strives, to the best of his ability, either to correct and illustrate many words and sentences of Arnobius from his own talent and from parchment manuscripts, as he says, or to confirm them by the authority of other writers. The Syllabus electorum, on the other hand, is a compendium of the whole work, as its title states, which nevertheless offers nothing other than the explanation of certain words and some things worth noting in these books of Arnobius.

Just as Elmenhorst made public two editions of these same books of Arnobius, so he undertook the task of illustrating each of them with various notes. In the first edition he indicates in very brief annotations the various readings of the text of Arnobius, or attempts to support his sayings by often citing the books of other authors, and seldom with words. Therefore in the second edition, having abandoned nearly all of these, he published others. He advises his reader that in those new observations he aimed above all at explaining and interpreting the sense of the author, where it is rather obscure, as briefly as clearly (In the notice to the reader). But although he professes to have striven for brevity, it is nevertheless agreed that in those animadversions many superfluous and useless things are found, by which very clear and very well-known matters are set out and confirmed without any necessity. You will also find many

outside the game, and the author's purpose, and not a few things indeed which pertain only to grammar, and in which words similar to those of Arnobius are sometimes presented. He is also not afraid at times to charge our author with error; whether rightly or wrongly, we shall see later. Finally he candidly confesses that he has passed over very many things which are false, corrupt and obscure.

Heraldus, however, is longer in his observations and notes, but more often than Elmenhorst he digresses from the author's purpose. For in these, when occasion is given by some writer cited by him, he runs on too far beyond the emendation or explanation of the text quoted, and heaps up a great deal for the useless explaining of clear words of Arnobius. Yet we shall not deny that in them his learning often shines out all the more, in that, as we have said, he asserted that he had completed the whole work in a rather short space of time.

Bulengerus published two books of Eclogae on Arnobius at Toulouse, in the year 1612. In the first, by testimonies of various writers, sacred as well as profane, he establishes and confirms certain things which we read written in the books of Arnobius concerning God, His attributes, and the incorporeal and immortal nature of the human soul. But in great silence he passed over many other things which many complain were said by him either somewhat too freely or rather obscurely.

In his second book Bulengerus cites these words of Arnobius: "You laugh that in ancient times the Persians worshipped a river, as memorial writings show;" and also these: "And between the Assyrians and the Bactrians, under the leadership of a certain Ninus and of Zoroaster, battle was waged not only with the sword and with strength, but also with magic and with the hidden lore of the Chaldaeans" (Arnob., book 6, p. 196; and book 1, p. 5). Using only these words of Arnobius, set forth as it were as the theme and subject of this second book of his, he gathers and heaps up from every side many things about the Persians, Medes, Parthians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Magi and Chaldaeans, and about their customs, gods and rites, which had been omitted by Barnabé Brisson in his book on the empire of the Persians. But who does not see that all these things concern our Arnobius no more than Clement of Alexandria, or any other writer whatever, who handed down to memory the same things, and indeed far more, about these same peoples? To this is added that all those things which the same Bulengerus says he compiled not without labour and late nights contribute almost nothing either to the explanation or to the understanding of these or other words of Arnobius.

Moreover, from the things we have observed without any disparagement of so many men, whose labours and learning we praise, no one surely, as we think, will deny that in the books of Arnobius many obscure and very difficult passages are found concerning various profane matters, and especially the Christian religion and its sacred doctrines, which, though passed over by all, nevertheless need fuller exposition than all the rest. To explaining and confirming these, therefore, or to disapproving and rejecting them, with our whole, whatever it may be,

strength of talent, and in our accustomed manner and with candour, one must strive.

Chapter III.

New observations on the books of Arnobius, and first it is examined by what arguments Arnobius demonstrates the truth of the Christian religion.

Article I.

How Arnobius vindicates the truth of the Christian religion, previously asserted by many and needing no defender, by the various miracles of Christ and of His disciples.

The chief aim and end of Arnobius in writing these books, as we have seen, was to demonstrate the truth of the Christian religion by various arguments, as evident as they are certain and most invincible. For although its most holy mysteries and teachings are most lofty and surpass every capacity of the human mind, yet it can be doubtful to no man of sound mind that very many most certain weighty reasons are available to us, and that many are at hand which philosophers are accustomed to call demonstrations, by which its truth, and hence also the falsity of the superstitious worship of the heathen, is most manifestly proved. These, however, the scholastic theologians preferred to call motives of credibility; and they are indeed the first foundations and bases of our religion, and once they are laid we are necessarily impelled and compelled to believe most firmly all its mysteries, however obscure.

From these Arnobius selected certain ones, and he drew them from the miracles of Christ and of His disciples, from the most cruel torments of the martyrs, endured most steadfastly even to the bitterest death, and from the most rapid spread of Christian doctrine through the whole world. And these, although he could have added others to them, he not undeservedly judged to be enough and more than enough for him to demonstrate most manifestly the truth of our religion.

First, however, he openly declares that he applied his mind to treating these matters anew not because he believed that the Christian religion needed this work or defence of his (Arnobius, book 3, p. 100). For he was persuaded that this argument had been treated abundantly by eminent and excellent men, namely Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, of whom we [have spoken] in the earlier books of our Apparatus, and also by Tertullian, Origen and many others; and that by the learned writings and night-labours of so many and such great men the Christian religion had been most fully vindicated from the false accusations of the heathen. Indeed, he had always held it for certain that it stood firm and unshaken of itself without any defender or protector, and could never be shaken or torn up by any powers, arts, wiles or devices of any of its adversaries whatever: 'For it,' he says, 'is content with its own powers, and rests on the foundations of its own truth; nor is it stripped of its strength even if it has no defender; indeed, if all tongues act against it, and against it

strive, and conspire with the animosity of a united contention to abolish faith in it.' He says, therefore, that he has undertaken its defence, not indeed because it needs another's patronage, but so that it might not seem at some time to have given way to wicked slanderers and its deadly enemies. We must therefore examine those arguments by which he asserts and demonstrates these things.

The first is drawn by him from the miracles of Christ and of His disciples, which had certainly been performed not feigned but true; not in secret but openly; not always in one and the same manner but in almost innumerable manners; not in one place but in all parts of the world. For so many and such great miracles, wrought without outside help or the observance of that superstitious cult, openly and before the eyes of all, can be done only by the power of the true God, Who can neither be deceived nor deceive, and surely not to establish some falsehood but to establish the truth. Now it is certain that they were done by Christ and in His name, so that He might prove the truth of the religion founded by Him, and root out utterly all others as false. Therefore by these miracles anyone who is not wholly blinded by foolish obstinacy is compelled, willing or unwilling, to acknowledge the truth of the Christian religion.

That this is the argument of Arnobius himself, if you doubt it, learn from his own words: « There is no greater proof than the credibility of the things done by Him, » that is, by Christ, « than the novelty of His mighty works, than all the decrees overcome and the decrees of fate dissolved, which peoples and nations saw done under their own light, with no one dissenting, which not even those dare to charge with falsehood whose ancient or ancestral laws He showed to be utterly full of vanity and of the emptiest superstition » (Arnobius, book 1, p. 24 ff.). You see indeed how most rightly he concludes that by the public miracles of Christ, which the gentiles were never able to charge with falsehood, not only is the truth of the Christian religion asserted, but the falsehood of the heathen religion also is most evidently proved.

Of such weight indeed is this argument that very many gentiles, thoroughly convinced by it, abandoned their ancestral superstitions, cast off the impious worship of their gods, and of their own accord gave their names to the Christian religion: « For the mighty works, » these are still the words of Arnobius, « set before their eyes, and that unheard-of power of things, whether that which was openly wrought by Him or that which was proclaimed by His heralds in the whole world, this kindled the flames of desire, and made nations and peoples, and nations most unlike in their customs, run together with one mind into the assent of a single belief » (Arnobius, book 2, p. 50). Who then would not see from this that the miracles of Christ and of His disciples, unheard of until then, were of such strength for proving the truth of the Christian faith, and of such efficacy, that they led countless men, scattered over the whole world and previously utterly opposed to this Christian religion, to embrace it most willingly?

What those miracles of Christ were, Arnobius briefly reviews (ibid., p. 26). Any persons whatever, he says,

deaf, or dumb, or labouring under any disease whatever, fever, hunger, blindness, lameness, dropsy, leprosy, flux of blood, palsy and other sicknesses, He healed; He calmed the storms of the sea and the winds, He trod its waves with dry foot, He knew the secret thoughts of men, He called others and even Himself back from death to life; after the resurrection He gave Himself to be seen, and conversed with the disciples; finally, to use the words of our author: «He Whose name, when heard, puts harmful spirits to flight, imposes silence on soothsayers, leaves the haruspices unconsulted, makes the operations of arrogant magicians come to nothing, not by dread of divinity, as you say, but by the licence of a greater power» (Ibid., p. 27). And who would not see how strong this argument is, by which he plainly demonstrates not only the truth of the Christian religion, but also, as we shall show below (Below, ch. 6, art. 1), the supreme divinity of Christ?

He further urges, and asserts as constantly as truly, that Christ gave to His disciples, though needy, weak and unlearned, the power of working exactly the same miracles; by which power indeed they worked countless miracles, not in Judaea only but in all parts of the whole world, by which almost infinite numbers of men were brought to profess the Christian faith: «For they can be enumerated,» he says, «and brought into reckoning, the things that were done in India, among the Seres, the Persians and the Medes, in Arabia, Egypt, in Asia, Syria, among the Galatians, Parthians, Phrygians, in Achaia, Macedonia, Epirus, in all the islands and provinces which the rising and setting sun surveys, and finally in mistress Rome herself, in which, though men are occupied with the arts of King Numa and with ancient superstitions, they have nevertheless not delayed to leave their ancestral ways and to grow together with the Christian truth?» (Arnob., bk. 2, p. 50).

Nothing, therefore, is more absurd than the senseless rashness of certain heathens, who prated that these miracles had been false. For it could not have come about that so many peoples, nations so diverse and most remote from one another, and the Romans themselves, masters of the world, should have conspired to acknowledge the false miracles of the followers of Christ as true. What, too, of the fact that those countless men from so many peoples cannot be called so dull, sluggish and stupid as not only to pretend that they had seen miracles which they had not seen, but, ensnared by a fiction hitherto unheard of, to repudiate the superstitions of their fathers and fellow countrymen, with whom they could have lived happily, and embrace the severe manner of life instituted by Christ, not without certain peril of their lives (Ibid.). It must therefore be certain and fixed that they gave their assent only to miracles most manifest and clearer than light itself.

Furthermore Arnobius, having made mention of Rome, which on account of its supreme dominion he calls mistress, puts forward that miracle by which the apostle Peter was reported to have triumphed over Simon Magus when he was laid low: «They had seen,» he says (Ibid.), «the chariot of Simon Magus and the fiery four-horse team blown away by the mouth of Peter, and at the naming of

Christ, vanish. They had seen, I say, the man who trusted in false gods, betrayed by those same gods in their fear, cast down headlong by his own weight, lie with his legs broken; then afterwards, carried to Brunda, worn out by torments and shame, throw himself down again from the summit of a very high roof.» We know indeed that this miracle is by some either called into doubt or denied altogether. For this story, taken from pseudepigraphal books, as they say, that is, without doubt, from the Apostolic Constitutions (bk. 6, Apostolic Constitutions, ch. 9, p. 279), is told variously by various writers. Then again, at Rome the report of that miracle was very uncertain, and Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and other most ancient writers were entirely silent about it.

But this same story is described by Cyril of Jerusalem in these words: « Peter and Paul, the presidents of the Church, straightway put to death Simon, who displayed himself as God and was thought to be such. For when Simon was borne into the air on a vehicle of demons, the servants of God, falling on their knees..... by means of prayers hurled the dart of contention on high, and cast him down to the earth..... from the lofty air they cast down to the earth him who was held a god, to be thrust down to the lower regions » (Cyril, Catechesis 6, p. 54). Ambrose, Augustine, Isidore of Pelusium, Theodoret and Maximus of Turin also recorded this deed in writing, but much more briefly (Ambrose, bk. 4 Hexameron, ch. 8, § 33, p. 78; Augustine, book On Heresies, p. 6; Isidore, bk. 1, letter 13, p. 4; Theodoret, bk. 1, Compendium of Heretical Fables, ch. 1, p. 198; Maximus, Homily 5, on the feast of Saints Peter and Paul). What room for doubt, then, can there be that these and other writers of ancient and of various ages were persuaded that this story is true? Yet even if there were something false in it, or, if you would more stubbornly have it so, nothing at all true, the force or strength of Arnobius's argument would not on that account be in any way diminished. For the truth of the Christian religion is proved by him not from this miracle alone, but from others plainly innumerable, which no one, as we have said, unless blinded by utterly invincible obstinacy, could deny to have been performed by Christ the Lord and His disciples. And from all these our author concludes, with as much certainty as evidence, that the Christian religion alone is true.

Article II.

How Arnobius refutes the arguments by which the gentiles tried to weaken all the miracles of Christ and of His disciples.

Nothing is so certain and evident that ingenious men, straying from the right path of truth, do not attempt by malicious arts either to make it doubtful, or to obscure it, or to deny it. It is no wonder, therefore, if some, after the death of Christ and of His disciples, tried to weaken and deny their miracles, although these were performed before an almost infinite number of heathens and for their benefit. Yet to accuse of falsehood so many and such great miracles, confirmed by witnesses as certain as they were innumerable, the heathens, in the first age of our nascent Church,

as Arnobius says, never dared (Arnobius, book 1, p. 33 and following).

After this, however, having grown bolder, they objected that these very miracles had been written down falsely by the evangelists and other authors, or exaggerated beyond measure. On the contrary, says Arnobius, more miracles both of Christ and of His disciples were left out by them, nor could all be committed to writing. But if any are read handed down to posterity in other writings, that is, doubtless in the pseudo-gospels, these were added, interpolated, altered and cut short by the malevolence and frauds of demons or of men like them, so that, if it could be done, they might lessen the authority of such wonderful deeds. And what of the fact that the gentiles objected nothing in any way against the trustworthiness of our sacred writers which could not be objected against their own writers with equal, indeed with better, right? Moreover, our truthful authors described the miracles of Christ with such candour of mind and with such lights of truth that no one, neither Jew nor gentile, however hostile to the Christians, dared to contradict them when they were done.

But our writings, said the heathen, are far older than the books of the Christians, and therefore more worthy of belief. As if indeed, Arnobius replies, all did not recognize from the most shameful and most false fables of the gods that their antiquity was the most fruitful mother and origin of the most absurd errors. Then again, since the falsity of more recent deeds is detected more easily than that of older ones, our writers surely could not have been of such great rashness as to proclaim recent miracles, unheard of until then, as most true, whose falsity the gentiles would have recognized all the sooner, the more these were not only new and unaccustomed, but also overthrew their false religion from its foundations. Yet when they first saw those deeds or writings, struck dumb with however great an amazement, they dared to mutter nothing against them, unless perhaps some madmen did.

The heathen further pressed that the writings of the Christians, having come from unlearned and unskilled men, teemed with solecisms and were disfigured by faulty diction (the same, p. 34 and following). Therefore belief should not readily be given to them. What then, says Arnobius? Can truth not be expressed in any speech whatever, even a rather barbarous one? On the contrary, surely belief is to be accorded to our writers all the more, the more they spoke in simple speech and without any paint and allurement of words. For truth requires no ornament of speech, no artifice (ibid., p. 35). Finally, ornaments of speech, as Arnobius says, help the suspicious; that is, in those who are in doubt about some matter, they increase both the doubt and the suspicion. For then there is room to fear that truth may be wholly buried beneath these ornaments and the charms of speech, or driven out, and falsehood substituted in its place. Lactantius, moreover, handed down many things quite similar to those that have been said and are still to be said, as we shall see in their place (Dissertation 3, on Lactantius, ch. 9, art. 3).

Crushed by the weight of these arguments, the heathen had at last come to such a pitch of madness and impudence that they did not fear to charge against us that these miracles were done by Christ through magic arts and conjuring tricks: "He was a magician," such are their words as recorded by Arnobius, "He accomplished all those things by secret arts; from the shrines of the Egyptians He stole the names of powerful angels and recondite disciplines" (Arnobius, Book 1, p. 25). But this old accusation of the heathen, though often repeated, has always been refuted. For who does not know that charge laid against Christ by the Jews, that He cast out demons in the name of Beelzebub? And although Christ the Lord had amply refuted this calumny, the pagans nevertheless did not afterwards hesitate to rake it up again against His disciples with a temerity utterly monstrous and intolerable. For, to pass over a great many others, Celsus, as Origen testifies, "accuses the Saviour of having worked miracles as if by magic arts" (Origen, Against Celsus, Book 1, p. 7). For he prattled, as the same Origen afterwards attests, "that, having been brought up in secret and having served for hire in Egypt, He returned from there skilled in the arts of that nation, and, relying on them, allowed Himself to be held to be God" (ibid., p. 30). Next the impious man pretends that he believes the miracles that were reported were really done by Christ, but he puts them on a level with the works of sorcerers, as of those who promise more wonderful things, and with the things performed in the middle of the market-places by those who learned them from the Egyptians. With the works of conjurers, who promise more marvellous things, and with the deeds of mountebanks performed in the middle of the forum, who learned these things from the Egyptians (ibid., p. 53).

But this most impudent calumny Arnobius, no less easily than Origen, washes away and utterly dissolves. For in the first place he replies that no magician ever did anything, even in the thousandth part, that is comparable to the miracles of Christ. For Christ, says our author (Arnobius, Book 1, p. 25), without any force of incantations, or juices of herbs and grasses, without any observance of sacred libations and of times, without any arts whatever, such as were always employed by the magicians, but by the sole power and invocation of His name, or by a light touch, brought forth His miracles. With the same reply Origen also checks and breaks the astounding audacity of Celsus: "Although this argument," he said (Origen, Against Celsus, Book 1, p. 7), "concerning the manner in which Jesus did these things, may seem insoluble, it is nevertheless evident that Christians practise no incantations, being content with the name of Jesus alone and with other words in which, according to sacred Scripture, faith is placed." But plainly, even if the question about Jesus, how He did these things, seems unanswerable, it is clear that Christians obtain their effect while making use of no practice of incantations.

Then, moreover, Christ, in performing such great miracles, says Arnobius, conferred upon men nothing but what was happy and auspicious, wholly useful and salutary. The magicians, on the contrary, by those miracles of theirs, as they were reckoned, furnished nothing but what was unlawful, unhappy, harmful, pernicious, and deadly to men and beasts. But if anything of usefulness

they seemed to bring, this came about not by their own power but by the power of others, that is, of the demons invoked by them: "Who would not know this," these are the words of Arnobius, "that they either send a deadly wasting upon whomever they please, or break apart the affections of intimates, ..... or in the racecourses weaken, urge on, or slow down horses, or send upon other men's wives and children, whether these be male or of the female sex, the flames of forbidden love and frenzied desires: or, if they seem to venture something useful, that they are able to do it not by their own strength but by the power of those whom they invoke" (Arnobius, book 1, page 25).

And these things are indeed confirmed in a truly wonderful manner by these further words of Origen against Celsus: The works of the antichrists, and of those who pretend to powers as though disciples of Jesus, are said to be lying signs and wonders, prevailing with all deceit of unrighteousness among those who are perishing; but those of Christ and of His disciples bore as their fruit not deceit but the salvation of souls. For who would reasonably say that the better life, which daily reduces the things of wickedness to less, comes about from deceit? The miracles and portents of the Antichrists, and of those who strive to exercise their power in the likeness of the disciples of Jesus, are called lies, effective with all the deception of injustice for the destruction of men. But the fruit of the miracles of Christ and of His disciples was not deception but the salvation of souls. For who would plausibly say that amendment of life, and daily advances from vices to virtue, are born of deceptions? (Origen, book 2, page 90). It would be too long to copy out the whole of this passage of Origen: but if you wish to read it entire, you will without doubt not regret the reading.

Thirdly, Christ, Arnobius continues (Arnobius, book 1, page 27), performed so many miracles not, certainly, out of vain ostentation, but in order that by the kindness of His works He might bring hard and unbelieving men to the true knowledge and worship of God: whereas the magicians did so in order to lead those turned away from this knowledge and worship into the wicked veneration of false gods, or to compel those so led to persevere in it always. Finally, so far is it from being the case that Christ did anything by any magical art (ibid.), that rather He so condemned all of it that Arnobius, as we have already seen, counts among His miracles that all the arts of demons, soothsayers, haruspices and magicians were made obsolete by Him.

And in a quite similar manner Origen answers Celsus: But I do not know how a magician would have striven to teach a doctrine persuading men to do (all things) as though God judges each person for all his deeds, and so to dispose his own disciples, whom he intended to use as ministers of his own teaching. But I do not understand how a magician could have taken pains to persuade each person so to govern his actions as if he were to render an account to God as judge; and so to instruct his disciples, whom he was going to use as ministers of his teaching (Origen, book 1, against Celsus, page 30). Then, after he has proved that true miracles were repeatedly performed by His disciples, he immediately adds this: But if they performed mighty works, what plausibility is there in the claim that the magicians

have exposed themselves to so many dangers (introducing) a teaching that forbids magic. But if they themselves also performed prodigies, how is it probable that magicians exposed themselves to so many dangers, who introduced a doctrine thoroughly detesting the magic art? After this, he again refutes in the same way Celsus, who repeats the same things, and concludes his whole disputation in this manner: Who of sound mind would compare Him, Christ, with the purpose of conjurers, and not rather believe that, according to the oracles, God was seen in a human body, in order to exercise beneficence towards our race? How could anyone reasonably compare Him with the purpose of sorcerers, and not believe, according to the promise, that He is God, Who appeared in a human body for the benefit of our race? (Ibid., p. 54.)

Eusebius argues many more things, truly excellent and worth reading, on this very subject; but since it would be too long to copy them out here, we send you to his book, and if it does not weary you to consult it and turn its pages, you will by no means regret having read it (Eusebius, book 3, Demonstration of the Gospel, chs. 5 and 6; p. 103 and following, and p. 109 and following).

Article III.

How absurdly the heathen objected that the same or similar miracles had been worked by their gods as by Christ.

The more obstinate heathen, driven to extremities and never willing to yield, insisted that the same miracles had been worked by their gods as by Christ. For Arnobius introduces one of them arguing thus: « In vain do you claim so much for Christ, since we know that other gods have often both given remedies to very many who were suffering and cured the diseases and ailments of many. » (Arnobius, book 1, p. 28). Therefore, they said, that argument of the Christians is of no weight, or if it has any force, by it too it will be concluded that our religion is true. For our gods have worked miracles no less than Christ.

But this objection of the heathen is very easily overturned by our Arnobius (below, ch. 18; art. 1 and following). For granted, he says, that the gods worked certain miracles, a point whose truth will be examined later: is it not more certain than certain that no miracle was worked by any god of the gentiles as it was by Christ the Lord, without any medicine or, as we said above, any other external thing applied, but by His name alone or by the lightest touch?

Moreover, even if you prove that some man was healed by some god of the gentiles with certain remedies or external things, how many thousands of men, good God! can be shown who, after they had invoked Aesculapius and other gods in the temples with prayers often repeated and unceasing, nevertheless found no remedy for their disease, but either grew worse or died; and never was any one of these recalled from death to life by the work of any god (Arnobius, book 1, p. 29)?

In a similar manner also Cyril of Alexandria, to Julian

the emperor, replies. For that most celebrated Apostate objected that Christ had done nothing worth recording, unless curing the blind and the lame in the villages of Bethsaida and adjuring those seized by a demon were to be held some great deed. Cyril, however, refutes this witless cavil thus. First he denies that so few miracles were performed by Christ, and shows that many more, and far more worthy of admiration, were wrought. Then by the testimony of the prince of poets he plainly proves that no dead man was ever raised to life, either by Jupiter or by any other god of the heathen: (Cyril of Alexandria, book 6, against Julian, p. 193 and following) "And yet we shall find your supreme Zeus, O you there, and together with him the others too, whom you indeed say are gods, unable to snatch those who have been caught out of the snares of death; and moreover the best of poets confirms us in this, saying:

But truly death, common to all, not even the gods / can ward off even from a man dear to them, whenever / the destructive fate of grievous death lays hold of him."

And yet we shall find that supreme Jupiter of yours, and the others with him whom you maintain are gods, too weak to be able to rescue those entangled in the snares of death; in which matter the prince of poets confirms us with these words:

But truly death, common to all, not even the gods themselves / can keep away even from a beloved man, whenever at last / the destructive fate of harsh death has seized [him].

But Origen pursues these matters more fully, and anyone may easily consult him (Origen, book 1, against Celsus, p. 94 and following; Arnobius, book 1, p. 29).

Nor, further, does Arnobius allow it to be objected against him that the gods brought help not to bad men but to good ones. For Christ, Who gave life back to the dead, came to the aid of all, both good and bad, without any distinction, which belongs to divine power. And what of this, that he who says that help is brought to the sick by the gods on account of their merits leaves it in doubt whether the one who is relieved was not healed by chance, and whether another is not relieved because his disease could not be cured by any help of the gods?

But Arnobius presses his adversaries far more sharply and vehemently still (ibid., p. 30), and insists that Christ not only performed very many miracles, but also gave to fishermen, craftsmen, rustics and other men of that kind, as we said before, the power of doing those very same things, without any pretence or outside help, and in His name alone. What these were he briefly reviews, and compares them with the miracles of Christ, and from this concludes that nothing whatever admirable was done by Him which He did not grant to them to do. Then he argues thus: "To be able to transfer your right to a man, and to bestow on a most frail creature what you alone can do, and to make it share in the doing, belongs to a power set above all things, and holding beneath itself the causes of all things and the natures of reasons and faculties." By divine power, therefore, not by magical virtue, Christ, in granting to the disciples the power of working miracles equal to His own, both Himself

as the true God and the truth of His religion most invincibly proved.

And certainly neither did Jupiter ever bestow on any mortal, whether a Curio, or a pontifex maximus, or a Flamen Dialis, nor did any magus, whether Armenius, or Pamphilus, or Zoroaster, ever bestow the power of performing such great miracles as Christ bestowed on His disciples, nay, not even of driving away the slightest disease (ibid.).

Article IV.

How from this whole discussion the senseless arguments of the Socinians and of the atheists against the miracles of Christ and of His disciples are overthrown.

By the same arguments by which we have seen the truth of the miracles wrought by Christ and His disciples asserted by Arnobius, the opinions, or rather the monstrosities of opinions, of certain more recent Socinians, and of others who wish to be called Christians, are certainly overthrown from their foundations. For these men, worse than the heathen themselves, strive with one and the same stroke of the pen to tear down all miracles wrought whether by Christ the Lord or by anyone else whatever, while they most impudently affirm that none can be done even by God Himself. For the laws of nature, as they prate, and its order, which are themselves the decrees of God, cannot in any way ever be disturbed. Wherefore they conclude that all the decrees of God are no less immutable than God Himself. By miracles, therefore, they say, or by other prodigies, if any could ever have been done, the divine nature, and much more the truth of the Christian religion, is destroyed rather than asserted and established.

But who can bear the most demented rashness of those impious men? We have demonstrated with the utmost certainty that very many miracles were done by Christ and His disciples which far surpass the order of nature and its powers, and do these men, with astonishing impudence, take away from God Himself the power of doing them? Is not the inference from act to possibility valid, as the scholastics say? Ought not the Socinians first to have proved that no miracles were ever done, before denying the divine power of doing them? But how can they deny what the heathen could never in any way deny, nor even dissemble, except with an altogether intolerable and most impudent rashness? For the miracles of Christ and of His disciples are no less certain than it is established that the cities of Rome, Constantinople, Nineveh and other most celebrated ones, which were afterwards destroyed, were built.

Then again, what else can those wicked men understand by the laws and order of nature, except those which have been imposed by some spiritual principle, separate from all matter? But that principle is God Himself, the Almighty, Who by decrees made by His divine will created, rules, administers and governs all things. And that will of God is entirely free, always its own master, and subject to no other. Wherefore, just as He imposed the laws and order of nature, so He can suspend, interrupt and change these things imposed by Himself. Hence Arnobius rightly said of Christ and of God: “Than the sun

itself it is clearer that He was more powerful than the fates are, since He loosed and overcame those things which had been bound fast by perpetual bonds and by immovable necessity (Arnobius, book 2, page 28). By these words he plainly signifies that these bonds were perpetual, and that this necessity was immovable, only so long as God and Christ willed it and it pleased Him.

We know indeed that it is asserted, utterly foolishly and absurdly, by certain of these men, the most wicked of all, that by the name of God nothing else is to be understood than matter and the fixed laws of its motion, which they have pretended can be changed by no one whatever. But these men ought to have explained to us how, or by whom, those laws were established. For no one could ever say on any reasoning that they were enacted either by themselves, or by chance changes of matter, or by some necessity. Therefore they were established by another. But that other is God Himself, Who, as we have said, can change them at His will. And indeed that they were changed by Him is most invincibly proved by the so many and so great miracles of Christ and of His followers, which, as we have seen, not even the most obstinate of the gentiles were able to deny.

But more recent heretics, Christians in name only, and bolder than any heathens whatever, still insist that this common opinion about the miracles of Christ arose from the fact that the peoples, recognizing neither all their circumstances nor their true cause, believed them to have been done above the order of nature. But these are great and most shameless lies of wicked men. For of all those miracles which are related in the sacred Scriptures and by our Arnobius, the individual circumstances, namely what they were, by whom, when, where and how they were done, are set out so vividly and so precisely that nothing clearer or more evident could be desired. And, to pass over very many things, the circumstances of what deeds, I ask you, are described more plainly and more lucidly than those of the miracles by which Christ is related to have recalled Lazarus and others from death to life, and to have bestowed the power of seeing that had been denied by nature? Moreover, did not the heathens and the Jews, the deadly enemies of Christ and of the religion founded by Him, search out with the greatest diligence they could whether any circumstance, even the least, was lacking in the miracles of Christ and His disciples, by which they might convict them of some fraud or falsehood? Yet although they spared no effort and labour in investigating this, they were never able to detect anything in which they fell short of true miracles in the least degree. Nor was it of less concern to the Christians to search out each and every circumstance of these miracles, by which they were led to reject the religion of their fathers and to profess, as we have said, the far harder religion of the Christians. With what face, then, do impious men after so many centuries dare to object that the circumstances of those miracles were not examined by those to whom nothing could ever have mattered more, and that with an utterly incredible credulity, without ever examining them, they at once gave their name to the Christian religion at no uncertain peril of life? But to linger longer in refuting such absurd fabrications of opinions, of a man

would be [the part] who immoderately abuses the leisure and patience of others. For these things have been sufficiently refuted from what has been said, and will be further refuted by what is to be said in our subsequent dissertations concerning these same miracles of Christ and of His disciples.

Chapter IV.

Other arguments of Arnobius are examined, by which he demonstrates the truth of the Christian religion.

Article One.

How the truth of the Christian religion is demonstrated by Arnobius from the most dreadful and hitherto unheard-of torments of almost innumerable martyrs of every sex, age and condition, endured most steadfastly for the confession of Christ even to the last breath of life.

Arnobius draws another argument for asserting the truth of the Christian religion from the torments which innumerable martyrs of every condition, age and sex most steadfastly endured in its defence, even to the last breath and a most cruel death. But what these torments were, how great, and how horrible and monstrous, I would have you learn from our Arnobius. For he, addressing the heathen openly, sets them forth in such a way that no one could withhold belief from him: "You yourselves," he says (Arnobius, bk. 1, p. 14, and bk. 4, p. 158), "when a savage lust has come upon you, strip us of our goods, drive us from our ancestral homes, inflict capital punishments, torture, tear apart, burn, and at the last throw us to wild beasts and to be mangled by monsters." Do you see with what great torments, with spoliation of goods, exile, the tearing apart of limbs, fire, flames, and mangling by wild beasts and monsters, the heathen tried in vain to compel the Christians to forswear their religion? Wherefore in another book, where he attacks the rites of the heathen, he inveighs against them thus: "Is it to such rites as these that you drive us with flames, exiles, slaughters and every other kind of punishment, and by fear of cruelty (Arnobius, bk. 5, p. 177)?" You surely understand that by these words, "every other kind of punishment", are comprehended all kinds of punishment, even the most atrocious, which the incredible ferocity and fury of the heathen, or rather of the demons, could devise. But what need is there of interpretation, when these things are openly explained by him: "What," he says, "can we do against obstinate passions? What against men who threaten swords and devise new penalties?" (The same, bk. 6, p. 197.) Penalties, without doubt, such as no man, however barbarous and savage and devoid of all humanity, had hitherto been able to devise and contrive.

And that Christians were harassed and put to death by most dreadful torments of this kind, not rarely indeed but very often, our author signifies in these by no means obscure words: "If we," and the heathen themselves, "were to undermine faith in your gods in as many ways and with as many arguments, no one would doubt that, roused by anger and fury, you would demand fires, wild beasts and swords, and other kinds of punishment against us, with which you are wont to slake your thirst by your craving for our blood" (The same, bk. 3, p. 1221).

From this testimony of our Arnobius alone you will easily gather how great the multitude of martyrs was even in his time. We note this in passing so that all may understand how false is the opinion about their fewness.

But come, let us hear our Arnobius further as he discourses on martyrs of every condition, age and sex: "Slaves," he says (Idem, bk. 2, p. 44 ff.), "prefer to be subjected by their masters to whatever tortures they determine, wives to be released from their marriages, children to be disinherited by their parents, rather than break the Christian faith and lay down the oaths of the saving warfare." So far, however, were the heathen from shaking the faith of the Christians by so many and such great tortures that, on the contrary, that faith, as Arnobius testifies, ever drove down deeper roots, and, more firmly established, ever grew the more with the greater number of martyrs. Therefore he goes on in this manner: "Although so many kinds of punishment have been set out by you for those who follow the laws of this religion, the thing increases all the more, and against all threats and the prohibitions of terrors the people resists more spiritedly, and is roused to zeal for believing by the very goads of prohibition." (Idem, p. 45.)

Nor indeed is there any reason why anyone should suspect that this was said by him rashly and falsely, or too much exaggerated. For Tertullian says no less clearly: "Nor does each more refined cruelty of yours avail anything; rather it is an enticement to the sect. We become more numerous as often as we are mown down by you: the blood of Christians is seed... Nor do your words find so many disciples as Christians do by teaching through deeds. That very obstinacy which you reproach is a teacher. For who is not stirred by the contemplation of it to inquire what there is within the matter? Who, when he has inquired, does not approach; and when he has approached, does not long to suffer (Tertullian, Apology, ch. 50)?" Let no one think, however, that this slipped from him while writing with too little attentive a mind. For in another book he repeats the same: "Nor will this sect fail, which you may know is then the more built up when it seems to be cut down. For anyone beholding such great endurance, as if struck by some scruple, is both kindled to inquire what is the cause, and, when he has come to know the truth, he himself at once follows." (Idem, book to Scapula, ch. 5). But of these things more fully when we discuss each of those books of Tertullian.

By the same argument both Leo the Great and other writers of ours, as no one is unaware, have most evidently demonstrated the truth of the Christian religion (Leo the Great, sermon 1, on Saints Peter and Paul). But above the rest Lactantius, the disciple of our Arnobius, presses it against the heathen, and certain objections of those same gentiles, by which they tried to weaken its force and strength, he refutes and, as we shall see in its place, utterly overthrows (Lactantius, Institutes, bk. 5, ch. 13, p. 494, and ch. 19, p. 518).

Now therefore, if you please, let us weigh what conclusion our Author draws from this: « Do you really believe, » he says (Arnobius, bk. 2, p. 45), « that these things happen at random and to no purpose? That these minds are taken up by chance onsets? Is this then not divine and sacred, or without

God, that such great conversions of their minds take place; that, although executioners, hooks and other innumerable tortures, as we have said, hang over those who are about to believe, they, as though seized by a certain sweetness and by love of all the virtues, accept the teachings once they have come to know them, and set the friendship of Christ before all the things of the world? » So many, he says, and such diverse kinds of most exquisite and almost incredible punishments could not have been endured for so long, and with such great fortitude of mind, by men and women of weak and indeed fragile nature, without divine help.

Lactantius, whom we have just praised, further supports his teacher: « For when the common people see, » he says, « men torn apart by various kinds of torments, and keeping an unconquered patience amid exhausted executioners, they judge what is the fact, that neither the agreement of so many nor the perseverance of the dying is vain, and that patience itself could not endure such great tortures without God » (Lactantius, book 5, chapter 13, page 495). You see, then, how clearly he, after our Arnobius and after Minucius Felix, cited by us elsewhere (Dissertation on Minucius, chapter 6, article 3), asserts that that altogether wonderful patience of the martyrs was inspired by God Himself. But God confers this divine aid of His, and extraordinary help, only on those who are devoted to His true worship and to the true religion, and not on others, who spurn Him, reject Him and always oppose Him. Otherwise, indeed, He would be contrary to Himself. Therefore the worship of the Christians, who, with God's help, suffered so many and such great things so constantly for the defence of the profession of their religion, was true and pleasing to God, and their religion too must have been true, just as that of the heathens was false.

Article II.

How Arnobius further vindicates the truth of the Christian religion from its doctrine, received with the greatest speed throughout the whole world by countless men devoted to the worship of the gods.

Arnobius most clearly demonstrates the truth of the Christian religion by a third argument, drawn from its doctrine and from its most rapid and wonderful propagation through all parts of the world. For what, he says, is its doctrine? It teaches that there is only one God, and that He is the supreme Lord and Prince of all things, and that therefore He is to be prayed to and adored only for our own sake. It teaches that nothing is to be asked of Him except what is just, honourable and worthy of His hearing. It teaches that nothing is to be granted to the wicked desire and lust of men, but that both are always to be resisted; that effort is to be given to innocence and integrity of morals ever without any intermission, and that we are to be cleansed from every stain by the cutting away of all offences: « We Christians are nothing else, » are the words of Arnobius, « than worshippers, under Christ as teacher, of the supreme King and Prince; nothing else, if you consider it, will you find to be at stake in this religion. This is the sum of the whole activity, this the appointed goal of the divine offices, this the end. Before Him we all prostrate ourselves according to custom,

Him we adore with united prayers, from Him we ask for things just and honourable and worthy of His hearing. Not that He Himself desires us to be suppliants, or loves to have us prostrate, and (or 'or') to see the veneration of so many thousands. This advantage is ours, and looks to the account of our own benefit. For since we are prone to faults, and through the vice of an inborn weakness [prone] to the various appetites of lust, He suffers Himself always to be conceived in our thoughts, so that while we pray to Him and strive to deserve His gifts, we may receive the will to innocence and purge ourselves from every stain by the cutting away of all offences. » (Arnobius, book 1, pp. 14 and 15.) In short, the Christians proclaimed that all the gods of the gentiles were false, rejected every one of their impious rites, superstitious mysteries, sacrifices and festivals, and plainly and utterly condemned their corrupt morals.

But the truer, more dutiful, more powerful and more just the Christian religion was, as he goes on to say, the more difficult and laborious it surely was to persuade the gentiles of this very thing. For how great a burden and toil was it, I ask you, for the unskilled, unlearned and rude disciples of Christ to call those same gentiles away from the most ancient worship of gods and idols, and from other superstitions which for so many ages they had sucked in with their nurse's milk as pious? How much labour and difficulty was there in bringing innumerable thousands of men to the profession of the Christian religion, which they believed new and impious? With how much straining of mind was there need to lead them across from a soft, delicate and lustful manner of living, which they thought lawful, to another plainly hard, austere, severe, and utterly opposed to the natural appetite of men? How arduous and laborious, finally, once the almost incredible obstinacy of such men was broken and overcome, to bring them to the mind of believing true the teachings of the Christian faith concerning the supreme divinity of Christ, His human birth and death, and the other matters of which we shall treat below?

Yet these very followers of Christ, however rude and ignorant, however destitute of human help, and indeed with all men of every kind, plebeians, nobles, princes, kings, emperors, priests and sacred pontiffs, resisting them with every force and onset of mind, art, strength and fury, spread this very religion through the whole world, by their preaching alone and the power of miracles, in the shortest interval of time. And they brought to it not merely certain women or ignorant men, but also orators endowed with great talents, grammarians, rhetoricians, jurists, physicians and philosophers. But it is surely better to hear our author saying these things: « Do not, » he says, « at least these arguments for believing win your faith: that already through all lands, in so short a space of time, the mysteries of this immense Name have been spread abroad? That there is now no nation of such barbarous manners and so ignorant of gentleness that it has not, turned by love of Him, softened its harshness and, having taken on tranquillity, passed over into peaceable dispositions? That, with such great talents

endowed, orators, grammarians, rhetoricians, men learned in the law, and physicians, and philosophers too who search into hidden things, seek out these teachings, scorning those in which they had trusted before » (Arnobius, book 2, p. 44).

He repeats quite often that the whole world had thus been filled with followers of the Christian religion (the same, book 1, p. 33; book 2, p. 50); and we have already noticed that the various regions lying towards the rising and the setting sun which professed this religion of ours are carefully and diligently listed by him (above, this chapter, article 1).

But how, I ask, could so many men, separated by so great a distance of place, outstanding in singular talent and learning, so stubbornly attached to their own opinions and prejudices, diametrically opposed to the Christian faith, have laid these aside in the shortest time, and embraced of their own accord and by their own judgement this [faith], which at that time brought with it in this world almost nothing but punishments and certain death? Is not the truth of the Christian religion demonstrated by this very great miracle of divine providence no less certainly, clearly and effectively than by any clearer argumentation of human ingenuity?

Chapter V.

The arguments of the heathen against the truth of the Christian religion are examined.

Article One.

How absurdly the heathen objected that the Christian religion, inasmuch as it was new, should be rejected, and that the ancestral rites of their fathers and forefathers should be kept, which they themselves had changed or abolished in the classes of the people, in the observations of the sky, in the announcements of adverse omens, the assemblies, the signs from the citadel, the fetials, the formal demand for redress, the auspices taken from the points [of weapons], the Annarian laws, the Cincian, the Censorial, and the inner shrines.

Although the heathen left no stone unturned and brought every engine to bear to overturn the arguments which we have so far set out for establishing the truth of the Christian religion, yet they put forward almost nothing other than warmed-over cabbage, as they say, a reproach often repeated and always overthrown. For they cried out that the religion of the Christians was new and had arisen almost a few days before; but that their own, handed down to them by their parents from remotest antiquity, could not rightly and deservedly be deserted and repudiated by them: "You are accustomed," says Arnobius, "to object against us that our religion is new and born almost a few days ago, and that you could not abandon the ancient religion of your fathers and be led over to barbarous and foreign rites" (Arnobius, book 2, p. 90). We have shown in the preceding dissertation how this customary and long since outworn argumentation is pressed by the heathen and refuted by Minucius (Dissertation on Minucius Felix, chapter 14, articles 1 and 2). But since it is overthrown in various ways by various authors, we must now investigate by what reasons it is demolished by Arnobius.

He therefore makes plain how full of futility and of the utmost frivolity this argumentation is. For it is implanted and inborn in the minds of all that they put good things before bad, and

useful things before useless, and exchange them (Arnob., bk. II, p. 90). Not the change itself, therefore, but the cause of the change ought to be weighed. Yet the gentiles could not deny that from the most remote age of mankind very many changes had been made by them, in human affairs as much as in divine. For in the earlier and most ancient ages, says our author, men, once grain and clothing had been discovered and the construction of houses devised, abandoned their former use of acorns, arbutus berries, skins, huts and caves. And there indeed he seems to have had in view the poems of Juvenal, Lucretius and other poets, which anyone may easily read in their books (Juvenal, Satire 6, beginning; Lucretius, bk. V, lines 937 ff. and 957 ff.). But no one ever said that these changes were bad and to be condemned.

Moreover, if any change whatever of ancient customs and rites is a crime, the Romans are beyond doubt guilty of this crime, as is proved by Arnobius in a brief enumeration indeed, but one which will seem to many not clear enough (Arnob., bk. II, p. 91). Therefore what is obscure there must be explained in a few words. First, then, he relates that the Roman people was once divided into five classes. How certain this is, however, and what those classes of the Roman people were, instituted formerly by Servius Tullius, Livy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus and A. Gellius teach us. Some, however, think that in his text, as in that of our Arnobius, six classes should be read (Livy, bk. I, § 43 and bk. IV, § 4; Dionys. Halic., bk. IV, Antiq. Rom., p. 221 ff.; Gellius, bk. 10, Noct. Attic., ch. 28, p. 573). But Lipsius observes that the sixth class was formerly empty and exempt (Lipsius, vol. III, bk. I, De Milit. Rom., dial. 2, p. 15). Whether this suffices to untie the knot of this difficulty, let others judge. Whatever the case, it is quite certain that these classes were changed by the Romans.

Then next Arnobius: "Do you elect magistrates through the people? Do you know what the military, urban and common comitia are?" (Arnob., bk. II, p. 91.) He reproaches the Romans because these things had not only been changed by them but almost consigned to oblivion. Now the comitia were of various kinds: some, as Livy reports, curiate, which concerned military matters; others centuriate, by which consuls and military tribunes were elected (Livy, bk. I, § 60 and bk. V, § 52). How these were first instituted, and afterwards conducted under the consuls, Dionysius of Halicarnassus clearly relates (Dionys. Halic., bk. IV, Antiquit. Rom., p. 224, and bk. VII, p. 474 ff.). What the curiate and centuriate comitia were, A. Gellius explains from Felix and Labeo, as do Manutius and Nicolaus Gruchius, who published books on them (Gellius, bk. IV, Noct. Att., ch. 27; Manutius and Gruchius, vol. 1, Antiquit. Roman.). Alexander ab Alexandro and Tiraquellus also observe more about these same comitia; you may consult them, as also many others (Alexander and Tiraquellus, bk. IV, Genial. Dier., ch. 3).

Meanwhile let us follow Arnobius: "Do you," he says, "watch the sky, or make public business void by announcements of ill omen?" Now to "watch" (servare) is to announce something from observation of the sky; what it is to "announce adversely" (obnunciare) you will learn from these words of Donatus on Terence: "He who announces a bad thing makes an adverse announcement (obnuntiat); he who announces a good one makes an announcement (annuntiat). For properly the augurs are said to make an adverse announcement when they have seen something of evil omen and sinister. So 'obnuntio' [means] I announce an imminent evil, as if 'omen nuntio'. For from this comes the etymology of this word" (Donatus, on Terence, Adelphi, act 4, scene 4). Cicero uses both words, and the first more often, and especially where he writes to Atticus in these words: "He has given public notice that on all comitial days he will watch the sky..... This, however, is the sum of it: unless C. Appius had made an adverse announcement to Milo, the comitia would have taken place" (Cicero, book 4, Letter 3, to Atticus, page 239, line 42). But elsewhere, where he speaks of the auspices: "Now do you suppose that those who took the auspices were not themselves accustomed to watch the sky? Now they give orders to the keeper of the chickens, and he reports back" (the same, book 2, On Divination, page 289, line 44). But Lucan, before our Arnobius, complained in these verses of that former custom being wholly neglected or already antiquated (Lucan, book 6, verse 426 and following):

It does not please [him] to have asked what Dodona, nurse of the first crops, utters with the mouth of Jupiter, who can know the fates from the entrails, who can interpret birds, who can watch the lightnings of the sky and scrutinize the stars with Assyrian care.

Arnobius goes on: "When you prepare wars, do you display a signal from the citadel, or do you carry out the fetial rites? Do you, through a clarigation, demand back things that have been seized?" There he mentions three things for preparing, or declaring, war. First, the signal or standard displayed from the citadel, of which Virgil speaks (book 8, Aeneid, verse 1):

When Turnus raised the signal of war from the Laurentine citadel....

"Since," as Servius remarks on this passage, "a standard used to be placed on the citadel, to be a token of an army levied." Concerning this custom too we read these words written by Festus (Festus, at the word Justi): "Thirty days were called 'the lawful days', when an army had been levied and the standard placed on the citadel." You will see more on that custom in Dio Cassius and Lipsius (Dio Cassius, book 27, p. 47; Lipsius, book 1, On Rustic Affairs, chap. 2, p. 18 and following).

Secondly Arnobius names the fetial rites, because the fetials declared war in the name of the Roman people, as one may learn from Livy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Gellius and Lactantius (Livy, book 1, §§ 24 and 32; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, book 2, page 130; Gellius, book 16, Attic Nights, chap. 4; Lactantius, book 6, Divine Institutes, chap. 9, page 572). Concerning these, and the clarigation which our Author names in the third place, Servius in his commentaries on Virgil already cited has this: "When the Romans wished to declare war, the Pater Patratus, that is the chief of the fetials, set out to the frontiers of the enemy, and, having first spoken certain solemn formulas, said with a clear voice that he declared war for certain reasons, either because they had injured allies, or because they would neither return the animals carried off," or the things seized, as Arnobius says, "nor the guilty, and this was called clarigation from the clearness of the voice. After this clarigation, a spear into their territory

sent, the beginning of the battle was already indicated (Serv. on bk. IV, Aeneid IX, v. 53). » He adds, however, on the following book of Virgil, where he relates many things similar to these: « Clarigatio is so called either from the clear voice (clara voce) which the Paterpatratus used, [or] ἀπὸ τῆς κλήρου, that is, from lot, for it was by the lot of war that they invaded the lands of the enemy (the same, on bk. X, v. 14). Pliny, for his part, committed to writing these things about clarigatio, which bear on our subject: « Always, when envoys were sent to the enemy and to make the clarigatio, that is, to demand back clearly things that had been seized, one of them in every case was called the Verbenarius (Plin., Natural History bk. XXII, ch. 2, p. 179). » Brissonius has made further observations on clarigatio and the fetials, which it will not be wholly useless labour for you to have read (Brisson., De Formulis bk. IV, p. 383 ff.).

Arnobius continues: « When you face the hazard of war, do you take hope of battle and take auspices from points (Arnob., bk. II, p. 91)? » Cicero had earlier more than once found fault with the Romans because they had rashly changed these things: « That the business of war should be conducted, » these are his very words, « our ancestors would not allow except with auspices taken; how many years it is now that wars have been conducted by propraetors and proconsuls, who do not have the auspices! And so neither do all cross over with auspices taken, nor do they take auspices by the tripudium. For as to auspices from points, which is wholly a military auspice, M. Marcellus, that man five times consul, already omitted it entirely, though he was at once commander and an excellent augur (Cic., De Divinatione bk. II, p. 290, l. 14). » In another book, however, he testifies that this was omitted through the negligence of the nobility (the same, De Natura deorum bk. II, p. 215, l. 5).

But what those auspices from points were has not yet been sufficiently established, and the opinions of authors about them vary. For some suspect that in Cicero's text agminibus should be read in place of acuminibus. But all the manuscript codices, both of Cicero and of our Arnobius, oppose this very slight conjecture. Some therefore think that the points were the summits of mountains, which it was the custom to climb in order to take auguries. To others they seem to be the points or beaks of birds, which were observed in the tripudium solistimum. But both opinions seem to conflict with the words of Cicero above, in which he asserts that the auspice from points was wholly military. Others therefore hold that the points meant are those of javelins, darts and swords, which, if they flashed with a certain fearsome gleam, foretold a happy outcome of the battle, but otherwise, if they were blunt and dirty or covered with rust, an unhappy one. And they think it can be proved that Arnobius had regard to this from these words of Dionysius of Halicarnassus on the battle of the Romans with the Sabines: « From the javelins fixed before the tents (these are the weapons of the Romans which they hurl at the first encounter).... from these javelins, I say, flames flashed out around the tips of the points, and gave a brightness to the whole camp, just like torches, until far into the night; and from this sight they understood (as the interpreters of such portents also affirmed, and as anyone could easily conjecture) that a swift and splendid victory was being foretold to them by God, since all things yield to fire, and there is nothing that is not consumed by the force of fire. » From the

javelins fixed beside the tents; these are missiles of the Romans, which they hurl when they come to close quarters..... From these javelins, then, flames were kindled about the tips of the points, and throughout the whole camp there was a light, as if from torches, and it lasted for a great part of the night. From this portent they understood, as the diviners declared, and it was not difficult for all men to infer, that the divine power was signifying to them a swift and brilliant victory, since everything yields to fire, and there is nothing that is not destroyed by fire (Dionys., book 5, Roman Antiquities, p. 3123). It would not be wholly remote from likelihood that Arnobius had regard to this ancient custom, if Dionysius had said that it was a customary rite, and practised as often as it was public.

But to some it seems more probable that they were the points of the military standards, which, set upon rather long poles, ended in an iron tip. For if, when the camp was moved from its place, the standard-bearer pulled them easily out of the enemy's soil, a favourable omen and certain victory followed from it; but if he drew them out with difficulty, an ill presage and no uncertain disaster was foreshown. But if anyone should incline to this opinion, he must at any rate observe that this is thus ascribed by Servius to the fetials: "After the thirty-third day from when they had demanded restitution from the enemy, the fetials used to send a spear (Serv., on book 9 of the Aeneid, verse 53)." Arnobius, however, clearly distinguishes these from the points. Therefore, if the last explanation should please anyone, he must certainly say that Arnobius is speaking of the leaders invading the enemy's territory, whom, as Servius observes in the same place following Varro, "for the sake of the omen they used to send first into that territory, so that they might take a place for the camp." Whether this opinion or another is to be preferred to the rest, now weigh and pronounce.

Arnobius goes on, and thus refutes the fickleness and inconstancy of the heathen: "Do you keep the Annarian laws in entering upon offices, the Cincian in gifts and in presents, the censorial in restraining expenses (Arnob., book 2, p. 91)?" Now the Annarian law was the name of that by which it had been enacted that new magistrates be created each year (Festus, under the word ANNARIA). And a complaint of Cicero is read about this law being set aside, similar to that of our Arnobius (Cicero, Philippic 1, p. 565). But who, unless he is wholly a stranger and foreigner in Roman history, can be unaware how often these laws were scorned and trampled underfoot? See Robortello on the Magistrates of the Empire (Robert., vol. 3, Roman Antiquities, p. 38).

The Cincian law, again, was carried by M. Cincius, tribune of the plebs, in the year of the City 549, by which, as Cornelius Tacitus says, it was provided of old that no one should accept money or a gift for pleading a case (Cornelius Tacitus, Annals book 1, near the beginning). Concerning it, without doubt, Pliny wrote to Rufus in these words: "There was appended to the edict this decree of the senate: All who had any lawsuit were required, before they pleaded, to swear that they had given, promised or guaranteed nothing to anyone for advocacy. For by these words, and a thousand besides, it was forbidden both that advocacy be sold and that it be bought. Yet once the

business was completed, it permitted the giving of money only up to ten thousand" (Pliny, book 5, last letter, to Rufus). Livy, for his part: « What revived the Cincian law on gifts and presents, except that the plebs had already begun to be tributary and stipendiary to the senate?» (Livy, book 34, § 4.)

4. By the censorial laws, which were also called sumptuary and food laws, the greater expenses and luxury of dinners and banquets were restrained. One of them was the one which Livy, just cited, records as having been carried by Oppius, tribune of the plebs (Ibid., § 1). But besides this, Aulus Gellius and Macrobius enumerate the Orchian, Fannian, Didian, Licinian, Cornelian, Sullan, Lepidan, Antian and Julian laws, and the edict of the emperor Augustus, or of Tiberius, as Gellius notes (Gellius, Attic Nights book 2, chapter 4; Macrobius, Saturnalia book 3, chapter 17). Suetonius, however, writes that a sumptuary law was enacted or revised by Augustus. See the books of Manutius and of Antonius Augustinus on the laws (Suetonius, book 2, on Augustus, chapter 34; Manutius, book on the Roman Laws, chapter 18; Antonius Augustinus, book 1 on the laws, chapter 18). But Tertullian, before our Arnobius, had questioned the heathen, who reproached the Christian religion with its novelty, in these words: « Where have those laws gone which suppressed expense and ostentation? which ordered that not more than a hundred asses be put down for a dinner, and that not more than one hen be served, and that one not fattened?... For I see both dinners of a hundred, which must now be called dinners of a hundred thousand sesterces, and silver mines drawn out into dishes (it is little if they are of senators, and not of freedmen or of those still breaking the whips) » (Tertullian, Apology, chapter 6). But of these things we [speak] in their proper place (Dissertation on this book, chapter 19, article 2).

After this Arnobius: « Do you keep perpetual fires burning in the inner shrines and the coligines?» (Arnobius, book 2, page 91.) In some editions one reads: In the inner shrines of Vesta. In the last edition, however, the particle et has been removed. But on what authority these things were done, no one has told us. Lipsius, for his part, advised by Rosweyde, observes that in a certain manuscript codex is written: «In pene impenetralibus et colignis» (Lipsius, Syntagma on Vesta and the Vestals, volume 3, page 619). Certainly in the royal manuscript codex one has simply: Impenetralibus et colignis. It is no wonder, therefore, if that corrupt passage has tormented learned men not a little.

The same Lipsius thinks that it can be explained in two ways. First, that these words of Arnobius are to be referred not to Vesta but to a certain private rite, by which in ancient times fire was kept and tended in the inner part of houses and in the kitchen. In confirmation of this conjecture he adduces these words of Varro: The kitchen (culina) is so called because there they tended (colebant) the fire.

Then he says that these words can also be understood of the public Vesta, and that there one should write in culignis; so that the sense of Arnobius would be that the fire was formerly stored in drinking-bowls and earthenware vessels, just as even now it is usually kept alive under ashes. But against the first explanation stands the fact that Varro speaks of the common and ordinary use of fire; Arnobius either of the sacred [fire], or at least of that which

the gentiles had abolished. But against the second there stands this objection, that, as he himself admits, the noun culigna in that same Varro, in Festus and in Livy rather signifies a drinking vessel, in which wine was offered in sacrifices. Then again, what would a mention of Vesta be doing there, of which there is no trace in the text of Arnobius?

Moreover, the whole difficulty of this obscure saying of Arnobius lies chiefly in the single word coliginis. That there were indeed inner hearths we learn from these verses of Catullus (Catullus, Epigram to Marcellus), where he speaks of Troy:

To which, it is said, the Greek youth, hastening together from every side, then deserted their inner hearths.

Servius too observes that penetralia is used by Virgil (Virgil, Aeneid 6.71) to mean the secret places of temples, namely in this verse:

For you too great sanctuaries await in our realm.

And that there were perpetual hearths in these, who will not readily persuade himself?

It remains, then, only to decide whether anything ought to be restored in place of the word coliginis. But, you will say, why should one not read in culinis? For Vossius, following Scaliger, shows from an old inscription that there were kitchens in the little shrines of Hercules, where those about to set out abroad used to sacrifice. Not badly, perhaps, if you prove that perpetual hearths were once kept there. Yet may one not add, in confirmation of this conjecture, that by the heathen, as we shall say below, the hearths of the genii were held to be gods, and that for this reason, for their worship and honour, fire was once kept in kitchens and on hearths, as the Varro cited above noted; but that this custom was neglected by later generations, since it had become too troublesome and inconvenient for them?

Moreover, there is no lack of those who would retain the word coliginis, which they consider derived from the verb colo, that is, "I inhabit" (Salmasius, in the Exercitationes Plinianae, pp. 270, 587 and 914). To them, therefore, it has seemed that this word, coligo, signifies in our author the same as house, dwelling and habitation. But in the text of Arnobius the particle et would have to be removed, and it would have to be proved by at least some example by whom the noun coligo was used in that sense. See, then, whether the noun culinis seems to come closer to Arnobius's purpose. For we dare to decide nothing certain on this matter without the help of some more correct manuscript.

Then next Arnobius says: "You make tables sacred by the setting on of salt-cellars, and by images of the gods" (Arnobius, book 2, p. 91). Now a salinum was a small vessel in which salt was customarily kept for the use of the table and of sacrifice. For Porphyrion, the ancient commentator on Horace, says: "Properly, a salinum is a small dish in which first-fruits were offered to the gods with salt" (Porphyrion, on Horace, Odes 2.16). You see, surely, for what reason Arnobius called tables sacred from the setting on of this salt-cellar.

And how sacred and dear this was to the heathen you will learn without doubt from these words of Livy: "Those who have a wife or daughters are to leave an ounce's weight of gold for each; of silver, those who have sat in the curule chair, the trappings of a horse and pounds by weight; so that a salt-cellar and a small dish

they may be able to have for the sake of the gods" (Livy, book 26, § 36). Valerius Maximus, moreover, infers from this that there was silver in the houses of C. Fabricius and Q. Aemilius Papus, because each had a dish of the gods and a salt-cellar (Valerius Maximus, book 4, chapter 4, § 3, p. 217). Hence too that irony of Persius (Persius, Satire 3, line 25):

You have a modest portion of spelt, a salt-cellar clean and without stain: what should you fear? And the dish that tends the hearth is safe.

More on the salt-cellar in Lipsius, book 1 of the Saturnalia, chapter 2, volume 3, page 484. Arnobius added: and to the images of the gods, under whose protection were doubtless either the sacred tables or the others at which the heathen reclined after first invoking the gods. Is not that one among these gods of whom Statius sings (Statius, book 1, Silvae 6, on Hercules the champion, line 31):

genius and guardian of the chaste table.

And a little after (in the same place, 50):

the Pellaean ruler will hold [him], a venerable deity for the joyful tables.

But the heathen afterwards rejected these things as old wives' superstitions.

Article II.

On other changes of the heathen in arranging the couches of brides and in summoning the genii of husbands, and in the brides' hair being dressed with the celibate spear; on the little togas of girls brought to Virginal Fortune, on the wool-working of women and their abstinence from wine; on the white bulls slaughtered on the Alban Mount, on entrails to be offered up thoroughly cooked or half raw, and on the immolation of human heads.

Arnobius goes on and refutes other changes of the heathen in other matters too, of no small moment. And to lay bare their great inconstancy more and more, he addresses them thus: "When you come together in marriage, do you spread the couches with a toga, and summon the genii of husbands?" (Arnobius, book 2, p. 91.) Those couches, as Servius observes, "are properly the genial beds, which are spread for girls who are marrying, so called from the begetting of children" (Servius, on book 6 of the Aeneid, p. 431), or, as Festus says, "in honour of the genius" (Festus, under the word GENIALIS). For the heathen were persuaded, as Augustine noted from Valerius Soranus (Augustine, book 7 of the City [of God], chapter 13, p. 172), and Servius too, that individual men had each been allotted his own genius, which also had power over the things to be begotten. And it was the custom to sacrifice to this same genius, and also to Tellus and Juno, as Servius further says (Servius, in the place cited, p. 440 and p. 323), as the guardians of these things. But they observed this above all in the solemnities of weddings, and then they summoned the genius of the husbands, that the marriage might be happy and auspicious and that children might be raised. For this reason Juvenal assails with these verses those who violated the genial bed, and no doubt the genius of the husband (Juvenal, Satire 6, lines 21 and 22):

It is an ancient and old custom, Postumus, to shake another's bed and to scorn the genius of the sacred couch.

On the genial couch, moreover, and the customary manner of spreading and adorning it, see Apuleius, Lipsius and others (Apuleius, book 10 of the Metamorphoses, at the end; Lipsius, book 2 of the Electa,

chap. 17, p. 264, vol. 1). But the heathen afterwards spurned these customs and rejected them.

It had moreover been an old custom of theirs to "stroke the hair of brides," says Arnobius (Arnob., bk 2, p. 91), "with the celibate spear," that is, as Plutarch writes (Plutarch, Roman Questions, p. 285), to part it with the point of a spear, or with a curved spear, as Ovid sings (Ovid, Fasti bk 2, p. 497):

Nor, you who will seem ripe to your eager mother, / let the curved spear comb your maiden locks.

Of this custom, whose change Arnobius noted, the same Plutarch and Festus give various reasons; consult them (Plutarch, Roman Questions, p. 285; Festus, under the word Celibaris).

It had also once become customary that they should carry the little togas of girls, in the words of Arnobius, to Virginal Fortune (Arnob., bk 2, p. 91). Plutarch, whom we cited just now, has recorded (Plutarch, Roman Questions, p. 281) that Servius, who was said to have exalted the divine power of Fortune most of all, founded various temples to her, of which one was that of Fortuna Virgo, "another of the Virgin." And elsewhere he says (the same, book on the Fortune of the Romans, p. 322 and following): "At the spring which is called the mossy one there is still a shrine of Virgin Fortune," "there is a temple of Virgin Fortune." It is this one, they reckon, of which our Author speaks. Nor are there lacking those who think that she is the same as the one whom Augustine calls the goddess Virginensis, and whom it was the custom to invoke when the girdle of a newly married virgin was loosed (Augustine, City of God bk 4, chap. 11, p. 97).

Mothers of families, moreover, as Arnobius further says, once worked in the halls of their houses and were ordered to abstain from wine (Arnob., bk 2, p. 91). He adds that, for the sake of testing this abstinence, kinsmen by marriage and relatives had the right to kiss them. That women not of the lowest but even of the first rank applied themselves to wool-working and the making of garments is clear from what Suetonius relates of Augustus Caesar: "He seldom wore any clothing other than homespun, made by his wife, his sister, his daughter and his granddaughters" (Suetonius, bk 2, Life of Augustus, chap. 73). And earlier he had said of him what bears more on our purpose: "He so brought up his daughter and granddaughters that he even accustomed them to wool-working, and forbade them to say or do anything except openly and such as might be entered in the daily records" (the same, chap. 64). No doubt for this reason Virgil sang of the cloak of Aeneas woven by Dido in these verses:

and a mantle blazed with Tyrian purple, / hanging down from his shoulders, a gift which wealthy Dido / had made, and had picked out the web with fine gold. (Virgil, Aeneid bk 4, lines 262 and following)

And in the preceding book he records a Phrygian cloak woven by Andromache with her own hands and given to Ascanius with these words:

Take these too, to be for you memorials of my hands, / boy, and to bear witness to the lasting love of Andromache. (The same, bk 3, lines 486 and following)

Finally, to pass over more instances, Alexander the Great is reported to have said to Sysigambis, the mother of King Darius:

Mother, this garment which I am wearing you see to be not only the gift but also the work of my sisters. Arnobius, moreover, reproaches the mothers of families, who no longer gave any labour to wool-working in the halls of their houses. On these matters there is more in Tiraquellus, whom you may consult if you please (Quintus Curtius, book 5, a good way after the beginning; Tiraquellus, on law 10, Connubial Laws, § 38 and following, p. 202 and following).

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, indeed, attests that the use of wine was forbidden to women by Romulus. Polybius, moreover, Plutarch, Pliny and Gellius observe that it was established, as Arnobius says, that their kinsmen should kiss them, for the sake of testing whether they had drunk wine. Tertullian, further, as we shall show in its place, imputes it as a fault to the heathen that they abolished this custom of women abstaining from wine (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, book 2 of the Roman Antiquities, p. 95 and following; Polybius in Athenaeus, book 10 of the Deipnosophists, p. 440 and following; Plutarch, Roman Questions, p. 265; Pliny, book 14 of the Natural History, ch. 13, p. 142; Gellius, book 10 of the Attic Nights, ch. 23; Tertullian, Apology, ch. 6, p. 7; Dissertation on Tertullian, ch. 18, art. 5).

Arnobius presses further, and charges the heathen that, whereas in ancient times they had been permitted to sacrifice only white bulls on the Alban Mount, it was afterwards prescribed by decree of the senate that thenceforth reddish ones should be slain. Now Livy relates that under Tullus, king of the Romans, it rained stones on the Alban Mount, and then, he says: « They seemed to hear a mighty voice from the place on the very summit, [bidding] that the Albans should perform sacred rites after their ancestral fashion, which they had consigned to oblivion, as if they had left the gods too behind together with their fatherland » (Arnobius, book 2, p. 91; Livy, book 1, ch. 31). Elsewhere he introduces Camillus addressing these words to the Romans: « See what difference there is between us and our forefathers. They had left to us certain sacred rites to be performed on the Alban Mount and at Lavinium » (the same, book 5, ch. 52). We also read it handed down in writing by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, book 4, p. 250) that, in order that the treaty struck by Tarquin with the Volsci and Hernici might be perpetual, it was decreed by the unanimous consent of all that a festival should be celebrated every year on a high mountain overhanging Alba, where sacred rites should be performed to Jupiter Latiaris, and a bull should be slain as the common victim of all. Does not Arnobius, then, hint that this bull was white, and complain of the alteration of this rite?

He accuses the same heathen of another change in these words: « Whereas, when Romulus and Pompilius reigned, the entrails were burnt for the gods thoroughly cooked and soft, did you not, under King Tullus, begin to offer them half-raw and still faintly alive? » (Arnobius, book 2, p. 91.) But Livy, after describing the prayers of Scipio, immediately added: « After these prayers, the victim having been slain, he offered the raw entrails into the sea, as the custom is » (Livy, book 29, ch. 27). And Virgil:

And I will offer the entrails into the salt waves. (Virgil, Aeneid, book 5, line 133.)

These things we note for this reason, both because it is a question of the entrails of victims, and because each writer uses the verb porricere for "to sacrifice". There is more on this verb in Macrobius, whom you may read (Macrobius, book 2 of the Saturnalia, ch. 2).

From the words of Livy cited, moreover, you will understand that the entrails were offered, or sacrificed, by the Romans neither thoroughly cooked, as under Romulus and Pompilius, nor half-raw, as under Tullius, but quite raw.

Finally Arnobius: 'Before the coming of Hercules into Italy, when, on the admonition of Apollo, supplication was made to father Dis and to Saturn with human heads, you likewise changed this custom by a crafty little fraud and by the ambiguity of words' (Arnobius, book 1, p. 91). Macrobius uncovers and explains this whole fraud in these words: 'When for a long time they believed that they were appeasing Dis with human heads and Saturn with victims of men, on account of the oracle in which there was: "And send heads to Hades (al. to the son of Cronus) and men [phōta] to the father." They report that Hercules afterwards, returning into Italy with the cattle of Geryon, persuaded their descendants to exchange the inauspicious sacrifices for auspicious ones, offering to Dis not the heads of men but little masks skilfully fashioned to a human likeness, and honouring the altars of Saturn not by slaughtering men but by kindling lights; because phōta signifies not only men but also lights' (Macrobius, Saturnalia book 1, ch. 2, p. 207). Not content to have said this once, he repeats it in the same book again (the same, ibid., ch. 11, p. 225).

But Lactantius, who noted the ambiguous meaning of this word (Lactantius, Divine Institutes book 6, ch. 2, p. 546), narrates this story somewhat differently, as does Dionysius of Halicarnassus. For they, like Ovid, who is cited by the same Lactantius, make mention indeed of Saturn alone; but the argument of Arnobius, and its force and weight, still stands unshaken all the same (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities book 1, p. 30; Lactantius, book 1, ch. 21, p. 114; Ovid, Fasti book 5, p. 642).

But who does not see from what has been discussed so far how foolishly the heathen reproached the Christians with novelty of religion and with change of the ancient one, since they themselves were guilty of so many and such great changes in matters both human and divine? Indeed, as Tertullian rightly argues, and as we shall observe in its place (Tertullian, Apology, ch. 6, p. 7; Dissertation on this book, ch. 18, art. 1 and following), in dress, food, equipment, property-rating and their very speech they had renounced their forefathers, and with remarkable fickleness they praised the institutions of their ancestors, which they spurned and no longer observed. In like manner Ambrose too blunts the weapon hurled by the pagan Symmachus, turning it back against Symmachus himself and the other pagans (Ambrose, Letter 18, p. 837 and following, vol. 2). But our Arnobius restrains and curbs their insolent obstinacy by still other arguments. Let us therefore, if it pleases, hear and follow him.

Article III.

The same argument of the heathen is further weakened by this: that, just as the Christian religion had novelty, so disciplines, arts and sciences had a beginning, and soothsaying indeed after Tages (where the Acherontic books are treated), and astrology after Theutis and Atlas, the prop and support of the sky; likewise because the gods were begotten, because ancient things were once new, because the religion of the Romans did not exist before two thousand years, just as the Christian did not before 400 years (where the first kings of the Latins are treated); because, finally, Christians worship nothing new.

Since the heathen never ceased to cast up against us the novelty of the Christian religion, Arnobius, in order to stop their mouths completely, if it could be done, makes it further plain that, even if that were true, nothing could ever be concluded from it in their favour and against the Christians. For what is there, he says, in human affairs, arts, disciplines and sciences, that did not at some time have a beginning and origin? Before Tages the Tuscan, says Arnobius, no one either knew or cared to know "whether anything was signified by the falls of lightning, or in the veins of entrails" (Arnobius, book 2, page 92). Now Tages, on the testimony of Festus (Festus, under the word Tages), was said to be the son of Genius and grandson of Jupiter, who while still a boy had given the discipline of soothsaying to the twelve peoples of Etruria. Concerning him, indeed, Cicero handed down these things to posterity: "A certain Tages is said, when the earth was being ploughed in the territory of Tarquinii and a furrow had been driven rather deep, to have suddenly sprung up and addressed the man who was ploughing. Now this Tages, as it stands in the books of the Etruscans, is said to have appeared with the look of a boy but to have had the wisdom of an old man. When the herdsman, astonished at the sight of him, had raised a rather loud cry in his amazement, a crowd gathered, and in a short time all Etruria came together to that place. Then he spoke plainly, with many listening, who took down all his words and committed them to writing; and the whole discourse was that in which the discipline of soothsaying was contained; this afterwards grew by the learning of new things and by referring them to those same first principles" (Cicero, book 2 On Divination, page 285 and following). These things Ovid sang in these verses:

A Tyrrhenian ploughman saw a fateful clod in the midst of the fields first move of its own accord, with no one stirring it; then take on the form of a man and lose that of earth, and open newly made lips to the fates to come. The natives called him Tages, who first taught the Etruscan people to disclose future events.

(Ovid, Metamorphoses 15.553 ff.)

And Lucan:

May the gods prosper what has been seen, and let there be no faith in the entrails, but may the founder of the art, Tages, have invented these things; thus the Tuscan sang all things twisted, wrapping them up and covering them with much ambiguity.

(Lucan 1.635 ff.)

Servius, again, in his notes on Virgil (Servius, on book 2 of the Aeneid, page 259), proves by these verses of Lucretius that soothsaying was discovered by Tages in Etruria. You see, then, that this Tages, whom some report to have been an obscure man and others a ploughman, is not undeservedly called the inventor in Etruria of soothsaying, of which we have spoken elsewhere (vol. 1 of the Apparatus, book 3, dissertation 2, chapter 21, article 1, page 1187).

But someone will perhaps ask of us whether

the books which Cicero calls the books of the Etruscans are those which a little earlier are called by Arnobius the Acherontic books, when he said: 'Etruria promises in the Acherontic books' (Arnob., bk 2, p. 87). For Servius, in his commentaries on the same Virgil (Serv. on Aen. bk 8, p. 511), observes that Tages is said 'to have composed books of haruspicy and the Acherontic rites.' By these words he certainly seems to distinguish these labours of Tages. But whether they were the same or different, by this observation the opinion of Arnobius is certainly quite sufficiently confirmed.

He adds: 'When did the motion of the stars or the genethliac reckoning begin to be known? Was it not after Theutis the Egyptian, or after Atlas, as some report, that carrier, bearer, prop and pillar of the sky?' (Arnob., bk 2, p. 92.) We have discussed elsewhere both of these, Theutis and Atlas (vol. 1 Apparat., pp. 543, 1131 and 1188). There, moreover, we noted that the discovery of the former science, that is, of the motion of the stars, is ascribed by some to Atlas, but the first observation of the genethliac reckoning, that is, of birthdays, to others.

Therefore we shall note only this, that by these four epithets, carrier, bearer, prop, and pillar of the sky, one and the same thing entirely is signified by Arnobius. For tibicen, on the testimony of Paulus (in Festus, under the word TIBICINES), is sometimes taken for a support or prop by which some building, or a house, or some other thing is held up. And certainly in that sense Juvenal said:

We inhabit a city held up by a slender prop. (Sat. 3, line 293.)

Ovid also:

She was just sweeping the farmhouse that stood on a prop. (Ovid, Fasti bk 4, p. 598.)

In the same meaning the noun destina is taken by Corippus Africanus in this verse:

And Thomas, pillar of the tottering Libyan land. (Corippus, In Praise of the Emperor Justin, bk 1.)

Some, however, cite to this effect these words of Isidore of Seville: 'The ruin of adultery is checked by the pillar of matrimony' (Isidore, Sentences bk 2, ch. 40, p. 449). But in the printed editions destinatione is read; in some manuscript codices, however, conditione is written, in others doctrina. For this reason we do not think this passage of Isidore should be pressed further than is fitting.

But Arnobius admits that these things are small, and presses far weightier points against the heathen. For those whom the heathen proclaimed immortal gods (Arnob., bk 2, pp. 92 and 93), Jupiter and his brothers, and Juno, Liber, Venus, Diana, Minerva, Apollo, and others, these all they nevertheless admitted to have begun at some time, and to have been begotten by others, as will be said below (below, ch. 9, art. 3 ff.). What then is more absurd and unjust than that novelty of religion should be censured in Christians by those who were compelled to recognize and confess it in themselves?

But the heathen insisted that their religion was most ancient, but that of the Christians new and recent. But Arnobius replies to them that nothing is more trivial than this argument

and weaker (Arnobius, book 2, pp. 93 and 94). For what the Christians practise, if it is new, will become old; just as what is old to the heathen had once been new. And what of the fact that a religion is to be valued not by the time at which it began, but by the God Himself Whom it worships (ibid., p. 94)?

The heathen, therefore, are no longer to be listened to when they clamour again that four hundred years ago there was no Christian profession. For who would not see that this has now been utterly overthrown by what has been said? Accordingly our author answers only out of abundance that two thousand years ago, as was very easy to prove, there were no gods at all of these same pagan Romans, or Latins.

For Saturn, son of Caelus and Hecate, begot Jupiter and Picus, Picus begot Faunus, Faunus begot Latinus (ibid.). And how true this is is gathered from various writers, and above all from these verses of Virgil:

King Latinus, now aged, was ruling fields and cities that were peaceful in long peace. This man, we are told, was begotten of Faunus and the Laurentine nymph Marica; Picus was father to Faunus, and he names you, Saturn, as his parent: you are the first founder of the blood.

(Virgil, Aeneid book 7, lines 45 ff.)

Yet to these three men, Picus, Faunus and Latinus, as Arnobius argues, no longer a span of time and life than 360 years can be granted. And there is no room for doubt that he lengthened this interval of time beyond what was necessary, so that the heathen should not dare to open their mouths at all. For in the chronicle of Eusebius it is contracted much further, in these words (Eusebius, Chronicle, book 1 and book 2, at the year 838): « The first king of the Latins after the capture of Troy was Aeneas. Before him Janus, Saturn, Picus and Faunus reigned for about 150 years; » that is, by as many as 150 years fewer than Arnobius freely granted to the pagans. On these first kings of the Latins see Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the Author of the Origin of the Roman Race, Lactantius, Augustine and others (Dionysius, Roman Antiquities book 1, pp. 24 and 34; Author of the Origin, p. 596; Lactantius, book 1, ch. 22, p. 127; Augustine, City of God book 18, ch. 15, p. 499).

At Alba, moreover, Arnobius continues, Ascanius and his other successors reigned for nearly 420 years (Arnobius, book 2, p. 94; vol. 1 of the Apparatus, at the end). In the chronicle of Eusebius, however, 452 years are reckoned, and by Clement of Alexandria 422. Finally, from the founding of Rome down to his own age our Author [reckons] almost 1050 years. The author of the Eusebian chronicle, however, [reckons] 1146; [so] they state that [the years] elapsed. On all these matters too we have noted something in the chronology of Clement of Alexandria. But there is no need to pursue these things more fully, or to call several other chroniclers by their names. For Arnobius does not follow a reckoning of the years that is complete in every detail, but, content to have cited the very writers of annals accepted by the heathen, he even grants them more than they could have wished. Most evidently, therefore, he demonstrates from these things that their gods did not exist before two thousand years, nor that by them

the novelty of the Christian religion could with any right be reproached.

What, indeed, of the fact, Arnobius continues (Arnob., book 2, p. 95), that the greatest mysteries of the heathen, customarily celebrated in honour of Serapis, Isis, the Mother of the gods and others, of which we have treated elsewhere (vol. 1 of the Apparatus, p. 758 ff., Dissertation on Minucius, ch. 17, art. 1, and ch. 20, art. 1 and 2), and must treat further below, are far more recent than their gods? By these same heathen, therefore, had they wished to stand by their own principles, they ought never to have been admitted, and always to have been rejected.

But at least from what is conceded, the gentiles used to say, it is most plainly inferred that the religion of our gods is far more ancient than the Christian, and for that reason truer. Arnobius first denies the consequence. For it suffices that each began at some time, so that the reasoning is equal on both sides. For what can two thousand years, compared with all the others that elapsed before, do for the truth of any religion?

Then, further, he utterly denies that anything new and more recent than the religion of the heathen is worshipped by the Christians (Arnob., book 2, p. 95). For indeed they worship the almighty God, not only most ancient, but also unbegotten and eternal, and the fount and origin of all things. The Christians therefore introduced nothing new into the world, but only what they had learned late from Christ, Who dispelled the wretched blindness of men who worshipped false gods and were ignorant of the true God.

Arnobius did not indeed set forth more there about the other dogmas of the Christian religion, both because what he had said was plainly sufficient to repel the disparagement of a new religion, and because a little before he demonstrates elsewhere the supreme divinity of Christ and other tenets of the same Christian religion, as we shall show later.

Chapter VI.

Another argument of the gentiles against the Christian religion, drawn from public calamities, is refuted.

Article One.

The argument of the heathen against the truth of the Christian religion, drawn from the various disasters and calamities by which the human race was formerly harried, is set out, and it is shown by which writers it was formerly refuted and confuted.

Another argument against the truth of the Christian religion, repeated very often and even to the point of nausea by the heathen, was the notorious and most absurd calumny by which they proclaimed, as falsely as boldly, that the Christians, as Arnobius writes (Arnob., book 1, p. 1 ff.), were, on account of their rejection and repudiation of the worship of the gods, the cause of all the public disasters and calamities by which the human race was afflicted. For indeed, as they boasted, on account of the impiety of the Christians the supreme care of earthly affairs had been cast off by the gods, justly angered, and all the evils by which men everywhere were wont to be worn down and oppressed had been brought in upon the whole world.

But how frequent this complaint of the gentiles

and accusation was, if you wish to know it, hear, if you please, Tertullian: "They conspire in hatred of the good and upright," namely the heathen, "who cry out against innocent blood, putting forward indeed in defence of their hatred that vanity as well, that they think the Christians are the cause of every public disaster and every misfortune of the people. If the Tiber rises to the walls, if the Nile does not come down upon the fields, if the sky has stood still, if the earth has moved, if there is famine, if there is plague, at once: the Christians to the lion! So many to one!" (Tertullian, Apology, ch. 40, p. 36). He repeats the same things in his book To the Nations (the same, To the Nations, bk 1, ch. 9, p. 54). But more must be said by us about this in its place.

Origen, moreover, bears witness that the gentiles had misused that same false charge both formerly and still in his own time: "When these things," he says, "befall the world, it follows that, as though men were abandoning the worship of the gods, they say that wars, famines and pestilences come about because of the multitude of Christians. For the gentiles have often blamed the Christians as the cause of famine, and whoever savoured the things that belong to the gentiles have also referred the causes of pestilences to the Church of Christ. We know too that among us an earthquake occurred in certain places and that certain ruins were made, so that those who were impious, outside the faith, said that the Christians were the cause of the earthquake; on account of which the churches also suffered persecutions and were burned. And not only they, but also those who seemed prudent, said such things in public: that it is because of the Christians that the most severe earthquakes happen" (Origen, Tractate 28 on Matthew, vol. 2, p. 88). Lactantius too is a witness for us that the heathen sang the same refrain in his time as well, where he pours back upon them the accusation of the public disasters and miseries laid against the Christians, thus: "Learn, therefore, that all evils grow heavier upon human affairs daily because God, the maker and governor of this world, has been abandoned; because impious religions have been taken up, contrary to what is right; finally, because you do not allow God to be worshipped even by a few" (Lactantius, bk 5, ch. 8, p. 479 ff.). For if He alone were worshipped, with His laws observed, as is fitting, there would not be, he says, dissensions, wars, frauds, robberies, adulteries and the other evils with which the human race destroys itself.

We have noted, moreover, what the Emperor Maximinus, most hostile to the Christians, replied to the unjust petitions of the cities against them (Dissertation on Lucius Caecilius, ch. 13, art. 3, p. 346). But in the letter which he wrote to those cities he boldly asserted, as Eusebius testifies, that the harsher calamities had befallen: "They came about through the destructive error of the empty vanity of those lawless men, when it spread over their souls and, so to speak, weighed down everything everywhere in the inhabited world with disgraces." [That is:] they came about because of the pestilent error of the most empty vanity of those wicked men, at the time when that error sprouted in their minds and filled almost the whole world with shame and disgrace (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, bk 2, ch. 7, p. 353).

Later still Symmachus did not hesitate to ascribe the barrenness of the earth and the public famine to the denial of their privileges to the Vestals and the heathen priests: "Let no one think that I am defending only the cause of the religions: from deeds of this kind have arisen all the misfortunes of the Roman race.... Public famine followed this deed, and a sickly harvest deceived the hope of all the provinces: these are not faults of the lands.... the year dried up through sacrilege; for what was being denied to the religions had to perish for all" (in Ambrose, vol. 2, p. 831 ff.).

How frequent, indeed almost daily, and how long-lasting that foolish complaint of the gentiles was, you may further infer from the fact that the heathen always had it on their lips from the beginning of the Christian religion right up to the times of Augustine. Hear, I beg you, that holy doctor himself: "When you hear," he says (Augustine, on the title of Ps. 80, § 1, p. 857), "blasphemers chattering and saying that afflictions abound in Christian times, you know that they love to say this; and it is indeed an old proverb, but one that began in Christian times: God does not rain: lead [them] to the Christians. Although those earlier ones said these things, these men now say, And because God rains, lead [them] to the Christians." These things he not only pursues more fully there, but repeats in another book as well, in this manner: "Remember, however, that in recounting these things I am still dealing with the unlearned, from whose ignorance there has also arisen that common proverb: if rain is lacking, the Christians are the cause. For there are those among them who, trained in liberal studies, love history, through which they know these things very readily; but in order to make the crowds of the uneducated most hostile to us, they pretend not to know them, and strive to confirm this among the common people, that the disasters by which the human race must be afflicted at certain intervals of places and times happen because of the Christian name, which is spread through all things against their gods with immense fame and most illustrious renown" (the same, City of God, bk. 2, ch. 3, p. 33).

To repel and utterly suppress this troublesome and false accusation, repeated by them for so long and so often, the most learned defenders of our religion published both treatises and books again and again. For when Demetrianus was barking that the Christians were the cause of the public calamities, Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, at first judged that his clamorous cries and inept reproaches were to be spurned. But he, just like our Arnobius (Arnobius, bk. 1, p. 1), lest he should be said to have been overcome by the clamours of a man impiously railing against God, and to have lost his case together with the Christians, curbed that man's most demented rashness with a treatise published against him. At the beginning of this work he speaks thus: "But since you say that very many complain that wars arise more often, that plague and famine rage, and that long fair weather holds back showers and rains, and that this is imputed to us, it is not fitting to keep silent any longer, lest our silence begin to seem a matter no longer of modesty but of diffidence, and lest, while we disdain to refute the accusations, we seem to acknowledge the crime. I answer therefore

both to you, Demetrian, and to the others whom you have perhaps stirred up, and, by sowing hatreds against us with your slanderous voices, you have made yourself many companions through the sprouting of your root and origin, who nevertheless, I believe, admit the reasoning of our discourse.” (Cyprian, To Demetrian, p. 186).

Augustine, however, of whom we were speaking a little before, openly declares that he wrote his books On the City of God for the same reason, in the first five of which he refutes this calumny of unbelieving men more expressly. And these are his very words on that matter: “Meanwhile Rome was overthrown by the irruption of the Goths, who acted under King Alaric, and by the onslaught of a great disaster: and the worshippers of the many false gods, whom by the customary name we call pagans, trying to lay its overthrow upon the Christian religion, began to blaspheme the true God more bitterly and harshly than usual. Hence I, burning with zeal for the house of God, resolved to write the books On the City of God against their blasphemies or errors..... Of these the first five refute those who would have human affairs prosper in such a way that they judge the worship of the many gods, which the pagans have been accustomed to worship, to be necessary to this end, and who contend that, because it is forbidden, these evils arise and abound” (Augustine, Retractations, book 2, chapter 43).

Nor was it enough for Augustine to have composed these books, however exceptional and excellent: he also urged Orosius to write annals, by which he might make it plain that the world in all the ages of the centuries, even before the Christian religion arose, had suffered public calamities, and that men had been afflicted with common disasters, miseries and hardships. Orosius himself sets this out in a preface at the beginning of his histories; and since it would be too long to copy it out here in full, we have thought it better to send anyone who is curious to his books. Before Orosius and Augustine, however, our Arnobius, in these books with which we are dealing, undertook, as we noted above, to repress the same disparagement of the gentiles plainly and thoroughly. Let us now see, then, if you please, what his arguments are and how strong they are.

Article II.

The individual arguments of Arnobius are weighed, by which he utterly overturns the senseless accusations of the heathen, who never ceased proclaiming that the Christians were the cause of all public disasters and calamities; and how, and how evidently, he demonstrates that from the very beginning of the Christian religion down to his own age nothing had been altered against the fixed laws of nature, either in heaven or on earth; but that rather, before the times of the Christians, nations had often been worn out by famine, and destructive falls of hail had occurred, showers of stones, rivers dried up, most deadly plagues, crops consumed by mice and locusts, very great chasms and quakings of the earth.

Arnobius frankly admits that the argument of the gentiles is plainly of weight and of the greatest moment, and that the Christians would deserve to be held in every hatred, and indeed their religion to be rejected and exterminated, if they themselves had been the cause of public evils and of all calamities. But he demonstrates that this is utterly false, first from this (Arnobius, book 1, pp. 2 and 3), that from the very

beginning of the Christian religion down to his own age nothing has been changed against the fixed laws of nature, neither in the elements, nor in the course of the sun, the moon and the stars, nor in the four seasons of the year, nor in the customary fruitfulness of the earth and of living things, nor in public human affairs and institutions. But to many, perhaps, he would seem to have amplified the earlier public calamities a little too much by a rhetorical figure, had he not been persuaded beyond doubt that the slander of the heathen, so often repeated, as we have said, had to be refuted with so many examples that they would be driven to silence, or at least to shame. For this reason Tertullian too dwells at length on a long enumeration of those same disasters which had occurred before the birth of Christ, and concludes not otherwise than our author afterwards does: "If we compare former disasters, lighter things happen now, since the world received Christians from God. For from that time innocence has tempered the iniquities of the age, and there have begun to be intercessors with God" (Tertullian, Apology, ch. 40). But he, of whom we [shall speak] in its place, pursues these things more fully in another book (the same, book On the Pallium, ch. 27).

The heathen nevertheless objected on the other side: "Pestilences," these are the words of Arnobius, "and droughts, wars, scarcity of crops, locusts, mice and hailstorms, and other harmful things by which human affairs are assailed, the gods bring upon us, exasperated by the wrongs and offences of the Christians" (Arnobius, book 1, p. 3). But this argument seemed to Arnobius of such small and light weight that he was wholly persuaded it would collapse of itself, without any refutation. For how, he says, could these names of calamities have become known to the heathen after the beginning of the Christian religion, unless they had happened before? And certainly it is most evidently proved from the very annals of those same heathen that all of them happened earlier. This indeed he shows, as Augustine afterwards did, by making an enumeration of those disasters (Augustine, book 3 On the City [of God], ch. 17, p. 73 and following). We have already noted, moreover, that seven books of histories were published by Orosius, at the urging of the same Augustine, so that this might be made plain to all. How rightly Orosius proved this will, God willing, be examined by us afterwards in its place. Meanwhile, however, those things must be unfolded more clearly by us which are not explained clearly enough by Arnobius.

He relates first, then, that nations were often worn down by famine. But there is no one who does not know how many and how great examples of this occur in the histories of the gentiles. If you wish a few out of many to be brought forward for you, leaving aside the one which occurred in the time of the patriarch Joseph (Gen. 41 and following), you will learn from Livy that, in the consulship of Proculus Geganius Macerinus and L. Menenius Lanatus, the famine and scarcity of crops was so great that "many of the common people, having lost hope, rather than be tormented by dragging out their life, covered their heads and threw themselves into the Tiber (Livy, book 4, ch. 12). For this reason Augustine finely asks the heathen where the gods were then, who brought no help to men most devoted to their worship (Augustine, book 3 On the City [of God], ch. 17, p. 74). Dionysius of Halicarnassus also writes that the other part

of the Maeonians, as Herodotus attests, when they had long suffered from hunger, at length, as it pressed too hard, gave up their ancestral fields and came into Umbria (Dionys. Halicar., Rom. Antiq. bk 1, p. 21). Finally, to pass over further instances, in the chronicle of Eusebius at the year 2022, the eighth after the birth of Christ, it is recorded: 'at Rome so great a famine arose that five modii were sold for twenty-seven and a half denarii.' Yet at that time the name of Christians had not yet been heard either there or anywhere else.

Next, Arnobius objects that very frequent falls of hail, and even showers of stones, occurred beforehand. And certainly Horace sang in these verses of many storms, and in particular of truly dreadful hail, as having arisen not in vengeance for the Christians but, as he supposed, for Caesar slain by the gentiles:

Enough now of snow and of dread hail has the Father sent upon the earth, and, striking the sacred citadels with his red right hand, has terrified the world, etc. (Horace, Odes 1.2.)

Then Arnobius says: 'In ancient writings we see it recorded and set down that showers of stones often crushed whole regions' (Arnob., bk 1, p. 4). But Cicero mentions showers of stones before the times of the Christians: 'What of the fact,' he says, 'that a shower often fell of stones, sometimes of blood, at times of earth, once even of milk?' (Cic., On Divination bk 2, p. 271). Livy, moreover, relates that after the disaster at Cannae it rained stones: 'There were foul storms,' he says. 'On the Alban Mount it rained stones continuously for two days: many things were struck from the sky, two temples on the Capitol, the rampart in the camp above Suessula in many places, and two sentries were killed; a wall and certain towers at Cumae were not only struck by lightning but even thrown down. At Reate a huge rock was seen flying about; the sun was redder than usual and like blood' (Livy, bk 25, ch. 7). He also bears witness that the Sibylline books were consulted because it had rained stones from the sky rather frequently in one and the same year. A little before, he had said that a nine-day rite was held because it had rained stones from the sky. If you want more, go to Tibullus, Valerius Maximus, Strabo, Solinus, and Salmasius's notes on the latter's book (the same, bk 29, ch. 10; Tibullus, bk 2, eleg. 5, line 68; Valer. Max., bk 1, ch. 6, § 5; Strabo, Geogr. bk 4, p. 82 ff.; Solinus, ch. 2, p. 12).

To this our author adds in writing: 'that great rivers dried up, their mud parched' (Arnob., bk 2, p. 4). Which Virgil, among others, indeed confirms in these verses:

You may see even rivers dry; the field is parched, the grass, dying from the fault of the air, thirsts. (Virgil, Eclogue 7, line 56 ff.)

But this especially serves our purpose, that Seneca ascribes the drying-up of rivers not to the impiety of the Christians, as other heathens do, but to natural causes (Seneca, Natural Questions bk 3, ch. 10 ff., p. 430).

The contagions of pestilence too, as Arnobius puts it,

have burned up and laid waste the human race (Arnobius, at the place cited). But who, pray, can be ignorant of this, who has touched with his fingertips the writings of the ancient authors Livy, Eusebius, Orosius and others? Augustine too presses the heathens with the same method of argument, and throws in their face many pestilences taken from Livy, whom we have cited. And this weapon can be hurled against them with an arm not a whit lighter from Seneca, whom we praised just now, who also tries to give a natural explanation of plague (Livy, bk 1, ch. 31, bk 3, p. 6; Eusebius, in the Chronicle; Orosius, bk 2, ch. 12, 13, etc.; Augustine, City of God bk 3, ch. 17, p. 74, and ch. 31, p. 88; Seneca, Natural Questions bk 7, ch. 27 and 28, p. 463).

Furthermore our author presses the point that every kind of crop was gnawed away and consumed by locusts and mice (Arnobius, bk 1, p. 4). Now we read it recorded by Livy that such great clouds of locusts were suddenly carried by the wind from the sea into Apulia that they covered the fields far and wide with their swarms, and that C. Licinius, praetor-elect, was sent to remove that plague upon the crops (Livy, bk 42, ch. 10, and bk 30, ch. 2). He relates besides that around Capua the whole countryside was filled with another huge multitude of the same locusts, though whence they had come was far from clear. But Augustine must be heard, who from this calamity of the locusts, and from the earlier calamity of the plague, argues against the gentiles in plainly the same way as Arnobius: "They have recorded in writing," he says, "that the multitude of locusts in Africa, when it was already a province of the Roman people, was like a portent: for, once the crops and the leaves of the trees had been consumed, they say it was cast into the sea in a huge and incalculable cloud. And when it had died and been thrown back upon the shores, and the air was corrupted by it, so great a pestilence arose that in the kingdom of Masinissa alone eight hundred thousand men are reported to have perished, and many more in the lands nearest the shores... Such, then, is the folly which we endure, and to which we are compelled to reply, that which of these things would it not attribute to the Christian religion, if it saw them in Christian times." (Augustine, City of God bk 3, ch. 31, p. 88). Orosius has recorded the same things about these locusts; consult him, as also, on other matters, Cornelius Tacitus, and also Bochart, who discusses locusts at greater length (Orosius, bk 5, ch. 11; Cornelius Tacitus, bk 15, after the beginning; Bochart, On the Animals of Sacred Scripture bk 4, ch. 1 and following).

Arnobius continues (bk 1, p. 4), and adds that cities and communities were shaken by most violent earthquakes and swallowed up by the earth's vast chasms. Our witness to these things is Pliny, who writes about earthquakes in this manner: "Let earthquakes be passed over in silence, and whatever there is where at least the tombs of cities remain, and at the same time let us call them wonders of the earth rather than crimes of nature" (Pliny, Natural History bk 2, ch. 92, p. 239), much less crimes of the Christians, as our author rightly argues. Earlier, indeed, the same Pliny speaks about both the shaking and the gaping of the earth: "The earth is shaken in various ways," he says, "and wondrous effects are produced, in one place walls being laid flat, in another swallowed up by a deep chasm" (The same, in the same book, ch. 79 and 80, p. 231 and following). And there more things about them, which

you will be able to read, he recorded (The same, work cited, ch. 84, p. 234). But he asserts that the greatest earthquake within human memory occurred in the reign of Tiberius, seeing that by it twelve cities of Asia were overthrown. Strabo and Suetonius also mention this earthquake, and Tacitus relates the chasm in the earth that accompanied it in these words: "In the same year twelve celebrated cities of Asia collapsed in an earthquake by night, so that the disaster was the more unforeseen and the heavier. Nor was the usual refuge in such a calamity available, that of rushing out into the open, because people were swallowed up as the earth split apart. They report that immense mountains sank down, that what had been level ground was seen raised on high, and that fires flashed out amid the ruin" (Strabo, Geography, book 12, p. 578; Suetonius, Life of Tiberius, § 49; Tacitus, Annals, book 2, § 7). In the chronicle of Eusebius, moreover, these events are referred to the seventh year of Tiberius, and thirteen collapsed cities are there called by their names. Mention is also made there of several earthquakes which had happened in earlier ages. Finally, to pass over many things in silence, Cicero, citing Coelius as witness, relates that "at the very time" when Flaminius was fighting against Hannibal "such great earthquakes took place among the Ligurians, in Gaul, in a great many islands and throughout Italy that many towns fell down, in many places there were landslides, rivers flowed in the opposite direction, and the sea flowed into the rivers" (Cicero, On Divination, book 1, p. 268, line 40 and following). And afterwards he recounts other calamities, not even lesser ones (Ibid., p. 271, line 27 and following). Wherefore Apuleius says: "We have often learned that through immoderate tremors of the earth the ground has burst apart and cities have been swallowed up together with their peoples." Tertullian, moreover, refuting the heathen with exactly the same argument, casts up to them the Corinthian sea drained by an earthquake (Apuleius, On the World, p. 408; Tertullian, Apology, ch. 40).

Moreover, so far is it from being possible to conclude anything against the truth of the Christian religion from these and similar irregular occurrences, that Cleanthes in Cicero rather concludes from them that notions of the gods, and of a certain heavenly and divine power, have been formed in the minds of men (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, book 2, p. 215). He would doubtless have spoken better had he said notions of the one most just and almighty God. But on this passage of Cicero consult the observations of Lescalopier, and on earthquakes and chasms, their effects and causes, the books of Seneca, and also Strabo, who brought forward a great many examples of the things that have been said (Seneca, Natural Questions, book 6, p. 454 and following, and ch. 21 and following, p. 451 and following; Strabo, Geography, book 1, p. 58 and following, and elsewhere).

Article III.

By what other examples Arnobius shows that before the rise of the Christian religion many public calamities had occurred, conflagrations, floods, where [he speaks] of the island of Atlantis and of the years reckoned from the beginning of the world; likewise battles with beasts, and the very great wars between the Assyrians and the Bactrians under the leadership of Ninus and Zoroaster, and the other wars of Alexander and of the Romans; and that after the birth of Christ affairs proceeded far more prosperously.

Those of public calamities which we have related so far

as examples show amply and more than enough that nothing more absurd could have been invented by the heathen than their claim that the world was being troubled as a punishment for the Christians. But Arnobius, in order to restrain more vigorously the untamed insolence of raving men, judged that the point should be proved by yet further examples (Arnobius, book 1, pages 4 and 5). He therefore insists that before the times of the Christians the world was consumed by fire, cities were covered by the waves of the sea, the human race was swallowed up by floods, and that, as Plato relates, ten thousand years before, a great multitude of men burst forth from the island of Atlantis, which utterly destroyed and wiped out innumerable nations. This passage of Plato occurs in his Timaeus, where he relates from ancient writers that from that island of Atlantis, which he says was larger than Libya and Asia, an invasion of vast forces was made, by which various nations were reduced to slavery (Plato, volume 3, Timaeus, pages 24 and 25). But afterwards, by the surge of floods and earthquakes, that whole warlike people and the island itself were swallowed up by the waves of the sea within the space of only one night and day, and nothing at all of them appeared any longer except remains of mud. Moreover, this same passage of Plato is cited not only by Pliny and Strabo, but also by Tertullian, who from it, as Arnobius does, refutes and overturns the absurd argumentation of the heathen. We know indeed that to some these things seem nearer to fables than to the truth (Pliny, Natural History, book 2, chapter 90, page 238; Strabo, Geography, book 2, page 101; Tertullian, Apology, chapter 40, and To the Nations, book 1, chapter 9, page 54, and On the Pallium, chapter 2). But the authority of Plato was always bound to carry weight among the gentiles, and it is not at all undeservedly set against them. Then again, Thucydides is called upon by Seneca as a witness to the submerging of this same island, in these words: 'Thucydides says that around the time of the Peloponnesian War the island of Atalanta was flooded, either wholly or at least for the greatest part.' Indeed, Ammianus Marcellinus also supports him (Seneca, Natural Questions, book 6, chapter 24, page 894; Ammianus Marcellinus, book 17, chapter 7, page 169). But if you are still unwilling to put faith in either, hear, if you please, Seneca recounting other similar disasters: 'Believe,' as he said, 'that the same thing happened to Sidon. Nor is there need of witnesses for this. For we remember that, when lands were torn apart by internal motion, places were scattered and plains perished' (Seneca, Natural Questions, book 4, chapter 32, page 299; Ammianus Marcellinus, book 17, chapter 7, page 269). Whoever wants more, let him hear him saying elsewhere besides: 'Helice and Bura,' or, as Marcellinus says, 'Helice and Bura, the sea took in entire..... Men sail above two towns: two, however, that we know of, which memory preserved in writing has brought to our knowledge. How many others have been sunk in other places! How many peoples has either the earth shut up within itself, or the sea!' (Seneca, in the same place, chapter 23, page 894.) Before this, however, he had cited his authority, Callisthenes. Strabo records the same things concerning Sidon and other inundations, and anyone may without difficulty consult him, as also Ovid, and again Seneca and Pliny (Strabo, Geography, book 1, page 58; Ovid, Metamorphoses, book 15, lines 261 and following; Seneca,

work cited, chapter 29, page 897; Pliny, book 2, chapters 93 and 94, page 238 and following).

But by what reasoning, someone will ask, could Arnobius say that the things which he relates about the island of Atlantis happened ten thousand years before? Was he unaware that among Christians a much shorter span of years is reckoned from the creation of the world? But the knot of this difficulty is easily untied. For Arnobius there put forward not his own opinion but that of Plato, whom he cites in the same place, who introduces a priest speaking thus to Solon (Plato, in the Timaeus, vol. 3, p. 23): "Of the ordering of things here among us, the number of eight thousand years is written in the sacred writings; but concerning the citizens who lived nine thousand years ago I shall show you briefly." Now what the state of our affairs once was, the series of eight thousand years is recorded in our sacred books; but the series of nine thousand years, during which those ancestors lived, I shall briefly set out for you.

But from the burnings of the world, and above all of Sodom and Gomorrah, Tertullian refutes the heathen, as we shall show in its proper place. Nor did Josephus alone make mention of this burning, but Cornelius Tacitus himself also, as it seems, in these words: "I would grant that the cities of the Jews once burned with fire from heaven" (Tertullian, Apology, chapter 40, and the book On the Pallium, chapter 2; Josephus, book 1 of the Jewish Antiquities, chapter 22, and book 5 of the Jewish War, chapter 5; Tacitus, book 5 of the Histories, after the beginning).

Arnobius goes on and says that before the Christians "wars were waged with wild beasts, and battles with lions" (Arnobius, book 1, p. 5). But if you want a witness there concerning battles which were fought by a drawn-up army of men against wild beasts and monsters, A. Gellius will at once give you Tubero, who recorded that Regulus, having pitched camp by the river Bagradas in Africa, "fought a great and fierce battle against a single serpent that had its lair there, of unheard-of hugeness, and that after it had long been assailed with ballistae and catapults in a great struggle of the whole army, he sent its skin, when it was killed, a hundred and twenty feet long, to Rome" (Gellius, book 6 of the Attic Nights, chapter 3, p. 368). Valerius Maximus relates the same things from Livy, and Pliny also, who asserts that the matter is well known, likewise Seneca, Orosius, Florus and others (Valerius Maximus, book 1, chapter 8, § 19, p. 77; Pliny, book 8 of the Natural History, chapter 14, p. 153; Seneca, letter 82, p. 156; Orosius, book 4, chapter 8; Florus, book 2, chapter 2).

But if Arnobius is treating of the contests in which gladiators and athletes went down into the arena to fight with lions and other beasts, he is perhaps to be understood of those whose spectacles Sulla and Pompey and others gave. But besides what we have touched on elsewhere about these spectacles, see Pliny, Dio Cassius, and above all Seneca (Dissertation on Minucius' Octavius, chapter 9, article 2; Pliny, book 8 of the Natural History, chapter 16, p. 160; Dio Cassius, book 39 of the Roman History; Seneca, the book On the Shortness of Life, chapters 13 and 14, p. 707), who assails this cruelty thus: "Would you allow anyone to concern himself with this too, that L. Sulla was the first

gave lions loose in the circus, when otherwise they were presented bound, javelin-throwers having been sent by King Bocchus to dispatch them? For does it pertain to any good thing that Pompey was the first to exhibit in the circus a fight of eighteen elephants, with condemned men set against them in the manner of a battle? The first man of the state, and, as report has handed down, among the leading men of old one of outstanding goodness, thought it a memorable kind of spectacle to destroy men in a new fashion. They fight to the death: that is too little; they are torn to pieces: that is too little. They are crushed by the huge bulk of the animals. It would have been better for these things to pass into oblivion, lest someone powerful should afterwards learn of them and envy a thing in no way humane. O how much darkness great good fortune casts over human minds! He believed himself then to be above the nature of things, when he cast so many throngs of wretched men to beasts born under another sky, when he set war between animals so unequal, when he poured out much blood in the sight of the Roman people, soon to be forced to pour out more himself." If, however, anyone should contend that Arnobius is to be understood not of this, but of the earlier contest of men with beasts, we shall not much oppose him.

The last argument of the gentiles, moreover, drawn from the frequency of wars, he first refutes from this (Arnobius, book 1, p. 5), that huge multitudes of men, coming forth from the island of Atlantis, overthrew and destroyed countless nations. But of these things we spoke a little before.

Secondly, then, Arnobius puts it to the gentiles (ibid.) that between the Assyrians and the Bactrians, under the leadership of Ninus and Zoroaster, a battle was once fought not by the sword and strength alone, but also by magic arts. And Eusebius is our witness that Zoroaster the magus then ruled the Bactrians, when Ninus was reigning among the Assyrians (Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel, book 10, ch. 9, p. 484). And in his chronicle we read these words, which seem to serve our purpose: "Zoroaster the magus, king of the Bactrians, is held famous, against whom Ninus fought." This indeed is confirmed by the authority of Trogus Pompeius, Augustine, Jerome and Orosius (In the chronicle, at year 7; Trogus, book 1; Augustine, City of God, book 21, ch. 14, p. 634; Jerome on Hosea ch. 2, verse 2, p. 1251, new edition; Orosius, book 1, ch. 4).

Nevertheless Diodorus Siculus seems plainly to oppose these, who, where he describes the expedition of Ninus against the Bactrians, calls their leader not Zoroaster but Oxyartes (Diodorus Siculus, Library, book 2, p. 66 and following). Then, moreover, he notices nothing at all magical or unusual in that battle, but only the skill and resourcefulness of Oxyartes, by which, when he had drawn part of the army of Ninus into a certain narrow place, he joined battle, put the enemy to flight, and killed a hundred thousand of them. But he was afterwards conquered by Ninus. To this is added that there were several, as Pliny, Suidas and others observe, called by the name of Zoroaster. Scaliger, moreover, tries to prove from the testimony of Laertius (Scaliger, on the Chronicle of Eusebius, p. 15) that the one who was a magus was, than Xerxes, and therefore than Ninus too by many centuries,

later. Cotelerius, however, holds that Zoroaster the magus was one and the same man, under a varied name, as Zarus, Nazaratus, Zabratus, Zarates, Zares, Zoroadus and Zarades (Cotel., note on book 4 of the Recognitions of Clement, p. 368). Concerning his age, however, opinions vary. For Eudoxus and Aristotle, as Pliny attests, reported that he was older than Plato by six thousand years, Hermodotus in Laertius, and Plutarch, older than the fall of Troy by five thousand years, but Xantus, in the same Laertius, older than the crossing of Xerxes by six hundred years (Pliny, Natural History book 30, ch. 1, p. 725; Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris, vol. 2, p. 369; Laertius, prologue, § 2). But this diversity of opinions did not prevent Eusebius, Augustine and Jerome, as we have seen, from supporting our Arnobius. Suidas, moreover, considers the second Zoroaster, the astronomer, to have been contemporary with Ninus (Suidas, under the word Zoroastres). And what wonder is it if he, being a magus, indeed even the inventor of magic, as they say, is said by very many to have fought against Ninus by the magic art?

However that may be, no one can doubt what Arnobius asserts in order to refute the gentiles, that wars and battles were waged between the Assyrians and the Bactrians many ages before the Christian religion.

Nor is it less certain that the Trojan war was waged long before that, on account of the rape of Helen, carried out, as our author says, with the gods as leaders and instigators (Arnob., book 1, p. 5). But this, set out more fully by Augustine, is pressed against the same heathens on the same reasoning as by him (Augustine, City of God book 3, ch. 2 and 5, pp. 60 and 61). Since, moreover, these things can be unknown to no one, and are handed down by Homer and very many other writers, it is superfluous to pursue them at greater length.

Nor is anyone unaware of the war of Xerxes against the Greeks, which Arnobius after this rightly casts in the teeth of the same heathens. When Xerxes was about to wage it, he is said by the same Arnobius to have let the sea into the land, namely by digging through Mount Athos, and to have crossed the seas on foot (Arnob., book 1, p. 5). These things Lucan sang in these verses:

Such, fame sings, were the roads that swollen Xerxes built over the seas, when, daring much with his bridges, he joined Europe to Asia and Sestos to Abydos, and walked over the strait of the swift Hellespont, fearing neither Eurus nor Zephyrus, while he brought sails and rafts into the midst of Athos.

(Lucan, Pharsalia book 2, before the end).

More briefly Jerome: "That most powerful king Xerxes, who overturned mountains, paved over seas." But on these things more is said by Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, Pliny, Justin the historian, Juvenal and others (Jerome, Letter to Heliodorus, p. 275; Herodotus, book 7, § 19 and following; Diodorus, Library book 2, p. 243 and following; Pliny, Natural History book 4, ch. 10, p. 435; Justin, book 2; Juvenal, Satire 10, line 173 and following).

To whom, moreover, is that not known and manifest which Arnobius adds: "One youth, arising from the borders of Macedonia, brought the kingdoms of the East and

peoples under subjection by captivity and servitude? For there is no one who does not recognize Alexander the Great as designated by these words, his "most munificent and very short-lived power," to use the words of Augustine, "by which he had subdued all Asia, indeed almost the whole world, partly by force and arms, partly by terror" (Arnob., bk. 1, p. 5; August., City of God bk. 18, ch. 42, p. 524). Concerning him, besides many others, the books of Plutarch on both his life and his fortune, of Arrian on his expedition, and of Quintus Curtius on his history are especially to be read. Finally, says Arnobius, the Romans before the birth of Christ laid waste and ravaged all nations (Arnob., bk. 1, p. 5).

But in order to curb their mad ferocity still further, he demands of them, following Tertullian, whether anyone can deny that after the death of Christ wars were diminished, and that in the intervening times which flowed by afterwards innumerable victories were won, the boundaries of the empire were extended, and there was such abundance of the corn supply that all were astonished in admiration of it (Tertullian, Apology, ch. 4, and On the Pallium, ch. 2; Arnob., bk. 1, p. 9). Do we not also owe, he says (ibid., p. 6), countless other prosperities and favourable outcomes to the laws and institutions of Christ, by which it is forbidden to repay evil for evil, and it is commanded to bear injuries inflicted patiently, and to shed one's own blood rather than another's? It is therefore as false that the Christians are the cause of public calamities as it is most certainly established that these are, by most deserved right, to be ascribed and charged to the impiety of the heathen, who worship fictitious gods.

This indeed is further evidently shown from this, that to these same heathen not only the true God but their own gods themselves were objects of contempt and the highest mockery (ibid., p. 15 and following). For, as we shall see below following Arnobius, shamelessly proclaiming their mortal origin, their adulteries, and other outrages and crimes not to be tolerated in human beings, they could not be punished by them with penalties and calamities heavy enough. But on these matters Tertullian too will have to be heard in his place.

Article IV.

An answer is given to the heathen who ask what is the cause of evils or public calamities, and it is proved that what is good for one is bad for another, and that it is objected in vain that the Alemanni were conquered and the Getuli and the Tingitani killed by famine on account of the Christians living with them; and that it is much more absurdly asserted that the gods were angry with these same Christians, and that this lie was invented by certain begging heathen.

Such was the blindness of the heathen that, although they openly and emphatically held their gods guilty of the greatest crimes, they were nevertheless persuaded that men had been harassed by public disasters and calamities not out of hatred of themselves but out of hatred of the Christians. They therefore pressed and importunately asked, if the Christians were not the cause of so many and such great evils, what then could have been their cause and origin. But what has this to do with us? answers Arnobius (Arnob., bk. 1, p. 6

and 7). For us, indeed, it is enough to have repelled the false disparagement of those who attribute all evils to the Christians. But what if, from the agitation of the elements, the motions of the stars and the dregs of matter exhaling them, as Seneca teaches, most noxious and pestilential vapours arise? (Seneca, Natural Questions, book VII, p. 463.)

Moreover, the things that seem evils to men, who measure everything by their own convenience, are in fact goods for the world itself (Arnobius, ibid.). For floods and conflagrations of the world are judged by Plato to be not the destruction of the world but, as was observed by Origen and by us elsewhere, the purification of that same world (Plato, in the Timaeus, vol. III, p. 22, and Laws, book III, vol. II, p. 676 and following; Origen, Against Celsus, book IV, p. 173; above, dissertation on the Octavius of Minucius, chapter I, article 4). What, indeed, of the fact that the tempered heat of the sun, as Arnobius says, benefits many, though some pleasure-seeker, accustomed to be baked in it, complains that it is too moderate, or altogether taken away from him? Here, moreover, Arnobius alludes to that custom by which the soft pagans of old used to take exercise before food, and afterwards to be anointed in the sun or by the fire or at the bath. Hence Persius:

A skin tended by constant sun.

And a little later:

But if, anointed, you should idle and fix the sun in your skin. (Persius, Satire 4, lines 18 and 33.)

Juvenal, moreover:

Let our shrivelled skin drink in the spring sun and escape the toga; you may go to the baths even now, with no shame to your brow. (Juvenal, Satire 12, at the end.)

For these men, then, the heat of the sun was as great a pleasure as others judged it harmful to themselves.

Arnobius goes on to say that it is not known to us whether pestilences, diseases, famines and other calamities of that kind do not occur for this very purpose, that what seems to overflow in the world may be removed from it (Arnobius, book I, p. 8). For Tertullian writes without hesitation: «Truly plagues and famines and wars and the swallowing up of cities are to be reckoned as a remedy, as it were a shearing of the overgrowing human race» (Tertullian, On the Soul, chapter 30).

Our author adds that it is wrongly concluded that veratrum, that is, as Pliny says, hellebore, ought not to have come into being because it is poisonous to men (Arnobius, book I, p. 8; Pliny, Natural History, book XXV, chapter 5, p. 391). For though it be venomous to man, it benefits goats and quails, as Lucretius sings:

Moreover, for us veratrum is a sharp poison, but for goats and quails it increases their fat. (Lucretius, book IV, about the middle.)

If you ask the reason, Ambrose will give you this: «Those skilled in such matters say that hellebore is the food and nourishment of quails, because by a certain natural temperament of their body they escape the force of harmful fodder» (Ambrose, Hexaemeron, book III, chapter 9, § 39, p. 48). Dioscorides, moreover, and his interpreter Mattioli teach that white hellebore is, for many diseases,

a remedy (Dioscorides, book 4, chapter 146, and book 6, chapter 33). But why poisonous things were created we shall see elsewhere.

Finally, says Arnobius, it is no fault of nature if the wolf lies in wait for sheepfolds and wool-flocks, and a serpent kills a man by its bite (Arnobius, book 1, page 8). But see whether he did not there take aim at these verses of Virgil:

And as a wolf lying in wait at a full sheepfold.

(Virgil, Aeneid book 6, line 59).

And in another book:

If the wool-flock is your care.

(Georgics book 3, line 384.)

For under the simple name of lanicium each of them includes sheep, lambs and wethers. Arnobius further asserts that it is the mark of a proud and excessively arrogant man to impose on God the condition that whatever pleases each person, He must immediately do.

But the stubborn heathen, still yielding nothing, kept insisting that not only before but also after the Christian religion had been spread abroad, and on account of the Christians mingled with the others, wars had been waged unsuccessfully, fields left uncultivated through barrenness, and men worn out by famine. But so light a point of reasoning is easily demolished by Arnobius. For, as he cleverly argues, if the Alemanni, of whom Eusebius and others speak, were conquered by the Romans on account of the Christians living among them, then surely for the same reason the Romans themselves, mingled with Christians, ought to have been conquered (Arnobius, book 1, page 9 and following; Eusebius, in the Chronicle, at the years 1277 and 1316). If mice and locusts at one time infested Asia and Syria, why not Spain and Gaul too, where likewise many Christians were living? If the Getuli and Tangitani, who, as Mela, Strabo, Pliny, Sallust and others report, were peoples of Africa, were most grievously afflicted, some by drought and dryness, others by famine, why did the Moors and the Nomads and others leading a life in common with the Christians reap most abundant harvests? With the same argument Ambrose refuted the pagan Symmachus when he raised the same objections (Mela, book 1; Strabo, Geography book 17, page 829; Pliny, book 2, chapter 2, page 627, and book 21, chapter 13, page 13; Sallust, On the Jugurthine War, a good way after the beginning; Ambrose, Letter 18, § 19 and following, page 838).

Nothing, therefore, more contrary and repugnant to the truth could be invented than that absurd accusation of the heathen, by which they never ceased to cry out that these calamities had been inflicted by the gods, kindled with anger against the Christians. But this was not enough for Arnobius, and he refutes this foolish opinion with a further, twofold argument (Arnobius, book 1, page 9). For even if it were true, which however, as we shall soon see, he contends to be false, that the gods are inflamed with anger on account of injuries received from the Christians, they would certainly be most unjust if, in avenging them, they were to punish not only the Christians but also the heathen, that is, as those people supposed, the guilty and the innocent without any distinction. For if they were true gods, they could surely heap all good things upon their worshippers, and the Christians alone, hostile to them,

punish, harass and kill with all calamities and miseries according to their deserts. They ought not, therefore, to have waited, for chastising them, for the far lighter and feebler help of those same gentiles: "For do they," says Arnobius (ibid., p. 11), "rage against you" gentiles, "so that, roused as by wounds in your own vitals, you rise up to avenge them? So the gods seek human patronage, and unless they have been protected by your championing, they are not themselves fit to repel and avenge the insults done to them. Nay rather, if it is true that they burn with anger, grant them power over themselves; let them defend themselves, and in vengeance for their offended majesty let them put forth and make trial of their own inward powers."

But Heraldus judges this argument to be very light and of no weight, and rejects it altogether. But on what ground, do you suppose? Because God, he says, having reserved to Himself the punishment of perjury, wills that the impiety of men be punished by men themselves. Yet if this argument is wholly weak and of no weight, Cyprian must be refuted, who assails Demetrianus and the other gentiles in exactly the same and in a sharper manner: "If your gods," he says, "have any divinity and power, let them rise up themselves to avenge themselves, let them defend themselves by their own majesty. Or what can they bestow on their worshippers, who cannot avenge themselves on those who do not worship them? For if he who avenges is of more account than he who is avenged, you are greater than your gods. But if you are greater than those whom you worship, you ought not to worship them, but rather be worshipped and feared by them, as their master. If your vengeance defends them when injured, so too does your guardianship keep them when shut up, lest they perish. Be ashamed to worship those whom you defend; be ashamed to hope for protection from those whom you yourself protect" (Cyprian, To Demetrianus, p. 191).

Lactantius too, the disciple of Arnobius, must be condemned, who argued in the same way that the heathen look in vain for protection from their gods, who are not able to protect themselves. And a little after: When the heathen, he says, "punish those caught in sacrilege, they themselves distrust the power of their gods. For why do they not leave to them, above all, the opportunity of avenging themselves, if they think they are able to do anything?" (Lactantius, book 4, pp. 154 and 158.) Will Heraldus, then, accuse these and other most learned Fathers of the Church of such ignorance or blindness that they did not see how much weight this argument has? Did Heraldus himself not see that they were arguing, as they say, ad hominem, and from the very opinion of the gentiles, by which they taught that their gods were in truth so kindled with anger against the Christians, anger being the lust for avenging oneself, that on their account they afflicted with the greatest calamities both them and the gentiles themselves together? Does not Arnobius rightly conclude from this that the gods, if they were so angry, ought in this onset of supreme wrath to have exacted punishment from the Christians alone, who spurned them, by their own divine power, and not to have committed the office of avenging themselves to feeble men?

Nor is there any ground for anyone to object that this argument could have been turned back against the Christians, whom God not only

by public calamities, but also suffered being tortured and killed by the heathen. For the opinion of the Christians and of the gentiles concerning the wrath of God was not the same. Then again, the Christians were far unlike the heathen, for they confessed that nothing had been promised them for this life: "For nothing," says Arnobius (bk. 2, p. 98), "has been promised to us for this life," but for the future one, which we await as blessed. And from this he concludes: "Therefore this harshness of persecution, as you call it, is our liberation, not persecution: nor will harassment bring punishment, but it will lead us out to the light of liberty." The same also is Tertullian's answer, as we shall show in its place (Dissertation on Tertullian, ch. 16, art. 3). The wrath of the gods, then, alleged by the heathen against the Christians, could avail nothing.

Finally, our author openly and plainly asserts that it is altogether absurd to say that the gods, as these same heathen prattled, are truly angry (Arnob., bk. 1, p. 11). For indeed they attributed to their gods unseemly motions of anger, unjust and plainly like those of beasts. Yet if the gods had been blessed and immortal, they surely could not have been inflamed by these wholly blameworthy motions of anger. For those who are stirred by passions of this kind are fickle, and now calm, now angry, and quite often unjust, when they harm some who are innocent, and then are angry also with others who are guilty. Moreover, the whole strength and weight of this argument rests not on what he himself [held] concerning [the wrath] of the true God, of which below (next chapter, art. 3), but on what the heathen proclaimed about the wrath of their gods.

Therefore he indicates that he can scarcely bring himself to believe that this was the opinion of the more prudent among the heathen (ibid., p. 13). And so he judges it rather to be a rotten lie, fabricated by haruspices, soothsayers, diviners, seers and fanatics, so that, with their temples and rites deserted, they might not lose the offerings which they were accustomed to collect from those who consulted them or from others (Arnob., bk. 1, p. 13). For these had begun to diminish, and were paid out by very few gentiles, after the number of the Christians had grown beyond measure. Over this very great loss of theirs complained above all the pimps, as Tertullian says (Tertull., Apology ch. 43), the water-carriers, procurers, assassins, poisoners, magicians, haruspices, diviners, astrologers, of whom we shall treat in their place. No one, moreover, will deny that the heathen placed greater trust in these last, who boasted that they foretold the future or gave the answers of the gods. Hence they readily believed them when they lied that the world was being crushed by the greatest calamities for this reason, that the Christians, as they peddled the tale, had stirred up the wrath of the gods by the new superstitions of their religion.

Furthermore, from what has been said so far it ought, we think, to be sufficiently plain to anyone that that shameless lie of the heathen, and the other charges brought by them against the Christian religion, are overthrown from the foundations by Arnobius, and that by the most unconquerable weight of reasons it is demonstrated that this religion of the Christians alone is true. What

moreover his teachings were, and how they were handed down and defended by him, let us now see.

Chapter VII.

The teachings of the Christian religion asserted by Arnobius are examined, and first concerning God.

First Article.

By what weighty reasons Arnobius demonstrates that God exists, and what he has laid down concerning His nature, and how clearly he demonstrates it to be wholly incorporeal; and that a certain answer of his is undeservedly censured by some.

The first and chief teaching, without doubt, on which the whole religion of the Christians is founded and that of the gentiles is destroyed, is that there exists only one almighty God. Arnobius demonstrates this most evidently from His effects (Arnobius, book 1, p. 16, and book 2, p. 43), from the idea and acknowledgement of Him inborn in all men, and from the inmost conscience of all. For that notion is so implanted, or rather inborn, in the minds of each, that they readily recognize that they have received from the true God not only that they are men, that they live, breathe and move, but that the whole world too, the sun, the moon, the elements, the earth and all other things were created by Him, and are ruled and administered by His providence. And in confirmation of this argument he skilfully adds that this cannot be attributed to any of the fictitious gods of the gentiles. For all men professed that all these gods, like the world too, had come into being at some definite time.

And he judges there to be so much strength, evidence and clarity in this argument, that although it is unknown to all men who, of what kind and how great God is, yet whether He exists can be called into doubt by no man of sound mind. Now in our earlier dissertation on the Octavius of Minucius Felix (ch. 3, art. 5), we showed that not only he, but Cyprian also, Tertullian, Lactantius, and indeed even the heathen Cicero, demonstrated by the same reasoning, as certainly as evidently, that there is only one God, by Whose infinite power all things were created and are governed by wonderful providence. But something is still to be said below about Lactantius and Tertullian. Moreover Arnobius somewhere declares without hesitation that if it could happen that living creatures, and even creatures devoid of sense, were to utter some sound of voice, then at once, with nature as teacher and guide, they would cry out that there exists one God, the sole creator of all things (Arnobius, book 1, p. 18). Indeed, if we believe Clement of Alexandria, Xenocrates and Democritus, as has been observed by us elsewhere, taught that there is some notice and knowledge of God in dumb animals (Apparatus, vol. 2, book 3, dissertation 2, ch. 6, art. 1, p. 848).

And it is so inborn in all men, says Arnobius, that all naturally call upon God and appoint Him as witness: "Whom we all," he says, "know by nature, whether when we cry out: O God! or when we appoint that God as witness of the wicked,

and as though He sees us, we raise our face to heaven" (Arnob., book 2, p. 43). How true this is, moreover, Cicero, already cited by us, will teach you, who somewhere wrote: "All think that there is a divine force and nature. Nor indeed is it the talk of men or their agreement that brings this about; the opinion has not been confirmed by institutions, nor by laws. But in every matter the agreement of all nations is to be regarded as a law of nature" (Cic., Tusculans book 1, p. 119, penultimate line and following, and De legibus book 2, p. 325, line 22). Nor should you think this was said by him imprudently, since you will find it repeated by him elsewhere. Wherefore Arnobius somewhere asserts without hesitation that he is mad, and foolishly desperate, who doubts that God exists; but that it is enough for a man, even if he is ignorant of other things, to acknowledge Him, and that this is the highest knowledge: "Of all things," he says, "which the obscurity of the august Godhead holds, God alone is beyond doubt, He alone is true, and He about Whom no one could be in doubt except a madman and one of insane desperation; Whom it is enough to know, though you should know nothing else, and you have attained true and the greatest knowledge, fixed upon God, the head of things, and upon the knowledge of Him" But since these things have been proved by us above, it does not now seem necessary to pursue them more fully (Arnob., book 2, p. 86; vol. 1 of the Apparatus, p. 688; and the dissertation on Minucius, ch. 5, art. 5).

But you certainly see how clearly God is there called by Arnobius the head of all things, the only true God (Arnob., book 1, p. 13). Elsewhere, indeed, He is no less eloquently called by him unbegotten, immortal, eternal, incorporeal, devoid of quality and quantity, uncircumscribed, immeasurable, without position, motion and condition, the place and space of all things, the first cause, the source of things, the sower of ages and times, father, lord, creator of all things, and almighty, Who can neither be seen nor explained by men (ibid., pp. 17, 19; book 2, pp. 43, 67, 74, 75, 95; book 3, p. 101). But who, even though we keep silent, does not recognize from this how rightly he has set forth the divine nature, and with how much diligence and how much zeal he reviews almost all, and each one, of the attributes of God?

Since, moreover, we have argued about these things elsewhere more than once, let it suffice to turn attention to that weighty point of reasoning by which our Author defends and champions the Catholic view of the incorporeal or spiritual nature of God: "Our view," he says (Arnob., book 3, p. 107), "on this matter is as follows. That every divine nature, which neither began to exist at any time nor will ever come to an end of its life, lacks bodily lineaments, and possesses no likenesses of shapes, by which the outermost outline of the limbs is accustomed to bound their joinings. For whatever is of that kind we judge to be mortal and perishable; nor do we believe that it obtains perpetual everlastingness, since a necessary boundary encloses what is confined by outer limits." Surely nothing is firmer and clearer than that reasoning for establishing the incorporeal nature of God. For he rightly lays down as certain and fixed that whatever is corporeal, or is composed of the lineaments and form of a body, is

extended, and therefore closed and circumscribed by its own boundaries and outermost parts. But whatever is enclosed in this way must, by that very fact, be mortal. God, however, is not only immortal but also eternal, and for that reason incorporeal and of a spiritual nature.

How firmly Arnobius was persuaded of this is further gathered from the fact that, when the heathen were trying to confirm that their gods were corporeal by some testimony of the Jews and the Sadducees, he replied in this manner: "And let no one in this place set against us the Jewish fables and those of the Sadducee sect, as though they attribute forms and a mouth to God. For this is thought to be said in their books, and to be established as if by a certain fact and authority; but these either do not concern us at all, nor have anything in any portion in common with us; or, if they are, as is believed, allied [to us], you heathen must seek teachers of a loftier understanding, through whom you may learn in what ways it will be fitting to unfold the clouds and wrappings of those writings" (Ibid., p. 106). But here several things are branded with the mark of censorious severity by certain more recent critics. First, Arnobius is charged by them with speaking too confusedly, and even dangerously. For if he is speaking of the books of the Old Testament, this, they say, is beyond doubt impious and dreadful; if of the writings of the Rabbis, it is wholly useless. For all admit that these teem with fables. Secondly, he seems, as they say, to betray the utmost ignorance when he asserts that God is believed and proclaimed by the Jews to be corporeal. For Origen replies to Celsus that the Jews are counted by Numenius the Pythagorean among the company of those who held that God is altogether incorporeal (Origen, Against Celsus, book 1, p. 13).

But these critics of our author ought to have observed a little more attentively that he is there, as we have said, replying to the heathen, who were striving to establish the corporeal nature of their gods against the Christians by the authority of the Jews and the Sadducees. And he teaches that their writings and literature are of two kinds. For some were such as beyond doubt were those of the Sadducees, who, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, Say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit (Acts 23:8), and for that reason [held] that all things, not even God excepted, are corporeal. But the writings of these had nothing in common with the tenets of the Christians, and therefore could not be set against Christians. Others, however, were writings of the Jews which were believed to be allied to ours, and such indeed are the books of the Old Testament. But because in these members are attributed to God, the heathen drew from this an argument to confirm that their gods were corporeal. But Arnobius replies that they must seek teachers of a loftier understanding, readily available to all and not unknown even to the heathen themselves, who plainly showed that those words of the Old Testament are to be understood in the ways that are fitting, that is, in an allegorical, metaphorical and mystical sense, not a literal one. Now what is there in these replies and sayings of Arnobius worthy of reproof, or contrary to the authority and dignity of the sacred Old Testament, and which has not been asserted by other orthodox Fathers of the Church? But surely no one

is there who does not very easily perceive that by these same answers of Arnobius, and by the other arguments which we have related, the spiritual and incorporeal nature of God is plainly asserted and vindicated.

Article II.

How rightly Arnobius asserts that the form of God cannot be explained, and how he teaches what His immensity is, and His infinite knowledge, and that He has nothing like to men.

It will perhaps seem strange to someone why Arnobius, when the heathen asked him what the form of God is, candidly answers: "If you wish to hear the true opinion: either God has no form, or, if He is formed in some way, what that form is we certainly do not know" (Arnobius, book 3, p. 110). What then, someone or other will say? Did he not know that the nature of God is not corporeal, but purely spiritual? He knew it very well indeed, as is clear from what was said just above; but he freely and sincerely confesses that the perfection of the divine nature, and of all its properties and attributes, is so great that it can neither be comprehended by the weak intellect of man nor explained by any words of his. And of this he says the true and certain reason is this: that since the weakness of the human mind is such that whatever it perceives it conceives only in its own imperfect and finite manner, it therefore cannot conceive or express a perfect idea of the infinite nature of God. Hear, I pray, his splendid words: "Whatever you say of God, whatever you conceive in the thought of the silent mind, passes over into a human sense and is corrupted; nor does what is said in our words, and words framed for human affairs, bear the mark of proper signification. There is one understanding of man concerning the nature of God which is most certain: if you know and perceive that nothing can be drawn forth concerning Him in mortal speech" (ibid., p. 111). Wherefore he asserts without hesitation in the same place that, so far are we from attributing to God any lineaments of any body whatever, we should rather fear to ascribe to Him the human virtues of our soul, knowledge, intelligence, wisdom, sobriety, uprightness, constancy and the others. For these virtues and these goods of men are esteemed by them, according to the capacity of a feeble mind, only from the vices opposed to them, which cannot be said of God.

But there is nothing in this teaching of our Arnobius that is not plainly sound and orthodox. For we read it written by Theophilus of Antioch, just as by him (Theophilus, To Autolycus, book 1, p. 71): "The form of God is unspeakable and inexpressible, and cannot be seen by eyes of flesh": the form of God indeed, hidden from us, cannot be explained, nor is it seen by bodily eyes. Indeed very many ancient Fathers of the Church openly deny that ousia, or as they say, essence and substance, belongs to God, but hold that He so stands above all essences and intelligences that whatever is understood by the human mind ought to be removed from Him, Who is far more excellent than all these. And we have seen this lucidly explained by Clement of Alexandria and by the author of the book On the Divine Names, which is ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite. It would indeed be easy to heap up here more testimonies of other Fathers of the Church:

but because this has been anticipated by Petau, Thomassin and others, we have judged that we should refrain from bringing those passages forward (vol. 1 of the Apparatus, bk 1, diss. 10, ch. 1, § 3, and bk 3, diss. 2, ch. 6, art. 1, p. 948; Petau, bk 1 of the Theological Dogmas, ch. 6, § 10 and following, p. 45 and following).

Yet let us still be permitted to observe that what Arnobius asserts, namely that God, although He is circumscribed by no limit or place and is immeasurable, is nevertheless both the place and the space of all things, is finely confirmed by these words of Tertullian: 'There is God almighty, Who grasps the whole world in His hand like a nest, Whose throne is heaven and the earth His footstool, in Whom is every place, while He Himself is not in a place, Who is the outermost boundary of the universe' (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, ch. 16, p. 648). Earlier, however, Theophilus of Antioch had written to Autolycus no less clearly to this effect (Theophilus, To Autolycus, bk 2, p. 81): But it belongs to God most high and almighty, and to Him Who truly is God, not only to be everywhere, but also to look upon all things and to hear all things, and indeed not to be contained in a place; otherwise the place that contains Him will be found greater than He, for that which contains is greater than that which is contained. For God is not contained, but He Himself is the place of all things. It is as it were proper to God most high and almighty, and existing, not only to be everywhere, but also, being present, to behold and hear all things. Moreover, He is not contained by a place; otherwise the place that contains Him would be found greater than He. For that which contains is greater than that which is contained. For God is in no way circumscribed by place, but He Himself is the place of all things. Therefore, when Autolycus objected that God, as sacred Scripture testifies, walked in paradise, he answers that this is said of the divine Word, by Whom both the person of the Father was assumed and all things were created. But God, he says, and Father of all things is not to be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest. God the Father of all things is neither enclosed by place nor found in a place, for there is no place in which He may rest.

What clearer or more fitting could be desired for establishing the true and orthodox doctrine of our Arnobius, who elsewhere further constantly asserts that it is proper to the true God that He fills all things by His own power, not partially anywhere, he says, that is, never divided, or as he said elsewhere (Arnobius, bk 6, p. 192 and p. 204), partially and divided into members, but everywhere whole, so that He neither comes near nor is absent, but, being present everywhere, hears all who speak from whatever part of the world, and foresees the silent thoughts of their mind with anticipated knowledge.

Moreover, he teaches that this is the right opinion, worthy of God and constitutive of religion, by which we believe that He has nothing like a man, expects nothing coming to Him from outside, is moved by no feeling of anger, pleasure, honour, ambition or reward, nor by disturbance of mind; and, what is proper to Him, that He knows Himself by His own power, that is, knows Himself, how great and of what kind He is, perfectly and by His own power (bk 7, pp. 222 and 242). And rightly indeed; for God, Who the cause of all things

is, by knowing Himself knows all things and each one, past, present and future. But who would deny that this knowledge is infinite, and belongs to no other? Indeed it is so proper to Him that certain most learned Fathers of the Church consider that His divine Word proceeds from this very [knowledge]. On this opinion, however, another, more suitable occasion for discussion will be given.

Article III.

Whether Arnobius's opinion on the anger of God is sound.

The whole of Arnobius's discussion of the anger of God seems to some to be scarcely orthodox. For against the gentiles, who never ceased crying out that their gods, as we have seen (preceding chapter, art. 4), were inflamed with implacable wrath against the Christians, he argues thus: "As you assert that those most august gods are angry with the Christian peoples, so do you not notice, do you not see, how base passions, how unseemly madnesses you attribute to the divinities? For what else is it to be angry than to be mad, to rage, to be carried away into a lust for vengeance, and into the cross of another's pain," that is, torment, "to revel in the derangement of a savage heart?..... For wherever there is any passion, as seems right to the wise, there there must be suffering. Where suffering is situated, it is consistent that disturbance follows. Where there is disturbance, there is pain and sickness. Where there is pain and sickness, there is at once room for diminution and corruption. And if these two harass, destruction is near at hand, death that ends all things" (Arnobius, book 1, p. 10). But this, says Heraldus, is the very opinion of the Stoics, whose falsity Lactantius so exposed that he seems to have censured this opinion of Arnobius, his teacher. For although he asserts in one place that anger does not befit a serious and wise man, elsewhere he nonetheless shows that God is truly angry.

But that accusation of Heraldus is plainly frivolous, and suffers from a childish ambiguity. For anger is taken in two ways, and first it is defined by Cicero: "The lust to punish him who seems to have done harm unjustly" (Cicero, Tusculans book 4, p. 166, line 8). And if you ask him what lust is: "It is," he says, "an immoderate appetite for a supposed great good, not obeying reason" (the same, book 3, p. 151, line 40). Wherefore it is called by Seneca the foulest and most rabid passion of all, which is wholly roused in an onset of pain, and which "some wise men have called a brief madness" (Seneca, On Anger book 1, chapter 1, book 2, chapter 35, and book 3, chapters 3 and 4). And more than once he describes its very bad and horrible effects. Augustine, moreover, added something further to Cicero's foregoing definition: "Anger itself," he says, "the ancients defined as nothing other than the lust for revenge, although sometimes a man, where there is no sense of vengeance, is angry even with inanimate things" (Augustine, City of God book 14, chapter 15, p. 367).

There is, however, no reason to doubt that this anger is evil and to be condemned. For, as Ambrose rightly teaches: "To the powerful their anger is a burden, to the wicked their wickedness, to the just the weakness of their condition" (Ambrose, book 2

On the Interpellation of Job, ch. 6, § 16, p. 632). For this reason it is called by the scholastic theologians a passion, which always carries with it at least something of imperfection. Arnobius, however, is without doubt disputing about this very anger, which the heathen did not shrink from attributing to their gods. Do you wish that point to be proved to you by other words of his? We shall quickly bring these forward: "And if we hold to that definition, which it is fitting that we should always tenaciously remember, that all affections of minds are unknown to the gods, it follows that we must believe that the gods are never angry: nay rather, that no affection is farther from them than that which, being nearest to wild beasts and brutes, troubles with storms those who suffer it, and leads them into danger of destruction. For whatever is disturbed by the motion of anything is evidently passible and frail: what is subject to passion and frailty must of necessity be mortal: but anger disturbs, and undoes those who suffer it. Therefore that must be called mortal which is subject to the passions of anger." (Arnobius, book 7, p. 214.) But what is there false or faulty in this argumentation, which is drawn out from those things which the heathen were forever vaunting about the anger of their gods against the Christians, and its most unjust motions?

But there is another kind of anger, which the ancient Fathers of the Church, and afterwards the scholastic theologians, teach to be nothing other than a fair vengeance, without disturbance of mind, for an offence and an injury received, or a just judgement for inflicting a due penalty. And they readily acknowledge that God is angry in that manner. For "the anger of God," says Augustine (book 15 of the City, ch. 25, p. 409), "is not a disturbance of His mind, but a judgement by which punishment is imposed upon sin." And earlier Origen, when Celsus objected that human affections of anger and others are attributed to God in our sacred Scriptures, replies that their authors speak after the manner of men, and for the sake of their benefit, but that the true sense of the writers is easily discerned by the spiritual man. Then he straightway added (Origen, book 4 against Celsus, p. 211): We therefore name the anger of God, yet we say that it is not a passion of His, but something employed for the correction, by sterner means of discipline, of those who have committed sins so many and of such a kind. So when we name the anger of God, we do not speak of an affection of His, but of something chastising with a more severe discipline men who are liable to so many and so great sins. We could bring forward several, such as Ambrose and others, speaking in like manner (Ambrose, book on Noah, ch. 4, § 9, p. 231). But since that would be too long, we shall subjoin only these words of Hilary: "Appointed vengeance is believed to be the anger of God; not because that unchangeable and tranquil nature of God grows hot with the motion of a turbulent impulse; but because he who, through the appointment of the penalty, remains in the penalty feels the author of this appointment to be angry with him. For the penalty of the one who suffers is believed to be the anger of the one who decrees. And thus God is angry, when those who are punished feel through the pain of the penalty the anger of the decree upon themselves, which has not been moved from placability into anger by a change of nature, but is anger to those who are to be punished by the appointment of the penalty." (Hilary, Tractate on Ps. 2, § 17, p. 35.) Nor did he say this once only: but in the anger of God, he says further (ibid., on Psalm 68, § 19,

p. 225), "we have often discussed that the appointing of punishment is signified, not a movement of a mind blazing up towards vengeance." But Arnobius speaks of anger taken not in this sense, but only in the former meaning, in which the heathen prattled that their gods were inflamed. And in this very sense he asserts elsewhere that God, "as," he says, "has been said rather often, does not blaze with the flames of anger." (Arnobius, book 7, p. 222.) And he rightly affirms that this anger cannot befall God, and that those who were said to flare up with it are in truth not gods.

For when, as we noted a little earlier, he said that to be angry is nothing other than to rave, to rage, to be borne along and to run riot in a lust for vengeance, he immediately added: "This, then, the great gods know, endure and feel, which wild beasts, which monsters, which the deadly nurses hold in their venomous tooth," (that is, serpents pouring their venom into water, of which Cicero, Lucan and others [speak]) "that whatever is blameworthy as levity in man, whatever in an earthly living creature, that excellent nature, abiding in the firmness of everlasting virtue, knows" (another reading: feels), "is asserted by you" (Arnobius, book 1, p. X; Cicero, Academic Questions book 4, p. 33; Lucan, book 9, line 772), namely by the gentiles, who attribute to your gods whatever evil anger is recognized to have in men and beasts. But what in this whole line of argument can be censured as not sound and orthodox? Against the heathen Arnobius teaches, and strives with all the powers of his intellect to demonstrate, that vicious anger, and its depraved movements and effects, cannot befall the true God. But he never denied that there is in God that anger which is a right judgement of inflicting punishment, and the just vengeance of some offence. What Lactantius, cited by Heraldus, taught about the anger of God, we shall investigate in its proper place.

Article IV.

Whether Arnobius believed that God is the author of all evils, both of punishment and of guilt.

We seem to hear certain people who boldly accuse Arnobius of a most grievous error in his discussion of the omnipotence of God. For does he not, they say, bring in someone objecting to him that, if all things happen by the will of God and nothing can happen without it, it follows from this that He is the author of all the evils by which men are tormented daily? And after he has weighed this with the closest attention, he declares himself persuaded that these evils arise neither from the elements nor from their inequality (the same, book 2, p. 80 and following). For he does not think it can be that things which have no sense or judgement should be harmful and malicious. What, then, does he afterwards reply to these objections put to him? Nothing else indeed than that it matters little whether we know or do not know what the cause of evil is. For he judges that it is enough for us to know this one thing: that nothing harmful, ruinous and deadly proceeds from God, and that nothing is done by Him except what is to all salutary, sweet, desirable, pleasing and most delightful.

But in this whole discourse, they say, is Arnobius not in the dark and blind, in not, as between the evil of guilt and the evil of punishment,

distinguishing? For who that is not plainly a guest and a stranger in our sacred Scriptures does not know that the devil, God permitting, is the author of the evil of guilt, but that God Himself, by a judgement that is surely right, is the author of the evil of punishment inflicted on those who sin? Could he not also have learned this from Tertullian, who, where he disputes against Marcion's error concerning an evil god, the author of evils, there skilfully distinguishes the two kinds of evil: "We," he says, "applying a distinction of each form, having separated the evils of transgression and the evils of chastisement, the evils of guilt and the evils of punishment, assign to each part its own author: of the evils of sin and guilt, the devil; of the evils of chastisement and punishment, God the Creator; so that the former part is reckoned to malice, the latter to the justice of Him who establishes judgements, evils against the evils of transgression. Of these evils, then, the Creator makes profession, which befit a judge. These evils are indeed evils to those on whom they are repaid; but in their own name they are goods, inasmuch as they are just, and defensive of goods, and hostile to transgressions, and in this order worthy of God." (Tertullian, Against Marcion, book 2, chapter 14, page 464.) To him, as he pursues and asserts these things more fully, Origen, Augustine and other Fathers of the Church, great in number and in agreement, give their support, whom in a matter unknown to no one there is no need to cite here (Origen, Against Celsus, book 6, page 324; Augustine, Against Adimantus, chapter 26, etc.). Was Arnobius, then, ignorant of these things, or, if he had learned them, why did he not untie the knot of this difficulty by a brief explanation, or by the distinction of the twofold evil? Was he persuaded of what we read was said by Origen, cited just above: If there is any other topic in human affairs hard for our nature to search out, among these the origin of evils may rightly be numbered." (Origen, Against Celsus, book 4, page 207.) And he speaks thus in Greek: If, then, any other topic among those among men that need investigation is hard for our nature to hunt down, among these too the origin of evils would be ranked. This reasoning will perhaps not seem altogether foolish to you, if you consider for a moment that this question of the origin of evil seemed to Arnobius one of those over which men contend fiercely among themselves, and confess that nothing certain can be determined by them. Therefore, so as not to be compelled to draw out the thread of the disputation further, and to wander too long outside the question concerning the soul that he had there set himself, he thought it enough to declare openly to all the heathen this one thing as certainly known by Christians, that God is neither the cause nor the author of evil. We cannot deny, however, that this inquiry into the author of evil could have been explained more clearly by him there; since in this same place he digresses at length into other matters less worth knowing and no more conducive to his intended discourse on the soul.

Yet you should not persuade yourself that this was left by him altogether untouched. For afterwards he openly asserts that God, although He is omnipotent, never brings force to bear on anyone to believe or to act (Arnobius, book 2, page 88 and following). For if He were to compel someone unwilling to do something, it would without doubt be not grace but force and injustice, by which a necessity would be imposed on a free will to do that which it does not wish and shrinks from.

God therefore, as also Christ, compels no one, but calls all equally, and gives to all the power of coming to Him. If anyone therefore does not come, the fault is surely his, not God's. But from this reasoning it is evidently gathered that Arnobius believed that the evils of fault, of transgression and of malice proceed not from God but from the free and depraved will of man; whereas the evils of punishment, as has been said, are indeed inflicted by Him, but under the compulsion of the malice of sinners, which He cannot let go unpunished.

Yet against this someone will object that Arnobius constantly denied that any cause of calamity could ever be brought upon men by God Himself. For he plainly declares: 'Whatever is able to bring on a cause of calamity, what it is must first be considered, and it ought to be set apart from the name of God by the widest difference.' (The same, book 7, page 228.) But does he not by these words run into the very error of Marcion, by which he prattled that God is indeed the author of good things, but that all evils, whatever they may be, flowed from some other evil principle?

But whoever argues thus surely does not pay sufficient attention to the fact that Arnobius is there refuting the opinion of the gentiles, who foolishly maintained that some gods are by their nature good and favourable, others evil and hostile, and that these are the authors of all the evils and calamities which seemed true evils to the heathen; yet in such a way that, appeased by victims, sacrifices and other superstitious rites, from evil they would become good, or at least would not harm man. Arnobius, however, although he acknowledges that Christians are oppressed by the same calamities as the heathen, and, with God permitting, are harassed and slaughtered by the heathen with the most atrocious tortures for confessing Him, nevertheless asserts, as we saw above, that these things are certainly not evils but goods, by which they are led out to the light of eternal liberty. (The same, book 2, page 98, chapter above, article 4.)

Rightly indeed, you will say, if Arnobius, in refuting the error of the heathen, had kept himself within the bounds of truth. But he puts forward this general assertion, circumscribed by no limit: 'Whatever is gentle and placid by nature is far removed from the practice of harming, and separated from the thought of it.' (Arnobius, book 7, page 228 and following.) Indeed in the same place he added that it can no more happen that one who is good by his nature should harm another and bring him something evil than that fire should be changed into cold. Therefore he really held that God, being good by His nature, cannot create for anyone any evil of punishment, of calamity or of torment, nor be the cause and author of it. Which surely falls back into the error of Marcion.

But surely, however general that proposition of Arnobius may seem, it concerns only the heathen and their false opinions, who held for certain that the gods are by their nature either good or evil in such a way that at their pleasure and without any cause they overwhelmed pious men and impious, upright and wicked, with calamities and miseries indiscriminately. Besides this, he is also speaking of the punishments and hardships which befall good and pious men, and which, not anything evil but always something good, as just now

we were saying, bring with them. For the things that are inflicted on the impious and the wicked, no one will deny that these are good effects of the divine justice punishing them. But what occurs in that whole argumentation of our author that is not plainly sound, orthodox, and wholly foreign to the errors of Marcion? If, however, anyone should contend more stubbornly, and should prove that he, carried away by the heat of disputation, either did not distinguish the true God accurately enough from the false gods of the gentiles, or actually stumbled into some error, we will condemn him at once. But scarcely, indeed not even scarcely, will anyone persuade us that he who, as we have shown, discourses so rightly about the supreme nature of the one God, fell into an error wholly opposed to this orthodox opinion.

Article V.

Whether Arnobius believed that certain animals were not created by God, and that man is not subject to evils through natural infirmity, nor sins by the choice of his own will.

Heraldus presses the point, and thinks that our Arnobius fell into the error of the Marcionists and of others who denied God as creator, in the place where he proves by this argument that the origin of our souls, and by whom other than God Himself they were created, can be neither known nor defined: 'For if we deny that flies, beetles and bugs, dormice, weevils and moths are the work of the omnipotent King, it does not follow that it must be demanded of us that we say who made and established them.' (Arnobius, book 2, p. 75.) But is not this the very error which is assailed by Jerome in these words: 'But if they do not think that the small things belong to those to whom the great things also belong, they must introduce to me, according to Valentinus, Marcion and Apelles, one maker of the ant, of gnats, of locusts, and another of heaven and earth, of the sea and of the angels.' (Jerome, preface to the Epistle of Paul to Philemon.) Whether such was in fact really the error of Valentinus and Marcion matters little to know now, and we have discussed them sufficiently in the earlier volume of our Apparatus (vol. 1 of the Apparatus, book 3, dissertation 1, ch. 5, § 3).

But Heraldus could have added to Jerome Origen, Ambrose and others, and above all Augustine, who rightly and expressly asserts that there is no nature, even in the lowest little creatures, which was not created by God: 'There is not,' he says, 'any nature, even in the last and lowest little creatures, which He did not establish from Whom is every measure, every form, every order, without which nothing at all can be found or devised.' And elsewhere: 'Nor is it lawful to believe and say that the creator of any nature, however small and mortal, is anyone but God.' (Origen, book 4 against Celsus, p. 202; Ambrose, book 6 of the Hexameron, ch. 6, § 38, p. 125, and book 5, ch. 2 and following; Augustine, book 2 of the City [of God], ch. 15, p. 284; and book 12 of the City [of God], ch. 24, p. 322.)

But that Arnobius neither denied this nor is guilty of the error censured by Jerome can be gathered from the fact that he did not expressly say that beetles and other little creatures of this kind were not made by God, but that, if this should be denied, it is not on that account to be demanded that it be proved at once and necessarily by whom they were made.

Heraldus insists that by Arnobius in the same place it is not obscurely determined

that we can, without any blame, not know who gave origin to these useless little creatures: "And to hold that they were not brought forth by the superior God." (Arnobius, book 2, p. 75.) But who, says Heraldus, is that superior God, if not the good god of Marcion? Yet surely no one, not even Heraldus himself, could ever say that Marcion or anyone else erred because he asserted that God is good, but rather because he asserted that God is evil, and that this [God] is the creator of corporeal things. But no one will ever be able to prove that this error was asserted by Arnobius.

Someone will press the point that God cannot be called superior by him without another being called inferior. Yet God cannot be called inferior to another without grave error. What then? Does not Arnobius teach most plainly, as we have seen and shall show further below, that there is only one omnipotent God, the creator of the world and of all things? It is therefore in that sense that God is called superior by Arnobius in which we read it written afterwards: "Of the divinity itself," as he says (the same, book 3, p. 104), "He is the head, from Whom the very divinity of all the gods is derived," the gods, that is, whom foolish heathendom had wrongly invented. When, therefore, he called God superior, he was accommodating himself to the common manner of speaking of the heathen, and nothing can rightly and justly be concluded from it against the teaching he asserted concerning one God only.

But if you put faith in Elmenhorst, although Arnobius may be shown not to be held by the error of Marcion, who absurdly preached one God good and another evil, he has nevertheless fallen into another impiety, surpassing, as he says, all sacrileges. Is that really so? Yes indeed, says Elmenhorst. For Arnobius himself openly and clearly asserts that man was created not by God but by some lower powers or other. For where he discusses the salvation of souls, he has handed down these things in so many words: "So far is it from being believed that God is the author of these things, that whoever conceives that man was begotten by Him incurs the charge of sacrilegious impiety: a thing unhappy and wretched, which grieves that it exists, which detests and mourns its condition; which understands that it was brought into being for no other reason than that evils should not lack material through which to spread themselves, and that there should always be wretched beings on whose torments some hidden power and cruelty hostile to humanity might feed." (The same, book 2, p. 75.)

Now two errors of equal impiety, as Elmenhorst says, are put forward by him there. For first he plainly and utterly denies that man was brought into being by God. Second, [he says] that man is of so wretched and unhappy a condition that he feels he was created for no other reason than to be made subject, by a cruel harshness, to diseases and innumerable evils. For in the preceding book, in discussing the miracles of Christ, he had said similarly: "That they were accustomed to heal by a word and a command all the kinds of illness which some cruel harshness or other willed human bodies to endure." (The same, book 1, p. 28.) But this raving, says Elmenhorst, Arnobius

drew not from our sacred writers but from the heathen, and by name from Pliny and Plutarch, a thing which Lactantius rightly attacks. He could doubtless have added to them Clement of Alexandria, who, as we have seen, brought forward very many other heathen writers lamenting the wretched condition of man (Pliny, Natural History, book 7, preface; Plutarch, On Fortune, p. 927, vol. 2; Lactantius, book 3, ch. 28, and On the Workmanship [of God], ch. 3 and 4; Apparatus, vol. 1, book 3, dissertation 2, ch. 18, art. 1, p. 1137; above, this chapter, art. 1).

But whether our author was really led by these absurd errors, there is no small room for doubt. For we have already made it plain that Arnobius declared in the most explicit words not only that the world was founded by God, but also that man himself owes it to Him that he exists, that he is called man, that he breathes and lives. Since, then, it can be credible to no one that Arnobius shamefully contradicted himself, may it not rightly be said that in the earlier words which are cited he slays the heathen with no other sword than their very own, and attacks them out of the false opinions with which they were imbued? For they taught that our souls are of divine race, and that they were sent by that [God] into this world, where, wholly forgetful of their former and supreme dignity, they are tormented and overwhelmed by calamities of every kind. Who, therefore, would not readily persuade himself that Arnobius there argues against the heathen from their own false opinion, but that elsewhere, as we observed just now, he set out his own view and openly asserted that man was in truth created by God?

As regards the wretched condition of man, the Apostle too laments it, inasmuch as it inclines us to sin. But this propensity flowed not from God but from the sin of the first man. Moreover, Arnobius does not there mention vices and sins, but hardships and troubles, which, although they have issued from the first man's sin, yet, as we showed above from Arnobius himself (above, ch. 4), are not true evils, but can even produce eternal good for those who use them well.

Yet Elmenhorst and Hérault rise up again and object to us that Arnobius asserted that man sins through natural infirmity, and not by choice of the will. For he proves that Christ helps good and bad alike in this manner: "This is the property of the true God and of royal power, to deny His kindness to none, and not to reckon who deserves it or does not; since it is natural infirmity that makes man a sinner, not the choice of the will or (royal manuscript codex: but) of judgement." (Arnobius, book 1, p. 29.) By these words Hérault thinks it is indeed signified by him that man neither wills evil nor chooses it, but by natural blindness judges that to be good which is in reality evil. Is not Arnobius, then, rightly accused of having fallen into this error of certain ancient philosophers, which Lactantius noted in these words? "They say that those who seem wicked do not sin of their own accord, nor choose evil things in preference, but, having slipped through the appearance of good things, fall

into evils, since they do not know the difference between goods and evils." (Lactantius, Institutes, book 6, ch. 14, p. 595.)

But whether this or some other is the mind and meaning of our Arnobius is the more difficult to say because this passage is not entirely sound, but has been corrupted and distorted by the great ignorance of the copyist, which is detected everywhere throughout. For in place of seu he wrote sed, as we have already noted. But this reading is judged by some to be so far removed from the sense of Arnobius that they have not hesitated to substitute the word seu in the text on their own authority. Some, however, think that these two words, naturalis infirmitas, have been thrust into the text and should be cut out. But they offer no reason for this correction.

We therefore, who wish nothing in the text of authors to be changed without the warrant of some manuscript, or an entirely certain and evident proof, suspect that these words of Arnobius, if they are uncorrupted, have a wholly different sense. We shall indeed gladly go over to the opinion of those who prove that the noun peccatorem is taken by Arnobius not, of course, to signify a man who does something against the divine law and commits sin properly so called, but a man who through natural weakness is prone to sin and vice. That this is his meaning can be inferred from the fact that he, as we noted a little earlier (above, this chapter, art. 4), most expressly asserted that force is brought to bear on no one by God, that all without exception are called and set free by Christ equally, that no one is excluded from His indulgence, and that a free power of acting has been given to all. Wherefore he rebukes the erring man in these words: "You who desire to be turned, and to undergo force, so that you may do what you would not, and seize it under compulsion; why do you refuse to take up willingly that which you desire to do once turned, and to accomplish once changed? I am unwilling, he says, and I have no will. Why then do you accuse God, as though He failed you? You desire help to be brought to you [by Him] whose gifts and favours you not only spurn, but call empty words and pursue with jesting witticisms?" (Arnobius, book 2, p. 89.) Are these the words of one who asserts that man sins by the necessity of his weak nature? Rather, they are those of an orthodox writer driving this error entirely far away. Since, therefore, it is not likely that Arnobius wholly contradicts himself, his words objected by Elmenhorst must without doubt be brought back to that sense in which he called a man inclined to sin through natural weakness a sinner.

Chapter VIII.

On the supreme divinity of Christ and the mystery of His incarnation.

Article One.

With what strong arguments Arnobius asserts and defends the supreme divinity of Christ.

Arnobius asserts the supreme divinity of the Son of God, Christ the Lord, with such clarity and evidence that it could never be denied by anyone, unless by one bereft of his mind or blinded by a wholly incredible obstinacy. But how deeply fixed in his mind was the chief

teaching of the Christian religion, you will plainly gather from this, that he seems to himself never to have said and impressed it enough either upon Christians or upon the heathens themselves. For the Gentiles boldly, as he declares more than once, objected that their gods were hostile to the Christians not because "they worshipped the almighty God, but because they believed that a man who had been born, and put to death by the punishment of the cross, both had been God and still survives" (Arnobius, book I, page 19), and adored Him daily. Nor did they merely count this against them as a fault, but on account of this confession also they tortured and slaughtered them with every kind of punishment. Turn your mind therefore seriously with us to what Arnobius answers to those who never ceased crying out these things after the manner of tablets, and you will at once understand how openly and surely he proclaimed the true divinity of Christ. For what, I beseech you, was easier and readier for him than to answer that Christ is believed and called God by the Christians not truly and properly, but by metonymy and improperly? For by that answer, obvious to anyone, he would have entirely shut the mouths of the heathens. But so far is he from using it, that he even demonstrates that Christ Himself is true God (ibid., page 21) from the fact that He has conferred the highest and innumerable benefits on all men equally: "For this," he says (ibid., page 29), "is proper to the true God and to royal power, to deny His kindness to none, and not to reckon who deserves it or not." What these benefits are he touches on briefly, and above all records this, that Christ led men from errors and false religion to the true one, and taught them by whom the world and these very men were created, and what state awaits them after death. Then immediately he drew this conclusion: "Shall Christ then not be held God by us? And shall He who otherwise is the greatest that can be conceived of all not be honoured with the worship of divinity, from Whom long since we have both received such great gifts while living, and expect, when the day comes, greater ones?" What could have been brought forward more expressly and more clearly to assert the supreme divinity of Christ? The Gentiles were persuaded that Christ was believed by His followers to be true God, and they counted this against them as the greatest crime. But Arnobius, to those same heathens reproaching any Christian with this conviction, not only answers that this is in very fact the opinion of the Christians, but also proves and establishes its truth by various weighty reasons. Moreover he constantly asserts that Christ is to be honoured with that divine worship which is the greatest that can be conceived. Openly therefore and plainly he affirms not only that the Gentiles had not without reason believed that true divinity was attributed to Him by the Christians, but also that this was the certain and public teaching of the Christians themselves, from which they could never be torn away by any punishments.

But come, and observe how he repeats this (ibid., page 24), and establishes and confirms it in a new and no less clear manner of speaking: "You worship," said the heathens, "a man who was born." Behold indeed the same reproach of theirs put again to the Christians. What our Arnobius answers to it once more, you should hear,

I would wish: "Even if," he says, "this were true, as was said in the passages above, nevertheless for the many and so generous gifts which have proceeded from Him into us, He ought to be called God. But since He is God in very truth, and without the ambiguity of doubt about anything (so it is read in the royal manuscript codex), do you suppose that we will deny that He is worshipped by us as much as possible, and called the guardian of our body? Is that Christ God, then, some raging, angry and agitated man will say? God, we shall answer, and God of the inner powers; and, what may torment the unbelieving with the bitterest pains, sent by the supreme King for a matter of the greatest moment." You see indeed how he repeats it twice and three times, and drives home that Christ is, not in name and title only, but in very truth, and without any doubt or ambiguity, true God, the guardian of our body, and God of the inner powers, that is, of our soul and all its faculties. But to whom, I pray you, do all these things belong, if not to the supreme God?

But as for what he added, "sent by the supreme King for a matter of the greatest moment," by these words he certainly does not signify that Christ is inferior, but that He is one and the same with the Father, that He is supreme God, though distinct in Person. Further, that matter of the greatest moment, on account of which He is said to have been sent by Him, is none other than that He should save men, brought, as we have said, from the impious worship of idols and the false religion of the gentiles to the true worship of God and the true religion, and released from sins by His death. This, he asserts, was intolerable to the heathen (the same, book 2, p. 87, etc.), and, as he himself says, tormented them with the bitterest pains. But however much they were tormented by this public confession of the divinity of Christ, he nevertheless steadfastly, even at the peril of his own life, does not fear to affirm that He is supreme God.

He did not, however, think it enough for himself to declare the supreme divinity of Christ in such clear and open words, and to have proved Him [God] from His great benefits towards men and from His divine teaching, but he demonstrates that same divinity of His most evidently from the innumerable miracles performed by Him and by His disciples.

But what these miracles were, how great, how true, and more certain than certain, we have made plain above (above, chapter 3, article 1). Nor have we shown less clearly how they were done with no external aid, by no art either medical or magical, but by a word alone or a light touch, which was never granted to any god of the gentiles or to anyone else. Accordingly, after Arnobius has narrated at length those miracles of Christ and of His disciples, he argues thus from the power of doing them granted to these men by the same Christ: "To be able to transfer one's own right to a man, and to bestow on a most fragile thing what one alone can do, and to share the doing of it, belongs to a power set above all things, and holding beneath itself the causes of all things and the natures of reasons and faculties." (Arnobius, book 1, p. 31.) But whose, I pray you, is this power set above all things, which holds beneath itself the causes of all things and the natures of reasons and faculties, if not of God alone, best and greatest? Yet Arnobius, that Christ the Lord with that power

was endowed, most constantly asserts, and demonstrates it with the strongest arguments. He was therefore fully persuaded that He is the true and supreme God.

But hear further, I beg you, how he again infers this from the very miracles of Christ, and declares it most eloquently: "Nothing," he says (ibid., p. 32), "as you supposed, magical, nothing human, deceptive or crafty, nothing of fraud lay hidden in Christ. Though you may deride, as is your custom, and dissolve into wanton fits of laughter, He was God on high, God from the innermost root, God from unknown realms, and was sent as preserver by the Chief of all, Whom neither the sun itself, nor any stars, if they have sense, nor the rulers, nor the princes of the world, nor finally the great gods, or those who, feigning themselves gods, terrify the whole race of mortals, were able to know or to guess whence or who He was." You have heard indeed how from the miracles, performed by Christ with wholly divine power, he rightly infers that He was the supreme God, or, as he says, God on high, not by some external designation or appearance, but from the innermost root, that is, God by His own nature, and of such loftiness and excellence that no earthly creature, nor the gods feigned by the heathen, were ever able to grasp it and to know His origin. But who, unless wholly persuaded of the supreme divinity of Christ, has ever spoken and argued thus?

Moreover, he considered it of such moment to preach the supreme divinity of Christ to the heathen, and to impress it upon both their ears and their minds, that it never seemed to him that he had said it enough. For this reason elsewhere he addresses the gentiles further in this manner: "Christ, whether you will or not, is God, God, I say, is Christ; for this must often be said, that the hearing of unbelievers may burst and be shattered, speaking by command of God the Chief, under the form of man." (Arnobius, book 2, p. 85.)

But, someone will say, there Christ is called by Arnobius not the first and supreme, but only the second and lesser God. For what else do these words of his signify, speaking by command of God the Chief? Who is that God the Chief, by Whose command Christ speaks? He is without doubt God the Father and the most high, Who is therefore called Chief. But Chief of whom, if not of Christ, Whom He commands to speak, and Who obeys Him when He commands? Christ therefore is God lesser than Him Who commands, and inferior to Him, and accordingly God not properly and by His own nature, but improperly and only in name. And not only is He called by him God the Chief, but often also God the First, and the Most High, and the Father: "It is enough for us," he says, "[that] in God the First, God, I say, the First, the Father and Lord of things, the founder and governor of all, we worship all that is to be worshipped; what it is fitting to adore, we adore; what demands the homage of veneration, we earn by our venerations." (Ibid., book 1, pp. 15, 18 and 19; book 2, pp. 43 and 68; book 3, pp. 101 ff.) Did not Arnobius therefore acknowledge and believe Him alone to be the supreme God, but Christ a lesser God?

But nothing is plainly more foreign to his mind,

and more repugnant to it. For if this had been his opinion, then, as we have already remarked, he would, by explaining it clearly, easily have persuaded the heathen of it, and would not have found so many opposing him so stubbornly. On the contrary, with every sinew of his mind and of his speech he declares, asserts, teaches, repeats, proves, inculcates and demonstrates that Christ is true and supreme God, of divine and infinite power, and therefore also of divine and infinite nature. And since everywhere throughout, against the error of the gentiles, he affirms and proves that there is only one God and that there cannot be more, it is most evidently gathered from this that nothing was more deeply fixed in his mind than that Christ is one and the same God with His eternal Father.

Why then, you will say, does he call this Father of His both the first and the princely God? We answer that He is so named by him at times when he accommodates himself to the common speech of the gentiles, who acknowledged that all their gods, whether greater or lesser, had once not existed and had been born at some definite time. Granting this, Arnobius argues that these gods, if they were such as those men supposed, received from God the Prince the fact that they were born, that they lived their life, and that they have their divinity, if any could have been theirs, and their immortality. Hence he rightly concludes against these same heathen that these are false and invented gods, and that He alone is first and princely, and for that reason is, and can be called, the supreme and only God. For immediately after the words objected to him he added: « Since we hold the very head of divinity, from which the divinity itself of all the gods, whoever they are, is spoken of.... whoever these gods are whom you put before us as existing, if they are a royal offspring, they spring from the princely head..... and let this indeed be put forward by us thus, provided it is clear and settled that, besides the king and prince himself, there are still other heads which, arranged and separated by number, make up as it were a kind of populace of the plebeian multitude. » (Ibid., book 3, p. 101.)

But earlier he had said: « Since all the gods, whether those who are truly gods or those who by rumour and opinion are said to be immortal and everlasting, exist by His will and by the gift of His kindness, how can it come about that they are able to bestow on another what they themselves are, when they hold it as something not their own and lent to them from a greater power? » (Ibid., book 2, p. 87.)

Who, then, does not now see that God is called princely and first by Arnobius because he had regard to the opinion of the heathen about their gods, and that, even granting this opinion, he establishes and demonstrates that these are false and that He alone is the true God? For only He can be the true God Who, being unbegotten and eternal, has no beginning.

These things, therefore, tell in no way against the divinity of the divine Word and of Christ the Lord, which we have seen asserted by Arnobius more clearly and evidently than daylight itself. And then, what prevented Arnobius, while turning his mind to the very Word and Son of God, from saying that the eternal Father is the first and princely God, Who, since He begot this His Son from eternity, is for that reason rightly called first, prince, and the fount and origin of divinity?

You will press: Christ is said by Arnobius to speak "by the command of God the sovereign." Therefore He is subject to Him, and less than He. But if you notice that in the same place Arnobius immediately adds "under the form of a man," you will acknowledge that nothing is flimsier than this argument. For who denies that Christ, in so far as He is man, is subject to God the Father, and obeys His will?

Article II.

How clearly Arnobius taught that Christ was as truly God as man.

Arnobius does not allow the heathen to object against him that Christ cannot be called God (Arnobius, book 1, p. 21 and following), seeing that, having been born, He ended His life by the punishment of the cross. For besides the fact that the heathen themselves prated that men who had been born, who had died, and who had been subjected to punishments were gods, certainly the divine teaching of Christ, and the miracles performed by Him, as we have said, while living, while dying, and when dead, demonstrated most plainly that He was as truly God as man, and a partaker of both natures, divine and human. And what wonder is it if He, having received human nature, that is, having assumed a human body, which, as Arnobius says (ibid., book 1, p. 32), was a small part of Him, led and lost a human life, as other men do? But it is better to hear Arnobius himself, so that you may understand how rightly and clearly he sets forth the human and divine nature of Christ, and the most holy mystery of His incarnation, as theologians are now accustomed to speak.

For when the heathen ask: If Christ was God, why was He seen in the form of a man, and put to death in human fashion, he answers thus: «Or could that invisible power, having no bodily substance, have brought itself into and accommodated itself to the world, and taken part in the assemblies of mortals, otherwise than by assuming some covering of more solid matter, which might receive the glance of the eyes, and on which the gaze of contemplation, however dull, could fix itself? For who is there among mortals who could see Him, who could discern Him, if He had willed to bring Himself to the earth such as His primal nature is, and such as He Himself willed to be in His own quality or divinity? He assumed therefore the form of a man, and enclosed His power under the likeness of our race, so that He might both be seen and be looked upon, might speak and teach, and might carry out all the things which He had come into the world to do, observing the command and disposition of the supreme King.» (Ibid., p. 37.) Could the supreme divinity of Christ, and its union with human nature, be expressed in clearer words? Who ever, after the Nicene and the other general councils, set forth both His natures in more lucid speech? And indeed there he makes known not his own opinion only, but the common opinion of all the Christians of his age. Who then would dare to deny, or with any right to call into doubt, whether they, before the times of that same Council of Nicaea, believed that which was decreed in that council and in others afterwards concerning the divinity of Christ and the human nature assumed by Him?

Come now, and to him, in what way death to the divinity of Christ

in no way stood in the way, as he relates, let us still, if it please us, listen. The heathen objected: He was slain after the manner of a man. What does our Arnobius say to this? "Not He Himself," he says (ibid.), "for the fall of death cannot befall divine things; nor can that which is one and simple, and not compacted by the gathering of any parts, slip away through the dissolution of perishing. Who then was seen to hang upon the gibbet? Who died? The man whom He had put on, and whom He Himself carried with Him." Then next he shows that this deserves credence among the heathen, who believed that, when seers and Sibyls die, he does not die by whose breath they seemed to have poured forth their oracles. Having set these things out, he addresses the same heathen in these words: "That death of which you speak was the death of the man assumed, not of Himself; of the thing borne, not of the bearer; and even this He would not have stooped to suffer, if so great a work were not to be done, and the inexplicable plan of fate were not to be laid open out of its closed mysteries." (Ibid., p. 38.) But who has tasted, even with the tips of his lips, as they say, the writings of the theologians and of the ancient Fathers of the Church, and does not know that they answered the heretics, who later raised the same objections, in a plainly similar manner? Indeed, countless testimonies of theirs could be brought forward. But since many of them, cited by Theodoret and Gelasius (Theodoret, at the end of book 3 of the Dialogue "The Impassible"; Gelasius, Dialogue on the Two Natures), and handed down by very many others, are unknown to no one, we shall pass them over and report only these words of Ambrose, which are found recited and transcribed in the letter of Leo the Great and in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon: "As for what we read," says that eminent man (Ambrose, On the Faith, book 2, chap. 5, § 58, p. 481), "that the Lord of majesty was crucified, let us not think that He was crucified as it were in His majesty: but because the same is God, the same is man, God through the divinity, man through the taking up of flesh, Jesus Christ the Lord of majesty is said to have been crucified; because, sharing in both natures, that is, the human and the divine, He underwent the passion in the nature of man; so that without distinction He who suffered is said to be both the Lord of majesty and the Son of man, as it is written, Who came down from heaven." See what we have noted on this passage of Ambrose, and the acts of the Council of Chalcedon cited by us there, and the first book of Augustine On the Trinity.

Furthermore, our Arnobius teaches that violent hands could never have been laid by anyone on Christ, Who had wrought so many miracles, if He had not wished to die, but that He died of His own accord and will. "Do you see," he says, "if He had not wished hands to be laid on Him by anyone, would He have had to strive with the utmost effort to keep His enemies from Him, even by turning His power against them? He Who had restored light to the blind, could He not, if He had to, make them blind?..... He allowed hands to be stretched out against Him by savage men." (Arnobius, book 1, p. 38.) He died therefore because, as our author further says: "The Lord of all powers, and the destroyer of death itself, permitted His man to be slain." (Ibid., p. 41.) By these words he signifies that Christ was slain, when He willed, according to His human nature only; yet in such a way that by dying He showed His divine nature by new

and altogether astounding miracles. "Stripped of the body," he says (ibid., p. 32), "which He carried about in a small part of Himself, after He allowed Himself to be seen, and it to be known of what greatness He was, all the elements of the world, terrified by the strangeness of the events, were thrown into confusion: the earth was moved and trembled, the sea was poured back from its depths, the air was wrapped in globes of darkness, the fiery orb of the sun grew stiff, its heat grown lukewarm." Blinder indeed than a mole, or a man of inflexible obstinacy, must he be who does not see and admit that both the divine and the human nature of Christ are rightly distinguished by Arnobius, and that to each what is its own is well and thoroughly attributed and explained.

But, you will say, what does he mean when he says that in Christ there was a simulated man? For he says: "The supreme King could not accomplish the things which He had decreed were to be done in the world without a simulated man" (ibid., p. 37). Did he think, then, that the human nature of Christ was not real, but feigned and simulated? Did he not go wholly astray with those heretics who foolishly asserted that Christ was not a true man but, as they used to say, the phantasm of a man, and a phantasmal man? By no means. For from what we have recorded as handed down by him concerning the life and death of Christ, it is proved more clearly than the midday light that he believed most certainly that a true human nature and a true human body were assumed by Christ. Therefore by those words, "simulated man", he means the same as if he had said "a man represented and displayed", so that the one whom He represented and displayed was a true man. We cannot deny, however, that Arnobius speaks there improperly and less accurately. But what Aristarchus will not readily pardon such an insufficiently polished manner of speaking in a man who very often uses barbarous and obsolete words, and does not speak purely and correctly?

Article III.

Why Christ was made man, why so late and not long before; what was done concerning men who died before His birth; where [it treats] of men of gigantic body, and of the stentorian wailings of infants.

Why Christ was made man, if you ask Arnobius, he will give you this reason: because "He led us across from false religions to the true religion; from inert images, formed moreover out of the vilest clay, He raised us up to the stars and heaven, and made us exchange words of supplication and converse of prayers with God, the Lord of things" (Arnobius, bk. 1, p. 22). Therefore he openly proclaims these things about himself, not without a testimony of an altogether grateful mind: "Now, led into the ways of truth by so great a teacher, I know what all these things are: I think worthy things of worthy beings, I offer no insult to the divine name; and what is owed to each, whether to person or to head, I assign in unconfused degrees; and to authorities" (ibid.). But the gentiles, to whom nothing was of greater concern than to infect all the best things with the dire poisons of their errors, tried from this to carp at the most sacred mystery of the incarnation of Christ. For they objected to the Christians (ibid., bk. 2, p. 96) that, if the matter stands so, no reason can be given why Christ, by

God the Father, after so many ages and centuries of men, was sent to us, or what the former centuries, before His birth, deserved, or what was done with the souls of the ancient and most primeval mortals (ibid., p. 87). But exactly the same argument, rubbed up afresh later against the Christians by Porphyry and other heathens, was put to Augustine for solving by a bishop named Deogratias, thus: 'What did the men of so many centuries before Christ do..... What was done about such countless souls, which are entirely without fault, since He in Whom one could believe had not yet granted His coming to men?' (Augustine, Letter 102, p. 276.) You see without doubt that these fight in exactly the same way against the mystery of the Lord's incarnation and the truth of the whole Christian religion.

But hear also how Arnobius, and afterwards Augustine, weaken and dissolve this argumentation entirely. For first, the heathens, in objecting that no reason could be brought why Christ was made man after so many centuries, were cutting their own throats with their own sword. For they themselves too, says our author (Arnobius, book 2, 96), could give no reason, not only why winter, summer, autumn, rain and other things of this kind very often happen not at that seasonable time at which they ought, but above all why Hercules, Aesculapius and the others, whom they believed to have been born for the benefit of men, came forth into the world so late. In exactly the same way Augustine sharply refutes them from the first origin of the mysteries instituted by them, which comes to the same thing: 'Let them themselves,' he says (Augustine, loc. cit.), 'say whether the sacred rites of their gods, which are known to have been instituted at certain times, were of benefit to men. If they deny that these were of any benefit for the salvation of souls, they destroy them together with us and confess that they are empty..... But if they defend them and assert that they were wisely and usefully instituted, I ask what was done about those who had met death before these were instituted; for they were certainly cheated of this salvation and benefit. But if they could be purified in another way, why did the same way not continue for those who came after? What need was there to institute new consecrations, which did not exist in ancient times?'

But they could not answer that no reason for any of these could be given. For by that very fact they were convicted of demanding, not without injustice, some [reason] for Christ's late coming from the Christians. But if they should put forward any, the Christians would put forward the same. Hence our Arnobius: 'You will say,' he says (Arnobius, loc. cit.), 'that there was some reason. There was, then, a reason here too why the saviour of our race came not of late but today.' And Augustine: 'Why do they thrust upon the Christian religion this question, to which they themselves either cannot answer us on behalf of their gods, or, if they can, in that very answer they answer themselves on behalf of our religion as well?' (Augustine, loc. cit.) They ought, therefore, to have confessed that it is not lawful for man to search into the counsels of God, Who knew the fitting moment of the time at which He was to come to the aid of the human race (Arnobius, ibid.). With a similar answer Augustine also satisfies this question: 'Since not to slip by chance,

but to be ordered by divine providence is what they acknowledge of the times, what is fitting and opportune for each time passes beyond human counsel, and is apportioned from that source from which providence itself takes thought for things.' (Augustine, ibid., p. 277.) To this let Ambrose also be added, who in a certain sermon on these words of the hundred and eighteenth psalm, It is a time of acting, O Lord, had said in like manner: "Not of commanding, but of acting, because it was not an envoy, nor a messenger, but the Lord Who was to save His people. And He indeed knew the time, and did not delay, but we did not know at what time He would better come to our aid." (Ambrose, Sermon 16 on Ps. 118, v. 126, p. 1181.)

Arnobius goes on, and brings forward another reason why Christ did not come into the world earlier, expressed in these words: "It may be that the almighty Lord sent forth Christ only at the point when the race of men, our nature, began to be more broken and weaker." (Arnobius, book 2, p. 97.) Ambrose further supports our Arnobius, who, where he discoursed on the blessing of the patriarch Joseph, cites these words of Genesis: Jacob loved him, because he was the son of his old age; and immediately adds: "Which is also referred to Christ. For as the world was growing old and already setting, the Son of God, dawning upon it, came late through the childbearing of the Virgin Mary, as a son of old age; according to the mystery He took up a body, He Who was always with the Father before the ages." (Ambrose, book On the Blessings of the Patriarchs, ch. 11, § 48, p. 527.)

But the heathen could not deny, says Arnobius, that the condition of men had been various according to the diversity of times, and that the figure of the ancients was other than that of more recent men, and their strength greater than that of these (Arnobius, book 2, p. 97). For indeed they had it handed down in writings that there were once demigods, and heroes of huge or gigantic body, and that infants had uttered Stentorian wailings, and that their bones, of such great size, had been dug up in various regions that they could scarcely be believed to be human. Concerning these bones, besides Herodotus, Pliny and Solinus, A. Gellius committed to writing these words, which serve the purpose of our Author: "Herodotus, a teller of tales, wrote in the first book of his histories that the body of Orestes was found under the earth, having a length of seven cubits, which make twelve and a quarter feet, unless perhaps, as Homer supposed, the bodies of ancient men were vaster and taller; and that now, as though the world were already growing old, there is a diminishing of things and of men." (Herodotus, book 1, § 68, p. 27; Pliny, Natural History, book 7, ch. 16, p. 35; Solinus, ch. 10, p. 236; A. Gellius, book 3, ch. 1, p. 9.) Frequent, moreover, is that complaint of Homer in the Iliad, which is still noted by Pliny and Juvenal (Pliny, in the place cited; Juvenal, Satire 15, line 69.)

But in the royal manuscript codex, in place of stentoreos vagitus, centenarios is read, doubtless through the usual carelessness of the copyist, who indeed was wholly ignorant of what Stentorian wailings, and many other things, meant. Now they are called Stentorian wailings for this reason, that Stentor by

Homer is pictured as having had so powerful a voice that it equalled the shouting of fifty men (Homer, Iliad 5, near the end). For this very reason Juvenal sang somewhere:

You, wretch, cry out so as to be able to outdo Stentor. (Juvenal, Satire 13, line 22.)

And we note these things for this reason, that all may understand with what right Arnobius said that the strength of men had been diminished, as the heathen themselves admit, and that Christ perhaps became man at that time when human nature was more broken and weaker, and stood the more in need of His help.

Moreover he gives besides another reason why Christ did not put on manhood sooner: namely, that He came into this world at that very time which had been appointed by the unchangeable decree of God, of Whom, being eternal, nothing can be said to be premature or late. For the series, as he puts it (Arnobius, book 2, page 97), and the unmeasured continuation of the ages, that is, without measure and without beginning and end, has no time.

Christ, then, was sent into the world at the time when God judged that He ought to become man: « For nothing, » as Arnobius further says (ibid.), « compelled God not to wait for the necessary measures of the times. » And was not this the very opinion of Augustine, which he set out in these words: « As to my having said that Christ willed to appear to men, and to have His doctrine preached among them, at the time when He knew, and where He knew, that there were those who would believe in Him; it can also be put thus, that Christ willed to appear to men, and to have His doctrine preached among them, at the time when He knew, and where He knew, that there were those who had been chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. » (Augustine, Letter 102, page 278, and the book On the Predestination of the Saints, chapter 9, page 803.)

As for the men who died before Christ, Arnobius answers briefly: « What if the ancients had to be helped in one way, and those who came later provided for in another? » (Arnobius, place cited.) But what he either would not explain or, not yet being fully instructed in the whole of Christian doctrine, perhaps could not, is set out more clearly and more fully by the theologians, and above all by Augustine in the letter we have cited. There indeed, besides much else, he wrote this: « From the beginning of the human race, whoever believed in Him (Christ), and understood Him in whatever way, and lived piously and justly according to His precepts, whenever and wherever they were, were without doubt saved through Him. For just as we believe in Him both as abiding with the Father and as having already come in the flesh, so the ancients believed in Him both as abiding with the Father and as about to come in the flesh. » (Augustine, Letter 102, page 277.) Whoever wants further reasons, let him consult the theologians on book 3 of the Sentences, distinction 1, and St Thomas, 1-2, question 98, article 6, and part 3, question 2, articles 5 and 6; Petavius, volume 4,

Dogmatic Theology, ch. 17, p. 198 and following, and the ancient Fathers of the Church cited by them.

Chapter IX.

On the Soul of Man.

First Article.

Which false opinions of the ancients concerning the nature, origin and immortality of the human soul Arnobius reviews, and whether he rightly refutes them.

It seems to some, beyond doubt, a strange thing on what ground Arnobius so expressly asserts that Christ taught "what the soul of man is; whether it flew to us of its own accord, or was sown together with ourselves and begotten with the flesh; whether it lives as a sharer in death, or has been endowed with the perpetuity of immortality" (Arnobius, book 1, p. 22). For he would not have dared to affirm so assertively that Christ taught these things, unless he had read or known the things that have been handed down to us by Him concerning the origin, nature and immortality of the soul. But, they will say, if he read or knew these things, why is he charged with having struck upon various rocks of error concerning that same soul? But before we examine whether he is rebuked rightly or wrongly, it is useful to observe from Jerome what opinions and errors there once were concerning the origin of souls. They are reviewed by him, in his letter to Augustine, in these words: "Concerning the state of the soul, I remember your little question, nay rather a very great question of the Church: whether it has fallen from heaven, as Pythagoras the philosopher and all the Platonists and Origen think; or is from the very substance of God, as the Stoics, Manichaeus and the Spanish heresy of Priscillian suppose; or whether souls, created long ago, are kept in a treasury of God, as certain churchmen trust in a foolish persuasion; or whether they are made daily by God and sent into bodies, according to that which is written in the Gospel: My Father works until now, and I work; or certainly whether by transmission, as Tertullian, Apollinaris and the greatest part of the Westerners hold, so that, just as body comes from body, so soul is born from soul, and it subsists in a condition like that of the brute animals?" (Jerome, Letter 165, p. 582.) And these things we have related for this reason, that they will hold before us no useless torch for the things that are to be said.

Arnobius, moreover, relates that there was once a threefold opinion of the ancient philosophers concerning the condition of souls: "For this one," these are his words (Arnobius, book 2, p. 82), "reckons both that they are everlasting and that they survive the discharge of mortal life; that one does not believe that they survive, but that they perish with the bodies themselves. And the opinion of another is that they do not suffer anything at once, but that, after the man has been laid aside, something of life is granted to them, and that they then pass under the laws of mortality." By us, however, it has been noted elsewhere that the various opinions of these same philosophers concerning the soul are set out more plainly by Cicero, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Ambrose and Augustine (vol. 1 of the Apparatus, book 2, dissertation 2, ch. 7, § 29, p. 436; Justin, Exhortation, p. 8, and the others in the place of the Apparatus cited). Wherefore nothing

else shall we add to these than those things, set down in writing by the Latin Orator, which contribute most to explaining and confirming the view of our Author. In the first book of the Tusculan Disputations, then, he has this: "There are those who think that death is the departure of the soul from the body. There are those who hold that no departure takes place, but that soul and body perish together, and that the soul is extinguished with the body; of those who hold that the soul departs, some think it is dispersed at once, some that it endures a long time, some that it endures for ever." (Cicero, Tusculans book 1, p. 118, line 4.) Then he next sets out the individual opinions of the philosophers on the nature of the soul. And after he has reported the views of Plato, Socrates and Cato on the immortality of the soul, he says that the Epicureans contradicted these, and above all Dicaearchus, who taught that souls are mortal: "The Stoics, however," he continues (ibid., p. 127), "grant us a loan of life as if to quails. They say that souls will remain a long time, but deny that they will remain for ever." Who, then, does not see that the same opinions of the philosophers concerning the soul are brought forward by Cicero, by the already cited Jerome, and by our Arnobius, and that by them it is indicated who were their authors and defenders.

But the absurd opinion of Epicurus and his followers our Arnobius refutes with these weighty arguments: "If souls approach the gates of death, as the view of Epicurus defines it, not even so is there an adequate reason why philosophy ought to be sought; even if it is true that souls are purified by it, and rendered pure from every viciousness. For if they perish in common [with the body], and in the bodies themselves their sensation perishes, and the vital [sense] is extinguished, it is a mark not only of the greatest error but of stupid blindness to bridle inborn appetites, to confine life within narrow limits, to indulge nature in nothing, not to do what the desires have bidden and urged; since no rewards for so great a labour await you when the day of death has come and you have been released from the bonds of the body." (Arnobius, book 2, pp. 64 and 65.) That such, moreover, was the assertion of Epicurus concerning the mortal soul is clear from Laertius (Laertius, book 10, On the Life and Doctrines of Epicurus, § 63 ff.) and from Lucretius, whose manner of speaking, used in this verse, Arnobius imitated:

Therefore the gate of death is not shut against the mind. (Lucretius, book 3, verse 829.)

With what strong argument Arnobius refutes this impious error, no one is so blind as not to see. And certainly, who does not know that it is of such moment and weight that it is comprised in its entirety by the Apostle Paul himself in these few words: "What does it profit me, if the dead do not rise? Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die." (1 Cor. 15:32.)

Another error concerning the soul, as we have already seen from Jerome, was that souls are of God's own substance, or a part of God, as Augustine rightly points out, or divine, or even God, as we learn from these words of Tully: "The soul, which, as I say, is divine; as Euripides dares to say, is God." (Augustine, Letter 166, p. 584; Cicero, Tusculans book 1, p. 125.)

This opinion, therefore, Arnobius without doubt marked as false where he denies that souls are the daughters of the supreme King. (Arnob., book 2, p. 68 ff.) And he overthrows it with this argument: "But if souls were, as report has it, the lordly offspring and the princely generation of the [supreme] power, nothing would have been lacking to them for perfection, since they had been begotten by the most perfect power. They would all have had one understanding and one accord, they would always dwell in the royal court, and they would not, abandoning the seats of blessedness in which they had come to know and kept the most august teachings, imprudently seek these earthly places, so as to live wrapped in dark bodies amid phlegm and blood, amid these bladders of dung and the most obscene jars of strained filth." And does not Augustine, by a like manner of arguing, openly crush and lay low the Manichaeans, who prattled that the soul is a part of God. These are the words he wrote to Jerome concerning the soul: "The soul is not a part of God. For if it were, it would be in every way unchangeable and incorruptible. And if it were so, it would neither fall away to the worse nor advance to the better; nor would it either begin to have in itself something which it did not have, or cease to have what it had, so far as concerns its own affections. But how differently it stands, there is no need of testimony from outside: whoever turns his attention to himself knows it." (Augustine, Letter 166, p. 584.)

Our author also convicts of the greatest rashness those who taught that souls were begotten by God and sent hither by Him, so that, being of a divine and wholly incorporeal nature, they are thrust down into human bodies (Arnob., book 2, p. 53). This opinion he strives to refute by almost the same reasons as the preceding one. For it will be credible to no one, he says (ibid., p. 70 ff.), that those souls are sent into the world by God so that, born of women, they should be subject to all the things which he sets out most abundantly: the miseries of infancy and afterwards of the other ages, hardships, calamities, mishaps, losses, troubles, depraved passions of the mind, vices, sins, crimes, disgraceful acts, evil deeds, and other ills.

Nor does he wish to be answered that they came hither of their own will, not by God's command. (Ibid., p. 73 ff.) For if the matter were so, almighty God foresaw it and did not prevent, as He could, those offspring of the first deity from slipping into so many and so great crimes and disgraceful acts, or from suffering so many and so great losses, adversities and injuries. But surely whoever, when he can, does not hinder evils but permits them, is their cause. And it is impious to say that God, most wise and most kind, is the cause of so many and so great evils, and that, through His not preventing it as He could, souls formerly happy and free of all human contagion are sent and reduced to the wretched condition of men, prone to every kind of crime. Does not God make all things perfect, and, as Arnobius says, things preserving the dwellings (the manuscript has mensiones), that is, the dimensions, of their own integrity, as is proved from Cicero? (Cicero, book Orator, p. 268.) Nor indeed once only, nor as if in passing,

did he say this; but he nevertheless repeats and drives home the same proof at length in other words. (Arnobius, book 2, p. 76 ff.)

But some judge this line of argument to belong to those who denied that man was created by God. But certainly, in order to note this rightly and prudently, they ought to have shown us how Arnobius misuses that argumentation, as those defenders of an impious error did. For if there he wished to refute only the error of those who prattled that the souls of men are both divine and, as he puts it, of the Lord's offspring, or daughters of God, perhaps he did not do badly to attack them, as Augustine did, with these reasons. For nothing but what is most perfect can proceed from God. But since there he seems to have undertaken to prove by this very argument that our souls are produced not by the almighty God but by certain other powers, this proof of his is beyond doubt no less faulty than the opinion is false. Whether he really held this view about the origin of the soul, we shall investigate in the following article.

Further, with weightier reasons he also shakes this error, by which our souls were held to be of divine kind (ibid., p. 56 ff.); and another, by which the same philosophers, no doubt, prattled that the souls, existing long before the body, had flown down into this world most fully furnished with all sciences, disciplines and arts; and that therefore man's knowledge, as Plato dreamed, is nothing other than a recollection of earlier things (Plato, in the Phaedo, vol. 1, p. 72 ff.; in the Meno, vol. 2, p. 81 ff.; Cicero, Tusculans book 1, p. 124). For if human souls were divine and had once known all things, there could be no disagreement among men about anything at all. Yet who in his right mind will ever deny that this is utterly false?

Plato nevertheless, as Cicero also observes, strives to confirm this opinion, however absurd, and, as Lactantius thinks, drawn from the fictions of the poets, by the example of a little boy who, questioned about a geometrical measurement, answers as though he had learned geometry without a teacher (Plato, in the Meno, vol. 2, p. 82 ff.; Cicero, Tusculan Disputations book 1, p. 124, line 24). But that fabricated opinion is destroyed by our Arnobius with another, similar but far more effective example. Let there be, he says (Arnobius, book 2, p. 57 ff.), some boy born in a most secluded place, very far removed from the dwelling of all men, and reared and nourished in perpetual silence, without any clothing, with only one kind of food and water alone, up to the thirtieth or fortieth year of his age. Let him then come forth into the company of men and be questioned about his father, about his upbringing and home, about the various kinds of clothing and food, about the sun, moon and earth, about geometry, like Plato's little boy, or any other discipline: will he not be ignorant of all these things, and more mute than a fish? And if he is forced to utter some sound, he will produce one that is hardly articulate at all.

But as regards Plato's little boy, contends

Arnobius that he, if he answers questions rightly put, gives answers not from the things which he recognizes by recollecting, but from others which he had learned by daily use. Therefore our author concludes from this that Plato went entirely astray (Plato, in the Timaeus, vol. 3, p. 41), who holds that the souls of men, divine and imbued with all branches of knowledge, come forth into this world from living mixing-bowls. But it must be admitted that in this argumentation Arnobius, through his enumeration of many things which contributed little to it, is much longer than was fitting.

He therefore presses Plato more closely and more sharply thus. If the soul, learned in any doctrines you please, came into the world, it ought rather to teach than to learn (Arnobius, book 2, p. 61). Nor could Plato and his followers answer that, when it is bound round with a body, it becomes from a learned soul an elementary one, that is, as is understood from Seneca, one to be formed by the first elements (Seneca, Letter 306, p. 102). For how could it be discerned whether it recollects earlier things or is taught new ones?

Besides this, a soul incorporeal and immortal, such as it is asserted by them to be, cannot through any hindrance of the body forget all the things previously known. For if so great a change were to take place in it, it would lose something of its integrity, and so could be corrupted, and would no longer be immortal.

Moreover, if the body brings upon the soul forgetfulness of all its former knowledge and understanding, how can it know that, having previously been furnished with branches of knowledge, it has through the obstacle of the body forgotten them all?

Finally, if the soul of an old man, shut up in the body for eighty, or, if you like, ninety years and more, remembers things done fifty and sixty years before, the body in no way hindering it, why do they so stubbornly maintain that all the things which, they say, it knew very well before it was sent into the body afterwards slipped from it?

These, then, are the arguments of Arnobius; and although they are not all of the same weight, no one will nevertheless deny that by all of them the error of Plato is plainly and utterly destroyed. But before we proceed to explain the opinion of Arnobius himself on the soul of men, it is helpful to notice certain manners of speaking which he borrowed in this disputation from Lucretius. For he writes, if souls yield to bodily assaults: To them too life is given for use, not handed over as property (Arnobius, book 2, p. 62). Lucretius, however, had said:

And life is given to none as property, to all for use. (Lucretius, book 3, line 984.)

that is, to no one is ownership of life given, but its use.

Again, moreover, Arnobius says (Arnobius, book 2, p. 63): It takes away the recollection of earlier things. So Lucretius had said in the verse cited by us before:

Since our recollection has once been interrupted. (Lucretius, book 3, line 864.)

Some, however, read there repentia nostra, while others

retinentia nobis. But the former reading seems to be confirmed by the authority of our Arnobius. There, moreover, repetentia signifies the same as recollection.

Article II.

Whether Arnobius rightly said that the origin of the human soul is uncertain, and whether he fell into the error of Simon Magus, Saturninus, Carpocrates and the Seleucians, who affirmed that it was created by another than God, and whether original sin was unknown to him.

No one indeed will deny that what Arnobius teaches (Arnob., book 2, p. 53) is true, that all the souls of men have flowed forth from one and the same source. But what this source is, from which they have flowed, he explains in such a way that he is not altogether undeservedly charged with a most grave error, in that he indicates that it is uncertain.

For first he brings in the heathen, who ask him by what author souls were begotten and how they were brought forth, and whether God is their parent and creator (ibid., p. 75 ff.). And what do you suppose he answers them? Quite plainly and frankly he confesses that this is unknown not only to us but also to all the powers that are in the world, and that it surpasses all their knowledge and ours.

But the heathen pressed: If you Christians deny that souls were created by God, it is at least incumbent on you to disclose by whom they were procreated. But this too he utterly disavows. Without any blame indeed, he says, we can be ignorant of the origin of souls, and yet know that they are not the offspring of God, nor procreated by Him. And certainly those who thought that they were made by God and came into the body of men said nothing at all certain and ascertained, but only what they had reached by conjecture and suspicion. But what difference, says Arnobius, is there between suspicion and conjecture, and uncertain opinion and ignorance?

What wonder, moreover, he continues (ibid., p. 78 ff.), if the origin of the human soul is unknown to us, since we have no clearer view of whence the souls of animals arise? For these are said to derive their origin not from Plato's fictitious mixing-bowl, which he mentions in the Timaeus, but from the elements (Plato, Timaeus, vol. 3, p. 41). But from which elements, or how they come to be, there is the greatest dispute among philosophers, as there is also about many other questions. From which he gathers that there is neither any gain in knowing them nor any loss in being ignorant of them, and that they are to be left to God.

If Arnobius had kept himself within these limits, that moderation of his mind certainly ought not to have been blamed at all. For again and again Augustine sincerely professed that the origin of the soul is most obscure and lies hidden without danger. Indeed, in the first book of his Retractations, which he wrote when already an old man, he declares most openly that he had not yet found out anything about it that was entirely certain and beyond doubt: “As regards,” he says, “the origin of the soul, by which it comes about that it is in a body, whether it is from that one man who was first created, when man was made into a living soul, or whether similarly

they come to be thus, one for each individual, I did not know then, nor do I know now." (Arnobius, book 2, p. 86; Augustine, letter 102, p. 587; letter 119, p. 701 Retractations, book 1, chapters 45 and 56; book 10, On Genesis according to the Letter, chapter 3; book 4, On the Origin of the Soul, chapters 5 and 11; book 3, chapter 10, book 4, Against Julian, chapter 104; book 1 Retractations, chapter 1.)

But our author, proceeding further, is charged with having struck upon the rock of a false opinion and of error. For not ambiguously nor hesitantly does he declare that we have learned from Christ "that souls are not the daughters of the supreme King," or of the highest God, "and did not, as is said, begin to know themselves as begotten by Him, and to be proclaimed in the essence of His name" (the royal manuscript codex has: in the meaning of His name to be), "but that they have some other parent, separated from the Emperor," that is, from God, "by very many degrees of dignity and power, yet one of the eminent ones from His court, noble by the loftiness of his birth." (Arnobius, book 2, p. 68.) There he discloses quite plainly his mind concerning the origin of our souls. For first he rejects the opinion of those, concerning whom [we spoke] in the preceding article, who held that they were daughters of the highest God and begotten by Him, and began to know themselves before they were poured into the body. Secondly he asserts that they were procreated by some parent who was of the court of the same highest God, noble by the splendour of his birth, but separated from Him by very many degrees of his dignity and power.

Nor should you suppose that this was said by him incautiously or hesitantly. For he certainly declares it emphatically elsewhere, and more than once. In one place indeed he says (Ibid., p. 75): "We see that men, that is, the souls themselves (for what are men but souls bound to bodies?), show by the countless savagery of their vices that they are not of patrician stock, but were procreated from middling families." And elsewhere (Ibid., p. 79): "Not absurdly nor idly do we believe that the souls of men are of a middle quality, inasmuch as they were brought forth by beings not of the first rank." And what more? He accuses of impiety anyone who has said that the soul was created by God: "He incurs the charge of sacrilegious impiety, whoever has conceived that man, a wretched and miserable thing, was born from Him" (God). Who, then, will deny that this opinion, which he so often and so clearly and constantly handed on and asserted, was settled and certain for him? And it rests on no other foundation than that he was plainly persuaded, as we have seen, that men, or souls bound to human bodies, subject to so many vices, were not created by God the best and greatest, Who can make nothing that is not altogether perfect and whole.

But upon this opinion of Arnobius the brand not only of falsehood and error, but also of raving, and of horrible impiety and blasphemy, is burned by Elmenhorst and Hérault. And they judge this error to have been drawn from the school of Simon, Saturninus, Carpocrates, Marcion, the Seleucians and the Hermians, notable heretics. This indeed they try to prove by the authority of Tertullian, who in the book On the Prescription of Heretics (Tertullian, book On the Prescription of Heretics, chapter 46)

writes that Simon Magus taught: 'The world was established by his angels.' And that Saturninus (ibid., ch. 48) [taught]: 'Angels far distant from God made the lower world'; and that Carpocrates said: '[They,] far distant from the higher powers, founded this world in the lower regions.' But these things are written in the forty-sixth chapter of this book. Elsewhere, however, we have observed that this chapter and the following chapters of this book were added to it by some impostor (vol. 1 of the Apparatus, pp. 8 and 15). And in very truth it has been noted in the latest edition of Tertullian's works that none of these things is found in the very ancient codex of Agobard.

We are indeed not unaware that the same Tertullian, in his genuine book On the Soul, committed to writing these things concerning Saturninus: 'He asserts that man was made by angels, and that at first, a futile, feeble and unstable work, he quivered on the ground like a worm, because he lacked the strength to stand; that then, by the mercy of the supreme power, after whose likeness, though not fully discerned, he had been rashly constructed, he obtained a little spark of life, which roused him and raised him up and animated him more firmly, and which after the departure of life will carry him back to its source.' (Tertullian, On the Soul, ch. 23, p. 335.) But how far this error differs from the opinion of Arnobius that has been set out, there is surely no one who does not see.

Moreover, in another book we have pointed out (vol. 1 of the Apparatus, book 2; dissertation 1, ch. 3, art. 1, p. 286, and art. 3, § 2, p. 292; and ch. 5, § 3, p. 317) that Saturninus taught that man and all other things were created by angels without the knowledge of the Father; and Carpocrates, by angels far inferior to the supreme Parent, from Whom they had fallen away; but Marcion, by another God. These monstrous opinions were without doubt rejected rather than adopted by Arnobius.

The Seleucians, furthermore, as Augustine testifies, 'do not attribute the soul to God the creator, but maintain that angels are the creators of souls, from fire and spirit.' (Augustine, On Heresies, § 56.) But these heretics appear to be later than Arnobius. And we observe these things for the sake of those who rightly and justly wish that the writings and opinions of the ancient Fathers of the Church be discussed accurately, and that errors foreign to them, of which they never thought, be not ascribed to them.

For the rest, it matters little to know whether, and from which heretics, Arnobius borrowed his opinion. For it suffices us to know that it is deservedly condemned for falsity and error. Indeed, by Augustine, to say nothing of others, it is proscribed in these words: 'Those who believe their Plato, that all mortal animals were made not by that supreme God Who fashioned the world, but by other lesser beings, whom He Himself indeed created, by His permission or command, among which man held the foremost place, akin to the gods themselves, will, if they are free of the superstition by which they seek grounds on which they may seem justly to perform sacred rites and sacrifices to them as to their makers, easily be free also of the error of this opinion. For it is not right to believe and say that the creator of any nature, however small and mortal, is any other than God, and before it can be understood.'

(Augustine, book 12, On the City [of God], ch. 24, p. 322.) This indeed Epiphanius and others demonstrate by various and certain testimonies of sacred Scripture. (Epiphanius, Heresies 25, § 5, p. 65 ff.)

Furthermore, although Arnobius seems to deny so obstinately that the souls of men were created by the supreme God, nevertheless in his defence it could perhaps be alleged, not unfittingly, that he openly taught, as we have seen (preceding chapter), that the supreme God is the creator of all things, and namely of the sun, of the moon, and of man himself. For these are his very words: “Do we not all owe to Him this first of all, that we are, that we are called men, that, having been either sent by Him or having fallen, we are held in the blindness of this body? Does it not come to us from Him that we walk, that we breathe and live, and does He not by the very power of living cause us to be and to be moved with animal motion?” (Arnobius, book 1, p. 16.) But if the supreme God, about Whom he is disputing there, is the creator of all things, if we owe to Him that we are men, if from Him comes to us that we are and that we live, it certainly follows from this that He is also the author and creator of our souls. For men, as we have observed was defined by him (ibid., book 2, pp. 52 and 56), are nothing other than souls enclosed in, or bound to, bodies.

What then? Must he be said not to have been consistent with himself, but to have contradicted himself absurdly? But what prevents his having been able, with no inconstancy or fickleness of mind at all, to assert that souls were created not by the omnipotent God Himself as proximate cause, but only as remote cause and first of all, through some other one of the higher powers? Yet that this was not his opinion seems to be inferred from the fact that it is overturned by the same arguments by which, as we have said, he himself tried to prove that souls, being subject to vices, could not have been created by the supreme God. Is it not therefore more likely that he, carried away by the heat of disputation, pressed and pursued his argument beyond the set limits? If, however, anyone proves to us with certainty that he believed that human souls were created by no means by the supreme God, but only by certain inferior powers most noble in the splendour of their birth, we will at once confess that he erred, and we will not follow him in his error.

But there will perhaps not be lacking someone to suggest to us that Arnobius fell into this error because he had no knowledge of the stain of original sin, through which it has come about that man is subject to so many miseries, infirmities and illicit desires. But how could Arnobius be ignorant of original sin, by whom we read it written: “Because through the vice of inborn infirmity we are prone to faults and to the various appetites of lust, God permits Himself always to be conceived in our thoughts, so that while we pray to Him and strive to merit His gifts, we may receive the will for innocence, and cleanse ourselves from every stain by the cutting away of all offences.” (Ibid., book 1, p. 15.) But what, I beseech you, is that vice of inborn infirmity, if not original sin itself? Certainly indeed that

even heterodox writers frankly and roundly confess. (Hoornbeek, Theological Exercises, book 1, § 2, p. 130.)

Why then, you will say, does he strive with so much labour, so much effort, in such long discourses, to prove that the soul of man, subject to so many and such great miseries, could not have been created by God? Could he not have explained that by the mere exposition of original sin, or by merely uttering its name? Very well indeed. But I would have you observe that he is disputing against the heathen, who had dreamed that our souls are divine, or the offspring of the divine, or a part of God, and had not given a thought to original sin even in dreaming. What then, if he refutes them only from their own tenets, and has argued, as they say, ad hominem, and thought that original sin was to be mentioned not there but elsewhere? And what can be concluded from a negative argument against something which we hold as asserted?

Article III.

What was Arnobius's true opinion on the nature and immortality of the human soul, and whether he fell into some error concerning it.

What Arnobius thinks about the very nature of the human soul and its immortality, and whether in defining it he again fell into error, as some suppose, must still be diligently inquired into by us. Now he is accused by Heraldus of having taught that it is corporeal and mortal. But this grave charge doubtless needs examination.

First, then, Heraldus thinks that souls of men are held by our author to be corporeal, because he judged that they are affected by the sense of pain. But where on earth did he hand this down in writing? Where, says Heraldus, he speaks of Plato in these words: « Likewise he takes up an inextricable [knot]: that while he says souls are immortal, everlasting, and devoid of bodily solidity, he nevertheless says they are punished, and affects them with the sense of pain. But who among men does not see that what is immortal, what is simple, can admit no pain; and that what feels pain cannot have immortality? » (Arnobius, book 2, p. 52.) But Arnobius does not there set out his own mind and opinion: rather he shows that Plato was in conflict with himself, since he asserts that souls, although immortal and incorporeal, are affected by the sense of pain. For what is affected by pain, he says, must plainly be mortal. And what is there to be condemned in this refutation?

But, you will say, he did in fact teach most openly that our souls are mortal. For in the same place a little later he added: « They are of an intermediate quality, as has been learned on Christ's authority, and such as can perish if they have not known God, and be delivered for life and from destruction, if they have applied themselves to His threats (manuscript royal codex: seeds) and indulgences. » (Ibid.)

But afterwards he refutes the opinion of the philosophers, doubtless the Platonists, who asserted that souls are immortal (Ibid., p. 63 and following), for this reason: because if that were true, anyone, having despised the virtues, would securely and fearlessly into every kind of pleasure and shameful deed

throw himself headlong. For he would be restrained by no fear of a supreme power: "Whoever," he says (Ibid., p. 64), "has been persuaded that he is as immortal as the first God Himself." For then he would know himself to be so incorruptible that he could be struck and shaken by no pain at all and by no disturbance of mind, nor be defiled by the foulness of any shameful action. For indeed he who has no bodily substance, as he says (Ibid.), can be contaminated by no stain of sin whatever. From this, moreover, he says it came about that the intermediate and doubtful nature of souls gave philosophy room for asserting that rewards await the good and punishments the wicked. And by that persuasion each one is kept to his duty. Wherefore he concludes from this: "Since these things are so, and since we hold it handed down by the highest authority that souls are not set far from the gaping mouth and jaws of death, yet that they can become long-lived by the gift and kindness of the supreme Prince, if only they try and take pains to know Him.... then, having laid aside savagery and inhumanity, let them take up gentler dispositions, so that they may be ready for that which will be given; what reason is there that we should be judged by you as brutish and stupid, if because of these fears we have given and delivered ourselves over to God the Liberator?" (Ibid., p. 65.)

He shows, moreover, that this opinion about the intermediate state of souls cannot be rejected by the heathen, since they reckoned their gods, by whatever name they called them, to be of the same intermediate nature: "You who do not believe," he says (ibid., p. 67), "that souls are of an intermediate quality, and are held on the middle boundary between life and destruction, are not all those whom opinion supposes to exist, gods, angels, demons, or whatever other name they go by, themselves also of an intermediate quality, and changeable in the condition of an uncertain lot?" There, however, he reported the sense of Plato, not his very words, which you will find in the Timaeus of the philosopher whom he undoubtedly praised, and cited by Athenagoras, Cicero and others (Plato, Timaeus, vol. 3, p. 41 ff.; Athenagoras, Plea for the Christians, p. 6; Cicero, On the Universe, among the fragments, vol. 2, p. 29).

Finally, Arnobius set out this view of his on that nature of our soul in these most clear and least ambiguous words: "Not absurdly nor idly do we believe that the souls of men are of an intermediate quality, inasmuch as they are produced from things not of the first rank, are subject to the law of death, and are of small and failing strength, [and that they] are endowed with perpetuity if they direct the hope of so great a gift to God the Prince, to Whom alone belongs the power to bestow such things, corruption being shut out" (Arnobius, book 2, p. 79).

Is it not, then, proved clearly enough from what has been said so far that Arnobius was of the opinion that the souls of men are of a certain quality and nature intermediate between mortal and immortal? He teaches, moreover, that this intermediate state of theirs consists in this, that the soul itself is by its own nature mortal, and becomes immortal by the gift and kindness of the one God alone. Wherefore he further declares plainly afterwards (Ibid., p. 87): "No other can save souls except God Almighty, nor is there anyone besides who can make [them] long-lived, [who] of perpetuity

can also supply the spirit, except Him Who alone is immortal and perpetual, and bounded by no circumscription of time." Here note in passing that Petau reports that by the term longaevas ("long-lived") the same thing is meant by him as if he had said aeternas ("eternal") (Petau, vol. 1, Dogmata theologica, bk 3, ch. 3, p. 191). But this, moreover, seems to be the genuine opinion of our Arnobius concerning the nature of the human soul, which he certainly set forth, as you see, neither once only nor obscurely.

But on that account he is charged with several errors. For first he decides that souls are immortal by the favour of God alone, but by their own nature mortal and subject to death, from which they are rescued by God alone. But whatever is mortal must without doubt be corporeal. And who does not know that this error of certain ancient writers was condemned long ago, and not without disgrace?

Then, secondly, Arnobius thinks that the souls of men become immortal only by the favour of God, provided that they have acknowledged Him and have merited this favour. But from this it further follows that he was persuaded that the souls of the impious and the unbelieving perish and are not endowed by God with immortality. And this is the second error, branded rightly and deservedly with the mark of censorial severity no less than the first.

As regards the first error, it is certainly not easy to say whether Arnobius fell into it, unless it is first established what he understands by the term of a nature intermediate between mortal and immortal. But indeed, although he did not define this plainly and distinctly, it is nevertheless certain that he declares this because he constantly believed what we read asserted by the Apostle (1 Tim. 6:16), that God alone is truly immortal. For, to leave other things aside, what is clearer and more explicit than these words of this author of ours? "Is not the Unbegotten alone immortal, and alone perpetual?" Arnobius, bk 2, p. 95.) Indeed he also asserts that He alone is incorporeal: "Unbegotten," he says (the same, bk 1, p. 17), "immortal, perpetual, alone, Whom no bodily form outlines, no circumscription bounds."

But if Arnobius denied that the soul is immortal only in this sense, that it is immortal in a different manner from God, he certainly put forward nothing but what is sound and orthodox: "For the soul of man," says Augustine, "is immortal according to a certain manner of its own. For it is not so in every manner, as [He is] of Whom it was said: He alone has immortality" (Augustine, letter 146, p. 584). Then he goes on to explain how the soul can be called both corporeal and incorporeal: "That the soul is incorporeal," so he writes to Jerome (ibid. and following), "although this can be urged only with difficulty upon the slower-witted, I confess that I am nevertheless persuaded of it. But lest I either needlessly raise or deservedly suffer a dispute about a word, since when the matter is agreed there is no need to contend about the name: if every substance or essence, or whatever is more fittingly so named, which in some manner exists in itself, is a body, then the soul is a body. Likewise, if it pleases [us] to call incorporeal only that nature,

which is supremely unchangeable and whole everywhere, the soul is a body, since it itself is no such thing. Further, if nothing is a body except what is so set, or moves, through a space of place with some length, breadth and height that it occupies a greater place with a greater part of itself and a smaller place with a smaller, and is less in the part than in the whole, then the soul is not a body. For it extends through the whole body which it animates, not by local diffusion, but by a certain vital intension...., Wherefore, if the soul is to be called a body, it is certainly not a body such as the earthly is, nor such as the moist, or the airy, or the ethereal..... Whence it is understood that the soul, whether it is to be called body or corporeal, has a certain nature of its own, created with a substance more excellent than all these elements of the worldly mass, which cannot truly be thought of in any phantasy of bodily images, which we perceive through the senses of the flesh, but is understood by the mind and felt by life.»

Augustine therefore admits that the soul of man can, in various manners of speaking, be called corporeal and incorporeal, mortal and immortal. What then, if Arnobius said in the first sense that it is corporeal, and for that reason also mortal, because it received its immortality from God Himself, by Whom it was created, as we noted concerning Tatian (vol. 1, Apparatus, book 2, dissertation 5, chapter 2, § 4, page 539)? Will you deny that he is cleared of error?

But can it not be concluded that this was his mind and opinion from these words, in which he puts this question to himself? «And how bodies can be joined to incorporeal things, or how things made by God the first principle can be brought down by weaker causes to the disgraces of vices» (Arnobius, book 2, page 53)? For what he answers to that question, I would have you mark. He asks the heathen in turn (ibid.) whether, having laid aside haughtiness and arrogance of mind, they maintain that they share one and the same immortality with God the Father. Then afterwards, refuting once more the same error of the heathen philosophers, he says (ibid., page 56): «But if men either knew themselves thoroughly, or received an understanding of God by the breath of some surmise, they would never claim for themselves a divine and immortal nature.» Can it not, then, be gathered hence, not altogether ineptly, that the opinion of Arnobius was that the soul of man is immortal not in the same way as God, but in an altogether different way, namely by an immortality which it does not have from itself, but has received from God, and which depends on His power? But if this is his mind and view, and he acknowledged no other middle state of our soul except that by which it can be called intermediate between the immortal and incorporeal [nature] of God and the other mortal and corporeal natures, it must be admitted that he did not entirely err. For Petavius proved by the authority of many of the ancient Fathers of the Church that God alone is immortal for this reason, that He did not receive immortality from another, and is wholly unchangeable (Petavius, vol. 1, Theological Dogmas, book 3, chapter 4, § 10 and following,

page 90 and following). But whether this is Arnobius' own and true opinion, I would have you weigh and judge. Meanwhile, however, let us see whether he really thought the soul of man to be altogether immortal.

Article IV.

Whether Arnobius taught that the souls of the impious are at some time to be reduced to nothing, or denied the future resurrection of our bodies.

We seem to ourselves to hear certain people, with Heraldus and some others, who, against the opinion of Arnobius on the immortality of the human soul as set out by us, keenly urge that he really held that the souls of the impious die, and that, although they are not extinguished at once, they are nevertheless consumed by torments of a very long time. For not obscurely, but clearly and openly, he said of them: "They are cast into rushing rivers of flames, and, reduced to nothing, they vanish in the frustration of perpetual destruction" (Arnobius, book 2, page 52). Nor do they allow it to be objected to them that he is there reporting Plato's opinion rather than his own. For he added these words in the same place: "And so that what is unknown may be made plain, this is the true death of man, this which leaves nothing remaining. For that which is seen before our eyes is the separation of souls from the body, not the final end of annihilation. This, I say, is the true death of man, when souls that do not know God will be consumed through a torment of very long time by fierce fire, into which certain cruelly savage beings will cast them, both unknown before Christ and detected by Him alone Who knows." Does he not therefore, they say, there himself plainly and openly declare that the souls of the impious and of those ignorant of God are to be tortured only for an interval of very long time, but with torments that are at some time to be ended, and are at last to be reduced to nothing?

And what of the fact that he further, afterwards, expressly taught: "In the manner in which immortality is the gift of God the bestower towards the gods brought forth, in this manner too He will deign to present souls with immortality, although cruel death may seem able to extinguish them, and, when reduced to nothing, to blot them out by an annihilation from which there is no return" (ibid., page 68).

But in this latter passage he seems to suggest nothing other than that our souls, however much they are of an incorporeal and spiritual substance, can, as no one denies, be utterly destroyed and reduced to nothing by God, their Creator. The whole difficulty, however, turns on this: whether he believed that the souls of wicked men will really perish after they have been tormented by fire through a space of very long time. But certainly, since he holds that the souls of faithful and pious men, as we have said, are made immortal by the sole benefit of God, it is surely concluded from this that he thought the souls of unbelievers, deprived of this gift of immortality, really at some time perish and are entirely extinguished. Wherefore he addresses the heathen in these words: "Your affair stands in jeopardy, the salvation, I mean, of your souls: and unless you apply yourselves to the knowledge of God the sovereign, cruel death awaits you when released from the bonds of the body, bringing not a sudden extinction, but consuming you through a stretch of time by the bitterness of tormenting punishment" (ibid., page 86).

So it is of the punishments of the heathen, that is, of unbelieving men, to be paid after death, that he speaks as though they were not eternal, but would at some time have an end together with their souls.

Nevertheless he teaches no less plainly and clearly that there are certain unquenchable fires by which those souls of the impious are tormented. For he addresses the heathen who mock this opinion of the Christians thus: "You dare to laugh at us when we speak of gehennas, and of certain unquenchable fires, into which we have learned that souls are cast down by their foes and enemies (Ibid., p. 52)." And elsewhere he expressly speaks of the unquenchable flames of gehenna (book 4, p. 159). Nor should you reply that the fires are indeed called unquenchable by him, but that it is passed over in silence whether the souls of the impious are to be tormented in them always and for ever. For he asserts that those fires are kindled for this very reason: that the souls of the impious may be cast down into them by their foes, that is, by the demons. Yet if those fires are everlasting, and the souls are nevertheless at some time to be reduced to nothing, then surely they would be useless, once all those same souls no longer exist. But who will persuade us that Arnobius went over to so absurd an opinion, and contradicted himself so absurdly? If, however, anyone shall rightly prove that this was asserted by him, we shall yield at once, and confess that he erred shamefully.

But Arnobius is charged by Elmenhorst and Hérault with a still graver error, if you please, where he argues thus against the heathen concerning the resurrection of our bodies: "You dare," says Arnobius, book 2, p. 51), "to laugh at us because we say that there will be a resurrection of the dead; which indeed we confess that we say, but [we say] that it is heard by you otherwise than we mean it. What does Plato say in the Statesman? Does he not write that, when the world has begun to rise from the western parts and to turn towards the quarter which belongs to the rising sun, men will again burst forth from the lap of the earth, old, grey, decrepit, and, when the years begin to come on longer, will go out by the same steps by which one grows today to the cradle of infancy?" And this passage of Plato, whose sense rather than words Arnobius presents, is read in his Statesman as cited (Plato, vol. 2, Statesman, p. 170). But there is no need to report the words themselves here; for that would be a lengthier task, and about them there can be no controversy at all.

But it is truly astonishing how great a brand of infamy, not only of error but of madness and frenzy, is burned on our Author on this account. For if we believe Elmenhorst: "He raves with raving men, Marcion, Basilides and Origen, who believed in a resurrection not of the flesh but of the body, and indeed of a spiritual body." These are word for word the words of that man who accuses Arnobius as gravely as rashly, and we have copied them out for this reason, that no one may think credence should be denied to us when we say these things. But what greater rashness is there than boldly to accuse a most ancient author of error, madness and frenzy, and to bring forward no ground for the accusation? And Elmenhorst brings forward none,

and we shall soon show that not even the least can be brought forward.

Hérault, however, is at a standstill, and he seems wavering and uncertain of which error concerning the resurrection of bodies he should accuse Arnobius. For he charges that he went over to the false opinion of Origen, now to a graver one, now to the madness of Marcion, and now that he either handed down or ascertained nothing certain about the resurrection.

But the censures and accusations both of this man and of Elmenhorst are utterly unjust and trifling. For Arnobius does not there argue of set purpose about the return of dead men to life, but against the heathen, who, although they did nothing in their affairs without faith, although they gave faith to the tenets of the philosophers, which sometimes had something akin to ours, nevertheless mocked the Christians for believing both in Christ and in all the articles of His doctrine. But in running through the various articles of this doctrine he comes down to that concerning the resurrection of our bodies. There, however, only by an argument, as they like to say, ad hominem, he shows that that accusation of the heathen is utterly senseless, since the Christians gave due faith to the most certain words of the Apostle writing to the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 4:12 ff.), whereas the heathen gave undue faith to the plainly doubtful teaching of Plato on the return of souls to life. But what in this argumentation can be charged as error, madness, frenzy? What, I pray you, is more unjust than to accuse Arnobius of that error which he condemns and rejects? Nor may you object that he did not there set out his own view. For from his silence it is not right to infer anything against him. And then, this was not the place for setting out his own view, where he merely repels and harasses the senseless cavils and accusations of the gentiles concerning the faith of the Christians, as we have said. But of that faith of the Christians we must now treat more fully.

Chapter X.

On the faith, hope, churches, sacred Scriptures, altars, images, synaxes, and prayers even for the dead, of the Christians.

First Article.

On the faith of the Christians and its necessity, and on their sure hope of the future life, and how far it is opposed to the opinions of the gentiles.

Since Arnobius has demonstrated the supreme divinity of Christ the Lord by various weighty reasons, as we have seen, it is surely no wonder if he most firmly asserts that faith must be given by all to His words as divine. For by just as many arguments as those by which he asserts and vindicates His supreme divinity, he shows that He spoke true things and that He must be believed. But because the gentiles were accustomed to mock this faith of the Christians, our author therefore proves by a brief induction that even human faith is of such great necessity (Arnobius, book 2, p. 47) that the gentiles themselves not only are compelled to have it in their own authors and philosophers, but also no business, voyages, cultivation of the land,

marriages, wars, and other matters whether human or divine, presume to undertake unless faith goes before. Rufinus later used the same argument in this way, as if he had taken it from our author himself. For he took up the same examples, and from them argues in this manner: «That the approach to understanding may lie open to you, you rightly profess first of all that you believe; for no one goes onto the sea and commits himself to the liquid and deep element unless he first believes that he can be kept safe. Nor does the farmer bury seeds in the furrows and scatter grain on the ground unless he believes that rains will come, and that the warmth of the Sun will also be at hand, by which the earth, being cherished, may bring forth crops with multiplied yield and nourish them by the breathing winds. In short, there is nothing that can be done in life unless belief has first gone before. What wonder then if, approaching God, we profess first of all that we believe, since without this not even common life itself can be carried on. Now we have set these things at the beginning for this reason, because the pagans are accustomed to object to us that our religion, since it is lacking in reasons, consists in the mere persuasion of believing. And therefore we have shown that nothing can either be done or stand unless the force of believing has gone before. Then too marriages are contracted because it is believed that offspring will follow; and boys are handed over to learn the arts because it is believed that the learning of the masters will be poured into the pupils; and one man takes up the insignia of empire, while he believes that peoples and cities, and even an armed army, will obey him» (Rufinus, Comment. in symbol., after the beginning, p. 171). Earlier, however, Origen refutes Celsus, and Eusebius any heathens whatever, with the same argumentation and the same examples, and they prove the necessity of faith (Orig. book 1, Against Celsus, pp. 9 and 10; Euseb., book 1, Praeparat. Evang., ch. 5, p. 14 and following). These things indeed they pursue still more fully. Wherefore it would certainly be too long to copy out all their words, which can be read by everyone in their books, readily available to anybody. Whoever wishes, moreover, to go to them will perhaps not regret his labour, and will do us a favour if he can detect and point out whether one of them took his material from another. Of the necessity of faith, moreover, we have argued elsewhere (vol. 1, Apparat., book 2, Dissert. 2, ch. 11, art. 2, p. 1025 and following).

From this same asserted divinity of Christ it follows that the hope and expectation of Christians, of eternal salvation and of the things which Christ promised, is wholly firm and certain. For he certainly cannot be God who does not make good his promises. Nor does Arnobius allow the heathens to object to him that the hope of Christians is vain and empty (Arnob., book 2, p. 44), and that the things He had often promised were not fulfilled and granted by Christ. For He kept His promises at the appointed time; and His miracles, and the other things done by Him divinely, are a pledge and proof, neither doubtful indeed nor uncertain, of His other promises.

Arnobius shows besides how much Christians and heathens differed among themselves concerning the hope of the future salvation of souls after death. The Gentiles, he says (the same, book 2, p. 66), placing the salvation of their souls in themselves,

supposed that they became gods by their own effort alone; but the Christians, distrusting the strength of their weak nature, awaited it from the mercy of almighty God. The Gentiles believed that after death they would have wings, with which they would fly up together into heaven. Indeed, they had dreamt that there were certain powers which, softened by the superstitions of secret arts and by the commendatory prayers of the magi, granted easy access to those striving towards heaven (Ibid., pp. 52 and 87). On this matter Plato in his genuine or spurious works, Servius, and Porphyry as cited in Augustine should be read (Plato, Phaedo, vol. 1, p. 107, and Axiochus, vol. 3, p. 371; Servius, on Aeneid book 6, line 758; Augustine, City of God book 10, chs. 9 and 10, p. 246 ff.). But to the Christians it is uncertain whether they will at some time deserve to receive immortal life. Finally, the heathen thought that they would return of their own accord, with no one hindering them, into the Lord's [dwelling], as to their own proper seat. The Christians, on the other hand, did not hope that this could come about without the Lord of all things, that is, unless almighty God, and Christ the Lord of immortality, should confer grace and the reward of eternal happiness upon those who merit it, in the manner we described above (previous chapter, art. 4). Do you wish to hear our Arnobius speaking? Here are his words: "Through Him alone is there entry to the Light, and it is not granted by any other way either to creep in or to break in, all others being closed and fortified with an impregnable citadel. Although, then, you be pure and cleansed of every contamination of vices, and have won over and bent those powers so that they do not close the ways to you as you return to heaven and do not hedge off your passage, by no exertions will you be able to attain the reward of immortality, unless you receive that which makes immortality itself, Christ granting it, and are admitted to true life (Arnobius, book 2, p. 90)."

Extreme, therefore, was the madness of the Gentiles, who awaited blessed immortality from powers I know not what, or from themselves. On the contrary, most certain is the hope of the Christians, who trust that, if they are worthy, they will receive this blessed immortality from almighty God, its sole giver.

Article II.

On the churches of the Christians, the sacred Scriptures, and the synaxes, and with what rite they prayed to God in them, and what they asked of Him.

To take a step towards other matters which still concern the Christians: when the heathen objected that no sacred buildings had been built by them, Arnobius replies in such a way that he seems by no means to deny it (Arnobius, book 6, p. 189). What then? Did the Christians in his time really have no sacred buildings, houses, churches or temples, in which all, gathered together, might pray to God? Not at all. For they had many, which the Apostle calls churches, Eusebius "the houses of the places of prayer", houses in which they used to pray, and Arnobius himself conventicles (Paul, 1 Cor. 15:15; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History book 8, ch. 2, p. 293; Arnobius, book

4, p. 152). But he complains that these were demolished by the heathen, just as the writings of the Christians were given to the flames, with a sense of grief as bitter as it was just, in these words: "Why," he says, "have our writings deserved to be given to the flames? Why should the meeting-places be savagely demolished, in which the supreme God is prayed to?" Therefore, just as no one could ever deny that the Christians had their own writings, and the sacred books of divine Scripture, so no one can deny that before the time of Arnobius and in his time they had their own churches, or, as he preferred to put it, meeting-places, where these had not been destroyed by the heathen. But concerning their overthrow, noted by him, and the burning of the sacred books, we have argued above (above, ch. 2, art. 1, vol. 1, Apparatus, p. 731 ff.; Dissertation on Minucius, ch. 12, art. 2). We have also given the reason elsewhere why Arnobius seems to admit that the Christians had no churches, or no temples, as the heathen had, although he declares most plainly that meeting-places had been built by them. And since no man of sound mind can deny this, no one can deny either that in these meeting-places, by whatever name they are called, the synaxes of the Christians were held.

But if you wish to know what they did in them, take it in these very words of the same Arnobius: "The supreme God is prayed to, peace and pardon are asked for all, for magistrates, armies, kings, friends, enemies (Arnobius, book 4, p. 152). Cyril of Jerusalem joins as a supporting witness, who said somewhat more fully (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 5, Mystagogic, p. 539): "We beseech God for the common peace of the Churches, for the stability of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for those in sicknesses, for the afflicted, and, in a word, for all who need help." "We entreat God for the common peace of the Churches, for the tranquillity of the world, for kings, for soldiers, for allies, for the sick, for the afflicted, and in sum for all those who are in need of help." He adds that all the Christians then prayed to the patriarchs, prophets, apostles and martyrs, so that, by their intercession, God would hear their prayers and grant what was asked. But on these matters Tertullian, before both of them, [says] more, as we shall see in its place (Tertullian, Apology, ch. 40).

And what Christians prayed to God for there, and by what rite and custom, Arnobius explains thus: "To Him we all, as is our custom, prostrate ourselves; Him we adore with prayers offered together; from Him we ask things just and worthy of His hearing. Not that He desires us to be suppliants, or loves to see the veneration of so many thousands laid prostrate before Him. This benefit is ours, and has regard to our own advantage (Arnobius, book 1, p. 14 ff.)." Tertullian, moreover, where he contends against Marcion's error concerning two gods, says (Tertullian, Against Marcion, book 1, ch. 24): "Into a heaven belonging to another, one stretches out to the other god; on a land belonging to another, one prostrates oneself to the other god." Someone will surely say to us that this last word, "prostrates oneself", is explained by some as referring to those doing public penance, according to that saying of the same Tertullian: "Exomologesis

is the discipline of prostrating and humbling a person (the same, ibid., On Penance, ch. 9). » But it is now granted that this is to be understood of many Christians. Nor is it less certain and manifest that Arnobius said of all Christians generally (Arnobius, book 1, p. 15) that in their assemblies they prayed to God lying prostrate, and worshipped Him, as he says, with prayers joined together. For are these not the joined prayers of which Tertullian speaks elsewhere: « We are, » he says (Tertullian, Apology, ch. 39, p. 34), « a body by a common religious conviction, by unity of discipline and by the bond of faith. We come together to God, so that, as if with a band formed, we may besiege Him with prayers. Is this violence pleasing to God? » But certainly by this host of people praying they did a violence pleasing to God, so as to obtain from Him, as Arnobius says further (ibid.), the will to innocence and the cleansing from every stain of all offences.

It is no wonder, then, if he openly asserts that nothing at all was heard in the assemblies « except what makes people humane, except what makes them gentle, modest, chaste, pure, sharers of their household goods, and joined with all in the bond of a firmly established brotherhood. » (The same, book 4, p. 152.) Accordingly Augustine said, more briefly indeed but no less clearly: « The peoples flow together to the churches in a chaste gathering, with a decent separation of each sex, where they may hear how well they ought to live here for a time, so that after this life they may deserve to live blessedly and for ever. » (Augustine, book 2, On the City, ch. 28, p. 57.) But concerning the things that were done in the assemblies of the Christians we have discoursed elsewhere, and all these things recorded by Arnobius will be explained more clearly still in our dissertation on Tertullian's Apology (vol. 1, Apparatus, pp. 23 and 411; Dissertation on Tertullian, ch. 15, art. 2 and following).

Article III.

On the prayers of the Christians for the dead.

The Christians in their sacred assemblies prayed to God publicly not only for living people but also for the dead. For in them, « the supreme God, » says Arnobius (Arnobius, book 4, p. 152), « is prayed to, peace and pardon are asked ...... for those still living their life, and for those released from the bond of their bodies. » These words are so clear and explicit that certain heterodox writers could not disguise their brightness. But the clearer they are, the more they have stirred black bile in others, who see very well that it is gathered from them with no uncertainty that there is some purgatory, or some place, by whatever name it be called, where the souls of the just who die, defiled with certain stains of lighter sins, are cleansed. Yet however much these men gnash their teeth and bring every device to bear, they will surely never lessen the authority of Arnobius. For why, I ask you, does he mention these prayers, which he could have passed over without in the least diminishing the force of his argument? Why does he so boldly cast them up against the pagans, unless because he knew most certainly that it was an ancient, common and pious custom of the Christians by which they were accustomed to pray to God for dead people?

And indeed that this was the institution and custom of the Christians who were contemporaries of Arnobius, and of those more ancient, is most openly attested not only by writers equal to Arnobius in age, but also by very many others earlier than he, and these worthy of all belief. For Tertullian writes against those who marry twice in these words: "Nor will you be able to hate your former wife, for whom you even reserve a more religious affection, as for one already received with the Lord, for whose spirit you make petition, for whom you render annual offerings." (Tertullian, book On the Exhortation to Chastity, ch. 2, p. 671.) And again in the following book: "The wife," he says, "prays for the soul of her husband, and asks for him refreshment in the meantime, and fellowship in the first resurrection, and makes offering on the yearly days of his falling asleep." (The same, book On Monogamy, ch. 10, p. 682.)

Nor indeed is there any ground for some heterodox person to object to us that Tertullian, when he was composing these books, had already gone over to the side of the heretics, and had drawn this doctrine from Montanus. For in fact, before he had fallen into this heresy, he is read, in briefly reviewing the sacred rites of the Christians, to have handed down exactly the same things: "We make offerings," he says (the same, book On the Soldier's Crown, ch. 3), "for the dead, for birthdays, on the yearly day." So far, therefore, is it from being possible for his testimony concerning these prayers to be weakened by the reply of the heterodox, that rather it is thereby more fully demonstrated that this was the constant and certain teaching of heretics as well as of Catholics.

And the most ancient author of the Apostolic Constitutions exhorted Christians to pray to God for their dead brethren thus: "For our brethren who have rested in Christ let us pray, that God, the lover of men, Who has received the soul of the departed, may forgive him every sin, voluntary and involuntary; and, having become propitious and merciful, may place him in the region of the pious, who rest in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob with all who from the beginning of the world have pleased God and done His will, whence pain, sorrow and groaning have fled away." (Apostolic Constitutions, book 8, ch. 40 and 41, p. 769 and following.) Then he wishes the third, ninth and fortieth day from their death, and the anniversary, to be celebrated with prayers poured out in like manner.

Moreover, Cyprian writes these things to the people of Furni: "That the bishops our predecessors decreed that no brother should name a cleric to a guardianship or curatorship; and that if anyone had done this, offering should not be made for him, nor the sacrifice be celebrated for his falling asleep." (Cyprian, Letter 1, p. 2.) These things indeed have been cited by us elsewhere, where by the authority of Ambrose and of other Fathers of the Church we defended this teaching from the inept cavils and frivolous replies of the heretics (Notes on Ambrose, On the Death of Valentinian, a Consolation, p. 1194, and above, pp. 1121 and 1135).

Let Cyril of Jerusalem also come forward, and him whom we heard in the preceding article discoursing on the prayers of Christians for any living men whatever, let us now hear speaking on prayers for the dead (Cyril, Catechesis 5, Mystagogical, p. 539): We pray, all

of us, for all, simply, who have fallen asleep before us among us, believing that the greatest benefit will come to the souls for whom the supplication of the holy and most awesome sacrifice set forth is offered up. We all pray for all who have departed this life among us, believing that it is the greatest help to the souls for whom the prayer of that holy and tremendous sacrifice which is placed on the altar is offered. Now these words of Cyril were quoted by Eustratius, presbyter of the Church of Constantinople, in the book which he composed about the middle of the sixth century on these same prayers of Christians for the dead, where he claimed these and other catecheses for Cyril. Who, then, having heard these words of his, will not wonder at the Protestants, who seriously reply that these prayers were once poured out by Christians as a token of faith, hope and charity, but not for the relief of souls and the refreshment of the fire of purgatory?

Nor can we wonder enough at Elmenhorst, who in his observations on this passage of our Arnobius boldly asserts that Augustine, in his book On the Care to be Taken for the Dead, frankly admits that the prayers composed for the dead rest on the tradition of the forefathers alone and are not confirmed by the sacred writings. For these are the very words of Augustine, which he did not report, and which he had perhaps read not with his own eyes but with those of others: « In the books of the Maccabees we read of a sacrifice offered for the dead. But even if it were read nowhere at all in the old Scriptures, not small is the authority of the universal Church, which shines forth in this custom, whereby in the prayers of the priest which are poured out to the Lord God at His altar the commendation of the dead also has its place. » (Augustine, book On the Care to be Taken for the Dead, ch. 1, vol. 6, p. 616.) For does he not there openly and frankly admit that mention of these prayers is made in the books of the Maccabees, which he held to be canonical? And although you may deny that these books are to be assigned to the canon of sacred Scripture, you cannot deny that they are venerable for their antiquity. And even if nothing at all were read about these same prayers in the genuine books of sacred Scripture, Augustine nevertheless contends that the custom of the ancient Church is of no slight authority. But tell us, we beg, Elmenhorst, whether one who expressly affirms that something is contained in the books of the Maccabees, and is sufficiently proved from elsewhere, even if it were not read in the old Scriptures, whether, I say, he for that reason denied that it is found in the sacred Scriptures? Who, unless blinded by the prejudices of errors, ever argued so? But tell us further, we beg, is the authority and consensus of the universal Church, both in Augustine's age and, as we have seen, several centuries before, of so little weight? And whence did it flow, if not from the disciples of the Apostles, and from the Apostles themselves?

Nor does the same Elmenhorst stray less from the mark when he insists that Epiphanius likewise denied that prayers for the dead are established by any testimony of sacred Scripture (Epiphanius, Heresies 75, §§ 3 and 7). For already, in our observations on Ambrose cited above (Notes on Ambrose, vol. 2, p. 1193), we have plainly shown that by Epiphanius

the opinion of the Catholics is defended, and the opposite one is placed in the number of the errors and heresies of Aerius. By what right, then, can he who denies that prayers are to be poured out for the dead be called a heretic, unless because his opinion is opposed to the sacred Scriptures and to the constant tradition of the Church?

Article IV.

On the altars, sacrifices and use of incense of the Christians; whether Arnobius spoke of the catechumens, of the sacraments of Baptism and of the Eucharist, and of the necessity of divine grace.

The heathen still made it a charge against the Christians (Arnob., book 6, p. 28[ ]) not only that, as we have said, they had no temples or no sacred buildings, but also no altars, no altars of sacrifice, no sacrifices, no images, no use of incense. Arnobius indeed does not seem to deny this entirely; rather, he seems openly to declare that no sacrifices were made by the Christians, and that they ought not to have been performed. For he begins his sixth book with these words: "What then, someone will say, do you think that no sacrifices at all are to be made? To answer you not with our own opinion but with that of your Varro: None." (Arnob., book 7, p. 211.) But there is no one who, from the authority of Varro cited by Arnobius and from the arguments then brought against sacrifices, would not very easily understand that he is there disputing about sacrifices made after the manner of the heathen, and therefore denying that they are to be made to the gods. But Heraldus there accuses him of ignorance and stupidity, because in attacking the sacrifices of the heathen he made no mention of the sacrifices of the people of Israel. For in his first notes on his seventh book he rebukes him thus: "I should have wished, however, that Arnobius had said something about the sacrifices of the people of Israel, which constituted the figure of that great sacrifice by which the spotless Lamb, sacrificed for our sins before the creation of the world, purged our sins. But we have sufficiently exposed earlier the rudeness of Arnobius in religion." But there we in turn detect the rudeness, if one may use his word, or rather the unfair mind, of Heraldus himself in reading and properly understanding the books of our Arnobius. For Arnobius' purpose in that book was nothing other than to show that no sacrifices are to be made to the gods of the gentiles, and that they are rightly and deservedly rejected by the Christians. Yet it is clear from the analysis of this book given by us, and from what is to be said below, that this was demonstrated by him with the strongest weight of arguments. What man of sound mind, then, will deny that this was enough for him, even if he had been wholly silent about the sacrifices of the Israelites?

What, moreover, of the fact that he most openly declares that the gentiles, to those inquiring what the reason for their sacrifices was, had assigned in vain their antiquity and custom? For both had come forth from men. But no sacrifice can be rightly performed unless it is instituted by divine law: "But I," he says (ibid., p. 227), "when I ask for the reason to be produced for me, desire to hear something that has fallen from heaven." But who, I ask you, will doubt that this, between the sacrifices of the gentiles and of the Jews,

was the difference, that the former had been sanctioned by human laws, but the latter by divine ones?

Moreover, where Arnobius attacks and hoots down the sacrifices of the gentiles, there too he plainly teaches (ibid., p. 15) that nothing had been laid down by those gods of theirs themselves concerning the manner in which they wished to be worshipped by men and honoured with sacrifices. Here, if you will hear them, are his very words: "Have the gods," he says (ibid., p. 215), "ever enacted any laws for mortals, and has it ever been laid down by them what it was fitting for them to do, or what not; what to consecrate, what to shun, or at least in what ways they desired to be worshipped.... In my opinion nothing has ever been either laid down or enacted by them; since they have neither been seen at any time, nor, if they have been seen, could they be distinguished by the clearest recognition." Did he not, then, by this argument also, having rejected the sacrifices of the heathen, clearly and thoroughly approve all the other things which God had commanded the Jews to do? But even if he had said nothing at all about them, this silence is wrongly imputed to him as a fault. For besides the fact that the sacrifices of the Jews had by then been abrogated, it was certainly not those that were in question, as we have said, but the impious sacrifices of the heathen, which, being offered to feigned and false gods, the Christians with every right detested.

Furthermore, in the same sense in which he denies that sacrifice is to be made to the gods, in that very sense he altogether denied that altars and images were to be built and fashioned for them. But we have discussed these matters abundantly in the preceding dissertation on the Octavius of Minucius (Dissertation on Minucius, chap. 12, art. 29). For Arnobius argues about them against the gentiles in no other way than he does, as will be sufficiently clear from what is to be said below.

As regards the use of incense, the heathen, who objected that it was spurned by the Christians, Arnobius refutes (Arnobius, book 7, p. 231) on the ground that among themselves, as will also be shown below, it was not ancient. Tertullian, however, of whom we [shall speak] more fully in his own place, although somewhere he admits that no incense is burnt by the Christians, nevertheless elsewhere attests that it was used by them when they buried the bodies of the dead, and when the smell of some place was offensive. But not, he says, with the same rite, nor in the same dress, nor with the same apparatus, as is done before idols. You see, then, that not every use of incense is disapproved by him, as by Arnobius, but only that by which incense was burnt to idols by the gentiles. We have, however, treated of this elsewhere (vol. 1 of the Apparatus, book 1, dissertation 10, chap. 16, p. 198), and it is to be treated further below.

Hérault supposed that Arnobius is speaking of the sacraments of baptism and the eucharist where he teaches that our souls can become "long-lived," that is, immortal, "if only they try to know God, and then, having laid aside servility and inhumanity, take up gentler dispositions, so that they may be prepared for that which will be given." (Arnobius, book 2, p. 65.) But on what ground, do you think, did Hérault suppose that by the former words the sacrament of baptism, and by the latter that of the eucharist, is designated? Listen, I pray, and you will be amazed. The most ancient Fathers of the Church, he says, not only adopted the words of the gentiles, which they used in explaining their own mysteries;

but they also adapted them to the sacraments of the Christians, and transferred their rites into the Church. Yet, he says, it was to this end that Arnobius excerpted the words we have cited from these words of Cicero: "While your Athens seems to me to have brought forth and brought into the life of men many excellent and divine things, nothing is better than those mysteries by which, refined out of a rustic and savage life, we have been brought to humanity and softened; and as they are called initiations, so in truth we have come to know in them the first principles of life" (Cicero, On the Laws, book 2, p. 339, line 31). And from this Heraldus concludes that Arnobius, aiming at this passage of the Latin orator, spoke in his former words of baptism and in his latter of the Eucharist. An excellent inference indeed! As though Arnobius could not have borrowed anything from those words of Cicero unless he were speaking of these sacraments of the Christians?

But nothing, surely, is more foreign to his mind. For in fact he discusses only the happy immortality of our soul, which we cannot attain unless the true God has been acknowledged and the savagery of vices and the inhumanity of morals have been laid aside. To what end, then, would there be a mention of baptism there, when baptism was not under discussion? To whom, moreover, besides Heraldus could it have occurred that by these last words of Arnobius, "So that souls may be prepared for that reward of blessed immortality which will be given," the Eucharist is signified? But see the marvellous sharpness of that man's wit. Of it, he says, Arnobius speaks obscurely and fearfully, as being a catechumen. Was he not more sharp-sighted than a lynx, who saw what Arnobius had said not, indeed, obscurely, as he claims, but in no way at all, and did not wish to say? For he said nothing else, as we have pointed out, than that souls will not be partakers of blessed eternity unless they acknowledge God and are prepared by the purging of vices to attain it. Away, then, with these and other similar annotations of certain writers, which they heap together for this reason alone, to chase after the empty little rumours of ill-digested erudition.

It is much more certain, therefore, that our author acknowledged [the need] of divine grace, or divine help, for undergoing martyrdom for the confession of the Christian religion. For so many and such horrible tortures, even unto death, they could not, he says, have endured so steadfastly without God. But there is no need for this, which we have explained and proved above (above, ch. 4, art. 11), to be proved at greater length.

Chapter XI.

The former arguments of Arnobius are examined, by which he demonstrates that the religion of the heathen is false.

Article One.

The arguments are examined which Arnobius drew against the religion of the gentiles from the fact that the heathen could not explain where their gods spend their life, by whom their names were imposed, and how great their multitude is; and also from the books of Cicero, especially those on the nature of the gods (the judgement Arnobius passes on these books is weighed); and finally from the testimony of Euhemerus, Nicagoras, Leon of Pella, Theodorus, Hippo, and others.

There are only two of this whole Arnobian, as we have shown,

work Against the Nations, divided into seven books, parts, of which one demonstrates the truth of the Christian religion, and the other the falsity of the pagan. Now we have already weighed of what weight are the arguments by which he strives to demonstrate the truth of the Christian religion and of its chief dogmas, the sanctity of its sacred mysteries and rites, and the integrity of morals of those who sincerely followed it, and to vindicate all these from the often-repeated calumnies of the pagans. It remains that in like manner we examine the other things which he brought forward in the second part of his work for utterly overthrowing the vain religions of the gentiles, their impious cults, and their plainly ridiculous and most absurd superstitions.

First, then, our author proves by very many arguments, as clearly as invincibly, that all the gods whom the pagans venerated with a worship no less impious than ancient are entirely false and fictitious. He made the beginning of his discourse, as with a preliminary skirmish (Arnobius, book 3, p. 102), from this: that the pagans could never explain in what part of the world their gods spend their life, or how great is their multitude. For they cannot affirm with certainty that they dwell in heaven, and that they are there such as they are worshipped on earth. For none of the gentiles ever flew up there and beheld their face and form.

Nor was the origin of the names by which the gods were called any better known to them, nor by whom they were devised and given. For who would dare to assert whether the gods, says Arnobius, imposed these on themselves on the days of purification (lustricis)? In the royal manuscript codex is read ludibriis, in the old editions ludicris, in the latest lustricis, and that is better. For, says Macrobius (Macrobius, Saturnalia book 1, ch. 16, p. 307), the day of purification is that on which infants are purified and receive a name, males indeed on the ninth, females on the eighth, as is also observed by Servius. But the gods, whom the pagans admitted were born no differently from other men, could not then have taken names for themselves (Festus, On the Meaning of Words, p. 307). Nor again were these given them by men. For so great and so altogether innumerable was their multitude that a great part of them, as we shall show after Tertullian, was not known even by name to most of the various nations and peoples.

But I would have you weigh whether our author, in writing these things, took nothing from that passage of Cicero where Cotta presses this argument more sharply and demonstrates that the gods of the gentiles are nothing: « Come, we also make the gods exist with these names by which they are named by us. But first, as many as are the languages of men, so many are the names of the gods. For it is not as with you, Velleius, who are Velleius wherever you go, that Vulcan is the same in Italy, the same in Africa, the same in Spain. Next, the number of names is not great, not even in our Pontifical books; but that of the gods is innumerable. Or are they without names? That indeed you must needs say. For what is the point of there being several names when there is one face? How fine it would have been, Velleius, to confess rather that you did not know what you did not know, than to make yourself sick blurting out these things! Or do you think that like me

a god is, or like you? Surely you do not think so. » (Cicero, book 1, On the Nature of the Gods, p. 207, line 29.) You certainly see that the argument of Cicero and of our Arnobius is the same, by which he rightly and deservedly hisses off the stage the divinity of fictitious deities.

Nor is it only there that our author treads in the footsteps of the Latin orator, but elsewhere quite often he reproduces either his words or his sense. And he drew these chiefly from his three books On the Nature of the Gods, as all will understand from what is to be said below. Before we proceed further, therefore, it will without doubt be a not unprofitable and worthwhile task to observe what judgement our author passes on these books of Cicero, and why he refutes the heathen above all by their authority.

Now concerning Cicero himself, speaking in these books, he pronounces thus: "Before all others Tullius, the most eloquent of the Roman race, fearing no odium for impiety, showed frankly, steadfastly and freely, with greater piety, what he thought about such a belief," namely about the gods of the heathen. "If you would go on to take from him matters written with truth of judgement, this case would have been pleaded to its close, nor would it demand from us, who are unskilled in speech, second hearings, as the saying goes." (Arnobius, book 3, p. 105.) For this reason, he continues, not a few turned away from the reading of his books on the nature of the gods, and were by no means at all willing to admit them even to their ear; others, indeed, held that they should be abolished by a decree of the senate and removed from among men. Cardinal Baronius, however, was of the opinion that this was done by the edict of Diocletian mentioned by us above, and that those books of Cicero were actually burned in the fire together with the writings of the Christians (Baronius, at the year 302, § 19, 723). But we fear that this most learned man did not sufficiently attend to the fact that Optatus and Eusebius, whom we have cited elsewhere discussing the same decree of Diocletian, made mention only of the sacred books of divine Scripture, that is, of our deifying books.

Furthermore, how utterly Cicero in these books of his overthrew the impious worship of the gods and all the false religions of the heathen, and what he thought about those same gods, Lactantius sets out in these words: The prince of Roman philosophy, and one endowed with a most distinguished priesthood, refutes the invented and fictitious gods; he testifies that their worship is a superstition almost fit for old women; he complains that men are entangled in false opinions and turbulent errors. For the whole third book On the Nature of the Gods utterly overthrows and destroys all religions. What more, then, is expected of us? Can we surpass Cicero in eloquence? By no means. But confidence failed him, since he was ignorant of the truth. For he says that he could more easily say what is not than what is, that is, that he understood false things but did not know true ones." (Lactantius, book 1 of the Institutes, ch. 17, p. 90.)

To Lactantius, therefore, and to very many other most learned writers, it seemed that the false religion of the heathen was utterly overthrown by these books of Cicero, even though he was not able to show and establish another, true one.

Augustine, indeed, having cited certain passages from the second [book], concludes that he, at the institution of images and at the false

opinions of the gentiles, is indignant indeed, but "while he fears the custom of the city, tries to praise the religion of the ancestors and wishes to separate it from superstition, but does not find how this may be done." (Augustine, City of God, book 4, ch. 30, p. 110). Then next, in the following book, he says that, since he saw that it was the most manifest madness "to confess God and to deny that He foreknows things to come, he attempted to assert what is written: The fool has said in his heart: There is no God; but not in his own person. For he saw how odious and troublesome it would be; and therefore he made Cotta dispute on this matter against the Stoics in the books on the nature of the gods, and he preferred to give his verdict in favour of Lucilius Balbus, to whom he gave the part of defending the Stoics, rather than in favour of Cotta, who contends that there is no divine nature." (The same, ibid., book 5, ch. 9, p. 121.)

But if Cicero in these books did away with all religions utterly, if, to ward off odium and trouble, he asserted only in word and not with a sincere mind that the gods exist, by what right, you will say, does Arnobius affirm with such emphasis (Arnobius, book 3, p. 104) that these very books are those of Cicero "by which the Christian religion is confirmed and the authority of antiquity is overthrown?" It can be answered not unfittingly that by the name of the Christian religion he means its teaching concerning the true and only God, and concerning His divine providence administering all things. For by that assertion the authority of antiquity is overthrown, which, as we have said, had fashioned manifold and infinite Gods. And Cicero in his books On the Nature of the Gods demonstrates these things as plainly as he demonstrates that all the religions of the gentiles who worship any gods whatever are false. But once their falsity had been demonstrated, Arnobius thought it could necessarily be concluded that the Christian religion alone is true and, the other ancient ones having been rejected, is to be embraced by all.

Besides Cicero, moreover, our author asserts that a thousand others could be cited by him, some of whom he calls by their names, who did not hesitate to proclaim and prove in public writings that the gods of the gentiles were utterly false and mere men: "We can indeed," so he speaks (the same, book 4, p. 147), "show that all those whom you bring forward and call gods were men, whether by unrolling Euhemerus of Agrigentum, whose little books Ennius translated into the Italian tongue so that the matter might become clear to all, or Nicagoras of Cyprus, or Leon of Pella, or Theodorus of Cyrene, or Hippo, and Diagoras of Melos, or a thousand other authors, who with the care of scrupulous diligence brought hidden things to light with ingenuous freedom." How true this is, however, is sufficiently clear from what we discussed concerning the writers praised by him in the former volume of our apparatus, and in the preceding dissertation on the Octavius of Minucius (vol. 1 of the Apparatus, book 3, Dissertation 1, ch. 11, art. 5, p. 785 and following; Dissertation on the Octavius of Minucius, last chapter and article). Furthermore, there is, as we think, no room for anyone to doubt that both Cicero and the others whom Arnobius named are those very men of whom he had said elsewhere: "We hear that certain men

devoted to the pursuit of philosophizing partly deny that there is any divine power at all, partly inquire daily whether there is any." (Arnobius, book 1, p. 18.)

These matters being thus established, let us come to the other arguments by which he shakes the absurd opinions of the gentiles about their gods, and indeed the whole of their false religion, at the very point on which it seemed to them to be founded and built. For he draws the force of his reasonings from those things which the heathen openly proclaimed everywhere about their gods as certain and in no way doubtful. In reviewing and examining these, moreover, we shall follow the order set down by him, as far as can be done. But so that we do not sometimes repeat the same things along with him, all the things that bear on one and the same matter, even if treated by him in various places, we shall go over together and at one time.

Article II.

How Arnobius demonstrates the false divinity of those who were declared gods, either on account of benefits given to men, as Liber for the invention of wine, Ceres of bread, Aesculapius of herbs, Minerva of the olive, Triptolemus of the plough; or on account of certain famous deeds, as Hercules and Romulus, who was torn to pieces by the hands of the senators.

We have already laid open the varied origin and most corrupt sources of idolatry and of the impious worship of the gods, and have shown (vol. 1, Apparatus, pp. 432 and 717 ff., and the Dissertation above, chap. 14, art. 3) that it flowed chiefly from this, that ancient and blind men enrolled in the register of the gods those from whom they believed they had received very great benefits, or by whom certain famous deeds had been performed. Wherefore Arnobius addresses those insane gentiles in these words: “ You have brought into the company of the gods Liber, because he discovered the use of wine; Ceres, because [she discovered that] of bread; Aesculapius, because of herbs; Minerva, because of the olive; Triptolemus, because of the plough; finally Hercules, because he overcame and subdued wild beasts, thieves, and many-headed nurses. (Arnobius, book 1, p. 21.)

But what, I ask you, follows from this, except that they were men, or at least that they began at some time to be gods, and consequently that divinity is attributed to them altogether falsely? For true divinity must be eternal, and could never have had any beginning.

Nor would you say that these things were wrongly devised and gratuitously invented by Arnobius. For first Diodorus Siculus, a witness truly most richly informed in this matter, has most explicitly recorded that the use of wine was discovered by Dionysus, or Liber, or Bacchus (Diodorus Siculus, book 1, pp. 9 and 10, and book 3, p. 112). But earlier he had narrated it more fully, where, having mentioned certain other benefits of his towards men, he added this (ibid., pp. 137 and 158): In return for which, having been well treated, [men] assigned to him honours equal to those of the gods, and sacrifices, all men eagerly assigning him immortality because of the greatness of the benefaction. By such great benefits he won for himself so much favour that, consecrated to immortality by the more eager zeal of all, he received, as a god, both outstanding worship and solemn offerings of victims. The discovery of wine, moreover,

Euripides and others also attribute to Bacchus (Euripides, in the Bacchae, line 277 and following; the dissertation above, chapter 14, article 4). But concerning him and Ceres, of whom we [spoke] in the earlier dissertation, these are the verses of Lucretius:

For Ceres is said to have established grain for mortals, and Liber the liquid of the vine-born juice.

(Lucretius, book 5, line 14 and following.)

That Ceres, moreover, the inventress of bread, is said by the same Diodorus Siculus to have taught Triptolemus the method of sowing grain and of the whole harvest, from which bread is made, on this condition, that he should share it with all men (Diodorus Siculus, book 3, Library, page 232). Therefore Virgil sings:

Ceres first taught mortals to turn the earth with iron, when the acorns and arbutus berries of the sacred wood were now failing, and Dodona was denying them sustenance.

(Virgil, Georgics book 1, line 147 and following.)

Ovid sings in agreement with Virgil:

Ceres first, when man had been called to better things, exchanged acorns for more useful food. She compelled bulls to offer their necks to the yoke: then for the first time did the upturned soil see the sun.

(Ovid, Fasti book 4, page 548.)

Furthermore, Diodorus, already cited by us, relates besides that the goddess Ceres was honoured by the Athenians, on account of this benefit conferred upon them, with offerings of victims and with the Eleusinian initiations (Diodorus, book 5, Library, page 200).

He moreover, and Eusebius and Lactantius, who transcribed his words, declare most openly that Aesculapius was believed to have been the discoverer not only of herbs but also of the whole of medicine. But we have spoken of him in the earlier volume of our Apparatus (Diodorus, book 5, page 235; Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel book 5, chapter 2, page 57; Lactantius, book 1, chapter 19, page 98; Apparatus volume 1, page 1192).

Diodorus further attests to us that the planting and cultivation of olives, and the pressing of oil, were handed down by Minerva (Diodorus, in the place cited). For although this kind of tree, mingled with the wild ones, had existed before the birth of this Minerva, yet no cultivation or use of it had until then been discovered. Hence Virgil:

and Minerva, inventress of the olive, and the boy who showed the curved plough.

(Virgil, Georgics book 1, line 18.)

By these latter words some think that Osiris is meant, others Triptolemus, whom our Arnobius mentions. But see, if you will, Servius' commentary on these and the preceding verses of the Latin poet. Pliny, however, said (Pliny, Natural History book 7, chapter 56, page 99) that this invention of the plough is ascribed to Buzyges the Athenian, or to Triptolemus. But concerning him Ovid expressly introduces Ceres speaking thus:

He indeed will be mortal, but he will be the first to plough, and to sow, and to reap rewards from the tilled soil.

(Ovid, Fasti book 4, page 592.)

There, therefore, Triptolemus is in express words called the inventor of the plough, just as by Diodorus Siculus, cited a little before, [he is called]

imbued with the teaching of the whole of agriculture. On the invention, moreover, of the plough and of the other things mentioned by Arnobius, see Polydore Vergil and the other writers on the inventors of things (Diodorus, book 1, pp. 11, 12, at the place cited; Polydore Vergil, book 1, On the Inventors of Things, ch. 21, and book 3, chs. 2 and 3).

From what we have related, moreover, that is easily understood which Arnobius writes elsewhere (Arnobius, book 2, p. 90): that the first men used no other food than acorns, or buculi from wild branches, and no other clothing than that made from bark and skins. This is further established and confirmed by the testimony of Diodorus Siculus, Ovid, Lucretius and others (Diodorus, book 1, p. 5; Ovid, Fasti book 1, near the end; Lucretius, book 5, line 951 and following).

After these, Hercules is named by our author, of whose labours, as they say, he speaks. But to whom can these labours be unknown? If, however, they are unfamiliar to any inquirer, he will find them set out by the same Diodorus Siculus and by very many others (Diodorus Siculus, Library, book 4, p. 145 and following). Of him, moreover, and also of Liber or Bacchus, and of the others who were proclaimed gods on account of outstanding deeds and of benefits conferred on men, besides Lactantius (Lactantius, book 1, ch. 19, p. 98 and following), Horace sang thus:

Romulus and father Liber, and Pollux with Castor, received into the temples of the gods after mighty deeds, while they tend the lands and the race of men, settle harsh wars, assign fields, and found towns . . . He who crushed the dread hydra found that envy is subdued only at the last end. (Horace, book 2, epistle 1, line 5 and following)

But Arnobius rightly reproaches the Romans because they enrolled in the number of the gods this Romulus, whom Horace names first, on account of outstanding deeds and benefits conferred. For he had been torn apart and slain by the hands of the senators: "Do you not say," he says (Arnobius, book 1, p. 24), "that father Romulus himself, torn to pieces by the hands of a hundred senators, is the Martial Quirinus, and do you not honour him with priests and with couches of the gods, and worship him in most splendid temples, and, after all this, swear that he ascended into heaven?" Moreover, that his life was so cruelly taken from Romulus by the senators, although Livy tries to conceal it, Valerius Maximus nevertheless, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and others openly and plainly admit (Livy, book 1, ch. 12; Valerius Maximus, book 5, ch. 3, § 1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, book 2, p. 18). In what manner, further, he was brought into the number of the gods through the perjury of Proculus, we showed in the preceding dissertation (Dissertation on Minucius, ch. 15, art. 2).

Who, then, unless he were utterly mad, would call this man, and the others mentioned by us, gods, whatever benefits, false or true, they are reported to have conferred, or whatever outstanding deeds they are reported to have performed? For these were men pure and simple, and most wicked ones at that. But even had they been as holy as they were wicked and shameful, nevertheless never did they, even all of them together, by so many and such stupendous deeds as Christ, as we saw above,

admiration, and by their benefits goodwill and the remembrance of a grateful mind, win for themselves. If, then, the heathen had stood by their own reasonings, they could surely not have denied the divinity of Christ, or rejected His religion, and raged with such fury against its followers. Who, therefore, would not see how futile and empty that argument is? We have already seen by what reasoning Minucius Felix overturned this error, and we shall show below how it is refuted by Lactantius and Tertullian (Ibid., art. 1; Dissertation on Lactantius, ch. 30, art. 5; and on Tertullian, ch. 25, art. 3).

Article III.

Another argument of Arnobius against the religion of the heathen is weighed, drawn from the fact that the heathen said that their gods were male and female, and that, after marriages celebrated in human fashion, and in another, baser manner, they begot sons; where [it is treated] of seven-month offspring, of chalcidica, of the Hellespontine Priapus, of big-breasted Ceres, of the marriages of the gods celebrated by usus, by far and by coemptio, of betrothals, of Fescennine songs, of the royal offspring of Ops, of the infamous birth of Cytherean Venus, and of the little harlot Venus, enriched by a Cyprian king.

A very strong argument indeed against the heathen Arnobius further draws from this, that they proclaimed their gods male and female, and professed it in their public prayers: "For you are accustomed," he says, Arnob., bk. 3, p. 139) "in your prayers to say: whether you are a god or a goddess. This exception of doubt declares by its very disjunction that you assign sex to the gods." In Varro, moreover, we read how those prayers were customarily made: "A grove," he says (Varro, book On Agriculture, p. 139), "must be trodden down after the Roman manner thus. Make a pig as an expiatory offering. Frame the words thus: If you are a god, if a goddess, to whom that is sacred. But Brisson proves these things more fully (Brisson, On Formulas, ch. 60), and we have touched on something about them elsewhere (Dissertation on Minucius, ch. 15, art. 1).

Nor does Arnobius allow it to be objected to him by some thoughtless person that Christians too believe God to be male, since the noun Deus is of the masculine gender. For by that noun it is not sex, but the signification of God, that is brought forth according to the usage of speech. Therefore it is not God, but His name, that signifies the masculine gender.

But that the gods cannot be male and female Arnobius proves thus. They cannot be such, he says (Arnob., bk. 3, p. 104 ff.), without having those parts and those members by which each sex is distinguished, and which were made for propagating offspring. But those parts and those members of the body, if they are in the gods, could not be useless, as Cicero also says (Cic., bk. 2 On the Nature of the Gods, p. 208 ff.). So great a multitude, then, of immortal gods, who never grow old and are not weakened in the strength of their bodies, would have had to be begotten, that all things would by now be full of them, and they could no longer be contained by innumerable heavens. We have already shown that Minucius and others used this same argument (Dissertation on the Octavius of Minucius, ch. 16, art. 2).

How many absurd, obscene and god-unworthy things follow from their differing sex, Arnobius briefly sets out (Arnob., bk. 3, p. 104).

For from this, he says, there would have to arise the menses of goddesses, pregnancies, miscarriages, the usual pains of childbirth, and seventh-month births, that is, goddesses giving birth in the seventh month. From this the gods and goddesses with naked bodies in the chalcidica, that is, as Turnebus and Scaliger observe, in upper rooms and large buildings, and the horrible obscenity of the infamous Hellespontine Priapus, on whom Natalis Comes, Vossius and Huet [write] (Turnebus, book 18, chapter 34; Scaliger, on Eusebius' Chronicle at the year 2104; N. Comes, book 5, Mythology, chapter 15; Vossius, book 2, On the Origin and Progress of Idolatry, chapter 7, page 7[.] and following; Huet, Demonstration, page 109 and following), and the "full-breasted Ceres from Iacchus", says our author, as the muse of Lucretius proclaims, namely in this verse:

But the twin and full-breasted one is Ceres herself, from Iacchus. (Lucretius, book 4, verse 1161.)

But Cicero attacks all this more closely: "As for your saying," he says (Cicero, book 2 On the Nature of the Gods, page 209, line 19), "that there are male gods and female, you see what follows. For my part I cannot wonder enough where that chief of yours came by these opinions," namely Epicurus.

But why, someone will say, do Arnobius and Tullius not refute the ridiculous answer of Epicurus himself and of his followers, by which they prattled that the gods have not indeed a body and blood, but as it were a body and blood? The reason is certainly easy, and plain to all. For Tullius shows plainly and clearly that this fiction of Epicurus could never have been understood by anyone (Cicero, book 1 On the Nature of the Gods, page 204, line 45). And then the gentiles in fact boasted that their gods, endowed with true body and blood, and driven by the unbridled and abandoned lust of pleasure, had applied themselves to begetting children. And since Arnobius noted this sufficiently, he therefore did not think that time should be spent any longer in refuting that insane invention of the Epicureans.

And how certainly the heathen believed their gods to be constituted with a true and human body of male and female is indeed clear from this, that they themselves, as Arnobius rightly argues, handed down to posterity many things about their solemn marriages and the children thence begotten, as being in no way doubtful. For in almost all their books they had paraded marriages sought by their gods in human fashion and on human terms, as Arnobius says (Arnobius, book 4, page 140), and celebrated by usus, by far, by coemptio. And all these, on the witness of Servius (Servius, on book [.] of Virgil's Georgics, verse 30), belonged to the ancient rites of marriage: "For among the ancients," he says, "marriages were made in three ways: by usus, if, for example, a woman had been with a man for a year, even without legal forms; by far, when they were joined through the Pontifex Maximus and the Flamen Dialis by means of grain and salted meal, whence it was called confarreatio, and from these marriages children with both parents living were born; but by coemptio and conventio in manum, when she came into the place of a daughter and the husband into that of a father, so that whichever of them died first should make room for the other as heir."

See the same Servius on Book 4 of the Aeneid, verse 103, and Brisson, in the book On the Ancient Rite of Marriages, volume 13 of the Roman Antiquities, page 1016 and following, and in the same place, page 1128 and following, Holman's book On the Ancient Rite of Marriages, chapter 20 and following, who in their treatises explain these ancient rites, and what Arnobius added about the betrothed, the pledged, the espoused and the fescennines. Fescennine verses, moreover, were so called, says Festus, either because they were brought from the city of Fescennia, or because they were held to ward off the evil eye (in the books cited, p. 1012, 1047, 1112, 1124; Festus, On the Signification of Words). Therefore Arnobius, jesting merrily with the heathen, says that the goddesses, because they had no share in the fescennines, threw everything into confusion with discords. » (Arnobius, Book 4, p. 140.) And that the gods were present at the weddings of others and at their celebration, various writers, and above all Homer, quite often relate (Homer, Iliad 24).

By a brief enumeration, moreover, Arnobius proves that the gods, by the heathens' own admission, begot sons not only in solemn wedlock but in another, far more shameful manner. And what stronger argument can be brought forward for making plain, clearer than the sun itself, their false and fabricated divinity? First, then, our author relates (Arnobius, Book 2, pages 92 and 94; Book 4, page 143) that it had been handed down to memory by the heathen that Saturn was begotten of Caelus and Hecate, and of this same Saturn and Ops, as we have noted elsewhere (Dissertation on Minucius, chapter 15, article 2), Jupiter and his brothers Neptune and Pluto, and Juno his sister, and others; and that Jupiter was preserved by the Curetes, so that he should not be devoured by his father, as we have observed before. Doubtless for this reason Arnobius calls these the royal offspring of Ops (Arnobius, Book 2, page 20). And indeed we read it written by Diodorus Siculus (Diodorus, Book 5, page 232): "Of Cronus and Rhea, it is said, were born Hestia, and Demeter, and Hera, and further Zeus, and Poseidon, and Hades." From Saturn and Rhea, who among the Latins is Ops, Vesta, Ceres, Juno, Neptune and Pluto are said to have been born. To this Hesiod, and the author of the book On the Universe, and others in great number and agreement give their support (Hesiod, Theogony, verse 455 and following; Cicero, book On the Universe, Appendix).

But what more shameful and more foul could be devised than the infamous birth of Cytherean Venus, which, though it deserved to be condemned to perpetual silence, was published by the gentiles with all shame laid aside, and which our Arnobius cast in their teeth in these words: « Is it by us, » he says (Arnobius, Book 4, page 143), « that it is said that from the foam of the sea, and from Caelus', » of whom we made mention a little before, « severed genitals, the whiteness of Cytherean Venus grew together and was formed? » But Clement of Alexandria presses this point somewhat more fully and more freely against the same heathen, so that they might, if it could ever be done, be suffused with some wholesome shame (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, page 10): "I shall proclaim openly the hidden things, not being ashamed to speak of what you are not ashamed to worship. She, then, the foam-born and Cyprus-born, the darling of Cinyras, I mean Aphrodite, the Philomedes, because she came to light from members, from those members cut off from Ouranos, the lustful ones which after the cutting did violence to the wave: as worthy of your licentious parts. Aphrodite becomes fruit in the rites." Openly

moreover, I speak of the things that are hidden, not blushing to speak of those things which you are not ashamed to worship. She, then, who was born from foam and in Cyprus, the mistress of Cinyras, I mean Venus Philomedea, because she arose from the genitals, from the lustful genitals, I say, which were cut off from Coelus, and which after the cutting did violence to the wave: as though Venus were a fitting fruit of your lustful parts in the sacred mysteries. Macrobius, moreover, where he discusses Saturn, says: They say that he cut off the private parts of his father Coelus, and that when these had been thrown into the sea Venus was begotten, who from the foam out of which she was formed received the name Aphrodite. Consult besides Cicero, who calls her the second Venus. Consult also, if you wish, Hesiod, Servius, Gregory Nazianzen and others (Macrobius, Saturnalia book 1, chapter 8, page 209; Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods book 2, page 248, line 27; Hesiod, Theogony, verse 195 and following; Servius on book 1 of Virgil's Georgics, page 113; Gregory, Oration 1 against Julian, near the end).

From the same Clement of Alexandria, moreover, Arnobius seems to have taken what he added, that this same little harlot Venus was enriched by Cinyras, king of Cyprus, and consecrated among the number of the gods. This you will find confirmed also by Julius Firmicus (Arnobius, book 4, page 143; Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, page 10; Julius Firmicus, On the Error of Profane Religions, page 15). We, for our part, have touched briefly on her elsewhere (Volume 1 of the Apparatus, page 729).

Article IV.

How Arnobius demonstrates the false divinity of Jupiter from his adulteries: with Hyperion, whence the golden Sun; with Latona, whence the bow-bearing Apollo and Diana in the wandering islands; with Leda, whence the Castors, sons of Tyndareus, or Dioscuri, offspring of eggs, of whom one was a tamer of horses, the other a boxer and unconquerable with the cestus; likewise from other adulteries of Jupiter: with Alcmena, whence Hercules; with Semele, whence Bacchus, or Bromius, Nisius and Evius, struck by the thunderbolt from his mother's genitals and born again from his father's seed; likewise of Jupiter with Maia, whence Mercury; with Electra, whence Dardanus; with Laodamia, whence Sarpedon; where [he speaks] of Minerva born from Jupiter's brain, and of the changes of the same Jupiter into various forms of animals, and of these words: Tisianes, and Moorish Bocores, and babecali youths.

Jupiter celebrated an incestuous marriage with Juno his sister, as Arnobius says, and before him Tertullian (Arnobius, book 4, page 143; Tertullian, Apology, chapter 14), and others have noted. But that great and most lustful god, says our author, was not content with this wife, although in dignity of countenance and whiteness of arms, or, as Homer and Gregory Nazianzen say, leukōlenos, white-armed, and in the surpassing beauty of her form she was more lovable than all others (Arnobius, book 4, page 141; Homer, Iliad 1, verse 14 and elsewhere; Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 3 against Julian, page 257). For he is said to have begotten sons from various concubines and harlots, and so from as many adulteries. Nor did the heathen dare to deny it. Wherefore Arnobius addresses them in these words: "From Hyperion," he says (Arnobius, book 4, page 141), as mother, and from Jupiter the hurler of the thunderbolt, the golden and most blazing Sun was born. And elsewhere (ibid., page 135): "The second Sun, likewise a son of Jupiter, and brought forth by Hyperion as mother." But it plainly differs from

Hesiod, who sang that the Sun was born of Theia his mother and of Hyperion his father. Cicero too reckons up the fathers of a threefold Sun, of whom the second, he says, was born of Hyperion; but about this Sun he says nothing more there. Yet that is no wonder, since other writers differ about Hyperion (Hesiod, Theogony, lines 371 ff.; Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, book 3, p. 247, line 45). But with both Hesiod and Cicero Arnobius agrees neatly on these matters, who immediately added: "From Latona and the same Jove the bow-bearing Delian and Diana, the huntress of the woods." (Arnobius, book 4, p. 141.) Or as he had said in another book: "The bow-bearing Diana and Apollo, carried about through the flights of their mother, and scarcely safe on the wandering islands." (Ibid., book 1, p. 20; Hesiod, Theogony, lines 917 ff.; Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, book 3, p. 248, line 17; Homer, Iliad, 14, lines 323 ff.; Strabo, Geography, book 10, p. 485; Catullus, in the secular song to Diana; Ovid, Metamorphoses, book 15, fable 9.) Concerning them, indeed, these are the verses of Hesiod:

And Leto bore Apollo and Artemis, pourer of arrows, / an offspring lovely beyond all the heavenly ones, / having mingled in love with aegis-bearing Zeus.

And Latona Apollo and Diana, delighting in arrows, / an offspring lovely above all the heaven-dwellers, / did indeed bear, having mingled in love with aegis-bearing Jove.

Tullius, for his part, says: "The third Apollo, born of the third Jove and Latona, who they say came to Delphi from the Hyperboreans." With these, besides Homer, Strabo, Catullus and others, Ovid agrees, where he brings in Apollo saying:

To me the Delphic land / and Claros and Tenedos and the Pataraean palace are subject, / Jupiter is my father.

From Herodotus, moreover, you will learn why the same Apollo and Diana are said by Arnobius to have been "bound about through the flights of their mother, and scarcely safe on the wandering islands." For there he relates that Apollo and Diana were hidden and kept safe by Latona on the island of Chemmis, which afterwards floated (Herodotus, book 2, § 156, p. 151; Arnobius, book 1, p. 20).

Our author again subscribes to Cicero when he afterwards related that the Castors were begotten of that same Jove, "whose name in Greek," he says (Ibid.; book 4, p. 141), "is Dioscuri." For Cicero had earlier committed this to writing: Dioskouroi too are named in many ways among the Greeks.... The second, born of the third Jove from Leda, Castor and Pollux." (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, book 3, p. 147.) To both Theocritus, the Greek poet, adds his support in these verses (Theocritus, Idyll 22):

We hymn the two sons of Leda and of aegis-bearing Zeus, / Castor, and Polydeuces, fearsome to provoke with the fist, / when he has bound his hands about the middle with oxhide thongs.

With a hymn we celebrate the sons of Leda and of aegis-bearing Jove, / Castor, and terrible Pollux, / when he has bound his hand with oxhide thongs.

See, besides, the hymn of Homer to the sons of Jove, and Theodoret (Theodoret, discourse 2 on angels and demons, p. 511).

Arnobius, however, calls both brothers by one simple name, the Castors; "because," says Servius

(Servius, on the book of Virgil's Georgics, verse 88, page 125), "both are freely called both Polluxes and Castors. For the games, and the temple, and the stars are called 'of the Castors.'"

Now in the first book Arnobius had said: "the Tyndarid Castors (royal ms.: Tunc dari de Castores), one of them accustomed to tame horses, the other a good boxer and unsurpassable with the rawhide cestus; the Ti anes and Bocores (royal ms.: Tisianes and Bucures), Moors; and the offspring of eggs, Syrian gods" (Arnobius, book 1, page 20). You see indeed how foully this passage has been corrupted by the ignorance of a copyist. Therefore we shall try to shed some light on it, so far as can be done. First, there and elsewhere besides, Castor and Pollux are called "Tyndarid Castors" by Arnobius, simply "Tyndaridae" by Cicero, and "Tyndarid brothers" by Ovid (the same, book 2, page 93; Cicero, book 2 On the Nature of the Gods, page 214, and book 3, page 24; Ovid, book 5 of the Fasti, near the end). They obtained that name because people believed them born of Tyndareus, king of Oebalia, and Leda his wife, although they had been born of the clandestine union of Jupiter, changed into a swan, with Leda. For by Jupiter Leda bore two eggs, from which, it was said, not only Castor and Pollux but also Helen and Clytemnestra were brought forth. And for this very reason they were surnamed Dioscuri, Dioskouroi, as we have said, from the word Dios, "of Jupiter", and koroi or kouroi, "sons". Therefore some conjecture that in Arnobius' text we should read Dioscuri instead of Dii Syri. Selden, however, published a particular book on the Syrian gods.

From what we observed a little earlier, it is easily understood why Castor and Pollux are called by Arnobius (Arnobius, book 1, page 120) "the offspring of eggs", and Jupiter "the begetter of white eggs" (the same, book 4, page 142), on which see Vossius among others. Moreover, this point too, that our author added in the same place that the one was accustomed to tame horses and the other was a good boxer, Horace neatly confirms in this verse:

Castor delights in horses, the one born of the same egg in fists. (Horace, Satires, book 2, verse 25.)

Elsewhere he repeats it, and calls them sons of Leda in these lines:

I shall tell also of Alcides, and of the boys of Leda, this one famous for winning with horses, that one with fists. (The same, book 1, ode 12, verse 25.)

Ovid and Propertius chime in beautifully with Horace (Ovid, book 5 of the Fasti; Propertius, book 3, elegy 13).

What the cestus is, with which Pollux is called unsurpassable, you will learn from Servius on this verse of Virgil, to which our Author perhaps had regard:

Or whoever trusts himself to join battle with the rawhide cestus. (Virgil, book 5 of the Aeneid, verse 68.)

For there he remarks this: "Crudo caestu: either 'cruel', or 'hard', so that it is said simply, because cestuses are made of hard leather; or, spelled with the diphthong, it signifies the arms of boxers. It has a plural number and is of the fourth form. For caestus, caesti, only of the number

singular, without the diphthong, signifies the girdle of Venus." Therefore Theocritus, as we saw a little before, sang of the hands of Pollux bound with ox-hide thongs, as his interpreter rendered it, that is, with caestus. To these Seneca can be added, who somewhere said:

Pollux, more skilled with the caestus, will yield, together with his Castor. (Seneca, Medea, act 1.)

But we have noted something about the caestus in the earlier volume of our Apparatus (vol. 1, Apparatus, book 3, dissertation 2, p. 1193 ff.).

The greater difficulty, then, lies in the penultimate words of Arnobius: Titanes et Bocores Mauri, or, as is read in the royal manuscript codex, Tisianes et bucules mauri (Arnobius, book 1, p. 20), which Heraldus freely admits cannot be explained. Stewechius, however, suspected that one should read: Ignes et fulgores marini [sea fires and flashes], because Castor and Pollux are stars that bring safety to sailors. He could have confirmed this by the testimony of Seneca, Pliny and others (Seneca, Natural Questions, book 1, chapter 1, p. 405; Pliny, Natural History, book 2, chapter 37). But this conjecture of Stewechius pleased others not at all. Meursius was more pleased by the guess of Grotius, by which he divined that one should write Tisianira et Bucero nati [born of Tisianira and Bucerus]. For Tisianira is Nemesis, or Leda, and Jupiter is Bucerus, inasmuch as he was once changed into a bull. For bucerum pecus and bucera armenta mean the same as oxen. But even if Bucerus had been a surname of Jupiter, it would still have to be proved why Arnobius in that place made mention of Jupiter turned into a bull rather than into a swan, in the form of which he violated Leda, about whom he is there disputing. To restore the true reading of the text of Arnobius, therefore, another uncorrupted manuscript codex is certainly needed.

Arnobius proceeds (Arnobius, book 4, p. 141) and presses other adulteries of Jupiter against the heathen thus: 'Of Alcmena and the same Jupiter was born that Theban Hercules, whom a club and a skin protected; of Semele and the same, Liber, who is called Bromius and was born a second time from his father's seed; of the same again and Maia, Mercury, eloquent of speech and bearer of the gentle snakes,' that is, of the serpents on the caduceus, by which the end of war and the beginning of peace were proclaimed. But to whom can these things be unknown? Of the threefold adultery of Jupiter, however, by which he is said to have begotten as many sons of three women, Hesiod sang these lines (Hesiod, Theogony, line 937 ff.):

And to Zeus Maia, daughter of Atlas, bore glorious Hermes, herald of the immortals, having mounted his sacred bed. And Cadmus' daughter Semele bore him a shining son, joined with him in love, Dionysus of many joys, an immortal son though she was mortal; and now both are gods. And Alcmena bore the might of Heracles, joined in love with Zeus the cloud-gatherer.

To Jupiter the daughter of Atlas bore glorious Mercury, herald of the gods, having mounted his sacred bed. Cadmus' daughter Semele bore a famous son, having had to do with him, cheerful Dionysius, an immortal son though she was mortal: now both are gods. Alcmene bore the might of Hercules, joined in love with cloud-gathering Jupiter.

Concerning this birth from Alcmena, Cicero says: "The sixth Hercules is the one from Alcmena, whom Jupiter begot, but the third Jupiter." You will be able to read more, if you please, in Diodorus Siculus, Hesiod, Plautus and Vossius. Our Author, following Clement of Alexandria, adds that nine nights were spent by the same Jove with Alcmena. Further, on this and the other adulteries of Jove mentioned by our Arnobius, see Homer (Cic., bk 3, On the Nature of the Gods, p. 205, last line; Diodorus, bk 4, Library, p. 157; Hesiod, The Shield of Heracles; Plautus, Amphitryo; Vossius, bk 1, On the Origin and Progress of Idolatry, ch. 14, p. 162; Arnobius, bk 4, p. 145; Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 20; Homer, Iliad 14, lines 316 ff.).

You will also find explained what Arnobius writes, that Liber, or Bacchus, was born of Jove and Semele, and born again from the seed, or thigh, of his father; and, as he says elsewhere, that he was cast out from his mother's genitals by a thunderbolt (Arnobius, bk 1, pp. 20 and 24; and bk 4, p. 141). For Diodorus relates that Semele wrung from Jove, who burned with love for her, by her entreaties, that he should come to her, pregnant by him, with the same honour as to Juno, that is, armed with thunder and thunderbolt (Diodorus Siculus, bk 40, Library, p. 138, and in Eusebius, bk 2, Preparation for the Gospel, ch. 2, p. 52). But since she had been unable to bear so great a force of lightning and crashing, she was at once struck lifeless and miscarried. Then Jupiter sewed the infant into his own thigh, and, having brought him forth at the appointed time, carried him off to Nysa, a city of Arabia. There, brought up by the Nymphs, he received the name of Dionysus from his father and from the place where he was born. If you wish other witnesses to be given you, we shall readily give Homer, Nonnus, Ovid and Cicero, whom you will easily be able to consult when you please (Homer, Iliad 14, lines 233 ff.; Nonnus, bk 1, Dionysiaca, beginning; Ovid, bk 3, Metamorphoses, § 3, pp. 102 ff.; Cicero, bk 1, Tusculans, p. 119).

Meanwhile observe that Liber is called by our author not only Semeleios, that is, son of Semele, but also Bromius, Nysius and Evius. "Bromius," says Diodorus Siculus, whom we have cited, "from the roar that occurred at his birth." He was named Bromius from the crash of thunder raised about his birth; but Nysius not, as it seems, from the aforementioned city of Arabia, Nysa, but rather from Nysus his father. For Cicero, following whom our author enumerates five Dionysi, or Libers, expressly asserts that the fifth was born of Nysus and Thyone. Finally, some think that the surname of Evius was given to Bacchus because, after he had been changed into a lion and had killed every one of the giants, he was surnamed by Jove his father Evhion, that is, "good son". Others suspect that this name arose from the word Evoe, or Euan, which the Bacchantes, as we have noted elsewhere, openly shouted to Bacchus in their mysteries (Arnobius, bk 4, p. 141, and bk 5, pp. 176 and 177; and in the place cited, Diodorus Siculus, bk 3, Library, p. 149; and in Eusebius, bk 2, Preparation for the Gospel, ch. 2, p. 54; Cicero, bk 3, On the Nature of the Gods, p. 248, line 25).

From Cicero, cited a little before, that without doubt

was also excerpted, you will admit, which our author added, that Mercury was born of the same Jupiter and Maia (Arnobius, book 4, p. 136; vol. 1, Apparatus, book 3, dissertation 3, ch. 9, art. 2, p. 757). For the Latin orator is read to have recorded these things in writing: "The third Mercury was born of the third Jupiter and of Maia, from whom and Penelope they say Pan was born." And Diodorus Siculus: "Atlas had seven daughters.... Maia, the eldest by birth, from the embrace of Jupiter" bore "Mercury, the discoverer of many arts" (Cicero, book 3, On the Nature of the Gods, p. 248, line 6; Diodorus Siculus, book 3, Library, p. 135). And besides Macrobius (Macrobius, book 1, Saturnalia, ch. 12, p. 122), Virgil has lent his support to both in these verses:

Your father is Mercury, whom fair Maia, having conceived him, brought forth on the cold summit of Cyllene. / But Maia (if we believe anything we hear) Atlas begets, / that same Atlas who holds up the stars of heaven.

(Virgil, Aeneid book 8, line 138 ff.)

On these verses see the observations of Servius.

Moreover, from a thousand others, both maidens and married women, as Arnobius relates elsewhere (Arnobius, book 5, p. 172), the infamous Jupiter snatched away their chastity. There he names Electra and Laodamia expressly. Now Electra was a nymph, the daughter of Oceanus and Tethys, who, having been debauched by Jove, bore Dardanus, on the testimony of Ovid, or, as Dionysius of Halicarnassus thinks, Dardanus and Iasus (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, book 1, Roman Antiquities, p. 49). And these are Ovid's lines on the matter:

Would anyone not know that Dardanus was sprung from Electra, daughter of Atlas, / that is, that Electra lay with Jove?

(Ovid, Fasti book 14, line 49.)

And of Laodamia, daughter of Bellerophon, the same Jupiter begot Sarpedon, king of Lycia, as Homer sings (Homer, Iliad 6, line 197 f.):

With Laodamia lay Zeus the counsellor, / and she bore godlike Sarpedon, armed in bronze.

With Laodamia indeed lay Jupiter the counsellor, / and she bore divine Sarpedon, a bronze-clad warrior.

Moreover, Arnobius asserts that the lust of Jove, of which we have spoken elsewhere (Arnobius, book 4, p. 145; vol. 1, Apparatus, pp. 753, 805, 1242 ff.), was so great and so shameful and abandoned that, to satisfy it whenever he could, he did not blush to turn himself into gold, a satyr, a serpent, a bird, a bull and an ant. These things Ovid, setting them out a little more clearly, has related in this manner:

The Maeonian maid depicts Europa deceived by the image of a bull. / . . . / She also made Asterie held by a struggling eagle, / she made Leda lie beneath the swan's wings; / she added how, hidden in the likeness of a satyr, / Jupiter filled the fair daughter of Nycteus with a twin offspring; / how he was Amphitryon when he took you, Tirynthian woman; / how as gold he deceived Danae, as fire the daughter of Asopus, / as a shepherd Mnemosyne, as a spotted serpent the daughter of Deo.

And afterwards Gregory Nazianzen (Gregory Nazianzen, vol. 2, poem 61, p. 142):

Look first at all that he became in his lusts: bull, swan, gold, serpent, husband, bear, all that swift Love, the feeble boy, bade him become, as they themselves say who are the fashioners of feeble gods.

See for me how many forms he who is first among them puts on while he is consumed by the fire of burning Venus. Now a bull, now a white swan, now a dark-blue snake, now he becomes gold and a bear, now in short whatever Love wills, the feeble boy, so you yourselves say, whom it pleases to fashion feeble deities with your right hand.

Concerning the ridiculous transformation of the same Jupiter, so that he might bring rape upon Eurymedusa, we have touched on something elsewhere (vol. 1, Apparatus, book 3, dissertation 1, ch. 9, art. 4, p. 752). See further, on certain of those abominable transformations of Jupiter, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Epiphanius, Julius Firmicus, Vossius and others (Justin, Exhortation 2, to the Greeks, p. 38; Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 23 and following; Epiphanius, Ancoratus, p. 108; Firmicus, On the Error of Profane Religions, p. 15; Vossius, book 1, On the Origin and Progress of Idolatry, ch. 14; Arnobius, book 2, pp. 93 and 118).

It will perhaps seem less shameless to some that, after Apollonius of Rhodes, Nonnus, Lucian, Pausanias, Ovid and many others, Arnobius relates that Minerva was born from the brain of Jupiter (Apollonius, book 4, Argonautica, line 1309 and following; Nonnus, book 1, Dionysiaca, line 9 and following; Lucian, Dialogues of the Gods, p. 73 and following, and On Sacrifices, p. 183; Pausanias, book 1, p. 22; Ovid, book 3 of the Fasti, towards the end; Arnobius, book 4, p. 141 and following). Yet no one will deny that this was wholly unworthy of the supreme father of the gods. For does it not necessarily follow from it that Jupiter was a man, composed of a brain and the other human members, and that Minerva did not exist before, and is wrongly added to the number of the goddesses?

Who, then, does not understand how rightly Arnobius concludes from all these things which we have so far related that Jupiter could never have been assailed with greater insult than by those who openly, everywhere and shamelessly proclaimed his abominable adulteries? For what is more injurious to the gods than to charge them with adultery, which human laws, as is clear from the Justinian Code and from Theodoret, and as we have noted elsewhere, willed to be punished with the penalty of death? (Book 9 of the Code of Justinian, title 9, on the Julian law concerning adultery; Theodoret, sermon 3, on angels and demons, p. 154; vol. 1, Apparatus, p. 805 and following, and 1241 and following.)

Finally, in the same place our Author added that the same Jupiter burned with such blind and untamed lust as babecali youths are wont to do. And so indeed it stands in the royal manuscript codex, which seems plainly corrupted by the usual ignorance of the copyist. Therefore in place of babecali some have conjectured that vagari should be read, others bacchari, and the latter all the better in that it comes nearer to Arnobius's purpose. For there Arnobius assails the intemperance of Jupiter, and shows that, although old and grey, he burned for women with no less ardour of lust than youths do (the same, ibid., p. 713; Arnobius, book 4, p. 141).

Chapter XII.

How Arnobius shows the religion of the heathen to be false from the adulteries and shameful deeds of the other gods and goddesses.

Article One.

How unanswerably Arnobius proved the opinions of the gentiles about their gods to be absurd, from the adultery of Saturn with Philyra; of Mars with Venus; of Hercules with the fifty daughters of Thestius; of Neptune with Amphitrite, Amymone, Alope; of Apollo with Arsinoe, Arethusa, Hypsipyle, Marpissa, Zeuxippe, Prothoe, Daphne, Sterope, and also with Coronis, whence Aesculapius, struck by a thunderbolt on account of avarice.

The chastity and modesty of the other gods was no greater than that of Jupiter. For Saturn, as Arnobius says (Arnob., bk. 4, p. 145), although worn out with old age, nevertheless "is shown by the songs of the poets, when caught in adultery by his wife, to have put on the form of a wild beast and, in the shape of a beast of the herd, to have fled away with neighings uttered." By these words he marks the fable sung by Apollonius of Rhodes (Apoll., bk. 2, Argon., lines 1335 ff.), in which Saturn is said to have fallen in love with Philyra, daughter of Oceanus. For, having lain with her, in order not to be recognized by his wife Ops or Rhea, who was approaching, he turned himself into a horse. And from that union was born the centaur Chiron, who in the front part of his body resembled a man, and in the hinder part a horse. Hence that verse of Ovid:

How Saturn, as a horse, begot Chiron of twofold form. (Ovid, Metamorphoses bk. 4, § 3, p. 204.)

You will see more in Natalis Comes (Nat. Com., Mythology bk. 3, ch. 12).

Now in our earlier dissertation we noted what Arnobius records of Mars: that while he was assailing the genitals of another, he was caught, entangled in snares, that is, taken with Venus in adultery, and by Vulcan, as Gregory Nazianzen also writes and as we have noted elsewhere, and bound with chains (Dissertation on Minucius, ch. 18, art. 4; Arnob., bk. 4, p. 144, and bk. 5, p. 186; Greg., Oration 3, or 1, against Julian, p. 258; Dissertation on Minucius, ch. 17, art. 4).

But who was more intemperate and more wanton than Hercules? "The holy god," as our Author wittily jests, "in a single night taught the fifty daughters born of Thestius both to lay aside the name of virginity and to bear the burdens of mothers." (Arnob., bk. 4, p. 145.) This wantonness of Hercules, so immoderate and hitherto unheard of, Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory Nazianzen and Theodoret likewise cast up against the heathen (Tatian, Oration against the Greeks, p. 159; Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 20; Greg. Naz., Oration 3 or 1, against Julian, p. 263; Theodoret, Discourse 8, on the Martyrs, p. 594 ff.). And among the writers of the gentiles Pausanias reports what the opinions of the ancients on this matter were; and Ovid has regard to them, and addresses Hercules himself thus:

The sisters, the Teuthrantian throng, will not be a charge against you, of whose people not one was left [untouched] by you. (Ovid, Epistles, Heroides 9, p. 89.)

The king of the sea, Arnobius goes on (bk. 4, p. 144), that is, Neptune, defiled by not just one adultery, through the heat of a frenzied lust robbed Amphitrites, Hippothoes, Amymones, Menalippes and Alopes of the chastity of their virginity. This he borrowed from Clement of Alexandria, who added three further women to these (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 20): "Call me Poseidon, and the band corrupted by him, Amphitrite, Amymone, Alope, Menalippe, Alcyone, Hippothoe, Chione, and the countless others; among whom, many though they were, the passions of your Poseidon were still pent up." "Call me Neptune, and the whole band that was corrupted by him, Amphitrite, Amymone, Alope, Menalippe, Alcione, Hippothoe, Chione, and other innumerable women, among whom, though they were so many, the passions of your Neptune were forced into a narrow space." But Arnobius left out the last three, just as Clement left out the other innumerable women, because he judged that those whom each of them calls by name were enough for his purpose. It is surely for the same reason that Julius Firmicus names only Amymone, Alope, Menalippe, Chione and Hippothoe. On these, moreover, and on others violated by Neptune, consult Natalis Comes and Vossius (Julius Firmicus, On the Error of Profane Religions, p. 16; Comes, bk. 2 of the Mythology, ch. 8, p. 166; Vossius, bk. 1, On the Origin and Progress of Idolatry, ch. 15, p. 63).

Arnobius pursues his irony, and so mocks Apollo merrily: "That spotless Apollo, son of Latona, most chaste and pure, in the heats of an unthinking heart sought after Arsinoes, Aethusas, Hypsipyles, Marpessas, Zeuxippes and Prothoes, Daphnes and Steropes." Clement of Alexandria, however, had said it earlier, from whom Arnobius likewise culled these things (Arnobius, bk. 4, p. 144; Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 20): "Call me Apollo too," he says; "this is Phoebus, a pure seer and a good counsellor. But Sterope does not say so, nor Aethusa, nor Arsinoe, nor Zeuxippe, nor Prothoe, nor Marpessa, nor Hypsipyle; for Daphne alone escaped both the seer and the ruin." "Call me Apollo also. He is Phoebus, a chaste prophet and a good counsellor. But Sterope does not say this, nor Arethusa, nor Arsione, nor Zeuxippe, nor Prothoe, nor Marpissa, nor Hypsipile. For Daphne alone escaped both the prophet and the defilement." Although Daphne escaped the defilement, that does not lessen the force of Arnobius' argument; rather, it proves most clearly that Apollo was stirred by a blind and unbridled lust for her and shamefully inflamed. Ovid indeed sang this tale. You will be able, moreover, to read Julius Firmicus on her and on others desperately loved by Apollo, and, if you still have leisure, consult Natalis Comes (Ovid, bk. 2 of the Metamorphoses, fable 10, p. 27 ff.; Julius Firmicus, On the Error of Profane Religions, p. 762; Comes, bk. 4 of the Mythology, ch. 10, p. 342).

Aesculapius was without doubt the son of Apollo and the grandson of Jupiter, and our Arnobius more than once says he was born of Coronis (Arnobius, bk. 1, p. 20, and

bk. 7, p. 249). Diodorus Siculus, however, whose words Eusebius copied out, attests somewhere that he was in truth the son of Apollo and of Phoronis, Φορωνίδος (better, in Eusebius, Κορωνίδος), or, as Theodoret observes from Apollodorus, of Arsinoe; and that he, when he was healing many men of despaired-of health, was struck by a stroke of lightning by Jupiter, who took this ill. (Diodorus, Bibliotheca, book 4, page 189; Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, book 2, chapter 2, page 57; Theodoret, sermon 8, On the Martyrs, page 595.)

For this reason Arnobius elsewhere left this written about him: "Was it for the sake of desire and avarice, as the Boeotian Pindar sings, that Aesculapius was transfixed by the weapon of the thunderbolt?" In a similar manner Tertullian too: "There is also that one," he says, "among the Lyric poets, Pindar I mean, who sings that Aesculapius, deservedly for his avarice, because he practised medicine harmfully, was condemned by the thunderbolt. Jupiter is wicked, if the thunderbolt is his: impious towards his grandson, envious towards the craftsman." (Arnobius, book 4, page 143; Tertullian, Apology, chapter 14, page 15.) Earlier, however, Clement of Alexandria reported this, who reported the verses not only of Pindar but also of Euripides on this matter. See besides Cyril, likewise of Alexandria, disputing against Julian the Apostate, and what has been noted by us elsewhere, and will be said afterwards in the following dissertation (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, page 18; Cyril, Against Julian, book 6, page 200 and following; Apparatus, volume 1, page 754; Dissertation on Minucius, chapter 15, article 5). To the writers cited, moreover, let us be permitted to add one more, Gregory Nazianzen, who described those and other utterly abominable and execrable crimes of the gods in these few verses (Gregory Nazianzen, poem 61, page 142):

Liars, man-slayers, crooked ones, swearers of false oaths, / robbers, androgynes, adulterers, mounters of men.

Liars, men bound by the blood of slaughter, crafty ones, / swearing falsely, robbers, and androgynes, / dissolving the rights of the marriage-bed, and with unspeakable frenzy / mingling themselves with boys and with the male sex.

But concerning this utterly execrable love of boys let us hear our Arnobius, if you please.

Article II.

How clearly Arnobius further proved the gods of the gentiles to be false from the boys Catamitus, or Ganymede, Hylas, Hyacinthus, Pelops and Chrysippus, whom they most shamefully loved and debauched.

It was too little for the utterly insatiable lust of the gods to have committed so many and such detestable adulteries with women; but, blinded besides by a most shameful love of boys, they inflicted on them, horrible to say, those debaucheries which the heathen were not ashamed to publish in their histories. For by Jupiter himself, whom they called God best and greatest, "the boy Catamitus," says Arnobius (Arnobius, book 5, page 172), "was despoiled of the honour of his modesty.) And as he had said in another book (the same, book 4, page 145): The boy Catamitus is carried off to become a darling and the keeper of the cups." If you should ask who that Catamitus was, Festus will answer (Festus, On

the Meaning of Words): "They said Catamitus for Ganymede, who was Jupiter's concubine." For that reason he is said to have been carried off into heaven, and Ovid sang of it in these verses:

The king of those above once burned with love for Phrygian Ganymede, and something was found that Jupiter would rather be than what he was. Yet he deigns to be turned into no bird except one that could carry his thunderbolts. Without delay, striking the air with false wings, he snatches away the descendant of Ilus, who even now mixes the cups and, against Juno's will, serves nectar to Jove.

(Ovid, Metamorphoses, book 10, § 4, p. 565 and following.)

It is no wonder, therefore, if Arnobius reproached the heathen once and again with that monstrous and utterly detestable crime (Arnobius, book 5, p. 187). Cicero, however, holds that it was invented by Homer, who perversely transferred human things to the gods. For somewhere this was handed down by him in his writings: "Nor do I listen to Homer, who says that Ganymede was carried off by the gods on account of his beauty, to serve cups to Jove: not a just reason why so great a wrong should be done to Laomedon. Homer was inventing these things and transferring human things to the gods; I would rather [he had transferred] divine things to us." (Cicero, Tusculan Disputations, book 1, p. 125, line 27.) But that did not prevent so great a wickedness from being believed and paraded by very nearly all the heathen, so that Arnobius and Julius Firmicus reproached them with it, rightly and deservedly (Julius Firmicus, On the Error of Profane Religions, p. 15). Consult, if you wish, Vossius (Vossius, On the Origin and Progress of Idolatry, book 1, p. 61), who argues that Cicero was deceived there by his memory, because he called Ganymede the son of Laomedon. The same Vossius discusses the name Catamitus further elsewhere (the same, in the Etymologicon; Arnobius, book 4, p. 145).

What our Author added to these, however, "And so that he may be called the chick of Jupiter, Fabius is scorched in the soft parts and sealed in the hinder parts," is explained somewhat more clearly by these words of Festus: "Fabius, whose cognomen was Eburnus on account of his whiteness, was called the chick of Jupiter, because his buttock had been struck by lightning. The ancients, moreover, called a boy whom someone loved that person's chick." (Festus, under the word Pullus.)

But let us go on with our Arnobius to other matters. He addresses the heathen themselves thus: "Why, not content with having attributed to the gods cares for the female sex, do you also add males of their own sex loved by them? Someone or other loves Hylas, another is taken up with Hyacinthus, that one burns with longing for Pelops, this one sighs more ardently for Chrysippus." (Arnobius, book 4, p. 145.) That Arnobius took these things from Clement of Alexandria you will easily understand from these words of his: "For your gods did not keep away even from boys: one [loved] Hyllus, another Hyacinthus, another Pelops, another Chrysippus." For certain gods of yours did not abstain even from boys: one loving Hyllas, another Hyacinthus, another Pelops, another Chrysippus (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 21).

Hylas, moreover, was the son of Theodamas, king of the Dryopes, and indeed a very beautiful one, whom Hercules, after killing his father, carried off and took with him to the Colchians,

when he was sailing there with the Argonauts. Afterwards he sent him to draw water from the river Ascanius, or from the spring of Calciamnis, and the nymphs, captivated by his beauty, carried him off. Hercules, however, when he had sought him in vain, instituted sacred rites in his honour, in which 'Hylas' was solemnly called out. Whence Virgil:

To these he adds Hylas, at which spring the sailors had called out for him, left behind, so that the whole shore resounded 'Hylas! Hylas!'

(Virgil, Eclogue 6, line 43.)

On these verses see the observations of Servius, and Strabo, Apollonius, Theocritus and others (Strabo, Geography, book 12, p. 564; Apollonius, Argonautica, book 1, lines 1207 ff.; Theocritus, Idyll 13).

Hyacinthus, moreover, the son of King Amyclas, whom Arnobius next mentions, Ovid sang of as desperately loved by Apollo and Zephyrus (Ovid, Metamorphoses, book 12, fable 5; Julius Firmicus, On the Error of Profane Religions, p. 15 ff.); nor can this be unknown to anyone. But Julius Firmicus related the same things as our Arnobius about him and Hylas, and about two others, Pelops and Chrysippus, though somewhat more plainly, and from this he argues thus against the heathen: 'Does someone take delight in the embraces of boys? Let him look for Ganymede in the bosom of Jupiter, let him see Hercules seeking Hylas with impatient love, let him learn of Apollo captivated by longing for Hyacinthus. Let one look at Chrysippus, another at Pelops, so that he may say that through his gods there is permitted to him whatever is today punished most severely by the Roman laws.'

But by whom Pelops was loved, of whom the same Julius speaks elsewhere, Tatian seems to have indicated in these words (ibid., p. 20; Tatian, Oration against the Greeks, p. 162): 'Among you Pelops becomes a dinner for the gods, and the beloved of Poseidon.' Among you Pelops is served up at the feasts of the gods, and (or, although) a boy loved by Neptune. And Pindar (Pindar, Olympian Ode 1, lines 38 ff.):

. . . . . whom the mighty earth-holder Poseidon loved.

Whom the most powerful Neptune, who encompasses the lands, loved.

Lastly, Athenaeus related these things about Chrysippus and the love of boys (Athenaeus, book 13, p. 602 ff.): 'Others say that Laius began such loves, while staying with Pelops, and that, having fallen in love with his son Chrysippus, he seized him, set him on a chariot and fled to Thebes. But Praxilla of Sicyon says that Chrysippus was carried off by Zeus.' Others say that the love of boys arose from Laius, who was lodging with Pelops, and who, as regards his beloved son Chrysippus, after he had seized him and set him on a chariot, fled away to Thebes. Praxilla of Sicyon says that Chrysippus was carried off by Jupiter. See further Aelian, if you have a mind to, but there he makes no mention of Jupiter (Aelian, Varia Historia, book 13, chapter 5). But who would not shudder that these should be called gods, burning with a love so execrable, and one never to be sufficiently expiated by any fires?

Article III.

How Arnobius shows the false divinity of the gods from the shameless love of the goddesses for men: of Aurora for Tithonus, of Luna for Endymion, of the Nereid for Aeacus, of Thetis for the father of Achilles, of Proserpina for Adonis, of Ceres for the rustic Jasion, of Venus for Vulcan, Phaethon, Mars and Anchises; and why she is called Dioneia and the mother of the Trojan man.

How great too was the shamelessness of the goddesses Arnobius, following Clement of Alexandria, plainly demonstrates by these examples: « Is it not recorded in your writings that Tithonus was loved by Aurora, that Luna burned for Endymion, the Nereid for Aeacus, Thetis for the father of Achilles, Proserpina for Adonis, her mother Ceres for some rustic or other named Jasion, and that, after Vulcan, that very Venus, mother of the Aeneadae and founder of Roman dominion, burned for Phaethon, for Mars, and for marriage with Anchises » (Arnobius, book 4, p. 145 ff.). Clement of Alexandria, moreover, had earlier thrown the same things at those same Gentiles (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 21): Dawn for Tithonus, Selene for Endymion, the Nereid for Aeacus, and Thetis for Peleus; Demeter for Iasion, and Pherephatta for Adonis; Aphrodite, put to shame over Ares, went over to Cinyras, and married Anchises, and lay in wait for Phaethon, and loved Adonis. Aurora for the sake of Tithonus, Luna for the sake of Endymion, the Nereid for the sake of Aeacus, and Thetis for the sake of Peleus, Ceres for the sake of Jasion, and Proserpina for the sake of Adonis: but Venus, for the sake of Mars, was visited with reproach and disgrace, went over to Cinyras, and married Anchises, and laid snares for Phaethon, and loved Adonis.

Now Tithonus, brother of Laomedon, king of the Trojans, as Servius says (Servius, on the passages of Virgil about to be cited), was loved and carried off by Aurora on account of the excellence of his beauty, and, conveyed in her chariot to Ethiopia, there begot Memnon by her. Hence Virgil sang:

Or when pale Aurora rises, / leaving the saffron bed of Tithonus. (Virgil, Georgics book 1, line 446.)

And again in another book:

And now early Aurora was sprinkling the earth with new light, / leaving the saffron bed of Tithonus. (The same, Aeneid book 4, line 584.)

On these matters more is said by Hesiod (Hesiod, Theogony, line 904) and Propertius (Propertius, book 2, elegy 18; the same, elegy 15), who wrote these verses about Endymion:

Endymion too, naked, is said to have captivated Phoebus' sister, / and to have lain with the naked goddess.

He had been a shepherd, son of Athlius; Luna, seized with love of him, hid him in a cave of Latmus, a mountain of Caria, and, as Cicero says, kissed him while he slept. Would you like his words set before you? Here they are: « Endymion, if we wish to listen to fables, fell asleep at some time or other on Latmus, which is a mountain of Caria, and has not yet, I think, awoken. Do you suppose, then, that he cares when the Moon is in eclipse, by whom he is thought to have been lulled to sleep so that she might kiss him while sleeping » (Cicero, Tusculan Disputations book 1, p. 150, line 36)? But if you wish to hear more authors, who do not reject these things as old wives' tales never to be listened to, you will be able to go to Theocritus, Ovid,

Pliny and others (Theocritus, Idyll 3; Ovid, Heroides, letter 18, p. 199, Art of Love book 3, p. 473; Pliny, Natural History book 2, ch. 9, p. 152).

By the name of the Nereid, moreover, our Arnobius, following Clement of Alexandria, as we have already seen, designates Psamathe the daughter of Nereus (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 21), from whom Aeacus, as Hesiod relates, begot Phocus (Hesiod, Theogony, line 1004):

Psamathe, divine among goddesses, bore Phocus in love with Aeacus, through golden Aphrodite.

And indeed Psamathe, most excellent of goddesses, bore Phocus in love with Aeacus, through golden Venus.

Ovid has much about Aeacus and Phocus, whom you will be able to read when it pleases you (Ovid, Metamorphoses book 7, § 24 and following). He whom Arnobius next calls the father of Achilles is rightly named Peleus by Clement of Alexandria, who begot that same Achilles from Thetis (Clement, in the place cited, p. 21). For Hesiod, already cited by us, sang (Hesiod, Theogony, line 1006):

And the goddess Thetis of the silver feet, subdued by Peleus, bore Achilles.

And the goddess Thetis, having white feet, subdued by Peleus, bore Achilles.

But you will find this sung at length by Ovid (Ovid, Metamorphoses book 2, § 7).

They say, moreover, that Proserpina and Venus, both desperately in love with Adonis, came to the judgement of Jupiter, so that he might pronounce to which of the two he should be granted. But Calliope was given by him as arbiter and judge of the dispute, who decided that each should possess him for half of the year. Read, if you wish, Hyginus, Apollodorus and Giraldus (Hyginus, Poetic Astronomy; Apollodorus, Library book 3; Giraldus, On the Gods, syntagma 13, p. 396).

Jasion, further, is called by our author some rustic or other, but by Nonnus a farmer and the husband of Ceres, by others the son of Jupiter and Electra, and by some the son of Menos and Phronia (Nonnus, book 48, line 969 and following). By Hesiod, however (Hesiod, Theogony, line 969), he is said to have begotten Plutus from Ceres:

Demeter, divine among goddesses, bore Plutus, having mingled in lovely love with the hero Iasius.

Ceres, most excellent of goddesses, bore Plutus, mingled in pleasant love with the hero Jasius.

Consult further, if you wish and have leisure, Theocritus and Ovid (Theocritus, Idyll, line 50; Ovid, Metamorphoses book 9, § 11).

But not for Jasion alone, but also for Vulcan, Mars, Phaethon and Anchises did shameless Venus burn with most wicked love. Of Mars, however, we spoke a little earlier, and of Phaethon, or rather Phaon, in the preceding volume of our Apparatus (Apparatus vol. 1, p. 767).

But it is worth observing here that a threefold Venus is distinguished by Cicero, of whom "the third," he says (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods book 3, p. 248, line 28), "born of Jupiter and Dione, married Vulcan," for whom, as our author said, he burned. This indeed is confirmed by Servius

in his comments on these lines of Virgil:

But Venus, the mother, not vainly terrified in mind, and moved by the threats of the Laurentines and by the harsh uproar, addresses Vulcan, and in her husband's golden chamber begins thus, and with her words breathed divine love into him. . . . . . She had spoken, and the goddess, with her snowy arms on this side and on that, warms him in a soft embrace as he hesitates, etc. (Virgil, Aeneid 8.370 ff.)

Finally, that Venus also married Anchises, and that Aeneas was born from that union, if anyone wishes to have it proved to him, let him hear among the Greeks Hesiod (Hesiod, Theogony 1008):

And fair-crowned Cytherea bore Aeneas, having mingled in lovely love with the hero Anchises.

Moreover, beautifully crowned Cytherea bore Aeneas, joined to the hero Anchises in pleasant love.

Let him also hear, if he wishes, among the Latins Virgil:

Are you that Aeneas whom kindly Venus bore to Dardanian Anchises by the waters of Phrygian Simois? (Virgil, Aeneid 1.621 ff.)

On these lines let him read the notes of Servius. Let him also unroll the books of Ovid (Ovid, Fasti 4, § 1), who sang of this in his Fasti, and in another book, where he records in these two verses yet other adulteries of goddesses, mentioned not only by Arnobius but also by Lactantius (Lactantius, Institutes 1.17, p. 92):

Anchises in the case of Venus, the Ladmian hero in the case of the Moon, Jason in the case of Ceres, has someone to be told of. (Ovid, Tristia 2.301 ff.)

We, moreover, observed a little earlier from Cicero that there is a third Venus, who, born of Jupiter and Dione, married Vulcan, and of whom Arnobius had said (Arnobius, book 1, p. 20): « Venus, Dione's offspring, mother of the family of a Trojan man, and publisher of a domestic grief, » that is, Venus was the daughter of the nymph Dione, of whom Virgil says:

I was bringing sacred offerings to the Dionaean mother and to the gods. (Virgil, Aeneid 1.19)

that is, to Venus, says Servius, [so called] from her mother Dione according to Homer. She was moreover the mother of a Trojan man, that is, of Aeneas, as we noted above; and the publisher of the domestic grief of that same Aeneas, because she made public his unhappy misfortunes and his inmost and domestic griefs, sung by Virgil (the same, book 8, line 379 ff.). However, our author did not distinguish this Venus from the others, because, whether there was one or several, he thought it enough for his purpose to have shown that none of them could be called a goddess, inasmuch as she had cast off every sense of human shame.

Arnobius therefore, from what has been discussed so far, rightly concludes that the Christians, who denied that this Venus and absolutely all those others, whether men or women, stained with such great outrages and crimes, were gods, were quite undeservedly called impious by the heathen. On the contrary, indeed, it must be established that these very gentiles, who proclaimed such things about their gods, are to be condemned for the greatest impiety. For if those adulteries and crimes are true, those who committed them cannot be gods. But if they are proved to be false, then certainly because of such shameless and utterly

intolerable calumnies, and so many and such shameful crimes falsely ascribed to them, ought to have destroyed all the heathen.

Chapter XIII.

How clearly Arnobius proves that the gods of the Gentiles are false and non-existent, from their native land, form, figure, and the disciplines and arts to which, as the heathen most falsely kept asserting, they had devoted their effort.

Article One.

How invincibly Arnobius demonstrates, from the native land, form and figure assigned to the gods by the Heathen, that their divinity is false.

Although Arnobius had shown more than enough, from their most shameful origin and their execrable crimes, that the gods of the Gentiles are false, yet he demonstrates this again by other weighty arguments no less certain and evident. One of these was that which he draws from the designated native land of the gods, and from the place where they died, which the heathen themselves took care to point out to us with great zeal indeed. For from this it is concluded with the utmost certainty that these same gods at some time did not exist, and consequently can be neither everlasting nor endowed with a divine nature.

First, then, Ceres, as Arnobius says (Arnobius, book 1, p. 20; Dissertation on Minucius, ch. 20, art. 1), was asserted by the Gentiles to have been "born within the bounds of Trinacria, and occupied in gathering flowers," before Proserpina was carried off by Pluto, as we have explained elsewhere. By the name Trinacria Arnobius without doubt means Sicily. For we learn from Diodorus Siculus and from Servius (Diodorus, Library book 5, p. 199; Servius, on Virgil's Georgics book 6, p. 265) that this island was first called Trinacria, or Trinax, from its shape, afterwards Sicania from the Sicanians who inhabited it, and finally Sicily from the Sicels. Diodorus adds, moreover, that he had learned, from a long tradition of his ancestors received from the Siceliotes, that this island had once been dedicated to Ceres and Proserpina. Cicero, whom you can easily consult, related more on this matter (Cicero, Oration 4 against Verres, p. 179).

But what the Gentiles handed down about Apis, who in the Peloponnese was called Serapis, and about Isis in Egypt, and which is mentioned by our author, has already been sufficiently explained by us, and we must not abuse the leisure of others by repeating it (Arnobius, book 1, p. 20; Apparatus vol. 1, p. 1090).

We have also made it plain that Arnobius took from Clement of Alexandria what he relates about the native land and the chains of Mars. There indeed we weighed whether he is charged with error by Hervetus rightly or wrongly. There seems also to be no room for doubting that Arnobius further drew from the same Clement what he added about the dogs and asses sacrificed to the same Mars (Arnobius, book 4, p. 143; Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 18; Apparatus vol. 1, p. 753).

How mean, moreover, and how unworthy of divine majesty were the forms the heathen attributed to their gods, he declares in these words, which he addresses to those very people (Arnobius, book 3,

p. 107): "It is too little that you embrace your gods in a measurement of forms, bounded by the human thread, and, what is much more unworthy, by the outline of earthly bodies," that is, your gods bounded and circumscribed by the measurement, or dimension or measure, of forms, and by the thread, or texture and human lineaments, and by the outline, or outer limit, of earthly bodies. The first word Cicero used (Cic., Orator, p. 268, line 2), and the two latter seem to have been taken from Lucretius. For he uses them in various places, from which we shall bring forward these:

There are therefore now blind traces of forms, which commonly flit about endowed with a fine thread. (Lucretius, book 4, line 85 and following.)

And elsewhere:

They seem, with a blurred appearance, to [change] their thread as little as possible. / . . . / They seem at times to change their thread some very small amount in one direction or the other. (And book 5, line 581, and line 588 and following.)

In another book, moreover, he uses the noun circumcaesura thus:

The outermost outline of the limbs nevertheless keeps itself unharmed. (Book 3, line 220.)

And again:

The outermost outline of the limbs holds [it] in. (Book 4, line 651.)

But Arnobius demonstrates by many supports of reasoning that the gods are not such, and cannot consist of a bodily form, or of a human figure and appearance. Almost all of these points, however, have been excerpted, and adapted by him to his own manner, from the first book of Cicero On the Nature of the Gods, where Cotta the Academic refutes Velleius the Epicurean (Arnobius, book 3, p. 107 and following; Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, book 1, p. 206 and following). But these things, as we believe, will become more evident to anyone from what is about to be said.

So by a brief enumeration of bodily members Arnobius first makes it plain that the gods are composed neither of these nor of the figure of any body whatever. But he pursues this review in his own inflated and turgid style, and uses certain unusual words, which for that reason are not altogether accessible and clear to all, and ought not to be passed over without some explanation. He teaches, then, that the gods, besides a head, ears, feet and the other parts of the body best known to all, can by no means have "the overhanging gutter of the nostrils, passable to snotty wipings and to the drawing of breath (Arnobius, book 3, p. 107)," that is, the channel of the nostrils, by which mucus and humours flow down from the head and breath is drawn.

Moreover: "Teeth of three kinds, and arranged for three duties" (ibid.), that is, first the sharp ones, which cut the food; the jaw-teeth, broad ones, which grind it; and the canines, whose nature is midway between the two. See Aristotle, Pliny and Isidore. But Cicero seems to recognize only two kinds of teeth, namely the front ones, sharp, and the inmost, or molars (Aristotle, On the Parts of Animals, book 3, ch. 1, vol. 1, p. 999; Pliny, Natural History, book 2, ch. 37, p. 553;

Isidore, Origins, book 2, ch. 1; Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, book 1, p. 234, line 49 and following).

Our Author adds: 'the little membranes of the omenta, and the gullets.' (Arnob., loc. cit.) The omentum, called epiploon by the Greeks, is a thin and fatty membrane which wraps the windings of the intestines and covers the lower parts of the belly. Hence Pliny: 'The stomach,' he says, 'and the intestines are covered by a fatty and thin omentum, except in egg-laying creatures.' Isidore agrees with Pliny. Juvenal, moreover, somewhere sang thus of the use of omenta in sacrifices:

And the white omenta of a pig.

And Persius:

Though so many omenta of heifers melt for you in the flame.

Finally, the gods devised by the gentiles had to have gullets, says Arnobius. Now the gullet (gurgulio) is described thus by Isidore: 'It takes its name from the throat (guttur); its passage extends to the mouth and nostrils, having a way by which the voice is passed on to the tongue, so that it can strike words together; whence also we say garrire [to chatter].' (Plin., Natural History book 2, ch. 37, p. 574; Isid., loc. cit.; Juvenal, Satire 13, line 118; Persius, Satire 2, line 45; Isidore, Orig. book 2, ch. 1, and book 12, ch. 8.)

Yet if the gods, says Arnobius, have bodies, they must also have these and other most foul parts of bodies. But nothing more absurd can be said. If, on the other hand, they lack these members, their bodies will be like inflated wineskins, but wholly empty and void. More briefly and more clearly, though somewhat differently, Cotta in Cicero argued thus against Velleius the Epicurean: 'God will therefore have a tongue and will not speak; teeth, palate, throat for no use; and those parts which nature attached to the body for the sake of procreation, god will have in vain; and the outer parts no more than the inner, heart, lungs, liver and the rest: once their usefulness is taken away, what beauty do they have? since indeed you will have these to be in god for the sake of beauty.' (Cicer., De natura deorum book 1, p. 208, line 46.)

The second argument of Arnobius is contained in this dilemma: if these gods have any appearances, forms and shapes, either they are the same and like one another, or many and unlike. But if there is one and the same shape and face for all the gods, they surely do not recognize or distinguish one another. If many and diverse: 'Therefore,' argues Arnobius, 'it must be said that some are big-headed, snub-nosed, big-browed, thick-lipped; among these others long-chinned, moled, and big-nosed; these with flared nostrils, those with turned-up ones; some with swollen jaws, or bag-cheeked from the heaping up of the cheeks, dwarfs, tall, middling, lean, fat, stout; these curly from the twistings of their hair, others bald, and shaven with smoothnesses.' (Arnob., book 3, p. 108.) But who will doubt that these were taken from Cicero, if Arnobius ever read these words of his: 'I return to the gods. Do we think some of them, if not squint-eyed, are at least slightly cross-eyed? That some have a mole? That some are snub-nosed, flap-eared, big-browed, big-headed, things which are in us? Or is everything faultless in them? Let that be granted to you. Surely

there is not also one face for all? For if there are several, one must necessarily be more beautiful than another.... For if there is no difference between god and god, there is no recognition among the gods, no perception.' (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, book 1, p. 207, line 5.)

The labeones, moreover, of whom Pliny (Pliny, Natural History, book 2, chapter 37, p. 553) and others [speak], were so called from their immoderate lips. But consider whether the silunculi and naevii are those whom Cicero called snub-nosed and said had a mole. We fear, however, that these words have been corrupted in the text of Arnobius. For in the royal codex we read cilunculos and naevimos. No less corrupt is the word saccibucces. For in the same royal manuscript codex sacrivoces is written; others suspect that acrivoces should be written. But without the help of some more correct manuscript codex, who will be able to determine with certainty what the true reading is?

Arnobius presses the point that it cannot be denied by the heathen that the gods are fashioned by their people such as we have described. For their own workshops "betray," as he puts it (Arnobius, book 4, p. 108), "and indicate this. For when you make and shape gods, you fashion some long-haired, others smooth, old men, young men, boys, swarthy, grey-eyed, tawny, half-naked, uncovered, or, lest the cold should trouble them, draped with an overlay of flowing garments." And these things too are drawn from the same book of Cicero. For after the words of his quoted by us, he continues the discourse he has begun thus: "We perhaps, if it occurs to us, as you say, know Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, Neptune, Vulcan, Apollo and the other gods by that face which painters and sculptors have willed; and not only by face, but also by adornment and dress.... For in that way it will be permissible to say that Jupiter is always bearded, Apollo always beardless, that Minerva's eyes are grey, Neptune's sea-blue." (Cicero, On the Nature [of the Gods], book 1, p. 207, line 12.) Is it not, then, quite plainly concluded from this that the workshops of the gentiles which Arnobius names are the very workshops of those painters and sculptors, as Cicero says, who were accustomed to fashion images, statues and likenesses of the gods in the manner both have described? Rightly, therefore, both conclude from this that nothing could ever be devised more unworthy of God and more insulting.

But Arnobius deals still more closely with the heathen (Arnobius, book 3, p. 109), and says it is of the utmost folly for the riddles of the Egyptians to be mocked by the heathen, the Egyptians who honoured the vilest animals, enrolled in the number of the gods, with solemn ceremonies and rites. For the heathen themselves were not ashamed to worship and venerate men, with certain emblems of animals added, as though they were true likenesses of their gods. But these things again are taken from the same Cicero (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, book 1, p. 207, line 19), who explains them more clearly and in this manner: "What then do you think? Does not that Apis, the holy bull of the Egyptians, seem a god to the Egyptians? As much, by Hercules, as that Sospita of ours, namely Juno, seems so to you, whom you never see even in dreams except with a goatskin, with a spear, with a little shield, with little shoes

upturned," or bent back upwards. Who indeed will not admit that it is most evidently shown by both that the madness of the Romans and the other gentiles, who worshipped gods represented with a human face and with the insignia of some animal, is no less than that of the Egyptians, who venerated the animals themselves as gods?

But Arnobius strikes and overturns that insanity with yet another battering-ram (Arnobius, book 3, p. 109 ff.). If little asses, he says, dogs and pigs had something of human talent for learning the arts, and for the purpose of honouring us made statues and images like themselves, would we not bear it as a downright indignity, and not without anger, that we were displayed in the form of beasts? Would not the heathen themselves be indignant that Romulus should be represented in the figure of an ass, Numa in that of a dog, and Cato, or Cicero, or anyone else you please, in that of a pig? Now we have already seen that Clement of Alexandria in the books of the Stromata used the same argument against the gentiles, and that the verses of Xenophanes are cited by him for the same purpose, as they are by Eusebius and Theodoret (Vol. 1 of the Apparatus, book 3, dissertation 2, ch. 14, art. 1, p. 1089).

But the gods, as Arnobius assumes, ought to take it more indignantly that they are portrayed by men with a human face than men that they are portrayed by beasts with a bestial one. For the difference of the gods from men is far greater than that of men from beasts. “What indeed,” says Arnobius, “is beautiful in man? what, I ask, admirable or comely, except what with the clurine herd too,” so the manuscript codex and the latest edition read, “some author or other has willed to be common?” (Arnobius, book 3, p. 110.) In Plautus indeed we read clusirum pecus; but Vossius thinks that he wrote clurinum pecus, and that by that name apes are meant (Plautus, Comedies, Truculentus, act 2, scene 2; Vossius, Etymologicon, under the word CLURA). Certainly it seems to be taken in this sense by our Arnobius, and that by these words, “some author or other,” Ennius is cited. For while he was writing this, he doubtless had in mind this passage of Cicero (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, book 1, p. 209, line 37): “But that likeness itself, when it has nothing to do with the matter, which delights you so greatly? What? Is not a dog like a wolf?” And as Ennius has it:

How like to us is the ape, that foulest beast.

A greater insult, therefore, is done to the gods when they are fashioned like men than would be done to men if they were displayed like apes and other beasts.

Nor does Arnobius allow the heathen to answer him that the forms and appearances of the gods are indeed other than those of men, but that these are fitted to them for the sake of honour. For this error is far worse than the former. For the gentiles affected their gods with all the greater disgrace by these divine formations, as he calls them, the more certainly they knew them to be false and the more unlike their gods. For he sins less who unwittingly attributes to the gods something false which he nevertheless judges to be true, than another who knowingly and willingly ascribes false things to them. Formamenta, moreover, mean the same

as figures and forms, as is clear from these verses of Lucretius, whom our Writer often follows:

All the shapes of the first-beginnings can be in any brightness whatever. (Lucretius, book 2, line 818.)

Article II.

How fictitious are the gods whom the heathens proclaimed to be versed in, or set over, various arts; where [it treats] of Apollo the seer, foretelling things to come, of Aesculapius the physician, Vulcan the smith, Tritonia or Tritogenia and Arachne the weaver, and the offspring of Atlas, or Calypso, more eloquent than the rest; of others who were feigned to preside over arts or sciences, as Portunus over navigation, Pales over herds and flocks, whence the Palilia, Inuus or Pan over animals, the Pythian over soothsayers, enriched with the treasures of kings, and the Tutelary gods set over the protection of men.

Arnobius draws another argument against the false divinity of those whom the gentiles worshipped from the fact that the heathens proclaimed them craftsmen, and patrons of arts and sciences: "For you bring before us gods," these are his words as he addresses the heathens, "some smiths, some physicians, some wool-workers, sailors, harpers, flute-players, hunters, shepherds, and, what was left over, rustics." (Arnobius, book 3, p. 111.) Nor could the heathens deny these things, sung over and over again by their own writers. For, to pass over a great many, Hesiod sang these things in the Theogony. And Virgil himself, who invokes them, acknowledges rustic and pastoral gods (Virgil, beginning of book 1 of the Georgics).

But what is more opposed to the divine nature than these absurd fictions of opinion? For, says our Author, are there fields in the heavens to be tilled by the gods; mountains and forests where they may hunt; sick people to be cured by them; or other places where the remaining arts may be practised by them? What greater folly and arrogance than to say in earnest that this god is versed in some art of which another must be ignorant? What more rotten than to assert that help could be brought by another to one goddess in labour or sick, which she could not bring to herself?

In vain therefore, as Arnobius goes on (Arnobius, book 3, p. 112), did the heathens suppose that the Latonian seer, namely Apollo, born, as we have said, of Jupiter and Latona, filled by another god, that is, by Jupiter himself, foretold to the other gods the things which they did not know. For an old poet once sang:

To set out as swiftly as possible; for father Zeus puts these things into Loxias.

To come hither most swiftly; for the father suggests such things to Apollo as he speaks.

See on this matter Natalis Comes (Natalis Comes, Mythology book 4, chapter 10, p. 359).

Wrongly too did they vaunt that the Epidaurian, that is, Aesculapius, of whom we have already treated more than once, healed the diseases and wounds of others (Volume 1 of the Apparatus, pp. 754 and 1193, and above, chapter 9, article 2). And what Arnobius adds (Arnobius, book 3, p. 113, and book 4, p. 143), that Vulcan forged arms, or, as elsewhere, practised the smith's work on the island of Lemnos, was without doubt taken from these words of Tully: the third Vulcan, from the third Jupiter and Juno, who is said to have presided over the smithy of Lemnos. But that by him were made

the arms of Aeneas we have already shown above from the verses of Virgil that were cited. He is in fact Vulcan himself, in whose guardianship our Author elsewhere asserts that fire was. But concerning him we [have treated] in the earlier volume of our Apparatus (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, book 3, p. 248, line 2; Virgil, Aeneid, book 8, verse 370 and following; Arnobius, book 3, p. 114; Apparatus vol. 1, p. 776 and below).

She who spun for the gods, and who put upon them without burden garments of triple weave, that is, made of three threads of different colours, is called Tritonia by our Arnobius (Arnobius, book 2, p. 112, and book 7, p. 228; below, chapter 14, article 3). This is Pallas, or Minerva, who was named Tritonia, or Tritonis, or Tritogenia, either because she sprang from the brain of Jupiter, or, as Lucan says, and Servius after him, from Triton, a marsh of Africa, beside which she is said to have been born (Lucan, book 9, verse 341 and following; Servius, on Aeneid book 2, p. 232). But if you trust Ovid, she wove cloth, and taught girls the art of weaving it. Hear, I pray, his verses:

Pallas being appeased, soften the wool, girls: / learn now to unload the full distaffs. / She also teaches how to run through the upright webs with the shuttle, / and she thickens the loose work with the comb. / Worship her, you who take stains out of damaged garments, / worship her, whoever you are who make ready bronze cauldrons for fleeces.

(Ovid, Fasti, book 3, near the end.)

Moreover he sang of the contest of the same Pallas with Arachne over wool-working and the weaving of cloth, and what was done by each of them (the same, Metamorphoses, book 6, beginning, p. 187 and following). Finally Julius Firmicus, where [he speaks] of the various Minervas: "There was another," he says, "in Egypt, daughter of King Nilus, teacher of the art of weaving" (Firmicus, On the Error of Profane Religions, p. 20). But this the gentiles were never able to prove.

Finally, the Atlantean (the royal manuscript codex: Alantean) offspring, which, as Arnobius says (Arnobius, book 2, p. 112), is reported to have carried off the first place in eloquence, is it not Calypso herself, the daughter of Atlas, as was observed by Homer and Tibullus (Homer, Odyssey 5; Tibullus, book 4, elegy 1, verse 77), with whom the shipwrecked Ulysses stayed six or seven years, and afterwards, by the command of Jupiter, as the same Homer sings, departed from her? Of her Ovid [speaks] more than once, and others too (Ovid, Amores, book 2, elegy 17, p. 336; Art of Love, book 2, p. 442; and epistle 10, p. 353). Was Calypso then more eloquent than the other gods or goddesses?

What did the heathens [say] to this? We call the gods, they said, not workmen or craftsmen, but masters of the arts and sciences. But how empty and futile this answer is, is plain from what has already been said, by which we showed how assertively the heathens proclaimed that the arts had been practised by them. Suppose, however, that the gods and goddesses merely presided over the arts. Say then in what way they could have taught them, unless they had first been instructed in them and had been the first craftsmen? Moreover, since there is no place for the arts among the beings above, why did the heathens idly prattle that certain gods excelled only in this or that art and science? For it is altogether necessary that the true God know all things and be ignorant of nothing whatever.

Not a whit, indeed, did those advance [the matter] who held that gods truly preside over the arts, so that by their care and administration all things turn out happily for us. For Arnobius proves this to be utterly false (Arnobius, book 3, p. 113). For how many and how great shipwrecks, he says, do men suffer, although Portunus is said, on the testimony of Virgil, to be set over voyages? For of him the latter sang these words:

And father Portunus himself with his great hand drove it on as it went. (Virgil, Aeneid book 5, line 240.)

And Ovid:

He whom we [call] Portunus, his own tongue will call Palaemon; be, I pray, both of you favourable to our places. (Ovid, Fasti book 6, line 490.)

For Portunus was called in Greek Palaemon, and also Melicerta, and, as Servius remarks on the cited verse of Virgil and elsewhere, a sea god who presides over harbours. Of him, moreover, and of his temple and of the festival instituted in his honour, Varro made mention (Servius, on Georgics book 1, p. 91; Varro, On the Latin Language book 1, p. 50). But of these things [we shall speak] in the following dissertation on the books of Lactantius.

Nor yet, says Arnobius (Arnobius, book 3, p. 113), did Pales and Inuus, whom the heathen supposed to preside over herds and flocks, turn away plagues and contagions from the cattle. Now Pales was imagined [as the goddess] of shepherds, or, as Solinus says, the pastoral goddess (Solinus, Polyhistor, chapter 1, p. 2). Hence Ovid, where [he speaks] of the Palilia, or the festival usually held in joyful memory of this goddess on the eleventh day before the Kalends of May, as Servius notes, sang these words:

And let us make for the year large cakes for Pales, mistress of shepherds. (Ovid, Fasti book 4, p. 602.)

Virgil also sings of her too:

Pales herself has left the fields, and Apollo himself. (Servius on Virgil, Georgics book 3, line 1, p. 120.)

And again, being about to speak of animals, he begins from her thus:

You too, great Pales, we shall sing. (Virgil, Eclogue 5, line 4.)

On these verses, and especially on the latter, Servius observes that she is also the goddess of pastures, whom some called Vesta, others the Mother of the gods. And Varro is read somewhere to have given his vote to both Ovid and Virgil in these words: "Palilia from Pales, because a festival is also held for that goddess." Festus, moreover, subscribed to them in this manner: "Pales was called the goddess of shepherds, whose feasts were called Palilia, or, as others will have it, termed Parilia, because sacrifices were made to her for the bearing of the flock" (Festus, under the word PALES).

Now the Servius cited by us wished everyone to be advised that the goddess Pales is named in the feminine gender by Varro, and in the masculine by others, as hic Pales, he says (Servius on Georgics book 3, line 1). Nevertheless Caesius, cited afterwards by our author, distinguishes from this goddess: "Pales," he says (Arnobius, book 3, p. 123), "but not that female whom the common crowd accepts, but some minister of Jupiter, of the masculine gender, and his steward." See Aulus Gellius,

Lilius Giraldus, Turnebus and others (Gellius, Attic Nights, book 13, ch. 22; Giraldus, syntagma 1, p. 42, and syntagma 17, p. 525; Turnebus, Adversaria, book 19, ch. 11, p. 140).

Inuus, however, whom our author also mentions, was, on the testimony of Macrobius, the same as Pan, or, as Servius observes: 'He is called Inuus in Latin, Pan in Greek; the same is Ephialtes in Greek, Incubo in Latin. He is also Faunus, also Fatuus, Fatuellus. And he is called Inuus from going in (ineundo) indiscriminately with all animals.' Arnobius, book 3, p. 113; Macrobius, Saturnalia, book 1, ch. 22, p. 278; Servius, on Aeneid book 6, p. 441). Do you hear what a fine god he is, and how worthy of a god his office is?

What more? 'The Pythian,' says Arnobius, 'bestows knowledge of divinity on those who practise soothsaying,' namely Apollo, 'and why does he more often give and supply responses that are oblique and doubtful, sunk in the murk of obscurity?' (Arnobius, book 3, p. 114). And rightly so, for Chrysippus, as Cicero relates (Cicero, On Divination, book 2, p. 296), had filled a whole volume with oracles of Apollo, partly false, partly true by chance, partly equivocal and obscure, needing an interpreter; partly ambiguous, and such as had to be referred to dialectic. The Latin Orator himself demonstrates this most plainly by certain examples of Croesus and Pyrrhus. And these are without doubt the two kings about whom, their names left unspoken, our Author afterwards set down in writing the following: 'that Apollo, having been made rich, deceived by the ambiguity of his response those very kings by whose treasures and gifts he had been enriched.' (Arnobius, book 4, p. 133.) Lucian had said quite similar things in these words (Lucian, Dialogue: Juno and Latona, p. 81): 'But Apollo pretends to know everything, and to shoot with the bow, and to play the cithara, and to be a physician, and to prophesy; and having set up workshops of divination, one at Delphi, one at Claros, and at Didyma, he deceives those who consult him, answering crookedly and ambiguously, inclining to either side of the question, so that his error is without risk; and he grows rich from this. For many are the fools, and those who offer themselves to be bewitched.' And Apollo pretends to know everything, and to throw the javelin, and to sing to the cithara, and to be a physician, and to prophesy, and, having set up shops for prophesying, here at Delphi, there at Claros, and at Didyma, he deceives those who consult him, by answering obliquely and in a way that inclines to either side of the question put, so that, of course, he could not be condemned for error; and thus he makes profit from this and grows rich. For many are out of their minds, and offer themselves to be deluded by tricks. These things indeed he confirms elsewhere, and others confirm them too (the same, in Zeus the Tragedian, pp. 682 and 693).

But here the heathen rose up and replied: if those gods and the other Tutelary ones fail in their duty and office, this is to be laid not on them but on men, who did not supplicate them. By the name of Tutelary gods, so to call them, Arnobius designates those (Arnobius, book 5, p. 114) whom Varro, on the testimony of Augustine (Augustine, City of God, book 6, ch. 9, p. 156), said were set over all those things which, for safeguarding a man's life from his conception right up to extreme old age

and death, pertain. But of these things more a little later (below, art. 5). Arnobius, however, shows briefly and clearly that nothing is more trivial and feeble than this reply. For who does not know that the kindness and munificence of the gods towards men ought to be wholly gratuitous, and never mercenary? And certainly the true God supplies seasons, winds, rains and crops equally to all men, the good as well as the wicked. Then again, the heathen assigned any sordid and base service whatever, unworthy of a freeborn man, as is already plain from what has been said and will become clearer still from what is to be said, to these fictitious Tutelary gods and to others, each privately. They could indeed with a little more fairness have supposed that the god Consus presides over our thoughts and faithful counsels. But that fictitious god, whom they dreamed to be intent on this task alone, does not prevent, as Arnobius says, outcomes contrary to human counsels, nor their sudden and unexpected change. Since, moreover, we have treated of this god in the previous dissertation (Dissertation on Minucius, ch. 16, art. 2), let us pass, if it please, to the others.

Article III.

On other gods set in like manner over other particular things: Juno Lucina over childbirths, Unxia over anointings, Cinxia or the Virginensian goddess over the undoing of girdles, and Victua and Potua over food and drink.

The heathen had brought in, as falsely as absurdly, still other gods as guardians of other things privately. Wherefore Arnobius rightly and deservedly rebukes them (Arnobius, book 3, pp. 106, 112 and 114), because they did not hesitate to affirm that Juno Lucina had been set over the childbirths of women. For she, though invoked by countless women in labour, never brought help. How fair and just this rebuke is, you will learn from Tully, who mocks that superstitious credulity in these words: "As among the Greeks Diana, and she Lucifera, so among ours they invoke Juno Lucina in giving birth: and the same Diana is called all-wandering..... and she is called upon at births, because these come to ripeness sometimes in seven, or mostly in nine courses of the moon..... And neatly, as many things, Timaeus, who, having said in his history that on the night on which Alexander was born the temple of Diana of Ephesus burned down, added that this was not at all to be wondered at, because Diana, since she had wished to be present at the delivery of Olympias, had been away from home." (Cicero, book 2 On the Nature of the Gods, p. 224, line 19).

Not undeservedly, therefore, does Augustine often assail the gentiles with the same argument. For in one place he chides them thus, not without mockery: "What need was there," he says, "for women in labour to invoke Lucina, when, if Felicity were present, they would not only bear well, but also bear good children?" (Augustine, book 4 of The City [of God], ch. 12, p. 102.) And elsewhere, not to review all his sayings: "Nor did the Jewish women invoke Lucina," he says (ibid., ch. 34, p. 114, and earlier ch. 11, p. 97), "when their offspring, that they might be multiplied in wondrous ways and that nation might grow incredibly, from the Egyptians, persecuting [them] and on killing all the infants

intent, from their hands God Himself set free, Himself preserved.” If anyone asks for further witnesses to that ridiculous goddess, let him go to Macrobius, Horace, Terence, Plautus, who mentions her rather often, and many others whom it would be superfluous to name here (Macrob., Saturnalia, bk 7, ch. 16; Hor., Odes, bk 3, ode 22; Ter., Adelphi, act 3, scene 4).

Arnobius goes on and says (Arnob., bk 3, p. 115): “Over anointings presides Unxia, over the unfastening of girdles Cinxia.” But for this to be understood, it must be observed that it was an ancient custom of the heathen that, before the new bride was led to her husband's house, they adorned its doorposts with woollen fillets, and anointed and smeared them either with swine's fat, as Pliny says, or with oil or wolf's grease, as Servius notes (Pliny, Natural History, bk 28, ch. 9, p. 604; Servius, on Aeneid bk 4, p. 345). On this custom see Donatus, Isidore, Gyraldus, and more in Brissonius, who confirms the statement of our Arnobius with these words of Martialis Felix, in which he introduces Philology speaking with Juno thus: “Since I, undefiled in my sex, have suffered no contagion of the body, mortal girls ought to summon Iterduca, Domiduca, Unxia and Cinxia to their weddings, so that you may protect their journeys, lead them into the homes they long for, and, when they anoint the doorposts, fix a favourable omen there.” (Donatus on Terence, Hecyra, act 1, scene 2; Isidore, Origins, bk 4, ch. 8; Gyraldus, History of the Gods, syntagma 3; Brisson, On the Rite of Marriage, near the end.)

They believed that Cinxia presided over the unfastening of girdles, and therefore invoked her when the bridegroom, as Festus writes (Festus, under the words Cingulum and Cinxia), loosed the girdle of the new bride, tied with a Herculean knot. For this very reason Theocritus sang (Idyll 17, line 60):

For there she called upon Eileithyia the Girdle-looser.

For there they invoke Lucina the Girdle-looser.

But although Festus, whom we have just cited, asserts that Cinxia is a name of Juno, she is nevertheless called by Augustine the goddess Virginensis (Augustine, City of God, bk 4, ch. 11, p. 97; and bk 6, ch. 9, p. 157). For where he discusses the offices of the individual gods, he has this: “And certainly, if the goddess Virginensis is present so that the virgin's girdle may be loosed.” But who does not know that she and other goddesses and gods had several names? And indeed from the words of Cicero brought forward a little earlier we learn that she who among the Latins was called Juno Lucina was among the Greeks called Diana Lucifera. Read further, if you wish, Gyraldus and Brissonius, already commended, Vossius, and others (Vossius, On the Origin and Progress of Idolatry, bk 2, ch. 26, p. 219 ff.).

Further to this: “Victa and Potua, most holy ones,” says Arnobius, “take care of food and drink.” (Arnob., bk 3, p. 115.) Donatus explains it more clearly in his observations on Terence: “We read in Varro that boys were initiated to Edulia, Potica and Cuba, the deities of eating, drinking and lying down, as soon as from

milk and from the cradle they passed. Whence Virgil: Neither did a god honour this one with his table, nor a goddess with her bed. Probus noted this.” (Donatus on Terence, Phormio, act 1, scene 1.) Augustine, however, calls them Potina, who would supply drink, and Educa, who would supply food (Augustine, City of God, book 4, chapter 11, page 97). But he rejects both of these as a ridiculous divinity for this reason: that the Israelites in Egypt took food and drink without Educa and Potina. Then afterwards: « If someone, he says, were to provide two nurses for an infant, of whom one gave nothing but food, the other nothing but drink, just as these men provided two goddesses for this purpose, Educa and Potina, he would surely seem to be out of his mind, and to be doing in his own house something like a farce. » (Same, book 6, chapter 9, page 156.) These are beyond doubt the very ones who by our Arnobius, provided there is no not-unusual copyist's error lurking in his text, are named Victa and Potua. And he, with no less contempt and mockery than Augustine, and indeed with full justice, proscribes and rejects them.

Article IV.

On other fictitious gods, who no less absurdly were set over other things, such as Bellona over wars, Discord and the Furies over quarrels, Mars over battles, Mercury over wrestling-grounds, boxing-matches and wrestling-bouts; Pellonia over the driving off of enemies, who, as the battles at the Caudine Forks and at Lake Trasimene, and the disasters of Cannae, prove, did not favour the Romans; and that it cannot be said that gods preside over the left side and oppose the right: likewise on Pausus, set against wars, on Praestana and Panda, or Pantica, and on Titus Tatius, brought into the Capitol.

If we take a step towards other matters, the further we certainly advance, the worse indeed and far more wretched things we shall find. For the Gentiles were not ashamed to place in the number of their gods those whom, as our Arnobius relates (Arnobius, book 3, page 115), they had imagined, being of a savage and cruel nature, both to rejoice in the evils of men and to be set over them. These things indeed he judged so absurd that, passing over Bellona, Discord, the Furies and the baleful deities, he came at once to Mars, set over wars and battles and, as they foolishly supposed, holding sway in them. He leaves Bellona aside, however, because if Mars cannot be the god of wars, as we shall soon see, much less could a woman preside over such great cruelty and such great crimes as battles bring with them (Ibid., book 1, page 15, and book 3, page 115). At Rome nevertheless, near the Carmental Gate, a temple to this warlike goddess, as Augustine and others have noted, had been built by Appius, and consecrated on the day before the Nones of July (Augustine, City of God, book 3, chapter 25, page 82, and book 4, chapter 11, page 96). Ovid, moreover, sang of these things in verse thus:

On this day Bellona is said to have been consecrated in the Tuscan war, and she is ever present, favourable, to Latium. Appius is the founder, who, when peace was refused to Pyrrhus, saw much in his mind; in his eyes he was blind. A small open space looks from the temple towards the top of the Circus; there stands a little column of no little note. From here a spear, herald of war, is customarily hurled by hand, when it is resolved to take up arms against a king and nations. (Ovid, Fasti, book 6, § 4.)

Of this temple, moreover, and of the senate held in it, there is frequent mention in Livy and others, and especially in the poets Lucan, Horace and Tibullus. More, however, Giraldus,

whom, if you have leisure, consult (book 10, chap. 19; book 26, chap. 21; book 28, chap. 9; Lucan, book 7, p. 847; Horace, Sermones 2, satire 3; Tibullus, book 1, elegy 6; Giraldi, Syntagma 10, p. 309 and following).

But Virgil makes mention of the same Bellona, Discord, the Furies and Mars, of whom our author speaks, in one and the same place, thus:

Mavors rages in the midst of the conflict, / engraved in iron, and the grim Dread Ones from the upper air, / and Discord strides along rejoicing in her rent mantle, / whom Bellona follows with her bloody scourge.

(Virgil, Aeneid book 8, verse 700 and following.)

Of Discord again the same Virgil, Lucan, Augustine and others [speak] (the same, Aeneid book 6, verse 280 and following; Lucan, book 7, page 287; Augustine, City [of God] book 3, chap. 25, page 82).

Cicero, however, teaches that the Furies, whom the Greeks called Eumenides or Erinyes, are to be struck from the roll of goddesses: "But if Hecate," he says, "is a goddess, why not the Eumenides? And if these are goddesses, who have a shrine both at Athens and among us, as I interpret it, that of Furina, then the Furies are goddesses, watchers, I suppose, and avengers of misdeeds and crimes." (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods book 3, page 246, line 33.) On this passage read, please, the observations of Lescalopier. See also, if you wish, Lilio Giraldi and Natale Conti, by whom you will see many writers cited (Giraldi, Syntagma 6, page 215 and following; Natale Conti, Mythology book 3, chap. 10, page 215 and following).

Further, that Mars was set over battles by the heathen is so well known that it needs no proof. Therefore we shall bring forward only this, sung by Ovid:

Mars was to be revered by Latium, because he presides over arms; / arms will give the fierce race both its state and its god.

Rightly, then, did Augustine turn this to the reproach and fault of these same Gentiles, thus: "Because they could not find for Mars either any element or part of the world in which he might perform works of nature of any kind, they said that he was the god of war, which is a work of men, and not a thing to be desired by them. If therefore Felicity were to give perpetual peace, Mars would have nothing to do." (Ovid, Fasti book 3, verse 85 and following; Augustine, City [of God] book 7, chap. 14, page 173.) Who, then, would not take it ill that such a god, so inhuman, so cruel, and much more that Discord and the Furies, should be feigned as goddesses by the heathen, invoked and honoured?

But come now, and if it is not yet burdensome to you, turn your mind, I beg, with us to how dire and cruel a nature, further, was that god of the Gentiles of whom Arnobius says: "Mercury," he says (Arnobius, book 3, page 114), "takes care of the ceromas, presides over boxing matches and wrestling bouts," in which athletes wore one another out. Yet such was the weakness of this god that he could not prevent one side of those fighting and wrestling from being beaten by the other, or from suffering some injury. Was it lawful, then, to feign gods of this kind?

But, someone will say, what does that word, ceromas, mean? Its meaning is twofold. For ceroma is an ointment made of oil, worked wax and mud,

with which athletes and others were anointed. How common and widespread it once was you will learn from this single verse of Juvenal, unless he meant to mark some other similar and costly thing:

The women's ceroma, who does not know it?

Martial also mentions it, and Pliny more often. (Juvenal, Satire 6, before the middle; Martial, book 14, Epigram 19; Pliny, Natural History book 28, chapter 4, page 575, and book 29, chapter 1, page 672; and book 35, chapter 13, page 247.)

In another sense also ceroma signifies the place where these same athletes were anointed. For you will find it written by the same Pliny: "They adorn their palaestras and their ceromata with images of athletes." And by Seneca: "In the ceroma ... he sits as a spectator of boys brawling." (The same, book 35, chapter 2, page 171; Seneca, On the Shortness of Life, chapter 2, page 567.) And it is in this second sense that ceroma seems to be taken by Arnobius. For he writes that the heathen were persuaded, though wrongly, that the ceromas, or rather ceromata, were looked after by Mercury. And as to his adding that this god also presided over boxing matches and wrestling bouts, that can be proved by these verses of Prudentius:

Then the Etruscan soldier fought against whip-bearers, and boxers anointed with oil and the art of the gymnasium, nor could Mercury, conspicuous in his petasus, when Lacedaemon was taken, save his palaestras from slaughter. (Prudentius, Against Symmachus, book 2, § 4.)

Further, the goddess with power to drive away enemies, as Arnobius relates later (Arnobius, book 4, page 128), was thought to be Pellonia. Therefore Augustine said: If Felicity really is a goddess, "why would the divine Fessonia be invoked for the weary, the divine Pellonia for driving off enemies?" (Augustine, City of God book 4, chapter 21, page 103.) But Arnobius thrusts down her false divinity by another argument. For each side, he says, of enemies fighting one another ought to have driven the other back by the protection of this goddess of theirs.

Nor could the Romans answer that this goddess was theirs and not other peoples' (Arnobius, book 4, page 129). For it cannot be said that they had goddesses, and this one by name, so peculiarly their own that they did not belong to certain other nations. And then this good goddess not only very often failed to drive back the enemies of the Romans, but even suffered with an untroubled mind that they should be afflicted and routed by the greatest disasters. For where was that goddess Pellonia, says Arnobius (ibid.), "when the public honour was sent under the yoke at the Caudine Forks?" Now the Caudine Forks, or Furcae, or Caudine Jaws, named from Caudum or Caudium, a town of the Samnites in Italy near Beneventum, are famous for a notable disaster of the Romans. For there their forces, under the consuls and commanders T. Veturius Calvinus and Sp. Posthumius, besieged on every side by the enemy, were reduced to such straits that, having laid down their arms, they were sent under the yoke of the enemy, as Livy has related more fully (Livy, book 9, beginning, and book 25, chapter 6). Therefore Augustine refutes the heathen, as Arnobius does, by this same example and argument: "Where were the gods," he says, "when, besieged by the Samnites at the Caudine Forks, both with their army

consuls were forced to make a treaty with them; so that, six hundred Roman knights having been given as hostages, the rest, having lost their arms, and stripped of other things and deprived of their coverings, were sent under the yoke of the enemy each with a single garment?" (Augustine, City of God, bk. 3, ch. 17, p. 75.)

Nor was that the only slaughter of the Romans, Pellonia not preventing it. Rather: At the lake of Trasimene too, our author continues (Arnobius, bk. 4, p. 129), torrents of blood ran. This lake is situated in the territory of Perusia, where, with Flaminius as consul and commander, the Roman army was routed and destroyed by Hannibal. Livy narrates the history, and afterwards speaks in this manner: « This is the famous battle at Trasimene, and one of the few memorable disasters of the Romans. Fifteen thousand Romans were slain in the battle line; ten thousand, scattered in flight through all Etruria, made for Rome by different routes. » But concerning this disaster you may read Polybius, Valerius Maximus, Ovid, and others cited by us in the preceding dissertation. (Livy, bk. 22, § 7; Polybius, Histories bk. 3, p. 233 ff.; Valerius Maximus, bk. 1, ch. 6, § 6; Ovid, Fasti bk. 6, p. 685; Dissertation on Minucius, ch. 17, art. 3.)

Finally Arnobius adds that Pellonia was not present: « When the plains of Diomedes were heaped up with Roman corpses. » (Arnobius, bk. 4, p. 129.) He is undoubtedly speaking of the battle and disaster of Cannae, which Livy writes was foretold by Marcius, a famous seer, in roughly these words: « Flee the river Canna, Roman of Trojan birth, lest foreigners compel you to join battle in the plain of Diomedes. But you will not believe me until you have filled the plain with blood, and the river carries many thousands of your slain into the great sea from the fruitful land; for the fishes and birds and beasts that inhabit the lands, let your flesh become food. For thus has Jupiter spoken to me. » (Livy, bk. 25, § 12.) To which he added: « Both the plains of Argive Diomedes and the river Canna were recognized by those who had served in those places, just as was the disaster itself. » (Ibid., ch. 6, and earlier bk. 22, ch. 43 ff.) But he pursues these matters more fully both there and elsewhere, as do Polybius, Florus, Augustine and others. The plains, moreover, were called those of Diomedes because, after wounding Venus, he is said, on the testimony of Servius and very many others, to have left his homeland and settled in Apulia. (Polybius, Histories bk. 3, p. 256 ff.; Florus, bk. 2, ch. 6; Augustine, City of God, bk. 3, ch. 19; Servius, on Aeneid bk. 8, p. 487.)

What did the heathen say to this? They replied that the gods were protectors of the left-hand side and enemies of the right. Nor should you say that this reply was gratuitously invented by our Author so that he might refute it more easily. For we read it committed to writing by Varro: « Things which are on the left are considered good auspices. Hence it is said that the comitia, or whatever else it may be, is held with the bird on the left; which is now [the case]; this is from the Greek, because they call the left σκαιάν. » Servius, for his part, says: « Sinister means prosperous, because it is heavenly. Sinister, moreover, comes from sinere, as far as pertains to auguries, because it allows us to act. Hence elsewhere:

If the propitious deities allow anyone. But the discipline of the augurs agrees that the northern parts are the left ones; and therefore lightnings from that very quarter are more significant, since they are higher and nearer to the dwelling of Jupiter. » (Varro, On the Latin Language, book 6, p. 88; Servius, on Aeneid book 2, line 695.)

But the more confidently and weightily the gentiles asserted these things, the more forcefully are they refuted by our Arnobius. For the whole world, as he argues, since it is smooth and round, has no right part and no left part. Only in relation to us and our position, and merely while we are at rest, is a part called left or right. For each part is changed by any movement whatever of our body. Moreover, what had the left and right parts deserved, that these should be without any presiding gods, who were said always to attend those on the left as propitious and favourable? Certainly nothing more absurd could have been devised.

Moreover, opposed to the aforementioned gods of wars was Pausus, whom Arnobius seems to set especially against Bellona, where he said of the heathen: "They revere Pausi and Bellonas." (Arnobius, book 1, p. 15.) For Vossius thinks that Pausus was so named from pausa (Vossius, in the Etymologicon), and so was the god of pause, rest and peace, and, as Turnebus observed, the adversary of wars and of Bellona (Turnebus, Adversaria, book 15, ch. 21). Whether he was Janus, whose temple was closed in time of war, let others judge. But to what man of sound mind, I ask, will these deities set against one another not provoke laughter or disgust?

Nor, indeed, could the divinity of Praestana and Panda be approved any more, which Arnobius, turning his speech to the heathen themselves, thus hisses off the stage: "Praestana, as you allege, was so called because Quirinus, or Romulus, excelled the strength of all in throwing the javelin; and because she was allowed to lay open and clear a way for Titus Tatius to take the Capitoline hill, she was called the goddess Panda, or Pantica." (Arnobius, book 4, p. 128.) Some have supposed that the goddess Panda is mentioned in two verses of Varro cited by Aulus Gellius, which, being foully corrupted in his edition, various writers have tried to emend according to the sharpness of their wit (Gellius, Attic Nights, book 13, ch. 22). Turnebus and others, however, suspect that she is the one who in an old lexicon is called εἰρήνης θεὸς, that is, goddess of peace, and that the name Panda was given her from the gates of cities being laid open and opened in time of peace (Turnebus, Adversaria, book 19, ch. 11). But certainly Arnobius is not speaking of the goddess of peace, nor of Ceres, in whose temple, as Nonius observes from the Varro cited, bread was given to those who had fled into it as into an asylum (Nonius, On the Properties of Words, ch. 1, at the word PANDERE). For he seems rather to be discussing a warlike goddess, inasmuch as, because she was said to have laid open a way for T. Tatius to take the Capitoline hill, she therefore received the name Panda.

But Vossius admits that it did not come back to his memory from where Arnobius took this etymology. But if he lacked an authority for this etymology, there is not

lacking a reason not altogether weak. For it is handed down in the writings of Livy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Valerius Maximus, Propertius, Ovid and others how Tatius, with the Sabines, was let into the Capitoline hill, as Arnobius says, by the maiden daughter of Tarpeius (Livy, book 1, § 11 ff.; Dionysius, book 2, p. 105 ff.; Valerius Maximus, book 9, ch. 6, § 1; Propertius, book 4, elegy 4; Ovid, Fasti book 1, § 3). Dionysius of Halicarnassus moreover added to these things that that maiden was granted the honour of a tomb in the place where she had fallen, and that offerings to the dead were rendered to her every year by the Romans. Is it not, then, quite probable that for this reason she was enrolled in the number of the goddesses under the name of Panda or Pantica? Was not Praestana also, by the same reasoning, added to the company of the goddesses, by whose help they wrongly supposed that Romulus had excelled the rest in the casting of the javelin? For we learn from Augustine, who will be cited later, that it was the custom of the gentiles to call their gods by the name of that office which they believed them to discharge or to have discharged.

Whatever, moreover, may be the case concerning the etymology of Panda or Pantica and of Praestana, Arnobius utterly overturns the fictitious divinity of both from this, that neither was a goddess before Tarpeius and Romulus. For as he puts it: « If Romulus had not held the Palatine by the casting of a spear, and if the Sabine king had not been able to take the Tarpeian rock, there would be no Pantica, there would be no Praestana (Arnobius, book 4, p. 128). But who, unless he is plainly out of his mind, would say that those are true gods who once were not gods, and were made so by none other than men through some chance? But from these, whom the demented heathen invented as gods on account of the terror of arms and wars, or the blessing of quiet and peace, let us pass with our author to others, whom they invented as gods on account of the vilest services.

Article 5.

How Arnobius pursues his argument, and shows that it is wrongly invented by the heathen that the god Lateranus presides over unbaked bricks, the Genius over the hearth and other places, Aius Locutius over the protection of Rome, the Fauns and Fatuae over the foretelling of future things, Puta over the pruning of trees, Peta over things to be sought, Nemestrinus over groves, Patellana and Patellum over things laid open or to be laid open, Nodutis over the knots of fruits, Terensis over grain to be threshed, Saturn over sowing, Flora over flowers, Montinus over mountains, Vibilia over wanderings from the road, Limentinus over thresholds, Lima over their protection, the Limi over obliquities, the Lucrii over the gaining of profits, and the goddess Pecunia over wealth.

If fictitious offices of the gods clearly demonstrate their false divinity, those offices beyond doubt by which the heathen everywhere proclaimed that they presided over the vilest and most abject things show the same falsehood still more effectively and more plainly. For what is more senseless and absurd than to cry up a certain Lateranus as the genius and god of hearths? Yet it pleased the heathen that he should be called by that name for this reason: « because, » as Arnobius says, « that kind of fireplace is built up by men out of unbaked bricks » (Arnobius, book 4, pp. 130 and 133; Pliny, Natural History book 35, ch. 14, p. 248). But Pliny thought it was unknown to no one that the wattle frames of walls are indeed plastered, and built up with unbaked bricks.

But it ought to be a wonder to no one if the heathen believed some genius

to preside over hearths. For the ancients called the genius, as Servius puts it (Servius, on Georgics book 1, p. 85, and on Aeneid book 5, p. 367), the natural god of each place, or thing, or man. Elsewhere he also testifies that among the gentiles no place was without a genius. If you want other witnesses, you will at once have Virgil, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Tertullian and Prudentius, who say a good deal about genii presiding everywhere, and above all about those which Arnobius elsewhere mentions as the genii of cities, and as being customarily worshipped by those same gentiles (Virgil, Aeneid book 5, line 95, and book 7, line 135; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities book 8, p. 513; Tertullian, On the Pallium, ch. 4; Arnobius, book 1, p. 15; Prudentius, Against Symmachus book 2, § 3). These, then, are the verses of Prudentius:

And yet why do you fashion for me a single genius of Rome, / when to gates, houses, baths and stables you are accustomed / to assign their own genii, and through all the members / of the city and through its places to fashion many thousands of genii, / so that no corner may lack its own shade?

There, however, he refutes what Symmachus was prattling about the gods who guard cities, just as Cyril of Alexandria thoroughly confuted other inventions of this kind which Julian the Apostate had uttered about the same beings (Symmachus, in Ambrose, vol. 2, p. 830; Cyril of Alexandria, beginning of book 4 Against Julian the Apostate, p. 115 and following). Arnobius, moreover, makes it plain how insulting it is to the divine majesty to proclaim a god set over hearths and kitchens, running about through them and taking care that foods and relishes are well cooked and seasoned. Indeed it is beyond doubt the mark of a foolish and plainly deranged man to invent a god presiding over hearths and furnaces, yet not over all of them, but only over those which were built in one particular way, of unbaked bricks, and not otherwise.

Into the flock of the aforesaid genii, or gods, keeping watch for the guarding of the Roman city, should perhaps be thrown the Aii Locutii, whom the heathen, as Arnobius reproaches them (Arnobius, book 1, p. 15), were still accustomed to worship. For Greek and Latin writers, Plutarch, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Cicero, Livy, A. Gellius and others, have handed down to posterity that the voice of one warning was once heard and neglected, that care should be taken lest Rome be captured by the Gauls, and that after the enemy had been driven off and conquered, a temple and altar were built on the New Way to Aius Locutius in memory of this event (Plutarch, Life of Camillus, p. 144, and On the Fortune of the Romans, p. 319; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities book 5, p. 290; Cicero, On Divination book 1, p. 272 and p. 289; Livy, book 5, near the end of ch. 50 and 52; Gellius, book 16, ch. 17). But Cicero mocks that superstition no less wittily than Arnobius. For thus the Orator harasses it: "The voice of one warning was heard, that care should be taken lest Rome be captured by the Gauls. From this an altar was consecrated on the New Way to Aius Loquens. What then? This Aius Loquens, when no one knew him, spoke and talked, and from that got his name; after he got a seat, and an altar, and a name, he fell silent" (Cicero, On Divination book 2, p. 289; Arnobius, book 1, p. 15).

Not at all undeservedly does Arnobius join to the fictitious gods who were believed to foretell the future the Fauns and the Fatuae, whom the gentiles likewise venerated as gods. For Dionysius of Halicarnassus calls into doubt whether that voice which they reported to have been sent forth by divine power was that of some hero or of Faunus. Varro, moreover, and Servius think that the name was given to Faunus from fando [speaking], or because, as Caius Bassus in Lactantius and others asserted, Fatua was so named, they being said to chant the fates, she to women, as Faunus to men. And Virgil indeed praised the responses of Faunus. But Cicero, although he said that the voices of Faunus were often heard in battles and in troubled affairs, yet where he brought in Cotta replying to Balbus, he denied that he had ever heard that voice of Faunus (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, book 6, p. 290; Varro, On the Latin Language, book 6, p. 78; Servius, on Virgil, Georgics book 1, lines 10 and 11, and on Aeneid book 7, lines 45 ff.; Lactantius, book 1, ch. 22, p. 127; Virgil, Aeneid book 7, line 103; Cicero, On Divination book 1, p. 272; On the Nature of the Gods book 2, p. 214, and book 3, p. 24). See Isidore, Origins book 8, ch. 11; Natalis Comes, Mythology book 5, ch. 9; Lilius Giraldus, History of the Gods, Syntagma 15, p. 427; Vossius, On the Origin and Progress of Idolatry book 1, ch. 12; Huet, Evangelical Demonstration, proposition 4, ch. 9 § 4, p. 136 ff.; Alexander ab Alexandro and the notes of Tiraqueau, Genial Days book 6, ch. 8, p. 648.

There was besides another herd and company of gods, whom the heathen falsely supposed to be set over other things. Arnobius indeed gathered no small crowd of them (Arnobius, book 4, p. 131), but Augustine a greater one, whose names and offices could betray nothing but what is plainly unworthy of the divine nature. By Arnobius, moreover, Puta is mentioned as presiding over the pruning of trees (ibid., pp. 131 and 132), just as Peta over things to be sought, Nemestrinus over groves, Patellana over the husks of grain, doubtless once opened, and Patella over those to be opened; Nodutis over the knots of the crops, and Terensis over the very grains to be threshed; Saturnus over sowing, and Montinus over the mountains. You will laugh, no doubt, at this throng of gods or goddesses, which the gentiles, utterly blind, reckoned to be in charge of the cultivation of the fields, the fruits of the earth, and the mountains.

But Augustine enumerates some of these and others, far more than Arnobius, set over the same offices. And these are his very words, to be compared with those of Arnobius: "Nor did they think that the charge of the fields should be entrusted to any single god: but they set the countryside under the goddess Rusina, the ridges of the mountains under the god Jugutinus, the hills under the goddess Collatina, the valleys under Vallonia. Nor could they even find one Segetia such that they might commend the crops to her once and for all; but as long as the sown grain was under the earth, they wished to have the goddess Seia set over it, but when it was now above the earth and was forming the standing crop, the goddess Segetia; and when the grain was gathered in, they set over it the goddess Tutilina..... They set Proserpina over the sprouting grain, the god Nodotus over the joints and knots of the stalks, over the wrappings of the husks

the goddess Volutina; when the husks open so that the ear may come out, the goddess Patelana.... Nor do I mention them all, because what does not shame them irks me" (Augustine, On the City [of God], ch. 8, p. 93 and following). You see indeed that by him, just as by Arnobius, Patelana and Nodotus, or as our author says, Nodutis, are referred by name to this number of gods. To no one, therefore, will it seem at all unlikely that the others mentioned by him are to be counted among those whom, just as it irked Augustine and our Arnobius to name them, so it ought also to irk us.

Elsewhere, however, that most learned man made the same mention of Saturn as our author: "Saturn," he says, "one of the chief gods, in whose power lies the lordship of all sowings." And before that: "Saturn on account of the seed itself." And a little after: "That Saturn has power over all seeds." These were without doubt drawn from Varro. For we read in a certain book of his: "Saturn is named from sowing." But the lordship of sowings lay no more with him, says our author, than the lordship of flowers lay with Flora. For they did not prevent these from being scorched by cold or heat. In the preceding dissertation, moreover, we discussed Flora and the games celebrated in her honour mentioned by Arnobius (Augustine, On the City [of God], bk. 7, ch. 13, p. 172; ibid., ch. 2, p. 163, and ch. 3, p. 164; Varro, On the Latin Language, bk. 4, p. 16; Arnobius, bk. 4, p. 113; Dissertation on Minucius, ch. 16, art. 3).

For the rest, although Nemestrinus is called by Arnobius the god of groves, and Montinus the god of mountains, yet Diana is called by Horace:

Virgin guardian of mountains and of groves.

(Horace, Odes, bk. 3, ode 22.)

And Faunus and Picus in Ovid proclaim these things about themselves:

We are rustic gods, and such as hold sway on the high mountains.

(Ovid, Fasti, bk. 3, § 3, p. 532.)

But what prevents Diana from having been foolishly believed by the gentiles to be the guardian of the groves, and Nemestrinus their god? What prevents, too, Faunus or Picus from having been the same as Montinus, called by different names? On these gods, further, consult, if you wish, Tertullian, Giraldus and Vossius (Tertullian, On the Shows, ch. 8, p. 93; Giraldus, History of the Gods, syntagma 1, p. 89; Vossius, On Gentile Theology, bk. 5, ch. 48, p. 89 and following).

By our author himself, moreover, just as by Augustine, the heathen are mocked who had dreamt that the goddess Mellonia was set over the making of honey. As if indeed honey could never have been made without her! Wherefore Augustine rightly says of the Jews: "Without Segetia," he says, "they received crops, without Bubona oxen, honey without Mellona, fruit without Pomora, and absolutely all the things for which the Romans thought supplication was to be made to so great a crowd of false gods, they received more happily from the one true God" (Arnobius, bk. 4, p. 131; Augustine, On the City [of God], bk. 5, ch. 14, p. 114).

And what of the fact that the heathen had invented other gods set over roads, thresholds and doors? For not without irony and reproach did Arnobius say:

"Does the goddess Vibilia free from straying off the roads?" (Arnobius, ibid.) But is she not the very one of whom Varro speaks: "Venilia from coming (veniendo), and from that wind which Plautus spoke of: As he said who was carried by a favourable wind on a calm sea, I rejoice in the wind" (Varro, On the Latin Language, book 4, p. 18). Augustine, however, cites the same Varro saying elsewhere: "Venilia is the wave which comes to the shore." Yet does he not depart from him where he discusses infants, and says: From the hope which comes, Venilia. Servius reports that she was called Venilia by some because she grants pardon (veniam) to those who demand it (Augustine, City of God, book 7, ch. 22, p. 178; ibid., book 4, ch. 11, p. 97; Servius, on Aeneid book 10, p. 577). But if the words of Varro cited by us better suit our author's purpose, you perhaps doubt whether in his text Venilia should rather be read than Vibilia. But what would you dare to decide, where there is so great a multitude of fictitious gods?

The gentiles moreover supposed that Limentinus was the guardian of thresholds, and that their keeping was assigned to Lima. But "who would believe," Arnobius argues, "that Limentinus, that Lima keeps guard of thresholds and performs the duties of doorkeepers, when we see daily [the doors] of temples and of private houses torn away and overthrown, and that shameful visits to brothels do not take place without these [gods]?" (Arnobius, book 4, p. 132.) Arnobius elsewhere (the same, book 1, p. 15), and Cyprian somewhere (Cyprian, On the Vanity of Idols, p. 13), made mention of this Limentinus. In a certain book of Tertullian, everywhere mutilated and gaping with lacunae, we read these things, by which nevertheless our author's statements are confirmed clearly enough: "I pass over the gods Forculus from doors, and Cardea ...nibus, and Limentinus of thresholds, or whatever others among the neighbouring ap.... of doorkeepers are worshipped. For what great thing is it, since they have them also in brothels, in kitchens, and in the depths of prison." (Tertullian, To the Nations, book 2, ch. 15, p. 78.) In another book too, more complete and intact, he wrote: "We ought to be certain, if it is hidden from any through ignorance of secular literature, that there are among the Romans gods even of doors, Cardea named from hinges (Cardinibus), and Forculus from doors, and Limentinus from the threshold, and Janus himself from the gate (Janua); and certainly we know that, although the names are empty and invented, yet when they are brought into superstition, they draw to themselves demons and every unclean spirit through the bond of consecration." (The same, On Idolatry, ch. 15.) Augustine makes mention of these same gods, and not unwittily asks the heathen why Forculus and Limentinus are called male gods, while Cardea, a female, presides over the hinge (Augustine, City of God, book 4, ch. 8, p. 94; and book 6, ch. 7, p. 153). Did those holy gods, set over the thresholds and doors of brothels, also open them to the luxurious and lustful?

Very well indeed, you will say. But in all those passages there is no mention of Lima, as named by Arnobius. Therefore some suspect that this name is corrupt, and that in its place Limentina, or Janus, or Jana should be read. What if Cardea were read, of whom the authors just cited by us [speak], or Carna, of whom Ovid sang many things (Ovid, Fasti, book 6, § 2, p. 652 and

following)? But since, as has been said, the number of gods of this kind was infinite, we do not dare to determine what was written in the text of Arnobius. And indeed Servius somewhere observes that the threshold was consecrated to Vesta (Servius, on Aeneid book 6, p. 414).

But the following words of Arnobius seem more corrupt: "Who [would believe] the Limi [to be] curators of obliquities," in the royal manuscript, very badly, "Lemons" (Arnobius, book 4, p. 132). But since this is the only manuscript codex of these books that survives to us, copied out by a most unskilled scribe, what the true reading of our author is, is most difficult to say. To us, however, it would not be hard to accept that the word Lemures should be restored, concerning whom we [have spoken] elsewhere, and Ovid, already cited by us (Ovid, Fasti book 5, § 5, p. 632 and following). Nevertheless, unless helped by the aid of another, more correct codex, we judge that nothing certain can yet be established on this matter. Be that as it may, what freeborn and liberal man, I ask, would ever wish to discharge the office of this god?

Nor does it seem more credible to Arnobius "that the Lucrian gods preside over the acquiring of gains, since these most frequently come from base causes and always consist in the losses of others." But who those gods were, if you are eager to know, you can learn from Suidas. For "Kerdoos," he says (Suidas, under the word Kerdoos), "the god Hermes, as the maker of gain; and they also call him messenger, and thief, wherefore they also make him carry a purse, and [call] him overseer of speech, and of theft, and of trades, that is, overseer of gain." Mercury the gainful god, as the producer of profit or gain. Moreover they make him carry a purse, and [make] him the overseer of speech, of theft and of trade, that is, of gain. For this reason Gregory Nazianzen writes this against Julian the Apostate: "As often as I look upon your Lucrius, and Logius, and Enagonius, I cover my eyes, and from shame at the spectacle I pass by your god." (Gregory Nazianzen, oration 4, against Julian, p. 309.) On which passage Nonnus observed this: "The Greeks call the god Mercury Lucrius, as the author of gain. Hence also the comic poet Aristophanes in the Plutus, being in doubt by what name Mercury should be called, says: Let us set him up as Empolaios, that is, the president of profit and gain."

But Gregory seems to call not only Mercury the god Lucrius, but also Apollo. For in the preceding oration he had said: "How will Lucrius be set up by them, and the little bag be brought forth, and the thievish power and faculty of the god be honoured; and that also: That Phoebus does not prophesy at all without bronze, and that nothing is more excellent than an obol? For these are their weighty and venerable maxims." (Gregory Nazianzen, oration 3, against Julian, p. 262.) Hence too that well-worn iambic verse among the Greeks:

Without bronze Phoebus does not prophesy.

Without bronze the oracles of Phoebus are mute.

Furthermore, Giraldus informs us that Apollo, no differently from Mercury, was surnamed Kerdoos, Lucrius or Lucrio, by the heathen (Giraldus, History of the Gods, syntagma 7, p. 218).

But far more difficult will it be for any sensible man to be persuaded

that Money is a goddess, whom nevertheless the literature of the heathen points to as a very great divinity, as Arnobius puts it (Arnob., bk 4, p. 132). Mention of this goddess, moreover, occurs frequently in Augustine. He informs us, indeed, that she was invoked by the heathen so that they might become moneyed, and might obtain the money which they vainly foretold would be given by her (August., City of God bk 4, ch. 20, p. 103, and ch. 24, p. 106; bk 7, ch. 3, p. 165).

We know, indeed, that Juvenal declares that in his time no temple had been built to Money, and that no altars had been set up to coins. We have seen, to be sure, these verses of his:

Although, baneful Money, you do not yet dwell in a temple, we have raised no altars to coins.

(Juvenal, Satire 1, lines 111 ff.)

But that did not prevent Money from being held a goddess by the heathen before the time of Arnobius, and from being invoked by those greedy and eager for gain, whether in some temple of hers or elsewhere. See, moreover, whether these verses of Epicharmus, quoted by Stobaeus, can be brought forward in confirmation of this view:

But I have supposed that the useful gods are our silver and our gold.

But I consider that the useful gods are our silver and gold. (Stobaeus, Discourse 89, On the Praise of Riches, p. 533.)

But whatever you may pronounce about these verses, who will not admit with our Arnobius that the gods we have mentioned are refuted by the very fact that their base and shameful offices are named?

Article VI.

On other gods and goddesses whom the heathen asserted to preside over the vices of men and over other things; where [it treats] of Laverna, goddess of thieves, and Murcida, [goddess] of the slothful; of Venus Militaris, [set over] the most shameful outrages; of Perfica, Pertunda, Tutinus or Mutinus, [set over] obscene pleasures; of Libentina and Liburnus, guardians of lusts; of Orbona and Naenia, ridiculous presidents over the end of life and over funerals; where also [it treats] of hired harlots, Acca Laurentia, Flora and Leaena.

To no one, surely, however unfair a judge of things he may be, provided some spark of right reason still remains in him, will anything at all seem more foreign to the divine nature, justice and holiness than to invent gods who not only favour the vices of men but are even set over them. Nevertheless the heathen, with an impiety plainly astonishing and never sufficiently to be condemned, devised such gods, and not a few of them either. Wherefore Gregory Nazianzen addresses them in these verses (Greg. Naz., vol. 2, poem 61, p. 142):

And again you have others holding power over other evils, so that evil should not only be unpunished, but should even be a good thing, as being pleasing to the god who honoured it.

You also hold divinities themselves hallowed by unspeakable guilt, and one who presides over some vices and another over others: so that, forsooth, crime should not only be free of avenging punishment, but should also obtain both praise and honour, and be pleasing and acceptable to the god, and cultivated by the same.

But let us hear our Arnobius recounting these infamous gods and their most shameful offices. They have reported, he says, "that Laverna is a goddess and the patroness of thieves" (Arnob., bk 3, p. 115) and of robbers, and above all of those, as by others observed

it has been, who stole secretly and covertly. For Varro testifies to us that an altar was built at Rome to this goddess Laverna, from which the Lavernal gate took its name (Varro, On the Latin Language, book 4, p. 40). That those thieves, moreover, made supplication to her as to their patroness is proved by these verses of Horace:

Fair Laverna, / grant me to deceive, grant me to seem just and holy, / cast night over my sins, and a cloud over my frauds. (Horace, Epistles, book 1, epistle 16, lines 60 ff.)

You will be able to see more in Festus, Nonius Marcellus and Lilius Giraldus (Festus and Nonius, under the words Laverniones and Lavernae; Giraldus, syntagma 1, p. 50; Arnobius, book 4, p. 132).

With no less impiety the same heathens touted Murcida, doubtless set over against Laverna, as the goddess of the sluggish, just as Arnobius reproaches them for it. Nor did he himself devise so insane a fiction of human superstition. For Augustine relates, and plainly marvels, that public rites were instituted by the Romans, who assigned individual gods to almost every single movement of men, to the goddess Murcia, "who," these are his words, "would not move a man beyond measure, or would make him, as Pomponius says, murcidus, that is, overly slothful and inactive." (Augustine, City of God, book 4, ch. 16, p. 100.) Livy, moreover, is our witness that Ancus Martius, having overcome the Latins, who had called him a sluggish king of the Romans, returned to Rome. Then he added further: "Many of the Latins having been received into citizenship, dwellings were given them by the shrine of Murcia, so that the Aventine might be joined to the Palatine." (Livy, book 1, §§ 32 and 33.)

Do you still want another witness? Here is Tertullian, who records that a temple was built to the same goddess: "Consus," he says, "lies hidden under ground at the Murcian turning-posts: these too an idol made. For they will have Murcia to be the goddess of languor, to whom they vowed a temple in that part." (Tertullian, On the Spectacles, ch. 8, p. 93.) It has not escaped us, indeed, that some have thought that in that place amoris ("of love") should be read instead of marcoris ("of languor"). For these persuaded themselves that Tertullian is speaking of Venus, whose name, as Pliny writes, was first Myrtea, then Murcia. They could have added further that mention of her is made by Varro, Plutarch and others (Pliny, Natural History, book 5, ch. 19, p. 212; Varro, On the Latin Language, book 4, pp. 37 and 38; Plutarch, Roman Questions, vol. 2, p. 268). But surely, since in the more correct text of Tertullian we read marcoris written, to whom would it not seem altogether most likely that he is to be understood as speaking of the same goddess Murcida as the writers cited by us? If, further, anyone shall rightly prove that this Murcida, goddess of the sluggish, is none other than Venus Myrtea, or Murcia, goddess of love or of languor, we shall yield to him all the more willingly, the more strongly the opinion of Arnobius is thereby established.

Do you wish something to be brought forward for you to the greater ignominy and everlasting disgrace of the heathens, and indeed to the certain ruin and overthrow of their religion? Nothing, truly, is easier. For at hand are those who were worshipped by those blind gentiles without any blush, gods set over illicit and most shameful things, and over vices. Necessary

however, it is not here, with our Arnobius (Arnob., bk. 3, p. 15), to call Venus, as he says, "that mother of desires," set "over loves and the ardour of lust." For who is there who does not know these things? Wherefore it suffices to say with Lactantius: "Why should I speak of the obscenity of Venus, prostituted to the lusts of all, not of gods only but also of men...... She first, as is contained in the sacred history, instituted the harlot's art and was the instigator for the women in Cyprus that they should make gain publicly by their bodies. This she commanded for this reason: that she alone, apart from other women, might not seem unchaste and desirous of men." (Lactant., Institutes bk. 1, ch. 17, p. 92.)

But because many Venuses, most notorious for unchastity and lusts, were proclaimed by the heathen, Arnobius assails one above all, surely worse than the rest, in these words: "Does the Military Venus too preside over the kidnappings of the camps (the royal manuscript codex and the old edition: outrages), and over the debauchings of boys?" (Arnob., bk. 4, p. 131.) What, I ask, could have been a greater disgrace and shame to the heathen, had they ever been able to blush, than the worship and veneration of that infamous goddess? But you will doubtless ask who that Military Venus was, of whom mention is made more rarely than of the others. Yet Pausanias mentions more than once the Armed, and therefore Military, Venus (Pausan., bk. 2, p. 48, and bk. 3, pp. 97 and 106), and most of all in these words: "The city of Cythera is about ten stades for one going up from Scandea; the sanctuary of Urania is most holy, and of all the sanctuaries of Aphrodite that there are among the Greeks, the most ancient. The goddess herself is an armed wooden image." From Scandea one goes up to the very walls of the Cytherians, a journey of ten stades. There is there a temple of Urania Venus, the most ancient of all those that are dedicated to Venus among the Greeks. The statue of the goddess is in arms. Nonnus too (Nonn., Dionysiaca bk. 35, line 175 ff.), where he sings of Venus as mightier than Mars:

Do not set foot on Sparta, where the warlike citizens / have the bronze form of Aphrodite in arms.

Do not enter Sparta, where the warlike citizens / have a bronze image of armed Venus.

Lactantius, moreover, relates (Lactant., bk. 1, ch. 19, p. 109) that a shrine and a statue were built by the same Spartans to the Armed Venus in memory of the women who had come out to meet them after the Messenians were put to flight and had lain with them. Lastly, Hesychius records "Spear-bearing Aphrodite, among the Cyprians." The Spear-bearing Venus, among the Cyprians. What indeed is so base and obscene that this Venus would not be believed to preside over it? Rightly and deservedly, therefore, Arnobius mocks the heathen, because they held that Venus herself presided over the basest outrages of men, while yet they did not blush to proclaim and worship her as military, armed and spear-bearing, set over arms just as over loves and outrages.

Arnobius continues (Arnob., bk. 4, p. 131), and again asks the heathen whether they seriously believe that Persica, Pertunda and Tutunus are set over those obscene pleasures, as they themselves made known and as he recounts. For who, unless he has laid aside all shame, would not be ashamed to worship such deities, nay even to name them? Us

indeed it has not escaped that Lucretius used the name of Persica as an epithet, as it were, of nature, where he sang:

Until (or 'donec') Persica, nature the creatress of things, has brought all things forth to the utmost limit of growth. (Lucretius, book 2, verse 1125 and following.)

But Arnobius said that she was the Persica who was believed to bring the foulest pleasures to their issue and to complete them. Fouler still were the offices of Pertunda and of Tutunus, or Tutanus, Tutinus or Mutinus, who, as Augustine notes, was called by the Greeks the infamous Priapus. But concerning these, whom it is shameful to name unless the heathen had compelled it, Tertullian and Lactantius also say something, as will be told in our following dissertations (Augustine, City of God, book 4, chapter 11, page 97, and book 6, chapter 9, page 156; Tertullian, Apology, chapter 25, and To the Nations, book 2, chapter 11; Lactantius, book 1, chapter 20, page 110).

With no less blindness and madness, surely, did the gentiles believe, as Arnobius further reports, that Libentina and Liburnus "preside over the protection of lusts." Elsewhere, moreover, we read it handed down in writing by Varro: "From 'libendo' [being pleasing] comes 'libido' [lust], 'libidinosus' [lustful], and so other words, such as Libentina," doubtless that goddess of whom our author speaks. For afterwards Augustine said: "Of the goddess Libentina, whose name is from lust." Consider, however, whether she is the Libentina Venus of whom Cicero speaks: "The names of Cupid and of Pleasure and of Lubentina Venus have been consecrated, names of vicious things, and not of natural ones." (Arnobius, book 4, page 132; Varro, On the Latin Language, book 5, page 57; Augustine, City of God, book 4, chapter 8, page 93; Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, book 2, page 223, line 7.)

As regards Liburnus, his name seems corrupt. For in the royal manuscript codex there stands Burnum, and since they suspected that this had been corrupted by the ignorance of a copyist, they made Liburnum out of it. But who this Liburnus may be, they did not trouble to show us. Therefore Meursius thought Liberum should be read, whom Augustine testified was set over lust by the heathen (Augustine, City of God, book 6, chapter 9, page 158, and book 7, chapter 2, page 165). And we indeed would gladly subscribe to this conjecture, if instead of Libentina we were to read libera, who, again on Augustine's testimony, was also held to be set over lust. But since he further teaches there that she was also reckoned by the heathen to be Venus, can it not be gathered from this that she was the same as Libentina? Nevertheless, since there were among the heathen, as we have said, so many and so manifold gods of this kind, we cannot affirm with certainty what the true reading of Arnobius is.

What, further, remained to lay open to all the everlasting reproach and disgrace of the heathen religion, except that most shameless men should offer sacrifices to harlots and courtesans, just as to their other gods? And yet "in the greatest cities," says our author, "and among the more powerful peoples, public sacrifices are made to women who were once hired harlots and prostituted to the common lust" (Arnobius, book 1, page 15). By these words indeed he doubtless points to Acca Laurentia and Flora, of whom we dealt in the preceding dissertation

(Dissert. on Minucius, ch. 16, art. 2). But that Laurentia is without doubt the one whom Arnobius elsewhere names the goddess Luperca: "Because," he says, "the wolf, though not gentle, spared the exposed infants, namely Romulus and Remus, she is the goddess Luperca, so named on the authority of Varro" (Arnob., bk 4, p. 128). Hence Lactantius too (loc. cit.): "The wolf, nurse of Romulus, has been honoured with divine honours." But enough has been said of her in our earlier dissertation, as we have said.

The third of these notorious courtesans was Leaena of Athens, whom Clement of Alexandria mentions, as do other writers cited in our dissertations on his works (vol. 1 of the Apparatus, bk 3, diss. 2, ch. 24, art. 3, p. 1250). In Athenaeus, moreover, Demochares is said to have recorded that the Athenians, in order to flatter Demetrius Poliorcetes, built temples to Leaena and to Lamia as Venus (Athen., bk 6, p. 252.

For the rest, although Orbona and Naenia might seem more honourable and more modest than these two, they were nonetheless no less false and fictitious deities. The heathen believed, as Arnobius says (Arnob., bk 4, p. 131), that parents bereaved of their children were under the protection of the former, and that people at their last extremity were under the patronage of the latter. And in the book of Tertullian, which is mutilated and gapes with lacunae everywhere, we read: "Orbana, who sows unto bereavement, may extinguish." (Tertullian, To the Nations 2, ch. 15.) We have moreover the heathen Pliny as witness that a shrine of Orbana was built beside the temple of the Lares (Plin., Natural History bk 2, ch. 7, p. 142). To Naenia too, a goddess set over the end of life or over funerals, a chapel had been consecrated outside the Viminal Gate, as we state on the authority of Paulus and Festus.

Furthermore, what concerns this goddess and the other gods and goddesses whom we have so far seen named by Arnobius can be supported by the testimony of Varro, which Augustine has set out thus: "Varro began to record and enumerate the gods from the conception of a human being, and carried that series on as far as the death of a man in decrepit old age, and closed the gods pertaining to man himself with the goddess Naenia, who is sung at the funerals of old men. Then he began to set out other gods, who pertain not to man himself but to the things that are man's, such as food, clothing, and whatever else is necessary for this life, showing in every case what the office of each is, and for what reason one ought to make supplication to each." (Augustine, City of God bk 6, ch. 9, p. 158.)

There is no one, then, who from all that we have so far discussed does not readily perceive how rightly Arnobius concludes that all those gods are altogether false and wholly non-existent. For it has been proved more than enough that either they never existed, or they had at some time their origin and beginning, or they did or suffered things which are utterly repugnant to the divine majesty and nature, and very often things wholly unworthy of a man even minimally modest and decent. Finally, if certain others are again called into the open by our Arnobius,

of them there will be occasion to speak below (Arnob., bk 3, p. 115).

Chapter XIV.

Another argument of Arnobius against the gods of the Gentiles is examined, one drawn from their servitude, chains, wounds, death and tombs.

Article One.

How strong is the argumentation of Arnobius for destroying the opinion of the Gentiles about their gods, drawn from the servitude of Hercules, Apollo and Neptune, from the shameful ministry of Minerva, the menial service of the Muses, the chains of Mars and Saturn and the latter's expulsion from his kingdom, and from the wounds of the same Mars, of Venus, Pluto, Juno, Minerva and Hercules.

The heathen so far debased their gods, than whose majesty nothing more sublime and excellent ought to have been conceived, that they everywhere proclaimed and paraded their servitude, chains, wounds and death with astonishing impudence. For by them, says Arnobius, it had been handed down to memory: "that gods served in hired servitude, as Hercules at Sardis, for the sake of love and wantonness; as Delian Apollo to Admetus; as the brother of Jupiter to Trojan Laomedon; as the Pythian to the same, but together with his uncle; as Minerva to those mingling in conjugal secrets, as the servant of the light and the regulator of the lamps." (Arnob., bk 4, p. 144.) But these things he, after his usual fashion, plucked from Clement of Alexandria (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 22), who fights against the heathen with the same argument, and presses all these things, not only more clearly and openly, but also many others besides, which Arnobius deliberately passed over, in this manner: Fittingly, then, have such gods of yours become slaves of passions, and indeed even of those called Helots among the Lacedaemonians: Apollo went under the yoke of slavery to Admetus in Pherae, Heracles in Sardis to Omphale; and Poseidon served Laomedon for hire, and Apollo too, like a useless household slave, not able, it seems, to obtain freedom even from his former master; then also the two of them rebuilt the walls of Ilium for the Phrygian. And Homer is not ashamed to show Athena to Odysseus, saying that she held a golden lamp in her hands. Rightly, then, are your gods such as were slaves of vices, and indeed of those who are called Eilotes by the Lacedaemonians: Apollo went under the servile yoke to Admetus at Pherae, Hercules at Sardis to Omphale; and Neptune and Apollo were hirelings to Laomedon, like a useless slave who could not obtain liberty from his former master. Then also they restored the walls of Troy for the Phrygian. And Homer is not ashamed to say that Minerva lit the way for Ulysses, holding a golden lamp in her hands. And by Clement, as also by Arnobius, these verses of Homer are cited (Homer, Odyssey, bk 19, lines 33 ff.):

. . . And before them Pallas Athena, / holding a golden lamp, made a most beautiful light.

And before them Pallas Minerva, / holding a golden lamp, made a most beautiful light. (Homer, Odyssey, bk 19, lines 33 ff.)

Further, about this absurd and ridiculous servitude of those gods enough has been argued by us elsewhere (Dissertation on Minucius, ch. 15, art. 3, and Apparatus, vol. 1, p. 1090).

From the same source, Clement of Alexandria, Arnobius further drew what he added in the same place about the Muses: "Is one of us the authority, Myrtilus, who declares that the Muses were the daughters of Macar and the little handmaids of Megaclo?" (Arnobius, book 4, p. 145.) For it is from this same Myrtilus, or Myrsilus of Lesbos, that Clement relates that the Muses, being slaves, were bought by Megaclo, daughter of Macar king of the Lesbians, who afterwards built columns and temples for them. But we touched briefly on these matters in the earlier volume of our Apparatus (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 19; vol. 1 of the Apparatus, p. 820).

Harsher than slavery, beyond doubt, are the chains with which the gentiles supposed their gods to have been most shamefully bound. For what is further removed from divinity than what they kept boasting: "On account of parricide," these are the words of Arnobius (Arnobius, book 4, p. 143), "Saturn was put in chains, and on fixed days" (certain printed copies have "his own", the royal manuscript "such great") "was washed and released from the fetters of his chains"; the same royal manuscript has "set loose". Arnobius is certainly alluding to the things which Macrobius sets out more clearly from Apollodorus. For he reports from him that "Saturn is bound throughout the year with a linen bond, and loosed on his own feast day, that is, in the month of December" (Macrobius, Saturnalia, book 1, ch. 8, p. 209). From this, however, it is easily gathered that in the text of Arnobius, unless one should read "on feast days only", this is conveyed by another word having the same meaning. Why Lipsius wished it corrected to "on his own days only" we do not well understand. On the chains of Mars, mentioned shortly after by our author, read, if you please, Homer, and what has been noted by us in this dissertation and elsewhere (Lipsius, book 3, letter 15, vol. 1, p. 180; Homer, Iliad 5, line 385, the chapter above; Dissertation on Minucius, ch. 15, art. 2).

If the gods were reduced to slavery and cast into chains, what was still left, except that they should be said to have taken blows and been wounded and hurt? And certainly the heathen spread this abroad in discourses repeated everywhere. For thus indeed Arnobius addresses the heathen (Arnobius, book 4, p. 144): "Is it not that seer of yours who made Mars and Venus wounded by the hands of mortals? Is not Panyassis one of you, who records that father Dis and queen Juno were wounded by Hercules? Do not the writings of your Polemo show the warrior maiden struck down by Ornytus, bloodied, harassed? Does not Solibius declare that Hercules himself was tortured by the sons of Hippocoon and reported the wound inflicted and the pain?" And these things in turn are drawn from these words of Clement of Alexandria (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 23): Homer gives proof of it quite precisely, bringing in Aphrodite crying out shrill and loud at her wound, and relating that the most warlike Ares himself was wounded by Diomedes in the flank. Polemo also says that Athena was wounded by Ornytus; yes, and Homer says that Aidoneus was shot with an arrow by Heracles, and Panyassis records the same of Augeas of Elis. Indeed this same Panyassis records that Hera, the goddess of wedlock, was also wounded by the same Heracles in sandy Pylos. And Sosibius says that Heracles was wounded in the hand by the sons of Hippocoon. Homer plainly

sufficiently shows Venus crying out with a shrill and loud voice because of a wound, and relates that most warlike Mars was wounded in the belly by Diomedes. Polemo, moreover, says that Minerva too was wounded by Ornytus. Indeed Homer relates that Pluto too was wounded by Hercules, just as Panyassis relates of Augeas of Elis; and he also relates that conjugal Juno was wounded by the same Hercules in sandy Pylos. Sozibius, moreover, says that Hercules too was wounded in the hand by the Hippocoontides. You see indeed how Arnobius, to use the words of Cicero speaking of Epicurus and Democritus, watered his little gardens from the springs of Clement of Alexandria (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, book 1, p. 212, line 44). It must also be clear to you that by this argumentation of both and by these examples it is most evidently established that those are neither gods nor immortal whose wounds could scarcely ever be without blood and, what is worse than that, without pus and corruption, nor be healed without medicines. We, however, have discussed the wounds of these gods elsewhere: of the blows of Mars, namely, and of Venus, in the preceding dissertation; of Minerva and Hercules when wounded, in the first volume of our Apparatus (preceding dissertation, ch. 15, art. 3; Apparatus vol. 1, pp. 762 and 816). The verses of Homer cited concerning Juno and Pluto you will find in the fifth book of his Iliad (Homer, Iliad 5, line 357).

From the same Clement of Alexandria, moreover, were taken the things that Arnobius related about the lame Vulcan and about Aesculapius struck by the stroke of a thunderbolt. Of both, however, we have treated elsewhere (Arnobius, book 4, p. 143; Apparatus vol. 1, p. 754, and the dissertation on Minucius, ch. 15, arts. 2 and 3).

Article II.

How the same thing is proved by the examples of Jupiter, who unknowingly ate human flesh, and from his death and burial, from the tombs of the brothers Castor and Pollux, of Saturn, and of the Tyrian Hercules, and from the Theban Hercules consumed by fire.

Worse than bodily wounds, beyond doubt, must be reckoned weakness of mind and ignorance. Yet in Jupiter there was such ignorance of things and such ease in deceiving him that, as Arnobius observes, "invited to the broth of the table, instead of swine's entrails he unknowingly made a meal of Lycaon's offspring" (Arnobius, book 4, p. 143). But this he, after his custom, took from Clement of Alexandria and related more briefly. For in the latter's Exhortation to the Gentiles we read these things committed to writing (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 23): He also partook of a human table among the Ethiopians; and of an inhuman and lawless one, Zeus himself, when feasted by Lycaon the Arcadian, was indeed filled with human flesh, not willingly; for the god did not know that Lycaon the Arcadian, his host, having slaughtered his own son, Nyctimus by name, set him before Zeus as a dish. He was moreover a partaker also of a human table among the Ethiopians, and then of an inhuman and impious one, when Jupiter himself was received at a banquet by Lycaon the Arcadian; being, that is, sated with human flesh against his will. For the god did not know that Lycaon the Arcadian, who was receiving him at the banquet,

was setting before him, to be feasted upon, his own son whom he had killed, whose name was Nyctimus. See, if you please, Ovid, Hyginus and Apollodorus on this and on the other examples recounted so far (Ovid, Metamorphoses book 1, fable 7, p. 12 and following).

What else, finally, remained for proving the mortal nature of Jupiter and of the other false gods than to make plain to anyone the death they met after the human fashion, and then their burial, from which none was recalled to life? And yet, "In the island of Crete," says Arnobius, "the Jupiter brought forth to us is reported to have been committed to burial" (Arnobius, book 4, p. 144). From whom this was reported you will learn from Clement of Alexandria, in whose footsteps he again follows. For these are the very Greek words of the same Clement (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 242): Seek your Zeus; do not search the heaven, but busy yourself with the earth; the Cretan, among whom he is also buried, will tell you; Callimachus in his hymns:

For indeed, O lord, the Cretans built your tomb.

Which the Latin translator rendered thus: "Seek your Jupiter; do not search heaven, but the earth. The Cretan, among whom he is buried, will tell you; Callimachus in his hymns:

"For the Cretans built your tomb."

But we have already observed with how much right our Arnobius reproached the heathen with this, and on the authority of what other witnesses (Dissertation on Minucius, chapter 14, article 3).

He further made an abridgement of the words of the same Clement concerning other gods, where either he has slipped in memory or his text seems to have been corrupted. For he writes this (Arnobius, book 4, p. 144): "In the Spartan and Lacedaemonian territories," supply "do", "we say that the brothers who grew up together in the cradle are buried," namely Castor and Pollux? "Is he our author, who in the titles of the writers is indicated as Patrocles of Thurii, who records the tombs, and that the remains of Saturn are contained in Sicilian soil? Is Plutarch of Chaeronea (royal manuscript codex: Jerome) shown to be of our party, who reported that Hercules, on the heights of Oeta, after the ravages of the falling sickness, was dissolved into ash?" But Clement of Alexandria (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 18): Philochorus [says] .... that Cronus lies in Sicily and was buried there. And Patrocles of Thurii and Sophocles the younger, in three tragedies, relate of the Dioscuri (royal manuscript: relate concerning the Dioscuri) that these two Dioscuri were men, if Homer is sufficient to vouch for what is said:

But them the life-giving earth already held fast, there in Lacedaemon, in their own dear native land. (Hom. Il. 3.243.)

Philochorus, moreover, says ...... that Saturn is laid in Sicily and was buried there. Patrocles of Thurii and the younger Sophocles write of Castor and Pollux that they

were men subject to death and the fates. But if Homer can win anyone's belief, let him be heard in what is written:

But these the bountiful earth already held

in Lacedaemon there, in their beloved native land.

Then he next relates what Hieronymus the philosopher and Dicaearchus said was the appearance of Hercules' body and face, and straightway adds (Clem., ibid.): "This Hercules, then, having lived fifty-two years, ended his life, having received his funeral rites by means of the pyre on Oeta." This Hercules, therefore, when he had lived fifty-two years, departed from life by way of that pyre which was on Oeta, due funeral rites having been performed for him But in citing his witnesses there he seems to differ not a little from our Arnobius. For he [Arnobius] proves that Saturn was committed to burial in Sicily by the testimony of Patroclis of Thurii, but Clement by that of Philochorus. Moreover, Arnobius shows on the authority of no one, but Clement on that of three, Patroclis of Thurii, the younger Sophocles, and Homer, that Castor and Pollux were men subject to death and buried at Lacedaemon. Finally, Clement [reports] the form and appearance of Hercules, and, as it seems, the manner of his death, as Hieronymus the philosopher and Dicaearchus related them, but Arnobius as Chaeroneus [did], or, as we have said is written in the royal manuscript, Hieronymus Plutarchus.

But the disagreement between our two writers is not so great, if Arnobius has cited no witness to the burial of Castor and Pollux, while Clement has cited several, and Homer first of all. But it will perhaps seem surprising to someone why he made no mention of this prince of the Greek poets, who is cited not only by Clement but also by Cicero in these very words: "Whom," Castor and Pollux, "Homer, who lived soon after their age, says were buried at Lacedaemon (Cic., De natura deorum, bk. 3, p. 241, l. 30)." For Arnobius quite often follows in the footsteps of these writers.

But he differs from Clement more in this, that he confirms the burial of Saturn by the testimony of Patroclis, Clement by that of Philochorus. If indeed they did not wish to offer different guarantors, see, I pray, whether Arnobius slipped in memory, or whether the error ought to be laid upon the carelessness or ignorance of a copyist. Certainly this carelessness is more evident in the names as written down, Chaeroneus or Hieronymus Plutharcus. For if Arnobius there, as elsewhere, is following Clement, what should have been written was Hieronymus the philosopher, who related that Hercules burned himself alive on Mount Oeta.

Moreover, concerning the death of this and of the other Hercules our author had said in his first book: "The Theban or the Tyrian Hercules, the one buried in the territory of Spain, the other consumed by the flames of Oeta" (Arnob., bk. 1, p. 20). The former was that Hercules about whom Pausanias recorded this in writing (Pausan., bk. 5, p. 175): And at Thasos indeed I heard that the Tyrian Hercules was the one whom the Thasians had venerated from the beginning; but when they had joined themselves to the Greeks, honours began to be paid by them also to the son of Amphitryon. And I heard at Thasos

that they themselves worship the same Heracles whom the Tyrians also worship, but that later, when they were already counted among the Greeks, they saw fit to pay honours also to Heracles the son of Amphitryon. Now they relate that while the affairs of the Tyrians were favourable and prosperous, a colony, over which they had set the Tyrian Hercules, was sent by them into Spain, where at length Hercules himself died and was buried. Mela, indeed, writes of the island of Gades: « The Tyrians founded a temple of the Egyptian Hercules, illustrious for its founders, its religion, its antiquity and its wealth. Why it is holy, his bones laid there bring about (Mela, book 3, chapter 6). » But there Mela is censured by Arrian and others for this reason, that he wrongly confused the Egyptian and the Tyrian Hercules, whom Cicero and others distinguish (Arrian, book 2 On the Expedition of Alexander, page 125). Concerning the Tyrian, moreover, who was worshipped in Spain, besides Pausanias and Arrian already cited, you may consult Q. Curtius and Vossius (Arrian, at the place cited; Q. Curtius, book 7; Vossius, book 1 On the Origin and Progress of Idolatry, chapter 34, page 131 and following).

The Theban Hercules, furthermore, although born of adultery from Jupiter and Alcmena, as was observed by us earlier (Dissertation on Minucius, chapter 15, article 3), was nevertheless held to be the son of Amphitryon, a Theban and the husband of that same Alcmena, and for that reason he is called the Theban. Why and how he was burned alive on Mount Oeta we have also explained elsewhere. But from this you will have explained besides what our author again said a little later: « The offspring of Jupiter, Hercules, in the Trachiniae of Sophocles, entangled in the snare of a pestilential garment, is brought on to utter pitiable wailings, to be broken by the violence of the pain, and to be consumed to the last wasting by the maceration of his dissolving entrails » (Arnobius, book 4, page 151 and following). But Cicero said it earlier, and more clearly: « Let us see, » he says, « Hercules himself, who was then being broken by pain, when he was seeking immortality by death itself. What cries does he utter in Sophocles in the Trachiniae? When Deianira had put on him a tunic dyed with the blood of the Centaur, and it had clung to his entrails, he says: O many, etc. » (Cicero, book 2 of the Tusculans, page 138, line 42). And the verses of Sophocles copied out are indeed found in the tragedy which he cites (Sophocles, in the Trachiniae, verse 1057 and following).

How strong, furthermore, this argument of Arnobius is, you will gather even from Cicero himself, who, having said that both the deaths and the burials of the gods are shown by Euhemerus, concludes from this that religion is entirely and utterly done away with by him, but assuredly no other than that of the heathen (Cicero, at the end of book 1 On the Nature of the Gods, page 212).

Chapter XV.

How Arnobius proved that all the things which have been related about the gods are wrongly thrown back upon the poets by the heathen, and that the gods are defamed by the games instituted in their honour, and are stripped of the divinity attributed to them.

Article One.

It is shown that all the things which have been said about the gods are wrongly poured back upon the poets, and that the heathen ought to have passed sentence upon them as upon those who murmur against the power of kings, and as slanderers, and to have proscribed together with them the actors, mimes and pantomimes; where [there is discussion] of the Laureate Fifteen Men.

Arguments of such weight, set forth by us, †in

the heathens, so that they might be able to weaken, or at least evade in some way or other, answered that all those most shameful deeds of the gods, their deaths and burials, were fictions of the poets, composed by those men of unsound mind for lust and pleasure, with which they deceived the ignorant crowd. But to whom will it be credible, says Arnobius, that poets of the most remote antiquity came to such a pitch of impudence that in blind frenzy they spread infamous and most obscene fables about the gods, and feared no punishment either from the gods themselves or from men (Arnob., book 4, p. 148 ff.)?

Then again, granted that, against all right and divine law, they invented these things, why then did they not pay, through the severity of the laws, the penalties owed for so great a crime? Is it not a most grave crime to injure the reputation of anyone, much more of God? Is it not a greater insult if you accuse someone of a false crime than if you charge him with it [when true]? And what of the fact that the heathens, who allowed such shameful deeds of the gods to be peddled with impunity by learned men, were guilty of no lesser crime than they?

But what and how great were the crimes, sacrileges, chains, wounds and deaths of the gods that they sang of is easily understood from what has already been said and from what is to be said hereafter. But Arnobius presses above all, in this place, what was ascribed to Jove: 'That very Jupiter,' he says, 'whose name it befitted you not to utter without fear and a shaking of the whole body, is described, when caught by his wife with a lover (amasius in the royal manuscript codex), as confessing his faults, and, as if out of his mind and unaware, hardened in shamelessness, as making public which little mistresses he had preferred to his consort, which concubines to his wife' (Arnob., book 4, p. 150). But there he undoubtedly alludes to those verses of Homer in which Jupiter declares to Juno, and confesses, that he had been seized with love of the wife of Ixion, or Dia, and of Danae, and of the daughter of Phoenix, of Semele, Alcmene, Ceres and Latona (Homer, Iliad 14, line 314 ff.).

So unbridled a licence, then, of this and the other poets, continues Arnobius (Arnob., book 4, p. 150), ought to have been restrained by the heathens through laws and plebiscites with no less severity than that of those who had murmured against kings and were for that reason arraigned for treason. By these words he certainly has in view the Julian law of treason, which Theodosius the Great afterwards mitigated. See in the Justinian and Theodosian Codes the laws on slanders against the emperor, and what Gothofredus has remarked on them (Cod. Just., book 1, titles 7 and 8; and vol. 3, Cod. Theodos., p. 42 ff.). By these, moreover, is confirmed what Arnobius adds, the penalties decreed against him who degrades magistrates [or] senators, or pursues one with abuse. How much more severely, then, ought they to have dealt with those guilty of offence against the divine majesty? Why then did they grant the poets pardon and impunity?

But let us go on, if you please: “To compose a wicked song,” adds our author, “by which another's reputation and life might be defiled, you would not allow to escape the decemviral statutes unpunished: and lest anyone should assail your ears with rather wanton abuse, concerning atrocious [wrongs] you established formulas

wrongs.” (Arnobius, book 4, p. 151.) If anyone wishes to have this proved to him by someone's authority, let him hear Cicero: “The Twelve Tables,” says the orator, “declare that it was already customary at that time for a song to be composed: which the laws ordained should not be permitted to be done to the injury of another.” (Cicero, Tusculans book 4, p. 163, line 23.) Augustine, for his part, testifies that he copied the following word for word from the fourth book On the Republic of the same Cicero, now lost: “Our Twelve Tables, though they sanctioned very few things with the penalty of death, thought that this too should be sanctioned among them: if anyone should have chanted against, or composed a song against, another, such as would bring infamy or disgrace upon him. Excellently done. For we ought to have our life exposed to the judgements of magistrates and to lawful hearings, not to the wits of poets, nor to hear reproach unless on this condition, that one may answer and defend oneself in court” (Augustine, City of God book 2, ch. 9, p. 38). And this Augustine further confirmed with the testimony of Seneca (the same, ibid., ch. 12, p. 40). Finally Horace sang:

Nay more, a law and a penalty were enacted, forbidding anyone to be portrayed in a malicious song.

(Horace, Epistles 2.1.152 ff.)

And a little earlier he had made mention of the Tables enacted by the twelve men. Consult him, if you please, and Gothofredus's notes on the title concerning defamatory libels (Theodosian Code, vol. 3, p. 237 ff.). With how great iniquity and injustice, then, did the heathen avenge with such severe laws the injuries and slanders done to men, and yet patiently tolerate, nay rather extol with the highest praises, the poets by whom the gods themselves were assailed with innumerable insults and affronts?

Yet the same licence had been granted not to the poets alone, but also to pantomimes, mimes, actors, comedians and tragedians (Arnobius, book 4, p. 151). For all these represented in the theatres those very same shameful deeds of the gods, of Venus, Cybele, Hercules and others, and their foul and cruel crimes, with still greater impudence and no less impunity. And among the Gentiles not only the soft and effeminate, but also the whole people, the senators, the colleges of priests and of magistrates, the Pontifices Maximi, the Curiones, the Diales, the Flamines, the Augurs, and the laurelled Fifteen Men listened to them with great applause and great pleasure. Now those Fifteen Men were the keepers of the Sibylline books, who, as Servius observes, were at first two, then ten, afterwards fifteen. If you wish to know more of these, consult Cicero, Valerius Maximus, A. Gellius, Pliny, Suetonius, Tiraquellus, and Lactantius, cited by us elsewhere (Servius, on Aeneid book 6, line 73; Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods book 1, p. 225; Valerius Maximus, book 1, ch. 1; A. Gellius, Attic Nights book 1, ch. 19, p. 86; Pliny, Natural History book 28, ch. 2, p. 557; Tiraquellus on Alexander ab Alexandro, Genial Days book 3, ch. 16, p. 269; Apparatus vol. 1, p. 254).

Furthermore, so far is it from being the case that the heathen, as for mimes, actors and other men of the same stamp who represented such infamous

deeds of the gods, punished them as they deserved, that rather they granted them, as our author rightly says, "gifts and rewards, leisure from public duties, immunity, exemption along with crowns" (Arnobius, book 4, p. 52). For Theodoret said openly: "The actors of tragedies and comedies have something with a view to which they pursue their art, and in the hope of crowns they endure their toils." The actors of tragedies and comedies have that with regard to which they practise their art, and in the hope of crowns they bear their labour (Theodoret, Oration 9, On Providence, pp. 429 and 434). He adds, moreover, that statues were decreed and set up for the actors of tragedies, as for the commanders of armies, athletes, boxers and charioteers, in the dress in which they had won.

Arnobius, therefore, rightly and deservedly condemns so great an injustice. Indeed, together with Tertullian and Augustine, he shows most evidently that the divine majesty could never be more atrociously offended, injured and violated than by these comedies and tragedies (Tertullian, Apology, chap. 35; Augustine, City of God, book 2, chap. 8 and following). Wherefore Lactantius wrote quite rightly and aptly on this matter: "Is anything worse than these same men, who, while they say that they worship the gods, nevertheless mock them publicly and shamefully, and even tolerate mimes about them with laughter and pleasure? What sort of religion is this, or how great a majesty must it be thought, which is adored in the temples and ridiculed in the theatres? And those who have done these things do not pay the penalty for violating the deity, but even depart honoured and praised" (Lactantius, Institutes, book 3, chap. 20, p. 526). No less sharply does Augustine, already cited, rebuke and assail the absurdity of the heathen, who prattled that the shameful deeds of the gods had been invented by the poets: "What," he says, "are the thefts of Mercury, the wantonness of Venus, the debaucheries and turpitudes of the rest, which we would bring forward from books, compared with this evil, if they were not sung and danced every day in the theatres? But what are these things compared with so great an evil, whose magnitude befitted the great Mother alone; especially since those things are said to have been invented by the poets, as being pleasing and acceptable to the gods? Granted, then, that their being sung and written was the audacity or the wantonness of the poets; but that they were added to divine rites and honours, at the command and under the compulsion of these same deities, what is that but a crime of the gods, nay rather an avowal of demons and a deception of wretched men?" (Augustine, City of God, book 7, chap. 26, p. 182; and book 4, chap. 10, p. 96.) Moreover, these crimes of the gods would even be incredible, had they not been watched with the greatest delight in the theatres instituted in their honour.

Article II.

How Arnobius demonstrates that the gods of the gentiles are false, from the solemn games put on in their honour, and especially the Floralia and the Megalensia, and concerning the renewal of certain of them; concerning the comedies, tragedies and Atellan farces which were performed at those same games; concerning the shaven heads of the fools, and the sound of the slaps, and the redness of the phalluses.

The nature of their gods, fabricated by the heathen, their counterfeit majesty, and their superstitious worship were further demonstrated most evidently by those public games which the same heathen, says Arnobius (Arnobius, book 7,

page 238), believed to be sacred, and that by them, as by solemn religious observances, the gods were honoured, placated and, their enmity laid aside, reconciled. Livy, and after him Valerius Maximus and Augustine, recorded that in the consulship of T. Sulpicius Peticus and C. Licinius Stolo, when a most grievous plague had not been allayed by a lectisternium, stage plays were instituted to placate the anger of the gods (Livy, book 7, beginning; Valerius Maximus, book 2, chapter 4, § 4; Augustine, book 1 of the City [of God], chapter 32, page 29). Then, after that, shameful plays and the indecent performances of actors were inserted into them. Hear, I pray, the words of Augustine (book 2 of the City [of God], chapter 17, page 75; book 4, chapter 26, page 106; and book 8, chapter 13, page 201): «Stage plays, spectacles of shameful things and licence of vanities, were instituted at Rome not by the vices of men but by the commands of your gods. You would more tolerably pay divine honours to that Scipio than worship gods of this kind.» Therefore he later declares without hesitation that by these games a greater plague was brought in upon morals than upon bodies, although they were said to have been established for the sake of curing the latter.

Earlier, however, Lactantius said: «The celebrations of games are festivals of the gods, since they were established on account of their birthdays or the dedications of new temples. And at first, indeed, the hunts, which are called munera, were assigned to Saturn; the stage plays to Liber, the circus games to Neptune. Gradually, however, the same honour began to be paid to the other gods as well, and individual games were consecrated to their divinities, as Sisinnius Capito teaches in his books on Spectacles. If anyone, therefore, is present at spectacles to which people assemble for the sake of religion, he has departed from the worship of God and has betaken himself to the gods whose birthdays and festivals he has celebrated» (Lactantius, book 6, On True Worship, chapter 20, page 621).

Tertullian, for his part, pursues these matters much more at length in an entire book on Spectacles (Tertullian, book On Spectacles, page 89 and following). For in it he shows most plainly that all those solemn games of the gentiles belong to idolatry by their origin, their titles and their apparatus, so that it was never lawful for any Christian to be present at them and watch them. Therefore Arnobius said that by the heathen they were counted among religious observances, by which they believed their gods were honoured (Arnobius, book 7, page 238). But how, I ask you, could the gods be honoured by games that were performed with the most shameful obscenity?

Our author, however, names only two by name, the Floral and the Megalensian games, because to review them one by one would have been too long, and from the example of these everyone easily understood what was to be judged of the others.

The Florales, or Floralia, as Macrobius observed, were games and festivals which took their name and origin from a notorious harlot who, formerly called Chloris, as we have noted elsewhere, willed that these games be instituted from money amassed by the shameful traffic of her body (Macrobius, book 1 of the Saturnalia, chapter 4; Dissertation on Minucius, chapter 18, article 3). But so that the memory of so infamous an origin might be more easily blotted out, they changed her name and called her Flora, and pretended that she presided over flowers. Nevertheless they were unwilling to dismiss entirely

the lewdness, so pleasing to themselves, of the shameless author. If you doubt that credence should be given to us, you will surely not deny it to Ovid, whose verses on the institution of these Floralia are these:

The Fathers assembled, and, so that the year may flower well, they vow annual festivals to our divinities. We assented to the vows; consul with consul, Laenas with Posthumius, discharged the games to me. I was trying to ask why there was greater licence in these games, and freer jesting. But it occurred to me that the divinity is not severe, and that the goddess brings gifts suited to delights.

(Ovid, Fasti, book 5, § 3.)

There indeed he describes the various kinds of lewdness admitted in these games, which you may read if you have leisure. Further, the consuls are noted by him as Posthumius Albinus and M. Popilius Laena, by whom these games were first given. If, moreover, you ask why, by whose order, in what year from the founding of the City they were instituted, and on what day of the year they were held, you will learn it from these words of Pliny: 'They instituted the Floralia on the fourth day before the kalends of the same,' of May, 'in the year of the City 514, from the oracles of the Sibyl, so that all things might pass well through their flowering. This day Varro fixes as the sun holding the fourteenth degree of the Bull. Therefore if the full moon falls within this four-day period, the crops and all things that are going to flower must necessarily be harmed' (Pliny, Natural History, book 18, chap. 19, p. 527). In the calendar fasti, however, they are noted on the sixth day before the kalends of June, and in the Rustic calendar towards the end of the month of May. If you desire more about those games, celebrated with the utmost obscenity and lewdness, you may consult Varro, Cicero, Suetonius, Martial, Valerius Maximus, and above all Lactantius, who is nevertheless charged with a certain error by Vossius; but whether rightly or wrongly we shall weigh in its place (Varro, On the Latin Language, book 4, p. 18, On Agriculture, book [1], chap. 1; Cicero, Against Verres, oration 4, p. 194; Suetonius, Life of Galba, 6, § 6; Valerius Maximus, book 2, chap. 10, § 8; Martial, book 1, epigrams 3 and 36; Augustine, City of God, book 2, chap. 27, p. 57).

The Megalensian games, however, had been decreed in honour of the Mother of the gods after the Sibylline books had been consulted. They say that they were called by that name because at Pessinus, whence that goddess, or her image, was carried to Rome, her most celebrated temple had been built, which, as Varro attests, was called the Megalesion. 'Megalesia,' he says, 'named by the Greeks, because, in accordance with the Sibylline books, she was fetched by Attalus, king of Pergamum, from near the wall, the Megalesion, where the temple of that goddess was, whence she was brought to Rome' (Varro, On the Latin Language, book 5, p. 49). But Scaliger is persuaded that these words of Varro, 'near the wall', are corrupt, and that one should read 'at Pessinus', or 'from the Great Mother', although he leans rather towards the former reading.

Further, of these games, which Livy and others have rather often mentioned, Cicero spoke thus: 'Why should I speak of those games which our ancestors willed to be held and celebrated on the Palatine before the temple, in the very sight of the Great Mother, at the Megalesia? These are, by custom and by institution, supremely chaste, solemn and religious: at these games P. Africanus, the elder, when consul for the second time, first gave the senate a place in front of the seated people. Thus

those games whose religious observance is so great that, summoned from the farthest lands, it has settled in this city; the only games which are not called even by a Latin word, so that by the very name it is declared that the religion was sought from abroad and taken up under the name of the Great Mother: these games slaves performed, slaves watched; in short, under this aedile, the whole Megalesia were a slaves' festival' (Livy, book 29, chapter 7; Cicero, oration 30, On the Response of the Haruspices, page 432, line 36 and following).

But with how great religious scruple, or rather superstition, these and other solemn games were performed by the heathen is clear not only from these words of Cicero, but above all from this: that if they were believed to have been polluted by any fault, even the smallest, they had afterwards to be renewed with greater care and anxiety. For this reason Arnobius addressed these words to the heathen themselves: « In your ceremonies and divine rites there is a place for your postuliones, and an offence is said to have been incurred that calls for expiations, if through a slip of carelessness anyone has gone astray either in a word or with the sympuvium; if a fault has been committed in the course of the solemn games and the sacred races, you all at once cry out to your sacred rites, if the Ludius (manuscript: Lydius) has stopped, or the flute-player has suddenly fallen silent; or if that patrimus, as the boy is called, has through ignorance let go of the thong, or has been unable to keep hold of the ground » (Arnobius, book 4, page 149). But should any of us ask where he got these things from, the answer is ready to hand: it was taken from the oration of Cicero already cited. For there he says: « If the Ludius has stopped, or the flute-player has suddenly fallen silent, or if that boy, whose father and mother are both living, has not kept hold of the ground, or has let go of the tensa or the thong, or if the aedile has gone astray in a word or in a gesture, the games have not been duly performed, and those errors are expiated, and the minds of the immortal gods are appeased by the renewal of the games » (Cicero, oration 30, On the Response of the Haruspices, page 432, line 26). Some, however, have pointed out to us that in this passage of Cicero, in place of the words aut si nutu aberravit, there is written in certain manuscripts aut sympulo aberravit. Arnobius, however, seems to have read aut sympuvio deerravit, but with the same meaning. For sympulum and sympuvium both signify an earthenware cup, from which wine used to be poured out in sacrifices. To some, however, it perhaps seems doubtful whether in the text of Arnobius itself the word postulionibus has not been corrupted, and whether postulationibus ought to be read. For Cicero, a little before the words of his that we have cited, had said: « That postulationes have been decreed to Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Tellus, the heavenly gods, » and also afterwards: « A postulatio is owed to Tellus. » (The same, in the same place, line 8; and page 434, line 10; Gutherius, book 4 On Pontifical Law, chapter 15.) Gutherius nevertheless approves that reading of Arnobius, postulionibus, and in order to remove every scruple he contends that postulationes were made to the gods above, and postuliones to the gods below, by which they asked that a man be devoted to them. But even if the matter were so, by what argument will it be proved that Arnobius was speaking there of the gods below rather than of the gods above? For if indeed he borrowed anything from Cicero, as we have said, he is without doubt speaking of the same gods as Cicero, the gods above. Let us add, if you will, that nothing is easier for an unskilled or hurried copyist than, in writing the word postulionibus, to leave out these two letters, at. It does not escape us indeed

that Varro somewhere used the word postulio in this sense, where he wrote: "To demand a postulio of the divine Manes, that is, that the bravest citizen be sent to the same place" (Varro, On the Latin Language, book 4, p. 35). But Scaliger holds that the words id est ought to be deleted there, and that the same thing is meant by the word postulio as by postulatio.

However you decide this, Arnobius further seems to have taken from the words of the same Cicero what he later related about the repetition of other games on account of a slave beaten with rods in the circus and killed (Arnobius, book 7, p. 244). But these matters are to be explained by us below, in a more fitting place.

Moreover, the greater the worship and devotion with which these and the other aforesaid solemn games were celebrated by the heathen, the more plainly it is shown from this that the gods who were worshipped in them were false and fictitious, and that the religion of those same gentiles was utterly depraved and corrupt. For in these games, besides very many other things wholly unworthy of gods, cruel tragedies and shameful comedies were performed, of which we treated a little earlier. And our Arnobius names expressly the Trachiniae of Sophocles, the Hercules of Euripides, and the Amphitryo of Plautus (ibid., p. 238 ff.); and these comedies indeed, printed more than once, are in everyone's hands. To this is added that four comedies of Terence are recorded as having been performed at these very Megalensian games which we have explained. And who does not know how greatly the majesty of the gods, if any gods could have existed, was injured and mocked in them?

Our author adds besides that the Atellanae, comedies or plays, were still being performed at the public games (ibid., p. 239). If you wish to know what they are and why they were so named, you will easily understand it from these words of Livy: "This kind of entertainment, received from the Oscans, the youth kept for itself and did not allow it to be polluted by professional actors. Hence the established custom remains that the performers of Atellanae are not removed from their tribe and serve in the army as having no part in the art of the stage" (Livy, book 7, ch. 2). Atella, moreover, is a town of Campania, now Aversa; and the Oscans were peoples of Campania who, since they very often misused shameful words, from this the word obscoenum was derived to signify something shameful. Their comedies, therefore, when brought to Rome, since they were rather shameful, were tempered by Roman, or as Valerius Maximus says, Italian severity (Val. Max., book 2, ch. 4, § 4). Donatus, however, tries in vain to excuse their obscenities with these words: "The Atellanae, composed of witticisms and jests, which have nothing in them but charming elegance." For Arnobius rightly contends that these plays and comedies are neither chaster nor more decent than others, and that the gods are treated no less unworthily in them than in others.

Wherefore he sharply rebukes the heathen, who wrongly supposed that by these solemn games and comedies the gods were gladdened, honoured and appeased, laid aside their anger and grudge, and were reconciled with the men by whom they had been offended. For with what joy can the gods be filled, and by what other pleasant emotions can they be affected, when they have seen, in the comedies, so many and such great, as has already been said and will be said further below,

obscenities, by the ludicrous and infamous representation of their characters, and moreover, as Arnobius puts it, "by the shaven heads of fools, by the sound of slaps, and by the redness of huge phalluses" (Arnob., bk 7, p. 239)? In these stage shows, that is, certain mimes and actors played the ridiculous parts of foolish men, with shaven heads, and were reminded of their duty by the sound of slaps, that is, by blows of the open hand that gave out a noise. Therefore Tertullian mocks and harries this mad recklessness of most shameless men in these words: "Will he give pleasure who alters his features with a razor? Faithless towards his own face, which, not content to make it like Saturn, and Isis, and Liber, he moreover thus exposes to the insults of slaps, as if he were making sport of the Lord's precept. Does the devil too, forsooth, teach that the cheek to be struck should be patiently offered?" (Tertull., On the Shows, ch. 28.) Julius Capitolinus, moreover, relates how a certain fool on the stage, in the presence of Antoninus the Philosopher, called the adulterer of his wife by name (Capitolin., near the end of the Life of Antoninus the Philosopher). But nothing is more shameless than the phallus, of which no mention ought ever to have been made except by some who, like Augustine and our author, were pleading the cause of the Christians against the heathen who gloried in the infamous lewdness of their gods (August., City of God, bk 6, ch. 9, p. 157).

But who would not admit that Arnobius rightly concludes from this that the gentiles were held fast by a blindness altogether astounding (Arnob., bk 5, pp. 176 and 184), since they believed that the gods delighted in such infamous shows and comedies, and were worshipped and appeased by them? He judges that such absurd opinions of theirs arose in the end from no other source than that they plainly did not know what God is, or what His nature, attributes and qualities are. Further, concerning these shows, comedies and tragedies, which we have already discussed (Dissertation on Minucius, ch. 15, art. 1), whoever wishes to know more should read the commentaries of Lilius Giraldus, Scaliger, Camerarius, Casalis, Albericus Gentilis, Fabricius and others on them. But from what has been said it is understood clearly enough by all that by these things alone the gods of the gentiles, and their whole religion, are utterly overthrown.

Chapter XVI.

How varied the opinions of the heathen were about each of their gods, and how rightly Arnobius shows from this that the divinity of each one is false.

Article One.

Arnobius' argument against the gods of the heathen is examined, drawn from the fact that a god whom some said had been begotten of parents, others affirmed to be some natural thing; and in particular Janus, Saturn, Jupiter, Juno, Fluviona, Pomona, Ossipagina, Februtis, Populonia, Cinxia, Caprotina.

Arnobius drew another argument, no less effective and strong than the rest, against the absurd errors of the gentiles about their gods, from their varied and mutually conflicting opinions about one and the same god. For how, he says, can it come about that you lead men to know and worship some god, you

who neither know yourself what sort of being he is whom you worship, nor has it ever been granted you to know it from others? Were there not, concerning one and the same god of the gentiles, almost as many opinions as there were heads?

But our author, still in his usual manner, certainly demonstrates this most evidently by the following induction: 'Let us too begin,' he says, 'solemnly with father Janus, whom some of you have declared to be the world, others the year, some the sun' (Arnob., bk 3, p. 114). Nor should you think this was said by him rashly. For we read these things handed down in writing by Servius: 'Some will have Janus to be lord of the day, in which there is a rising and a setting....... Others [will have him lord] of the whole year, which is agreed to be divided into four seasons. That he is the god of the year, moreover, is proved by the fact that the first part of the year is named from him. For from Janus January is named...... Others take Janus to be the world, whose gates are therefore shut in peace, because the world is closed on every side; in time of war they are opened for the seeking of help, so that they may lie open.' (Serv., on bk 8 of the Aeneid, v. 605 ff., p. 474). He adds that by others, as by Cicero (Cic., bk 1 On the Nature of the Gods, p. 224), he is called Janus or Eanus from going (ab eundo), and is Mars himself; that by others he is believed to be the air, and by others again is named Clusivius, or Patuleus, or Jazonius, and also Quirinus.

Macrobius, however, shows that this same [god] is said by some, as by Nigidius, to be the same as the sun, and Apollo, but by some to be the world and heaven, and that by others he is called by the same names that Servius enumerates, and especially Janonius, 'as if,' he says, 'holding the entrances not only of the month of January but of all the months.' (Macrob., bk 1 Saturnalia, ch. 9).

But if the matter is so, Arnobius argues (Arnob., bk 3, p. 117), there will certainly be no Janus such as the heathen vaunted: begotten of Caelus and Hecata, husband of Juturna, son-in-law of Vulturnus, father to Fons, founder of the Janiculum, king of Italy, and always to be set before all others in every prayer, as is clear from Ovid, and also, as Cicero notes, in sacrifices (Ovid, bk 1 Fasti, § 5; Cic., bk 2 On the Nature of the Gods, p. 224). In a manner not at all dissimilar Augustine says: If Janus is the world, why did the gentiles falsely assert that the beginnings of things, their ends and their limit are referred to him? Why did they represent him as two-faced, as though there were only two parts of the world, or four-faced, as though he and the world were double? Why did they vaunt that the first things, or the beginnings of deeds, lie with him, and the highest things with Jupiter, as though he were king of all? What then has become of this Jupiter, king of men and gods, if Janus is said to be the world? (August., bk 7 City of God, ch. 7 ff., p. 168 ff.; Dissert. on Minucius, ch. 15, art. 1.)

By yet another argument Arnobius shows that no divinity can be attributed to this same Janus, if he is the year. For what is a year but some space of time, bounded by a fixed number of days and months? And who will persuade himself that that which passes and slips away has divine power (Arnob., bk 3, p. 117).

By exactly the same weight of reasoning he concludes that there is no divinity of Saturn, since he is said to have been time, in Greek chronos, or, as Augustine says, the length of time. And not only Macrobius and Plutarch have expressly handed this down, but Cicero too, in just so many words: 'Now they held Saturn to be the one who maintained the course and revolution of the spaces and of the times. This god has that very name in Greek. For he is called Chronos, which is the same as chronos, a space of time.' Again, Arnobius infers from this that Saturn, born of Coelus as his father, is to be removed from the scene (Augustine, City of God bk 4, ch. 10, p. 95; Macrobius, Saturnalia bk 1, ch. 8; Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris, vol. 2, p. 363; Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods bk 2, p. 223, line 28).

What besides, that Jupiter too, son of the same Saturn and of Ops, buried within the borders of the Cretans, must be said never to have existed at all? For some maintained that he was the sun, others the ether. Macrobius indeed proves by various testimonies of ancient authors that he is in truth the sun (Macrobius, Saturnalia bk 1, ch. 23). Cicero, however, plainly declares to us that he was reckoned the ether by Chrysippus, and that Ennius, who is also cited by Varro for the same reason (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods bk 1, p. 201, line 34, and bk 2, p. 214, line 12; ibid., p. 223, line 37; Varro, On the Latin Language bk 4, p. 16), said with the assent of all:

Behold this / gleaming thing on high, which all invoke as Jove.

He brings forward yet another witness, Euripides, who, as he said many things splendidly, so, adds that author (Cicero, loc. cit.), said this briefly:

You see the ether poured out on high, boundless, / which embraces the earth in its tender encircling: / hold this to be the highest of the gods, call this Jove.

Eusebius, for his part, wished us to be advised that by Orpheus, if Porphyry is to be believed, Jove is called both the whole universe and its soul, the ether (Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel bk 3, ch. 9, p. 100 ff.).

False, therefore, is the divinity of Juno too, whom, as Arnobius argues (Arnobius, bk 3, p. 118), most people called the air, and above all the Stoics, whose opinion Cicero sets out in these words: 'The air, however, as the Stoics argue, set between sea and sky, is consecrated under the name of Juno, who is the sister and wife of Jove, because it both resembles the ether and is most closely joined with it. They made it feminine, however, and assigned it to Juno, because nothing is softer than it (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods bk 2, p. 223, line 47).'

To the orator, moreover, Macrobius, before Augustine, subscribed thus: 'Juno is called his sister, that is Jove's, and his wife. Now Juno is the air; and she is called sister because the air too was produced from the same seeds as the sky; wife, because she is placed beneath the sky (Augustine, City of God bk 4, ch. 10, p. 95, and bk 7, ch. 16, p. 175; Macrobius, On the Dream of Scipio bk 1, ch. 17).' Porphyry, for his part, had committed to writing the following, which Eusebius transcribed thus (Porphyry, in Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel bk 3, ch. 11, p. 108): 'And Hera they have made the consort of Zeus, calling the ethereal and aerial power

by the name of Hera. For the ether too is air, the most finely divided. And they imagined Juno to be the wife of Jove, namely because they called the ethereal and aerial power Juno. For the ether is the most subtle and thinnest air. He adds that she [is called] Hera from the air, that Juno was named from the air. Macrobius, finally, whom we cited a little before, relates elsewhere that Juno is the lowest air, as we shall observe a little later (Macrobius, Saturnalia, bk 3, ch. 3).

But from this Arnobius argues thus: « If she is the air, as you are accustomed to jest and keep saying, with the harshness of the Greek name recalled, no sister and spouse of omnipotent Jove will be found, no Fluviona, no Pomona, no Ossipagina, no Februtis, Populonia, Cinxia, and Caprotina (Arnobius, bk 3, p. 118). » For the heathen had invented so many Junos and still more besides, and her names and divinities. But of Cinxia we have already treated a little earlier. Who Fluviona is, Festus teaches: « Women worshipped Juno Fluviona, » he says, « because they believed that she retained the flow of blood in conception (Festus, under the word Fluvionem). » This naming indeed Augustine confirms thus on the authority of Varro: « The goddess Mena presides over menstrual flows, although the daughter of Jove, yet of low rank. And this province of menstrual flows the same author, Varro, in the book of the select gods, assigns to Juno herself, who among the select gods is even queen, and here, as Juno Lucina, together with this same Mena, her stepdaughter, presides over the same blood (Augustine, City of God, bk 7, ch. 2, p. 163). » But you will find this repeated by him a little later, though more briefly, and treated by Vossius (ibid., ch. 3; Vossius, On the Origin and Progress of Idolatry, bk 6, ch. 26, p. 221).

Although Varro admits that the origin of the name Pomona lies hidden, yet he, and Ovid, Servius, Augustine and very many others testify that she was proclaimed by the heathen the goddess of fruits and gardens (Varro, On the Latin Language, bk 6, p. 80; Ovid, Metamorphoses, bk 14, § 17; Servius, on Aeneid bk 6, p. 457; Augustine, City of God, bk 4, ch. 34, p. 114; Fabricius, in the Description of the City of Rome, Roman Antiquities, vol. 3, p. 432). But how she could have been called Juno is by no means easily seen. Therefore some suspect that this name has been corrupted through a copyist's carelessness, and that Sororia should be substituted for it, since Juno was held to be the sister and spouse of Jove. And in confirmation of this opinion one may add the temple built at Rome to Juno by Sororius Tigillus, which for that reason was named the temple of Juno Sororia. But to this conjecture, confirmed by the testimony of no manuscript, if we may be allowed to add another, we shall say that, since both fruits and produce belong to the earth, or the land, it could have come about that Juno, who was believed to be the land and to rule earthly things, was called Pomona, just as she was also called by so many other names. And that Juno was regarded as the earth, Varro, with whom Augustine agrees, has informed us in these words: « Juno is the spouse of Jove, and he is the sky, she the earth, which is the same as the land; and she is called Juno because she helps together with Jove; and queen, because she rules all these earthly things » (Varro,

On the Latin Language, bk 4, p. 17; Augustine, City of God, bk 7, ch. 16, p. 174). But concerning this conjecture of ours, let the judgement be that of others.

Some also think that the following name of the same Juno is corrupt, by which she is called Ossipagina by Arnobius, and they would have it emended to Opigena, concerning whom Festus speaks in this manner: "The matrons worshipped Juno Opigena, because they believed that she brought help (opem) to women labouring in childbirth" (Festus, under the word OPIGENA). But from this it is not clearly enough established whether she is the same as Ossipagina, who, as Arnobius wrote later, was believed to be the strengthener of bones and to harden and strengthen the bones of infants (Arnobius, book 4, p. 131). Vossius, for his part, willingly agreed with Stewechius, who held that Ossipaga or Ossipanga should be restored (Vossius, in the Etymologicon, under the word OS). For he thinks that she was so named because she fixes (pangat), or, as the ancients used to say, paget the bones of children.

Juno, moreover, was surnamed Februtis or Febralis by the Romans, as Festus further observes, and by others Februta or Februalis (Festus, under the word FEBRUARIUS). She obtained that name, furthermore, from the month of February, in which her rites were customarily performed, and, as the same Festus says: The Lupercalia was a festival, on which day the women were "februated", that is, were lustrated and purified, by the Luperci, with the mantle of Juno, that is, with a goat-skin. You may read Varro, Augustine and Lilio Giraldi (Varro, book 5 of On the Latin Language, § 3; Augustine, book 7 of On the City, ch. 7, p. 168; Giraldi, Syntagma 3, p. 119).

Juno Populonia, and a temple dedicated in her honour, are mentioned by P. Tertius in Macrobius: "For in the Papirian law," he said, "it is clearly recorded that a dedicated table can serve in place of an altar; as in the temple," he says, "of Juno Populonia a table is dedicated" (Macrobius, book 3 of the Saturnalia, ch. 11). And they report that this name was given to her because they believed that Juno presided over the union of male and female, from which new peoples are created. Seneca, however, in Augustine makes mention of a certain widow Populonia, and does not wonder that she lacked a suitor (Augustine, book 6 of On the City, ch. 10, p. 160). But this was without doubt not Juno Populonia. Concerning this one, moreover, and Februtis, likewise a Juno, Martianus Capella should be read, book 2 of On the Marriage of Philology.

To Juno Caprotina, or, as others prefer, Capratina, women formerly sacrificed because the chastity of girls and matrons had been preserved and the Fidenates, who wished to snatch it away, had been overcome. Varro, moreover, speaks of this sacrifice thus: "The Nones Caprotinae, because on that day in Latium women sacrifice to Juno Caprotina, and do so under a wild fig tree, and use a rod taken from the wild fig tree" (Varro, book 5 of On the Latin Language, p. 50). The cause and institution of this sacrifice, and of the festival which was called that of the Handmaids, Macrobius has related. Plutarch also mentions it, and others. For the rest, as Servius says, there were still more divine powers of Juno, such as Curis and Lucina, which Arnobius, since he had recorded quite enough already, preferred to pass over in silence (Macrobius, book 1 of the Saturnalia, ch. 11, p. 223; Plutarch, Parallel.,

vol. 2, p. 343; Servius on Aeneid book 1, lines 12 and 13).

Since, then, the heathen had so many Junos, or, as Servius says, divinities of Junos, our author certainly concludes from this that none of them, not even the one who was everywhere proclaimed the sister and wife of Jove, can be called goddesses, if Juno was the air, according to the etymology of the Greek name and the opinion of most; for the air cannot be a god; therefore no Juno is a goddess.

Article II.

How Arnobius shows that Minerva is not in truth a goddess, from the various opinions of the gentiles about her as sprung from the brain of Jove, and as the daughter of Mind and of Victory; where [he treats] of the etymology of the name Minerva.

Arnobius comes to Minerva, and proves by the testimony of Granius that Aristotle taught that she is the Moon. Others, however, departed from his opinion and openly asserted that she is the ethereal summit, and, as Arnobius says, the summit of that height. Others held that she is memory: "Whence," he says, "the name Minerva was formed, as though a sort of Meminerva" (Arnobius, book 3, p. 118). Porphyry, however, came nearer to Aristotle's view, as is clear from his words transcribed thus by Eusebius (Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel, book 3, ch. 11, p. 113): "What Apollo is in the sun, that Athena is in the moon; for it is a symbol of prudence, being a kind of Athena." That is: "What Apollo is in the sun, this very thing Minerva is in the moon, because it is the symbol of prudence after the manner of a sort of Minerva." Augustine, for his part, explains both opinions, defended and asserted by others, in this way: "Minerva, because they set her over the human arts and found no star in which to place her, they called either the highest ether or even the moon." And a little later: "Minerva is the highest ether, and Minerva likewise the moon, which they consider to be at the lowest boundary of the ether" (Augustine, City of God, book 7, ch. 16, p. 174). Diodorus Siculus, moreover, where he treats of the theology of the Egyptians, recorded that the name of Minerva was given to the air, and that hence it came about that she was called a virgin sprung from the crown of Jove's head, and Tritogenia, and Glaucopis. If you wish to read Diodorus's words, you will find them copied thus by Eusebius (Diodorus Siculus, Library, book 1, p. 8; Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel, book 3, ch. 3, p. 89): "They say that they named the air Athena, the word being interpreted; and that they considered her the daughter of Zeus and represented her as a virgin, both because the air is by nature incorruptible and because it holds the highest place of the whole universe; for which reason it came about that she was told in myth to have been born from the crown of Zeus's head. And that she was named Tritogeneia because her nature changes three times in the year, in spring, summer and winter; and that she is also called glaukopis, not, as some of the Greeks supposed, from having grey-blue eyes (for that is simple-minded), but from the air having a grey-blue appearance." That is: "That they attributed the name of Minerva to the air by a certain interpretation of the word, and that she is thought to be the daughter of Jove and a virgin because the air is by nature not subject to corruption and occupies the highest place of the universe. Hence also the fable that she was born from the crown of Jove's head. And that she is called

Tritogenia, because three times in the year she changes her nature, in spring, summer and winter; and that she is called Glaucopis, not because she has grey eyes (for this, he says, is silly), but because the air is grey in appearance."

Let us add to him Servius, who wrote in his commentaries on Virgil's Aeneid: "Powers are either earthly or aerial: but because the ether is fire, therefore there is fire in the temples of the ethereal powers, so that the image of their own element may be rendered to them. It is, moreover, in the temple of Jupiter, because the ether belongs to Minerva, who is above the ether. Hence she is said to have been begotten from her father's head" (Servius, on Aeneid book 4, p. 326). Finally Macrobius relates that by those who, as he thought, sought the truth more diligently, this reason was given why Minerva was called the highest summit of the ether: "That Jupiter is the middle ether," he says, "Juno the middle ether together with the earth, and Minerva the highest summit of the ether, they use as proof the argument that Tarquinius, son of Demaratus the Corinthian, mystically instructed in the Samothracian rites, joins the deities mentioned in one temple and under the same roof" (Macrobius, Saturnalia book 3, ch. 4). But see, I pray, of how much strength this argument is.

Further, Vossius thinks that the heathen understood by the name of Minerva the power of the ether and of God in man, and above all memory and its offspring, prudence (Vossius, On the Origin and Progress of Idolatry book 2, ch. 42, p. 273). And he judges that this, and also that this same Minerva was called the daughter of Mind, as Arnobius says, can be confirmed by these verses of Afranius in A. Gellius, in which he sang of Wisdom as the daughter of experience and memory:

Experience begot me, memory my mother bore me; / the Greeks call me Sophia, you call me sapientia. (Gellius, Attic Nights book 13, ch. 8.)

Moreover, although Porphyry, as we saw a little before, said that just as Apollo is in the sun, so Minerva is in the moon, as a symbol of prudence, Macrobius nevertheless brings forward another testimony of his, in which he indicated that this same Minerva is the power of the sun which imparts prudence to men. For these are the words of Macrobius: "Porphyry testifies that Minerva is the power of the sun which supplies prudence to human minds. For this reason this goddess is recorded as born from the head of Jupiter, that is, brought forth from the highest part of the ether, whence is the origin of the sun" (Macrobius, Saturnalia book 1, ch. 17, p. 262).

The heathen therefore varied as much about the etymology of this name as about the goddess herself. For some, as Arnobius says, held that the name arose from memory, as if a sort of Meminerva. To Cicero, however, she seems to be so called because she either diminished or threatened; to Isidore, as though goddess and gift of the various arts, which were advertised as having been invented by her (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods book 2, p. 224, line 20; Isidore, Etymologies book 8, ch. 11); to Festus, finally, because she gives good warning. "For the pagans," he says, "used to put her for wisdom. But Cornificius thinks she is so called because she is fashioned and painted threatening with arms" (Festus, under the word MINERVA). And indeed this

etymology of Cornificius is the same as Cicero's, which is explained by him.

But Vossius leans rather towards the opinion of Festus, and holds that the verb moneo is derived from the older meneo; and that from meneo come mentio, memini, memor, reminiscor, and that thus the name Menerva was formed, and afterwards Minerva (Vossius, On the Origin and Progress of Idolatry, book 2, ch. 42, p. 271 ff.). There, moreover, he has gathered together a good many things by which what we have seen said by Arnobius is clearly explained and confirmed.

Now indeed, even if we kept entirely silent, who is there, I ask, who does not see with what right this same Arnobius of ours concludes from this that there was no Minerva at all, daughter of Mind or of Victory, none born from the brain of Jupiter, discoverer of the olive, set over and learned in various arts and disciplines, but a natural thing, which certainly cannot be a goddess? (Arnobius, book 3, p. 118.)

But the more clearly it is established from what has been said so far that the heathen believed her to be the daughter of Mind and born from the brain of Jupiter, the harder it is to prove on what ground she is called the daughter of Victory by Arnobius. For Dionysius of Halicarnassus relates (Dion. Halic., book 1, p. 26): 'The Arcadians tell the story that Nike was the daughter of Pallas the son of Lycaon, and that she received the honours which she now has among men by the will of Athena, having been brought up together with the goddess; for Athena immediately after her birth was given by Zeus to Pallas, and was reared with him until she came of age.' The Arcadians tell the tale that Victory was the daughter of Palas, the offspring of Lycaon, and that she obtained the honours which she now has among men at Minerva's bidding, because she was brought up together with this goddess. For [Minerva], when newly born, was entrusted by Jupiter to Palas, and brought up with him until she had grown up. By these words he certainly makes it plain that Minerva was not the daughter of Victory, but only brought up with her. Nevertheless Arnobius had as a forerunner asserting his opinion Pausanias, who had said (Pausanias, book 1, p. 40): 'And another sanctuary of Athena has been built there, of Athena called Nike.' There is in the same place another shrine of Minerva, who has the surname of Victory. And in a certain hymn of Orpheus, as it is entitled, she is called νικηφόρε δαῖμον, victory-bearing deity (Orpheus, Greek Poets vol. 1, p. 509). Hence, then, Arnobius' account is fully confirmed, if in his text one were to read: 'There is, then, no daughter of Mind, no Victory.' But if one must read Nulla Victoriae, that is, no daughter of Victory, consider, I ask, whether this opinion gained strength from the fact that she was surnamed from her temple, which was called Victory, or because those fighting were said to win victory by her help.

Far more common and better known, moreover, is the statement that she, as we have shown elsewhere (above, ch. 9, art. 2), was said, as Diodorus Siculus testifies, to have been the discoverer of the olive and of very many other arts. For from this he concludes: 'On account of which she is called Ergane' (Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca, book 3, p. 142, and book 5, p. 235), whence she is called ergana, that is, craftswoman.

But how much, in this argument of Arnobius,

by which he hoots off the stage this one and the other gods invented by the gentiles, there is of weight and force, who is there who does not at once notice? But this is moreover plainly proved by Eusebius and Augustine, who from these same varied opinions of the heathen about Saturn, Jupiter, Juno and Minerva demonstrate that they were never gods (Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel, book 3, ch. 10, p. 107; Augustine, City of God, book 4, art. 10, p. 95).

Article III.

How Arnobius shows this further from Neptune, brother of the Stygian one, lord of the sea-monsters, stirrer of the maenae and of the whirlpools; likewise from Mercury the Staff-bearer, the Cyllenian, inventor of words and names, and changer of markets, wares and commerce; and also from Ceres, who was called Earth, Great Mother, Vesta, Ops and wife of Saturn: where the etymology of the names of Neptune, Mercury, Ceres and Vesta is treated.

As we follow Arnobius reviewing the other gods of the gentiles, Neptune meets us, whom the heathen, he says, called by that name because water veils the earth (Arnobius, book 3, p. 118). Nor indeed did this etymology lack a patron and defender. For although Cicero would have the name of Neptune derived from swimming, with certain letters slightly changed, Isidore from a cloud as it were thundering, and others from the Greek verb nipteín, to wash, to rinse, yet Varro said expressly: "Neptune is so called because the sea veils the lands, as the clouds the sky, from nuptus, that is, covering, as the ancients [said], from which come nuptiae and nuptus" (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, book 2, p. 224; Isidore, Origins, book 8; Varro, On the Latin Language, book 4, p. 18).

But if that is true, says Arnobius, then the god Neptune has certainly fallen, called by the heathen the brother of the Stygian one, that is, of Pluto, and the brother of Jupiter, about whom we have already discoursed. Our author adds ironically: "Armed with the trident, lord of the sea-monsters and of the maenae, king of the salt whirlpools" (Arnobius, in the place cited), that is, of the sea and the deep, as is clear from these verses, in which Virgil introduced him speaking thus:

Not to him the dominion of the sea and the fierce trident,

but to me was it given by lot.

(Virgil, Aeneid, book 1, lines 142 ff.)

Now the pistrix is a large fish or sea-monster, which some think to be the whale. More about the pistrix [is found] in the Phaenomena of Aratus, from which we have selected these lines:

Yet the savage sea-monster, searching out Andromeda,

goes on to seek her, and, though she is set right up towards the strong blasts of the north wind,

tracks her, itself dark blue and bounded within the regions of the south.

(In Cicero's Fragments, pp. 33 ff.)

The maena too is a sea fish, which in Greek is called mainis and by the Romans today maenola. Cicero mentions it in these words: "Those who despise pleasure itself may say that they do not prefer the sturgeon to the maena" (Cicero, On Ends, book 2, p. 66, line 34). Athenaeus also makes mention of it, and Pliny more often, who teaches us for what diseases and how remedies are prepared from this fish (Athenaeus, Deipnosophists, book 7, p. 313; Pliny, Natural History, book 26, ch. 4, p. 448; book 27, ch. 101,

p. 542, and book 32, ch. 8 ff., p. 858 ff.). See Rondelet, book 5, ch. 13, Aldrovandi, and others on those two fishes, the pistrix and the maena.

So Arnobius quite wittily mocks the heathen when he calls Neptune lord of sea-monsters and sprats, and the mover of the salt eddies and of the trembling brine, because those senseless men seriously called him king of the deep and of the sea. For besides the verses of Virgil already cited, we read this written by Cicero: "To Neptune, the brother of Jupiter, as they would have it, was given the other share, the whole kingdom of the sea, and his name was derived, as Portunus from portus, so Neptunus from nare, with the first letters slightly altered" (Cicero, De natura deorum, book 2, p. 224, line 1). How fine a god, then, is he who swims through the waves of the sea and alone rules its empire!

Then Arnobius goes on thus: "Mercury too was called, as it were, a kind of medicurrius, and because speech runs between two speakers in the middle and passes back and forth, the character of this name was put together" (Arnobius, book 3, p. 118). Augustine supports Arnobius, setting this out somewhat more fully: "Mercury," he says, "is said to have been so named as though medius currens, 'running in the middle', because speech runs in the middle between men; hence he is called Hermes in Greek, because speech, or interpretation, which certainly belongs to speech, is called hermeneia; hence too he presides over merchandise, because between sellers and buyers speech comes in the middle" (Augustine, De civitate Dei, book 7, ch. 14, p. 173). These words of Augustine Isidore afterwards copied out to explain the etymology of this name. Festus, however, thinks that this name was given him from merces, wares. Servius puts it otherwise: "Others," he says, "hold that Mercury was so called by the Latins as though medicurrius, because he is always running between heaven and the underworld" (Isidore, Etymologiae, book 8, ch. 11; Festus under the word Mercurius; Servius on Aeneid, book 8, line 138 ff.). These things were remarked by him on those verses of Virgil by which what our author adds is explained. For the poet sings:

For you the father is Mercury, whom fair Maia, having conceived him, brought forth on the chill summit of Cyllene.

(Virgil, Aeneid, book 8, line 138.)

But what else follows from this variety and disagreement of opinions, as Arnobius adds in the place cited, except that that Cyllenian caducitor, brought forth on a cold mountain, is abolished and extinguished, as is plain from the verses of Virgil just cited, at which he may not undeservedly be said to have aimed? He was called caducitor, or rather caduceator, because, as Servius and a great many others have remarked: "The caduceus is assigned to him by the god, because by mediating good faith he leads enemies into friendship; and the rod is bound with serpents for this reason, that just as they, forgetting their venom, come together, so enemies, setting aside and laying down their hostilities, may return to friendship" (Servius, at the place cited).

Our author adds that the same Mercury is "the deviser of words and names". For, as is observed by

Cicero (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, book 3, p. 248, line 9), he was reported to have handed down laws and letters, concerning which we [have spoken] elsewhere. Finally, "the changer of market-days, of wares and of commerce," because the heathen, as we noted a little before from Augustine and Isidore, thought that he presided over merchandise. Hence Servius: "He is also," he says, "the god of trade" (Servius, at the place cited). Indeed Festus, cited by us a little before, judges that his name was formed from this, and gives this account of it: "For they thought him to be the god of all business." (Festus, under the word Mercurius.) Moreover Augustine, from that former etymology and from the opinion of the heathen, draws the same conclusion as Arnobius: "If therefore Mercury himself," he says, "is speech, even by their own admission he is not a god" (Augustine, City of God, book 5, ch. 12, p. 173).

By a quite similar argument our author overthrows the divinity of Ceres in this way: "Some of you," so he speaks, "have said that the Earth is the Great Mother, because it supplies food to all living things; some declare that this same [Earth] is Ceres, because it bears the fruit of wholesome seeds; but others [call it] Vesta, because it alone stands still in the universe, while its other parts are set in perpetual motion." (Arnobius, book 3, p. 119.) That the Earth is Ceres is both to be observed a little below and can now be proved by these words of Cicero, by which the etymology of Ceres put forward by Arnobius is confirmed: "Moreover the Mother, Ceres, is [so called] from bearing (gerendis) fruits, as if Geres, the first letter being likewise changed by chance, as among the Greeks. For by them too she is named Demeter, as if Gemeter" (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, book 2, p. 224). And concerning the name of Vesta he has this a little later in the same place: "The name of Vesta is from the Greeks; for she is the one whom they call Hestia" (ibid., line 15). Now she was so called in Greek by the ancients, says Pharnutus (Pharnutus, on Ceres and Vesta), from hestanai, that is, to stand and to stay; because she stands through all things. And Ovid indeed signified this in these verses:

The earth stands by its own force; Vesta is called from standing by force, / and the reason for her Greek name may be the same. (Ovid, Fasti, book 6, verse 331.)

There, however, he not only confirms the etymology of Vesta, but also that she is the same as the earth or Tellus. This indeed he had said earlier in these lines:

Vesta is the same as the earth; an ever-watchful fire underlies both; / the earth and the hearth signify their own seat.

And below:

And Tellus and Vesta are the same divinity. (Ibid., verse 271.)

Servius and Augustine join Ovid as supporters, whom you can easily consult, and also Giraldus, Lipsius and Vossius (Servius, on Aeneid book 4, 297; Augustine, City of God, book 7, ch. 16, p. 174; Giraldus, Syntagma 6; Lipsius, book on Vesta, ch. 1; Vossius, book 2 on the Progress of Idolatry, ch. 59), who, besides many other things, cite these verses of Euripides:

And mother Earth; but the wise among mortals call you Hestia, seated in the aether.

And Earth the mother, and by the wise you are called Vesta, seated in the aether itself.

Yet from the authority and testimony of these writers, and also of Lucretius, whom you may consult (Lucretius, book 2, lines 597 ff., lines 995 ff.), it is in any case clear that what Arnobius assumes is most true: that these three deities are nothing, since by them the earth alone is signified, which beyond doubt is not of divine nature.

Therefore our Arnobius rightly and deservedly added these words immediately: "Not even the Mother of the gods herself, whom Nigidius asserts was joined in marriage to Saturn, can rightly be called a goddess; since all these are names of the one earth" (Arnobius, book 3, p. 119). And is not the same thing also asserted by Varro in these words: "Earth is Ops, because here is all work, and by it there is need for living; and therefore Ops is called mother, because the earth nourishes. For she bore all races on the earth, and takes them back again, she who gives food, as Ennius says; she who, because she bears crops, is Ceres" (Varro, book 4 On the Latin Language, p. 16)? And who does not know, as has also been noted by us above (above, ch. 9, art. 3), that Ops was called by the heathen the wife of Saturn?

But by whatever name she is called, if she is the earth, she is not a goddess, nor can she be. Rightly, therefore, Augustine, after he had proved by other words of the same Varro that the earth, the Great Mother and Ops are the same, concludes with our Arnobius: "If therefore she is one goddess, who indeed, when the truth is consulted, is not even that, why in the meantime does one go off into many?" (Augustine, book 7 On the City, ch. 24, p. 180). Nor does he allow the reply that the heathen did not absurdly judge these to be several goddesses, since in one and the same goddess there can be several things. For he at once meets them: "I grant," he says, "that in one man there are several things; are there therefore also several men? So in one goddess there are several things; are there therefore also several goddesses? But let them divide, fuse, multiply, redouble, entangle as they will" (ibid.). For they will overturn the divinity of anyone the more surely, the more they have wished it multiplied.

Article IV.

By what reasoning Arnobius shows to be false the divinity of Vulcan, who was called fire; of Venus, who was called Proserpina; of the Sun, who was called Liber and Apollo; of Diana, who was called Ceres and the Moon; and of all the other deities, because many of the heathen thought the world to be a kind of living being, and to be a god: where [it treats] of the etymology of the names of Vulcan and Venus, and of Apollo the destroyer of mice.

Three other deities of the heathen, Vulcan, Venus and Proserpina, Arnobius clearly proves by the same kind of argument must be erased from the roll of the gods (Arnobius, book 3, p. 119). Indeed they asserted that Vulcan was fire. Do you wish this to be proved to you by at least some witnesses? See, here is Varro, whose very words these are: "From the greater force and violence of fire, Vulcan was so called" (Varro, book 4 On the Latin Language, p. 18). Servius adds to this, who handed it down still more expressly: "Vulcan is fire, and he is called Vulcan as if Volcianus, because he flies through the air. For fire

is born from the clouds. Hence also Homer says that he was cast headlong from the air onto the earth, because every thunderbolt falls from the air" (Servius, on Aeneid book 8, p. 512). Isidore follows close behind him, and repeats almost all the same earlier words of his. And what of the fact that the same Servius had said before: "We generally put Vulcan for fire"? And Augustine: "They hold Vulcan to be the fire of the world" (Isidore, Origins book 8, ch. 11; Servius, on Aeneid book 1, p. 180; Augustine, City of God book 7, ch. 16, p. 164).

Nor is it more difficult to prove what our author adds, that Venus was so named "because she comes to all" (Arnobius, book 3, p. 219). For this seems to have been taken from Cicero, who expressly declares: "Moreover, she who would come to all things our people named Venus, and from her came venustas [charm], rather than Venus from venustas" (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods book 2, p. 224, line 27). Others, however, took a different view of the etymology of this word. For Varro derives it from the ancient verb viere, or vincire [to bind], because Venus herself wishes not indeed to conquer, but to bind and to be bound, that is, with shameful bonds (Varro, On the Latin Language book 4, p. 12). Isidore, for his part, says: "Venus is so called because without force (vi) (otherwise: without a man, viro) a woman does not cease to be a virgin" (Isidore, Origins book 8, ch. 11). But to Arnobius, perhaps not undeservedly, Cicero's opinion seemed the more probable.

But the nearer he there comes to him, the farther he seems to depart from him in this, that he then adds that Proserpina was so named because the sown crops creep forth (proserpunt) into the light (Arnobius, book 3, p. 119). For the Latin orator holds Proserpina to be a name of the Greeks: "For she is," he says, "the one who in Greek is called Persephone, whom they hold to be the seed of the crops, and who, having been hidden away, is sought by her mother" (Cicero, at the place cited, line 6). Yet Arnobius had other followers and supporters of his opinion. For we read this set down in writing by Varro: "Proserpina is so called because, like a serpent, she moves widely now to the right, now to the left. They used to say serpere and proserpere for the same thing, as Plautus, who writes: like a creeping beast" (Varro, On the Latin Language book 4, p. 17). More briefly indeed, but more clearly and more suitably to our author's meaning, Isidore said: "Proserpina, because the crops creep forth from her." And before him Augustine: "Proserpina is named from creeping forth" (Isidore, Origins book 8, ch. 8; Augustine, City of God book 7, ch. 20, p. 177). And the opinion of these men pleased some, even those who never ceased to admire Cicero, more than the Ciceronian opinion itself.

Further, in agreement with the same Augustine, Arnobius skilfully infers from this that three of their own deities are removed from the midst by the heathen" (Arnobius, book 3, p. 319): Vulcan, whom all [held to be] the element of fire; Venus, whom [they held to be] lust diffused through all living things; and Proserpina, by whom they boasted that the crops and the sprouting shoots were set in motion. Whatever others might think otherwise about them, it was falser than false that those whom they called created things should be endowed with any supreme divinity.

Arnobius continues (ibid.), and presses the point that it is commonly bandied about by the heathen that the Sun, Liber and Apollo are one and the same. Macrobius indeed tried to prove this not only by the testimony of Euripides and Aeschylus but also by various arguments (Macrobius, Saturnalia, book 2, chapter 18, p. 263). Servius, moreover, recorded that this was asserted by the Stoics and by Porphyry: 'The Stoics,' he says, 'call the same one the Sun, the same one Liber, the same one Apollo.' And earlier: 'It is established, according to the book of Porphyry which he entitled The Sun, that the power of Apollo is threefold, and that the same one is the Sun among those above, father Liber on earth, and Apollo among those below' (Servius, on Georgics book 1, line 17, p. 59; on Virgil's fifth eclogue, line 64, p. 27).

Arnobius therefore, from this common conviction of the gentiles, plainly concludes that the number of the gods is diminished by them, and that there never existed in the nature of things either a Liber sprung from Semele, as we said above, or a Pythian Apollo, the 'destroyer of mice', as our same author puts it, about whom we have treated elsewhere (Apparatus, vol. 2, book 3; dissertation, chapter 9, article 1, p. 754). Augustine, for his part, gathers from these same opinions of the gentiles that out of one and the same natural thing several gods were indeed made by them, but gods plainly false and fabricated.

What more is there to say? Men among the gentiles who were not unlearned, as Arnobius says (Arnobius, book 3, p. 119), taught that Diana, Ceres and the Moon are not three persons distinct from one another, but that the Moon is called by this threefold name. Those learned men were without doubt the Stoics, about whom Servius relates these things: 'The Stoics [say that] the same one is the Sun... Likewise they say that the Moon is the same as Diana, the same as Ceres, the same as Juno, the same as Proserpina; following them Virgil invoked Liber and Ceres in place of the sun and the moon' (Servius, on Georgics book 1, line 7); and this last point Macrobius also observed. Augustine, for his part: 'They said that Apollo... is the Sun, and likewise that Diana his sister is the Moon and the guardian of roads' (Macrobius, Saturnalia, book 1, chapter 18, p. 266; Augustine, The City of God, book 7, chapter 16, p. 174).

But if Diana and Ceres really are that star which is called the moon, then Arnobius argues excellently that there must be utterly extinguished and wholly abolished not only Ceres, the discoverer of crops, as they supposed and as we have observed elsewhere (Dissertation on Minucius, chapter 15, article 1), but also Diana, the sister of Apollo, as Augustine, cited a little before, remarked. For there remains only the star, which is indeed called the moon but cannot be a god. Also to be removed from our midst is that Diana 'whom,' as Arnobius says, 'that horned hunter once beheld washing the dirt from her limbs in pure springs, and found the punishment of his curiosity' (ibid., p. 120). With these words he certainly touches on the fable of Actaeon, who is said to have been turned into a stag because he had seen Diana bathing. See Ovid, Diodorus Siculus, Pausanias, Natalis Comes and others (Ovid, Metamorphoses, book 3, fable 2; Diodorus Siculus,

bk. 4, p. 195; Pausanias, bk. 9, p. 283; Natalis Comes, Mythology bk. 6, ch. 24).

Finally Arnobius, by another, general line of reasoning, shakes and destroys all the errors of the gentiles about their gods which we have already recorded (Arnobius, bk. 3, p. 120). For the most learned of the philosophers, he says, have both believed and defined that the world is a rational and wise animal. But, someone will argue, is that really how the matter stands? And tell us who these men are. Nothing is easier to say. For this was the genuine and constant opinion not only of Plato, as is clear from the books of Cicero, but also of Zeno and of the Stoics who followed him, as we learn from Cicero, Lactantius, Laertius, Lipsius and others (Plato, in the Timaeus, vol. 3, p. 0; Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods bk. 1, p. 199; likewise the same Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods bk. 2, p. 216 and following; and bk. 3, p. 243; Lactantius, bk. 2, ch. 5, p. 166; Laertius, bk. 7, § 142 and following; Lipsius, Dissertation 10 on the Physics of the Stoics, vol. 4, p. 569 and following). But if the world is a rational animal, it necessarily follows from this that the sun, the moon, the earth and the other parts of the world, whether they are called by their own name or by another, as we have seen, are falsely and vainly enrolled by them in the number of the gods. For how can it be that, if the world is one animal, like any single man, it should be cut into various parts and diverse members, each of which would be some animal distinct from the others, and, as they would have it, one and single god? Lactantius too argues in a similar manner: "If the world is god, then all those things which are in it are not gods but members of god, which certainly cannot receive the name of the one God. For no one could rightly say that the members of one man are many men." Indeed Cicero too overturns this error from its foundations. Read, if you wish, what was argued by him and, if you have the mind, by Eusebius (Lactantius, bk. 2, ch. 5, p. 168; Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods bk. 2, p. 243; and Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel bk. 3, ch. 10, p. 103 and following).

Chapter XVII.

How Arnobius further overturns the vain fabrications of the gentiles' opinions about their gods from other disagreements of theirs about those same gods.

Article One.

The argument of Arnobius is examined, drawn from the diverse and contrary opinions of the heathens about the parents, condition and number of the Muses, and about the Novensile and Indigete gods, where the death of Aeneas is treated.

The great disagreements of the heathens about one and the same deity supply our Arnobius with another most evident argument, by which the false divinity of all of them is again most invincibly demonstrated. For what, I ask, do such great disputes prove, except that these same heathens had nothing certain and ascertained about any god of theirs whatever? By what right, then, could they worship, pray to and adore as true gods those about whom they openly professed that they had never received anything clear and indubitable? And who will not marvel at how great were their, for example, concerning the parents of the Muses,

condition and number, divergences, battles and contentions? For Mnaseas, as Arnobius says (Arnob., bk. III, p. 121), reported that they were born of Heaven and Earth, others that they were born of Jupiter and Memory or Mind. Some called them virgins, others mothers; Ephorus makes them three in number, Mnaseas four, Myrtillus seven, Crates eight, and Hesiod nine, whose names he lists one by one. Servius, however, reduces all these diverse opinions chiefly to three: 'Many,' he says, 'have said the Muses are nine, many eight, many seven.' But Cicero teaches more explicitly that the first four were born of the second Jupiter, the second of the third Jupiter, that is, the Cretan, and Mnemosyne, and the third of the third Jupiter and Antiope, 'whom,' he says, 'the poets are accustomed to call Pierides and Pieriae' (Cic., De natura deorum, bk. III, p. 247, line 41). But this question is treated far more fully by Lilio Giraldi in a special syntagma on the Muses (Girald., Syntagma de Musis, p. 531 ff.). We, for our part, have already touched on something concerning them elsewhere. But you certainly see how much pagan writers, not of the lowest but rather of greater name, fought it out among themselves about the number, parents and condition of these Muses (vol. I of the Apparatus, p. 820). In what way, then, could these and others both call them goddesses, though they did not sufficiently know them, and invoke them?

Nor indeed was their controversy any smaller about the Novensile gods, their naming and number, and consequently about their divinity. For some thought them so named from the number nine, which, as Varro, cited by Arnobius, reported (Arnob., bk. III, p. 122), is held to be most powerful in setting things in motion; others from the newness of things, over which they supposed them to preside; others from another kind of newness, namely that, being carried off by victors, say the Romans, into their cities and temples, as we saw elsewhere (Dissert. on Minucius, ch. 16, art. 2), they were dedicated with a new consecration. But Vossius and others discuss the etymology of this name at greater length (Voss., Etymologicon, s.v. NOVEM).

Arnobius brought forward various supporters of such diverse opinions, and first of all Piso, who believes these 'to be nine,' so he speaks, 'established among the Sabines at the Trebia' (Arnob., loc. cit.). Now the Trebia is a river not far from Placentia, which, as Strabo wrote, flows down from the Apennine into the Po. At this river, moreover, Hannibal routed the consul Scipio with a very great defeat, as Polybius relates (Strab., Geography bk. V, p. 217; Polyb., Histories bk. III, p. 220 ff.). Hence this song of Lucan (Lucan, bk. II, lines 48 ff.):

O youth of wretched lot, that we were not born into the Punic times of Cannae and the Trebia.

Concerning the Novensile gods, Varro, cited by our author, wrote this very briefly: 'Feronia, Minerva, the Novensiles from the Sabines' (Varr., De lingua Latina bk. IV, p. 16; Arnob., loc. cit., p. 122). But Aelius, following Granius, thought these were the Muses; Cornificius, the guardians of new things; Cincius, that all those who had been carried over by victors into their cities, as we noted a little before, were customarily invoked under this name of Novensiles for brevity's sake, and so that none of them should be omitted.

But when Decius devoted himself on behalf of the Roman legions, he implored them together with many others, as Livy witnesses, and adjured them thus: "Divine Novensiles, Indigete gods, divinities whose power [extends over] us and the enemy" (Livy, book VIII, chap. 9).

Arnobius further cites Manilius (Arnobius, at the place cited), who indeed thought, as Piso did, that these gods were nine, but that to them alone Jupiter had granted the power of hurling his thunderbolt. Finally, some supposed that they were gods made from men, such as, says Arnobius, were Hercules, Romulus, Aesculapius, Liber and Aeneas. And this is indeed confirmed by these words of Servius: "Truly the ancients call those gods Novensiles to whom the merits of their virtue have given the dignity of divinity" (Servius, on book VIII of the Aeneid, line 187, p. 498).

As for Romulus, Aesculapius and Liber, whom our author mentions there, we have discussed them above. But concerning that truly illustrious god Hercules, Cicero has handed down this: "Those whom you say have passed from men to gods, you will give an account of how the same thing could have happened, or why it has ceased to happen, and I shall gladly learn. As things now stand, I do not see by what means he, namely Hercules, reached the eternal home of his father" (Cicero, book III of On the Nature of the Gods, p. 245, line 38). But concerning him and this baleful death of his, most unworthy of a god, we have discussed above (above, chap. 12, art. 2).

There remains the fifth named by Arnobius, Aeneas, who Augustine testifies reigned for three years in Latium; but since afterwards he fell in battle, as Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Livy, the anonymous author and Servius relate, and his body was not found, they boasted that he had departed to the gods, and they built a temple to him as to a god on the banks of the river Numicus, where he had been slain in the fight, with this inscription: "To the Father, the Indigete god, who governs the waters of the stream Numicus" (Augustine, book XVIII of the City of God, chaps 19 and 21, pp. 502 and 503; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, book I of the Roman Antiquities, p. 52; Livy, book I of the History, beginning; the author of the book On the Origin of the Roman Race, p. 598; Servius on book XII of the Aeneid, p. 702). For this reason Tibullus sang:

Tireless Aeneas, brother of flying Love, / you who carry the sacred things of Troy on fugitive rafts, / now Jupiter assigns to you the Laurentine fields, / now a hospitable land calls your wandering Lares. / There you will be holy, when the venerable water of Numicus / has sent you to heaven a god, an Indiges.

(Tibullus, book II, Elegy 5.)

Ovid, who also sang these things in metre about the same Aeneas, agrees with Tibullus:

His mother anointed his cleansed body with a divine fragrance, / and with ambrosia mixed with sweet nectar / touched his lips, and made him a god: whom the throng of Quirinus / names Indiges, and has received with temple and altars.

(Ovid, book XIV of the Metamorphoses, § 13.)

But there Aeneas is placed by Tibullus and Ovid, as by Virgil (Virgil, book XII of the Aeneid, line 794) and by other writers already cited by us, not in the number of the Novensiles but in that of the Indigete gods,

But certainly Arnobius has subscribed to these things elsewhere, where he mocks that same Aeneas, though with his name suppressed, and other gods, thus: "Those Indigetes, who creep along the river and live in the channels of the Numicus with frogs and little fish" (Arnobius, book 1, page 20).

And those Indigetes seem without doubt to be no other gods than the Novensiles. For, as Servius says, "Indigetes are properly gods made from men, as it were acting among the gods" (Servius on book 1 of the Georgics, p. 94). And such were the Novensiles, of whom we have treated. Servius adds: "By an improper use all gods in general can be called Indigetes, as being in need of nothing" (the same, on book 12 of the Aeneid, page 702). But he sets this out more fully elsewhere. Macrobius too confirms his former explanation by the authority of Hesiod: "Hesiod," he says (Macrobius, book 1 on the Dream of Scipio, chapter 8, page 52), "the champion of the divine offspring, numbers the ancient kings with the gods, and to them, after the pattern of their former power, he assigns the office of ruling human affairs even in heaven. And lest it be tiresome to anyone if we insert the verses themselves as the Greek poet uttered them, we shall give them as they have been turned from his words into Latin words:

These are the Indigete gods by the decree of highest Jove, / once men, now with those above watching over human affairs, / bountiful and munificent, having obtained even now the right of kings."

But our Arnobius asserts that these were infamous for cruelty, debaucheries, adulteries, sacrileges and murders (Arnobius, book 2, page 39). See, if you please, Giraldus, Vossius, Lescalopier and others (Giraldus, Syntagma 1, p. 15; Vossius, in the Etymologicon; Lescalopier, on Cicero, book 1 On the Nature of the Gods, § 62). Who, then, would tolerate gods of this kind made by men, whose parents, origin and number they had not ascertained? Is it in the power of men to bestow divinity on others?

Article II.

How varied were the opinions of the Gentiles about the Penates, Penetrales, Consentes and Complices gods, and how their divinity is overthrown thereby.

If we pass with our author to the Penates gods (Arnobius, book 3, page 123), no smaller quarrels and contentions of the heathen about them will meet us. For he shows us that the opinion of Nigidius about them is altogether light and inconstant. And indeed he first held that the Penates gods were Neptune and Apollo, who, on a bargained condition, as we have seen elsewhere (above, chapter 4, article 1), built the walls of Troy. But Macrobius asserts that this was the opinion not only of Nigidius, but also of Cornelius, Labeo and Virgil. For where he discusses the Penates gods, or, as he says, those proper to the Romans, he writes this: "Nigidius, in the nineteenth book on the gods, inquires whether the Penates gods are the Apollo and Neptune of the Trojans, who are said to have built walls for them, and whether Aeneas brought them into Italy. Cornelius Labeo also, in his book on these Penates, holds the same. Maro follows this opinion when he says:

'Having spoken thus, he offered due honours on the altars, / a bull to Neptune, a bull to you, fair Apollo.'" (Virgil, Aeneid book 3, line 118.)

But this too is Servius' remark on these verses:

"Indeed in this place Virgil, following the opinion of the ancients, named only Neptune and Apollo. For these gods are said to have been the Penates whom Aeneas brought with him, although in various places the poet, following other people's opinions, has said different things about the Penate gods" (Servius, p. 272). See the same Servius arguing many other things elsewhere about the same Penates (the same, on book 1, verse 384; and on book 3, verses 148 and 168).

The other opinion of Nigidius about these gods, which our author called inexplicable, was the one by which he prattled that there are four kinds of Penate gods, and that some are of Jupiter, others of Neptune, others of the underworld, and the last of mortal men. However obscure this view of Nigidius may seem to Arnobius, let us nevertheless see whether some light cannot be brought to it. Concerning the Penates, these are the verses of Virgil, cited a little before:

I am borne, an exile, onto the deep / With my companions, my son, the Penates and the great gods. (Virgil, Aeneid 3, verse 12.)

But let us, if you please, turn our attention for a little to what Servius remarked on these verses: "Some," he says, "think the great gods are Heaven and Earth, and through this Jupiter and Juno. The Penate gods, taken from Samothrace by Aeneas, were brought into Italy: hence the Samothracians are said to be kinsmen of the Romans; and among other reasons they call them great because, having been transferred from Lavinium to Rome, they twice returned to their own place; because generals about to go to the provinces sacrificed first before them; because no one is ignorant of their names; because they are felt to be present... whom they hold deeply in immense worship, whom it was lawful for no one but the priest to see, who are called Penates because they sit in the inner parts of the dwellings of heaven. For the inner sanctuary itself is also called penus... Varro says that the Penates and the great gods are theirs. For on the base too was written: TO THE GREAT GODS. This may, however, also be said by way of honour. For the great gods are Jupiter, Juno, Minerva and Mercury, who were worshipped at Rome; but the Penates at Laurum Lavinium, whence it appears that they are not one."

We have transcribed this whole passage, though somewhat long, for this reason, that from it it is clear how much variation there is among the heathen writers concerning the Penate gods. Then, too, certain things handed down by Arnobius are expressly affirmed here. But the more common opinion, to which not only Varro but also Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Augustine and others subscribe, was that the Penate gods are those whom Aeneas carried with him into Italy (Varro, On the Latin Language book 4, p. 35; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities book 1, p. 54; Augustine, City of God book 10, chapter 16, p. 252). Dionysius adds besides that by the Greeks who rendered the Latin word in Greek these gods were called by some Patrōoi [ancestral], by others Genethlioi [of birth], by some Ktēsioi [of possessions], by others Mychioi [of the inner chamber], or Herkioi [of the enclosure]. Moreover Cassius Hemina, cited by Macrobius, states that the same Penates of the Romans are properly called theoi megaloi, theoi chrēstoi, theoi dynatoi [great gods, good gods, mighty gods] (Macrobius, Saturnalia book 3, chapter 4, p. 321).

But who would not easily understand from what has been said why Nigidius,

cited by Arnobius (Arnob., bk III, p. 123), thought that Jupiter or Neptune were the Penates gods? For who does not see that these are called great gods by Servius? Yet it ought to seem surprising to no one that the same Nigidius adds that there are other Penates, of those below and of mortal men, although this cannot be proved so clearly. For Servius openly declares that the names of the Penates were plainly known to no one. And indeed, who could know the name and number of the gods whom Aeneas carried away with him? Add to this that, as Servius again attests, it was lawful for no one except a priest to see them. They could therefore have been known to few.

Afterwards, however, Servius reminds [us] that they are called Penetrales, because they sit in the innermost recesses of heaven. On this etymology Cicero judges thus: « Not far, he says, from this power are the Penates gods, whether the name is drawn from penus, for everything on which men feed is penus; or from the fact that they dwell deep within (penitus), from which they are also called Penetrales by the poets » (Cic., bk II On the Nature of the Gods, p. 224, l. 15). And what could be more apt and more fitting than these words for explaining and establishing what our Author afterwards related: « Varro thinks that the gods of whom we speak are those who are within, in the innermost recesses of heaven; and that neither their number nor their names are known. » (Arnob., bk III, p. 123)

To this he adds that there were not lacking those who thought that Jupiter, Juno and Minerva are the Penates gods, without whom we can neither live nor breathe, inasmuch as they govern us by reason, heat and breath (Ibid.). And in defence of this opinion one may rightly bring forward what we read handed down to memory by Macrobius thus: « Those who search out the truth more carefully have said that the Penates are those through whom we breathe inwardly, through whom we have a body, through whom we have reason. » (Macrob., Saturnalia bk III, ch. 4, p. 321.)

From these writers, however, Caesius, cited after this by our author, seems to differ plainly and utterly (Arnob., bk III, p. 123). For he would have the Penates be Fortune, Ceres, the Jovial Genius, and a certain Pales, the servant and steward of Jupiter. But we have dealt with Pales above. And what wonder is it if certain men, relying on the testimony of others, tried in some fashion or other to point out the Penates and their names, known to no one, as we have said (above, ch. 14, art. 2), or invented them at pleasure?

Finally Arnobius teaches that the Penates gods are called by the Etruscans Consentes and Complices (Ibid.), and that six are male and as many female, but with unknown names; who nevertheless are the counsellors of Jupiter, and both rise and fall together. Afterwards Augustine says: « They say that the gods Consentes are called into the council of Jupiter » (August., City of God bk IV, ch. 32, p. 104). And Varro at the beginning of his work On Agriculture invokes these and other gods thus: « And since, as they say, the gods help those who act, I shall first invoke them; not, like Homer and Ennius, the Muses, but the twelve gods Consentes, and yet not those city gods

whose gilded images stand at the forum, six male and six female; but those twelve gods who are above all the leaders of farmers » (Varro, On Agriculture, book 1, ch. 1). These he names one by one, each by his own name: Jupiter, Tellus, Sol, Luna, Ceres, Liber, Robigus, Flora, Minerva, Venus, Lympha and Bonus Eventus. But from this recital of names alone it is easily gathered that Arnobius spoke of the former rather than of the latter. Those first gods, the Consentes, are also called by some the gods of the greater clans, whose names are expressed in these two verses of Ennius:

Juno, Vesta, Minerva, Ceres, Diana, Venus, Mars, / Mercury, Jove, Neptune, Vulcan, Apollo.

You may read Giraldus and Vossius, who have noted down a good deal about the Consentes gods (Giraldus, Syntagma 7, ch. 18; Vossius, On the Origin and Progress of Idolatry, book 1, chs. 14 and 17).

But, you will say, why did Arnobius say that these are named not only Consentes but also Complices? Does not Heraldus rightly suspect that this last name is a superfluous gloss, by which some unskilled person wished to explain the former word Consentes? Yet he himself added that the name Complices could have been used by Arnobius to signify that these gods, who rise and set together, are joined and bound by the tightest knots. Well said indeed. For Arnobius indicates not obscurely that this very thing is the reason on account of which these gods were surnamed Complices by the Etruscans. Moreover, in this sense the name is taken by Ambrose, where he wrote: "Usefulness is always the companion of uprightness, and uprightness of usefulness" (Ambrose, On the Duties of Ministers, book 3, ch. 14, p. 130). Ought not these things, then, to have been enough for Heraldus to lay aside his suspicion of a corrupt text of our author?

For the rest, we think no one is of so slow a mind as not now to perceive without difficulty what is to be concluded from these so various and contrary opinions of the heathen about the gods. For who does not see that one is overturned from its foundations by another? And then, even if there were something of truth in one, it could never be detected by anyone. No one, therefore, will judge those gods, the Consentes and Penates, worthy of divine honours, since all were compelled frankly to confess that it was not at all ascertained by them what those gods are, how much help they are able to bring to mortals, and what of true divinity, which can only be one, there is in them.

Article III.

How great was the disagreement of the gentiles about the gods called Lares, why they were called Grundules, and Summanus set over them, and how evidently it is shown that there is no divinity in these and in the others mentioned before.

The agreement of the heathen about the Lares was no greater than about their other gods. The common opinion, indeed, as Arnobius says (Arnobius, book 3, p. 124), was that they were the gods of streets and roads, because a street is called laura in Greek. And this meaning of the Greek word Casaubon and a good many others have quite approved (Casaubon on book 12 of Athenaeus, ch. 10). Vossius, however, suspects that the name Lares was derived from the Etruscan word Lar.

However that may be, it is certainly established that in the common opinion of the heathens they were regarded as the gods of the streets. For concerning Lara, the mother of the Lares, we read it told in Ovid's verse that, when by Jupiter's command she was being led to the shades, after she had been made mute and tongueless, she was violated by her very guide, and thence, he says:

And she grows heavy, and bears twins, who guard the crossroads and keep watch ever in our house, the Lares. (Ovid, Fasti, book 2, line 703.)

Tibullus too declares that they are the guardians of the fields:

You too, guardians of a field once prosperous, now poor, receive your gifts, Lares. (Tibullus, book 1, elegy 1, line 23 and following.)

Great, however, says our author, was the variety and inconsistency in Nigidius concerning those gods. For first he asserted that they were the guardians of roofs and houses. And this indeed we have seen expressed by Ovid; with whom Tibullus in turn agrees in these words:

But preserve [me], ancestral Lares; you likewise reared [me] when as a tender child I ran about before your feet. And let it not shame you to be made from an old trunk: so you dwelt in the abode of my ancient grandsire. (The same, in the same place, elegy 11, line 15 and following.)

Then indeed the same Nigidius, as Arnobius relates (Arnobius, book 3, p. 124), said that they were the Curetes, who hid the boy Jupiter. Finally, at one time he taught that these same Lares were identical with the Idaean Samothracians, or the Idaean Dactyls, about whom we have argued elsewhere (vol. 1 of the Apparatus, book 3, dissertation 2, ch. 19, art. 2, p. 1163 and following). But if this account of Arnobius is true, it is gathered from it that Nigidius was one of those who distinguished the Curetes from the Idaean Dactyls, and that he did not know for certain who the Lares were.

Similar was the hesitation of Varro. For our author declares to us that he wrote somewhere that they were the Manes, and that therefore their mother was Mania. And in very truth we read in a certain book of his these words of his, exactly so: «We see that Mania, mother of the Lares, and Lucia Volumnia are invoked in the songs of the Salii» (Varro, book 8 On the Latin Language, p. 126). Nor was this the opinion of him alone, but also of Cecinna, from whom Macrobius reports this: «For some time it was observed that, for the safety of the members of the household, or of the households, boys were sacrificed to the goddess Mania, mother of the Lares» (Macrobius, book 1 of the Saturnalia, ch. 7, p. 207); but he indicates that this sacrifice was afterwards changed into another.

But since this view did not wholly please the same Varro, elsewhere he defined the Lares as gods of the air, and heroes; elsewhere again he follows the opinion of the ancients, and declares that they were Larvae, as it were certain genii, and the souls of the dead. From Augustine, moreover, we learn that Plotinus, who is said to have understood Plato more excellently than the rest, taught that daemons are the souls of men, and that from these same men, if they have deserved well, Lares are made; if ill, Lemures; if it was uncertain what they deserved, they become Manes (Augustine, book 9 of the City, ch. 10, p. 226).

Apuleius too, where he discusses the god of Socrates and the various kind of daemons (Apuleius, On the God of Socrates, p.

295 ff.), there he lucidly explains to us that certain people thought that the soul of a man after death was called a Lemur in the old Latin tongue. Of the Lemures, the one who possesses the house with a peaceful and quiet spirit, no doubt on account of the merits of the life he has completed, is called the household Lar; but if he has lived badly, a Larva; and if his merits are doubtful, a god of the Manes.

Furthermore, we have argued more than once about that error by which the demons made out that they were the souls of dead men. On the Lares, however, you may read Lilius Giraldus, Salmasius, Natalis Comes and Vossius, and on the Manes, Servius (vol. 1 Apparat., pp. 537 and 993; Girald., Hist. deor., syntagm. 15, p. 480 ff.; Salmas. on Solinus, pp. 64, 412 and 913; Nat. Com., Mythol. bk 4, chs. 2 and 4; Voss., De orig. et progr. idol. bk 1, ch. 11, p. 43 ff.; Serv., on Aeneid bk 3, p. 166).

But what, someone will say, does Arnobius mean when he counts it a fault in the heathen that they worshipped the Grundules Lares (the royal manuscript codex has Grunulios)? He ought, however, to remember that it has already been observed by many that the Lares were surnamed Grundules, from the ancient verb grundio, later grunnio, and that a shrine was built to them in memory of a sow that had farrowed 30 piglets. This indeed they prove by the authority of Diomedes, who cited Cassius Hemina in confirmation of his opinion (Arnob., bk 1, p. 15; Diomed., De dub. verbor. signif. bk 2; Hem., Histor. bk 2). See Vossius's Etymologicon at the words grunnio and suggrunda.

But to what purpose, another will ask, is the mention of the god Summanus inserted by our author among these gods? The answer is easy and ready to hand. For Summanus was held to be the supreme king of the Manes. Hence Arnobius himself, where he later discusses Proserpina carried off by Pluto, says: The king of the Manes, leaping forth, carries the ravished maiden away with him. Elsewhere he made mention of his temple, and Cicero of his earthenware statue. Pliny, moreover, teaches that nocturnal thunderbolts were attributed to him: The writings of the Etruscans, he says, hold that nine gods hurl thunderbolts..... The Romans kept only two of them, attributing the daytime ones to Jupiter and the nocturnal ones to Summanus. For that reason the heathen once often paid him greater honours than Jupiter, as Augustine testifies. Yet he reports that they afterwards so dwindled that scarcely a single man could any longer be found who remembered having read the name of Summanus. Nevertheless, as Varro testifies, the heathen held him to be a god. But who would not very easily understand from this, and from all that has been discussed in this whole chapter, that the heathen had nothing certain and ascertained about the Lares, the Penates, the Novensiles and the other gods? Who, then, will deny that they are altogether false and fabricated? (Arnob., bk 3, p. 125; Varr., De ling. lat. bk 4, pp. 18 and 19; Arnob., bk 5, pp. 173 and 185, bk 6, p. 191; Cic., De divinat. bk 1, p. 257, line 41; Plin., Natur. hist. bk 2, ch. 52, p. 206; August., De civit. bk 4, ch. 23, p. 105.)

But Arnobius presses on, and argues in this

manner? (Arnobius, book 3, p. 125.) Whoever makes supplication to some god, or implores his help, or plainly asks to be relieved by him of some disease, must first know who that god is, and whether he can obtain the things he asks from him or from another. No less must it be clear to him with what words supplication is to be made to him, or with what rite sacrifice is to be offered. But since there is so great a variety and conflict of opinions about a single god, no one can ever truly know this. He therefore who is caught in this ignorance will rashly invoke some god, and very often one in place of another: Summanus for Janus, Neptune for Apollo, the Curetes or the Penates for the Lares. So far, then, is he from obtaining by entreaty and attaining through sacrifices and prayers the things he seeks from him, that he will find his ears blocked and stopped up, or will incur his displeasure and hatred.

Article IV.

Another argument of Arnobius against the gods of the gentiles is weighed, drawn from the multiplied number of those same gods, namely three Jupiters, five Suns, as many Mercuries and Minervas, four Vulcans, three Dianas and Aesculapiuses, six Herculeses, and three kinds of Castors and of Muses.

How false the gods of the gentiles are is further proved most evidently by the multiplication of one and the same god, carried out not only by certain unlearned men but also by their ancient and more learned theologians. But I would have you hear how Arnobius demonstrates this from the examples not only of the lesser gods but also of the greater, as they boasted. Thus he speaks: « Your theologians, and the founders of hidden antiquity, say that there are three Jupiters in the nature of things, of whom one was begotten of Aether as father, another of Heaven, and the third of Saturn, both born and given burial in the island of Crete » (Arnobius, book 4, p. 135). That these things were taken from Cicero is sufficiently proved by these very words of the Latin Orator: « In the first place, those who are called theologians count three Jupiters; of whom the first and second were born in Arcadia, the one of Aether as father..... the other of Heaven as father..... the third the Cretan, son of Saturn, whose tomb is shown in that island » (Cicero, book 3 On the Nature of the Gods, p. 247, line 34). But that these were fictions of the ancient Greeks can easily be gathered from earlier words of Cicero: « For we also find, he says, several Jupiters in the ancient writings of the Greeks » (ibid., p. 245, line 45). We, however, have treated of these and yet other Jupiters elsewhere (vol. 1 of the Apparatus, p. 752).

Then next Arnobius objects that five Suns are brought forward by the same heathen, of whom « the first, he says, is called the son of Jupiter and is held to be the grandson of Aether; the second likewise a son of Jupiter, and recorded as born of Hyperiona as mother; the third the one who was the son of Vulcan, not the Lemnian but the son of the Nile; the fourth the father of Ialysus, whom Achantus bore at Rhodes in heroic times; the fifth is held to be [the father] of the Scythian king and of the shape-shifting Circe » (Arnobius, book 4, p. 135). But these too were drawn from Cicero, who had said earlier: « How many Suns themselves are put forward by the theologians! One of them born of Jupiter, grandson of Aether:

the second from Hyperion: the third from Vulcan, son of the Nile..... the fourth is he whom Achantho is said to have borne at Rhodes in heroic times, the grandfather of Jalysus, Camirus and Lindus: the fifth, who is said to have begotten Aeetes and Circe at Colchis" (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, book 3, p. 247, line 45). And do not object that Arnobius varied a little from Cicero there, since he said that the second Sun was born of Jupiter and Hyperion, whereas Cicero said of Hyperion only. For although it could be answered that the name of Jupiter was perhaps read by Arnobius in Cicero's text, that very slight discrepancy, by which Cicero names only the mother of Apollo, and Arnobius both the father and the mother, will persuade no one that this passage of Cicero was not plundered by Arnobius.

You will press the point that the fourth Sun is called the father of Jalysus by Arnobius, and the grandfather by Cicero. But can a grandfather never be signified by the name of father? Finally, as to the fifth Sun being called by Cicero the son of Aeetes and Circe, and by Arnobius the son of the Scythian king and of Circe, the two differ in words only. For what prevents Aeetes, king of the Colchians, who were formerly counted among the Scythians, from being understood by the name of the Scythian king?

But no one will ever call into doubt that what Arnobius adds about the five Mercuries was drawn from the same Cicero. For the mere setting out of the words makes this most manifest to all. These are the words of Arnobius: "The first Mercury, who is said to have neighed after Proserpina with genitals erect, is the offspring of the supreme Heaven. Under the earth is the second, who is boasted to be Trophonius. The third was begotten of Maia as mother and of the third Jupiter. The fourth is the offspring of the Nile, whose name the Egyptian nation dreads and fears to utter. The fifth is the slayer of Argus, a fugitive and exile, and the discloser of letters in Egypt" (Arnobius, book 4, p. 135). Cicero, however, speaks in this manner: One Mercury was born of Heaven as father and Day as mother, whose nature is related to have been aroused rather indecently, because he was stirred by the sight of Proserpina. The second is the son of Valens and Phoronis, he who is held to be under the earth, the same as Trophonius. The third was born of the third Jupiter and Maia..... The fourth of the Nile as father, whom the Egyptians hold it unlawful to name. The fifth, whom the Pheneates worship, who is said to have slain Argus, and for that reason to have been set over Egypt, and to have handed down laws and letters to the Egyptians" (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, book 3, p. 248, line 4). You surely see that these things were beyond doubt taken by our author, who rendered them in his own words, and more briefly indeed, but less elegantly.

He continues, and also reviews in this way the five Minervas vaunted by the gentiles: "The first, no virgin, but the mother of Apollo by Vulcan. The second, offspring of the Nile, and she who is reputed to be the Egyptian. The third is the stock of Saturn, and she who devised the use of arms. The fourth, the progeny of Jupiter, whom the Messenians call Coryphasia. And she who killed her father Pallas, a seeker after incest, is the fifth" (Arnobius, book 4, p. 135). Tullius, however: "The first Minerva, whom we said above was the mother of Apollo. The second, sprung from the Nile, whom the Egyptian Saites worship. The third, she whom, begotten of Jupiter,

we said above. The fourth, born of Jupiter and of Coryphe, daughter of Ocean, whom the Arcadians name Coria (others: Coryphasia), and whom they call the inventress of four-horse chariots. The fifth, daughter of Pallas, who is said to have killed her father when he tried to violate her virginity, and to whom they attach winged sandals" (Cic., loc. cit., line 31).

Clement of Alexandria also enumerates the same number of Minervas (Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 17), so that our author seems to follow him no less than Cicero: "There are some who suppose five Athenas: the one of Hephaestus, the Athenian; the one of the Nile, the Egyptian; a third of Cronus, the discoverer of war; a fourth of Zeus, whom the Messenians have named Coryphasia after her mother. Besides all these, the one of Pallas and of Titanis, daughter of Ocean, who, having impiously sacrificed her father, is adorned with her father's skin as with a fleece." "There are also those who invent five Minervas: one the daughter of Vulcan, the Athenian; the second, of the Nile" [concerning whom Plato is afterwards cited by Arnobius himself (Arnob., book 4, p. 137; Plato, in the Timaeus, vol. 3, p. 21)] "the Egyptian; the third, of Saturn, the inventress of war; the fourth, of Jupiter, whom the Messenians surnamed Coryphasia from her mother; the last, the daughter of Pallas and of Titanis, daughter of Ocean, who, after her father had been impiously sacrificed by her, was adorned with her father's skin as with a fleece." We have reported the passage of both Cicero and Clement of Alexandria in full, because they shed light on one another and on Arnobius, and anyone will more easily judge whether Arnobius himself looked to the one rather than to the other, or to both, or borrowed something from the one and something else from the other.

Moreover, although he, together with both Cicero and Clement of Alexandria, asserts that the name of Minerva Coryphasia was formed from that of her mother Coryphe (Arnob., book 4, p. 137), yet afterwards he himself advises us that it could also have been derived from the fact that she was said to have come forth armed from the crown of Jupiter's head. And perhaps not wholly without reason. For it has been observed by some that the Greek noun κορυφή signifies the crown of the head, the middle and highest part of the head between the sinciput and the occiput. There are not lacking, however, those who would have her so called from Mount Coryphasius.

Likewise Arnobius culled from Cicero what he reported about the other gods, but in fewer words. For, weary of narrating at greater length so many insipid fables of the heathen about them, he touches on the rest briefly thus: "These same theologians say that there are four Vulcans, and three Dianas, as many Aesculapiuses, and five Dionysiuses, twice three Herculeses, and four Venuses, three kinds of Castors, and as many of Muses, trios of winged Cupids, and teams of four of Apollo-names" (Arnob., book 4, p. 136). But Cicero reviews them all one by one, as well as the others before them. In him, therefore, you will find both the exposition and the proof of all these. We, however, have touched on something concerning some of them elsewhere (Cic., On the Nature of the Gods, book 3, pp. 245, 247 and 248; Apparatus, vol. 1, p. 851).

Cotta, moreover, in whose name Cicero sets forth all these things, concludes from this without hesitation that those things which from Greece

of old have been collected must be firmly resisted, lest religions be thrown into confusion. But our Arnobius clearly shows in what way religions are utterly thrown into confusion by these things. For if, he says, there are several gods of the same name, distinct from one another, the religion of men will be thrown into confusion and will waver, since they will certainly not be able to know to whom they should direct their vows and prayers. What indeed if a sacrifice is made to Minerva, or to Jupiter, or to some other? Will not each one of them think that it was made to himself alone? Will he not at once quarrel with another, if that one contends that it is being made to him, and will not both fight it out with each other?

But Arnobius does not allow anyone to answer him that it is uncertain whether the gentile theologians wrote things certain and ascertained, or things feigned and false at their own whim. For it is enough for us, he says, to have shown that they speak of public and commonplace matters, each of which reveals itself and is manifest to all. But if these theologians lied, the heathen must show from where they learned anything certain about their gods. And how will they show this, except from the writings of these same theologians of theirs, from which they received what was once established or done concerning the gods and divine matters? Finally, if the books of the theologians, pontiffs or philosophers teem with lies and fables, they must be utterly rejected and wholly abolished, and all their religions must be rooted out.

Chapter XVIII.

How clearly Arnobius, from the serious and weighty histories of the heathen, whose memory was celebrated on annual feast days, destroys their absurd errors about the gods.

Article One.

The first history is examined, in which Numa Pompilius was boasted to have learned the procuration of the thunderbolt from Jupiter, called forth by the arts of Faunus and Picus; and another, the history of Cybele, Agdestis and Attis, celebrated on annual feast days, where [there is discussion] of the stupidity and madness of the Abderites.

How false the superstitious religion of the gentiles is, Arnobius proves most plainly by another argument (Arnobius, book 5, p. 154). This he draws from their weighty and serious histories, which they were so persuaded were true that they celebrated them, approved by daily use, with annual festivals, and represented them with various images.

The first, then, Arnobius excerpted from the second [book] of Antias, that is, of his Annals. There he related that Numa, in order to be instructed in the knowledge of procuring the thunderbolt, on the advice of Egeria [had] Faunus and Picus, rustic gods, when they had come to a certain spring to quench their thirst, made drunk by guile and art and afterwards lulled to sleep, bound in chains by twelve young men whom Numa himself had placed in ambush. And he would not have them released until they had extorted from Jupiter, called down to earth and deluded by various ambiguities of words, what King Numa wished to know: the procuration, or expiation, of lightning. For to procure a thunderbolt is the same as to expiate it with that solemn rite and sacrifice by which it was believed to be warded off and removed. Hence Seneca: "They think," he says, "that thunderbolts are to be procured,

and expiations, they do not doubt, are sometimes of benefit: sometimes for removing dangers, sometimes for lightening them, sometimes for postponing them." (Seneca, Natural Questions, book 2, ch. 36, p. 422.)

This story, moreover, was described not only by the Antiates but also by Ovid and Plutarch, the latter indeed more briefly, the former more fully. Livy, however, handed down these things about Numa in his writings: "And as to which prodigies, sent by thunderbolts or by any other sight, were to be taken up and attended to: in order to elicit these from the divine minds, he dedicated an altar to Jupiter Elicius on the Aventine." (Ovid, Fasti, book 3, § 3, p. 529 and following; Plutarch, Life of Numa, vol. 2, p. 70; Livy, book 1, ch. 20.)

But Arnobius proves by various weighty reasons that this story is credible to no one, as Plutarch too admits (Plutarch, in the place cited). For to whom, he says, could it ever be made convincing that Faunus and Picus came to a spring to quench their thirst, and that there, having become drunk on wine drunk in place of water and being overcome by sleep, they had bonds cast upon them, and that the ritual expiation of the thunderbolt could be learned from no one other than Jupiter? Nor will it be proved more easily to anyone that this same Jupiter, in order to supply remedies against his own thunderbolt, was summoned by incantations, and conversed with puny men on a verricula, as Arnobius puts it, or little wart, that is, a high and rugged place, as Gellius teaches from Cato, and was deceived by their ambiguous words (Gellius, Attic Nights, book 3, ch. 8, p. 224). Finally, it surpasses all belief that Jupiter, as they used to say, then wished the thunderbolt to be expiated by the cruel sacrifice of a human head, about which we have treated above (above, ch. 4, art. 1).

Moreover, Arnobius notes that that incantation was performed with salted meal, incense, blood, the fumigation of vervains, and the rumbling of terrible, that is, magical, words. And you will see some of these expressed in these verses of Virgil:

Bring out water, and bind these altars with a soft fillet, / and burn rich vervains and male frankincense, / so that with magic rites I may try to turn aside the sane senses / of my spouse; nothing is lacking here except spells. (Virgil, Eclogue 3, lines 64 and following.)

But we have already noted something elsewhere about illusions and magic arts (vol. 1 of the Apparatus, p. 1239). Augustine, however, relates that Numa made use of hydromancy, and he cites Varro as witness, by whom Numa is said to have taken the nymph Egeria as wife, because he had drawn out, or carried away, the water with which to perform hydromancy (Augustine, City of God, book 7, ch. 35, p. 188). Valerius Maximus, Florus, Aurelius Victor, Dionysius of Halicarnassus and others, however, relate that he pretended that he performed all sacred rites at the admonitions and counsels of his wife, the nymph Egeria (Valerius Maximus, ch. 2, § 1; Florus, book 1, ch. 2; Aurelius Victor, On Illustrious Men of Rome, ch. 2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, book 2, p. 122). But of these things in the following dissertation (Dissertation on Lactantius, ch. 30, art. 2).

For the rest, you see with what strong and weighty reasons Arnobius shows with what folly the gentiles celebrated these things at their annual feasts, things which had no appearance of truth whatever. But if they thought them to be true, Jupiter

their greatest and almighty [god], they utterly defamed. For they openly admitted that he had been called down by magic spells, and had been compelled by them to yield and to teach the expiation of lightning.

Second, the story of the Great Mother of the gods, that is, of Cybele and Attis, is next taken up again by Arnobius, to the everlasting glory of the pagans (Arnobius, book 5, p. 157 ff.). This story, drawn out from its first origin from Timotheus, no undistinguished theologian, and from others as well, and from recondite books of antiquities and the innermost mysteries, he described thus: In the territory of Phrygia there was a rock of unheard-of vastness, to which the inhabitants of that region gave the name Agdus. From it were taken the stones from which, when they had been thrown by Deucalion and Pyrrha at the command of Themis, the Great Mother was produced together with the rest of mankind. Jupiter, however, afterwards seized with love for her, when he had been unable to obtain what he sought, poured out his lust upon the rock, from which in the tenth month afterwards a boy was born, given the name Agdestis. This boy was of unconquerable strength and of so fierce a spirit that he cared neither for men nor for gods, and did everything according to his lust and inborn ferocity. Therefore, after the gods had deliberated about breaking his boldness, at length by the arts of Liber, who had given him wine to drink in place of water, he was deprived of his virility. Then from his flowing blood a pomegranate springs up; Nana, daughter of King Sangarius, admiring its beauty and having taken it into her bosom, became pregnant from it, and as one defiled she is thrown into prison to be killed by hunger. But, kept alive with fruits by the Mother of the gods, she gave birth to a little child, whom Sangarius orders to be exposed; but, nourished by Phorbas with goat's milk, he was for that reason called Attis. And when he had grown up, the Mother of the gods and Agdestis loved him wickedly and desperately. Midas, however, king of Pessinus, to free the boy from so infamous a love, intended to give him his own daughter in marriage. Moreover, lest anything fatal should befall them on the appointed day of the wedding, he ordered the gates of the city to be shut. But the Mother of the gods, having lifted the walls of the city with her head, entered the city. Then, when all had been driven into frenzy and madness by Agdestis, who was roused to anger, "the daughter of Gallus's concubine," says Arnobius, "cuts off her own breasts, and Attis under a pine cuts off his own genitals, and dies." And from the blood of the genitals, which the Mother of the gods had covered with the dead man's garment and cast upon the ground, a violet springs up. The bride of Attis, whom the priest Valerius calls Ia, having shed tears together with Agdestis, kills herself, and her blood is turned into violets. When the Mother of the gods had strewn these over, an almond tree springs up from there. Next she carries the pine, which we mentioned a little before, into a cave, and there she and Agdestis weep, and beat and wound their breasts. Afterwards Agdestis asks Jupiter to recall Attis to life. But he obtained nothing else from him, except that his body should not decay, that his hair should grow for ever, and that his little finger should live and be kept in perpetual motion.

In this manner, indeed, this story of Cybele and Attis is described by Arnobius. But certainly, although he indicates that it was gathered by him from recondite and innermost monuments of antiquity, it is nevertheless certain

that it is told very differently by other writers cited by us elsewhere (Dissertation on Minucius, chapter 20, article 2). Yet lest anyone should charge that he gave credit too readily to the secret commentaries of the ancients and to Timotheus, another very ancient witness must be brought forward, Pausanias, who came closer to his account than all the others. But since it would be too long to transcribe his words both in Greek and in Latin, we shall set out these, which may be understood by all: "There is another story," he says, "current among them," that is, among the Gallo-Greek inhabitants of Pessinus, "and consecrated to memory, concerning Attes. They relate that Jupiter in a dream poured forth seed upon the earth; that from this conception of the earth a spirit came forth into the light, of human shape indeed but of doubtful sex, called Agdestis; that the gods, terrified at the monster, cut off its male part; that from this an almond tree sprang up, and when the daughter of the river Sangarius had desired its ripe fruits and had hidden them in her bosom, they indeed vanished, but the girl became pregnant and bore a boy; that he, exposed in a wood and reared by a she-goat, was, when he had grown up, of surpassing beauty, far more excellent than human. Therefore Agdestis was seized with love for him; and when he had reached man's age, his kinsfolk sent him to Pessinus. There, when he was about to take the king's daughter to wife, and the wedding song was already being sung, Agdestis, intervening, sent such madness upon Attis that he cut off his privy parts. His father-in-law likewise did the same. Agdestis repented of the deed, and therefore obtained from Jupiter that no part of the body of Attes should rot or waste away." You plainly perceive that many things there are similar to Arnobius' account of Attis and Agdestis, but some are different, and especially the deep silence about the Mother of the gods. But the points that agree with one another certainly prove that Arnobius neither rashly nor undeservedly set before the heathen the authority of Timotheus and of the others whom he followed.

Moreover, from all the circumstances of this story, which he takes up again one by one and which there is no need for us to repeat, he demonstrates most evidently that nothing at all could be invented more insulting, not only to any god, but to any honourable and temperate man, and nothing, therefore, by which the whole religion of the heathen might be more thoroughly trampled down and torn up by the roots. Indeed, even that alone which is said of the birth and love of the Mother of the gods, and of the obscene deeds of the others, proves irrefutably that she and the other gods had a beginning at some time and were infamous human beings, who for that reason could never have been possessed of an eternal or divine nature.

Rightly, then, and deservedly did our author exclaim: "O Abdera, Abdera, how many occasions for mockery would you give to mortals, if such a fable had been so concocted among you?" (Arnobius, book 5, page 164.) Now Abdera was a city of Thrace, the native place of the philosopher Democritus and of other distinguished men. But others of its citizens were given to stupidity and madness. Hence that adage which Erasmus discusses, "an Abderite mind" (Erasmus, Adages, chiliad 4, century 6, adage 28, page 877); and this verse of Martial:

You have the wits of the Abderite populace. (Martial, book 20, epigram 25.)

The sense of Arnobius, therefore, is that the Abderites, however

stupid and senseless, would never without mockery allow old wives' tales of this kind, most unworthy of the gods and fabricated to make sport of them, to be peddled and proclaimed among them. And indeed Tullius, in a manner not altogether unlike this, after setting out the insipid opinion of that Democritus of Abdera on the nature and images of the gods, added: 'All these things are indeed more worthy of the native land of Democritus than of Democritus' (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, book 1, p. 212).

Nor indeed did the pagans have any room to reply that there was absolutely nothing true underlying that whole story. For it makes no difference to the Christians whether it is called false or true. For if the things narrated in it are true, the gods certainly ought not to be angry with the Christians, who never published such great shameful deeds of theirs in any writings, nor ever divulged them anywhere. But if they are false, then the pagans have surely stirred up the just anger of the gods, since they dared to commit these things to letters and to everlasting memory, to the gods' disgrace. But tell me at last, I beg you, on what ground could these men assert that these and very many other things like them were false, which, as Arnobius says and as we have noted elsewhere, they celebrated with annual feasts and rites, and with a solemn abstinence from food, as Apuleius, Tertullian and Jerome testify? But Augustine attacks these things at greater length, and you will not regret having read his words in his books, for they are far more than ought to be quoted here. (Arnobius, book 1, p. 54; Apparatus, vol. 1, p. 759; Dissertation on Minucius, chapter 20, article 2; Apuleius, Metamorphoses, book 2, pp. 206 and 209; Tertullian, On Fasting, chapter 2; Jerome, Letter 7, to Laeta, and Against Jovinian, book 2, p. 91; Augustine, City of God, book 7, chapter 26, p. 172.)

Article II.

Other common stories are examined: of Fauna Fatua, or the Good Goddess, beaten with myrtle rods, and of the most shameful birth of King Tullius.

Arnobius admits that both the nature of the subject he was treating, concerning true and false religion, and the task he had undertaken of defending the Christian religion required that he go through other similar stories represented in the sacred mysteries and on the feast days of the pagans (Arnobius, book 5, p. 168). But lest he and others be defiled by a description of them, which would be most shameful, he judged that most of them should be passed over in prudent silence. By a rhetorical figure, therefore, he pretends to pass over what he relates briefly, yet sufficiently for his purpose: that Fauna Fatua, or the Good Goddess, was, on the testimony of Sextus Clodius, beaten with myrtle rods because she had drunk a jar full of wine without her husband's knowledge. In memory of this deed, indeed, an amphora of wine is set out covered in her mysteries, and it is not lawful for anyone to bring sacred boughs into them.

Macrobius, however, reported these things a little more plainly, though not without some difference, in this way (Macrobius, Saturnalia, book 1, chapter 12). Fauna, he says, and Fatua is said by some, and especially by Cornelius Labeo, and in the books of the Pontiffs, to be the same as Maia, the Good Goddess, Ops, Earth, and the Great Mother, to whom

in the month of May, on the very Kalends of this month, a sacred rite is performed. By others, however, the same [goddess] is reckoned to be the daughter of Faunus, who, when she had resisted the will of her father, by whom she was desperately loved, was beaten by him with a myrtle rod. Then he adds: "As proof of all these things they put forward this: that it is unlawful for a myrtle rod to be kept in the temple; that a vine is stretched over her head, the vine with which above all her father tried to deceive her; that wine is not usually brought into her temple under its own name, but the vessel in which the wine has been placed is called a honey-jar, and the wine is called milk; and that serpents appear in her temple indifferently, neither frightening nor afraid."

Plutarch, moreover, to one asking why matrons, when adorning the domestic shrine of the women's goddess whom they have called the Good [Goddess], do not put myrtle into it, replies that the reason for that rite is not evident; nevertheless, if any credence is to be given to the fable, that custom arose from this, that they believe the wife of a certain soothsayer Faulius (perhaps Faunus), having secretly drunk wine, was beaten by her husband with myrtle rods (Plutarch, Roman Questions, vol. 2, p. 268).

Clodius, however, in Lactantius relates that Fauna Fatua, the wife of Faunus, because she had secretly drunk a jar of wine against custom and royal propriety, and had become drunk, was beaten to death by her husband with myrtle rods; but that, since he afterwards repented of the deed and could not bear his longing for his wife, he conferred divine honours on her, and that for this reason a covered amphora of wine is offered in her rites. More about her is in L. Giraldus and Vossius, whom you may consult, as also the others cited by us a little earlier (Lactantius, On False Religion, book 1, ch. 22, p. 127; Giraldus, History of the Gods, syntagma 4, p. 137 ff.; Vossius, On the Origin and Progress of Idolatry, book 1, ch. 12; above, ch. 11, art. 5).

Further, from this account of various writers anyone will be able to understand what Arnobius had said earlier in mocking the heathen: "Fauna Fatua, the wife of Faunus, who is called the Good Goddess, but better and more praiseworthy in the drinking of wine" (Arnobius, book 1, p. 20). Who, then, having heard these things, would not laugh along with him, or rather would not lament the mad rashness of the heathen, who did not hesitate to attribute divinity to such a woman and to others like her? But he demonstrates this clearly by yet another example.

For he passes on to the most shameful birth of Servius Tullius, king of the Romans (Arnobius, book 5, p. 169); and although he indicates that he wishes to pass it over, yet in a few words he describes those things which abundantly suffice to demonstrate the infamy of this story. But Dionysius of Halicarnassus related the whole affair, just as it had been handed down to memory among many writers of Roman history (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, beginning of book 4, p. 207). Ovid, moreover, sang of it in these verses, by which the account of both Arnobius and Dionysius is confirmed:

For the father of Tullius was Vulcan; his mother was Ocresia, / of Corniculum, remarkable for her beauty. / Tanaquil, when the rites had been prepared according to custom, / bade her pour wine with her onto the adorned hearth. / Here among the ashes an obscene male form

Either it was, or it seemed to be, but rather it was. Bidden, the captive tends the hearth; conceived by her, Servius has the seed of his race from heaven. His father gave a sign at the time when he touched his head with flashing fire, and on his hair a fiery peak blazed.

(Ovid, Fasti, book 6, § 13.)

But who, except utterly impious and wicked men, could have worshipped these gods, or rather monstrosities of gods? But this impiety of theirs was no less plainly evident from the solemn festivals and mysteries which they were accustomed to perform every year in their honour and in memory of their deeds, which must now be examined.

Chapter XIX.

How the mysteries and festivals of the heathen, instituted and celebrated in honour of the gods and in memory of the things done by them, demonstrated their divinity to be false.

Article One.

How evidently the Bacchanalia, or Omophagia, the initiations of the Cyprian Venus, the Sabazia, Thesmophoria, Eleusinia and Alimontia demonstrate that the gods of the gentiles are false.

Not the lowest place among the most shameful mysteries and festivals of the gentiles was held by the monstrous Bacchanalia, as Arnobius calls them, which were called by the Greek name Omophagia. With how great and how execrable a foulness they were performed anyone will be able to recognize from what we have discussed concerning them in the former volume of our Apparatus. From this he will also easily understand that what our Author relates has been taken from the books of Clement of Alexandria (Arnobius, book 5, p. 169; Apparatus vol. 1, book 3, dissertation 1, chapter 9, article 1, p. 756; Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 11).

From the same source, without doubt, he also drew what he says about other Bacchanalia, in which Liber, or Bacchus, was celebrated as having been cut limb from limb by the Titans, as he himself had said elsewhere and as Diodorus Siculus and Macrobius record (Arnobius, book 5, p. 169, and book 1, p. 23 ff.; Diodorus Siculus, Library book 3, p. 137; Macrobius, On the Dream of Scipio book 1, chapter 12). But if anyone wishes to read more about these Bacchanalia and Omophagia than we have said (Apparatus vol. 1, at the place cited), let him go to Titus Livius, Augustine, Castellanus, and Johannes Nicolai, and Meursius, who published books about them (Livy, book 39, § 11 ff.; Augustine, City of God book 7, chapter 21, p. 177; Castellanus, under the word Dionysia).

What our Author next related about the hidden initiations and rites of the Cyprian Venus, and their founder Cinyras, this too has been taken from the same book of Clement of Alexandria. Julius Firmicus, moreover, speaks of these things thus: « I hear that the Cyprian Cinyras gave a temple to a harlot friend of his; her name was Venus. That he also initiated very many to the Cyprian Venus and assigned them to various consecrations. That he also decreed that whoever wished to be initiated, once the secret of Venus had been handed on to him, should give a copper coin into the hand of the goddess by way of payment; what sort of secret that is we must all understand, because we cannot explain this very thing on account of its foulness. Well

does the lover Cyniras serve the laws of harlotry, and ordered that a fee be given by his priests to Venus once she was consecrated, as to a harlot.» (Jul. Fir., On the Error of Profane Religions, p. 15.) Theodoret, for his part, put down the following in writing about Cinyras: And Aphrodite, who began no benefaction whatever but became a teacher of licentiousness (for they say she was a common streetwalker and a courtesan and the beloved of Cinyras), they have named a goddess. (Theodoret, vol. 4, discourse 3, On Angels and Demons, p. 511.) «But Venus, the author of no benefit but the mistress of intemperance (for they say she was a harlot of prostituted body, and the paramour of Cinyras), nevertheless calling her a goddess. On Cinyras, moreover, and Venus, consult Vossius, if you wish. (Vossius, book 6 On the Origin and Progress of Idolatry, ch. 17, p. 71.) We, however, have discussed them elsewhere (vol. 1 of the Apparatus, pp. 729 and 1176; Arnobius, book 5, p. 169). But who would not see that by these most shameful and most cruel mysteries and festivals the divinity of those in whose honour, or rather everlasting disgrace, they were celebrated is torn up by the roots.

Next our author briefly touched on the Corybantic rites, in which the death of a brother slain by his brother used to be represented. But we have discussed these in the first volume of our Apparatus, and if anyone wishes to read it, he will at once find that Arnobius here again follows in the footsteps of Clement of Alexandria (vol. 1 of the Apparatus, pp. 635 and 758; Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 12).

Then next he explains those most foul mysteries into which the Phrygians were initiated, at some length indeed, but unwillingly, because of the name of Jupiter brought into them (Arn., book 5, p. 170 and following). So, in order that the heathen might be ashamed to defame Jupiter and their other gods with the disgrace of the most obscene crimes, he sets out briefly how in these mysteries they represented the unbridled lust of that same Jupiter, who by various arts violated first Ceres, and then Proserpina, begotten of his own adultery with her. And if you are willing to compare what he relates there with the book of Clement of Alexandria already cited, you will easily perceive that it was drawn from it (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 10 and following). We have, moreover, discussed these mysteries in the earlier volume of our Apparatus (vol. 1 of the Apparatus, p. 759 and following), and there we cited many writers who have tried to elucidate them.

It must not, however, be passed over without some remark that the name of Sabazian mysteries was given to these mysteries by Clement of Alexandria, and that our author says: «To which the name of Sabadia belongs» (Arn., book 5, p. 171). Now it has been noted by many that Bacchus was called Sabasius, and his mysteries Sabasia. For in Cicero we read it written: «The third Dionysus, or Bacchus, born of his father Caprius, and they say that he ruled as king over Asia, and that the Sabasia were instituted in his honour.» (Cicero, book 2 On the Nature of the Gods, p. 248, line 23.) Diodorus Siculus also writes (Diodorus, book 3, p. 148) that another Dionysus, or Bacchus, is put forward, born of Jupiter and Proserpina, the one named Sabasius by some, whom some call Sabasius, and whose birth,

sacrifices and worship they introduced only at night-time and in secret, on account of their shamefulness. Hence Cicero says again: 'New gods, and the nocturnal vigils kept in worshipping them, Aristophanes, the wittiest poet of the Old Comedy, so harasses that in his work Sabasius and certain other foreign gods are tried and cast out of the city.' (Cicero, On the Laws, book 2, p. 537, line 44.) Finally, to leave aside Strabo and others, Suidas openly declares that Sebasius, Sabasios, is the same as Dionysus, or Bacchus (Strabo, Geography, book 20, p. 470 ff.; Suidas, under the word sebasios).

Nor should you say that in the text of our Arnobius Sabadiis is found, or, as some think, Sebadiis. For in Apuleius we read: Holy Sabadius, doubtless Bacchus. And in Macrobius: 'In Thrace we learn that the Sun and Liber are held to be the same; calling him Sebadius, they celebrate him with magnificent religious rites' (Apuleius, Metamorphoses, book 8, p. 140; Macrobius, Saturnalia, book 3, chapter 18, p. 264). You see, therefore, that Bacchus is surnamed by them both Sebadius and Sabadius, and his mysteries Sabadia. Why then, you will ask, are those mysteries too, in which Jupiter above all was worshipped, called Sabasia? Is it not because Jupiter also had the surname Sabasius? For Gruter presents various inscriptions, TO JUPITER SABASIUS. But some, such as Vossius, think that Jupiter is the same as Bacchus or Liber (Vossius, On the Origin and Progress of Idolatry, book 2, chapter 14, p. 241). What wonder, then, if those most shameful mysteries, in which the double adultery of Jupiter was celebrated, were called Sabasia? To this is added the fact that in these mysteries, as Clement of Alexandria noted, mention was made of the Corybantes and of Bacchus (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 11).

What Arnobius afterwards relates about other mysteries, which the Greeks called Thesmophoria, he again drew from Clement of Alexandria and rendered in his own words (Arnobius, book 5, p. 173; Clement of Alexandria, at the place cited). He added to them, however, a few things by which he thought the shamefulness of these mysteries ought to be assailed, together with the blindness and impudence of the heathen who celebrated them. We, for our part, have discussed them in the first volume of our Apparatus (Apparatus, vol. 1, book 3, dissertation 1, chapter 9, article 2, p. 759 ff.). Let it suffice, therefore, to have noted that certain verses of a Greek poet are cited there, whom Clement of Alexandria calls Orpheus and our Author the son of Calliope, doubtless because Orpheus, as Virgil sings, was said to have been born of the Muse Calliope (Virgil, Eclogue 4, at the end). These verses are given by him in Greek, and by Arnobius only in Latin; but whether with Arnobius himself as translator, who will dare to determine? It is certain, however, that in the royal manuscript codex sanguinibus is written in error, while in the printed editions inguinibus is better, though less decently put than in the Greek verses: 'nor a seemly figure'.

Again, Arnobius borrowed from the same Clement what he added about the Eleusinian mysteries (Arnobius, book 5, p. 175; Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 13). But if anyone should ask us why

there each of them made mention of the Erechthids; to him we shall reply, following Diodorus Siculus, that in a time of barrenness a huge quantity of grain was brought to the Athenians by Erechtheus the Egyptian, whom on account of so great a benefit they made king (Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca, book 1, p. 17). Having gained supreme power, he instituted the Eleusinia, or mysteries of Ceres, with rites brought over from Egypt. For this reason the Athenians are called Erechthidae, or the people of the Erechthids, by Clement of Alexandria, Arnobius and others. Of those Eleusinian mysteries, however, we have treated in the earlier volume of our Apparatus (Apparatus, vol. 1, book cited, p. 760).

Finally, the accursed and never sufficiently detestable Alimontian mysteries Arnobius, still the intermediary and interpreter of Clement of Alexandria, assails as they deserve (Arnobius, book 5, p. 176 and following; Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, pp. 21 and 22). We, however, have discussed elsewhere these most foul rites, which ought to be condemned to eternal oblivion, except for the purpose of confuting the gentiles and leading them from the superstitious worship of the gods to the true religion (same vol. 1 of the Apparatus, p. 774 and following).

Moreover, what man of sound mind can hear that account of so many and such horrible mysteries without at once concluding with our Author that the iniquity and madness of the heathen was extreme, who tried by every kind of punishment to compel Christians to worship gods infamous for such great and such unspeakable crimes, and to perform mysteries so obscene and detestable? For what is more unjust than to condemn them on that account, as though convicted of atheism? Were not the gentiles themselves with better right to be called atheists, who, having rejected the worship of the true God, worshipped fictitious gods in public festivals and mysteries, gods who on account of their accursed outrages were not worthy even of the name of men?

Article II.

How the reply of the heathen, by which they contended that those mysteries and the most shameful stories of their gods were to be explained allegorically, is utterly overthrown by Arnobius.

Not without great agitation of mind did the heathen perceive how plainly the festivals, mysteries and even the stories of their gods, which we reviewed in the preceding chapter, demonstrated their divinity to be false (Arnobius, book 5, p. 179). Therefore they strove by whatever means they could to weaken the arguments drawn from them. And so they replied that the things objected to them, which they could neither deny nor conceal, the shameful crimes of their gods represented in the mysteries, ought by no means to be understood according to the letter, but in an allegorical and higher sense. For the more learned taught that in all these things, however shameful and obscene they might appear, there were contained physical, mystical, wonderful principles known to few. For the lying of Jupiter, they said, with Ceres or with his own daughter, the rape of Proserpina, and any other things like these signified nothing else than rain, the earth, showers, seeds, and other things

pertaining to nature, which their authors, and after them Natalis Comes and Vossius, have tried to unravel. And certainly we learn from Cicero that this very thing was the opinion and answer of Chrysippus and the other philosophers who were called physicists. For in the second book of his On the Nature of the Gods Balbus, in the name of the Stoics, strives to draw out and explain the physical and allegorical sense hidden in those stories and mysteries. And after he has there made plain what is signified physically and allegorically by the names of Saturn bound by Jupiter, and of other deeds of the same kind, he concludes in this manner: "Do you see, then, how from physical things, well and usefully discovered, reasoning has been drawn off to fabricated and fictitious gods? This thing has begotten false opinions, turbulent errors, and superstitions almost worthy of old women." (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, book I, p. 223 and following; and book I, p. 201.) He therefore contends that physical and natural things, through the utmost licence of the poets and of others, were transferred to false and fabricated gods, and were preposterously transformed into them. Eusebius, however, on the contrary (Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel, book 2, chapter 6, p. 74), relying on the authority of Diodorus Siculus and Clement of Alexandria, contends that those most shameful opinions about their gods, or rather monsters and portents of opinions, were first spread abroad by the most ancient gentiles. But afterwards, he says, since the more recent ones were ashamed of such great obscenities, expressed so shamefully in these [stories], and yet could not altogether either reject or deny them, they were compelled to take refuge in a physical and allegorical sense.

But, however the matter may have stood, it is certainly established that these answers of the heathen, and their empty explanations, are torn out by the roots by our Arnobius and the other Fathers of the Church. For in what way, says our author, can these interpretations prevent (Arnobius, book 5, p. 180 and following) the things which we read written about the gods, as the words sound, from being shameful and altogether impious? And who will be able to prove that they are to be explained in an allegorical sense only? If indeed this sense, as they said, is hidden, who revealed it to the gentiles? Can there not also be brought forward several explanations of one and the same story, for example, about Jupiter and Ceres? Who, then, will prove to us with certainty that one rather than another is true and genuine?

Come now; are all the parts of the same story to be understood in an allegorical sense? (Ibid., p. 189 and following.) But who has ever explained to us, or been able to explain, what Brimo, what Baubo, what the grove and flowers of Henna, what the fire and torches of Etna, what the Attic region, what the village of Eleusis, and other things of this kind, almost infinite, signify allegorically?

But this above all is worthy of attention, that in their memory feasts and mysteries were celebrated by all the heathen on certain yearly and fixed days (Ibid., p. 184 and following). Just as, therefore, the origin of these feast days had to be certain and constant, and founded on some notable deed, so the things which were customarily displayed in them represented something actually done beforehand. It was necessary, therefore, that at least certain

parts of those histories had a natural and in no way allegorical sense. But if some parts are to be taken in the natural sense and others in the allegorical, who will rightly distinguish them? For indeed there is no mark, and no sign, by which the one may be separated from the other.

But Arnobius presses the heathen still more sharply. For he freely and generously grants them that these histories, and the things that were done in the mysteries, can be explained not at all in the literal but only in the allegorical sense. But not on that account, he argues, does less infamy redound upon the gods. For with what heavier reproach could they be lashed than to call them by names most openly signifying shameful deeds and crimes, on the ground that, as many prattled, natural things were indicated by them in a mystical sense?

What is more insulting to these same gods than to hold that by their most shameful deeds, both by proclaiming them and by representing them openly and everywhere, grave and not dishonourable things are signified? For by that utterly absurd manner of speaking the shamefulness strikes the mind before its allegorical sense does, and the authority of religion as well. Who, moreover, would dare to deny that it would have been far better for any thing whatever to be called by its own natural name than by the name of some obscene or cruel deed of the gods? For then that thing would have been easy to recognize, and the dignity of the heavenly divinities would have been preserved unharmed.

Therefore the gentiles are no longer to be listened to, who still objected that the gods did not wish their mysteries to be known, and that for that reason both these and their histories were covered with allegorical obscurities (ibid., p. 187). For who could know that it so pleased the gods? But it is certainly established for us that the gods never wished shameful things to be said and proclaimed about themselves. For what had the sun, for example, the earth, and other natural things, if they are some kind of divinities, deserved, that they should be called by the heathen by the names of Attis, that is, of a castrated man and half-man, and of other wicked men? Finally, not only are the gods themselves to be worshipped, but their names too are worthy of veneration and honour, and they are not to be imposed on other things, doubtless earthly and abject, and much less on shameful and foul ones. Who then, having duly weighed these reasons, does not see how rightly Arnobius proved that those who explained the histories and mysteries of their gods in an allegorical and mystical sense consulted the interest of their religions no better than the others, who held that these were to be understood in the literal and obvious sense? For both do equal injury to their gods, and unwittingly take from them all divinity.

Article III.

How the same reply of the gentiles is thoroughly weakened and destroyed by other writers.

We have set out, as briefly and clearly as we could, all the arguments of Arnobius against the allegorical and mystical interpretations given by the gentiles of their gods and mysteries, so that all may more easily understand that these were refuted by him all the more plainly, the more often the heathen took refuge in them as in the greatest bulwark of their religion. Yet not Arnobius alone, but other writers too, both Christians

and heathens, dislodged them from this most flimsy defence.

For Cicero, in the third book On the Nature of the Gods, refutes Balbus, who was championing the opinions of the Stoics with these explanations, in the person of Cotta the Academic, thus: « Now then, how is it that this explaining of fables and unravelling of names delights you? » he says. « ..... Zeno first, after him Cleanthes, then Chrysippus took upon himself a great and wholly unnecessary labour: to give an account of invented fables, and to explain the reasons for the words, why each thing was so explained. When you do this, you certainly confess that the matter stands far otherwise than men's opinion holds; for those who are called gods are the natures of things, not figures of gods. So great was this error that not only was the name of gods bestowed even on harmful things, but rites were also established for them. For there is a shrine of Fever on the Palatine..... Let every such error, therefore, be driven out of philosophy, so that when we dispute about the gods we say things worthy of the immortal gods: concerning them I hold what I think, but I do not hold anything on which to agree with you » (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, book 2, p. 248 ff.). Do you hear how rightly Tullius hisses off these interpretations of the Stoics as an utterly absurd error, to be driven out of philosophy? With no less ease you have noticed how clearly he demonstrates that nothing worthy of the immortal God is put forward by them, as Arnobius also contends.

Eusebius, moreover, and after him Theodoret, by transcribing Plato's words from his own Timaeus, show that he taught clearly and explicitly that those common fables or histories about the gods, and all their allegorical senses, which the heathens thought were adapted to philosophy, were to be utterly excluded and restrained (Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel, book 2, ch. 7, p. 76 ff.; Theodoret, Discourse 3, On Angels and Demons, vol. 4, p. 512 ff.). In addition to this, the same Eusebius, by the words of Dionysius of Halicarnassus taken from the second book of his Roman Antiquities, proves that it was established by the ancient Romans that the whole of that physiology of the Greeks, as plainly useless and not consistent with itself, should be cast out and banished from all the bounds of theology.

It is no wonder, therefore, if the most ancient Fathers of the Church assailed these same allegorical senses with such ardour of spirit. For, to pass over the author of the Recognitions inscribed with the name of Clement and of the Clementines, who attacks them with reasons similar to those of our Arnobius, Athenagoras clearly demonstrates that the heathens, and the Stoics by name, gain not a whit for the defence of their religion from these allegories. For it must be certain that by them divinity is attributed only to created and corporeal things. But the substance of the true God can only be one, unbegotten, incorporeal and eternal. And from this it is plainly concluded that Saturn, Jupiter and others of that kind were never gods (Clem., Recognitions book 10, ch. 35 ff., p. 517; Clementines, Hom. 4, ch. 24 ff., p. 607, and Hom. 6,

ch. 17 ff., p. 625 ff.; Athenagoras, Plea for the Christians, p. 22 ff.).

In the same way also Tatian, as we have noted elsewhere, rebukes the gentiles, and especially Metrodorus of Lampsacus, who endeavoured to draw all the gods and their stories to an allegorical sense (vol. 1 of the Apparatus, pp. 522 and 550; Tatian, Oration against the Greeks, p. 160).

But Eusebius checks this new and, as he puts it, unwonted obstinacy of the heathen with still other arguments (Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel, book 2, ch. 6, p. 74). For after those allegorical and physical interpretations had been devised, the same heathen did not change the ancestral rites of worshipping the gods. Nay rather, they honoured cattle, men, and the very parts of the human body which it is shameful to name, with the same divine honours, hymns, sacrifices and other religious rites. And by Julius Firmicus almost the same weighty arguments are brought to bear against the heathen (Julius Firmicus, On the Error of Profane Religions, p. 4).

Therefore Augustine aptly teaches that he who worships other natural things by means of wicked and shameful things sins twice (Augustine, City of God, book 7, ch. 27, p. 183): both because he does not worship the true God, and because he does not worship Him in the way in which He is to be worshipped. Elsewhere, indeed, he rejects those allegorical and physical explanations of the shameful gods put forward by the more learned, because it makes little difference, he says, whether "this instructs religious men in truthful books, and that delights impure demons in deceitful shows, whom nevertheless those religious men worship as gods; and when they deny these things concerning them, they cannot clear them of every crime; since they present shows with those rites in which things are shamefully acted which are, as it were, wisely denied; and by these false and shameful things the gods are appeased, where, even though the fable sings a false crime of the deities, yet to be delighted by a false crime is a true crime" (the same, in the same work, book 28, ch. 12, p. 497).

Moreover, the heathen could not object against us that the senses of our sacred Scriptures too are abstruse, hidden and allegorical. For these differ plainly and utterly from their expositions, as Gregory Nazianzen most eloquently explains in these words: "Among us too," he says, "there are indeed hidden and abstruse sayings; for I will not deny it. But what is the reason for their twofold sense, and what is its force, what its power? Neither is the outward appearance unbecoming and dishonourable; and what is concealed is admirable, and to those who are led into the very innermost parts it is wonderfully splendid, and, like some most beautiful body, it is covered with a garment not to be despised. For in my opinion it is fitting that not even the very indications and outward appearances of divine things should be dishonourable and unworthy of the things signified, and in short such that men themselves would take it very ill to have them said of themselves, but that they should have either true or altogether the greatest beauty, or at least be far removed from the utmost shamefulness, so that in part they may delight the more learned, and in part may in no way unsettle the minds of the common people. Among you, on the contrary, neither does what is set forth to be understood deserve credence

and what is presented outwardly to the eyes is deadly and ruinous." (Greg. Naz., Orat. 39, or 1 against Julian, p. 250.) Earlier, however, Origen, where he disputes against Celsus, skilfully shows that the allegories of the Christians and those of the gentiles differ from each other in this: the latter offend the majesty of God (Origen, Against Celsus, bk 4, p. 196), whereas the former suit excellently all, whether unlearned or learned, and whoever desire to search out the true senses of Holy Scripture, and, as we have heard from Augustine, they do not prevent the true God from being worshipped with the rite and manner that befits Him.

Chapter XX.

How vainly the heathen tried to prove, from certain miracles or from responses concerning some future matter, that their gods really exist.

First Article.

With how great clarity Arnobius refutes the argument of the heathen drawn from miracles, whether when a plague was allayed, or when the games were restored at the warning of Jupiter, or when the image of Aesculapius was transported to the Tiber Island.

Against so many arguments of the Christians, by even one single one of which the whole worship of the gods and their entire religion was overturned from its foundations, one sole defence remained to the heathen, and this Arnobius utterly tears down and demolishes. For they put forward many miracles performed by the gods, and responses given concerning future things, by which they thought it had been demonstrated, neither once nor obscurely, that the gods really exist and are appeased by the satisfaction and sacrifices of men.

They related, then, that the first miracle was wrought when, because the circus games, which had been instituted in honour of Jupiter, had not been duly performed, a plague was ravaging the city (Arnob., bk 7, p. 242 ff.). For when these games had been restored at Jupiter's warning, in the manner which we have set out elsewhere, the pestilence at once ceased (Dissert. on Minuc. Octav., ch. 17, art. 3).

The gentiles boasted that another miracle had been wrought when, on account of the image of Aesculapius having been transported from Epidaurus, which is a city of the Peloponnese, to the Tiber Island, a plague was likewise allayed (Arnob., bk 7, p. 248 ff.). The whole affair, celebrated in the poems of Ovid, went, if any credence is to be given him, in this manner (Ovid, Metam., bk 15, p. 580 ff.): When a most dire plague was devastating Rome and the neighbouring regions, the Romans, after human remedies had been applied in vain, receive from the Delphic oracle [the answer] that Aesculapius was to be summoned from Epidaurus to Rome. The Romans obey the oracle and send envoys to Epidaurus. Some of the Epidaurians assent to their entreaties, others refuse. But the Romans, admonished by Aesculapius, carried him, changed into the form of a serpent, to the Tiber Island. When this was done, the pestilence was driven away. So indeed Ovid; and his narrative can be confirmed by the authority of Valerius Maximus, Livy, Plutarch, Aurelius Victor, Lactantius and Augustine, although they have related certain of its circumstances either more briefly or somewhat differently (Val. Max., bk 1, ch. 8, § 2; Livy, at the end of bk 10, and bk 29, ch. 11; Plutarch,

Roman Questions, vol. 2, p. 286; Aurelius Victor, On Illustrious Men, ch. 22; Lactantius, bk. 2, ch. 7, p. 175; Augustine, bk. 3 of the City [of God], pp. 12 and 17, and bk. 10, ch. 16).

The heathen, therefore, were accustomed to draw from those and other narratives of the same kind their chief argument, and, as it seemed to them, the decisive one, for their own [religion] and against the Christian religion. Nor indeed does Arnobius deny that on this matter turns the crux, as he puts it, or the hinge of this whole case and question (Arnobius, bk. 7, p. 243). For that argument seems all the stronger because these things, written in the annals of the heathen, bore on their face some appearance of truth and of miracle. But if they are looked into thoroughly, he says, then you will find that they contain nothing that befits the gods, and their divine power, and their supreme majesty.

As regards the renewed games, indeed, is it not absurd to say, he asks, that that Jupiter, Best and Greatest, the creator of all things, as they boasted, came down from heaven with great delight of mind to watch geldings, or castrated horses, contending in speed, turning back on seven laps, that is, going round the turning-post of the circus seven times, and then men being overturned together with their chariots, or being dragged back thence with broken legs? (Ibid., p. 245 ff.) What prudent man will not spurn these things as childish and playful mockeries?

And what is more unworthy of Jupiter than to blaze up in anger for this reason, that a slave was beaten with whips in the circus and subjected to the punishment of death? For if he paid the penalty deservedly, Jupiter ought not to have been inflamed with anger. But if he was killed innocent, the master of the games was guilty, who did not snatch him from death when he could, and who declared Jupiter offended by his slaying. And how could it come about that Jupiter was hurt by that slave's death, he who is said to have watched with a glad mind very many wholly innocent men killed in these games? Arnobius indeed grants that, if this was done before the games in contempt of religion, it must be pardoned in Jupiter, who could not patiently bear being spurned by sacrilege. But if it was done by mistake and by chance, the most good Jupiter ought certainly to have granted pardon to human frailty and imprudence. Further, although that deed, however it was done, ought not to have been left unavenged, yet on account of the offence of one man the people of the whole city, all the women, boys, infants, and other innumerable guiltless persons ought not to have been struck with the cruel punishment of plague. For is it not unjust that so many innocent people be condemned and punished for only one guilty man?

Moreover, if Jupiter wished the games to be restored, why did he admonish a countryman of his will rather than the Consul, or the chief pontiff, or his own flamen of Jupiter, men far more skilled in these rites? Why did he not bring the countryman's mind to comply with him before he raged so harshly against him? But once the duty of announcing was fulfilled, they said, he was healed. What wonder is it, Arnobius replies, if he who brought on the evil drove it away? The restored health was without doubt a cruel benefit to that man,

by which he felt the bereavement and death of his sons more bitterly.

No less foolishly and absurdly had the story of Aesculapius, brought from Epidaurus to Rome, been made up (ibid., p. 249). For he cannot be called the son of Coronis, who perished struck by a thunderbolt. But whoever he may have been, they say that nothing else was brought from Epidaurus except a serpent of great bulk and immense length. Yet who would readily persuade himself that a god put on the form of a most vile serpent, creeping upon the earth, had the members necessary for eating and digesting, and needed a ship in order to swim across the seas? And why did he not show himself to be seen such as he himself is? But if he wished to deceive and to change his form, why did he take no other than the horrible likeness of a serpent? Did he not give ground for doubting whether it was really he himself, or something else entirely different from him?

Ought not the heathen also to have given at least some reason why that serpent, after its arrival at the Tiber island, appeared no more? For the Christians, and no doubt the heathen themselves, knew nothing else of this fable than what is found handed down in the writings of those same gentiles.

Finally, the heathen could not deny that this serpent was of earthly kind, "although," says Arnobius (ibid., p. 251), "it was monstrous and huge, although it surpassed in length of body and in strength the one slain by Regulus through the force of his army." How great the bulk of this latter was, judge from this: after it had been killed by the army of Atilius Regulus near the river Bagradas, where Regulus had pitched camp, its skin, afterwards sent to Rome, is said to have been 120 feet long. If you want any witnesses to this matter, we will give you Aulus Gellius, Livy as cited by Valerius Maximus, Pliny, Seneca, Florus, Orosius, and others besides, were it necessary (Gellius, Attic Nights book 6, ch. 5, p. 368; Valerius Maximus, book 1, last ch., § 19, p. 77; Pliny, Natural History book 8, ch. 15, p. 153; Seneca, Letter 82, p. 156; Florus, book 3, after the beginning; Orosius, History book 4, ch. 8). Who then would not marvel at the heathen, who declared a serpent of this kind to be a god and worshipped it?

They insisted, however, that as soon as he, or, as they used to say, Aesculapius, was summoned to Rome from the books of fate, that is, the Sibylline books, and from the responses of the seers, that is, of Apollo, the plague was at once driven away, and not without a great miracle (Arnobius, book 7, p. 251). But if Aesculapius, turned into a serpent, was fetched, as Arnobius replies, for the purpose of averting this disaster, where was he then when the same city was afterwards so often afflicted with the same disease, and so many thousands of men perished by a like plague? Why, after temples had been built for him, did he not prevent the pestilence from raging further? Nor may you say that in the following period men's morals had been corrupted. For in great peoples and cities alike the good have always been mixed with the wicked. It must therefore be said either that the serpent's power and might for allaying plagues had afterwards been worn away, or that the fateful verses were false, since the serpent remedy suggested by them was not of benefit in every age. What then from these

all is to be concluded, except that the gentiles, who peddled miracles as truly wrought by Jupiter and Aesculapius, went astray along the whole way.

Article II.

With how great clearness Arnobius shows to be false the miracles which the heathen maintained were done when the image of the Great Mother was brought to Rome from the Phrygian mountain, and when another also, of Jupiter, was set up in a higher place towards the East.

Of no greater weight, surely, was the reasoning of the heathen drawn from another and, as they boasted, a great miracle (Arnobius, book 7, page 253). For they pressed the claim, worn smooth by frequent talk, that by the divine aid of the Great Mother, or Mother of the gods, after her image had by order of the Seers been carried from the Phrygian mountain to Rome, the most powerful enemy Hannibal was then driven out of Italy, and, illustrious victories having been won, its glory was restored to the City, and many other things were splendidly accomplished at home and abroad, which established the name and majesty of the Roman nation with unconquerable firmness. By which Writers these things were committed to writing, however, we have shown elsewhere (Dissertation on Minucius, chapter 19, article 1).

But Arnobius refutes this argument with replies similar to those above. For nothing true, he says, is contained in that whole story, except that by King Attalus, as they said, there was sent from the Phrygian mountain, and thence carried to Rome, a certain small stone, black, hard, rough, and not polished into a sufficiently distinct likeness of an image. But to whom will it ever be made plausible. that Hannibal, under whom the Roman commonwealth so long trembled, uncertain of its lot, once that stone had been carried off, at once became wholly unlike himself, and was driven and put to flight from Italy? Was nothing then accomplished by human counsels, nothing by the military valour of most excellent generals, nothing by the great strength of armies? Did that stone too, which could easily be carried by one man, increase the strength of the Roman army, and break and weaken that of Hannibal, and render him vanquished and the Romans victors? Whom, in the end, will you easily persuade that the Mother of the gods was really in a stone of this kind, or that some divinity dwelt in its veins, lumps and fragments?

In what way then, said the heathen, was victory won by its arrival, if no divinity was in that stone? Arnobius replies that it is to be attributed to the valour and courage of those fighting, or to the changeableness and inconstancy of fortune. And indeed, where in the world was that excellent divinity living when, so great armies having been slaughtered, the Romans came into the utmost danger?

But if anyone should reply that the Mother of the gods was then as far as possible away from Rome, he will at once hear from Arnobius that a divine power is always present everywhere, and always holds all things under its power. Besides, why, I beg you, did that goddess utterly forsake her former worshippers the Phrygians, so as to move over to the more powerful Roman people? Such and so great fickleness does not befit God.

Nor could the Romans reply that this goddess had passed over to their warlike nation because she loved military affairs. For it was not consistent with divine equity, says Arnobius, to mingle itself in human discords;

and, with no cause given to it, to break the wealth of these in order to show itself the patroness of those; to take liberty away from these in order to raise those to the supreme summit of dominion; to destroy the Phrygians in order that the Roman state, born for the ruin of the human race, might put a harmless world under the heaviest yoke of slavery.

The heathen pressed on, and by another miracle, quite astounding as it seemed to them, they strove once more to prove that their gods really exist and that their power is infinite (Arnobius, book 7, p. 245). For, they said, it had been handed down to memory by most trustworthy witnesses that when the Capitol had been struck by lightning, the statue of Jupiter was then thrown down from its seat; but that when, on the response of the haruspices, it was set up in a higher place facing the rising sun, hidden things were then laid open, and crimes, once unlocked, were punished. For Cicero relates that the Romans still held it in memory how, when very many statues of the gods had been driven from their seat on the Capitol, the haruspices, summoned from all Etruria, "ordered that a larger statue of Jupiter be made and set up on high, and, contrary to how it had stood, turned towards the east; and they said they hoped that, if that statue which you see looked upon the rising of the sun, and the forum and the senate-house, it would come about that those plans which had been secretly formed against the safety of the City and of the empire would be brought to light, so that they could be seen through by the Senate and People of Rome." (Cicero, Oration 3 against Catiline, p. 329.)

What Arnobius answered to this argument of the heathen is read nowhere at all, neither in the royal manuscript codex of his books, nor in any edition of them, nor elsewhere. Some will perhaps suspect that he could have passed this over, since it had been sufficiently refuted by his other answers to the objections raised above. But since we have already noted that at that place a fragment was transposed out of order by a drowsy copyist, it can be gathered from this that Arnobius answered this argument of the gentiles, as he did the others one by one, but that everything he had written on this matter was removed. However, that loss, if there is one, is abundantly made good by what we have so far reported from his other answers, and what remains intact in his books.

If, however, he made any answer to this argument, we have no doubt at all that it was chiefly what Cicero, from whom, as we have often said, he had drawn a good many things, left in writing. For immediately after the words of his quoted by us he added: "But those consuls decided that that statue of Jupiter should be so placed; yet so great was the slowness of the work that it was not set up either by the earlier consuls or by us before today." (Ibid.) For is not the whole reasoning of the heathen, utterly flimsy as it is, plainly and thoroughly undermined by these words alone? Does not that negligence of the consuls and others most manifestly prove how little the gentiles valued the oracles and predictions of the haruspices, and that statue of Jupiter?

But we have already shown that this whole argument, which the gentiles thought very strong, in another way, by Minucius Felix and other ancient writers

of ours is overthrown. For by many strong supports of reasoning they demonstrate that, if anything unusual, and outside the accustomed order of nature, has been done in all these things, all of it is to be attributed to the frauds and illusions of demons. But surely it ought to seem strange to no one if one and the same error of the gentiles is shaken by several arguments and utterly destroyed (Dissertation on the Octavius of Minucius, ch. 19, arts. 1 and 2).

Chapter XXI.

On the temples of the gentiles.

First Article.

By what arguments Arnobius shows that no temples are to be built for the gods, nor little huts, nor chambers, or cells; where [it treats] of the first temples of the gods and of others which were merely the tombs of dead men; likewise of the hidden tomb of Apis; and of the Capitol, which was so called from the head of Tolus that was found [there]; and of common burial-grounds.

Since Arnobius, as we have seen, has most invincibly demonstrated by so many and such weighty reasons that the gods of the gentiles are nothing and plainly fictitious, there was surely no need of any other argumentation by which to prove that no temples should be built for them. But he goes further, and shows this plainly by certain particular arguments. For if temples, he says, can be of any use to the gods, why did they lack them for very many ages before they were built? For their first builder, says Arnobius, "will be shown to you to have been either Phoroneus the Egyptian, or Merops; or, as Varro relates in his Wonders, Aeacus, the offspring of Jupiter." (Arnobius, book 6, p. 189 ff.; ibid., p. 191.) Earlier, indeed, Clement of Alexandria had said (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, ch. 28): Whether it was that Phoroneus, or Merops, or some other, who set up temples and altars for them. Whether it was that Phoroneus, or Merops, or some other, who erected temples and altars for them. But we have discussed elsewhere the first origin of temples, and Aeacus (Vol. 1 of the Apparatus, p. 722 ff., and p. 1118).

But at whatever time temples began to be built for the gods, however magnificent they may be, however much they gleam with gold and gems, it is certainly established that the true God can never be enclosed by any [temple]. Yet the heathen were persuaded that their gods were wholly shut up in them, just as men are in their houses. For, to pass over a great many witnesses of this false opinion, what is clearer than these words of Cicero? "I hold that there should be shrines of the fathers (otherwise: of the gods) in cities; nor do I follow the Magi of the Persians, at whose instigation Xerxes is said to have set fire to the temples of Greece, because they shut up within walls the gods, for whom all things ought to be open and free, and whose temple and home this whole world is. Better the Greeks and our own people, who, to increase piety towards the gods, wished them to dwell in the same cities as we do. For this opinion brings a religion useful to states." (Cicero, On the Laws, book 2, p. 335, line 44.) But here we miss the acumen of Cicero, who did not know, or rather pretended not to know, that the true God is immeasurable and cannot be circumscribed by the space of any place.

Lucian therefore with far better reason mocks his fellow pagans, who asserted that they had built temples for the gods so that they should not lack roofs or household hearths (Lucian, On Sacrifices, p. 185). Timaeus, moreover, again on the testimony of Cicero, or, as Plutarch relates, Hegesias of Magnesia, jested freely when he said that the temple of Diana of Ephesus had burnt down because, since she had wished to be present at the childbirth of Olympias, the mother of Alexander the Great, she had been absent from home, that is, from her temple (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, book 2, p. 224, line 26; Plutarch, Life of Alexander the Great, p. 665). But although certain more knowledgeable pagans mocked these things in like manner, yet this opinion had thoroughly pervaded all the rest, that their gods were not immeasurable, and that they could therefore be enclosed and contained in some place.

For this reason these men had built for these same gods of theirs not only most costly temples, but, as Arnobius says, little huts, chambers and cells, that is, shrines, or certain private small buildings within those magnificent temples, where some image of one god or another was placed (Arnobius, book 6, p. 191). For we learn from Aulus Gellius that Scipio, namely Africanus, was accustomed to enter the Capitol towards dusk, "and to order the cell of Jupiter to be opened, and to stay there alone for a long time, as if consulting with Jupiter about the Republic." (Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights, book 7, chapter 1, p. 396.) This indeed is confirmed by Livy, Valerius Maximus and Aurelius Victor. But mention of these little cells is not infrequent among other writers (Livy, book 26, chapter 19; Valerius Maximus, book 2, chapter 2, § 2; Aurelius Victor, On Illustrious Men, chapter 49). If, however, anyone should prove that Arnobius is also to be understood, by the name of little hut, chamber and cell, as speaking of the small buildings which used to be built for the lesser gods, we shall not altogether oppose him. But it is necessary that all should confess that those are not true gods whom the pagans thought could be enclosed in buildings and temples, whether small or very large.

Nor does Arnobius think the pagans should be listened to, who answered that they built temples for the gods so that they might converse with them face to face and at close quarters, the gods being in a manner present there, and so that the gods might hear them speaking from nearby. But the true God, immeasurable and everywhere present, hears any men whatever, speaking and praying in whatever part of the world, and also knows thoroughly all their thoughts. For He does not, as Jupiter is feigned to do, go to the Ethiopians to dine; indeed, He can never change place (Homer, Iliad 1, p. 20; Lucian, On Sacrifices, p. 186; Diodorus Siculus, Library, book 1, p. 62; Athenaeus, Deipnosophists, book 8, p. 363; Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 1 against Julian, p. 263).

Arnobius presses the point that from this opinion of the heathen, who believed that their gods moved from place to place, it follows that no hope would remain to men of being heard by them. For very many temples had been set up to one and the same god in different regions of the earth, very far removed from one another, in only one of which they supposed him to dwell. That god, therefore, could hear no others than those who prayed in that particular temple. In vain therefore

other men were praying to him in other temples, from which, being absent, he was unable to hear them, much less to grant any of their requests.

But let us follow our author as he continues to press the heathen. The temples, he says (Arnob., bk. 6, p. 195), and shrines of the gods are the sepulchres of dead men, or, as he himself puts it, raised over the tombs of the dead. The Gentiles therefore in these temples either worshipped dead men in place of immortal gods, or, contrary to the gods' honour, joined dead men to them as companions while they lived, or else believed that both alike had died and been buried. And what greater insult could be offered to the divine majesty? Yet although Arnobius could have proved this by almost countless examples, he thought it enough for his purpose to select some that are more than certain, which he set out in this manner: « Antiochus, in the ninth book of his histories, records that Cecrops was committed to the earth at Athens in the temple of Minerva. Again, in a temple of the same goddess which is in the citadel of Larissa, Acrisius is written of and shown to be laid to rest; Ericthonius in the shrine of Polias; the brothers Dairas and Immarus in the Eleusinian enclosure, which lies below the city. What? Are not the daughters of Celeus said to have received the rites of burial in the temple of Eleusinian Ceres? Are not Hyperocha and Laodice, who are shown to have been brought there from the lands of the Hyperboreans, [buried] in the shrine of Diana which is set within that of Delian Apollo? Leandrius says that Clearchus received the last rites of burial in the Didymaeum at Miletus. Myndius declares, and Zeno records, that the monument of Leucophryne is in the shrine of Diana at Magnesia. Is it not shown by consistent writings that under the little altar of Apollo, which is seen at the town of Telmessus, the seer Telmessus is buried? Ptolemy son of Agesarchus, in the first book which he published on Philopator, declares on the authority of documents that Cinyras, king of Paphos, with all his household, and indeed with all his line, is laid in the temple of Venus. » (Ibid.) And all these things are without doubt taken from the Greek, from these words of Clement of Alexandria: In the temple of Athena at Larissa, on the acropolis, there is the tomb of Acrisius; and at Athens on the acropolis that of Cecrops, as Antiochus says in the ninth book of his histories. What of Erichthonius? Has he not been buried in the temple of Polias? And Immarus son of Eumolpus and Daeira, are they not in the precinct of the Eleusinium below the acropolis? And the daughters of Celeus, were they not buried at Eleusis? Why should I list for you the women of the Hyperboreans? They were called Hyperoche and Laodice; they have been buried in the Artemisium at Delos, and that is within the temple of Delian Apollo. And Leandrius says that Clearchus was buried at Miletus in the Didymaeum. Here it is not fitting to pass over the monument of Leucophryne, following Zeno and Myndius, who has been buried in the temple of Artemis at Magnesia. Nor indeed the altar of Apollo at Telmessus, which they relate is also the monument of Telmisseus the seer. And Ptolemy son of Agesarchus, in the first book of his work on Philopator, says that at Paphos, in the temple of Aphrodite, Cinyras and the descendants of Cinyras have been buried (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 29). Moreover, this whole passage of Clement of Alexandria

and of Arnobius we present, so that it may easily be understood by all that it was copied out by our Author, and so rendered into Latin that there is no need of any other interpretation. But the differing readings in the text of each, and whatever obscure and difficult points occur, we have explained elsewhere (Vol. 1 of the Apparatus, book 3, dissertation 4, chapter 7, article 3, page 725 and following).

Arnobius added two things, and the first indeed is: "Nor does it require exact care [to learn] what penalty the Egyptian laid down against anyone who should have made public in what places Apis lay hidden" (Arnobius, book 6, page 164), that is, where the tomb of Apis is. Now Apis, as Strabo and others testify, is the same as Serapis and Osiris, and that it is of his tomb that Arnobius speaks is plainly demonstrated from what we have noted elsewhere (Strabo, book 17, page 807; Dissertation on Minucius, chapter 14, article 4).

Secondly, Arnobius proves by the testimony of four authors, namely Sammonicus, Granius, Valerianus and Fabius, that the name of the Capitol was derived from the head of Tolus, dug up and found in its foundations, whom, slain by his brother's slaves, the citizens had left unburied (Arnobius, at the place cited, page 194). But this can easily be confirmed by many other witnesses. For Varro writes: "It was called the Capitolium because here, when the foundations of the temple of Jupiter were being dug, a human head is said to have been found." And Livy: "Here is the Capitol," he says, "where once, when a human head had been found, the answer was given that in that place would be the head of affairs and the supremacy of empire." But these things are related more fully by Dionysius of Halicarnassus and by Pliny, whom it is easy and ready for anyone to consult. On what ground, then, could Theodorus Canterus and some others assert that no one is found, apart from Arnobius, who mentions these things? Further, what honour was it to Jupiter to have the greatest temple of all built and named not so much in his own name as in that of a dead man? (Varro, On the Latin Language, book 4, page 10; Livy, book 5, near the end, chapter 54; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, book 4, page 257 and following; Pliny, Natural History, book 28, chapter 2, page 558; Canterus, Variae lectiones, book 1, chapter 11.)

Finally Arnobius asks, "In what temples are the polyandria of Varro covered over?" (Arnobius, in the same place, page 194.) Now a polyandrium, as is clear from sacred and profane writers, was a place in which many bodies of men were buried. The sense of Arnobius, therefore, is that the temples of the gods are shared with dead and buried men, whom nevertheless they had not dared to enrol in the calendars of those same gods. Moreover, in the preceding dissertation we showed that there were many temples in which the heathen openly proclaimed that their gods were buried (Dissertation on Minucius, chapter 15, article 2). Who, then, would not bear it with indignation, together with our Arnobius, that temples and sacred buildings, which are owed to the living and eternal God alone, should be built and consecrated to such gods?

Article II.

On the temples which had been impiously consecrated to human affections or virtues, namely to Piety, Concord, Safety, Honour, Virtue, Felicity, Victory, Peace, Equity, and among the Egyptians to cats, scarabs and heifers; and how rightly it is proved from the overthrow of the temples that none is to be built to false gods.

Not to dead men alone, but also to the affections and fortunes of the living, as though to true gods, were temples founded by the heathen. And this so absurd and blind impiety of theirs, and especially of the Romans, Arnobius rebukes thus at the beginning of his fourth book: « I should like to ask you, and before all the Romans themselves, the lords and princes of affairs, whether you think that Piety, Concord, Safety, Honour, Virtue, Felicity and the other deities of this kind, to which we see altars built up by you with magnificent shrines, have divine power and dwell in the regions of heaven? » (Arnob., bk. 4, p. 127.) A little later he added that temples of Victory, Peace and Equity had likewise been erected by the same heathen. But how true these things are must be briefly inquired into.

Famous, and unknown to few, is the story of a certain daughter, whether plebeian or freeborn, who fed with her own milk her mother (Val. Max., bk. 2, ch. 5, § 7, p. 268 ff.), or, as others relate, her father, placed in prison, so that he should not be wasted by hunger. And Pliny relates, and after him Solinus, that in memory of this deed a temple of Piety was founded in that same prison, in the consulship of C. Quinctius and M. Acilius, where the theatre of Marcellus was. Nor are there lacking those who think that it is the very one which Marcius Acilius Glabrio, as Livy says, dedicated, situated in the Forum Olitorium (Plin., Nat. hist. bk. 2, ch. 36, p. 57; Solin., Polyhist., ch. 1, p. 11; Liv., bk. 40, ch. 34).

From the same Livy we further learn that a shrine of Concord was consecrated by C. Flavius in the precinct of Vulcan, and another, which duumvirs, created for that purpose, contracted for on the citadel (the same, bk. 9, ch. 46, and bk. 22, ch. 33). Cicero also attests that, when Cotta was consul, the temple of Concord was struck from heaven, and mention of it is also made in Dio's history and in the fasti of the Roman magistrates (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods bk. 2, p. 223, line 5; and On Divination bk. 1, p. 252; Dio, Roman History bk. 44, p. 273, and Roman Antiquities vol. 11, p. 189). Wherefore Ovid sang:

You too, Concord, Livia dedicates with a magnificent shrine, which she presented to her dear husband.

Ovid, Fasti bk. 6, before the end.)

But Augustine deservedly mocks and hisses these things off the stage; you may consult him (Aug., City of God bk. 3, ch. 25, p. 82).

Cicero, moreover, mentions temples not only of Concord but also of Virtue, Honour, Safety and Victory, as known to all. And he has informed us that the temple of Honour was restored by M. Marcellus (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods bk. 2, p. 223, line 6). Livy, for his part, has handed down to memory that the shrine of Safety, which

as consul he had vowed in the Samnite war, was built by C. Junius Bubulcus, and was dedicated by the same man as Dictator (Livy, book 9, chapter 43, and book 10, chapter 1).

The same Livy relates besides, and Plutarch supports him, that Marcellus in the Gallic war at Clastidium vowed a temple to Honour and Virtue, whose dedication was hindered by the pontiffs, who said that one shrine could not rightly be dedicated to more than one god (Livy, book 27, chapter 25; Plutarch, Life of Marcellus, page 314). But Valerius Maximus testifies that this was brought about by that warning of the pontiffs, namely that Marcellus set up the images of Honour and of Virtue in separate temples (Valerius Maximus, book 1, § 8, page 9). Vitruvius made mention of both temples, as did Symmachus, who wrote to Ausonius in these words: "Well and wisely did our ancestors, as the other things of that age are, place temples to Honour and to Virtue as twins joined together, having devised what we have seen in you, that the rewards of honour are there where the merits of virtue are." Pliny for his part reported that this temple of Honour and Virtue was restored by Vespasian Augustus. Finally we learn again from Livy that another temple of Virtue was consecrated at the Capene Gate by M. Marcellus, son of the Marcellus we have mentioned (Vitruvius, book 3, chapter 1, and book 7, in the Preface; Symmachus, book 1, letter 14; Pliny, Natural History book 35, chapter 10, page 224; Livy, book 9, chapter 11).

As regards Felicity: Pliny is witness that two statues were made by Praxiteles which had been placed before the temple of this Felicity (Pliny, book 34, chapter 8, page 120). But if you believe Cicero, "That L. Mammius," as he says, "carried off from Thespiae those statues which are at the temple of Felicity, and the other profane statues from that town." (Cicero, Oration 4 against Verres, page 160, line 39.) Further, we read that mention of the temple of Felicity was made by Dio, Augustine and others besides (Dio, Roman History book 44, page 278; Augustine, City of God book 4, chapters 18 and 23, pages 100 and 104).

Posthumius, moreover, if Livy is to be trusted, "dedicated the temple of Victory which as curule aedile he had had built from fine-money." (Livy, book 10, chapter 33.) In yet another book he records other temples of a twofold Victory in these words: "M. Porcius Cato dedicated a small shrine of Victory the Virgin near the temple of Victory, two years after he vowed it." (The same, book 35, chapter 9.) Pausanias also, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, speak of a sanctuary of Victory (Pausanias, book 1, page 20; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities book 1, page 26). We have also noted elsewhere that Symmachus, when he had asked the Emperor Valentinian that the altar of Victory be restored in the senate house, was refuted by Ambrose (Observations on Ambrose, letter 18, and Symmachus' Relatio, volume 2).

We learn besides from Suetonius that a temple of Peace, next to the forum, was founded by the Emperor Vespasian, which Pliny, Xiphilinus, Josephus and others have mentioned. And the statue of Chimenis, as Pausanias attests, was carried to Rome into the temple of Peace (Suetonius,

in the Life of Vespasian, ch. 9, p. 739; Pliny, Natural History book 12, ch. 19, p. 36, and book 36, ch. 15, p. 309, and elsewhere; Xiphilinus, epist., p. 221; Josephus, On the Jewish War book 7, ch. 24, p. 979; Pausanias, book 6, p. 179).

« Finally, by the name of Equity Arnobius undoubtedly means Justice, about whom Ovid seems to have composed these verses:

Nor is any god more moderate than our prince: / with Justice he tempers his own strength. / Recently Caesar set her up in a temple made of marble; / long before, he had set her in the shrine of his mind.

(Ovid, Letters from Pontus book 3, letter 6, lines 23 ff.)

Some, however, think that nothing about that temple is found in reliable authors, and that the poet therefore alluded to the shrine of Mars the Avenger, since vengeance, of which Ovid speaks, is a certain part of justice. But surely Arnobius is to be held a sufficiently reliable witness, who affirms that even in his own time Equity, like Victory and Peace, was honoured by the Romans with a temple? Furthermore, Juvenal includes in these two verses the temples of several gods who are named by our Author:

As Peace and Faith are worshipped, Victory, Virtue, / and Concord, who clatters when her nest is greeted.

(Juvenal, Satire 1, lines 114 ff.)

We, indeed, have touched on these somewhat elsewhere (vol. 1 of the Apparatus, p. 766).

Rightly and deservedly, therefore, does Arnobius assail the stupidity of the gentiles, who had built temples to fictitious deities of this kind. But he undoubtedly followed Cicero as his forerunner, who declares in these words that these things need no refutation: « Do you think, then, that a subtler reasoning is needed to refute these things? For we see that mind, faith, hope, virtue, honour, victory, safety, concord and the other things of this kind have the force of things, not of gods. For either they are within ourselves, as mind, as faith, as hope, as virtue, as concord; or they are to be wished for by us, as honour, as safety, as victory. I see that statues have even been consecrated on account of the usefulness of these things. But why the power of gods should reside in them, I shall understand when I have learned it. » (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods book 3, p. 248, line 41.)

But if this impiety of the nations seemed to a heathen orator unworthy of being refuted, how much more unworthy of refutation will be the far greater madness of the Egyptians, who, as Arnobius says, built temples raised with lofty gables to cats, beetles and heifers, or young cattle (Arnobius, book 1, p. 15). For this reason Origen rightly and deservedly rebukes the most demented rashness of Celsus, who also wishes, he says, to compare our affairs with the affairs of the Egyptians, among whom, to one who comes, there present themselves splendid shrines with groves, and temples with forecourts and porticoes, to be marvelled at for their exceptional size and beauty, and ceremonies very religious and mystical; but having gone inside he will see a cat being adored, or an ape, or a crocodile, or a he-goat, or a dog: He wishes to compare the matters of our faith with the affairs of the Egyptians, among whom, to one approaching, there are splendid precincts and groves, and great and beautiful gateways,

and wondrous temples, and splendid tents round about, and superstitious rites, and mystic ones. And then to one entering and coming further within, there is seen, being worshipped, a cat, or an ape, or a crocodile, or a goat, or a dog (Origen, Against Celsus, book 3, p. 120 ff.). But we have discussed these matters in the earlier volume of our Apparatus and elsewhere (vol. 1 of the Apparatus, pp. 496-767, and the Dissertation above on Minucius, chap. 12, art. 2).

We have also examined another argument of Arnobius against the temples of the gods, which he drew from their overthrow and ruin (ibid.). If, however, anything new occurs in it, it will be weighed and illustrated after our manner in the following chapter, where [we treat] of the images of the gods, with which he joined it.

Chapter XXII.

On the images and likenesses of the gods.

Article One.

By what weighty arguments Arnobius shows that the likenesses, statues and images of the gods are impiously worshipped and adored by the heathen; what the face of a lion smeared with pure vermilion [means]; and on the first images and others represented in human form.

Arnobius comes (below, art. 4) to the likenesses, statues, effigies and images of the gods, which, as we shall show a little later (Arnobius, book 6, p. 194 ff.), the heathen thought either to be their gods themselves or at least to be dwelt in by them, and by a varied kind of arguments he proves that these, which had been fashioned with much art, were worshipped and adored with an altogether impious and absurd religion. For first, if the heathen had been persuaded that their gods existed and dwelt in the heavens, they ought surely to have brought their prayers to the gods themselves, not to their images. If they doubted that they existed, it was ridiculous to fashion an image of a doubtful thing.

Nor could they say that the presence of those whom one can in no way see is displayed in the images, and that they are then worshipped with greater piety and dutiful services are rendered to them. For how can he who says this assert that the gods truly exist, he "who," as Arnobius says, "needs to see what he may hold, lest perhaps what seems obscure be empty" (ibid., p. 195); that is, he indicates that he calls into doubt whether there are gods, whom he will not believe to exist unless he sees their images.

But, said the heathen, we honour our gods through images. But wrongly, as Arnobius replies. For indeed, if there were no images of the gods, they would never have worshipped them. Then again, what is more insulting to these gods than not to honour them themselves, whom you believe to exist, but only to worship them through some effigy devoid of all sense, as though through a kind of trust? Finally, this reply of the gentiles, who believed these effigies and images to be gods, was altogether futile and trifling.

But Arnobius presses these idolaters more vehemently, and makes it plain that it could not be known by them whether these gods of theirs, whom they had never seen, were truly such as they were represented by them. But what is not like something cannot be its effigy and image. Yet the heathen the sun as a man; the moon as a woman; the winds as certain men with puffed-out mouth

blowing a trumpet, displayed. But who would ever have dared to say that these are true images of them?

Then Arnobius immediately added these words: "Among your gods we see the most grim face of a lion (the royal manuscript codex has leones), smeared with pure vermilion, and called by the name of fruit-bearer (the royal manuscript codex has frugiferio)" (ibid., p. 196). It is remarkable, however, how much this obscure passage has exercised the minds of the learned. Latinus Latinius, for his part, seems to cut rather than untie the knot of this difficulty, since he wished these words to be corrected thus: "Among the gods we see lions with a most grim face, smeared with pure vermilion" (Latinius, Bibliotheca sacra et profana, p. 98). But it is mere conjecture, which rests on the authority of no codex. Therefore, of those who wish nothing in the writings of the ancients to be changed except on the most certain grounds, some suspect that these words of our author are to be understood of the Sun. But they are refuted by others, because he spoke of the Sun separately. To some, therefore, it seems more probable that he is indicating the lions which were sometimes sculpted on the pediments of temples. But these appeared to have been placed rather for the ornament of the building than to represent the face of the gods. We shall therefore more easily be persuaded that our author means by these words the same things which, after Tertullian, Minucius Felix said: "You dedicate gods compounded of goat and man, and gods with the faces of lions and of dogs." For after the words cited by us Arnobius added: "Without the rest of the body it is a mask, and a face alone, with roaring gapes, grim jaws, of blood-red wax-salve... and weary dogs" (Tertullian, Apology ch. 16, and To the Nations book 1, ch. 12; Minucius Felix, p. 261; Arnobius, loc. cit., p. 196).

But who will not readily grant that both are speaking of images, such as those of Pan, of the Satyrs and of others of this kind, as we showed in our dissertation on the book of the same Minutius (Dissertation on Minucius, ch. 11, art. 3)? And what Arnobius added in the same place, a face smeared with vermilion, refers to that plainly ridiculous custom of the heathen by which they used to smear the faces of images with vermilion. For we read it written by Pliny: "that the face of the image of Jupiter himself was customarily smeared with vermilion on feast days" (Pliny, Natural History book 35, ch. 7, p. 56). Concerning the effigy of Pan, moreover, Virgil sings:

Pan, the god of Arcadia, came, whom we ourselves saw, / red with the blood-coloured berries of the dwarf elder and with vermilion. (Virgil, Ecl. 10:26–27.)

On these verses Servius observes the following: Ebulum is a kind of plant similar to the elder. And with vermilion for this reason, because Pan is painted with a red face, on account of its likeness to the aether.

Arnobius therefore concludes from this that it is a mark of the utmost rashness to represent for the gods that appearance and form which no one has ever been able to prove to be such. For which reason Lucian somewhere wrote most eloquently: "Having raised temples, so that they themselves may not, forsooth, be houseless nor hearthless, they fashion images of them, calling in either Praxiteles, or Polyclitus, or Phidias; and these, having seen I know not what, mould them" (Lucian, On Sacrifices, p. 185). Shrines

having been erected, namely so that (the gods) may not lack roofs or household shrines, they express their forms, employing for this either Praxiteles, or Polycletus, or Phidias. But I do not know where these artists saw the likeness of them that they represent.

Moreover, the more to curb such great boldness, our author traces the matter itself back from its first origin thus: 'You laugh that in ancient times the Persians worshipped a river, as memorial writings indicate; the Arabs a shapeless stone; the Scythian nations a scimitar; the Thespians a branch in place of Cinxia; the Icarians an unhewn piece of wood in place of Diana; the people of Pessinus a flint in place of the Mother of the gods; the Romans a spear in place of Mars, as the Muses of Varro indicate; and, as Aethlius records, before the practice and craft of image-makers, the Samians a plank in place of Juno' (Arnob., bk. 6, p. 196 ff.). In this he follows Clement of Alexandria, whose Greek words he had without doubt read: 'Of old the Scythians worshipped the scimitar, the Arabs the stone, the Persians the river; and of other men those still more ancient set up conspicuous wooden posts and erected pillars of stone, which were also called xoana, from their being scraped out of the material. Indeed in Icarus the image of Artemis was an unworked piece of wood, and that of Cithaeronian Hera at Thespiae a felled trunk; and that of Samian Hera, as Aethlius says, was at first a plank, but later, in the archonship of Procles, became statue-shaped ..... And at Rome, says the writer Varro, the ancient wooden image of Ares was a spear, the craftsmen not yet having set out upon this specious bad art' (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 29 ff.). The Scythians indeed anciently worshipped the scimitar; the Arabs the stone; the Persians the river: and of other men those who were more ancient still erected notable pieces of wood and set up columns of stone, which were also called xoana, because they were scraped and polished out of the material. In Icarus certainly the image of Diana was an unwrought piece of wood, and that of Cithaeronian Juno at Thespiae a cut trunk; and that of Samian Juno, as Aethlius says, was at first a board, but afterwards, in the archonship of Procles, was fashioned into the form of a statue ....... At Rome, moreover, Varro says that the statue of Mars was anciently a spear, when the craftsmen had not yet arrived at this artistry, specious indeed but wicked. You see clearly how Arnobius, when he culled these things from Clement of Alexandria, rendered them in Latin words, removing certain things and adding something, namely what he said about the flint representing the likeness of the mother of the gods, which we discussed a little before (preceding chapter, art. 2), as we did all the others in the earlier volume of our Apparatus (vol. 1 of the Apparatus, bk. 3, diss. 1, ch. 18, art. 1, p. 734 ff.). Further, let us be permitted to add to all these what Lucan sang in these verses about the grove which Caesar ordered to be cut down during the siege of Massilia:

The trees have a dread of their own; then much water falls from dark springs, and the gloomy images of the gods lack art and stand out shapeless from hewn trunks. (Lucan, bk. 3, line 394.)

But, says Arnobius, if the heathen rightly laughed at these things, then surely of no less mockery all the others

were worthy who made supplication to immortal gods fashioned in human form (Arnobius, book 6, p. 197). For who could ever have believed that the gods are composed of human members? Therefore, he adds, if it were granted us to look into the innermost thoughts of the heathen, we would surely see that they think the same as we do, but that they prefer to defend stubbornly what they once did without reason, rather than yield to the truth they have recognized.

Article II.

How rightly Arnobius argues against these same images of the false gods from the ridiculous representations of the gods: Hammon with ram's horns, Saturn with a hooked sickle, Mercury winged, the Argus-slayer with a petasus, Liber with soft limbs, Venus naked, Vulcan with cap and hammer, the Delian with plectrum and lyre, the Muses with pipes and psalteries, Neptune with a trident, Janus with a toothed key, Jupiter in a ricinium with a firebrand, Pallas with a soldier's helmet, the Mother of the gods with a tambourine, Janus with a double brow, Jupiter with a beard, Ceres with large breasts, and Diana with half-covered thighs.

Our author attacks more sharply the deplorable blindness of the gentiles (Arnobius, book 6, p. 197 and following), and shows plainly that the images and likenesses of the gods were displayed by them in such a form as stirred in any sensible man laughter all the greater for being the more sorrowful. For was it not the height of madness in those by whom Ammon, or Jupiter the greatest of the gods, was fashioned with ram's horns, as we have noted elsewhere (Dissertation on Minucius, ch. 15, art. 2)? Nor indeed was it an unequal, or rather certainly a greater, insanity on the part of Alexander the Great, who, as Athenaeus, Clement of Alexandria (Athenaeus, Deipnosophists book 12, p. 537; Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 36) and others testify, wished to be represented in like manner, as being the son of that same Ammon.

Saturn, however, says Arnobius, "with a hooked sickle, guardian of the countryside, like some pruner of luxuriant branches" (Arnobius, book 6, p. 197). And elsewhere: "Sickle-bearer and vine-planter" (the same, book 3, p. 117); and in yet another place: "The reaping sickle is assigned to Saturn" (the same, book 6, p. 209). Since that remarkable figure of the rustic god, or god of rustics, is unknown to no one, it will suffice in confirmation of it to transcribe these words of Macrobius: "He (Janus) ordered him (Saturn) to be observed with the majesty of religion as the author of a better life. His image is evidence of this, to which he added a sickle, the emblem of harvest. To this god they attribute the grafting of shoots, the rearing of fruit trees, and the lore of all fertile things of this kind" (Macrobius, Saturnalia book 1, p. 205). To this, if you wish, Ovid may be added, who sang:

There is an old report that when the land was called Saturnian, such were the words of the prophetic god: "Make offering to the sickle-bearing old man, you peoples, send two bodies." (Ovid, Fasti book 5, § 13.)

Then next Arnobius: With a petasus the son of Maia, that is, Mercury (Arnobius, book 6, p. 497). Now the petasus, in Greek petasos, was a hat or cap, so called because it had broad brims. Athenaeus writes (Athenaeus, Deipnosophists book 12, p. 537) that Alexander the Great sometimes wore at banquets the dress of Mercury, and the petasus on his head, and the

herald's staff in the hand. A petasus on the head, and in the hands a caduceus. Plautus, moreover, brings Mercury on speaking thus:

I shall have these little feathers here on my petasus all the while. (Plautus, Prologue to the Amphitruo.)

On this verse consult, if you please, the observations of Lambinus.

It is certainly for this reason that our author afterwards said: winged Mercury Argiphontes (Arnobius, book 6, p. 209), in the royal manuscript codex Argiforonites, wrongly: for Argiphontes, in Greek Argeiphontes, is an epithet of Mercury, which Homer among others used more than once, and which is rendered in Latin by his translator as "Argus-slayer and messenger" (Homer, Iliad 16, p. 296, and Iliad 24, p. 418). Some hold that Mercury was so surnamed because he killed Argus, or, as others prefer, from the swiftness and speed of speech, over which he was said to preside. On this matter see Macrobius and Lilius Giraldus (Macrobius, Saturnalia book 1, ch. 9, p. 268; Giraldus, Syntagma of the Gods 9, p. 291 and following).

Arnobius continues: "Liber with soft limbs, and utterly dissolute with the looseness of womanish fluidity. Venus naked and exposed, as if you were to say that she makes public, puts up for sale, the beauty of a body for hire." (Arnobius, book 6, p. 197). Of Liber, or Bacchus and Dionysus, Lucian says: "All of you, I think, see how female and womanish he is in nature, half-mad, breathing out unmixed wine from early morning." (Lucian, Dialogues of the Gods, p. 1096.) That is: All of you, I suppose, see how soft he is and effeminate with luxuries, half insane, breathing neat wine straight from earliest morning. Of Venus, again, Clement of Alexandria says: "And if anyone sees a woman painted naked, he thinks of golden Aphrodite..... it was the statue of Aphrodite, and it was naked" (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 38). That is: And if anyone has seen a woman depicted naked, he understands golden Venus..... it was an image of Venus, and it was naked. Of her, moreover, and of Bacchus Theodoret says: "Aphrodite, their teacher, both the makers of statues and the carvers of images fashion naked, and do not cover her even with a little tunic..... and indeed Dionysus too is fashioned by them both loose-limbed and naked." (Theodoret, discourse 3, On Angels and Demons, vol. 4, p. 520.) That is: Venus, the teacher of these women, the harlots, the statuaries and sculptors make naked, and do not cover her even with a tunic..... Bacchus too the same craftsmen make with soft and loose limbs and an effeminate body. Tertullian, finally, imputes it as a vice to the heathen that they exhibited Bacchus and Venus in the theatres in so shameful and infamous a guise (Tertullian, book On the Shows, ch. 10).

What more? "Vulcan," says Arnobius, "with cap and hammer," or, as he said afterwards: "Mulciber in a smith's dress" (Arnobius, book 6, pp. 197 and 209). For, as we read noted by Macrobius: "Mulciber is Vulcan, because he is fire and softens and subdues all things" (Macrobius, Saturnalia book 6, ch. 7). He was represented in a smith's dress, moreover, because they considered him, as we have said elsewhere (Dissertation), to be set over the works of smiths.

With a like charge, "with plectrum and strings" (these are still the words of Arnobius) "the Delian," that is Apollo, "and with flutes and with psalteries the Muses" were to be seen (Arnob., bk. 6, pp. 197 and 209). This is sufficiently proved by Pausanias and others (Pausan., bk. 3, p. 107, and bk. 8, p. 263). And also "with the fuscina," as our author puts it, that is, with the trident, "the king of the sea," namely Neptune (Arnob., bk. 6, pp. 197 and 209). Now the fuscina, a word which Cicero also used, or trident, is called the sceptre of Neptune (Cic., bk. 1 On the Nature of the Gods, p. 210, l. 16). To whom indeed, even among boys, are these verses of Virgil unknown, about Neptune addressing Aeolus:

Not to him the dominion of the sea and the fierce trident, / but to me was it given by lot. (Virgil, Aeneid bk. 1, l. 142 ff.)

Arnobius added: "As though he had to undertake the fight of a gladiatorial contest"; because, of course, gladiators, and above all the retiarii, armed with a trident, used to fight against the myrmillones, whence Juvenal:

The trident of the tunicked Gracchus has outdone even this monstrosity, / and as a gladiator he has traversed the middle of the arena in flight, etc. (Juvenal, Satire 2, l. 143.)

See, on these verses, the observations of various scholars, and Lipsius, Saturnalia bk. 2, ch. 8, vol. 3, p. 518 ff.

Moreover there was set before the eyes of all (Arnob., bk. 6, p. 209) Janus with a toothed key, namely for opening the doors, over which he was believed to preside. For which reason Virgil sang:

Nor does Janus, the guardian, withdraw from the threshold. (Virgil, Aeneid bk. 7, l. 610.)

And Ovid:

He, holding a staff in his right hand and a key in his left. (Ovid, Fasti bk. 1.)

But Jupiter, Arnobius goes on, "wearing a ricinium, holding in his right hand a firebrand hewn into the shape of a thunderbolt" (Arnob., bk. 6, p. 209). Now riciniatus was said from ricinium, which Varro explains thus: "The most ancient garment, the ricinium, so called because they used it doubled; from the fact that they threw half of it backwards, it was called ricinium from rejicere [to throw back]" (Varro, On the Latin Language bk. 4, p. 32). Servius, however: "That is called ricinium which is thrown back behind the back; which is commonly called mavors" (Servius on Aeneid bk. 1, l. 286). Isidore subscribed to this (Isidore, Etymologies bk. 19, ch. 25). By Nonius Marcellus, however, it is said to be the same as the mavortium and a short women's mantle. But Festus writes that a ricinium is any square garment (Festus, On the Meaning of Words). Sometimes, however, it is taken by certain writers, such as Cicero, for a mourning garment (Cic., On the Laws bk. 2, p. 341). But Arnobius without doubt used this name in the former sense.

Now fomes is dry and parched material which easily catches fire, or else it is the sparks which are struck out of glowing iron. Whence Virgil:

And first Achates struck a spark from flint, / and caught the fire in leaves, and put dry fuel around it, / and seized the flame in the tinder. (Virgil, Aeneid bk. 1, l. 178 ff.)

But to whom is she unknown, the little girl hiding under a soldier's helmet, as our author puts it (Arnobius, book 6, p. 209)? For there is no one who does not acknowledge that this is Pallas, whom Ovid relates was depicted thus by herself:

But to herself she gives a shield, gives a spear of sharp point,

gives a helmet to her head; her breast is defended by the aegis.

(Ovid, Metamorphoses, book 6, p. 201.)

And the Mother of the gods with a drum, adds Arnobius. For her image was represented having drums around her, to signify the roundness of the earth and the two hemispheres. On her, however, and on the others mentioned above, see the book of Cartari on the images of the gods.

What Arnobius finally added (ibid.), about two-faced Janus, Hammon the bearded Jupiter, the great breasts of Ceres, and the half-covered thighs of Diana, these things have been explained by us elsewhere (Dissertation on Minucius, ch. 15, art. 2).

By what folly and madness, then, could the heathen believe that their gods were such as they were fashioned in images and statues of this kind? For who could ever know what the form and figure of any god really was? And then, if the features, clothing, bearing and ornaments of one god were assigned to another by some fraud and deceit, would not the gentiles, unaware of the fraud, accept and worship one god in place of another? What, then, is more absurd and more foolish than these images and statues of the gods? But this is surely all the more to be condemned, that the heathen thought these things were in truth their very gods themselves, or that the gods dwelt in them.

Article III.

Another argument of Arnobius against the statues of the gods is examined, drawn from the images of the Mercuries made in the likeness of Alcibiades, and from the Cnidian Venus and other [goddesses] represented in the likeness of Cratina and Phryne, and also from the Jupiter on whose finger Phidias inscribed "Pantarces is beautiful"; and what are called sigilliola.

The more we investigate the superstitions of the heathen who worshipped idols, the greater, surely, we find their impiety to be. For it went so far that in place of the face and likeness of their gods they set up the images and statues of certain men, and indeed of notorious harlots. For "who is there," says Arnobius, "who does not know that those Athenian Herms were fashioned to the likeness of the body of Alcibiades?" (Arnobius, book 6, p. 198.) But this, and what follows, he took from Clement of Alexandria and copied out in reverse order. For Clement wrote in his Exhortation to the Gentiles: "The stonecutters at Athens made the Herms in the likeness of Alcibiades." (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 35.) The stonecutters among the Athenians represented the Mercuries in the likeness of Alcibiades.

But earlier he had said: "Praxiteles, as Posidippus makes clear in his work on Cnidus, when fashioning the statue of the Cnidian Aphrodite, made it closely resembling the form of Cratina, his beloved" (ibid.). Praxiteles, moreover, as Posidippus declares in his book on Cnidus, when fashioning the statue of the Cnidian Venus, expressed in it the form of Cratina, whom he loved. These things our Arnobius,

after the words of his already cited by us, rendered in Latin thus: "Who does not know, if he reads Posidippus again, that Praxiteles, in a contest of skills, forced the face of the Cnidian Venus into the form of the courtesan Cratina, whom the unhappy man loved to distraction?" (Arnobius, book 6, p. 198). You plainly see that after these words, si relegat, there is a gap, and that these words, in libro de Cnido, are missing through the ignorance or carelessness of a copyist, and are to be supplied from the text of Clement.

But afterwards Arnobius (ibid.) greatly amplified what Clement had said very briefly: When Phryne, the courtesan of Thespiae, was in her bloom, all the painters modelled their images of Venus on the likeness of Phryne: "And when Phryne the Thespian courtesan was in her bloom, all the painters imitated the beauty of Phryne in their images of Aphrodite." For Arnobius tells it thus: That famous Phryne of Thespiae, as those relate who have written on the affairs of Thespiae, when she was at the very height of her beauty, charm and bloom, is said to have been the model for all the Venuses that are held in repute, whether throughout the Greek cities, or wherever this love and desire for such statues has flowed" (ibid.). Of the gilded likeness of Phryne, fashioned by Praxiteles, Pausanias has handed down this in writing: "Praxiteles made the gilded image of Phryne, he too being her lover, and the image is a dedication of Phryne herself" (Pausanias, book 10, p. 330). Praxiteles wrought a gilded likeness of Phryne, being himself also one of the woman's lovers; she herself dedicated it. If you want more, you will find handed down in writing by Athenaeus not only about this likeness of Venus but also about another painted by Apelles. You may further consult Plutarch and Aelian, and, if you please, what we noted in the previous volume of the Apparatus (Athenaeus, Deipnosophists book 13, ch. 6, p. 590 ff.; Plutarch, On the Virtue of Alexander, vol. 2, p. 336; Aelian, Varia historia book 9, ch. 32; Apparatus vol. 1, pp. 150 and 744).

Moreover, "Phidias," says our author, "when he had raised up the form of Olympian Jupiter by the labour of an immense work, inscribed on the god's finger 'Pantarces is beautiful'. Now this was the name of a boy he loved, and cherished with obscene desire" (Arnobius, book 6, p. 199). This too he borrowed in turn from Clement of Alexandria. For this most learned Greek writer had made the same reproach to the pagans: "The Athenian Phidias, having inscribed on the finger of Olympian Zeus 'Pantarces is beautiful'; for it was not Zeus who was beautiful to him, but his beloved" (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 35). The Athenian Phidias indeed, who wrote on the finger of Olympian Jupiter: Pantarces is beautiful. For Jupiter was not beautiful to him, but the one whom he loved. But we have already dealt with all these matters in the previous volume of our Apparatus (Apparatus vol. 1, pp. 550, 737, 744). We have related all these things so that all may see at a single glance how, and what, Arnobius culled from Clement of Alexandria.

But from this, together with him, he certainly drew a most powerful argument against the images and statues of the pagans. For what is more impious, he says, and in the telling more

horrible, than that the monuments of their own execrable lusts had been impressed with impunity by wanton and insolent sculptors and painters upon the images and likenesses of the gods? The heathen therefore deceived themselves by a voluntary blindness, they who venerated these likenesses and were unwilling to examine what they were, lest, once the darkness of their errors had been dispelled, they should be compelled to return to a sounder mind.

But Arnobius presses them still further, and addresses them in these words: "Do you refrain from laughter when, in place of the immortal gods, you make supplication to little figurines of men and to human forms? Nay rather, you judge the figurines themselves to be gods, and do not believe that anything besides these has divine power" (Arnobius, book 6, p. 197). A little later he chastises them further with these sharper words: "So far is it a game and a childish fancy to fashion those figurines, to adore them in place of gods, to heap divine sanctities upon them" (ibid., p. 199). Now by sigillaria and sigilliola he means small images which, made by the craftsman's art, represented their gods, and which used to be sold publicly or sent to others. For Spartianus testifies that these figurines were given of his own accord by the Emperor Hadrian to clients and teachers, were gladly received from friends by Caracalla, and were sent by him even to those not expecting them (Spartianus, Life of Hadrian, about the middle, and Life of Caracalla, at the beginning). Macrobius, moreover, thinks that the origin of this custom was derived from the festival of the Saturnalia. If the matter is so, this origin is most wicked, and not without the greatest sacrilege did the heathen, as Tertullian says, adore these figurines while sitting in a chair or on benches (Macrobius, Saturnalia book 1, end of ch. 11; Tertullian, On Prayer, ch. 12, p. 154).

Article IV.

In what way Arnobius, from the material and the art by which the likenesses of the gods had been made, shows that they were adored by the heathen with impious worship and their help implored, and how vain and futile is the reply of those same gentiles, by which they professed that they venerated the likenesses only after their dedication; where [he treats] of fillets, of aged trees, and of the rite with which the heathen adored their likenesses.

The heathen could not be unaware that the likenesses of their gods, which, humble, prostrate and, as Arnobius says (Arnobius, book 6, p. 200), face down, they adored, to which they made supplication trembling, from which they so submissively begged help in adversity and, in prosperity, the continuance of love and favour, had been made by craftsmen out of gold, silver, ivory and other earthly material, and even with a woman's, nay sometimes with a harlot's, adornment, out of little pots, that is, small vessels in which stews were cooked, and out of others of the same kind, and out of more obscene vessels. How true these things are we have shown in the preceding dissertation (Dissertation on Minucius, ch. 21, art. 1). But who can deny that this veneration of images, likenesses and statues, which we have treated elsewhere more than once, is most deservedly by right proscribed and repudiated by Arnobius.

But certainly it was all the more to be condemned, because the heathen thus begged and expected help, favour and benefits from them, as though from gods present, and

in whom a divine force and power resided. For this senseless opinion was so deeply fixed in the minds of the Gentiles that the Sicilians, in Cicero, complained: «that they no longer had even gods in their cities to whom they might flee, because C. Verres had carried off their most sacred images from the most hallowed shrines» (Cicero, Against Verres, Oration 4, beginning, p. 46). Such too, on Livy's testimony, was the complaint of the envoys of the Ambracians in the Roman senate: «Their goods had been taken from them, and, what moved them above all, the temples throughout the whole city had been stripped of their ornaments; the images of the gods, nay the gods themselves, had been torn from their seats and carried off; the walls and doorposts had been laid bare. There remained to the Ambracians none whom they might adore, to whom they might pray and make supplication» (Livy, book 38, chap. 43). Who, then, would not perceive from these words how plainly and in what earnest men most distinguished among the heathen, before the Roman senate, and the Romans themselves, asserted that these images were truly their gods, or that the gods dwelt in them as in their own homes, so that once these images were taken away they believed they no longer had any gods.

If, however, anyone excessively obstinate should still dare to deny this or to call it into doubt, he will certainly be thoroughly refuted by the authority of our Arnobius, whom no one, if he is of sound mind, can gainsay. For he openly declares, and not without the deepest grief of a contrite heart (Arnobius, book 1, p. 22), that when he was entangled in the errors of the Gentiles, which were thoroughly known to him, he had been entirely persuaded that the images of the gods, and the ribbons painted on decrepit trees, were the very gods whom he flattered, whom he addressed, and from whom he begged favours, as if, he says, a present power of the gods were in them, or as if they truly dwelt in them.

What could be clearer or more explicit than this testimony? And who will deny that this opinion of Arnobius, or rather, as he himself confesses, this most grievous error, was common to him with the other Gentiles? Wherefore Tertullian, [speaking of the time] before images of the gods were fashioned, says: «The god himself [was] nowhere. For the talents of the Greeks and Tuscans had not yet flooded the City with the fashioning of images» (Tertullian, Apology, chap. 25, p. 28). But on that absurd opinion and impiety of the Gentiles we touched somewhat in the first volume of our Apparatus (Apparatus, p. 496 ff., p. 750 ff.). Of Tertullian, however, we must treat in his proper place.

Moreover, Arnobius said taenias, in Greek ταινίας, that is, bands, or, as Servius observed (Servius, on book 5 of Virgil's Aeneid, p. 374), fillets, or the ends of fillets, on trees that were veternosae, that is, worn out by old age or by long-standing disease, as Donatus explains (Donatus, on Terence, Eunuch, act 4, scene 4). Our Author therefore means that, when he was still a heathen, he worshipped fillets and garlands on trees consumed by great age, or rather ancient trees wreathed with fillets and garlands. For the heathen of old used to adore trees dedicated to some god as gods, or as their seats. «These,» says Pliny, «were the temples of the deities, and by ancient rite simple country districts even

now dedicate a pre-eminent tree to a god. Nor do we adore images gleaming with gold and ivory more than groves and, in them, the very silences.» (Pliny, Natural History 12.1, p. 4.) Concerning the Phoenicians, Philo reported the following from Sanchuniathon, and he from Taautus, if Eusebius is to be believed: "These indeed first consecrated the shoots of the earth, and held them to be gods, and worshipped them." "They first of all consecrated the sprouts of the earth," and therefore trees, "and, holding them in the place of gods, paid them the worship of adoration." (Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 3.10, p. 34.) Arnobius also makes mention of the oiled stone, about which [we spoke] in our earlier dissertation, where we also touched somewhat on trees (Dissertation on Minucius, ch. 19, art. 2). Arnobius therefore declares that formerly, when he followed the senseless superstitions of the gentiles, he worshipped and adored images, trees and stones, and asked benefits from them, and was falsely persuaded that these very things were gods, and that divine force and power were in them.

But although he, having become a Christian, confesses not without bitter feeling of mind and sincere penitence that he had worshipped the images of the gods (Arnobius, book 3, p. 101), yet so great was the obstinacy of the gentiles that those very things which they could not fail to know were made of the vilest clay, once placed in their temples, they held for gods and venerated. Blind men indeed, in order to obtain something from them, as Arnobius says, "prostrate before the faces of the gods," that is, of the images, "swept the very thresholds with kisses" (the same, book 1, p. 29). This was indeed the rite of those adoring, as is sufficiently gathered from Suetonius, Livy, Polybius and others (Suetonius, book 7, Life of Vitellius, shortly after the beginning; Livy, book 30, ch. 8; Polybius, book 15, beginning). For this reason Tibullus sang:

Nor would I [refuse] to creep over the earth on my knees as a suppliant, and to be able to beat my wretched head on the holy [ground]. Nor, if I have deserved it, would I hesitate to fall down before the temples, and to give kisses to the consecrated thresholds. (Tibullus, book 1, elegy 5.)

But Lucretius, cited by Lactantius (Lactantius, Institutes 2.3, p. 150), hoots off that impious worship of his fellow gentiles with these verses:

Nor is it any piety to be seen often, with veiled head, turning towards a stone, and approaching all the altars, nor to fall prostrate on the ground and spread out the palms before the shrines of the gods. (Lucretius, book 5, line 1198 and following.)

Read further, if you wish, Plutarch, Lucan and Brisson, who have noted more about these rites of the gentiles (Plutarch, Roman Questions, p. 266; Lucan, book 2, line 128 and following; Brisson, On Formulas, book 1, p. 46).

Arnobius moreover assails this impiety most sharply on this ground, "that if it were permitted," he says, "to enter into the hollows of some image," or, as he speaks more clearly a little later, "into all its recesses and joints" (Arnobius, book 6, p. 201 and following), nothing else would be seen but its various parts, which iron chains, hooks, clamps and poured-in lead held together. In addition

to this, moreover, those images, "whose soles and knees the heathen used to handle as they prayed" (Veget., bk. 2, ch. 44). half-filled and empty, and in no way animated or breathing, rot through the injuries of time and fall apart. In them, too, shrews, geckos and cockroaches make their nests, and they are fouled by spiders and swallows. Arnobius therefore, like Minucius Felix and other Fathers of the Church, as we have seen (Dissert. on Minucius, ch. 19 art. 2), rightly concludes from this that nothing whatever of divinity can be present in these images and statues.

But the heathen, so as to weaken in some way or other this argument, by whose weight they felt themselves crushed, replied that they had never believed those images to be gods in themselves, but that in them they worshipped and venerated only those "whom the sacred dedication brings in and causes to dwell in images made by craftsmen" (Arnob., bk. 6, p. 203 and following). But our author utterly crushes and completely dispels that fiction of a ridiculous opinion with arguments of various weight. For to whom, he says, if he is of sound mind, will it ever be made credible that the gods, by some ridiculous right of dedication, are either compelled to inhabit earthly images, or, having of their own accord left their starry seats, move to them as often as it has pleased a man to dedicate a statue? And what of the fact that the gods cannot be compelled by any human force to remain always in those images? For nothing is more wretched than such a necessity, and nothing more unworthy of God. Then again, if they dwell in them only so long as it pleases them, then certainly the images will at some time, when they withdraw, cease to be gods. It will therefore remain in doubt when sacrifices ought to be made to them and when they ought to be worshipped. Moreover, says Arnobius, since many images of one and the same god are made, now small, now very large, do the gods in them either contract themselves or stretch themselves out, and arrange their body according to the shape and figure of the image? And what more absurd can be said or thought of God?

But come now: it is certainly established that very many images of one and the same god were set up in different regions, separated from one another by a very great distance of lands. Could that god be present in all of them? Not divided, indeed, because the true God cannot be divided. Not whole, for that god, as they supposed, was corporeal, and therefore cannot be in several places at once.

Finally, if these images were either gods or their dwelling-place, ought they not by their divine power to have protected themselves against any mishap whatever? Why then, argues our author (ibid., p. 205), did the heathen shut them up and fortify them with very strong locks, bars and bolts, so that they might not suffer any injury? Why, so that they might not be carried off by thieves secretly or by night, did they protect them "with a thousand temple-keepers," as he puts it (ibid.), "and with a thousand watchmen"? Tertullian argues in the same way, and explains more clearly who those watchmen are: "Surely," he says, "they would first protect their own statues and images and temples, which, as I suppose, Caesar's soldiers keep safe by their watches" (Tertullian, Apology, ch. 29, p. 29). And earlier the author of the letter to Diognetus addresses and rebukes the heathen thus: Do you not

mock your gods, since you venerate the stone and earthenware ones without guards: but the silver and golden ones you shut up by night, and by day you set guards beside them, lest they be stolen (Epistle to Diognetus, shortly after the beginning): But the silver and golden ones you shut in by night, or by day you set guards beside them lest they be carried off by theft. Likewise Cyprian, with no less sharp a sting of his pen, pricks them: "In the same way," he says, "as your vengeance defends them when they are injured, your protection guards them when shut up, lest they perish. Let it shame you to hope for protection from those whom you yourself protect. (Cyprian, Treatise to Demetrianus, p. 191.)

Moreover, it was not enough for the gentiles to protect the images, or their gods, with the guarding of men and with watches by day and by night, but, Arnobius continues, for the same reason they kept dogs and geese. And indeed we read it written by Cicero: "Food for the geese is contracted for at public expense, and dogs are kept on the Capitol, so that they may give warning if thieves come. (Cicero, Oration 2, For Roscius of Ameria 1, p. 21.) This is also confirmed by the testimony of Livy, Pliny, Plutarch, Aelian and others (Livy, book 5, near the end; Pliny, Natural History book 10, chapter 22, p. 408; Plutarch, Life of Camillus, p. 142, and Roman Questions, p. 284; Aelian, On Animals book 12, chapter 33). But these guards, Arnobius argues, were as useless as they were insulting to the gods. For if they themselves at least dwelt in the images, the care of protecting them from any mishap and injury ought surely to have been left to them and not to others. For no gentile could ever say that they either slept or were unable to protect themselves. Hence Augustine too, on the basis of the guarding by geese just mentioned, thus mocks and hisses off those same gods of the gentiles: "Then, when the whole Roman city had been brought into the power of the enemy, the Capitoline hill alone had remained, and it too would have been taken, had not at least the geese kept awake while the gods slept. Hence Rome had almost fallen into the superstition of the Egyptians, who worship beasts and birds, when they celebrated solemn rites for a goose." (Augustine, City of God book 2, chapter 22, p. 51.)

But who can deny that from all these reasons Arnobius rightly concludes that the images of the gentiles, whether before or after their consecration, neither are gods, nor do the gods dwell in them, much less can they be compelled to leave heaven and come to dwell in them? Of that dedication of images, moreover, we have spoken elsewhere (Dissertation on Minucius, chapter 19, article 1).

Article V.

Another argument of Arnobius against the images of the gods is examined, drawn from the fact that they were held in contempt and dishonour by the heathen and were despoiled: namely, the image of Jupiter by Antiochus of Cyzicus and by Dionysius the tyrant, that of Aesculapius by the same Dionysius, that of Venus by Pygmalion and by another young man; others again were either torn down or burnt, where [it treats] of the various burnings of the Capitol.

The last argument of Arnobius against the images of the gods is drawn from those which were treated with the greatest dishonour and contempt, despoiled with insult, and at length, no differently from the temples, thrown down and utterly destroyed. For who will deny that the statue of Jupiter was despoiled with derision and mockery by Antiochus of Cyzicus? "This one

indeed, they report, Antiochus of Cyzicus" (we use the words of Arnobius) "carried off from the shrine, the golden Jupiter of fifteen cubits, and put in its place one of bronze, painted over with thin leaves of gold" (Arnob., bk. 6, p. 205). This, moreover, was beyond doubt drawn from Clement of Alexandria. Hear, I beg you, his Greek words, and you will admit it without hesitation: "Antiochus of Cyzicus," he says, "being at a loss for money, ordered the golden image of Zeus, which was fifteen cubits in size, to be melted down, and an image resembling it, of the other, less valuable material, gilded with leaves, to be dedicated again." (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 34.) Antiochus of Cyzicus, since he was in want of money, ordered the golden statue of Jupiter, which was of the size of fifteen cubits, to be melted down, and a statue like it, made of another material and gilded with plates, to be set up again.

From the same Greek writer Arnobius transferred this further into his book: "That famous Dionysius, but the younger, when he was stripping Jupiter of his golden covering and substituting a woollen one in its place, playing also with jesting witticisms, saying that the former was cold in frosts, the latter warm, the former burdensome in summers, the latter in turn airy under the heats" (Arnob., loc. cit.). For Clement of Alexandria had said: "Dionysius the tyrant, the younger, having stripped off the golden cloak of Zeus in Sicily, ordered a woollen one to be put round him, saying wittily that this was better than the golden one, both lighter in summer and warmer in cold" (Clem., loc. cit.). Dionysius the younger tyrant, when he had taken away the golden garment from Jupiter in Sicily, ordered him to be clothed with wool, saying wittily that it was better than the golden one, as being both lighter in summer and warmer in winter. About both those statues of Jupiter we have discoursed in the preceding volume of our Apparatus (vol. 1 of the Apparatus, bk. 3, diss. 1, ch. 8, art. 2 and 3, pp. 737 and 743). But if the gods had dwelt in their images, argues Arnobius, neither would Antiochus and Dionysius have done this with impunity, nor could Jupiter have borne so patiently such and so great insults, inflicted on him by feeble men not without mockery. For he himself, without waiting, as we said in the preceding article, for the help of anyone else, would have avenged them at once.

Our author proceeds and relates that the same Dionysius likewise jested further when he was stripping Aesculapius of a most ample golden beard: "It was indeed," he said, "an unworthy deed that a son begotten of Apollo, who is smooth and beardless and very like a boy not yet come of age, should be fashioned so bearded, so that it is left in doubt which of them is the father and which the son, nay rather whether they are of one race and kinship" (Arnob., bk. 6, p. 206). Will he stray far from the truth who supposes that this was plucked from these words of Cicero: "And the same Dionysius," said the Latin Orator, "ordered the golden beard of Aesculapius of Epidaurus to be removed. For it was not fitting, [he said,] that the son should be bearded when in all the shrines the father was beardless" (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, bk. 3, p. 252)? The same things concerning both impious deeds of Dionysius have been related by Valerius Maximus, Lactantius, Aelian and others (Val. Max., bk. 1, ch. 2, § 3, p. 20; Lactant., bk. 2, ch. 4, p. 157; Aelian,

bk. 1, Var. hist., § 8). Why then, Arnobius presses, did neither of them at once avenge either deed of Dionysius, so audacious, so disgraceful to each god? Why did each bear it with so patient a mind, the one letting his face be disfigured, the other letting himself be so shamefully stripped of his adornment? Why did those two gods not show by deserved vengeance that they were present in their images, as the Gentiles supposed, and were their guardians and defenders? But these, 'were held in such mockery,' says Ambrose, 'that neither could Jupiter defend his garment, nor Aesculapius his beard, nor had Apollo yet begun to reach manhood, nor could all those who are called gods draw back the dishes which they were holding, not so much because they feared the charge of theft as because they had no sense. Who then would worship those who can neither defend themselves, as gods, nor hide themselves, as men?' (Ambrose, De Virginibus, book 2, ch. 5, § 7, p. 172.)

Nor indeed is there any ground for some heathen or other to object to us, with Valerius Maximus, that although Dionysius did not pay the punishments that were due, he nevertheless, through the disgrace of his son, paid after death the penalties which he had escaped while alive. For that son suffered the penalties due not to his father's cruelty but to his own, as is sufficiently proved from Athenaeus and from Justin the historian (Athen., Deipnos. book 12, p. 541; Justin, Hist. book 21, ch. 2 and 5); whence Ovid sang these lines about him:

He who was lately feared in the city of Syracuse / scarcely kept off harsh hunger by a lowly craft. (Ovid, Epistles from Pontus, book 4, epist. 3, p. 328.)

What, indeed, of the fact that Cicero himself, though a Gentile, argues from the deed of Dionysius the father in plainly the same way as our author and the other defenders of the Christian religion? 'This man, therefore,' he says, 'neither did Olympian Jupiter strike with a thunderbolt, nor did Aesculapius destroy him as he wasted away with a wretched and lingering disease; but having died in his own bed he was carried onto a pyre at Tympanis, and the power which he himself had obtained through crime he handed on to his son, as though just and lawful, by way of an inheritance' (Cicero, loc. cit.).

Nor does it help the heathen to reply that those insults which seem [offered] to the names [of the gods], and those reproaches, are so plainly disregarded by the gods and held as nothing that they did not trouble to exact punishment for them. For with what face, Arnobius presses, or with what tranquillity, or rather stupidity, of mind could the gods tolerate not only those impious deeds of the Dionysii and of Antiochus, but also other abominable outrages, not to be named without horror, which have been committed to memory by Philostephanus and Posidippus? For the first, 'in his Cypriaca,' says our author, 'relates that Pygmalion, king of Cyprus, loved as a woman an image of Venus which among the Cyprians was held to be of ancient sanctity and religion... and that he was accustomed, having lifted the deity onto a couch, to join with it in embraces..... In like manner Posidippus, in the book which he indicates was written about Cnidus and its affairs, records that a young man of no mean birth (but he conceals his name), seized with love of Venus, on whose account Cnidus is renowned, amatory

wantonness he too mingled with the image of that same deity, stretched out upon the marriage couch, and with the ends of the pleasures that follow' (Arnobius, book 7, p. 106 ff.). But these things in turn he borrowed from Clement of Alexandria. For these are his words, word for word: "That Cypriot Pygmalion fell in love with an ivory statue. The statue was of Aphrodite, and she was naked; the Cypriot is overcome by the form, and has intercourse with the statue. And this Philostephanus relates. Another Aphrodite, in Cnidus, was of stone, and she was beautiful. Another man fell in love with her, and has intercourse with the stone. Posidippus relates it: the former in his work On Cyprus, the latter in that On Cnidus" (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 38). That Cypriot Pygmalion loved an ivory statue; it was an image of Venus, and it was naked. The Cypriot is moved by the figure, and has intercourse with the image, and this Philostephanus narrates. But another Venus, in Cnidus, was a stone, and it was beautiful; another man loved her, and has intercourse with the stone of Venus, as Posidippus reports; the former indeed in the work On Cyprus, the latter in the work On Cnidus. See what we noted about these in the first volume of our Apparatus (vol. 1 of the Apparatus, book 3, dissertation 1, chapter 8, article 4, p. 745).

Where in the world then, says Arnobius, was each of those Venuses, that she took no care to repel and restrain the unbridled and untamed wantonness of these young men? Will the heathen perhaps answer that to this goddess, the mistress of pleasures and of lust, insults of this kind were most welcome? But these images of a goddess most lustful, as the gentiles admitted, and their most wicked lovers, ought by all means to have been handed over to avenging flames.

Moreover, even if soft and pleasure-loving goddesses would gladly have permitted these things, was there perhaps the same softness and sloth in the other gods? If then there was in them greater equity and fortitude of mind, where, says Arnobius (book 6, p. 207), was Jupiter the Thunderer, when devouring fire so many times seized and consumed the Capitol, and that very Capitoline Jove himself with his wife and daughter? Where was Argive Juno, when her temple together with the priestess Chrysis; where Egyptian Serapis, together with Isis; where Liber Eleutherius, together with Athens; where Diana, together with Ephesus; where Dodonaean Jupiter, together with Dodona; where finally divine Apollo, when their temples and images were either plundered by robbers or consumed by fire? But that these things too were culled from the already cited book of Clement of Alexandria can be gathered from what we said in the previous volume of our Apparatus (vol. 1 of the Apparatus, same place, p. 729 ff.). We shall therefore add nothing to this, except that the burning of the Capitol was threefold: one in the civil war, when Scipio and Norbanus were consuls; the second in the Vitellian war, but the Capitol was afterwards restored by Vespasian. The third was before the death of Titus, the son of that Vespasian, and it was rebuilt again by Domitian. Read Marliani, Panciroli and Donati on the city of Rome, and the authors cited by them (vol. 3 of the Roman Antiquities, pp. 77, 344 and 577).

Article VI.

It is shown how weak is the reply of the heathen that the images of the gods were to be kept for this reason, that the ignorant common people might be held to their duty and to religion by fear of them; and what is to be gathered from what has been said so far.

The last reply of the heathen to what we have so far argued against the images of the gods (Arnobius, book 9, p. 108) was that they openly taught that the gods dwelt in them and that they were themselves gods, not indeed because they believed the matter to be so, but so that by this false persuasion and by terror of the gods' presence the ignorant multitude of the common people, which was by far the greatest part of all cities, might be held to their duty and to religion. And certainly Cicero, for the same reason, held that there ought to be temples in cities and groves in the countryside, contrary to the opinion of the Persians (Cicero, On the Laws, book 2, p. 335). For that opinion, by which the gods are believed to inhabit all cities and temples, and even images, brings to all states a religion that is useful to them, and renders individual men more chaste and more religious.

But what terror, Arnobius replies (Arnobius, loc. cit.), can the images of false gods strike into the bad, the dishonest and the criminal, of whom the world has always been full? Did these men not know very well, like all the rest, that those images had been attacked with impunity by tyrants, thieves, robbers and others, as was said above, and despoiled, plundered, carried off, thrown down, and treated with the utmost disgrace and ignominy, and at length overturned and utterly demolished.

Then again, what was any man to fear from the images (ibid., p. 209)? Was it the reaping sickle of Saturn, says our Author, was it the thunderbolt of Jupiter clad in the ricinium, the cestus or girdle of Juno, the timbrels of the Mother of the gods, the helmet of Pallas, the petasus of Mercury, the staff of Aesculapius, the great breasts of Ceres, the horn of Fortune or Amalthea, as Pausanias says, or, as others say, the cornucopia, and finally the dog's face of ridiculous Anubis, as Diodorus Siculus, Macrobius, Lucian and others declare (Pausanias, book 4, p. 14; and book 7, p. 234; Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca, book 1, p. 55; Macrobius, Metamorphoses, book 1, p. 201; Lucian, On Sacrifices, p. 186)? Certainly no man, if he was ever of sound mind, could be persuaded by anyone that in these things, which have been explained by us a little before in this chapter and in the previous dissertation (Dissertation on Minucius, ch. 15, art. 2), there was anything to be dreaded and trembled at, or by which anyone might at any time be deterred from a wicked deed.

But so far is it from being the case that those and other images of the gods turned bad men away from any crime, that neither the severity of the laws nor any kind of punishment has so far curbed their audacity. Nay rather, they have thereby more often been made worse and more depraved. It is false, therefore, that sincere religion is established or preserved by fear of the images, or of the gods dwelling in them. Nor could this have been unknown to the heathen themselves, or at least to those among them who excelled in wisdom and learning. For Cicero somewhere made Cotta speak thus: “What? If some have said that the whole opinion about the immortal gods was invented by men

of wisdom for the sake of the commonwealth, so that those whom reason could not, religion might lead to their duty, did they not utterly abolish all religion?” (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, book 2, p. 212.)

But from all these things which have been discussed in this and the preceding articles, anyone will easily be able to gather that by Arnobius it is proved with the most powerful weight of reasons that the images and statues of the gods are altogether to be condemned and rejected. For the Gentiles had vainly persuaded themselves that these, whether before or after their dedication and consecration, became gods, and that help, favour and benefits could be conferred on them by them. In truth there was nothing in them except what was utterly alien to true divinity, and for the most part, because of its baseness, wholly unworthy of the true and best God. These things indeed are further confirmed in a wonderful way by those things which we have already remarked elsewhere more than once, where also we have shown plainly, as we think, to anyone not wholly blinded by preconceived opinions, that nothing can be inferred from this against the images which are wont to be piously venerated by Christians (Dissertation on Minucius, ch. 19, art. 2; vol. 1 of the Apparatus, book 5, dissertation 1, ch. 9, art. 5, p. 743 and following). But these things are still to be dealt with in our subsequent dissertations.

Chapter XXIII.

On the sacrifices of the Gentiles.

First article.

By what arguments Arnobius demonstrates that no sacrifices are to be made to the gods of the Gentiles, and overturns the opposing reasons of those same Gentiles; where [he treats] of the animal victim, of the savour of sacrifice, and of the soul of the victim.

If the gods are feigned and fabricated, if accordingly no temples, shrines or sanctuaries are to be built for them, if their images, figures and statues are false and fictitious, does it not follow from this that no sacrifices at all ought ever to be made to them? But the first propositions, as we saw above, are proved by Arnobius most invincibly. Therefore the last also has been demonstrated together with them so plainly that it seems to need not even the least further proof. Yet, those former errors having been refuted one by one, Arnobius judged that this later one too should be attacked by him specifically and with particular reasons.

First, therefore, he makes it manifest that no cause whatever can be assigned by anyone for making any sacrifice to the gods of the Gentiles (Arnobius, book 7, p. 212 and following). For the gods, if there are any, could never derive any advantage, or gain, or profit from them. For it is false that they are fed and nourished by sacrifices. For whoever receives anything of food and nourishment must be mortal. But the gods must be immortal.

Next, what is brought to the altars of the gods is either inanimate or animate (ibid.). But the gods can be fed by neither. Not indeed by the inanimate, unless they are said to be corporeal, as men are, and consequently are not gods. Moreover, no one will deny that the animate rather than the inanimate befits them. For the animate, as Arnobius says, is the animal victim. But what that is, you will learn

Macrobius, who, after Trebatius and Virgil have been cited by him, observes that this kind of victim, whose soul alone is consecrated, is called by the haruspices an "animal victim" (Macrobius, Saturnalia, book 3, chapter 5, p. 322 and following). Strabo, moreover, where he discusses the sacrifices of the Persians, has recorded this: "They say that God wants nothing except the soul of the victim." (Strabo, Geography, book 15, p. 732.) Yet the heathen vainly supposed that the gods were nourished by animate things, that is, by a victim of this kind: "Unless perhaps," as Arnobius wittily argues, "the god devours the souls of the victims, or pursues the savour from the burning altars, and the smoke, and feeds on the cnissae which the burning entrails belch forth, still oozing with blood and moist with their former juices" (Arnobius, book 7, p. 212). Now cnissa, in Greek knissa or knisa, is the savour, or the fat and grease of animals, or the smoke which the fire gives off when the victim is burnt up. It is in this last sense that it is taken by our author.

But that the gentiles truly believed that their gods were fed and sated with these cnissae, you will gather from these words of Clement of Alexandria: "But Zeus, having appeared later, if he was a god, perhaps partaking of the savour of the roasting meats, the prize of which your gods confess they have obtained" (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Gentiles, p. 12). "But Jupiter, when he had appeared afterwards, if indeed he was a god, as one who had perhaps perceived the savour of roasted meats, of which reward your gods confess themselves to be partakers." Nor can this be proved less clearly by the authority of Lucian, who indeed, though a heathen man, nevertheless dared to mock his own gods with this sarcasm: "The gods sitting beside Jupiter look down upon the earth, and, with head strained in every direction, look round to see whether from anywhere they may see fire flying up, or savour rising into the air, 'or knissa being borne upwards', and smoke whirling round. And if anyone happens to offer a sacrifice, they all feast, gaping at the smoke, and, after the manner of flies, sucking up the blood poured out around the altars" (Lucian, On Sacrifices, p. 185).

But Arnobius refutes this most absurd opinion on the ground that nothing at all from any victim sacrificed reaches the substance of the gods. For whatever was sacrificed by the gentiles remained on the earth, or, lifted up on high and dissolved into ashes, fell back onto it. Hence again the same Lucian: "And the savour, wondrous and befitting the sacred, goes upwards and is gently scattered into heaven itself" (Lucian, ibid., p. 186). "For that sacred and divine savour is borne upwards and, carried up into heaven itself, is little by little diffused."

Wherefore Clement of Alexandria rightly concludes from this that these things are, by the most deserved right, entirely rejected by Christians: "Fittingly, then, we do not offer sacrifice to Him Who is not overcome by pleasures, since the exhalation that comes through the smoke reaches somewhere below, not even as far as the thickest clouds, but stays far from these too, if indeed it reaches anywhere" (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7, p. 707). "Rightly therefore we do not offer sacrifice to Him Who is not captured by pleasures, since lower down it does not reach even as far as the thickest clouds, but stays far off even from them, that which is made through smoke,

the exhalation, if only it reaches [them]." Afterwards, however, he refutes this foolish opinion of the heathen with another argument: "But if in reality the savour is the prize of the gods who are among the Greeks, they would not be slow to make gods of the cooks too, who are deemed worthy of equal happiness, and the oven itself (read ἰπνόν, or rather 'worshipping the furnace itself'), which comes closer to the much-honoured savour" (Ibid., p. 716). But if the cnissa is in truth the gift of the gods who are among the Greeks, why do they not first also enrol among the gods the cooks, who are deemed worthy of an equal blessedness, and why do they not worship the furnace itself, which is nearer to this venerable cnissa?

The second reason of the heathen for making sacrifices to their gods was this: that victims must be slain for them for the sake of pleasure, inasmuch as they are thereby filled with joy and gladness (Arnob., bk. 7, p. 213). For, as Lucian, already cited by us, said: Τίς οὐκ ἂν εἰκάσειεν ἥδεσθαι ταῦθ' ὁρῶντας τοὺς θεούς; "Who would not readily conjecture that the gods rejoice when they behold these things?" (Lucian, ibid., p. 186.)

But you will never persuade any man not of unsound mind, says Arnobius, that the gods, like some animal, are affected by any delight and joy. For pleasure is perceived by the five senses of the body. But the gods, if they are immortal, must lack those senses.

Moreover, what sort of joy is that by which someone rejoices in the slaughter of harmless animals? Are not even savage men sometimes moved by pity for them? How much more, then, the gods, whom they have imagined to be dutiful, gentle and most mild? Wherefore a certain ancient poet cited by Porphyry sang these things (Porphyry, On Abstinence from Animal Food, bk. 2, p. 230).

Who of men is so foolish, and so very slack, so credulous, as to hope that the gods, all of them, rejoice in fleshless bones and bile set on fire, things not fit to eat even for hungry dogs, and receive this as their prize?

Who of men is so stupid, and so slack, and credulous, as to hope that the gods, all of them, rejoice in fleshless bones and in bile tried, or thoroughly cooked, by fire, things which would not be edible for famished dogs, and obtain that reward?

But earlier that same Porphyry had said that the evil demons, who desire to be thought gods, are refreshed by the savour and by the reek of sacrifices. Wherefore, he says, the good and wise man will beware of sacrifices of this kind, lest he draw such teachers of impiety to himself. How much force there is in each and all of the arguments we have set out, everyone, as we think, will easily perceive. But if anyone desires more, he will find these things without great labour in Eusebius (Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel, bk. 4, ch. 22, p. 175; bk. 5, ch. 2, p. 182). Further, we think there is no one who, from all the reasonings of Arnobius taken together, would not admit that the absurd error of the gentiles is utterly overthrown by them (Arnob., bk. 6, p. 204).

Article II.

How Arnobius overturns other arguments of the heathen, by which they strove to prove that sacrifices must be made to their gods; where [it is treated] of the rite by which the same heathen washed the body before they approached the temples, and it is explained what the bulba, the immissulus, the buzzard, the solipuga, the water-snake, cumin, cress, the bulb, cunila and the wagtail are.

The common opinion of the gentiles, and an argument of great weight, as they judged, for making sacrifices to the gods, was founded on this vain persuasion, by which they supposed that the gods were appeased by those who sacrificed, and that their wrath was calmed. But Arnobius most evidently convicts this opinion of falsehood (Arnobius, book 7, p. 214). For no movement of anger can exist in the true God, since it, being closest to the beasts, can belong only to those who are mortal and not yet blessed. But the anger of God is to be dealt with more fully in the following dissertation (Dissertation on Lactantius, ch. 15, art. 1 and following).

Suppose now, however, if you wish, says Arnobius, that the gods really are angry with men; you will never conclude from this that they are to be soothed by sacrifices. For a sacrifice ought not to be made to them before they are angry. For then, just as food is thrown to wild beasts so that they may not rage, so a sacrifice would restrain the future anger of the gods. Nor again must sacrifice be made to gods already inflamed with anger. For besides the fact that the gods cannot be harmed by men, they certainly never laid down by any laws what sacred rite was to be performed by transgressing men so that they should not pay the penalty of an injured deity. Then again it is utterly removed from all likelihood that they, when a pig or a little hen or other cattle have been sacrificed, lay aside their anger and forget their injuries. For if this hope were given of crimes so easily redeemed, the multitude of wicked men would beyond doubt increase. Which indeed Porphyry proves more fully from this (Porphyry, On Abstinence from Animals, book 2, p. 232 and following), that any wicked man, led on by this reasoning, will believe that the power of acting unjustly and wickedly has been granted to him; but otherwise, if he thinks that he will receive his reward from the gods only on account of good works.