Josephus Isaeus Caesenas, Notae in Divinarum Institutionum libros

Finally, since it is agreed that the holy lights of holy Church have fallen silent out of deference to so great a man: / but you, tongue barred from Latin eloquence, / go to bed; for hellebore is what you are weighed against.

Nevertheless, there were afterwards not a few among the more recent heterodox who accused Lactantius of yet other errors, or made him an accomplice and patron of the false dogmas which they vainly try to defend. But we have thought that such great rashness should be chastised later, in a more fitting place, so that the same things are not repeated.

Of graver weight, no doubt, must be the testimony of Pope Damasus, who in his letter to Jerome passed this judgement on the letters of our Lactantius: "I confess to you that I do not read willingly the books of Lactantius (two manuscripts: Lectitanti) which you gave me some time ago, because many of his letters stretch out to a thousand lines in length, and they seldom discuss our doctrine; so it comes about that their length breeds weariness in the reader, and such as are short are fitter for schoolmen than for us, treating of metres, and the situation of regions, and philosophers disputing" (several manuscripts and editions: "matters to be disputed"; others: "disputations"). Now by these words, "seldom of our doctrine", Damasus seems to mean nothing other than the questions which Jerome had put forward concerning certain passages of sacred Scripture. Then again this censure of Damasus seems to regard only the letters of Lactantius, if his name is written there, and not the books of the Divine Institutes, in which, as in others, he discusses very many things concerning our dogmas and tenets neither meagrely nor unlearnedly, as can easily be discerned from the analysis of them and from other things to be said more fully below. What, moreover, of the fact that Jerome, to whom Damasus wrote, speaks thus of these same books of Lactantius: "Our Firmianus too, in the splendid work of his Institutes, has mentioned the letter Y, and has discussed most fully the right-hand and left-hand things, that is, the vices and virtues" (Jerome, Commentary on Ecclesiastes, p. 770)? Of his letters, however, we can determine nothing with certainty, since none have come down to us.

But at least Gelasius I, someone will say, in the Roman council rejected the works of Lactantius, together with others which the catholic and apostolic Roman Church does not receive, in these words: "The little works of Lactantius, apocryphal." But many formerly doubted whether those words are genuine and authentic. We, however, know for more than certain that they are found in all the more ancient manuscript codices of better note. But we hold it as no less established

NOTES OF JOSEPH ISAEUS OF CESENA ON THE FIRST BOOK OF THE DIVINE INSTITUTES OF LACTANTIUS FIRMIANUS.

CHAPTER I.

For that some have thrown away their own property, etc.

that by this decree of Pope Gelasius many writings of the ancient Fathers of the Church, such as Tertullian, Eusebius Pamphili and others, are sent away as apocryphal, which nonetheless all freely admit to be sound and orthodox. They were therefore branded with that name either on account of other works of the same writers infected with errors, or on account of certain mistakes with which they are here and there sprinkled. Now no one can deny that our Lactantius, in composing these books of the Divine Institutes, struck upon several rocks of error, and above all upon that one which the Chiliasts had invented concerning the millenary kingdom of Christ on earth after the last judgement. And could not that error alone have given occasion to the aforesaid censure of Damasus? We, however, have treated of it, and shall say something more below.

His other errors, whether real or ascribed to him, we shall set out in their place with our accustomed candour, so that, having explained them without any dissembling, we may make plain to all what in them is worthy of reproof. But with the same frankness we shall wash away others which are ascribed to him by certain people through thoughtlessness or ill will. For nothing is more dear to the heart of some recent writers than to enlarge and multiply the lapses and errors of the ancient Fathers of the Church. Sometimes, indeed, those crafty men pretend to excuse them a little, because to err is human, or because to ancient writers, coming over from among the heathen to the religion of Christ, our sacred teachings had not yet been sufficiently explored. But by this sly and fraudulent excuse they aim at nothing else than to weaken and belittle the authority of those men and of the ancient and ever venerable tradition.

For the rest, whatever the blemishes or errors of Lactantius may be, we shall certainly show a little later that the truth of the Christian religion is demonstrated by him with the most powerful weight of reasons. Nor can it be denied that in his books many teachings of the Christian faith concerning sacred Scripture, God, Christ the Lord, the old and the new law, and the precepts and institutions of the latter, are rightly explained, asserted and confirmed by him. But these are handed down more clearly and fully in the books of the Divine Institutes. Hence these are rightly judged to be his principal work, elaborated with great care and effort of mind. Yet it is filled to overflowing not with that sacred learning alone, but also with profane, varied and manifold erudition.

These were Socrates; Democritus of Abdera, of whom Lactantius himself also speaks in Book III, chapter 23; Anaxagoras of Clazomenae; and others.

For because bitterness is mixed with the virtues, whereas the vices are seasoned with pleasure, offended by the former and enticed by the latter, they are carried headlong, etc. He says the same in the book On the Anger of God, ch. 19. This reason, among others, is brought forward to explain why, although virtue is in accordance with man's nature and vice contrary to it (as is found in Seneca, On Anger book 2, ch. 13, and Letter 123; a detriment, and Quintilian book 12, last chapter, and as St Thomas excellently demonstrates in Part 2, q. 71, art. 2), so few embrace the former and so many the latter: namely because, although the good of virtue is consonant with man's nature according to the rational part, yet the sensible good, by which we are lured into vice, also suits it according to the sensitive part, which is opposed to reason. And although the rational portion is the chief one in man, nevertheless man follows the good of sense rather than the good of reason, because he begins from the sensible good to know and to love the good of reason. But those who begin are far more numerous than those who complete; therefore more are those who stop short and remain in the goods of the sensitive nature than those who arrive at embracing the goods of reason; all the more because the allurement to stop and rest in them is strong, since they have been in use from earliest age, they are also better known, namely through the evident experience of the senses, and finally they are more moving, both by reason of ready delight and by reason of the impending opposite that brings sadness. But the good of reason, which is virtue, is perceived at an advanced age, and is little known, and moves little. For it has sadness and bitterness (as Lactantius says) mixed in, at least at the beginning, whereas it promises reward and pleasure for the future, as Aristotle says, On the Soul 3, text 53. Cajetan, on the said question 71.

Yet that practice in fictitious lawsuits has contributed much to us, etc. He says "of fictitious lawsuits", for he was never an advocate in real ones, since he never so much as set foot in the forum, as he himself testifies in book 3, ch. 13. Formerly, when the study of eloquence flourished in Greece and at Rome, young men, once they had learned grammar, were taken to the rhetoricians, who set before them themes either invented or drawn from histories, such as are found in the declamations of Seneca the father and of Quintilian, and many of which are still found among the Greek writers; in these the boys exercised themselves in the schools in speaking and writing, so that afterwards they might speak in earnest before the people or the senate; but they were also accustomed to argue on either side, and to treat θέσεις ἀδόξους, that is, paradoxical propositions, and disreputable subjects, concerning which see Gellius book 17, ch. 12. For in this way they became ready and equipped to speak on any subject whatever. Those, then, who were trained in the schools in this method of speaking were said to declaim, and speeches of this kind, delivered in imitation of forensic pleadings, were called declamations. Hence St Jerome in the Questions to Damasus: "Nor are the ears," he says, "to be soothed with the little flowers of Quintilian and with scholastic declamation." On these there is a great deal in Quintilian book 2, ch. 10, and book 4, ch. 2, and in Seneca in the Prologue to the Declamations. In this kind of speaking Libanius the sophist flourished, and on that account was very dear indeed to the Emperor Julian; Eunapius wrote about him. Likewise Carneades, whom the same Lactantius mentions in book 5, ch. 15. Paul of Tyre also was so dear to the Emperor Hadrian on this account that he obtained from that same Emperor that Tyre, his native city, should be made a metropolis, as Suidas writes. These, then, were the exercises in which, as Lactantius says a little above, he had long been engaged in that profession of oratory, training young men formerly not for virtue but plainly for clever wickedness, and that much practice in them would now be of use to him in pleading the cause of truth against the Gentiles.

For if certain very great orators, etc. He perhaps means Marcus Tullius himself, who, as we know from his own words at the beginning of the Tusculans and in the first book of the Academic Questions, came to rest from forensic pleadings and the conduct of the commonwealth in the study of philosophy, as in a harbour.

And if certain men learned in the law, and arbiters of equity, have published composed Institutes of the civil law, etc. There were

these: Gaius, Ulpian, Paulus, Florentinus, Callistratus, Martianus.

And let us lay to rest the most shameful errors. In some printed books, after these words, the following address is appended: "This work we now begin under the auspices of your name, Constantine, greatest Emperor, who first of the Roman princes, having repudiated errors, both came to know and honoured the majesty of the one and true God. For when that most happy day had dawned upon the world, on which the supreme God raised you to the blessed summit of empire, you inaugurated with a splendid beginning a rule salutary to all and desirable; when, bringing back justice that had been overthrown and taken away, you expiated the most foul crime of others: for which deed God will grant you happiness, virtue, length of days, so that you may hold the helm of the commonwealth even as an old man with the same justice with which you began as a young man; and that you may hand on to your children, as you yourself received it from your father, the guardianship of the Roman name. For upon the wicked, who still rage against the just in other parts of the world, the same Almighty will exact the wages of their crime the more vehemently the later He does so; because, as He is a most indulgent Father towards the godly, so He is a most upright Judge against the ungodly. Desiring to defend His religion and divine worship, whom should I rather call upon, whom should I address, but him through whom justice and wisdom have been restored to human affairs?" This address speaks to Constantine as already openly embracing the religion of Christ and turning away from impiety; at which time Licinius, Constantine's partner in the Empire, despising the agreements concluded with Constantine himself about protecting the Christian religion, was harassing the Church of God throughout the whole region of the East, while the West, having fallen to Constantine's dominion, enjoyed the utmost peace and tranquillity. For this reason certain very weighty men of great name have thought that they had discovered from this passage the time at which Lactantius composed these books of his Institutes. For they think that this happened in the year of the Lord three hundred and sixteen, in which the persecution of Licinius was harassing the Church and an expedition was being prepared against him by Constantine; and that in this preface, addressed, as they think, to Constantine, Firmianus foretold that defeat and ruin of Licinius and the victory of Constantine. But I cannot help agreeing with Thomasius that passages of this kind, in which either Constantine is named or the discourse is directed to him, are spurious and interpolated, since I have noticed that they are missing in the most ancient of all, the codex of San Salvatore at Bologna, in most of the Vatican codices, and in the other more approved ones. Moreover this whole address is absent not only from that most ancient codex, and likewise from another codex of the same monastery, but also from seven Vatican codices, from the Florentine printings, and from many others both manuscript and printed; and after those words (and let us lay to rest the most shameful errors) there follows immediately (therefore, leaving aside the authors of this earthly philosophy, etc.). We also have other passages of Lactantius which, supported by the authority of absolutely all the codices, admit of no controversy or ambiguity, with which the things read in this address do not sufficiently agree. He indeed, in book 5, chapters 2 and 4, when he declares what reason led him to write, says that at the time when he was teaching oratory in Bithynia and the temples of God were being overthrown, when he had learned that two men (he means Porphyry and Hierocles) were insulting the truth there most arrogantly and insolently and vomiting forth their impieties and blasphemies against the Christian religion, he, spurred by their arrogant impiety, undertook this task of writing, so as to refute the accusers of justice with all the powers of his talent. Now the overthrow of the temples by the decree of Diocletian, and the publication of Porphyry's three books against Christ, fall in the year of the Lord three hundred and two. But in this passage he is said to begin this work only at the time when, the evils having already ceased in the West, they were nevertheless raging against the just in other parts of the world; namely when an expedition was being prepared by Constantine against Licinius, which happened in the year of Christ three hundred and sixteen. But how could it seem probable that Lactantius, stirred up, as he himself says, by the impious disputations of Porphyry and

Hierocles, and kindled with a deserved anger on behalf of the religion of God, had delayed for fourteen years and held back from the pen, and had not at once set about writing and applied himself at the first opportunity to refuting their impieties? This too carries no small weight: that at the time when Lactantius was writing the Institutes, the cruelty of the tyrants against the Christians was being exercised throughout the whole world; for he attests this in express words thus in Book 5, chapter 11, which (beast) in one place, etc., and in chapter 12 of the same book: See, in this error, etc., Book 5, chapter 12. See, the whole world itself is in this error, that it persecutes, tortures, condemns and kills good and just men as though they were wicked and impious; and in chapter 11 of the same book: Which (beast), though lying in one place, nevertheless rages with iron teeth throughout the whole world, etc. And in Book 6, chapter 17: For the punishments of the worshippers of God have been seen, and are still always being seen throughout the world, in torturing whom new and unheard-of torments have been devised, etc. But at the time of the Licinian persecution, at which this address is supposed to have been directed to Constantine, the Christian religion was at rest almost throughout the world: only in the East did it suffer some harassment, which is shown also from this address, where it is said: For upon the wicked who still rage against the just in other parts of the earth, the same Almighty will exact the wages of their crime the more severely the later it comes. This harassment, since it did not reach the West, was not regarded by Severus as being of such a kind as to be reckoned among the other persecutions of the Church; for thus he has it in Book 2 of the History: Indeed Licinius at that time, because he contended with Constantine for the empire, had ordered his soldiers to sacrifice, and dismissed from the service those who refused: but it is not counted among the persecutions, being a matter too slight to pertain to the wounds of the churches. Eusebius also, in the Life of Constantine, Book 1: So that (he says) the Roman Empire, divided into two parts, seemed to all exactly like the darkness of night and the splendour of day; for upon those who held the East a gloom as of night was cast, while upon those who were inhabitants of the other part the splendour of the brightest day was dawning. Finally Sozomen, Book 1, chapter 2: At the same time the Christians who dwelt towards the east as far as the Libyans, who border on the Egyptians, did not dare to hold assemblies openly, because Licinius had changed his benevolent disposition towards them: but the Greeks, Macedonians and Illyrians, who had the dwellings of their affairs towards the west, through the efforts of Constantine, who governed that part of the Roman empire, worshipped God with a free and untroubled mind. This too might perhaps move someone: that if Arnobius wrote in the year of the Lord three hundred and two, and published his work in haste and hurry as a kind of pledge of his faith, so that he might be admitted among the faithful as soon as possible, it certainly seems most likely that that work was seen by Lactantius after fourteen years, if indeed we will have it that he wrote in the year three hundred and sixteen. But truly it does not appear what cause there could have been why, when he mentioned Theophilus once, and Tertullian, Cyprian and Minucius more than once, all of whom had long since pleaded the cause of the Christians against the Gentiles (for he mentions Theophilus at the end of this Book 1, Tertullian in Book 5, chapters 1 and 4, Cyprian in the same chapters 1 and 4, Minucius in Book 1, chapter 11 and Book 5, chapter 1), he nevertheless passed over in such deep silence Arnobius, his own teacher, who had pleaded the same cause no less keenly and brilliantly than any of them, but much more nearly and recently, unless because both were writing at the same time and Lactantius had perhaps not yet been able to see the books of Arnobius. Moreover Saint Jerome too, who could have seen the first edition of the books of Lactantius (for he was almost his contemporary, the infancy of Jerome very nearly touching, as may be believed, the last days of Lactantius), and who reviewed his works so carefully that he did not omit to say to whom each of them had been inscribed by him, passes over the books of the Institutes simply and without mention of any inscription to anyone, nor anywhere

does he mention the emperor Constantine, by whose name he nevertheless certainly understood that the dignity and esteem of these books could be very greatly increased among all. Honorius of Autun does not mention it, who in the same way, about five hundred years ago, compiled a catalogue of the same works of Lactantius. We think it is for no other reason than that these books were by no means inscribed to Constantine by their author, having, that is, as we have proved, been begun to be worked out in the year three hundred and two, and therefore, as it is fair to believe, already completed, finished and published before Constantine openly turned away from impiety and embraced the Christian faith. Thus therefore I hold not only that Methodius and Arnobius, at the same time at which those blasphemous Commentaries against Christ were published by Porphyry, namely in the year three hundred and two, but also that our Lactantius undertook to refute the sacrilegious impieties of the heathen in opposing writings, and that this address, which is exploded by so many reasons, is spurious and supposititious; nor can it be maintained, as Thomasius thought, that it may have come about that Lactantius wrote these books before the times of Constantine but published them in Constantine's time; for he is not said here to have published them, but to have begun them at that time under the auspices of his name.

Chapter III.

Tantarum ("of so great"). This expression signifies in this place not magnitude but multitude, so that an antithesis is made to that word (una, "one"); so among the Greeks τοσοῦτος signifies indiscriminately "so many" and "so great": Antonius Augustinus noted in book 2 of the Emendationes, chap. p., that this expression is taken in the same signification among the jurists, from the law Si ita legatum, Digest, De legatis p., where it is found: "But not to more than ten who have been bequeathed; but if they are fewer, to as many [tantos] as are found [quanti]." Thus quantus for quot ("how many"), as in the said law and in law 2, § Si vero, Code, De praefecto praetorio Africae: "And how many [quanti] frontier troops, in which places or frontiers they are stationed." I add Vegetius, book 3, chap. 5, from the best manuscripts: "How many [quanta] are the kinds of military standards." And in the same book, chap. 9: "That, with their own men unharmed, they may kill as many [quantos] men as they can." So also the translator of Luke 15, whom Valla rashly condemns: "How many [quanti] hired servants in my father's house have abundance of bread" (Luke 15:17).

Chapter IV.

At quin impleta esse, etc. So I read, not atqui, on the authority of B. and T. Arnobius, book 6, at the beginning: "At quin we think that every God," etc. Book 3: "At quin I supposed a little before that the kindnesses of the deities were spontaneous." Tertullian, Apology, ch. 2: "At quin we find that inquiry also against us has been forbidden." Papinian in the law debitor, § 1, Digest, Ad senatus consultum Trebellianum: "At quin whether the creditor acting as plaintiff, and likewise heir, possesses the thing, or does not possess it." Paulus in the law Atquin natura, Digest, De negotiis gestis: "At quin he was a debtor by nature." And Barnabas Brissonius in the Parerga testifies that it is so written in the Florentine Pandects, and he also points out other passages.

Sed etiam cohaerentia ("but even coherence"). Valla notes that Lactantius ought to have said sed saltem cohaerentia, or sed certe cohaerentia, or sed vel cohaerentia, and suspects it to be a scribes' error, Elegantiae book 3, chap. 27.

Chapter V.

De his, quibus omnino, etc. So it is read in B. and T. Thus below, book 5, chap. 15: "Let us teach from their own authors." Cicero to Lentulus: "I had bought a house from Crassus." On the Orator: "I heard this from my father." The more recent editions have ab his quibus, etc. But the older ones, de quibus his omnino, etc.

Ex his unum Deum probemus necesse est ("from these we must prove one God"). Lactantius demonstrates that the ancient heathen sages believed in one God. Clement of Alexandria does the same in the Address to the Gentiles. See Augustinus Eugubinus, De perenni philosophia.

Homerus nihil nobis dare potuit ("Homer could give us nothing"), etc. On the contrary, he could and did; for Cyril, against Julian, demonstrates that Homer asserted one God.

He said that it was water, from which all things were born, etc. Besides those noted in the margin of the text, see Plutarch in the Placita, Laertius, Eusebius, On the Preparation, book 1, chapter 5, and book 7, chapter 5; Ambrose, Hexameron book 1, chapter 2; Augustine, City [of God] book 8, chapter 2; Cyril, Against Julian.

And Anaximenes, etc. Not "ether" but "air" is read in Cicero, namely where he is speaking of Anaximenes, and in Laertius in [the life of] Anaximenes.

Intermingled. The common reading of Maro has "commingled".

Yet in sum he testifies that one mind presides over the world. He is speaking of Aristotle, who, as is established from book 2 On Generation, from book 12 of the Divine Matters, and from chapter 7 of the little book On the World, held that there is one God: this has been shown by very learned men among the more recent writers, Trapezuntius in book 2 of the Comparison of Aristotle and Plato, Scaliger in the On Subtlety against Cardan, exercise 365, and some others.

Plato. In the Parmenides, the Timaeus, the Phaedo, the Laws, the Republic. Cardinal Bessarion should be consulted, book 2, Against the Slanderer of Plato.

Perceiving and moving all things. I have followed the reading of Tax. and P. and of Cicero himself in the first Tusculan; others have "perceiving all things, and moving all things".

On Untimely Death. The book has perished.

Likewise in the Exhortations. This book of Seneca too has perished.

Chapter VI.

And for that reason fled into Egypt. Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, book 3, from which Lactantius took this passage almost word for word, has: "and for that reason presided over Egypt".

Thoyth. From the same passage of Cicero I have corrected the text of Lactantius, which in some copies has "Thoth". But Eusebius too writes in book 1 of the Preparation that Mercury is called Thoth by the Alexandrians and Thoyth by the Egyptians. Indeed, let us also confirm this reading from a truly most beautiful passage of Martianus Capella. For he speaks thus in book 2: "Accordingly he first inquires, from the nuptial congruence in number, whether the marriage is suitable, and whether the winged swiftness of the ethereal summit may be joined to him in a fitting compact; and presently he distributes into fingers and reckoning his own name and the name of the Cyllenian (not the one which the dissonant discrepancy of nations or the diverse rites of peoples have devised according to the circumstances of places and cults, but that which, fixed as a name by the star at his birth by Jove himself, and spread abroad only through the inventions of the Egyptians, the deceitful curiosity of mortals asserts), from which he takes the final letter at either end, which closes the first and perfect limit of number; then that which prevails in all temples by its cubic solidity; the letter also which the wise Samian judged to represent the forked road of mortality he takes in the next place; and thus there shone forth the numbers one thousand two hundred and eighteen." For the Greeks express numbers by their letters

θ 9 th; ω 800 o; υ 400 y; θ 9 th; 1218

The Pheneatae. So Cicero in the place cited above. But Pausanias too, in the Arcadian book: "Of all the gods (he says) the Pheneatae venerate Mercury most," etc. And indeed it can be judged from Stephanus that the Hermopolis of which Lactantius speaks here was in Arcadia. But since most books here have "Saitae" in place of "Pheneatae" (these are a people in Egypt, so called from the city which is named Sais), and Lactantius in the book On the Anger of God, chapter 11, testifies that Cicero wrote that Hermes was held among the number of the gods by the Egyptians, namely the one who was named Trismegistus on account of his excellence and his knowledge of many arts, the same of whom the discussion is here, that most distinguished man Pedro Chacón suspected that one should read here "both the Saitae and the Pheneatae worship him religiously", and in Cicero "whom the Saitae worship, and the Pheneatae", so that he may be said to be worshipped both in Egypt by the Saitae and in Arcadia by the Pheneatae. In some manuscripts of Lactantius "Femete" is corruptly read in place of "Pheneatae".

But God is one, etc. I do not find these words verbatim in Hermes, but similar things at the end of chapter 5 of the Pimander.

Therefore God has no name, because He is alone, etc. So

also Minucius Felix in the Octavius. Dionysius, [book] 1, in the chapter of the Divine Names, says that there is neither a name of Him nor an opinion. St Thomas, First Part, question 13, article 1, says: that God cannot be named by us with a name that would signify His essence according to what it is, because we name as we conceive, and names are signs of notions: but we cannot know the essence of God in this life. Whether the Blessed can impose such a name on God, the theologians dispute on the first [book] of the Sentences, distinction 22, and in the First Part, question 13, article p. And how the ancient philosophers named God, see Augustinus Eugubinus, On the Perennial Philosophy, book 3.

His proper name is God. For He is called theos from theasthai, which means to see, as though He foresees all things and looks out for all things, as Damascene writes in book p. of the Orthodox Faith, chapter 12. Therefore from the universal providence over things this name, God, has been taken to signify the divine nature.

That the Sibyls were ten in number, etc. On the Sibyls in general one should consult Solinus, chapter 8; Aelian, Varied History, book 12; Martianus Capella, book 2; St Jerome, Against Jovinian, book p.; Suidas under Herophila, and under sibyllei; Francesco Petrarca, Memorabilia 4, chapter 3; Ficino, the book On Christian Doctrine; Juan Luis Vives on chapter 23, book 18, of St Augustine's City of God; Giraldi, Dialogue 2 on the history of the Poets; Onofrio Panvinio in the book On the Sibyls and the Sibylline Songs. Most, following Lactantius, or rather Varro, assert that they were ten in number. There are some who think there were more. On the other hand there are some who contend that there was one Sibyl, and that the Sibylline songs, which are read under the name of several Sibyls, are of one: others suppose that there were only two. But this too must be noticed, that what is attributed by one writer to one Sibyl is often referred by another to another; so that from this the good reader may already understand that the things related about the Sibyls are very confused and obscure.

The fourth, the Cumaean, in Italy. There is a city of Campania called Cumae, in which they declare that this Sibyl poured forth her oracles, and of which city Servius speaks on Aeneid 3, upon the line:

When, borne hither, you have reached the Cumaean city, etc.

There is another city in the Locrian territory, which belongs to Ionia of Asia Minor, which in Latin is called Cuma, -ae, or Cume, genitive Cumes, very near to Erythrae, in which another Sibyl too is said to have prophesied; from both, or rather from this one name of both Cities, the adjectives Cumaeus and Cumanus have been derived, which have often given occasion of ambiguity to other writers, and especially to our Lactantius, since they often attribute to one Sibyl what belongs to the other, and confuse the Cumaean with the Cumanan, and the Erythraean (because Erythrae is very near to Cumae of Ionia) with both. Lactantius in this place, when he names the Cumaean in Italy, distinguishes her sufficiently from the other, who may be called the Cumaean or Cumanan of Ionia, whom further on he lists, from Varro, as seventh in number. Of this Italian Cumaean, then, Aristotle makes mention in the book On Marvellous Things Heard, chapter 91; Justin Martyr in the Exhortation to the Gentiles, at the end; Silius, book 12. I do not know why Servius writes that she was called by the proper name Phemonoe, on that line of Aeneid 3:

Whatever songs the Maiden has written on the leaves, etc.

since in [book] 6 Virgil calls her Deiphobe, and Servius himself there also confirms that this was her proper name. Gregorius Giraldus, Dialogue 2 of the history of the Poets, and Pedro Chacón, because they saw that Lactantius spoke further on about the Cumanan Sibyl, thought that there is an error in this place, and that instead of Cumaea one should read Cimmeria, following Suidas under Sibyllai, who enumerates these Sibyls in the same order as Lactantius, "the fourth, the Italian, the one from Cimmeria of Italy", and Isidore, Origins book 8, chapter 8, who seems to have borrowed everything from this place, so that one might not undeservedly suspect that it was perhaps once so read in Lactantius. But indeed, although she could also have been called Cimmerian, because from Cimmerium, a town of Campania neighbouring Cumae, as some

think, she originated, nevertheless she is rightly also called the Cumaean by most, because she gave responses at Cumae, as we understand both from others and from Justin, who testifies in the place cited above that he visited her cave there; and indeed so it is read in twelve Vatican manuscripts and in all the others, both manuscripts and printed editions, from which I have not dared to differ; and the translator of Suidas there reads not κιμμερία but κύμη. But Lactantius, as we have said, sufficiently distinguishes the one from the other, when he names this one the Cumaean of Italy; that other one, therefore, he must understand as the Cumanian, so called from Cuma in Ionia.

The fifth the Erythraean. Some say that this one is the same as the Ionian Cumaean; nor is it surprising that this error crept in because of the nearness of the places, namely of Erythrae in Ionia, where some say she prophesied, and of Cuma in Ionia, as we said above. But why Aristotle, in chapter 91 of On Marvellous Things Heard, said that the Italian Cumaean and the Erythraean were one, I do not see; unless we say that the Erythraean was also called the Cumaean, as Martianus Capella asserts in book 2, perhaps because she too sometimes prophesied at Cumae. For some write that at Cumae many women prophesied, who are all called by the name of Sibyl; for they used to go there, either to become more skilled in divining through the oracles of Apollo, who had there a very great shrine with a cave, or to preside over his rites, which it was customary to have performed only by women: all of whom were afterwards called Cumaean or Cumanian from that city. Of this one mention is made by Clement, the first Pope, in his epistle to the Corinthians; by Lactantius himself again in the book On the Anger of God, chapter 22; by the Emperor Constantine the Great in his oration to the assembly of the Saints, in Eusebius' life of him; and by St Augustine, City [of God], book 18, chapter 23.

The seventh the Cumanian. Now we can understand this one to be no other than her who prophesied at Cuma in Ionia. Servius, on that line of Maro,

Phoebus, [who have] always [pitied] the heavy [toils] of Troy, etc.

notes that Varro referred this whole story of the Sibylline books offered to Tarquin not to the Cumanian, of whom Lactantius here speaks following Varro, but to the Erythraean, just as Suidas also referred it, under Herophila. But Virgil, and Solinus in chapter 8, refer the same story not to this one but to the Italian Cumaean, whom Solinus calls the Cumanian. Virgil indeed indicates clearly enough that the prophecies of the Cumaean Sibyl were preserved at Rome, in those verses of the sixth book in which Aeneas addresses her:

For you too a great sanctuary awaits in our realm: / for here I shall place your lots and secret fates, / spoken to my people, etc.

Who is named by others Demophile or Herophile. Solinus and Suidas, in the places cited above, call not the Cumanian but the Erythraean Herophile; although in Solinus and in Tibullus, Elegy 5, book 2, Heriphile is read. Eusebius, however, writes that not the Erythraean, nor the Cumanian, but the Samian was called Herophile, who he relates flourished while Numa was king of the Romans.

And that she brought nine books. So also the Halicarnassian at the end of book 4 of the Roman Antiquities; Gellius, book 1, chapter 19; Suidas under Σίβυλλαι; Servius in the place cited above; Pliny, book 13, chapter 13; Solinus, chapter 8. Suidas, under Herophila, write that there were three books, not nine, which full of oracles the Sibyl offered to Tarquin, and that when two had been burnt only the third survived.

To King Tarquinius Priscus. Pliny, in the said chapter 13, writes that the books were offered not to Priscus but to Tarquinius Superbus; so the Halicarnassian, Solinus, Gellius in the places cited above. Lactantius, or rather Varro as reported by Lactantius, is followed by Suidas under Σίβυλλαι, and by Isidore, Origins 8, chapter 8; which opinion seems nearer the truth and more consistent with the dates, if this deed is referred to the Italian Cumaean Sibyl, as by Virgil and Solinus. For she (on the authority of Solinus) took part in Roman affairs in the fiftieth Olympiad, and Tarquinius Priscus, according to Glareanus' Chronology on Livy, and generally that of the others, took up the kingship in the second year of the forty-first Olympiad,

and he reigns for 38 years. But the reign of Tarquinius Superbus begins in the fourth year of the sixty-first Olympiad, so that from that time of the Sibyl up to the reign of Tarquinius Superbus eleven Olympiads elapsed, that is, forty-four years. This, however, does not prove false the opinion of Pliny, of Halicarnasseus and of others; for the Sibyl could have reached the eightieth, the ninetieth year of her life and beyond; but, as we have said, the other opinion seems nearer the truth. Those, however, who refer it to the story of the Erythraean are wide of the mark by the whole heaven, if indeed we would have the Erythraean prophesy even in the very Trojan War, as Solinus holds, and as St Augustine, at the end of the said chapter 23, reports that some others also held. That war preceded the reign of Tarquinius Priscus by five hundred and seventy years, that of Superbus by six hundred and fifty; or if we would have her flourish in the time of Romulus, as the same St Augustine reports in the same place that others thought, among whom I count Eusebius in the Chronicle, that time indeed preceded the reign of Priscus by about one hundred and sixty years, that of Superbus by two hundred and forty-four years.

That she asked for three hundred philippi. Servius agrees with Lactantius, or with Varro, on the words,

For here I your lots, etc.

I for my part have nowhere found in the authors that that Macedonian coin was ever struck at Rome, or was in use there.

At Marpessus. Hermolaus Barbarus, in the Castigationes on Pliny, book 5, chapter 30, thinks one should read Mermissus, from Stephanus On Cities under Μερμήσσος. Pausanias indeed, in book 10, where he speaks of the prophetess Herophile, has Marpessus, as the greater part of the books of Lactantius have here. Others read Marmissus, from Suidas under Σίβυλλαι. The T and P manuscripts here have Marmessus; Achilles Statius on Tibullus thought one should read Marinessus (as some printed editions also have) or Marmessus.

The tenth, the Tiburtine, by name Albunea. Tibullus seems to have called her the Alban, Elegy 5, book 2.

Whose sacred things the Senate transferred to the Capitol. These words are not acknowledged by T. nor by P. nor by some old printed editions: but if we retain them, as they are retained by most, I would rather read, with Janus Gulielmius, sortes [lots] than Sacra. Those prophecies were plainly called sortes, as appears from Virgil and Tibullus, where indeed Janus himself, in his Quaestiones on Plautus' Menaechmi, chapter 4, testifies that it is written so in this place in some parchment manuscripts.

Except that of the Cumaean, whose books, etc. Here is the ambiguity of which [we spoke] above: even Lactantius himself, the [Sibyl] whom he had called the Cumanan above, following Varro, in this place names the Cumaean; for the books which were carefully hidden, and which only the Fifteen Men could approach, were those which had been sold to Tarquin by the Sibyl, as Halicarnasseus witnesses, book 4, and Gellius in the said chapter 19; and Lactantius himself called her the Cumanan a little above. He reports the same things in chapter 23 of the book On the Anger of God.

And she foretold that she would be named the Erythraean. T., P. and the older printed editions have: And she names herself the Erythraean, where she spoke forth. Janus Gulielmius, in the place cited above, reads where she spoke forth, because to speak forth is properly to prophesy and to sing of things to come; whence the Prophets were so called, because they spoke forth things to come.

On the Fifteen Men, etc. See Onuphrius at length.

That they should be sent to Erythrae. He writes the same in chapter 22 of the book On the Anger of God. But the Sibylline verses were sought not only from Erythrae but also (as he said a little above) from all cities, both Italian and Greek; which Tacitus also notes, Annals book 5, and Halicarnasseus, book 4. For they had burned up in the fire of the Capitol, which happened in the year before Sulla's dictatorship, whether by design or by chance.

One God, Who alone is. In the Sibylline Verses it reads thus: one God alone, Who rules.

Most high over all. Corruptly in the Sibylline Verses παντωνυπέρτατος, which the scansion rejects; although there the annotator notes in the margin of the Sibylline book that the manuscripts have it as in ours.

Ἔτυχεν. The rule of the metre rejects this, since the second syllable is short. It is correct in Theophilus, ἐτέχθη; yet all the manuscripts of Lactantius agree, so I would not venture to change it.

Εἷς μόνος εἰμὶ θεὸς. This verse is often found among the Sibylline Oracles, but in these words:

For He alone is God, and there is no other besides.

Chapter VII.

Because he had (I suppose) moved away from Delphi. So indeed, correctly, B. T. P. and the oldest printed editions, whereas (credo) is lacking in certain other manuscripts. For that (credo) is plainly said ironically, as in Tully, the first Philippic: Hannibal, I suppose, was at the gates. Tertullian, chapter 46: I suppose, out of honour for his father. Lactantius below, book 3, chapter 18: This man (I suppose) because he was born of lowly stock, etc., and chapter 23: But (I suppose) the heat deterred him, etc.

If God is one, what solitude can be blessed. A fragment from Cicero's Hortensius, or On Philosophy, which we have lost.

For He has ministers, whom we call messengers. Lactantius seems, in order to remove solitude from God, to summon the angels, so as to associate them with that divine being; which was not at all fitting. For it is not because the number of holy souls and of angels with God is almost infinite that He is therefore not called solitary, nor, if they did not exist, would they make Him solitary: as the theologians on the first [book], distinction 21, where Richard, first question, and St Thomas, first part, question 31, article 3, expressly teach. For solitude is not removed by the association of something that is of a foreign nature; for someone is said to be alone in a garden, although there are many plants and animals there. So God, even with the angels and all things existing with Him, would truly be called alone, or solitary, if there were not several persons in the Godhead. But since, although from eternity there was no other essence at all than the divine, yet in that essence there is, and has been from eternity, a plurality of persons, which excludes solitude from God, therefore this proposition is false and not to be admitted: God from eternity was alone; for its sense is that from eternity He was solitary. We have pointed this out for Catholics. For the rest, Lactantius is not without excuse, since he had to descend to the capacity of the heathen and put forward something that might appeal to crude and dull minds. For (as Bishop Archelaus truly said when disputing against the impious Manes, in Cyril, Catechesis 6) we do not declare to the heathen the mysteries concerning the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; indeed, even to catechumens we do not speak the mysteries so openly, but we often speak more obscurely, so that the faithful who know may understand, and those who do not know may not corrupt them.

That God begot the ministers of His kingdom. The verb "to beget" is sometimes used improperly, not only by Lactantius and other ecclesiastical writers, but also in the sacred Scriptures. For the books of Moses on the creation of the world are inscribed with the title Genesis; and we are the offspring of God in Paul, in Acts chapter 17, and in James 1, God of His own will begot us. But the notion of generation which is set forth by Aristotle, Ethics 8, chapter 12, and Metaphysics 7, text 28 and following, and on which St Thomas, first part, question 27, article 2, [writes,] properly applies, with respect to God, only to the procession of the uncreated Word, of which we shall speak below at chapter 8 of book 4.

Whose name they set forth, etc. T. has "they drive out". In either case the sense is the same; for something is said exponi, as if extra poni (to be put outside), just as explodi, that which is sent out of doors and cast out. So book 3, chapter 26, at the end: and having put away the old, they render [him] new.

†. William Canter, New Readings, book 3, chapter 30, prefers ἀιολόστροφε, that is, swiftly turning. Although there, in my copy of the Antwerp edition of the year 1571, through the error of the workmen ἀιολόσροφε is printed, which is nothing.

That He Himself before all things was begotten from Himself. He says the same in book 2, chapter 9, towards the end. But that proposition, whatever has been at some time began to be, truly of all

creatures is stated; when we speak of God, it is asserted wholly falsely. For if God is eternal, as truth holds, and as Lactantius himself everywhere [holds], and having begun is incompatible with what is eternal, there was no reason why He should be said to have been procreated, or begotten, or made by Himself, as St Bernard shows in On Consideration, to Eugenius, book 6, at the beginning, and St Thomas in chapter 15 of book 1 Against the Gentiles. Moreover, that proposition, God begot Himself God, all theologians condemn, following the Master in the first [book], distinction 4.

Chapter VIII.

But what is so far removed from God as that work which He Himself assigned to mortals for propagating offspring? Much to this effect: from our own writers, Arnobius, book 3, at the beginning; from the pagans, Pliny, book 2, chapter 7.

Chapter IX.

Which not by the sword and by strength, etc. So indeed most editions read, and Cicero himself, whose sentence it is. Bon., however, has: which cannot be weakened and broken by the sword and by strength.

But to conquer the mind, etc. On this victory St Ambrose discourses excellently in his book of Duties, where he treats of fortitude.

I do not compare him with the greatest men, etc. Some editions have: I compare him not only with the greatest men, etc. I have had it printed as it is in B. and in Tully himself; for those words, tantum, solum, modo, in imitation of the Greeks, the Latins elegantly prefer for the most part to have understood with the negation rather than added, when an adversative follows, although et, aut, etiam is not added. Ulpian in the law Invitum, Digest, On Urban Praedial Servitudes: But we ought to understand as unwilling not him who contradicts, but him who does not consent. Likewise in the law pr., at the beginning, Digest, On Daily and Summer Water: Daily water is not that which is drawn daily, but that which one could use daily, if he wished. Celsus in the law †iittus est quousque, Digest, On the Meaning of Words: We say that estates belong to certain persons, not necessarily to those holding them in common, but even when one holds one part and another another. Antonius Augustinus brings forward other passages, book 2 of the Emendations, chapter 1.

But Philoctetes, his heir, did not think so, who set the torch beneath him as he was about to burn. Clearly the writers commonly hold that Philoctetes kindled the pyre of Hercules and was the heir of his arrows, as Lactantius writes in this place: Ovid, Metamorphoses 9; Cicero, Tusculans 2; Diodorus Siculus, book 5; Justin's history, at the beginning of 20; Calaber, book 10. The scholiast; of Homer, Iliad 3. Seneca in Hercules on Oeta; Philostratus in the Heroicus, chapter 6; Servius on that line of Virgil, Aeneid 3, Little [Petelia] of Philoctetes. Not rightly, therefore, did Petrus Victorinus, Various Readings 2, chapter 15, reject this opinion supported by so many writers, moved by the authority of Apollodorus alone, who attributes this to Poeas, the father of Philoctetes himself, in Bibliotheca 2. For although, as Victorius says, Philoctetes served under Agamemnon with Nepolemus, son of Hercules, in the Trojan war, which the death of Hercules preceded by a long time, yet this happened when Philoctetes was already very advanced in age: whence it could be that he as a young man lived with Hercules when the latter was already worn out with old age, and was present with him as he died, as Brodaeus notes against Victorius, Miscellanies 1, chapter 5.

Chapter X.

Tarquitius, discoursing on illustrious men, says that he was born of uncertain parents and exposed. Theodoret, relating this same story of Aesculapius, has the following near the beginning of the eighth [book] On the Cure of Greek Maladies: And, to pass on to others also, Apollodorus is witness that Aesculapius was thought by some to be the son of Arsinoe, but by others of Coronis, who, made pregnant by a secret and violent union with Apollo, is said then to have exposed the infant once born. But he, says Apollodorus, was found by chance by hunters and snatched from the teats of the bitch nursing him, was brought to Chiron the Centaur, and, reared there, devoted his effort to the medical art, of which he gave the first proofs in the cities of Tricca and Epidaurus. I think that Theodoret these things only from Apollodorus

had taken: that Aesculapius was thought by some to be the son of Arsinoe, but by others of Coronis; but the words "secretly" and all the rest that follows I believe were taken from no other than Tarquitius, namely either from the book of Tarquitius himself or from this passage of Lactantius. For although various writers have written variously about the birth, upbringing and training of Aesculapius, Homer in the Hymns, Pindar in the third Pythian Ode, Pausanias, books 2, 4 and 8, Diodorus Siculus, book 4, chapter 9, and book 5, chapter 15, Ovid, Metamorphoses 2, Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods 3, Tarquitius, Apollodorus and very many others, you will surely find no one, as far as I am concerned, who recounts that story as Theodoret does, except Tarquitius alone. Moreover he could not have copied it from Apollodorus, who says not that Aesculapius was exposed by his mother, nor found by hunters, nor nourished at a dog's teats, but writes that, when Apollo had killed the mother and she, already dead, was burning on the pyre, the infant was at once snatched from the pyre and carried away from her to Chiron to be reared. I subjoin the words of Apollodorus from [book] 3: "She (Arsinoe), made pregnant by Apollo, bore Aesculapius. But some say that Aesculapius was born not of Arsinoe the daughter of Leucippus, but of Coronis the daughter of Phlegyas in Thessaly, with whom Apollo is reported to have lain as soon as he had fallen desperately in love with her; and they say that she, because he had possessed her against her father's will, was joined to Ischys the son of Elatus. Apollo, however, curses the raven that informed him with unmeasured imprecations; and the raven, which until that day had been white, he changed to black; and he struck Coronis while she was pregnant and killed her; and from her, while she was burning, he snatched the infant from the pyre and took him to Chiron the Centaur to be reared," etc. Therefore where the text of Theodoret has "but this one Apollodorus says", I suspect there is a copyists' error, and that one should read "but this one Tarquitius says"; and indeed, if Theodoret was relating the whole story from Apollodorus, whom he had cited at the beginning, there was no point in naming that same man again straight away. But he named Tarquitius; and so of this fragment, which has dropped out of the book of Tarquitius, we have as a writer not only Lactantius but, together with Lactantius, Theodoret. Not attending to this, Theodorus Canterus, Variae lectiones 2, chapter 19, supposed that the things which are here recited by Firmianus from Tarquitius were drawn by Tarquitius himself, and likewise again by Theodoret, from Apollodorus.

"Most shamefully he fed another's flock." That is, he pastured the cattle of Admetus, as it is in Ovid, Metamorphoses 2, which Tertullian also mocks, Apology, chapter 14, and Cyprian, On the Vanity of Idols.

"And he built walls for Laomedon." So indeed the tale is told by Neptune himself in Homer, towards the end of Iliad 21. Herodotus, however, denies that Apollo or Neptune served Laomedon. The same tale is touched on by Tertullian and Cyprian in the places cited above; likewise by Minucius, and by Clement of Alexandria in the Address to the Gentiles; Tatian, Against the Greeks. See Ovid, Metamorphoses 2, and Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 2, who say that Laomedon did not carry off that fraud with impunity, as Lactantius here relates, but that Apollo sent a plague upon the city and Neptune a flood; and that when he sought from the oracles to ward off these evils, the answer was given that he should expose his daughter Hesione to be devoured by a sea-monster, whom Hercules afterwards set free, as the author says above towards the end of chapter 9. But here he seems to have followed Homer, from whom we understand rather that the gods went away unavenged, Iliad, in the place cited above.

"Indicus Maximus." He is playing on the title which emperors used to adopt after conquering nations; for they were styled Parthicus Maximus, Germanicus Maximus, and so on.

"By love and lust he was most shamefully conquered." Thus, with Michael Thomasius, I have restored this passage from B. and T., in place of what is read in the printed editions, "on account of love and lust"; for Liber was not conquered by anyone on account of love or lust in that Indian expedition; but he was conquered by love itself, with which he burned for Ariadne. Yet Diodorus too writes that he burned with love for other women also in India, and gives the story in book 5; Orosius also gives it, book 1, chapter 9.

"For he was carried to Dia." It is an island which lies near Crete

according to Strabo, book 10, and I think this the genuine reading, which is found in all the printed copies of Lactantius' book, and in Diodorus Siculus, book 5, Ovid, Metamorphoses 5, Catullus, On the Marriage of Peleus and Thetis, although B. T. P. have Cretam. On the story one should also consult Plutarch, who reports various opinions about Ariadne in the Theseus.

With a half-man retinue. He alludes to that line of Aeneid 4:

And now that Paris with his half-man retinue, etc.

Now he calls the army of Bacchus a half-man retinue, in which there were not only men but also women, who were called Bacchae, as St Augustine writes, City of God, book 18, chapter 13.

And he made her Libera, etc. It is a jest. Since, he says, he was Liber, by joining her to himself he made her Libera, and ascended into heaven together with her. For the word Liberam cannot here be taken as distinguished from its contrary, servam, since it is nowhere recorded that Ariadne was made free from any servitude by the help of father Liber; therefore, against the other editions, we have written this name with a capital first letter. There was moreover among the heathen also a goddess who was called Libera, concerning whom see Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods 2, and the 6th action against Verres; Tacitus, book 2; Livy 1, decade 5; Arnobius 5; St Augustine, City of God 6, chapter 13. Some say she was Venus, others Ceres, some Proserpina. But certainly Ovid speaks of Ariadne in Fasti 3 in those verses to which beyond doubt Lactantius looked back when he wrote this:

Liber had already heard the words of her lamenting, since he happened to have followed behind. He seizes her in an embrace, and dries her tears with kisses, and 'Together let us seek the heights of heaven,' he says. 'You, joined to me in bed, shall take a name joined to mine; for, changed, your name shall be Libera.'

In solemn prayer he is named Best and Greatest. You have an example of this prayer from Marcus Tullius at the end of the speech On his House, and in the speech for Gaius Rabirius on the charge of treason.

He carried off a royal boy. He speaks of Ganymede, who was the son of Tros, king of the Trojans. Plato indeed, in book 1 of the Laws, condemns the authors of this fable, concerning which see Homer, Iliad 20; Virgil 5; Ovid, Metamorphoses 10; Lucian; Herodian, book 1; Orosius, book 1, chapter 12. Xenophon, however, in the Symposium relates that he was carried off not on account of the beauty of his body but of his soul.

For Jupiter, whom he worshipped, committed the same things. So that young man Chaerea in Terence relates in the Eunuch that he defiled the maiden led on by the example of Jove, whose rape he had seen painted on a panel. But more on this in Clement of Alexandria, in the Address to the Gentiles, and St Augustine, Confessions 1, chapter 10. Read of the adulteries and rapes of Jove in Arnobius, books 4 and 5, and in Epiphanius, in the Ancoratus.

Chapter XI.

A certain poet wrote a triumph of Cupid, etc. Who this poet was I have not ascertained, nor has this poem come down to us; its loss we bear the less grievously, since we have a splendid poem of the same title by Francesco Petrarca, written in his mother tongue.

Imprudence. So I read, however much B. T. P. and most printed copies, which have prudentia, protest against it, yet on the persuasion of the Aldine edition and some others, and indeed of Lactantius himself, who from the very context shows that it should be so read; for to be unable to know the future by oneself, but to be warned by another, that is surely a mark of imprudence, or a lack of prudence: and for this reason Lactantius removes prudence from Jove, that he may also take away his divinity, which was the aim of the whole disputation. When he was relating something similar of Saturn below, in chapter 13, he says: Again I must needs censure his imprudence; for why did he receive a response from another instead? There he both alludes to this passage and shows that he had noted the imprudence of Jove here.

Unless Themis had told him the future. Lactantius followed Apollonius, who writes that Jove was warned by Themis:

but Lucian prefers [that it was] by Prometheus, who also for that reason was freed from the Caucasus. Apollodorus, in book 3 of the Library, where he speaks of Peleus, reports both opinions.

If of the Fates, etc. See Lucian making sport of almost the same things against the gods.

Zeus, or Zen, was called, etc. In this place Budé, in his book on the right ordering of the study of letters, finds fault with Lactantius, as one who weighed these things too little carefully and did not see that all of them are spoken symbolically. But truly Budé weighed too little carefully the aim of Lactantius' whole disputation, who strives to cast out all symbolic interpretations of this kind, fastened by the Stoics and others onto the trifles of the heathen, as a thing not only ridiculous and foolish but also impious and deadly, which (as Lactantius himself notes from Cicero below, chapter 17) has begotten false opinions, turbulent errors and almost old-womanish superstitions: which both Arnobius, towards the end of book 5, and Lactantius himself, excellently, below, chapters 12 and 17 and often elsewhere, and also St Augustine, books 7 and 18 of the City [of God], likewise Tatian, who hisses off the allegories of Metrodorus of Lampsacus, and certain other holy Fathers have accomplished.

They speak of showers of iron. He alludes to Virgil's verses in Aeneid 12.

A turbulent storm of missiles goes through the whole sky, and an iron shower rushes on.

Or the ship on which he was placed had as its tutelary figure an eagle portrayed. Read: or the ship on which he was placed, its tutela (so that navis is the genitive case) had an eagle portrayed. That this place must be so written is proved by what follows, as the bull, etc. Yet I do not condemn that manner of speaking, the tutela portrayed in an eagle, which I understand to be used by Lactantius himself below, book 5, chapter 8, where he speaks of justice as though portrayed in some image. But I contend that he did not write so here, because he added as the bull, etc.; otherwise, if we read as it is commonly read, and in six Vatican manuscripts, had its tutela portrayed in an eagle, or into an eagle, as manuscript B and five Vatican ones read, then, so that the latter part might agree with the former, he ought to have said as in the bull, or as into the bull. But to open this place of Lactantius, not so easily accessible to the understanding: the tutela was the emblem of a ship placed on the prow, which in Greek was called parasemon; and it was the effigy of some god, or of an animal, from which the ship itself was named, as in Virgil the Pistris and the Centaurus, when he says:

He rides on the great Centaur.

Hence certain ships were called Rams and by other names of this kind: Strabo; Plutarch, Banquet of the Seven Sages; Lucian, the dialogue The Ship, or the Wishes. Seneca mentions the tutela in this sense in book 10 of the Letters, letter 77, where he says: A ship is called good, not one that is painted with costly colours, nor one that has a silver or golden beak, nor one whose tutela is carved in ivory, etc. Ovid means the tutela of a ship in Tristia, first [book], elegy 5, when he says:

And the wave beats upon the painted gods.

Silius Italicus:

And the tutelary images of the gods float.

So again Lactantius at the end of this chapter: that an eagle flew to him as an omen, which, having received it as a good sign, he as victor made subject to his tutela.

As the bull, when he carried off Europa and bore her across. Baptista Pius, in chapter 98 of his Annotations, seems to have read as the bull portrayed, and so some printed editions have it. While I do not approve adding that word to the text, since by far more and better copies are against it, so I do not deny that it is to be understood as a gloss; for this is Lactantius' sense: that just as Ganymede is said to have been carried off by Jupiter in an eagle, because perhaps he was carried off in a ship whose tutela

had an eagle figured [upon it]: so he is said to have carried off Europa on a bull, because he took her away in a ship on which a bull was figured; which indeed Eusebius asserts in the Chronicle. Europa, he says, was carried off by the Cretans in a ship whose emblem was a bull. Palaephatus, however, relates that there was a certain man of Cnossus named Taurus, who, when he was making war on the region of Tyre, carried off other maidens as well, and Europa, the daughter of Phoenix, from Tyre, whence the fable arose.

The voyage is celebrated. Navigium is put here for navigatio, as in Ulpian in the first law, § Ait Praetor, Digest, On rivers; and in Scaevola in the law Qui Romae, § Callimacus, Digest, On verbal obligations.

Whose surname was Agesilaus. He was called Agesilaus from leading the peoples, namely because he leads peoples; for he is the god of the dead and of the underworld. He is so called also by Callimachus, where he says, φοιτῶσι μεγάλῳ Ἀγεσιλάῳ, that is, they go to the great Agesilaus. Wherefore I do not approve what some contend must be read in this place, Agelastus or Agathalius, although I know that Pluto was called both Agelastus and Agathalius, and by other surnames as well; on our side stands Gyraldus, Syntagma 8, On the gods of the gentiles, and Coelius Rhodiginus, Ancient readings, book 6, chapter 18.

That unlimited command was Marcus Antonius'. So read the eleven Vatican manuscripts and all the others that I at least have seen, manuscript or printed, with the one exception among the Vatican ones; and B., which has Pompeius', etc. Now this Marcus Antonius (as Asconius relates on the first, third and fourth Verrines of Cicero) is the one who, through the favour of Cotta the consul and the faction of Cethegus, obtained from the Senate an unlimited charge over the whole sea coast, as far as the Roman empire extended, and who, not only being himself most dissolute and worthless, but also with the worst of companions, laid waste Sicily and all the provinces, and at last, having declared war on the Cretans and conducted the affair badly, perished there, before Pompey was sent against the pirates; of whom Cicero says: After (he says) they had felt that unlimited command of Marcus Antonius. And in the Frumentaria: So did Marcus Antonius conduct himself in that unlimited command. So that you may see that Lactantius perhaps had these passages in view. But neither, however, would I dare to reject the reading of the Bologna codex, since it is evident from Cicero in several places, from Plutarch, from Asconius in the place cited above, and from others, that Pompey too at another time had the province of clearing the sea and freeing it from the pirates delegated to him by the Senate, and on that account undertook not only the command of the fleet but also an almost unlimited command. Plutarch in the Pompey: This above all drove the Romans, pressed by the shortage of the grain supply and fearing a great famine, to send Pompey to free the sea from the pirates. Gabinius, a friend of Pompey, proposed a law which granted not a command of a fleet but plainly a command and free discretion over all mortals; for that law gave him command of the whole sea within the Pillars of Hercules and of all the mainland up to fifty miles from the sea. Very few regions of the Roman world fell outside this space: but it took in the greatest nations and the most powerful kings. Velleius, speaking of the same pirate war entrusted to Pompey by the Gabinian law: By which decree of the Senate the command of almost the whole world was conferred on one man. So that from this too it may now be clear why he called it that unlimited command, if you prefer that Lactantius spoke of Pompey. I, however, would not readily depart from the more received readings. And indeed this reading of ours was approved by Coelius Rhodiginus, book 6, chapter 18, Petrus Ciacconius and Latinus Latinius; the other, however, by Thomasius in his notes.

From the city of Messana. Strabo too, in his first book, calls him a Messenian, as do Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris, and Aelian, book 2 of the Varia historia. Athenaeus, however, who cites the third book of his Sacred Description, names him a Coan; others call him a Tegean, as Theodoret at the beginning of the third book of On the cure of Greek maladies, and often elsewhere. Cicero also mentions him at the end of the first book of On the nature of the gods, Sextus Empiricus in book 8 Against the mathematicians at the beginning, and Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, in his third discourse.

Ennius translated this history. See Arnobius

in book 4, Minucius in the Octavius, St Augustine in book 6 of the City [of God], chap. 7, Crinitus On the Poets under Ennius, and Politian, Miscellanies chap. 35.

For Jupiter is not wont to be worshipped without the companionship of his wife and daughter. For in the temple dedicated to Jove on the Capitol there were three shrines: the middle one Jove's; and on either side, the one Juno's, the other Minerva's, under the same roof and pinnacle. See [Dionysius of] Halicarnassus, where he speaks of the temple of Capitoline Jove, towards the end of the fourth [book] of the Antiquities; Macrobius, third [book] of the Saturnalia, ch. 4.

Driven to the bottom. I prefer this reading to the others: others before me also preferred it; for so it is read in the Aldine and the Plantin [editions]; and although in one of the Vatican [manuscripts] persumata is written in the text, in the margin of the book is placed pessum acta. To go pessum is said among the Latins of that which has sunk to the bottom, or to the lowest part of something: why then should Lactantius not have said metaphorically that the age of Jove was driven to the bottom, since it had been brought to its lowest, or last, part and to its end? Most of the Vatican [manuscripts], and P., read corruptly persumata; B. and T., worst of all, pessume acta: for how could Ennius there say that Jove spent his life most wretchedly, when he is wholly given to the praises of Jove? Another Vatican [manuscript] has consummata, and so Politian cites this passage in the Miscellanies chap. 35.

And his tomb is in Crete. Arnobius book 4 towards the end; Minucius; Theophilus To Autolycus; Epiphanius in the Ancoratus; Mela, book 2, chap. 7; Solinus, chap. 16.

In the town of Gnossus. Others prefer on Mount Jasius. M. Varro in Solinus, the said chap. 16, on Ida. Besides the authors noted, see Cicero, third [book] On the Nature of the Gods; Diodorus Siculus book 4; Cyprian On the Vanity of Idols; Eusebius, third [book] of the Preparation, chapter three; Politian in the place cited above.

The boast of the tomb. From this the Sibylline codex must be corrected, which has τάφου καύχημα: for there the scansion does not hold; nor is ἕξει to be read, as there, but, as in ours, ἴσχει.

That is, the supreme head of the public religions. It is therefore not Arnobius alone, as Theodorus Canterus judged in the first book of his Various Readings, chap. 11, who has set out for us whence the Capitol was so called, which he thought Livy, Plutarch, the Halicarnassian and other writers of Roman history did not know; for our Lactantius too, in this place and in book three, chap. 17, gives the origin of that word, though otherwise than Arnobius himself relates it at the beginning of the sixth book, [and] the Halicarnassian towards the end of the fourth [book] of the Antiquities, and Suidas.

Because we call those born of unknown parents sons of the Earth. So too Tertullian, chap. 11 of the Apology. Hence a place was made for the proverb, on which see at length the author of the Adages under Terrae Filius, Rhodiginus, Ancient Readings book 11, chap. 28, Politian in the Miscellanies, chap. 18.

Pan eum. So B., T. and many Vatican [manuscripts], of which, however, others have Pantum: some other codices, joined together, Panaeum, as P.; others Panem. Boccaccio, book 3, chap. 1, reports this passage of Ennius somewhat differently, and reads Pangaeum. On Mount Pangaeus, he says, he set up an altar, etc. Since I cannot bring forth anything else, I am content to indicate the various readings; for all, I think, will know that the passage is corrupt. Were the Sacred History of Ennius extant, from which it was taken, it would be entirely cleared up: but that is only to be wished for.

Pillar of Heaven. We owe this passage, most ingeniously restored, to Pedro Ciacconius, who first advised that it be read thus, Stela, with a single l and not a double, stella, as is corruptly read in all the books. Stela, in Greek στήλη, that is, a column. Pliny book 6, chap. 28: On which stone pillars are inscribed with unknown letters. For so it is printed in my copy of the Aldine edition of Venice, corrected by Paolo Manuzio and Gelenius; and so Barbarus corrects that passage in his emendations of Pliny profersit, Budé in his Annotations on the law Sicuti, § Competit, Digest Si servitus vindicetur, and the compilers of the Greek-Latin Lexicon printed at Basel in the year 1568 under Στήλη, and the author of the Thesaurus of the Latin Language under stela. Martianus Capella book 2: And the marks of the books which Athanasia, beholding,

she ordered to be inscribed on certain prominent rocks and placed within a cave among the hidden places of the Egyptians, and, calling these same rocks stelae, [she says] that they contain the genealogies of the gods. For there too stelas is to be read, on the authority of Pliny; and it is clear from the etymology of the word. That mountain, then, on account of its height was called the pillar of heaven, as though it seemed to touch heaven and indeed to hold it up.

And there on that mountain he founds an altar to Heaven. Ciacconius thought that certain words had been added here, and that Lactantius wrote thus: After he went up there, he gazed far and wide over the lands. On that mountain he founds an altar, and Jupiter was the first to sacrifice on that altar; in that place he looked up, and, praying to that which was the world above and which was called aether, he first named it heaven. He says "which was the world above" in place of "which was formerly called the world".

Subjected them to his protection. See Diodorus Siculus in the sixth [book]; and what tutela means here we have said above.

Chapter XIII.

Ancient coins. On the coin that was first stamped, see Strabo book 8, Pliny book 33, chapter 3, Macrobius in the first [book] of the Saturnalia, chapter 7, Eutropius, Tertullian in the Apology, Minucius in the Octavius, Cyprian On the Vanity of Idols, and a fragment of Athenaeus in Theodore Canter, in the second [book] of the Variae lectiones, chapter 23.

He had lain hidden safe on the shores. Virgil has: latuisset tutus in oris.

Who again in Latium. So I read, as in Maro, in place of what is in other editions, quae rursus, etc. For there he is speaking of Augustus.

Chapter XIV.

The Sacred History. That is, of Euhemerus.

These are the words of Ennius. Namely, of Ennius translating the Sacred History of Euhemerus.

Son. For "son" in the accusative. An antiptosis; as in: "the word which you have heard is not mine"; "the city which I am founding is yours".

Pluto in Latin is Diespiter: others call him Orcus. All know that Jupiter was called Diespiter, that is, father of the day, as Varro explains in the fourth [book] On the Latin Language, chapter 10; Macrobius in the first [book] of the Saturnalia, chapter 15. But that this surname was given to Pluto I do not know, unless perhaps in Varro himself, in the place cited above, in these words: This same Diespiter is called the lowest air, which is joined to the earth, where all things arise, where they pass away; and because it is their end, it is called Orcus, etc. Him, surely, I would rather have called father of night and of darkness than of day, with the Fate who addresses him in Claudian, where she says:

O greatest ruler of night, and lord of the shades!

Placiades Fulgentius: They said that he was also given over to darkness, because the matter of earth alone is darker than all the elements. Perhaps our author, and Varro too, wrote Dis pater; for it is very well known that Pluto was so called: and Dis, or Dives in Latin, is indeed the same as what in Greek is ploutōn, as Lactantius says. Diespiter is not the same. Cicero in the second [book] On the Nature of the Gods: But the whole power and nature of the earth is dedicated to father Dis, who is Dis, as among the Greeks Ploutōn, because all things both fall back into the earth and arise from the earth. Arnobius in the second [book], towards the end: When, by the admonition of Apollo, supplication was made to father Dis and to Saturn with human heads. Isidore, Origins 8, chapter 11, more or less suggests this emendation.

And he drove them round with a wall. For my part I find no Latin author who spoke thus. I think Lactantius wrote: and he drove a wall round them; for circumagere is nothing other than circumducere, as in Virgil book 9:

He drove the whirring sling round his head,

Or: he surrounded them with a wall.

Chapter XV.

Through love, the memory of the dead, etc. Others: through

love of merit, the memory of the dead, etc. But the word meriti is not found in codices T. and P., and it was absent from the codex of Francesco Petrarca, who cites this passage in the second [book] On the Leisure of the Religious and does not recognize that word.

Tolleret. Cicero [has] tollerent, and hence Castor and Pollux.

Atque adeo in plerisque, etc. All the books have an error, where one reads atque alio in plerisque, etc. For Lactantius quotes another passage of Cicero, chap. 3 of On the Nature of the Gods, where the reading varies somewhat; for there [it is], and in most cities it can be understood that, for the sake of increasing virtue, so that more willingly, etc.

Sancum. There is a remarkable variety of readings for this name, as is clear to anyone inspecting the Vatican codices, and on this one should consult Gregorio Giraldi in the first Syntagma On the Gods of the Gentiles. See also Varro, On the Latin Language book IV, chap. 10; Propertius book IV of the elegies, towards the end; Silius VIII of the Punica; the Halicarnassian [Dionysius], II of the Antiquities; likewise the book which circulates under the name of Gaius Sempronius on the division of Italy, with the commentaries of Annius; Saint Augustine, book XVIII of the City [of God], chap. 19. Our reading is given by cod. B., by some Vatican [codices], and by the Aldine and Plantin editions; it is approved by Joseph Scaliger in the conjectanea on Varro, at the place cited above, both from Propertius at the place cited above and from the etymology of that name handed down there by Propertius himself.

Mea sacra. So Maro in some editions. But in others me sacra, and it is noted at that place in the edition of Vellutello, and in the Castigationes of Pierio Valeriano on Virgil, that this is also found in some ancient Virgilian [manuscripts]; to him, indeed, the reading of Lactantius is less pleasing.

Hellas, why have you trusted in vain. These verses are read somewhat differently in the Sibylline Oracles.

Platonis imitator. Indeed even his rival, as Quintilian holds, book X, first chapter, towards the end.

Illud profecto fuit. It is easily understood, as Andreas Patritius notes in his scholia on the fragments of Cicero, and Sigonius in the Dialogue entitled Accusator, or On Cicero's Consolation, that this passage is corrupt, which Lactantius took from Cicero's own little book On Consolation, which Cicero himself mentions in the Tusculans and elsewhere, and our Lactantius often in the Institutes. When all the learned were lamenting that this was lost, a book with the same title and under the same name of Cicero came to light seventeen years ago, about which there arose much dispute among the learned men of that time, whether it was genuine and authentic Cicero. In that little book, then (whether Cicero or another be the author), one reads most plainly and most correctly: But if any animal ever ought to have been consecrated, such as the Egyptians consecrated in great number (which in truth none ought to have been), if [the offspring] of Cadmus, etc.

Amphitryonis. The Aldine, the Plantin, and some other editions have an error, where one reads Amphionis. Our reading is supported by that little book of the Consolation, and by Sigonius and Patritius, who cite this passage from Lactantius among the fragments of Cicero; likewise by the best copies T. P., the Florentine edition and others, and indeed by reason itself; for we know of no offspring of Amphion enrolled among the gods, but all know the offspring of Amphitruo, namely Hercules, who, although he was born of Jupiter as father and Alcmena as mother, as Apollodorus relates in II of the Bibliotheca and Homer in the hymn to Hercules, they nevertheless also called the son of Amphitruo, as Euripides in Hercules Mad, and others.

Et illos, quos in coelum merita locaverunt. Cicero, whose passage is in II of On the Laws, has and those whom their merits have called into heaven; or and those whom their merits have called in heaven, as Muretus testifies is read in certain books of Cicero, and thinks it should be read, on that [line] of Catullus, Flaccus's darling to his Catullus.

Attici conscientiam. Here you have Lactantius as witness that it was Atticus who is designated as interlocutor by the letter A. in the books of the Tusculans, a matter which is usually in question, as Turnebus notes in IX of the Adversaria, chap. 18; for others, such as Lambinus in the Annotations on the first book of those Disputations, reject the opinion of Lactantius, and not Atticus, but an unspecified person,

say a young man, is meant, they contend, or else a hearer, as Robertellius does in his Annotations on various authors.

Because this pleased that wicked man Antony. See Cic. Philippics 2, near the end.

Of his own brother. Janus Gulielmius, on Plautus, Menaechmi, chapter 3, attests that some manuscripts have, better and more pointedly, "of his twin brother". A brother is called a twin who was born at one birth and on one day. Plautus, Menaechmi, at the end:

I have hope that you will find two own brothers, twins born of one mother and one father on one day.

Virgil, of the same Romulus and Remus, in book 8:

about her teats the twin boys, hanging, played, etc.

The parricide of his country. So also Cicero, On Duties 3, chapter 3, near the end: "Behold, here is one who [desired to be] King of the Roman people", etc.

Chapter XVI.

[To loose] minds from the knots of religions, etc. Lucretius: "[to loose] the mind from the knots of religions", etc.

And has the Papian law put a clasp on him too? Seneca is joking at Jupiter's expense; for the Papia Poppaea law "clasped" men of sixty, that is, forbade them to take a wife, as though they were already spent in their power of begetting; this law Claudius Caesar afterwards repealed, as Suetonius writes in his Claudius, in whom Pompeia is corruptly read for Poppea, as also in Isidore, Origins 4, chapter 15, which is carried over into the Decretum, in the chapter Quaedam, distinction 2. Beroaldus followed that error on Suetonius, in the place cited above, chapters 19 and 23, and Rivallius in his history of the civil law, book 2, who nevertheless in book 4, on Claudius, used the right name; but the same error was refuted by Alciatus, Dispunctiones book 3, chapter 3; Tiraquellus on the marriage laws, law 6, no. 20; Prateius, On the Laws of the Roman People, under Papia Poppaea, from Dio book 56, Tacitus book 3, and Ulpian's Epitome, title 29. Finally the Emperor Justinian also repealed that law, in the last law of the Code, On Marriages. Seneca said "put a clasp on" by a metaphor drawn from those who were "clasped", either for the sake of preserving the voice, which is altered by intercourse, or for the sake of health: in them the skin that extends over the glans of the penis was pierced through on either side, and a bronze ring was added to it, which they called a fibula (clasp); hence in Martial book 9, epigram 28, refibulare, which means to loosen the clasp. And there is more on the clasping of young men in Celsus. Here, in some printed editions, tabulam or fabulam is corruptly read for fibulam, which Beroaldus too notes on Claudius, in the said chapter 19.

The right of three children? These were privileges and immunities granted, in favour of the propagation of offspring, to parents having three children; on which see the first law of the Code, Qui num. lib. se excus., the first law of the Code, De jur. liber., and the section Sed hae juris, Institutes, Ad S. C. Tertullianum; Plutarch, On Affection for Offspring. But sometimes by the indulgence of the Emperor these privileges were granted also to those who had fewer children, or even none. Those who had obtained this right enjoyed, besides other advantages, this one too: that when anything was distributed to the people man by man, they received for three children. See Duarenus, Disputations book 1, chapter 40; Alexander of Naples, Genial Days book 4, chapter 8; Beroaldus and Sabellicus on Suetonius, Galba, chapter 14.

Chapter XVII.

Do you see, then, etc. In Cicero the reading varies in a very few words.

That is, that he understands what is false and does not know what is true. "Would that," says Cicero, "I could find out the truth as easily as I can expose what is false!"

As is contained in the sacred history. That is, in Euhemerus' history of the gods, on which see above, chapter 11.

He summoned Aesculapius to cure the young man. Ovid tells the story in Metamorphoses 15.

Chapter XVIII.

If it is right to climb to the heavens by slaughter, etc. These two

little verses from the Epigrams of Ennius, set down by Cicero in his books On the Republic, Seneca reports in book 19 of the Letters, Letter 109: That about which you ask, etc. But Crinitus writes, in On Honest Learning book 19, chapter 3, that in Seneca the first little verse is held to be corrupt. Yet he does not bring forward from Seneca that little verse, which is read in various ways in the editions of Seneca. I think Crinitus read in Seneca: If by doing [so] [it is granted] to anyone to ascend to the regions of the heavenly ones, etc. This reading displeased Erasmus too, in his Annotations on the said letter, and me also, although Pincianus in his Corrections on the same Seneca judges it better than this one set down by Erasmus, namely: If it is right for anyone to ascend to the regions of the heavenly ones, etc. And so Crinitus thought that it should be read in Seneca as in Lactantius; and Erasmus too judged the reading of Lactantius not absurd. Pithou, however, in book 1 of the Adversaria, chapter 11, condemns the reading of Lactantius, and maintains that Ennius wrote thus: If it is right for anyone to ascend into the regions of the heavenly ones, etc. The ancients, he says, said endo for in everywhere, and Africanus would not have been rightly censured if the passage had stood in Ennius as in Firmianus' reading; for he added that condition, If it is right by slaughtering, etc., which could have been untrue: but he was rightly and deservedly censured because he had boasted that heaven lay open to him, though polluted by so many and such great slaughters, provided that it were right for any of mortals to enter into the regions of the heavenly ones. This reading of Pithou, which greatly pleases me, Scipio Gentilis also approves in the Origins, and Lambinus in his Annotations on the fragments of Cicero, Republic book 3; and it is almost the same as that reading which Erasmus says he restored by divination and conjecture: but Pithou's seems more Ennian. See Gruter's remarks on Seneca.

It is indeed (he says), Africanus. Andreas Patritius, in his scholia on the fragments of Cicero from Republic book 3, thinks one should read, It is indeed so, Africanus, or simply, And indeed, Africanus. For my part, where I find all the manuscripts unanimous, I do not readily change anything; yet I do not pass over in silence the opinions of learned men.

To teach from the divine Scriptures. Genesis 4, where the discovery and cultivation of crops and vines is attributed to Adam and Noah, on which Lactantius himself discourses again below, book 2, chapter 14; and St Augustine, book 8 On Genesis according to the Letter. Pliny, therefore, towards the end of book 7, and the rest of the heathen talk nonsense, who attribute these things to Ceres and to Eumolpus the Athenian, or to Dionysus or Osiris, as Diodorus writes, book 1, chapter 2.

As medicine to Aesculapius, smithing to Vulcan. Pliny, book 7, chapter 56; Polydore Vergil, On the Inventors of Things.

To the discoverer of the potter's art. Namely Rhoecus and Theodorus, according to some, as Pliny reports, book 35 and chapter 12.

Samian vessels. Pliny, the same book, chapter 16.

There is indeed [reason] why anyone, etc. So I have restored it, as it is in B. T. P. and the Plantin edition, not as in certain others, there is indeed a cause why anyone, etc.; for they preferred simply est cur or est quod. Plautus, Aulularia: there is [reason] why I should go back home; Ovid, Metamorphoses book 2:

There is indeed [reason] why one should be unwilling to offend Juno.

Lactantius above, at the end of chapter 17: There was plainly [reason] why so great a labour, etc., and below, book 2, chapter 7, towards the end: There is indeed [reason] why their authority, etc.

Chapter XIX.

For they feared harm if they spoke out against the public persuasion. He has an example concerning Cicero below, book 2, chapter 3, at the beginning; and St Augustine said the same of Varro in book 6 of the City [of God], and of Scaevola in book 4, chapter 27.

Chapter XX.

If it had been the animal itself whose figure it bears. And yet

writers were not lacking who related that it was the animal itself, namely a real she-wolf, that offered her teats to Romulus and Remus: Virgil, book 8:

And [the she-wolf], having whelped, in the green cave of Mavors, etc.

Ovid, Fasti 2: She came to the exposed ones, etc., and 3: Who [does not know that] the infants with milk, etc. Propertius 2, Elegy 6: Nursed, Romulus, on hard [milk], etc. And not only poets, but also historians, and distinguished ones at that, cited by the Halicarnassian at the end of the first book of the Antiquities; Pliny 8, chapter 17; Strabo in book 5; Justin the historian, books 38 and 43, and at the end of 44; Plutarch, Parallels 36, and in the Roman Questions, question 21; Hyginus, chapter 252. It is more generally accepted, however, that that She-wolf was a woman, called by name Acca Larentina and by surname Lupa, because she was a harlot. For they gave the surname lupae to women who made their bodies common, in the way that Cicero in the Philippics often calls Antony's harlots lupae. This most of the authors mentioned above, and others besides, have related: Ovid, Fasti 3; Pliny, book 18, chapter 2; Plutarch in the Romulus; Festus; Livy, book 1 of the first Decade; Massurius in Gellius, book 6, chapter 7; Macer, Histories, book 1, in Macrobius, Saturnalia 1, chapter 10; and the Halicarnassian, in the place cited above, writes that this opinion was more in accord with history.

Of Larentina. I have followed this reading, both on account of the authority of the better manuscripts B. T. P., and because a little below her festival is called Larentinalia, with none of the manuscripts of Lactantius dissenting. Yet there is much variety among writers concerning the name of the woman and of her festival. Cicero in the letters to Brutus, Varro, Festus, Livy, Ovid at the beginning of the third book of the Fasti, and Pliny in the place cited above call her Laurentia. But Gellius, book 6, chapter 7, Macrobius, Saturnalia 1, chapter 10, Tertullian, Apology, chapters 13 and 24, Minucius in the Octavius, and Plutarch in the Romulus [call her] Larentia.

The Romans, of course, followed the example of the Athenians in representing her. How Harmodius and Aristogiton, citizens of Athens, killed the tyrant Hipparchus is found at length in Thucydides, in the Proem and book 6; Plato and the Symposium mention them, Aristotle, Rhetoric 2, chapter 25, Cicero at the end of the first Tusculan, Aelian, Varia Historia, book 2. After the tyrant's death, when the harlot, the mistress of Harmodius, as Athenaeus writes, book 13, chapter 24, and intimate with both conspirators through her singing to the lyre, as Pliny writes, book 34, chapter 8, had been seized and tortured with severe torments by the tyrants Pisistratus and Hippias, so that she might tell the whole plan of the conspirators in killing him and betray her accomplices in the crime, nothing could be wrung from her; indeed (as Tertullian writes at the end of the Apology), when the executioner was already wearied, she at last bit off her tongue and spat it into the face of the raging tyrant, so as to spit out her voice too, that she might not be able to name the conspirators even if, overcome, she had wished to: although Pliny, book 7, chapter 23, where he speaks of Leaena, attributes this deed not to her but to Anaxarchus, when he was being tortured for a similar cause, as does Valerius too, book 3, chapter 3. The Athenians therefore set up in her honour the image of the animal whose name she bore, but forbade the artist to add a tongue. Pausanias in the Attica mentions the bronze Leaena set up by the Athenians to her. Athenae mentions the story. So do Pliny in the place cited above, Tertullian in the place cited above and To the Martyrs, chapter 6, and also Eusebius of Caesarea in the Chronicle, who records the slaying of Hipparchus under the 65th Olympiad. Hence I do not well understand how Lactantius writes that the Romans, in representing the she-wolf, took their example from the Athenians; for since the deed of the She-wolf, that is, of Acca Larentina, preceded the deed of Leaena by about two hundred and fifty years, it seems most like the truth that the She-wolf was represented by the Romans long before Leaena was by the Athenians, and therefore that the Athenians could rather have taken an example of this kind from the Romans than the Romans from the Athenians. Moreover, because the harlot was privy to the conspiracy and did not prevent the slaying, which she could certainly have prevented by informing on the conspirators, deservedly by her also

Lactantius writes that the tyrant was killed, although she herself did not in fact commit the slaying.

Larentinalia. Those who call the woman Laurentia call her festival Laurentialia, or Laurentalia, as Ovid does near the beginning of the third book of the Fasti. Those who call her Larentia call it Larentialia, or Larentiala. Those who call her Laurenta call it Laurentinalia. In the same way, those who call her Larentina call it Larentinalia.

But Faula also, etc. Plutarch writes of her in the Roman Questions, question 35, where he calls her Larentia Fabola.

Floralia. On these see Varro at the beginning of On Agriculture, first chapter; Pliny, book 18, chapter 29; Macrobius, first book of the Saturnalia, chapter 4.

Therefore those games are celebrated with all licentiousness, etc. Every kind of wantonness and obscenity was represented in those games by naked women, who performed the office of mimes. Once, when Cato was present at them, the people, out of respect for his dignity and severity, did not dare to demand that the women be stripped. Valerius Maximus tells this at greater length in book 2, the chapter on dignity; see also Seneca, Epistle 98, "You are mistaken, my Lucilius." These games fell on the fourth day before the Kalends of May and on the Kalends of May itself, as Pliny writes in the said chapter 29, and Ovid at the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth book of the Fasti. I think Gyraldus erred. In his book On the Gods of the Gentiles, at the beginning of the Syntagma where he speaks of Flora, he left it written that the festival of the Floralia was the same as the festival of the Maiuma, on which see the sole law in the Code, On the Maiuma, book 11, and book 15, title 6, of the Theodosian Code. For the Floralia were held at Rome, whereas the most learned Cardinal Baronius proves, in his notes on the Martyrology under 26 December, that the spectacle of the Maiuma was presented not in the western regions but in the eastern ones. He refutes the opinion of Suidas, who says that the Maiuma was a festival customarily held by the Romans in the month of May at the mouth of the Tiber, although nearly everyone follows Suidas: Alciatus in his annotations on the said sole law of the Code, On the Maiuma, and in book 5 of the Parerga, chapter 5; Cujacius on the same law; Girard, Pratejus and Brissonius in their dictionaries under the word Mauma; Stewechius on Vegetius, book 3, chapter 39; and others. Yet their opinion gives no support at all to Gyraldus. They write that the festival of the Maiuma was customarily held at the mouth of the Tiber, but they do not assert that it was the same as the Floral games, which were celebrated in the city itself, as Alexander of Naples notes in the Genial Days, book 6, chapter 8.

Fear and Pallor. Cicero, book 3 On the Nature of the Gods; Pliny, book 2, chapter 7.

Should have them present. This is the reading received from the manuscripts and the printed editions. It should not be rashly rejected, as Thomasius idly claims. Everyone knows that "to be held present" or "to be present", in the sense of "to be at hand", is a very frequent expression in all Latin writers, and especially in Lactantius himself: book 2 of the Institutes, chapter 2, at the end; the book On the Anger of God; and elsewhere. B., however, has "should have with him".

Mind. Cicero and Pliny, as cited above.

Cicero said that Greece had undertaken a great and bold design, etc. Sigonius and Patritius, in their scholia on the fragments of Cicero, think that this passage has fallen out of book 2 of the Laws.

For it is right that virtues, not vices, be consecrated. Cicero has: "For it is fitting to consecrate virtues, not vices."

Fever. Cicero and Pliny, as cited above.

But those. In Cicero: "ast olla".

With superfluous buildings. That is, with temples consecrated to the gods, or rather to demons.

With images. With the idols of demons.

With the fingertips. He is mocking the custom of the heathen by which they used to take up with two or three fingers the things prepared for sacrifice. In this way they threw incense into the flame of the altar. Saint Jerome, first epistle: "The service of an idol does not consist only in this, that someone takes incense between two little fingers and throws it into the burning-place of the altar." Lactantius, book 5, chapter 19: "For to prefer to be tortured and killed rather than to throw incense, taken up with three fingers, onto the hearth", etc. Porphyry, On Abstinence from Animate Things, says: "The Pythia [said that the god] was pleased with the man of Hermione when he sacrificed, taking pieces of cake from his wallet with three fingers." Ovid, book 2 of the Fasti:

And with three fingers she places three grains of incense beneath the threshold.

And from this other passages of Lactantius too are explained: Book 4, chapter 3: For that religion is mute, not only because it belongs to the mute, but because its rite lies in the hand and the fingers; Book 5, chapter 20: In which I see nothing other than a rite pertaining to the fingers alone.

Horrere [to shudder at]. From the manuscripts cited by Thomasius; for colere [to worship], which is in the printed editions, is at odds with Lactantius himself.

When they had made engine-ropes out of women's hair, etc. Vegetius, On Military Matters, Book 4, chapter 9; Capitolinus in the Maximinus.

Just as the young men previously sent by the same people [were] with the maidens, from whom the Parthenii were born, etc. This reading is found in many Vatican manuscripts, in that very ancient B and likewise in another of the same library of St Saviour at Bologna, and in the Florentine editions and the Venetian edition of Tridinus. And on this history of the Parthenii one should by all means consult Strabo, Book 6; Justinus the historian at the end of Book 3; Isidore, Book 9 of the Origins, chapter 2, where, however, he has fallen into error, so that he has written Spartans instead of Parthenii. That most learned man Latinus Latinius thought that the reading of the Aldine edition, which has ante admissi, is not only by no means absurd and devoid of sense, as Thomasius judged, but even highly apt and properly consistent with the history; from which it is established that those young men, before that war was ended, were sent back to Lacedaemon under this order, that for the begetting of offspring they should couple promiscuously with all the maidens. And indeed the verb admittere (besides its other meanings) is to bring a male to a female, or a female to a male, for mating, whence admissio, admissura, admissarius. Pedro Chacón suspected that one should read antea dimissi.

Parthenii. Others [read] Partheniae, as the codex B [has] here. Aristotle, fifth [book] of the Politics, chapter 7; Pollux, under Παρθενίας; Strabo in the place cited above.

To armed Venus. On whom [see] Pausanias in the Laconica; Quintilian, Institutes 2, chapter 4.

To Jupiter the Baker too, etc. The story is in Livy in the fifth [book] of the first Decade; Frontinus, third [book] of the Stratagems, chapter 15; Ovid, sixth [book] of the Fasti; the Suda.

Muta. A nymph of the Tiber, at first called Lara, as in Varro, fourth [book] On the Latin Language, afterwards Muta, as in Ovid, second [book] of the Fasti, who tells the tale; by Ausonius she is called Larunda; Mania, finally, elsewhere by the same Varro, by Macrobius, first [book] of the Saturnalia, chapter 7, [and] by Arnobius at the end of the third [book].

Cunina. So it is read in Varro and in St Augustine, Book 4 of the City [of God], chapters 8 and 11. B has Cunia, P Cuna.

Sterculius. So Tertullian, Apology, chapter 24, [and] Macrobius, first [book] of the Saturnalia, chapter 7; Stercutius, Pliny, Book 17, chapter 9, Servius on the first [book] of the Georgics, Isidore, Etymologies, Book 17, chapter 1; but others Sterculus. Varro, On the Life of the Roman People, Book 2: Sterquilius. Codex B here [has] Stercus, T Sterculinus, P Stercutus.

Mutinus. So Tertullian in the said chapter 24, a reading which Vives approves on chapter 11 of Book 4 of the City of God, and Gulielmus in the first book of the Verisimilia, chapter 23; Festus Pompeius: Musinus Tusinus; there was (he says) a shrine of Musinus Tisinus on the Velia, etc. Arnobius, Book 4: Mutunus. But St Augustine in the said chapter 11 has Musunus and Tutunus. Codices B and P here [have] Tutinus.

Terminus. See Apollodorus at the beginning of the Library; Pausanias in the Boeotica, at the end.

For when Tarquinius wished to build the Capitol, etc. Livy towards the end of the first [book] of the first Decade and towards the end of the fifth; Ovid, second [book] of the Fasti; St Augustine in the fourth [book] of the City [of God], chapters 23 and 29; Servius on Aeneid 9.

Chapter XXI.

A human victim. He censures the savagery of the heathen, who sacrificed human victims; on which matter [see] Plutarch in the Pelopidas; Tertullian, Apology 9; Clement of Alexandria in the Address to the Gentiles; Minucius in the Octavius; Eusebius, Preparation, Book 4, chapter 7; Nazianzen in the Oration on the Epiphany; St Augustine, City [of God], Book 7, chapter 19; Theodoret, seventh [book] of the Therapeutica.

Esus and Teutates. On whom Lucan in the first [book],

Some interpret Esus as Mars. Theutates, however, is Mercury, concerning whom see Livy, sixth [book] of the third Decade; Caesar, book six of the Gallic War, where he speaks of human victims; Arnobius, second [book].

Latian Jupiter. He is also called Latiaris, and that it is so written in this place in some parchments of Lactantius is attested by Franc. Juretus in his Notes on the letters of Symmachus, book one, letter 9.

From the Milvian bridge. M. Varro [has] from the Sublician bridge. The Argei (he says) are images of men made from rush twigs, and every year they are customarily thrown from the Sublician bridge by the priests. So too Epicadus in Macrobius, book two of the Saturnalia, chapter 11; and the Halicarnassian in the first [book] of the Antiquities: Images of men, he says, thirty in number, they send from the Sacred bridge into the river Tiber, which they call Argei.

And heads to Hades. He perhaps took this little verse of Varro from Macrobius, first [book] of the Saturnalia, chapter 7, where ᾅδῃ is found, that is, to Dis, and not κρονίδῃ, that is, to Saturn, as in all the books of Lactantius by an evident error of the copyists; for here τὸ πατρί can designate none but Saturn, to whom whole human bodies were sacrificed, as Lactantius confirms in this very place from Ovid, from Macrobius in the place cited above and in book 2 of the Saturnalia, chapter 11, and from the rest. Therefore τὸ ᾅδῃ ought to have been restored to Firmianus, so that we understand Dis, as Pontanus also advises in his notes on Macrobius in the place cited above.

Φῶτα. Of this word we have removed not only the Latin interpretation, which is absent from most editions and from very many manuscripts, yet is present in some others in this manner, φῶτα, that is, a man, or, that is, lights, but also every accent, so that the ambiguity of the oracle may be preserved, which the verse contains on purpose: for that ambiguity is removed whether you place over the word a grave accent or a circumflex, as is wrongly found in all the printed editions, both in Macrobius in the said first chapter and in the 11th, and in Plutarch; for when marked with a grave accent it is narrowed to the meaning of a man, with a circumflex to the meaning of a light, as Suidas relates under φὼς, and others; or whether you put the article before it, or much more so if, by adding an interpretation, you declare it in one or the other sense. Why φως signifies both a man and a light, Plutarch sets out in the place cited above. I would have you recall to memory, reader, the reasons by which we have refuted this argumentation about the various accents and meanings of the word ΦΩΤΑ, as being plainly contrary to the rules of present-day grammar (See col. 241, note, of this volume).

To be thrown. Jace is read faultily in all the books of Lactantius: therefore we have corrected it. As in the Poet:

So great the evils that Religion could urge, / which has often brought forth, etc.

He has joined together, arranged and set forth two verses of Lucretius that are separated from each other at the beginning of the first [book] On the Nature of Things, as he thought suited his purpose; for there these words are read first:

Whereas, on the contrary, more often of old / Religion has been capable of wicked and impious deeds.

Then, after a few [lines] in between, that verse is found:

So great the evils that Religion could urge.

The Egyptian rites of Isis. On which see above, chapter 17; Arnobius, first [book]; Minucius; St Augustine, book 6 of the City [of God], chapter 10.

Lucan. A slip of memory; for he has put Lucan in place of Ovid.

And covered with wood. That is, enclosed in a wooden chest (so indeed the books of Lactantius have it); or (as all the manuscripts of Lucan have it) and covered with linen, that is, wrapped in linen cloths, etc.

Osiris. Gyraldus, in syntagma 8, wonders that Lactantius in this place made Osiris the son of Isis, since Plutarch, with whom Diodorus agrees in the first book, chapter 2, calls him not the son but the brother and husband of Isis, in the book On Isis and Osiris. But Gyraldus ought to have remembered, from the things which he himself had gathered in syntagma 6, where he speaks of Serapis, in 8, where of Osiris, in 12, where of Isis, that the story is intricate and very obscure: he could have understood

that Lactantius, although he departed from the opinion of Plutarch, nevertheless followed the account of other writers hardly less weighty than Plutarch. In the first place, that Io, whom Jupiter ravished, was the same as the goddess Isis worshipped in Egypt, Firmianus himself asserts above, chap. 11; [so too] Ovid at the end of the first [book of the] Metamorphoses, Apollodorus at the beginning of [book] 2 of the Library, Lucian in the Dialogue of Zephyrus and Notus; whence also by Propertius, speaking of her rites which were performed at Rome in his time, she is called the Inachid, book 2, the penultimate Elegy:

And would that she might perish by the Nile, etc.

Likewise, book 2, in the Elegy which begins Jupiter affecte, etc.

Io, changed in her head, had lowed through her first years; / now a goddess, she who as a cow drank the streams of the Nile.

Aelian writes that the Greeks also affirm this. She bore Epaphus by Jupiter, who, worshipped by the same Egypt, had a temple joined to his mother's, as Ovid and Aelian relate. Moreover, he who is Epaphus to the Greeks is the very same who is Apis to the Egyptians, as Herodotus writes. And that Apis is the same as Serapis we know from Aridaeus of Argos and from Nymphodorus of Amphipolis in Eusebius, Preparation book 10, and from Varro in Augustine, City book 18, chap. 5. Ruffinus, Suidas and others write that the same was commonly believed. Further, Tacitus writes at the end of the twentieth [book] that Serapis was believed to be the same as Osiris; and Diodorus Siculus, book 1, chap. 2, asserts that Serapis is called now Osiris, now Dionysus. And Lactantius himself says the same in this place. Indeed Plutarch too, in the book On Isis and Osiris: It is better, he says, to make Osiris the same as Bacchus, and Serapis the same as Osiris. And again, concerning Apis, that he was held to be the same as Osiris by the Egyptian priests, Plutarch reports in the same place, and Strabo speaking of Memphis, book 17. Lactantius therefore, following these authors, could say that he who in the rites of Isis was always sought and found was the son of Isis herself, as history teaches, and the same as Osiris.

Ardua jamdudum resonat. The reading of these verses varies somewhat in Ovid; for there [we find] pars manibus clypeos, and,

The matter was hidden from the father, and imitations of the ancient deed.

Quia principes intelligendi. The passage is not found today among the works of Sallust.

Vetustatem in majus componentem. I have followed the reading of the Florentine edition, approved by Carrio, Antiquae lectiones book 2, chap. 7, instead of that which is in other [editions], vetustatem in majus componentes. For Sallust did not mean that antiquity [was magnified] by the Curetes, but rather that that deed of the Curetes, of a religion both discovered and understood, since they were the first to understand divine things, was magnified by antiquity itself, and that therefore they were called the nurturers of Jupiter and celebrated under that name.

Illos dico, qui vel inhonesto saltatu tripudiant. He hints at the Salii, the priests of Mars.

Vel qui nudi uncti. He means the Luperci, priests of Pan, the god of shepherds.

Quid de scutis jam vetustate putridis, etc. These were the Ancilia. And Virgil [speaks] of all these at the end of [book] 8.

Here he had wrought the leaping Salii and the naked Luperci, / and the woolly caps, and the shields fallen from heaven.

O stultas hominum mentes, o pectora caeca! Quamlibet in tenebris, etc. Lucretius in these verses has miseras for stultas, and qualibus for quamlibet.

Minus sanus et ineptus. I have followed, with Thomasius, the reading of codex B, instead of that which is in some printed [editions], nimis lascivus et ineptus, etc. Although that one too pleases greatly which Louis Carrio puts forward by conjecture, Antiquae lectiones book 2, chap. 7, namely minus lascivus et ineptus, etc. Lascivia here, however, is not lust, but merriment and rather wanton jesting. Ulpian, on the Lex Cornelia, Digest, on the Lex Cornelia concerning assassins: When someone through wantonness had furnished the cause of death,

etc. So Cicero in the preface of On Ends [and] in the first [book] On Divination; Varro in the preface of On Agriculture. See Budé in the Annotations on the law Ex conducto, § Si vis tempestatis, Digest, Locati.

Chapter XXII.

That Sabine was king. Numa Pompilius, about whom you have much here from Livy, book 10 of the fourth Decade, and from Plutarch in the Numa.

Wicked rites. Because infants were sacrificed to Saturn, a crime with which Tertullian also reproaches the Gentiles, chap. 9 of the Apology.

Fatua, Fauna. Some call her Fatua, others Fauna, others both together Fatua Fauna, as Lactantius here and Arnobius in the first and fifth books; but why she was called by both names Macrobius writes in the first [book] of the Saturnalia, chap. 12.

They sacrifice in secret. So B. and all the other manuscripts, and the best ones, not, as stands faultily in the inferior printed [editions], in aperto ("in the open"), which conflicts with Lactantius' meaning and with the account of the rites of the Goddess herself, about which [write] Cicero in the Oration On the Responses of the Haruspices, Macrobius in the place cited above, Plutarch in the Caesar and the Cicero, Seneca, Epistles book 16, letter 98: Erras, mi Lucili, etc., where also in the corrected editions in operto is read. Yet the error has been corrected here in the Aldine, Florentine and Plantin printings.

And Sextus Clodius. On whom [see] Suetonius in the booklet On Distinguished Rhetoricians.

She had drained a jar. Whatever I have found anywhere considered by learned men on our Lactantius I gladly share with the reader, so that he may lack nothing for gaining either profit or pleasure. But I would again and again have each one warned not to think that he should ever depart from the old and already received readings which can in some way be defended and sustained; otherwise, if the old wordings and sentences are changed, inverted, and struck out according to the ingenuity of each of us, with new ones brought in in their place however it pleases, we shall assuredly possess no longer the monuments of the ancient writers but our own fabrications. Johannes Meursius, in the fifth book of the Criticus Arnobianus, chap. six, thinks that Obbam should be read in this place. Now the obba was a kind of cup, on the authority of Nonius. Arnobius, relating this story in [book] five, says Seriam: and the seria was an oblong earthenware wine vessel; and he agrees with Lactantius, or rather with Sextus Clodius, that Fatua Fauna was beaten to death by her husband for having drunk too much wine, as Plutarch also relates in the Problems. But in Macrobius the event is narrated quite otherwise, in the said chap. 12.

The earth-dwelling Lamias of Faunus, etc. These verses are thought to have fallen out of the Satires of Lucilius, ivere, et esse homines, etc. Thus that little verse is to be read, as in Lucilius himself in the collection of fragments of the old pagan poets in B. T. P., and the conjunction is not to be omitted, as in some printed [editions].

Of bronze. In the margin of one book, in place of ahenis ("of bronze"), was written inanis ("empty"), which I suspect is the true reading, so that a stop is made after inesse, and then there is read continuously inanis pergula pictorum ("the empty workshop of painters"), under which those words are most fittingly placed, veri nihil, omnia ficta ("nothing true, all feigned").

Likewise their fathers Faunus and Laomedon. Their, namely of Latinus and of Priam; for Laomedon was the father of Priam, Faunus the father of Latinus, and Picus his grandfather. Therefore I read here with B. and T. not Picus, as in many editions, but Faunus. Virgil in the seventh [book], speaking of Latinus:

This [king], we have received, was begotten of Faunus and the Laurentine Nymph Marica; Faunus' father is Picus, and he names you, Saturn, as his parent.

But Arnobius too, book 2: Who

Picus, the father of Faunus and grandfather of Latinus, etc.

But the sacred history testifies, etc. That is, the History of Euhemerus about the Gods, of which [we have spoken] so often above.

As soon as he had come into each region. So I read, as it is in B.; ut, in place of statim atque ("as soon as") or ex quo primum ("from when first"), has a wonderful amount of elegance. Plautus, Poenulus:

As soon as they had struck each with birdlime, they fell to the ground as thick as pears.

Terence, Hecyra.

As each one had come, I approached.

Another [reading]: into whatever region he had come; another: into whatever region he should come.

Atabyrius. In B. it is written Ataburius, namely by that pronunciation by which the Latins once represented the Greek upsilon by u: thus Musia for Mysia, Tumpanum, Assurius, Sulla, Purrhus, Poluposus, and the like are found in the Florentine Pandects, as Brisson attests in the Parerga. Appian is corrected, who in the Mithridatic history calls Jupiter Tabyrius instead of Atabyrius; for it is clear that it must be both pronounced and written in the former way from this passage, from Stephanus, Strabo, Apollodorus in the third book of the Bibliotheca, and Pindar in the Olympians where he celebrates Diagoras, and from his scholiast. Stephanus and Strabo, however, hold that Jupiter was so called not from a host, as Lactantius says, but from Mount Atabyrius.

Labradeus. So Plutarch in the Greek Questions, question 45, and Aelian. But Strabo and Stephanus have Labradeus or Labrandenus. Aelian writes that Jupiter was called by this name not from a host, as Lactantius relates here, but for another reason. Jupiter, he says, was named Labradeus because it had rained very heavily.

Cassius. I have written it so, as I found it in all the manuscripts and in Theophilus, with a double ss: for he writes Κάσσιος Ζεύς. Stephanus, however, writes that this name was given to Jupiter not from a host but from Mount Casius and a city of Egypt. "Casion (he says), a mountain and city of Egypt, from which also [the name] of Casian Jupiter, etc." Pliny too mentions Mount Casius, and Casian Jupiter having a shrine there, in books 4 and 5, chapter 12 in both; so do Strabo, book 16, Solinus, chapters 46, 47 and 49, and Suidas. And if indeed we prefer that Jupiter was named from this, then Cassius is not to be written, but Casius with a single s, as in Lucan, book 8, speaking of the tomb of Pompey:

And to prefer to Casian Jupiter, etc.

Grandson. That is, of Uranus, or Caelus, who first held rule over the whole world. For he begot by his wife Tellus a son, Saturn, and Saturn by Rhea begot Jupiter, as Apollodorus writes at the beginning of the Bibliotheca. Lactantius too adds here: his grandmother Tellus, who was the wife of Uranus. Uranus therefore was the grandfather of Jupiter, and Jupiter his grandson, as he also says above in chapter 5 and at the end of chapter 11. This, therefore, is the correct reading, acknowledged by all the printed books, not great-grandson, as is read from B. in the margin of the books of the Plantin edition, and likewise in Tax. and P.

Chapter XXIII.

Theophilus in the book On Times, etc. This book is the third of those which Theophilus himself wrote against the Gentiles to Autholycus. See Saint Jerome, On Ecclesiastical Writers.

Thallus. So we have written, on the advice of Meursius in the Hypocritica, from Tertullian, Apology 11, Minucius, and Lactantius himself in this book above, chapter 13, instead of Thalus, which is read in all the printed editions.

By 322 years. The error of Thallus, which Theophilus and then Lactantius followed, is clearly shown by Benedictus Pererius in his commentary on Daniel, book 16, chapter 14, and book 11 in the Disputation on the 70 Weeks, first part, question 2. Although the chronologers vary remarkably in this reckoning, yet when the opinions of all have been weighed, it is established that Belus was older than the destruction of Troy by no less than about eight or nine hundred years. See Hermannus Contractus in the Chronicle, and others.

One thousand four hundred and seventy. If it is true that Lactantius wrote this in the year of the Lord 302, as I stated above in the notes on the first chapter that it seemed to me, then according to Glareanus's Chronology on Livy, compiled from the most approved authors, 1485 years would be reckoned. For he writes that 432 years elapsed from the destruction of Troy to the founding of the City; from the founding of the City to the birth of Christ 751; adding the 302 years to these, the sum of 1485 years is made up; but those who assert that Lactantius wrote this in the year 316, that he has strayed even more from

are compelled to admit that they have strayed from the true total. But the chronologers, as I have said, vary greatly, nor did Lactantius take pains over the reckoning of times.

Not more than one thousand eight hundred years ago, etc.

From what has been said above the reckoning is already seen to be false. Arnobius adopted another method of computing, and writes near the end of Book II that up to two thousand years had elapsed from Jupiter down to those times.

BOOK II.

CHAPTER I.

For I am eager, now that empty things have been refuted, etc. Another reading: "For I am eager, O Emperor Constantine, now that empty things have been refuted," etc. But the words "O Emperor Constantine" are not found in most of the Vatican manuscripts, in two of San Salvatore at Bologna, in T. P., in the Florentine edition and in certain others.

That there is some perverse power, namely the Devil.

Whose origin we shall relate in its place; now let us expose its deceits. These words, which are missing in the others, we have chosen to restore to the author in our edition from codex B., as Thomasius also did in the Plantin edition.

God willed that we should behold heaven, etc. Man, he says, is upright so that he may look up to heaven. So Plato in the Timaeus, where he treats of the use of the eyes; Seneca, Letter 95, "That part," etc., at the end; Philo the Jew in the book On the Planting of Noah; Basil, Homily 9 on the Hexaemeron; a saying which Galen nonetheless criticizes in Book III On the Use of the Parts, chapter III.

That it should imitate that over which it ought to rule. The text itself proves that it must be read thus, as it is in B. and P., and not as in most printed copies, "lest it," etc.

CHAPTER II.

What are temples to Him? So of temples made with hands, Book I, chapter 20; Book VI, chapter 25; book On the Anger of God, last chapter, at the end. Arnobius too, at the beginning of the sixth book: "that we do not build," he says, "sacred buildings for the offices of veneration," etc.; and in the same place a little below: "But we raise no temples to them," etc. And Minucius, near the end of the Octavius: "What temple shall I build for Him?" We indeed have learned, and say, and teach, that the worthier and more principal temple of God is the human soul, which above all is to be adorned, dedicated and consecrated to Him; but we assert that these temples made with hands are not on that account to be forsaken, in which the due outward worship is also rendered to Him, we who know that the famous temple at Jerusalem was built by Solomon at the command of God Himself, to be admired for its magnificence, strength, wealth and beauty to the point of wonder, as sacred history in 2 Samuel, and Josephus the Jew in the Antiquities and the Jewish War, and Eupolemus in Eusebius, Preparation IX, testify; and that the very Son of God, our Lord, often ennobled it with the brightness of His own presence and abiding, drove out from it those who practised profane things, and called it the house of the Father, the house of prayer (John 2; Mark 11). Therefore every page of the whole Old Instrument testifies that from the very first times of the world's foundation there was always among the faithful some place dedicated to divine worship, though called by various names (Gen. 28 and 35; Dan. 7; Amos 4; Isa. 56; Exod. 25; Deut. 12); in the Prophets and the Psalms everywhere. After the departure of the Lord the Saviour, the Apostle Paul makes mention, in this sense, of the church which was at Corinth, in 1 Corinthians 11. It is good to call outside witnesses of those times as well. Philo the Jew, a contemporary of the Apostle Peter (for he is even said to have conversed with him at Rome while he was serving there on an embassy to Gaius on behalf of the Jews), in the book On the Contemplative Life, where he describes the ways of the faithful who lived at Alexandria under Mark the Evangelist, testifies that they had sacred shrines, which they called semnea or monasteries, where in solitude they devoted themselves to the mysteries of a holy life; Eusebius also reports him, Ecclesiastical History, Book II, chapter 17. Or there is the passage in the Philopatris of that impious Lucian, a most bitter enemy of the Christians, who lived in the times of the Apostles and also of Trajan, from which it can be understood with what cost, adornment and outlay churches were even then being raised among the Christians;

for there he brings in a certain Critias who, when he was being persuaded by one of the faithful to become a Christian, was led by him to where the assembly of the Christians was being held; and he describes the place thus: "We passed through iron gates and bronze thresholds, and having now climbed many stairs, we went up into a house distinguished by a gilded roof, such as Homer imagines Menelaus's to be; and I indeed was gazing at all those things that the island youth gazed at; but I see, not Helen, but, by Hercules, men with bowed faces, and growing pale," etc. Lampridius, a contemporary of Lactantius (for he wrote in the first times of Constantine), testifies in his Alexander that Alexander himself, who took up the empire in the year of the Lord 224, awarded a place to the Christians so that a church might be raised there. "When the Christians," he says, "had occupied a certain place which had been public, and the tavern-keepers on the other side said that it was owed to them, he replied in writing that it was better that God should be worshipped there in whatever manner than that it should be given over to tavern-keepers." Flavius Vopiscus brings forward this testimony concerning the church of the Christians from the Emperor Valerian, who held the empire after about the year of the Lord 257, writing back to the senate: "I wonder, holy Fathers, that you have hesitated so long over opening the Sibylline books, just as if you were deliberating in a church of the Christians and not in the temple of all the gods." Evaristus the Pontiff, moreover (to return to our own), who held the see in the year of the Lord 112, distributed the titles, that is, the churches in the city of Rome, among the presbyters, as is established from the book on the Roman pontiffs. Tertullian, who flourished about the year of the Lord 200, mentions the church in this sense in the book On Idolatry; likewise To His Wife, Book II, chapter 9; the book On the Veiling of Virgins, chapter 13; and often elsewhere. Cyprian too, who flourished a little before Lactantius, after the year of the Lord 250, made mention of the church under the name Dominicum in the book On Works and Alms; as did the council of Laodicea, canon 28, cited in the chapter Non oportet, distinction 42. The reason for this name is given by Eusebius in the Oration in Praise of Constantine; likewise Walafrid Strabo, On Ecclesiastical Matters, chapter 7. In the same book on the Roman pontiffs it is recorded that the pontiff Fabian, in the year of the Lord 245, at a time when the Christians enjoyed tranquillity, built churches, whereby the tombs of the Martyrs, which lay hidden underground in sand-pit crypts, were made famous and conspicuous by buildings of this kind raised over them, and suited to the use of Christians. St Gregory of Nyssa, in the Life of St Gregory Thaumaturgus, has left it in writing that this same holy Gregory, in the same time of Fabian, at Neocaesarea in Pontus, of which city he was bishop, with the whole faithful people contributing money and labour, raised a noble church which, as most acceptable to God, was never shaken by any earthquakes; for although that city nearly perished by earthquakes, that temple is nevertheless said to have remained always whole and unharmed, and not even at the time when by Diocletian's decree all the churches of the Christians were ordered to be pulled down was it assailed by any violence; for it stood whole in the time of the same Nyssen, who testifies that in other places also temples and altars were raised by the Christians while the same Fabian held the see. Finally, a little before Arnobius, Minucius and Lactantius wrote, the edict of Diocletian broke out for the pulling down of churches and the burning of the books of the Christians, as is established from Eusebius, History, Book VIII, chapters II and III, who laments that disaster, as does Arnobius himself at the end of the fourth book in these words: "For why have our writings deserved to be given to the flames? Why should the meeting-places be savagely pulled down, in which the Most High is prayed to

God, peace for all, and pardon is asked for magistrates, armies, kings? And at the same time, by the same edict, a building in Bithynia dedicated to divine worship, which he rightly names a temple of God, was overthrown in his presence, as Lactantius testifies below in book five, chapter two; and he also discloses his own opinion concerning the temples of the Christians at the end of book 6, where he teaches that thanks must indeed be given to God in temples, yet not in temples only, but also at home, and even in one's very bedchamber. And in the book On the Wrath of God, ch. 8, he acknowledges that to build temples, to make sacrifices, to bestow gifts is the obedience of one who worships God towards God Himself. Against churches a certain heretic Eustachius put forth a virulent tongue (as once Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, a type of the devil, put forth his engines, concerning whom see the fourth [book] of Kings, ch. 25, and that wicked Diocletian), against whom the council of Gangra was assembled about the time of the first council of Nicaea. It defines the matter thus in ch. 5 of its Decrees: If anyone teaches that the house of God ought to be held in contempt, and the assemblies which take place in it, let him be anathema. This heresy the Patarene heretics afterwards raised up again from the underworld (as Hugh of Ferrara writes) in the year of Christ 1200, and they were followed by the Waldenses, Wycliffites, Hussites and Taborites.

What do altars mean? So concerning sacrifices in book 1, ch. 20, book 6, ch. 1, 20 and 25, book 7, ch. 6, the book On the Wrath of God, ch. 21. Philo the Jew in the book That the Worse Attacks the Better. Arnobius towards the end of the fourth [book]. These things, namely, the ancient Fathers cried out against those who sacrificed to God as though He needed offerings and victims. Lactantius himself shows this in book 6, ch. 2: They slaughter, then, he says, rich and fat victims to God as though He were hungry, they pour out wines as though He were thirsty, they light lamps as though He were living in darkness; or [they cried out against] those who so performed the external rites as to omit entirely the interior sacrifice, namely of a contrite heart, humbled and devoted to God. We, however, assert that both the interior sacrifice, by which the mind is offered to God, and indeed also the exterior, are owed to Him by us, since we know that mention is made so often in the sacred Scriptures of holy altars and sacrifices, Gen. 4, 8, 12, Lev. 2 and 6, Num. 5, 2 Chron. 28, and in countless other places. That exterior sacrifice was always owed to God, even by natural reason, Saint Thomas writes in the Secunda Secundae, question 85, first article, for this reason: because natural reason dictates to man that he be subject to some superior on account of the defects which he perceives in himself, in which he needs to be helped and directed by some superior; and whatever that may be, it is what among all men is called God. And just as in natural things the lower are naturally subject to the higher, so also natural reason dictates to man, according to his natural inclination, that he show subjection and honour, after his own manner, to that which is above man; and the manner fitting to man is that he use sensible signs to express certain things, because he receives knowledge from sensible things; and therefore it proceeds from natural reason that man should use certain sensible things, offering them to God as a sign of due subjection and honour, after the likeness of those who offer certain things to their lords in recognition of their lordship. Now this pertains to the nature of sacrifice, which was formerly shown to God in victims, even at His own command. Now we offer in the most holy Eucharist the unbloody, ineffable sacrifice instituted by Christ the Lord, concerning which [we say] more at the first chapter of the sixth book. Whence Lactantius himself, in the book On the Wrath of God, ch. 19, says: Those who are persuaded that justice pleases God, and who venerate Him because He is the lord and parent of all, and offer gifts and sacrifices with constant prayers and frequent vows, etc.; and in the same book, ch. 8: To build temples, to make sacrifices, to bestow gifts, etc.

What, finally, [do] the images themselves [mean], etc. So Lactantius often [speaks] of images, or likenesses, below in ch. 3, 7, 18 and 19. Tertullian, Apology ch. 12. But it is fitting to marvel, with the holy seventh synod, at the madness, to be mourned with every fountain of tears, of those wretched heads which the passages of the holy Fathers directed against idolaters

twist impiously against the images of the saints, which the Church piously venerates; for they did indeed rightly reproach the gentiles for adoring statues or other images, which were nothing other than likenesses of dead men, and for thinking that divinities were enclosed within those very likenesses, as is clear from these words of the sixth book of Arnobius: But you are mistaken, you say, and you slip; for neither do we [hold] bronzes, etc. But in truth all who embrace the catholic faith do not adore the images, not of the dead but of the living (for His saints live to God), with the adoration of latria, which is owed to the one God alone, but attend them with fitting veneration; nor do they rest in their mind upon those images, as though they thought divinities confined within them: but they are borne towards the heavenly ones whose images they venerate, because they are thereby strongly stirred to the remembrance, love and imitation of them, as St Gregory the Great says in the letter to Secund. Moreover, that from the very times of Christ and the apostles the images of Christ Himself, and of His most holy cross, and of the Virgin His mother, and of the apostles themselves, were held in veneration among the faithful, no one can doubt who is even a little versed in sacred histories. Concerning the image of Christ, wrought by no mortal but portrayed by Christ the Lord Himself and sent by Him to Abgar, prince of Edessa, the weightiest authors give account: Evagrius, Hist. book 4, chapter 26, where also [he tells] of the miracles of that same image, verified and approved at the second council of Nicaea; John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith book 4, chapter 17; Nicephorus, Hist. book 2, chapter 7; Constantine Porphyrogenitus in Metaphrastes on 10 August, and on 15 November in the Acts of Saints Samonas and Gurias. Indeed the Greeks even celebrate an annual feast of that same image on the 17th day before the Kalends of September, as in their Menologion. Pope Adrian, the first of that name, writing a letter to Charlemagne, which is extant in the third volume of the Councils, new edition, testifies that this same account of the image of Christ sent by Him to Abgar was acknowledged and received by Pope Stephen in a Roman council; and of its miracles also in Theophanes, Hist. miscel. book 17, and in Metaphrastes as above. What other testimony could be brought in favour of holy images either firmer or more illustrious than this testimony of Christ Himself? Again, concerning the statue of Christ erected by the Syrophoenician woman, who had been healed by the Lord Himself when she suffered from a flow of blood, as the evangelists write, it is recorded by Eusebius, Hist. book 7, chapter 14, and by Damascene, On Images, third oration. Concerning the image of the Saviour customarily painted in churches there is extant a canon of a synod held by the apostles themselves at Antioch, in these words: Let those who are saved not be deceived on account of idols: but let them paint, in opposition, the divine and human, made by hand, unmixed likeness of the true God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of His servants, against idols and the Jews; and let them not go astray in idols, nor be like the Jews. Tertullian in the book On Modesty mentions the paintings on chalices, on which Christ the shepherd was painted with the sheep that had been found. And that churches were of old customarily marked with the standard of the cross, as with a title set before them, and for that reason were also called by the name of title, we understand from the last law of the title On Pagans in the Theodosian Code, and from the law Decernimus, in the title On Bishops and Clerics. St Irenaeus, who was nearest to the times of the apostles (for he had as his teacher Polycarp, disciple of John the Apostle), condemns the Encratites for misusing images of Christ the Lord and of Paul the Apostle, book 1, Against Heresies, chapter 24. Concerning the images of the Virgin Mother of God painted by St Luke the evangelist, Theodor... writes at the beginning of the commentary on Luke, and Nicephorus Callistus, book 2, chapter 43; book 6, chapter 15; book 14, chapter 2; book 15, chapter 14. Concerning the images also of the apostles Peter and Paul themselves, painted by the same St Luke, the same Nicephorus [writes] in the first [book] of the History, chapter 43, and in the said chapter 15 of book 6. Of the images of angels which were painted at that time Dionysius the Areopagite, disciple of the Apostle Paul, makes mention, On the Celestial Hierarchy, chapters 1 and 2, whom Adrian I cites in the book against Pseudo-Charles, to Charlemagne. Finally St Paulinus, bishop of Nola,

a contemporary of Lactantius, writing to Severus in epistle 12, is a witness that sacred and venerable crosses, and other images of saints, were customarily painted in the apses of churches, in these verses:

The Trinity shines forth in full mystery, etc.

And so much concerning holy images held in use and veneration before the times of Lactantius, and in the very time of Lactantius; for that after the times of Constantine the Great, and from Constantine himself onwards, there were sculpted and painted images everywhere, and continually thereafter in the Church of God, is so manifest that the matter needs no proof. They say that Epiphanius the bishop once held this error about not having images, and this is established from his own words in Heresy 79, in the book Against Heresies, and in a certain letter written by him to John, bishop of Jerusalem; and then, in the time of St Gregory the Great, a certain Serenus, bishop of Marseilles, whom St Gregory himself vehemently rebukes by letter, because with ill-considered zeal he had broken the images of certain saints, fearing that they might be adored by the people. Yet these two bishops were not branded with heresy, since at that time the Church had not yet decreed anything on that matter, nor did they hold this view with any obstinate mind, such that they were not ready to assent to the Church teaching the contrary. Many emperors of the Greeks were indeed supporters of the same error: namely Leo the Third, who for that reason was deprived by Gregory the Third of the communion of the faithful and of his empire; Constantine the Fifth, who perished struck by God with the disease of elephantiasis; and Leo the Fourth, whose wife Irene, after his death, holding the government of the empire in the name of her son Constantine the Sixth, had the second council in the city of Nicaea assembled, in which the opinion against holy images was condemned as a heresy by three hundred and fifty bishops with a perpetual anathema. This council the Greeks call the seventh general synod, convened in the year of the Lord 781, in the reign of Constantine and Irene his mother, while Adrian, the first pontiff of that name, held the see. That heresy was held by the Samaritans, the Saracens, the Arians, the Theopaschites, and in more recent times the Waldensians, the Wycliffites, and other sons of iniquity and darkness called Iconoclasts or Iconomachi, who were condemned not only in the said seventh general synod, but also in the eighth universal [synod] convened at Constantinople under Adrian II, in three Lateran [councils], at Frankfurt, and finally at Trent, session 25, and refuted by the excellent disputations of John Damascene, of Jonas of Orléans, and of John Molanus in their books on images and pictures, of all the doctors on the chapter Venerabiles, De consecratione, Distinction 3, and of St Thomas, part 3, question 25, article 3.

In the moral books. These have perished, to great loss.

They have drunk deep of the dye of folly. With this reading the older codex of B. S. Salvat[ore] agrees; but the other of the same monastery, some Vatican ones, T. and P., and the Florentine edition have succum stultitiae ("the juice of folly"), etc. I have followed the former, presented by the Aldine and Plantin printings and approved by Antonio Agustín, as Thomasius attests in his notes; namely so that the metaphor is taken from the colours with which cloths are dyed, since he has said in this same place that the heathen are dyed with persuasion, etc. So Pliny, book 22, ch. 2: But now we know that garments are dyed with a wonderful dye. And Cn. Matius in Gellius, book 20, ch. 8:

Now the felted carpets, drunk with dye,

which the shell, steeping them in purple, has tinged.

Chapter III.

Yet he says that those things are not to be disputed before the common people, etc. This passage is placed among the fragments of Cicero, from [book] 3 On the Nature of the Gods.

For this which is set before the eyes is not the man, but the receptacle of the man, etc. He calls the body of man the receptacle of man; but above, ch. 2, at the end, a lodging; below, ch. 13, a little vessel and a dwelling; book 4,

c. 26, vestem ['garment']: so elsewhere, perhaps, with other names of this kind. In Book V, c. 22, he says that man exists in the soul alone. What he has set down here he also wrote in Book VII, c. 12, and in the book On the Workmanship of God, c. 1 and 20, where the passage of Cicero at the end of the Dream of Scipio is copied out almost word for word: 'Do you indeed strive', etc. The originator of this opinion was Pythagoras, its champion Plato, who in the First Alcibiades, or On the Nature of Man, strives to prove that man is the intellective soul only, and not the body, which the soul uses as an instrument for carrying out its actions. For since he saw that the soul is of a simple and incorporeal nature, he judged that it cannot be mixed with the body, since incorporeal things by no means coalesce with bodies; he also supposed that from the contrary opinion there followed this absurdity, that the soul would both perish with the body and be defiled by its greater contagion, from which, if we regard the purity of its own nature, it is free; for that reason he held that it was not mingled with the body but set over it as a kind of governess; nor does he call man composed of body and soul, being frightened off by the difficulty of the connection, but he says that the soul, placed in the body, rules it. But Ammonius, the teacher of Plotinus, having examined this matter more carefully, says that the nature of intelligible things is such that it can penetrate bodies and, retaining its purity, bind itself to them: which we see in the illumination of the air, when light, which is incorporeal, pouring through that bodily air, illuminates it, yet is itself not at all defiled. Thus, then, he thinks that the incorporeal soul is bound to the body in such a way that it is not at all mixed with it, but, remaining uncorrupted, brings it life, motion and all sensation. So too thinks Gregory of Nyssa, in the book On the Soul and the Resurrection and in On the Making of Man, who also tried to show what kind of thing that coupling of body and soul is; and what St Thomas carries out most excellently, as he does everything in his own manner, in Contra Gentiles II, c. 56 and following, Lactantius could not carry out, though he attempted it, in c. 16 of On the Workmanship of God. Yet Plato's position seems most suited to urging virtue and forming character: for that reason even Aristotle himself, from whose metaphysical precepts the contrary is built up, when he speaks of morals, comes close to Plato's manner of speaking, as in Ethics IX, c. 4 and 8. And the Holy Fathers too seem at times to have spoken thus: Arnobius, Book II: 'For what are we men, but souls shut up in bodies?' So he is often accustomed to say that souls are bound to bodies. Indeed, sacred Scripture too speaks after this same manner: Genesis 1, 'Let us make man', etc.; Job 10: 'With skin and flesh Thou hast clothed me.' So the body is called a tent by the Apostle Paul, in Second Corinthians, c. 5; and elsewhere a house of clay, Job 4; a prison and a ward, Ps. 141. On this question Plotinus wrote a whole book, which is the first of the First Ennead; whatever the Platonists may think in it, this, moreover, must be maintained from true philosophy and divine theology: that the human soul is the informing and substantial form of the body itself, and not something standing by it, as a sailor by a ship; which Lactantius also appears to have held at times, from c. 3 of Book VII: 'If it rules,' he says, 'it certainly does not rule as the mind rules the body', etc. And Aristotle teaches it in many places, On the Soul II, text 24, and Metaphysics 12, text 16. St Thomas, First Part, question 76, [articles] 1, 6, 7, and Contra Gentiles, Book II, c. 56, 57, 68 and following, and Quodlibet 12, article 12; and the same holy doctor argues against Averroes that Aristotle held thus concerning the intellective soul, Contra Gentiles II, c. 59, as does Gregory of Rimini on the second book of the Sentences, distinctions 16 and 17, question 1; and it is a conclusion of faith, as is found in the Clementines, [chapter] Fidei, On the Supreme Trinity. Therefore, since in composite substances neither the form alone nor the matter alone is a 'this something', but both together, as Aristotle teaches and the Commentator on Metaphysics VII, text and commentary 27, and at length St Thomas, On Being and Essence, c. 2, where Cajetan [comments], and in the First Part, question 75, article 4, and Quodlibet 76, art. 1, therefore one must say that man is neither the soul alone nor the body alone, but the soul together with the body,

namely the whole composite; and since this opinion contributes not a little both to establishing the resurrection of bodies (as in Athenagoras in the book On the Resurrection, St Thomas on 4 Sentences, distinction 43, sole question, art. 1, and others disputing on the resurrection of the dead) and also to confirming other positions of the faith, concerning which [see] Io. Andr. on the said Clementine Fidei, at the word Intellectivae, De Summa Trinitate, I have therefore wished to give warning that one must not depart from it, but must beware of expressions of the kind by which the body is called the soul's vessel, instrument, receptacle, garment, lodging: for these seem to allude partly to this Doctrine of Plato, that the soul is not the form of the body, and partly to another dogma of his in the Phaedrus and the Phaedo concerning souls created before bodies, which was received by Origen in the first [book] of First Principles, chs. 7 and 8, and which Lactantius himself refutes in the third book of this work, ch. 18. [See] St Epiphanius, Against Heresies, book 2, heresy 64; the Master of the Sentences on 2, distinction 18; Alexander of Hales, part 2, question 62, member 3; St Thomas, book 2 Against the Gentiles, chs. 83 and 84, and first part, question 47, art. 2; question 90, art. 4, and question 118, art. 3; St Bonaventure on 2 Sentences, the said distinction 18, art. 2, question 2. Finally, the Council of Vienne and Clement the Fifth condemn it as a heresy, as we read in the said Clementine Fidei. The passages of sacred Scripture and of the Holy Fathers brought forward on the opposite side are to be explained by this interpretation, so that we say with St Thomas, the said question 75, art. 4, to the first objection, that because each thing seems to be chiefly that which is principal in it, it therefore comes about that what is judged to be principal in man is called man; and thus sometimes, according to the truth, the intellective part, which is called the inner man, is so called, but sometimes the sensitive part together with the body, according to the opinion of some who are held fast only by sensible things. Much less should the body be called the snare, chain and prison of the soul, as I shall say below, book 7, ch. 5.

Bodies are lacking in men. So I read, as in B. T. P. and some Vatican manuscripts, not, as is commonly read, lacking in souls. For Lactantius holds firmly to that opinion, that the mind itself and the soul of each person is the man.

And they make minds. Lucretius has: they produce minds.

To be turned towards a stone, and to approach all the altars, nor to fall prostrate on the ground, etc. I have followed the reading of the Aldine, the Plantinian and several other editions, which seemed more Lucretian; it is indeed given by all the copies of Lucretius, although B. T. P. oppose it, which have: to turn oneself, etc. And to fall prostrate, etc.

Since indeed the only, or certainly the greatest, difference between men and dumb animals lies in Religion. Elsewhere he states his opinion more clearly, namely that reason is present in brute animals, and that they differ from men by religion alone, not by reason or speech: below in this same book, ch. 9; book 3, ch. 10; On the Anger of God, ch. 7. This opinion is believed to have flowed from Pythagoras, who, while he raves in that Metempsychosis of his, holds that the souls of men and of brute animals are the same, he himself surely more irrational than all the brutes. Maro mentions this opinion in the Georgics:

Some, following these signs and these examples, / have said that bees have a share of the divine mind and draughts / of the aether, etc.

This opinion Plato also held, as Plutarch writes in the fifth book of the Opinions, ch. 20, and Porphyry, following him, in book 3 On Sacrifices; and the same Plutarch discusses it at great length in the book Whether Brute Animals Have Reason and in the book On the Cleverness of Animals. The words of Galen at the beginning of his Exhortation to the Good Arts are: Whether no reason at all has been given to the kind of living things that is called irrational is truly doubtful; for although it lacks that reason which consists in the voice, which they call speech, yet of that which is conceived in the mind, which they call reasoning, perhaps every kind of animal partakes, though to some it is allotted more sparingly, to others more liberally

etc. Arnobius, speaking in the person of a brute, at the beginning of the seventh [book]: But they are rational, and utter articulate sounds. And how is it known to them whether I too do what I do by my own reasonings, and whether this voice which I bring forth is words of my own kind, understood by us alone? etc. Plato in the Politicus says that in the golden age men were accustomed to reason not only with men but also with beasts, and to question them, and in turn to receive an answer from them; this opinion of Plato is also recorded by Eusebius, Praeparatio, book 12, chapter 9. What of the fact that Pythagoras and Melampus, Tiresias, Thales and Apollonius applied themselves to interpreting the languages of birds? Democritus indeed (says Pliny, book 29, ch. 4) compounds certain monstrous things out of these, so that the speech of birds may be understood. But these ravings were derided by the wiser heathens, let alone by our theologians. For what kind of absurdity is it, then, because brutes perform certain things by the instinct of nature, from which some image of prudence, as Aristotle says, may seem to be in them, and because they utter certain sounds known among themselves by the same instinct, to judge that they are therefore strong either in reason or in speech? And what was the point of asserting that man differs from the brutes by religion alone? For just as they were deceived regarding reason, so they could be deceived regarding religion; for Pliny, book 10, ch. 41, ascribes religion even to farmyard hens, and very wonderful are the things concerning the deeds of elephants, which seem to belong to religion and piety, that the same writer, book 8, ch. 1, left for posterity to read. Nevertheless all things of this kind are done by them:

Not indeed because there is in them, by divine gift, an intelligence, or a foresight made greater by the fate of things,

as Maro says: but because, just as in man there are art, prudence and wisdom, so in brutes there is a certain natural force of this kind, under whose guidance bees, spiders, dogs, foxes, elephants and the other brutes of that sort which seem more clever perform a number of wonderful things, in which reason does indeed shine forth, yet not their own, but that of a higher power directing them. For thus an arrow tends straight to the mark by the motion imparted to it by the one who aims, just as if it had in itself a reason directing it; and the same appears in the motions of clocks and of other things which are made by art through human ingenuity. And just as artificial things are related to human art, so all natural things are related to divine art; and therefore order appears in the things that are moved according to nature, as in those moved according to art, as is said in the second [book] of the Physics. Wherefore in the works of brutes certain sagacities appear, inasmuch as they have an inclination towards certain most ordered processes, ordered, that is, by the highest art; and for this reason certain animals are called prudent or sagacious, not because there is any reason or choice in them: which is evident from this, that all things which are of one nature operate alike, as St Thomas taught in the first part of the second part, question 13, the second article, in reply to the third; and Lactantius himself put forward almost the same below, ch. 5, when disputing against Cicero, who attributed reason to the stars. See also what the holy doctor discusses in the first part, question 78, art. 4, and in the first part of the second part, question 11, art. 2. Rightly therefore does Aristotle say that there is in them not prudence but an image of prudence, at the beginning of the Metaphysics, and in books 8 and 9 of the History of Animals, in both places in chapter one, at the end of the first [book] On the Generation of Animals, and in the sixth [book] of the Ethics, ch. 7. And it was fitting that things lacking reason should also lack speech, as Aristotle shows in book 1 of the Politics, ch. 2. And if some animals, taught by art, seem to utter certain words, this is not properly speech, because they do not understand what they pronounce, but do it by a certain habituation. These things being known, one is moved at this point to wonder that Josephus the Jew, Antiquities book 1, ch. 3, held (as Tostatus affirms, question 429, on Genesis ch. 13) that the serpent which deceived the first woman was a true and natural serpent, to which it was then natural to be endowed with the faculty of understanding and speaking; and that Basil, in the Homily on Paradise, says that all brutes

had lived together in harmony before the fall of Adam, and that they heard one another and spoke with much sense. But Saint Augustine argues against this in book 11 of On Genesis according to the Letter, chapter 29. Finally, that reason has been granted to man alone the Holy Spirit teaches in Psalm 31: As the horse and the mule, etc., and in Psalm 44: He is compared to the beasts of burden, etc., which Lactantius himself also asserted in the book On the Wrath of God, chapters 7 and 13, and in On the Workmanship [of God], chapters 2 and 3. Philastrius attributes that heresy about brute animals sharing in reason to the Gnostics and Manichaeans.

Chapter IV.

Who would not be secure with so great a guardian as this? It is not a half-line of Horace, as it appears to have been thought in the other printed editions, but the prose of Lactantius himself speaking ironically.

That golden vessels are brought into the temples, etc. Concerning gifts and precious offerings which are offered to God, especially for the adornment of temples, the heretics bring forth other passages of this kind from Lactantius, below in chapter 7, book 5, chapter 8, book 6, chapter 25, and in the book On the Wrath of God, chapter 21. But these things were rightly pressed again and again upon the ears of the pagans, who approved external oblations and gifts in such a way as to foster avarice under the pretext of holiness, as Lactantius here asserts from Persius; or who offered them to God as to one in need, as the same Lactantius said in book 6, chapter 2; or finally these things are deservedly hurled against those who give to God in such a way that they place their whole hope in external worship and adornment, the interior being wholly omitted and the offering of the spirit neglected, by which above all we please God. The interior worship of the soul, therefore, is chiefly to be shown to Him; but neither is the exterior to be omitted; for external gifts and oblations are most acceptable to Him precisely in so far as (as Saint Thomas says in the Secunda Secundae, question 85, article 2) they are signs of the interior oblation; for the exterior acts of religion are ordered to the interior. That the adornment of temples pleases God all readily understand from chapter 25 and following of Exodus, and from chapter 6 and following of the third book of Kings, where they will have learned of the immense quantity of gold and silver expended by Solomon on the furnishing of that admirable temple, which the Lord adorned with innumerable privileges as most acceptable to Himself, as is read in the second book of Chronicles, chapter 7. And concerning the most ancient custom of Christians of adorning churches, it is clear from the deeds of Constantine the Great in the ecclesiastical histories; thus indeed the sacred rite is performed more fittingly and more magnificently, and minds are wonderfully stirred to glorify God. For we do not offer anything to God as to one in need, Who is Lord of all, but, as Irenaeus says, book 4, chapter 34, giving thanks. For just as we understand (says Justin Martyr in the second Apology for the Christians) that God does not need our oblations, so we know that we need to offer Him something. Hence Lactantius himself too, in the book On the Wrath of God, chapter 16, acknowledges that those who are persuaded that justice pleases God venerate Him with assiduous prayers, offer Him gifts and sacrifices with frequent vows, and finally win His favour by just works.

Not, he says, twice children. You have another similar passage, an excessively anxious one, in the same Seneca, Letters, book 21, letter 116; and on this saying, Old men are twice children, see the author of the Adages.

Dionysius, tyrant of Sicily, etc. These things are in Cicero at the end of book 3 of On the Nature of the Gods, Valerius Maximus, book 1, the chapter on Neglect of Religion, Aelian, Varied History, book 1, Arnobius at the end of book 6.

May penalties fall upon them themselves. All the printed editions and the Vatican manuscripts read thus; and since this is a phrase not at all usual, I should think it could be defended in no other way than if we take Penalties here for certain divinities, namely the Furies and avenging goddesses, as in Plutarch: Not as a man, but as some Penalty and abominable demon he had invaded the city. Codex B has, Upon them themselves may penalties fall. Which would be (in my judgement) the genuine reading, if poenas had been written there instead of poenae. But that will have been the copyist's error. Certainly it is likely that thus

Lactantius wrote, "In ipsos expetant poenas" [let the penalties fall upon them]; just as Livy in book one has "that the power of the gods, beginning from the head itself, would visit penalties upon the whole Alban name"; and a little above: "that all the disasters of this war may fall upon him."

Why this so powerful a sacrilegious man, etc. Janus Gulielmus, in his questions on Plautus' Menaechmi, chapter 4, testifies that in some parchments there is written "cur hunc tamen potentem", etc. Hence he thinks that by conjecture one should read "cur hunc tam impotentem", etc.

Do you see, he says, etc. In Cicero the reading varies.

To the Catanian. It is a city of Sicily, called Catina or Catine, with the penultimate shortened, by Cicero in the sixth action against Verres, at the end, and by Silius, book 13; Strabo, however, Diodorus, Ptolemy, and Lactantius here write not Catinum but Catana, and from it Catanenses.

Chapter V.

In hollow bronze. That is, the sphere, of which Cicero speaks in the Tusculans, and in the second book On the Nature of the Gods, where he writes that a similar sphere was made by Posidonius too. Sextus Empiricus at the beginning of the eighth book Against the Mathematicians, under the title Whether there are Gods; Claudian in that famous Epigram:

Jupiter, in a small, etc.

Either of the unwandering or of the wandering. So in the excellent manuscripts B. T. P., instead of what is corruptly read in the printed editions, "either of the erring or of the wandering"; for the erring are the same as the wandering, but we call the fixed [stars] unwandering.

Chapter VI.

The propositions indeed are true. Propositio is taken here not for thesis but for protasis, that is, for the proposition of a syllogism, which the scholastics name the major, and Cicero in the first book On Invention calls simply propositio. Lactantius speaks in his own manner, that is, the Ciceronian.

The assumptions false. Cicero and Quintilian call assumptio what the scholastics name the minor.

Chapter VII.

You have, Balbus, etc. This passage varies somewhat in Cicero.

Chapter VIII.

God has given wisdom to all in a man's share. Jurists for the most part interpret "men's shares" (portiones viriles) as equal ones, namely those that are fixed according to the number of persons and by heads, so that there are as many shares as there are persons: Ulpian in law one, § Si pupillis, Digest, On guardianship and the accounts to be rendered; Papinian in the law Pupillus, Digest, On sureties; Paul in law 43, Digest, On a matter adjudged. So a little below: "which (wisdom), if it is given to all equally, cannot be seized beforehand by those who came earlier." Now Lactantius seems to call wisdom (causally, not by identity) that faculty and light divinely implanted in all, for seeking out and attaining heavenly doctrine and true religion. See also chapters 25, 26 and following of the third book.

Accius Navius. Authors vary greatly in the name of this augur, as Glareanus notes on the first book of Livy's first Decade. For Valerius Maximus, book 1, chapter 4, calls him Decius Accius Naevius; Pliny, book 34, chapter 5, Accius Navius, as do Lactantius and Livy; Dionysius, however, book 3, writes that his name was Nevius and his cognomen Accius. Some write Naevius with the diphthong, others Actius. But the matter is not of so much importance. See all these authors, and Pliny the Younger in the book On Illustrious Men, under Tarquin, who writes Accii Navii; Cicero in the first book On Divination, where Actius Navius is written; and Festus under Navia.

Castor and Pollux in the Latin war, etc. Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods 2; Ovid towards the end of the first book of the Fasti; Valerius, book 1, chapter 8; Plutarch, Aemilius.

The same in the Macedonian war. Valerius as above; likewise Plutarch, who tells the story somewhat differently, as above.

That the image of Women's Fortune spoke more than once, etc. Valerius in the same place; Plutarch in Coriolanus; [Dionysius of] Halicarnassus, book 8; Saint Augustine, City [of God] book 4, chapter 19.

Likewise of Juno Moneta, etc. Valerius, where cited above. Livy, the fifth [book] of the first Decade.

Claudia too, etc. Minucius ridicules the story; Ovid relates it in the fourth [book] of the Fasti. Livy 9 of the third Decade. Fenestella, chapter 12 of On the Roman Priesthoods. Plinius Secundus, On Illustrious Men, chapter 46. Herodian 1.

Aesculapius summoned from Epidaurus, etc. Valerius, where cited above. Plutarch in the Roman Questions, question 94. Arnobius, who mocks the affair, book 7.

Appius Claudius the Censor, etc. Valerius, book 1, the chapter on neglected religion; Livy at the end of book 9 of the first Decade.

Of Juno Lacinia, etc. So it is to be read here, on the authority of Valerius, where cited above; Livy 2 of the fifth Decade and the fourth [book] of the second Decade; Arnobius, book 6; who relate the story. Virgil at the end of the third [book] of the Aeneid:

The Lacinian goddess rises up opposite.

B. Jun. wrongly reads Lucinae.

Turullius, etc. Valerius, where cited above.

Milesian Ceres too, etc. Valerius, in the same place.

For to Tiberius Attinius, etc. Livy, [book] 2 of the first Decade, calls him Titus Latinus; Valerius simply Latinus, book 1, the chapter on dreams. But Dionysius, book 7; Plutarch in the Coriolanus. Saint Augustine, City [of God] 4, chapter 26, [calls him] Titus Latinus; Macrobius calls him Annius, Saturnalia 1, chapter 11. On the story, besides those noted, Cicero, On Divination 1; Arnobius 7; Minucius in the Octavius.

That dream too, etc. The writers differ somewhat. For some relate that Augustus went down into the battle line because of that dream; others, that because of the same dream he was not present at the battle. Lactantius had Valerius as his authority, book 1, the chapter on dreams. See also Plutarch in the Brutus, towards the end; Suetonius in the Octavius, chapters 13 and 91; Appian at the end of [book] 4 of the Civil Wars; Paterculus likewise; and Florus, book 4, chapter 6; Tertullian in the book On the Soul.

Chapter IX.

Let him perceive the errors. After these words, in some printed books the following are read: As a mother without precedent gave birth to her own Maker, so He must be believed to have begotten ineffably One co-eternal. He was born of a mother, Who already existed before; of a father, Who at some time did not exist: let faith believe this, let the understanding not inquire, lest either, not finding it, it think it incredible, or, having found it, it not believe it unique. But truly, that the beginning of Lactantius' discussion is from that point, when God was most provident in devising, etc., and that that whole period which I have rejected has nothing whatever of Lactantius' style, all will readily understand at once, provided they are not entirely senseless. For even those many homoioteleuta, which Lactantius is not accustomed to use, betray the very forgery and imposture. It is plain that it was clumsily added by one of the Arians, who asserted that the Son of God was a creature, and that there was some time when He did not exist. But this man showed himself most foolish, who asserts this very thing but nonetheless truly affirms Him to be co-eternal with the Father. I shall show, moreover, in what follows, that Lactantius not only does not favour the Arians, but thought so rightly about the Son of God that he has all but expressed for us the confession of the great Council of Nicaea. Now that whole period is absent from the most ancient codex B., from eight Vatican [manuscripts], and from other excellent manuscripts which I have carefully examined; and after those words, let him perceive the errors, there is read immediately, when God was most provident in devising, etc. Since pious men, who detected Arianism in that period, did not notice this, they thought rather, as I judge, of correcting the passage than of deleting it entirely, as was proper, and thrusting it out of Lactantius' writings; whence it has come about that in some [copies] the passage is read emended thus: Of a father, Who at no time was lacking. I have removed the whole as spurious and interpolated.

Most provident in devising. Thus the holy Fathers and sacred Scripture itself sometimes speak improperly and metaphorically, since otherwise there is no thinking in God, and consequently no prudence either; for He does not reason discursively after the manner of men, or deliberate, but by one simple act understands, knows and does all things, as

St Thomas teaches, Contra Gentiles book I, chapter 57 and following, and First Part, question 14, article 7.

Before He set in order this work of the world. After these words, in some printed editions there followed these: He made in the beginning good and evil: what this means I shall explain more openly, lest anyone think that I speak thus as poets are accustomed to do, who represent incorporeal things by certain figures as though they were visible. When as yet there was nothing besides Him, since full, etc. This whole period is absent from B. and T., from eleven Vatican and very many other manuscripts, likewise from the Florentine and the Plantinian and the other better editions: for this reason someone asserted that it had been inserted by the Manichaeans. I have confidently rejected it, as making the devil evil by nature and made so by God from the beginning, and moreover as contradicting Lactantius himself, as we shall soon see.

As if a stream were arising, etc. The Fathers, in order to indicate in some way that emanation of the Son from the Father, which is neither expressible by any tongue nor comprehensible by the understanding, often make use of this likeness of a spring and a stream, as Lactantius does in this place; likewise of the sun and its ray, as in the same chapter 29 Tertullian Against Praxeas, and chapter 21 of the Apology, and Cyprian, or else that Rufinus, on the Creed of the Apostles. So also Paul, Hebrews chapter one, ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ, the brightness of His glory; not so that anything is taken away from the equality of the Son with the Father, but because, as the theologians teach, God the Father is the origin and principle of divinity, and is said to possess the fullness of the Godhead in the first moment of origin, inasmuch as He has it of Himself; but the Son in the second moment; for He receives from the Father the essence, the same in number, communicated to Him through generation, and therefore nothing is taken away from His equality.

Like to Himself. By likeness in nature. For the procession of the Word in divine things has the character of generation for this reason, that it proceeds by way of an intelligible action, which is an operation of life, and from a conjoined principle, and according to the character of likeness, not of any kind whatever, but in nature. For the conception of the intellect is a likeness of the thing understood, and exists in the same nature, because in God to understand and to be are [one]; hence the procession of the Word in divine things is most truly and most properly called generation, and the Word itself most truly and most properly Son, as St Thomas teaches, First Part, question 27, article 2; on which matter I have said more at chapter 8 of Book IV.

Spirit. Because here, and in Book IV, chapters 6, 8, 9, 18, and perhaps elsewhere, Lactantius calls the Son of God the Spirit of God, he is charged with error by St Jerome in the letter to Pammachius and Oceanus on the errors of Origen, as though he had not thought rightly about the person of the Holy Spirit. But (begging pardon of so great a Father) this manner of speaking is not absurd, and was customary not only for Lactantius but for Tertullian, Cyprian and the others, so that they called the Son of God the Spirit of God, in that sense indeed in which God is called spirit in John 3 and in the First of John chapter 4, as St Thomas notes, First Part, question 36, article 1. In this way, therefore, he is to be understood, and also Tertullian, Apology chapter 21, On Prayer chapter 1, Against Marcion book I, chapter 19, book III, chapters 6 and 16, book IV, chapter 21, Against Praxeas chapter 26; Cyprian, On the Vanity of Idols number 71, according to one reading which Pamelius notes there; likewise the author of the book On Mounts Sinai and Sion, among the works of Cyprian.

But how He willed this, we shall try to teach in the fourth book. So read twelve Vatican manuscripts, and two codices of San Salvatore at Bologna, T., P., the Plantinian and Florentine editions, and other better ones, manuscript as well as printed, in place of what is wrongly read in the Aldines: But how He did this when He was alone, to teach in the fourth, etc. For the Son of God was not made, but begotten from eternity by the Father, Who therefore never existed alone, as I said at Book I, chapter 7.

Then He made another, etc. He is speaking of the highest Angel, who he says was created before this world; for he said a little above, before He set in order this work of the world: but about the creation of the other angels Lactantius has nothing here. Further, three opinions are found about the time of their creation. For Gennadius and Acacius thought that the Angels were created after the corporeal world: an opinion which indeed is of no

moment. Others think that the angels were founded many ages before this world: Origen, On First Principles book 1, at the beginning, and Homily 4 on Isaiah; Gregory Nazianzen, homily on the Nativity of the Lord, whom St Thomas cites, I, q. 61, a. 3; Basil, Homily 1 on the Hexaemeron; Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith 2, ch. 3, and many others of the Greeks; also among the Latins Hilary, On the Trinity 12, and Against Auxentius; Ambrose, On the Hexaemeron 1, ch. 5, and the preface on Psalm 1; Isidore, On the Highest Good 1; Jerome on ch. 1 of the Epistle to Titus; Cassian, who writes in Conference 8, ch. 7, that none of the faithful can doubt about this matter; and Bede in the book of separate questions, question 9. Certain learned men of the school of St Thomas asserted that this opinion today contains an error in faith, namely Ferrariensis in his Commentary on the Summa contra Gentiles, book 2, ch. 83, Master Cano, and Soto the elder; but others, such as Cajetan on I, q. 61, a. 3, Sixtus of Siena, Bibliotheca book 5, annotation 5, and St Thomas himself in the said article 3, deny that it is an error in faith, approved as it is by so many and such great Fathers, especially by Gregory Nazianzen, against whose writings (as St Thomas says in the same place) no one has ever dared to bring a calumny. But St Augustine too, City book 2, ch. 32, says that he asserts nothing against the faith who says that the angels were created before this visible world, provided he does not say that they were founded from eternity; and Theodoret says nearly the same, question 3 on Genesis. We, having followed the truer opinion, say that not only the supreme Angel (which Lactantius here denies), but also the other angels, who were all created together with the supreme angel, which Lactantius passes over in silence, Bede denies in separate question 9, and Bonaventure teaches on [Sentences] 2, dist. 2, art. 2, q. 3, and in the same dist. 2, art. 4, q. 1, and others, were all created together with this world: Epiphanius, Against Heresies book 2, heresy 65; Theodoret in the said question 3; St Augustine, City 2, Confessions 12, On Genesis according to the Letter 4; Gregory the Great, Moralia 32, ch. 20, 24 and 25; Bede, Rupert, Hugh, the Master of the Sentences, and all the theologians on [Sentences] 2, dist. 2; St Thomas I, q. 61, a. 3. The contrary opinion, if it does not contain an error in faith, we nevertheless think certainly to be rash at this time, and not sufficiently consonant with the teachings of the Church and the testimonies of the Sacred Scriptures; and the Lateran Council, which is cited in the chapter Firmiter, on the Highest Trinity and the Catholic Faith, seems to fight against it.

The character of divine stock, etc. Not because the first angel, of whom he speaks, was by nature the son of God: but these words are to be taken improperly and loosely, as when we call God the father of angels or of men, and angels or men sons of God, as I said above, book 1, ch. 7, note.

By his own envy. Lactantius says that the sin of the supreme angel was the sin of envy, which is to be understood not as first, but as consequent; for first he sinned with the sin of pride: Basil, homily That God is not the author of evil; Chrysostom, homily on Adam; Ambrose on Psalm 36: I saw the impious, etc., and on Psalm 118, Thou hast rebuked the proud; St Augustine, City 12, ch. 16, and book 14, ch. 13; Jerome on Isaiah, ch. 14; Gregory, Moralia book 34, ch. 14; Anselm, On the Fall of the Devil, ch. 4; all the Doctors on Sentences 2, dist. 5 and 6; Alexander of Hales 2, part 1, q. 109, member 2; St Thomas I, q. 63, a. 2 and 3. This assertion indeed is so supported by the testimonies of all the other saints and theologians as well that some have called the opposite not only very rash but even erroneous. Consequently, however, he is said to have sinned with the sin of envy; for since he aspired to a certain singular excellence, and this singularity ceases through the excellence of another, therefore the sin of envy soon followed the sin of pride: St Thomas on 2, dist. 5, art. 2, and I, q. 63, a. 2.

And he passed over from good to evil. So a little below: This one, then, having become evil of himself from good, etc. This is aimed against the Manichaeans and Priscillianists, who contend that the devil was founded evil by nature from the beginning.

For he envied that predecessor of his, etc. I have said that the sin was committed by the devil not first, but consequently, through the sin of envy. Therefore the theologians ask in respect of whom he was moved by that envy. Lactantius seems to have thought that the devil's envy rose up against one of the divine supposits, namely against the Son of God. St Thomas, first part, question 63, article 2, says that after the sin of pride there followed in the sinning angel the evil of envy, in so far as he grieved at the good of man, and also at the divine excellence, in so far as God too was going to use [this], against the will of the devil himself, for the divine glory; for the mystery of the incarnation was known by the angel through faith from the beginning of his creation as to the substance of the mystery itself, though not as to its particular reasons and certain circumstances, as St Thomas teaches on [book] 2, distinction 11, article 3. On this question see the Doctors in their commentaries, and the Master, book 2, distinction 5, and St Thomas, question 63, article 2, [Alexander of] Hales, [part] 2, first [part], question 109, member 9, William of Paris, book 2 On the Universe, Cassian, Conference 8, chapter 8 and following.

Who by persevering is both approved by God the Father and also dear to Him. Approved by persevering: this I would by no means approve. For the word "persevering" in its formal concept seems to express a continuation of action indeed, but with a certain capacity of failing: therefore things have been put forward by Lactantius which cannot befit the only-begotten of God; for since He is God, and one with the Father, and coequal with Him in all things according to the divinity, and consubstantial, as Lactantius himself everywhere acknowledges, He is certainly good by nature, and cannot fall away from the good.

The Greeks call him diabolos, we the accuser, etc. On the meaning of this name, and why the enemy of the human race is so called, see Tertullian Against Marcion, Basil's letter to the Neocaesareans, the Suda under Satan and under Sykophantein, and Isidore, Origins book 8, chapter 11.

Should bring to God. After these words, in the Aldine printings, the following passage is appended at once, though marked and enclosed with asterisks, so that it readily appears from this that it was held suspect; namely: But why the just God willed him to be such, I shall try to explain, as far as the mediocrity of our understanding will allow. God, being about to construct this world, which was to consist of things contrary to and at variance with one another, first established diverse things, and before all else made two sources of things opposed to each other and fighting among themselves, namely those two spirits, the upright and the depraved, of whom the one is to God as it were the right hand, the other as it were the left, so that those contraries might be in their power, by whose mixture and tempering the world, and all things that are in it, were to consist. Likewise, being about to make man, to whom He would set forth virtue for living, through which he might attain immortality, He made good and evil, so that there could be virtue, which, unless it is exercised by evils, will either lose its force or will not exist at all. For the bitterness of want makes wealth seem a good, and the obscurity of darkness commends the grace of light: the pleasure of health and soundness is recognized from sickness and pain. Thus good cannot exist without evil in this life. And although each is contrary to the other, yet they so cohere that if you take away the one, you will have taken away both; for neither can the good be grasped and perceived without the avoidance and flight of evil, nor can evil be guarded against and overcome without the help of the good grasped and perceived. It had therefore been necessary that evil also should be made, so that good might be made. And since it was not right that evil should proceed from God, for He will not act against Himself, He appointed that one as the inventor of evils: and when He made him, He gave him wit and cunning for devising evils, so that there might be in him both a depraved will and perfect wickedness; and He willed that things contrary to His own virtues should arise from him, and that he should contend with Him, whether He would give more goods or that one more evils. But again, since the supreme God cannot be resisted, He assigned the power over His goods to that victor whom we said above to be good and perfect. Thus He arranged and equipped two for the contest: but of them He loved the one as a good son, and disowned the other as evil. Afterwards

however, He begot many others as ministers of His works, whom the Greeks call ἀγγέλους [angels]; and those of one nature, but a conflicting one, such as that of the two. But that corruptible part was by no means corrupted immediately at the beginning of its origin: but after the world had been composed and ordered, as we shall presently show, it fell away by a perverse will from the vigour of the heavenly substance. For the rest, in the beginning all were equal and in like condition before God, and therefore all were angels, of whom those two were the chiefs. But when God had set one of these two over good and the other over evil, He began the fabric of the world, all these whom He had created ministering to Him and being arranged in fixed offices. This passage contains many errors. For first, here the dogma of two principles is maintained more clearly and plainly than anywhere else in Lactantius; of this I have spoken below, ch. 10. Next, it speaks with too little grandeur and propriety of the Son of God, to Whom it makes Lucifer almost equal, so that it is plainly apparent that the whole was fabricated by some Arian. It says that the rest of the angels were created not with Lucifer but after him; I noted a little above that St Bonaventure and other doctors on [book] 2, dist. 2, teach the contrary of this. Likewise, that all the angels were begotten not together with this world but before it; I asserted in the same place that the Lateran council holds the contrary, and that all doctors teach it today. Likewise, that the bad angels sinned not immediately at the beginning of their origin but long afterwards, namely when the world had already been composed and ordered; on this error see below, ch. 15. Finally, that the angels concurred with God instrumentally, or ministerially, in the construction of the world, which all the doctors reject in commenting on the first chapter of Genesis. Very many strongly suspect that the passage is not Lactantius'; and I here certainly do not at all recognize Lactantius' phrasing. The Aldine edition does indeed have it, but, as I said, marked with asterisks. In the Florentine, the Plantinian and the other better recensions it was not received; Michael Thomasius gives the reasons in his notes. Finally, it is absent from twelve Vatican [manuscripts], from the very ancient Bon. T. P., and from very many other mss.; and therefore I too have judged that it should by no means be received into our text.

That first and greatest son. Beware of thinking that Lactantius holds the angels to be sons of God by nature, and so either raises them to the nature of God or casts down the Son of God to the nature of the angels. Lactantius both acknowledged and taught one Son of God, Jesus, as below in this book, ch. 17, and book 4, ch. 8, and he confesses Him to be God from God in the same ch. 8 and in ch. 18 of the same book 4: What, he says, shall we say of the indignity of this cross, on which God was hung up and fastened by the worshippers of God. He has the same in the same book 4, chs. 10, 13, 14 and 29. Likewise light from light, in the same ch. 29: The One, he says, is as the sun, the Other as a ray stretched out from the sun. Consubstantial with the Father, in the same chapter: To both, he says, there is one substance, and He is of the same power with Him. This in the same book, ch. 17: He alone, he says, has power over all things with the Son; and one with the Father, throughout the same chapter. And in ch. 8 of the same book 4 he cites that saying of John, and confesses: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. In which the divinity and co-eternity of the Son is plainly asserted. Finally he affirms that all things were made through Him in this place, and in book 4, ch. 6, at the beginning and the end, and in ch. 8 at the end. Do you not, then, recognize here the confession of the most holy synod of Nicaea, assembled against Arius? Arius, therefore, is run through by Lactantius rather than receiving even the least assent from him; whereas some indeed rashly suspect [otherwise] on the ground that he uses in places certain terms which it would not be lawful for Catholics to use today, and which I have both noted above in their places and shall carefully note below. One ought indeed to have remembered that at that time, when the Church was being born or was still growing up, it had not yet been laid down which terms writers ought to use and which to avoid; something which afterwards, as heresies multiplied, it became necessary to lay down and decree, so that we might in no way agree with the heretics even in modes of speech, which they abused in order to insinuate their impious dogmas.

Since, then, we hold that Lactantius' view of the Son of God is entirely correct, no one in his right mind could suspect that angels are reckoned gods by him, who throughout this whole work has overthrown the plurality of gods with such great masses of arguments. Indeed in chapter 17 of this book he says that there are many spirits of angels in heaven, but one God, their parent and the Lord of all; and in the same place a little below: Neither, he says, do the angels allow or wish themselves to be called gods, whose one and only office is to serve the nod of God and to do nothing at all except at His command. And in the same place below: Nor, he says, is there anything in the angels except the necessity of obeying. Moreover he affirms in book 7, chapter 21, that God is feared by the angels, since they can be chastised by Him in a certain ineffable manner, so that it is plain from Lactantius himself that the nature of the angels is infinitely distant from the nature of the Son of God. Therefore, if at any time he calls the angels by the name of sons of God, he uses the name of sonship equivocally and metaphorically; for Scripture itself too at times does not refrain from such a manner of speaking, as at the beginning of the book of Job: When on a certain day the sons of God had come, etc. And in chapter 38: And all the gods shouted for joy. For so both passages are read in Jerome's version according to the Hebrew truth. Hence it appears that Chrysostom erred, who, following in both places the edition of the seventy translators, who render angels of God in place of sons of God, asserted in Homily 22 on Genesis that angels are never in Divine Scripture called sons of God, nay, not even sons. Nor does it stand in the way that Paul writes at the beginning of the Epistle to the Hebrews: To which of the angels did He ever say, Thou art My Son? For there the Apostle does not deny that angels were at times called sons of God by grace, but only by nature, in the way in which Christ alone is truly both called and is the Son of God. So too we noted above, at chapter 7 of the first book, that the word generation is sometimes used improperly by the Fathers and in the Sacred Letters. Since, therefore, Lactantius here and in book 4, chapter 6, seems to reckon the angels under the name of sons of God, he must be thought to use that name, with respect at least to the Word, that is, the only-begotten Son of God, not univocally but equivocally.

And He used Him at once as counsellor and as craftsman. From chapter 8 of Proverbs, a passage which he cites in book 4, chapter 6, and from chapter 24 of Ecclesiasticus, a passage which he adduces in the same book, chapter 8, at the end, where Scripture speaks of the Wisdom and Word of God concurring with God the Father in the creation of the world.

Nor are the poets to be listened to, etc. A long disputation is undertaken here against those who asserted that God, in the fashioning of the world, did nothing else than separate, arrange and order things themselves out of an eternal and uncreated matter, which was nevertheless crude, unarranged and confused. A certain Hermogenes took this error from the heretics and spread it abroad, against whom Tertullian wrote. Lactantius also contends that prime matter was created by God out of nothing, and that from it the world was afterwards arranged and ordered by God Himself. At the end of this chapter too he says that man was made last, when the finishing hand had already been put to the world and to the other things; and he teaches the same in book 7, chapter 14. From which it appears that Lactantius held, as the greater part of the holy Fathers and theologians held, that prime matter was created both in order of nature and in order of time, or of duration, before any day, not indeed wholly unformed, that is, lacking any form whatever, but [lacking] the completing and distinguishing form, which the Lord afterwards gave it over the intervals of six natural days, proper and successive, exactly in the manner in which it is related by Moses in the book of generation. For so wrote Dionysius in the book On the Divine Names, chapter 4, Saint Basil, Ambrose and Bede on the Hexaemeron, Chrysostom on John, Gregory the Great in book 33 of the Morals, chapter 10, Rupert in book 1 On the Works of the Trinity, chapter 37, and book 2, chapter 18, Hugh of Saint Victor at the beginning of On the Sacraments, the Master [of the Sentences] in [book] 2, distinction 12, Alexander of Hales [part] 2, question 47, Saint Bonaventure on [book] 2, distinction 12, article 1, question 2, Scotus on [book] 2, distinction 14, question 1, Saint Thomas, first part, question 66, articles 1 and 4, and in the question On Power, article 2. Although very grave and very holy men too have thought the contrary, namely

that matter was created perfect in actuality, and that its formlessness preceded its formation not in time but in nature, and that accordingly the world was created in one point of time, and not across intervals of six days; and that those days which are recounted by Moses were not true days, but are to be taken metaphorically and referred to the knowledge of created things placed by God in the minds of the Angels: Philo the Jew in the book of Allegories, Origen, [book] 4 of Periarchon, chap. 2, St Augustine, [book] 4 on Genesis according to the letter, chap. 21 and following, Procopius of Gaza, and Cajetan on Genesis. As for this dispute undertaken by Lactantius against those who posit the eternity of matter and assert that it is coeval with God, one should see Tertullian against Hermogenes, John the Grammarian in the book against Proclus on the eternity of the world, Eusebius, On the Preparation, book 10, chap. 8, Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man, chap. 25, and the book on the History of the Six Days.

"First, then, it is not probable", etc. This passage is thought to have dropped out of [book] 3 of On the Nature of the Gods.

"Mori" [to die]. So read, from B., T., P., the Florentine edition and others, not "more" [in the manner] as in the Aldine; for it was Cicero who disputed in the manner of the Academics, and to him, said Lactantius, one must concede that he must die; and Sigonius too cites this passage so in the fragments.

"Always". This word, which is not found in some [copies], I have added from B., since here the argument was for the eternity of matter.

"Seneca, the most acute of all the Stoics." Lactantius is lavish in many places in praise of Seneca: rightly indeed, and most deservedly; for with a few things in his teaching either removed or added, you have an excellent Christian; and, as Lactantius says in book 6, chap. 24, he could have been a true worshipper of God, if he had found a guide to true wisdom. Francesco Petrarca, in the letter to Seneca himself, among the letters to illustrious men of old, and in the Apology against a Frenchman towards the end, relates that Plutarch wrote that, when he had compared the Latins with Greek men in all other virtues and disciplines, he had no one from among the Greeks whom he could set against him on equal terms in moral precepts.

"Shall we not then, he says, praise God", etc. You have very similar things from the same Seneca, On Benefits, book 4, chap. 7, and from Pliny, book 2, chap. 7, and book 27, at the beginning of chap. 3.

"You stick in the same mud; you pay off a debt by borrowing." In Terence: "you stick, you pay off a debt by borrowing." Those are said to stick in the same mud, as the author of the Adages explains, who are so entangled in some business that they cannot extricate themselves: a figure taken from travellers who, as soon as they have fallen into mud, when they try to draw out one foot, sink deeper with the other. Again, to draw this one out, the other, which they had drawn out, must be planted anew. And those are said to pay off a debt by borrowing, as Budé explains on law 7 of the Digest on the action of pledge, who, in order to discharge one bond and free themselves from one surety, take borrowed money at a higher interest. So then, says Lactantius, it happens to those who attribute the origin of things to nature and take it away from God; for by the very one by whom they deny that the world was made, they plainly confess, only with the name changed, that it was made, since in reality nature is nothing other than God. So also below, book 3, chap. 28.

"The sun not yet established." Thomasius reads, as in B., "the soil not yet established", because the following words about crops and animals, which dwell on the soil, would seem to cohere better. I have put forward the reading received in all the other manuscripts and printed editions. Besides, Lactantius had already spoken of the soil, or earth; and whoever has examined the text will understand that Thomasius' reasoning has no weight.

"Therefore it was necessary that man be made last." See other most beautiful reasons in Gregory, book On the Making of Man, chap. 2.

Chapter X.

"But His own dwelling He adorned with bright lights", etc. In this place Firmianus is accused of error, as though he had set the seat of God and the dwelling of the blessed in the starry heaven,

and had placed the sun and the moon in it. Here I think that by the name of heaven he means the whole mass of the heavens, inasmuch as it embraces all that is above fire, upwards as far as the empyrean heaven inclusively, together with the empyrean itself: and this mass of the heavens he says was adorned with the sun and the moon and the twinkling stars, namely with its own lights set to each heaven; and I think this is clearly gathered from the author himself, where he says: "Therefore God made first of all the heaven, and hung it on high, to be the seat of the Founder Himself," etc. But He set on high not only the starry heaven but the whole mass of the heavens. He also adds: "Then He founded the earth and placed it beneath the heaven," etc. And in book 7, chapter 5, as though explaining this passage, he says: "Therefore He set the lights in the heaven, but the earth," etc. But is the earth placed beneath the starry heaven alone? Heaven, then, is taken by him in the same sense in both places, and is distinguished from the elements, which he mentions; and so it stands, as I have said, for the whole mass of the heavens, inasmuch as it also embraces the outermost empyrean.

"Of which the east is assigned to God," etc. So read B., T., P. and the other better manuscripts, not, as in the printed editions, "of which the east is reckoned like to God." To be assigned (accenseri) is the same as to be attributed; whence soldiers were called accensi, as if accensiti, because they were assigned (accenserentur), that is, attributed, to the decurions and centurions, as Varro wrote in book 20 of the Rhetorica and book 3 of On the Life of the Roman People; Nonius Marcellus, chapter 12. Lactantius affirms that the east, light, life and day are attributed to God, but the west, darkness, death and night to the devil; below, in chapter 13, that the soul is God's, the body the devil's; and in chapter 18, that heaven and light are God's, but that darkness, the underworld and punishments were attributed to the prince of evils himself in the distribution of things. In book 6, chapter 3, he sets up two leaders, one who presides over virtues and goods, the other over vices and evils; and in the same book, chapter 6, he says that God is the source of goods, but of evils that enemy of the divine name: that from these two principles goods and evils arise. Against all these passages we must be on our guard, because the author seems to have given some support to the doctrine, condemned in those times, of Cerdo and Marcion concerning two principles, one of goods, the other of evils, which Manes also afterwards embraced. Yet Lactantius seems to differ from them in this, that he does not assert that the devil is without a beginning, nor that he is evil by nature: but he says that he was indeed created good by God, but passed over to evil by his own choice, which had been given him free, as above, near the beginning of chapter 9, and thereafter became the prince of all evils. But they posited two principles lacking a beginning, and the one good by nature, the other evil by nature, as St Augustine writes in the book On Heresies, heresies 21 and 22; Philastrius on Cerdo and Apelles; Epiphanius in the book Against Heresies, heresy 66. This heresy St Thomas combats, Contra Gentiles 2, chapter 41.

"Whence Cicero would have it seem that the sun was named." So also Varro, On the Latin Language 4, chapter 10; Isidore, Origins, book 3, chapter 70.

"Because they are not full and solid lights." As if they were in some way lights by their own nature, and as if he therefore thought that the stars shine with their own light: an opinion which all the philosophers must be believed to have held, and those fathers who taught that the luminaries and stars were made as vehicles of the primeval light, Basil, Ambrose, Nazianzen; much more those who say that that primeval light was distributed by God into the luminaries, that is, into the sun, the moon and the stars, as Apollinarius and Didymus in Lipomanus's Catena, Athanasius, questions 83 and 85, Theodoret, questions 14 and 16 on Genesis, Procopius, first chapter on Genesis, Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith 2, chapter 7. Of the same opinion Avicenna is said to be, and Macrobius, who excepted the moon alone, chapters 19 and 20 on the Dream of Scipio. But against this Plato asserted in the Timaeus, Pliny book 2, chapter 6, and most of the astronomers. Hugh of St Victor, in the Annotations on Genesis, chapter 6, says that the sun alone has its own light, and that it was made of fire, but that all the other stars, made of airy matter, reflect light

rather than shine. Saint Augustine, on Genesis according to the letter, book 2, chapter 16, says that it is indeed plainly known from Divine Scripture that the brightness of the stars is unequal, since the Apostle says in chapter 5 of the first Epistle to the Corinthians that the brightness of the sun is one thing, that of the moon another, and that of the stars another, and that star differs from star in brightness; but whether the stars receive their light from the sun or not cannot be gathered and established from the Sacred Letters.

That the world consists by a discordant concord, etc. He alludes to the opinion of Empedocles, who said that all things consist of strife and friendship (namely, of the elements); Aristotle discusses this in Physics 1, On the Soul 1, and Metaphysics 1.

That the covenants of marriage are sanctioned by the sacrament of fire and water. As is established from the law Seia Sempronio, Digest, On gifts between husband and wife, which is explained from Festus under the word Aqua. Budaeus on the said law; Ciriacus, Observations, book 2, chapter 2.

The matter of the body is in moisture. Chiefly, that is, perhaps because both seed and blood are moistures: otherwise the body of an animal, like all other things, consists of the four elements, as Lactantius himself, following Empedocles, declares below, chapter 13.

That of the soul is in heat. This was the opinion of Democritus, which Aristotle refutes at the beginning of On the Soul. Nor indeed do I see how Lactantius here asserts that the matter of the soul is fiery, or is heat, he who knows for certain that the soul of man is immortal, as he himself shows in book 3, chapters 12 and 13, and in chapter 17 of On the Workmanship of God. That the soul is indeed fire he writes in express words below, chapter 13, contradicting himself, since he flatly denied it in the said chapter 17 of On the Workmanship; and elsewhere he writes that the soul is of the substance of God, as below, chapter 15, where we shall speak of it.

Neither can moisture be made into body, nor can body be animated. In the printed editions it is: neither can moisture make body, nor body animate. Our reading is given by the Vatican manuscripts and two codices of San Salvatore at Bologna. T. P. Neither, he says, can moisture be made into body, that is, be condensed into that body, nor can the body itself be animated (not "animate"), because the body does not animate but is animated. So too Budaeus rightly quotes this passage in his Annotations on book 2 of the Digest, On penalties.

Fire and water too used to be interdicted to exiles. On the interdiction of fire and water. Ulpian in book 2, Digest, On penalties, and on that place Budaeus in his annotations on the Pandects. Festus under the word aqua; Isidore, Origins, book 5, chapter 27, towards the end.

It is immobile and tending downwards, etc. Thomasius in his notes has rightly corrected from codex B the reading of the printed editions, which has "it is mobile", etc. For it is plain that an antithesis is being made here; and indeed of fire he said: whose nature, because it is mobile and strives upwards, contains the principle of life. Therefore of water he rightly added: whose nature, because it is immobile and tending downwards, shows the figure of death. But it could not show the figure of death if it were mobile, because, as Lactantius himself says in book 6, chapter 17, and in the book On the Anger of God, chapter 17, life is active, death is quiet. Its nature therefore is immobile and quiet; for it comes close to the heaviness of the earth: and it is moved with difficulty, and only downwards, except where it is stirred by the blasts of the winds, or motion is imparted to it from outside in some other way.

Therefore the beasts do not look up to heaven either. Galen, book 3 of On the Use of the Parts, chapter 3, says that this is a saying of men who have never seen the fish called ouranoskopos, that is, observer of heaven: for this fish, even unwillingly, always looks at heaven. Yet in reality it contemplates nothing whatever in it, as man does.

Chapter XI.

That they might help in cultivating the earth, whence they are called jumenta. So also Columella, book 5, and Isidore, Origins, book 12, chapter 1, and book 15, chapter 17. But Nonius, chapter 1, Pomponius the jurist in the law Boves, Digest, On the meaning of words, and other ancients, as Gellius testifies in book 20, chapter 1, prefer that they are so called not from juvando [helping] but from jungendo [yoking].

And to procreate innumerable souls, etc. So below, chapter 14: He resolved to destroy the human race by a flood, not

however, did He straightway send the flood. The sense is that God in His eternal predestination decreed and established that, as time went on and while the world remained, once human bodies had been formed He would bring forth innumerable souls and, by creating them, pour them into those very bodies. This is the Catholic opinion, and consonant with Lactantius, who in chapter 19 of the book On the Workmanship of God says: All the rest are God's, namely conception itself, and the forming of the body, and the breathing-in of the soul, and safe delivery, etc. So that you may easily understand from this that the breathing-in of the soul by God takes place after the forming of the body. The fiction about souls created before bodies, which some rashly attribute to Lactantius on the strength of this passage, he himself mocks and refutes in book 3, chapter 18.

Whence he was named man (homo), because he was made from earth (humus). So also in the book On the Wrath of God, chapter 10, towards the end. Here, however, by man the body of man is understood. But Quintilian does not approve this etymology, book 1, chapter 6. Isidore approves it, Origins book 2, chapter 1. See Rhodiginus, Ancient Readings, book 1, chapter 41.

Theoeidē (godlike). So I have corrected what in all [copies] stands corruptly as theoeidēn. Plato, Republic 6: taking their evidence from that which Homer too called, among men, godlike and like unto God; that is, conjecturing from that which Homer too indeed called in men God-formed and God-resembling.

Earthen offspring, etc. Turnebus, Adversaria book 21, chapter 22, advised that the editions which read ferrea (iron) in Maro should be corrected from this place; so Rhodiginus, Ancient Readings book 4, chapter 19; Pierio Valeriano in the Hieroglyphics book 57, the chapter On Papyrus. But those who think the text of Lactantius corrupt, as Pierius himself reports in his emendations of Virgil at that passage of Virgil, are not greatly in error either, since Lactantius here says that animals arose from the earth without any maker: hence he quotes: Earthen offspring; and the word Ferrea has nothing to do with his point.

Of present substance. There have nevertheless been those who doubted whether present time exists: on which the Philosopher disputes, Physics 4, text 87 and following; St Augustine, Confessions book 2, chapter 14 and following. See also Censorinus, On the Birthday.

Ingratis (unwillingly). So read B., T., the Florentine, and the Plantin edition also in the margin of the book. It is an adverb, meaning the same as 'beyond favour and desert'. Not of one's own accord, says Donatus, under compulsion; elsewhere [read] ingrate.

Chapter XII.

They say that by certain revolutions, etc. He sets out and refutes the account of the first origin of living things put forward by Anaximander and Democritus, as Lactantius himself reports below, book 7, chapter 7, and by some other ancient philosophers; on which see Lucretius 5, Cicero, On the Laws 1, Diodorus book 1, chapter 1, at the beginning, where he also adds something from the Melanippe of Euripides, the disciple of Anaxagoras, from which he judges that he held the same view. This opinion, moreover, which asserts that men were poured forth from the earth first like mushrooms, then like certain little worms, Lactantius also mocks in book 7, chapters 4 and 7. Censorinus, On the Birthday, chapter 3, reports various opinions on the primeval generation of animals.

They say. Some, that is, among whom is Lucretius in the fifth [book], in these verses:

But the newness of the world stirred up neither harsh cold,

nor excessive heats, etc.

From the highest God. The manuscripts of Cicero read, from the supreme God.

He himself mixed. The Sibylline manuscript has, he mixed rays.

Chapter XIII.

He breathed into him a soul from the life-giving fountain of His Spirit, etc. Below in this chapter: whose souls consist not of God but of the common air, etc. Likewise: that what is from heaven and from God should rule, etc. And book 7, chapter 12: That which is from the heavenly spirit, that endures, etc. And in the same place a little below: Since from the Spirit of God, Who is eternal, etc. From these passages Lactantius seems to think that the human soul is of the substance of God; although why do I say think? For what he plainly thinks on this matter I at least certainly cannot make out. Above at

the end of chap. 10, he said that the soul is something fiery and heat; and below in this same chapter he says that it is fire: a position which Aristotle ridicules in book 2, On the Parts of Animals, chap. 7: "But if the soul," says Lactantius, "is fire, as we have shown, it ought to strive towards heaven, as fire does," etc. But whatever he may have held elsewhere, in the places noted above he certainly seems to think that it is of the substance of God. From the school of the Platonists flowed this opinion, following which M. Tullius often says that human souls have been drawn off, taken, drawn out and plucked from the divine nature. Caught in this error seems to be both Philo, in the book That the Worse Attacks the Better, and Tertullian, of whom Gennadius speaks thus in the book On Ecclesiastical Dogmas: "Let us believe that nothing has been drawn from the essence of the Trinity into created nature, as Plato and Tertullian [held]," etc. Likewise, according to Theodoret, the heretics Cerdon, Marcion, the Gnostics and the Manichaeans were caught by that [passage] of Genesis 2, wrongly understood: "He breathed into his face the breath of life." For since a breath seems to be drawn out of the body of the one who breathes, they therefore believed that the soul was breathed in by Him from the substance of God. But that passage of Genesis gives no help to the error, because man, from whom they say the likeness is taken, does not emit breath from his own substance, but from air breathed in, which is not of the substance of the body, and much less of the soul; next, the soul cannot make breath except from the body, since it is not a creator: but God, since He is of infinite power, can create the soul from nothing; and thus He is said to have breathed, inasmuch as He created the breath of man. So teaches the Master, and all the doctors, especially St Thomas on [book] 2, dist. 17. For that breathing of God was not bodily, just as neither was His speaking bodily, when He said, "Let there be light, let there be a firmament," etc. Theodoret has this: "By the name of breath we do not understand some part of the divine essence, according to the madness of Cerdon and Marcion, but that the nature of the soul is denoted by it, because the soul is a rational and intellectual spirit." This heresy was condemned in the first Council of Toledo in the assertion of faith, and by Leo I, epist. 91, and in the first Council of Braga, chap. 5; and against it argue Irenaeus, book 1 Against Heresies, chap. 24, and the whole school of theologians on the said distinction 17, St Thomas in book 2 Against the Gentiles, chap. 85, and in the First Part [of the Summa], quest. 90, art. 1.

"Empedocles, whom you would not know whether [to place] among the poets," etc. Aristotle indeed in the Poetics writes that he should be counted among the philosophers rather than among the poets; and Plutarch, On Listening to Poets, [says] that his verses should be called discourses rather than poetry.

"Secundam." The error of the workmen has been corrected, who in other editions had made it "secunda."

"For it is as it were a little vessel," etc. Others [read] "for earth is as it were a little vessel," etc.; but rightly the word "terra" is absent from B.; for he goes on to speak of the body, which he says is as it were the vessel and dwelling of the soul. But I advised above at chap. 3 that we must beware of and abstain from such expressions.

"For he was a slave to the foulest pleasures," etc. Add Suetonius, On Famous Grammarians, chap. 6, Gellius, book 17, chap. 18.

"Consevit." So I read, as this passage is cited by all, and as it is found in B. T. P. So below, chap. 14: "And he planted a vineyard with his own hand"; and plantings of trees are spoken of. Yet in most printed editions is read "conseruit," which reading Ciriacus upholds, book 2 of the Observations, chap. 39, from the Florentine Pandects, in the law "in fundo alieno," Digest, On the Recovery of Property, from Aurelius Victor and Livy.

"If he had observed these things, he would remain immortal." Against Pelagius, who asserted that Adam met death not on account of guilt, but from a natural condition, by which he would have perished even if he had not departed from God's command. This heresy was condemned in the Council of Milevis, chap. 1.

"In which He had placed the understanding of good and evil." Below in this same chapter: "therefore, the knowledge of good and evil having been obtained," etc. Of what species of tree this tree was, various opinions are reviewed by the commentators on Genesis: but nothing is settled for certain. This is asked: why it was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The Hebrews

held the opinion that the first parents were created utterly simple, without the use of reason, like infants; but that, because that tree had the power of hastening the use of reason and of free will, it was for that reason called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for according to the idiom of Scripture, to know good and evil means the same as to have the use of reason. This opinion, confirmed by the Sibyls as well (as is read below, note 97), Lactantius followed; it is commonly rejected by all, for it is a very great error, not to say heresy, to assert that Adam was from the beginning ignorant of good and evil, and obtained the knowledge of good and evil from eating the fruit of that tree. For how could he who gave names to all living creatures, names which must surely accord with their natures, and who had an admirable faculty of prophecy, which he pronounced concerning the woman, This now is bone, etc., not know what was good and what was evil? It was fitting also that, just as with respect to the body he was established in a perfect state, so that he could at once beget, so too with respect to the soul he should be established in a perfect state, so that he could at once instruct and govern others. Reasons of this kind are brought forward from Saint Augustine in several places on Genesis and in book 14 of the City [of God], chapter 17, and from St Thomas, in the first part, question 94, article 3. Chrysostom likewise argues against that opinion in Homily 16 on Genesis; and see Philo, discoursing excellently on the perfection of the first man in his book On the Creation of the World, towards the end. Moreover, almost all agree that that name of the knowledge of good and evil did not belong to that tree from a nature given to it by God: Eucherius, book 1 on Genesis; Cyril, book 3 against Julian; St Augustine on Genesis and in the said chapter 17; Theodoret, question 26 on Genesis; Bede likewise, and Strabo, whom the Master follows in book 2 of the Sentences, distinction 17. The second opinion is that of Josephus the Jew in the first [book] of the Antiquities, chapter 3: that it was so called because its fruit, if eaten by man, had the power of sharpening the wit and skill and the prudence of thought, and contributed much to acquiring knowledge; this opinion Lyranus refutes. The third is that of Rupert in book 2 On the Trinity, chapter 27, Tostatus on chapter 13 of Genesis, questions 154 and 155, and Pererius, book 3 on Genesis: that it was so called by irony, on account of the lie and deceitful promise of the serpent, by which he promised that, if they ate, they would be like gods, knowing good and evil, so that by the very name of the tree a memorial of so notable a diabolical lie might be presented to posterity; and therefore they think that name was given to it either by Adam after the sin, or by Moses; and although in the history of Genesis that tree is twice called by that name before the serpent's encounter with Eve, they say this is done by anticipation; for in truth it did not have that name before, but when God commanded Adam not to eat of it, He either called it by another name, or pointed it out as if with a finger, or designated it in some other way. The more frequent opinion is that which Chrysostom holds on Genesis, Augustine in book 8 on Genesis according to the letter, chapters 6 and 15, Cyril, Bede, Strabo and the others whom we cited in the first place: namely, that that name was not given to it by God by nature, as though it conferred and contained the understanding of good and evil, as Lactantius writes, but from the outcome that followed afterwards, because as soon as man ate the fruit of that tree, he began to know practically and by experience the distinction of good and evil, which before he knew only speculatively, and how great a difference there was between the good of obedience and the evil of disobedience. Furthermore St Augustine, in the said chapter 15, writes that this name was imposed on that tree by God even before the serpent's conversation with Eve.

Sentence having been passed on the sinner, that he should earn his living for himself by labour. So we read from B. and other excellent manuscripts, and from the very history of Genesis, from which these words are taken; for there it is said: And the Lord God sent him out of the Paradise of pleasure, to till the ground, etc. In others it reads, Sentence having been passed on the sinners, that they should earn their living for themselves by labour.

And He walled round paradise itself with fire. The history in

the line of ch. 3 of Genesis. Thus it reads: And He placed before the Paradise of pleasure Cherubim and a flaming and turning sword to guard the way of the tree of life (Gen. 3:24). As to what is to be understood there by the flaming sword, various opinions have arisen. Tertullian, Apologeticus ch. 46, seems to have understood by the flaming sword the torrid Zone, and its most blazing heat, which strikes like a sword those who approach it, by which Zone paradise is surrounded. Tertullian is followed by St Thomas in 2-2, q. 165, last art. But this exposition does not fit the letter: for St Basil in Homily 3 and at the beginning of 9 on Genesis, St Augustine on Genesis according to the letter at the beginning of book 8, and Bede on the words In the beginning He created, etc., and other most weighty and most holy men proclaim that the teaching of Moses in the work of the six days of the creation of the world is wholly historical; and that it is therefore to be understood historically, properly and according to the letter, not figuratively, not mystically, not anagogically. And the torrid zone was there even before the fall of man: but Scripture says that the flaming sword was placed there by God after Adam had been cast out from there. Lactantius judges the flaming sword to have been nothing other than a certain huge force and abundance of fire, like a wall and bulwark, or rampart, as he says here, placed before the entrance of paradise. Peter Comestor on that passage of Genesis, Nicholas of Lyra, and Tostado seem to have followed Lactantius; which opinion is rejected by some as defective, because it makes no mention of the Cherubim, and as improper and not at all literal. Some understand obstacles to be signified, by which man after sin is kept from entering the heavenly paradise. But this opinion too is far from the sense of the letter. St Ambrose, on that little verse of Ps. 118, Requite Thy servant, etc., interprets the flaming sword as purgatorial fire. So too Rupert in [book] 3 on Genesis, ch. 32 and 33; they are refuted by the same reasoning. For the flaming sword was placed before the earthly paradise: but purgatorial fire is placed beneath the earth by the theologians. Finally, there is the opinion of others, which Benedict Pereira approves in book 6 on Genesis, that these words of Genesis are to be understood wholly historically, as they sound; namely, that Cherubim, that is, Angels, were placed to guard Paradise in the appearance and figure of men, holding in their hands very sharp swords, and, because of their brandishing, flashing as though sparks and flames were sent forth.

Until He holds the supreme judgement on earth, and calls just men, His worshippers, back to the same place, etc. In this passage of Lactantius, and in ch. 46 of Tertullian's Apologeticus, we note the error by which they think that the souls of the just will be brought into the earthly paradise after the universal judgement; for neither do the Holy Scriptures teach this anywhere, as Lactantius says, nor does the Sibyl say it, who, in naming paradise, perhaps meant the heavenly one. Christ the Lord declares that after the universal judgement He will call the just into the kingdom of heaven, Matt. 25: Come, you blessed, etc., as the saints and all the doctors interpret it there.

But those who honour God, etc. These verses are read in Theophilus, To Autolycus, book 2; in the Sibylline codex, however, not exactly these, but similar ones are extant, Discourse 1, near the beginning, namely there:

. . . . . Him indeed He bade dwell in an ambrosial paradise.

Man, etc. These verses are extant in the Sibylline poems, Discourse 1, near the beginning, and Discourse 8, about the middle: but there they vary somewhat. Discourse 1:

. . . . But them the serpent very dreadfully deceived by guile;

In Discourse 8:

. . . . And the man who was formed, whom the guileful serpent led astray, etc.

In which poems this is false, that Adam was deceived, so that from eating the fruit of good and evil he should acquire

the notion, if it is understood of speculative notion, as was said above in this same chapter.

Ἀγαθοῦ τε, κακοῦ τε ("both of good and of evil"). So read, as in the Aldine and Plantin printings and in the Sibylline codex, Discourse 1, and not, as in the Florentine edition and in the Sibylline codex, Discourse 8, ἀγαθοῦ τε, καὶ κακοῦ. For [with that reading] the scansion does not hold.

Which was extended to a thousand years, etc. Certainly you will find no one in Scripture who lived a thousand years, whatever he himself relates about the length of Adam's life below, Book 7, Chapter 14, at the end, where we have refuted him. Nevertheless we say, not absurdly, that the life of those men was extended to a thousand years who fell as little short of that number as possible, such as Jared, such as Methuselah, and Noah, concerning whom see chapters 5 and 9 of Genesis.

For he says that among the Egyptians months are reckoned as years, etc. This was not constant among the Egyptians, although Macrobius, Saturnalia 1, Chapter 12, affirms that the Egyptians alone always had a fixed measure of the year; for it is truer that the Egyptians varied the year, and sometimes made a year of three months, more often of four, as Xenophon is reported to have written in the book On Equivocal Terms, in these words: The year is various; for the Egyptians themselves sometimes use a year of one month, often one of two months, not rarely one of three months, often one of four months, sometimes a solar one. Solinus, Chapter 3, writes that the year of the Egyptians was of four months; and St Augustine, City [of God], Book 15, Chapter 12, that it was sometimes of four months, sometimes of one month. Plutarch too, in the Numa, relates that the Egyptians had a year of one month, and later one of four months. Pliny, Book 7, Chapter 48, and Censorinus, On the Birthday, write, however, that they mostly measured it by the space of a month according to the course of the moon. On the diversity of the year among various peoples, see Alexander of Naples, Genial Days, Book 3, Chapter 24; Camers on Chapter 3 of Solinus; Gyraldus, On Days, Years and Months.

Which argument is plainly false, etc. Yet Pliny too, in the said Chapter 48, seems to agree with Varro, whom St Augustine cites in the place given above; but Lactantius rightly refutes Varro and asserts what is the fact, namely that the years which Scripture relates that men lived before the flood were not of one month, as Varro said, but were equal to ours, as St Augustine also demonstrates, City [of God], Book 15, Chapter 14. For Scripture, in Chapter 7 of Genesis, mentions within that one year during which the flood lasted the first, second and tenth month; and lest anyone should be able to cavil that those months consisted of fewer days than ours, it records in the same place the seventeenth day of the second month, and the twenty-seventh of the seventh month, and the twenty-seventh of the second month. Moreover, if anyone reckons all the days which Moses records in his description of the flood through that one year, he will find them to come to three hundred and sixty. Josephus the Jew writes that what is related about the so long-lived life of the men of old ought not to be thought wondrous or false, because the Lord granted them longer spans of living on account of their discovery of the sciences and arts, especially astronomy. Anyone will easily find many other reasons in the commentators on Genesis.

Chapter XIV.

He set the limit at a hundred and twenty years. The words of the Lord which Moses reports at the beginning of the sixth [chapter] of Genesis, And his days shall be a hundred and twenty years [Gen. 6:3], being wrongly understood, gave occasion of error to Philo in the book On the Giants, to Josephus the Jew, Antiquities 1, ch. 5, to Arnobius, Against the Gentiles 2, to Lactantius, to Diodorus of Tarsus, Bishop, to Rupert in [Book] 4 on Genesis, ch. 13, and to Tostatus on Chapter 6 of Genesis, ch. 11, who thought that after the flood the limit of human life was set by God at a hundred and twenty years; whereas those words are to be expounded so that we say: and his days, that is, man's, shall be a hundred and twenty years, not for living but for repenting. The Lord said this twenty years before the ark began to be made, as St Jerome writes, which is read to have been made over a space of a hundred years; or according to

Strabo, He said it from the year in which the ark began to be built: but because men persisted in wickedness, they were destroyed before the appointed time, namely in the hundredth year. 'It repents Me,' says the Lord, 'that I made man': that is, I will do what a man usually does when he is angry and repents of his work; for he demolishes what he had made: so I will blot out man, whom I had made; yet My spirit, that is, My indignation, will not remain in man for ever, as it does against the devil, because he is flesh, that is, frail: but I will punish him here and overwhelm him with waters; indeed, before I punish him, I will give him a time for repentance, and his days for repenting shall be a hundred and twenty years. Therefore the words of the Lord are words not of severity but of clemency and compassion; and so they are interpreted by Chrysostom, Homily 22 on Genesis, St Jerome in the Hebrew Questions, St Augustine, City [of God] book 15, ch. 24, Strabo and Hugh of St Victor in the annotations on Genesis, and finally the Master of the Scholastic History on the book of Genesis, ch. 31; and this exposition agrees with the Hebrew text, which has: My spirit shall not judge these men for ever, inasmuch as they are flesh; that is, as Rabbi Solomon interprets it, My spirit shall not dispute, shall not contend in judgement, etc. Indeed we know that very many exceeded a hundred and twenty years, not only from the Sacred Scriptures, Genesis ch. 11, 23, 25, 47, and often elsewhere, but also from profane authors, Pliny book 7, ch. 48 and 49, Athenaeus book 10, ch. 11.

And that land was called Chanaan from his name. Therefore it ought rather to have been named from Chanaam himself, the son of Cham, than from Cham, as Lactantius says, just as the Chananaeans themselves were named from Chanaam, Genesis ch. 10.

Nor in that region is the sky overspread with any clouds. In both Bologna manuscripts, in P., and in some Vatican ones, the particle enim is not found, nor is that clause enclosed in a parenthesis, as though here the reason for the preceding statement were not being given, why that people lived under the open sky, but another cause were being adduced, why it was able to contemplate the stars continually. I have written it as it stands in all the printed editions. What Lactantius says here, that clouds do not form in Egypt, is open to doubt; for Pliny, book 2, ch. 50, writes that clouds do form there, though sparse and thin; and Democritus, as Plutarch reports in the Placita, book 4, ch. 1, taught that the rise of the Nile comes about for this reason: that when the snow in the regions lying towards the north has melted and spread about the summer solstice, clouds are condensed from the vapours, and these, driven southwards and towards Egypt by the Etesian winds, dissolve into great and violent rains, by which both the marshes and the Nile are filled. Diodorus too, book 1, ch. 2, testifies that rains do occur there, but rarely. Mela agrees with Lactantius, book 1: Egypt, he says, without rains, yet wonderfully fertile, etc. But we can reconcile the writers from Philo, who in book 1 of the Life of Moses writes that small and infrequent rains fall there, in the coastal places at least, while above Memphis there are none at all; where he also discusses most finely why winter is superfluous to Egypt.

Portentous figures of animals. On these, Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, books 1 and 3; Philo in the book On the Decalogue.

Chapter XV.

When therefore the number of men had begun to increase, etc., He sent angels for the protection and care of the human race. In this he is mistaken, in saying that angels were not given for guardianship before the number of men had begun to increase; for from the very first parents onwards each soul, from the beginning of its creation, has an angel appointed for its guardianship; neither the first parents themselves nor any men at all have lacked one: Origen on the book of Numbers; Jerome on Matthew 18: Their angels, etc.; St Bernard, Sermon on the Angels, and on Psalm 8: What is man, that Thou art mindful of him, etc.; the Master and all the theologians on [book] 2, dist. 11; St Thomas, part 1, q. 113, art. 4.

Since free will had been given to them. He writes that the sin of the rest of the evil angels occurred when the multitude of men had already begun to increase, that is, after the sin of Lucifer, by a long

interval of time; and that the sin was one of lust and libido, because they mingled themselves with women. We say that a very short delay intervened between the creation of Lucifer, the highest Angel, and his fall. St Augustine on Genesis, book 12, chapter 23: Having been made, he says, he at once turned himself away from the light of truth, swollen with pride, etc. Isidore, book 1 On the Highest Good, chapter 10: As soon as he was made, he burst out into pride, and was cast headlong from heaven. This is most certain, that he had already been made guilty of fault and damnation when he approached to tempt the first woman, as Abbot Serenus expressly argued against the opinion of Germanus in Cassian, Conference 8, chapter 10. We say secondly that the bad angels sinned either at the same time, and in a single instant of time, with Lucifer, as Alensis writes, part 2, question 110, member 5, and St Thomas, first part, question 63, article 8, or perhaps with some delay interposed, as St Bonaventure on [book] 2, distinction 5, article 2, question 2, and Scotus, same distinction, question 2, but that delay indeed imperceptible and almost nothing, as is gathered from the same authors. That the sin of the bad angels too was the same as that of Lucifer, namely the sin of pride, of which I spoke at chapter 9, which Lucifer persuaded them to, is established from the same holy Fathers and doctors, in the places cited. And as soon as they sinned, they were damned, and thrown down from heaven together with Lucifer; Apocalypse 12, St Isidore in the place above, Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, book 2, chapter 4. Certain doctors indeed hold that the devil, that is, Lucifer, was thrust down into hell straightaway; others, however, into this murky air, but that when he had been defeated by Christ in the temptation, he was cast down into hell. So the Master on [book] 2, distinction 6, who nevertheless doubts whether he is now in hell. Lactantius below, book 3, chapter 29, holds that he has been permitted to remain in this world so that by his malice he may train men towards virtue. Concerning the rest of the demons, St Thomas writes, in the said distinction 6, article 4, and first part, question 64, article 4, that some were cast down into this murky air, but others, who sinned more gravely, were thrust down into hell. But St Bonaventure, said distinction, article 2, question 1, affirms that the place of the other demons until the day of judgement is not hell but the murky air; but whether some have been thrust down into hell he admits he does not know; yet he says that some descend there to torment souls. But wherever they are, they always carry their torments of flames with them, as the Ordinary Gloss says on that verse of James 3: set on fire by Gehenna, etc., which St Thomas cites and approves, said distinction 6, article 4. This too is established from the Sacred Letters, that the bad angels, immediately after their sin and the sentence of damnation, remained obstinate in evil, and will remain eternally in their damnation and obstinacy and punishment; Alensis, part 2, question 118, member 1, articles 1 and 4, St Thomas, first part, question 64, article 2. The doctors with the Master on the 2nd [book of the] Sentences, distinction 7, where especially St Bonaventure, article 1, Scotus, sole question, Durandus, question 2, Gabriel, question 1; which indeed is of faith, and defined in the chapter Firmiter, On the Highest Trinity and the Catholic Faith. From these things many errors of Lactantius can be noted and guarded against; and first indeed the one in which he writes here that God then commanded the Angels not to lose the dignity of their heavenly substance by being stained with the contagion of the earth; for they had long since been polluted by sin, and stained, and indeed confirmed in that stain and obstinacy, as we have said.

He enticed them to vices. Fables. It has already been said that they were enticed to sin by Lucifer much earlier, namely before the fall of our first parents, and for that sin they were at once damned.

And he defiled them with intercourse with women. What the sin of the bad angels was, and at what time it was committed, has been set out above. But that angels in the time of Noah had intercourse with women was held not only by Lactantius but also by very many other Fathers, from that passage of Genesis chapter 6, not rightly understood: The sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they bore children, etc. Josephus the Jew, book 1 of the Antiquities, chapter 5, Tertullian in the book On the Veiling of Virgins, Justin Martyr

both Apologies; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Books 3 and 5; Cyprian, On the Discipline and Dress of Virgins; Methodius, Sermon on the Resurrection; Eusebius, Preparation, Book 5. The cause of thinking so was given by the old Greek edition of the Seventy Translators, which these men followed after Philo, which offered the reading οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ, and by the Latin Itala (as Ambrose, Augustine and Procopius report), "angels of God", in place of what was later read, according to the Hebrew text, in the Greek as οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, and in the Latin edition as "sons of God", both of which readings Augustine and Procopius acknowledged in their time. Therefore by the angels, or by the sons of God, are to be understood the sons of Seth, who were religious men and worshippers of God; and by the daughters of men are to be understood the daughters of the stock of Cain: and so that passage is explained by the interlinear gloss; Theodoret, Question 47 on Genesis; Cyril, Against Julian Book 9, and in Book 2 of the Allegories on the Pentateuch, Sermon 1; Augustine, City Book 15, chapter 23; Jerome, Hebrew Traditions on Genesis, Book 4, chapter 12; Suidas under the word μιαιγαμίαι, and under the word "Seth"; Bede, Haymo, Rabanus on Genesis; Rupert likewise on Genesis, Book 4, chapter 12; the Master of the Scholastic History, Genesis, chapter 31; St Thomas, Part 1, Question 51, article 3, in the reply to the 6th. Moreover, Philastrius, in his book On Heresies, chapter 108, lists among the heresies the position by which it is said that angels mingled with women before the Flood. St John Chrysostom likewise rejects it, Homily 22 on Genesis, and so does his disciple Cassian, Conferences Book 12, chapter 8. Finally St Ambrose, Letter 84, to Demetrias, says that the cause of the damnation of Lucifer and of the other evil angels was not lust but pride, and that he, together with his own followers, fell from heaven through pride before the fall of man.

Then, not received into heaven on account of the sins in which they had immersed themselves, they fell to earth. These fables flow from the foregoing. As for the place of the evil angels after the fall, I have reported the opinions a little above.

But those who were begotten of these, etc. Fables.

Thus two kinds of demons came into being, one heavenly, the other earthly, etc. Provided these things are cut off from the foregoing, they can acquire a true sense, so that we may say that the heavenly kind of demons is the one that dwells in the murky air, for "heaven" is frequently taken for the air, not only in profane writings but also in the sacred Scriptures; and that the earthly kind is the one which, as we said following the opinion of St Thomas, was cast down into the lowest bowels of the earth and into hell. But that aerial kind roams through all the elements, so that it drives the air with strong winds and foul storms, and thence not only hurls hail and thunderbolts but also, as happens in prodigies, sometimes rains down wool, stones, wax, iron, flesh; and it stirs up the waves of the sea, intent on sinking those who sail, and it haunts wells, lakes, springs and rivers for the destruction of men, as Tertullian writes in his book On Baptism. The earth, too, it either shakes with unusual tremors or otherwise damages and disturbs. Hence Orpheus, in his Poem to Musaeus, taught that there are six kinds of demons in all, as did that Marcus in Psellus, in his book On Demons, and Porphyry in his book of responses from the oracles of Apollo. Let whoever wishes consult those writers.

Δαιμονιάρχην. As the Pharisees [said] δαιμονίων ἄρχοντα, Matt. 12.

Δαήμονας. So I have restored this word, which is read corruptly in all [copies] as δαίμονας; for the derived word ought to differ in something from its root: and they hold that δαίμον, a word written with αι, is so called as if δαῆμον, from δαῆναι, which is to understand, to know: Plato in the Cratylus; Martianus Capella, Book 2; Macrobius, Saturnalia Book 1, chapter 23.

They know indeed many future things, but not all. Which future things? Origen answers, On First Principles Book 4, chapter 2; St Augustine in the book On the Divination of Demons, and On Genesis Book 2, chapter 17, and City Book 9, chapter 22; Gregory the Great, Morals Book 28, chapter 6; Isidore, On the Highest Good; Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith Book 2; the Master on the 2nd [Book of the] Sentences, distinction 7, and there St Bonaventure, article 3, question 3; Durandus, question 3; likewise St Thomas, Part 1.

question 57, article 3, and 2-2, question 95 and question 192, and Against the Gentiles, book III, chapter 154.

To temper their responses towards ambiguous outcomes. See Cicero, On Divination II; Tertullian, Apology ch. 22; Lactantius again below, book IV, chapter 13; Eusebius, On the Preparation for the Gospel, book IV, chapter 1, and book V, chapter 10, where [he writes] at length on the falsity of oracles; St Augustine, On the City [of God], book III, chapter 17, and book XIX, chapter 23.

And they work the solace of their own perdition by destroying men. The theologians fittingly ask whether demons acquire any solace and joy from the sins and damnation of men; for Minucius also says this in the Octavius, and St Leo in sermon 2 on the Nativity of the Lord, near the beginning. Alensis [Alexander of Hales] answers, in the second part, question 100, member 5, article 1, that there is for them a certain solace, not true but apparent, and sprinkled with every bitterness, because that joy does not arise from the apprehension of what is simply suitable, but of what seems suitable to them. St Augustine also writes, in the book On Genesis against the Manichees, ch. 17, that demons have power over those who despise the precepts of God, and rejoice in so unhappy a power. But for them that gladness turns into punishment: therefore by St Thomas too, in his books on the Sentences, whom Dominic Bañez cites and explains on the first part, question 64, article 3, doubt 2, that joy is called deceitful and as it were imaginary, because a fresh torment and pain follows it at once. Other theologians deny simply and absolutely that any joy or solace can be found in demons, since the highest pain does not admit any joy along with itself, even concerning some distinct object, as Aristotle teaches in the seventh [book] of the Ethics and as experience shows; and they prove this by the reasoning that, if demons could have any solace and joy, they would not have been placed in a state of the highest and extreme misery, which is not to be asserted. And to St Augustine and Thomas they reply that joy or solace is not taken there formally, but causally, namely that demons rejoice in the victory which they win over men, because that victory fulfils their desire, by which, out of the zeal of envy, they strive to thrust men away from the attainment of the heavenly kingdom; and the fulfilment of that desire is called joy and gladness, not formally and in reality, but only causally, because by its own nature it would be apt to produce delight and joy, and would in fact produce it in the demons, were not their will forestalled by the highest and extreme pain by which they are consumed. And they draw this explanation from the same St Thomas, in his commentaries on the Master, where he says that demons are said to rejoice in our evils in the same sense in which the blessed angels are commonly said to grieve over our evils: but it is certain that the blessed angels do not grieve formally, because their state does not allow it; therefore neither do the demons rejoice, nor acquire any solace formally, but only causally, as has been said.

To these they daily pour out unmixed wine. The word merum is missing from B. T. P. I have kept the reading of all the printed editions whatever; for that profundunt, set absolutely, is unusual, and we know that the heathen were accustomed to pour out unmixed wine to their genii, and Horace said "to tend one's genius with unmixed wine", Odes book III, Ode 17. In the margin of the Plantin editions is set "before these they daily prostrate themselves".

They are thin spirits, etc. If you would have the author speak properly, he comes near to giving us to understand that he attributes to demons the substance of a certain thin air, and so agrees with those who attribute to angels a most subtle body. This opinion, which flowed from the springs of Plato, who taught that God alone, and the mind produced by Him, is wholly devoid of all body, was adopted by Philo in the book On the Creation of the World, Tertullian in On the Flesh of Christ, Origen in On First Principles II, ch. 2 and 8; Methodius, Athanasius, Basil, and John, bishop of Thessalonica, cited in the second synod of Nicaea, session 4; St Augustine, City [of God] VIII, chapter 9, and book II, chapter 23, in the Enchiridion chapters 45 and 59, in the book On the Nature of Demons; and it is cited in the chapter Sciendum, [causa] 26, question 3, in [book] 7 On Genesis according to the Letter, ch. 17, and often elsewhere, Cassian, book VII, conference 7,

ch. 13, Damascene, book 2, Theology ch. 3, and l. in Against the Iconoclasts, and perhaps also, as I have said, Lactantius in this passage. For tenue is to the Latins the same as λέπτον to the Greeks, which indeed is nothing other than slender, extended, yet solid, and what is contained within limits; and this can properly be said only of bodies. To it is opposed spissum [dense]; for they are relative terms: but nothing among the things that lack quantity is either thin or dense; for these are properties peculiar to the position of parts. Nevertheless this opinion about the bodies of angels has now been rejected by the votes of all the doctors, who teach that all angels are utterly without any body whatever. So teaches Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names ch. 21, Nazianzen at the end of On Theology and in the Oration on the Nativity of the Saviour; Chrysostom, Homily 22 on Genesis; Gregory the Great, Moralia book 4, ch. 9; Hugh of St Victor, On the Sacraments book 1, part 5, questions 7 and 8; Alexander of Hales on part 2, question 20, member 3, to the 3rd; Albert the Great, St Thomas, Bonaventure, Major on Sentences book 2, distinction 8; again St Thomas, pr. pr., question 51, articles 1 and 2, Against the Gentiles ch. 88 and following; John Duns on book 2, distinction 2, question 6, and distinction 8, question 1; Thomas of Strasbourg on book 2, distinction 3, question 1; Marsilius, question 2. There exists finally the Lateran council under Innocent III, cited in the chapter Firmiter, On the Highest Trinity and the Catholic Faith, which expressly calls the angelic creation spiritual, but the worldly one corporeal. Wherefore all the doctors, at least at this time, affirm that this is also more probable according to natural reason, and that the opposite contains, if not manifest error in faith, at any rate rashness.

Operati [having worked]. If you read operti [covered], as is found in many editions, the word occulte [secretly] seems superfluous. I, however, have followed the reading of B. and T. placed in the margin of the Plantin edition.

They impair health. One must beware, however, of the heresy of the Gnostics, who asserted that diseases are demons, and that they are to be cured not by natural remedies but by incantations. Against this Plotinus wrote, book 9, 2, Enneads, ch. 14. One must beware again of the error of the physicians Peter of Abano and Pomponarius, who attribute all the afflictions of those possessed by demons to the melancholic humour, and contend that they are to be cured not by adjurations but by natural aids. See Tertullian, Apology ch. 22; Minucius in the Octavius; Psellus, On Demons; Fernel, On the Hidden Causes of Things book 2; Levinus Lemnius, On the Secrets of Nature, book 2, ch. 1.

Chapter XVI.

Adjured in His name, they depart from bodies. Observe the most ancient use of exorcisms in the Church of God, and the power of the faithful over demons. So in book 4, ch. 27. Add Ignatius to the Antiochenes, epistle 12; Justin, Deleg. on the Truth of Christ and in the Oration to the Gentiles; Tertullian, On the Soldier's Crown, ch. 11, On Idolatry, ch. 11, at the end, and To Scapula, ch. 1, and in the Apology, ch. 23; Cyprian to Demetrian and to Donatus, epistle 2, and On the Vanity of Idols; Minucius in the Octavius; Epiphanius, Heresies 30; Prudentius in the Apotheosis against the Jews. But that there were exorcists also in the Synagogue is gathered from the Acts of the Apostles, ch. 19, and is attested by Josephus, who relates certain marvellous things, Jewish Antiquities book 8, ch. 2, and Epiphanius, Heresies 30.

And which they mostly do in the presence of their worshippers. This passage, which seems to me badly corrupted, I judge should be restored thus from Cyprian and Minucius, from whom Firmianus took nearly all of this: Which they also mostly do in the presence of their own worshippers; certainly not to the reproach of their religion and honour, but because they can lie neither to God, by Whom they are adjured, nor to the righteous, by whose voice they are tormented. Cyprian, On the Vanity of Idols: You may see them confess whence they come and when they depart, even in the hearing of those who worship them. Minucius: What they are, they declare; nor indeed do they lie to their own disgrace, especially when some of you are standing by.

The one safeguard (he says) is piety, etc. These words I do not find word for word, but similar ones, ch. 10 of the Asclepius: For the just man, he says, in the religion of God and in the highest piety protection

is; for God protects such men from all evils, etc.

Chapter XVII.

Astrology. Judicial [astrology], that is, which strives to foretell future things through the aspects of the stars. See Tertullian, Apology ch. 35, and the book On Idolatry. Cicero too, in book 1 On the Nature of the Gods, condemns all these arts of which the discussion here treats; and Giovanni Francesco Pico demolishes them in an excellent volume whose title is On the Foreknowledge of Things.

Since all things [are] deceptions, etc. These are not extant among the Sibylline verses.

They put on. I have kept the reading of the Vatican manuscripts and of all the printed editions; nor did the reading of B., induxerunt [they brought in], please me. In this expression Lactantius followed the best authors. Cicero, book 2 On Ends: From his spoils he put on for himself both the torque and the surname. Livy: my care and good faith have put upon me the name of patron of the plebs. Characters too are properly said to be put on.

For thus we say that the world is ruled by God, as a province by its governor. A most beautiful comparison. Aristotle, in the little book On the World, says that He is in the world as a general in an army.

Not that they desire any honour, etc. Nay rather, they do covet honour, as above, book 1, ch. 7, and in this book ch. 15. St Augustine, book 9 On the City [of God], ch. 20, and likewise all the theologians affirm it. For, as St Thomas says, First Part, question 64, article 2, reply to the 3rd, the evil spirits remain in the same sin in which they first sinned, as regards the appetite, though not as regards their thinking that they can obtain it: but that sin was the sin of pride; whence also the devil, tempting Christ the Lord, dared to say: All these things I will give you, if falling down you worship me. Matt. 4.

Hence it is that a whetstone was cut with a razor by an augur, etc. This is the end of the discussion which he began in ch. 9 concerning the devil and his companion angels; namely concerning their creation, their sin, damnation, expulsion, the deception of our first parents, and finally their nature and their hatred towards men, in order to show the reason for certain marvellous works and illusions performed by them at times and recounted in ch. 8 of this book, of which he makes the epilogue in this place.

And victories. An example can be adduced from the voice of Silvanus sent forth from the Arsian wood, as in Livy at the beginning of the second [book] of the first Decade; Valerius, book 1, ch. 8; Plutarch, in the Publicola.

Because he had placed a handsome boy in the temple of Jupiter to keep watch over the spoils. In Valerius Maximus, from whom Lactantius took it, this story is written thus, book 1, ch. 2: It was believed that the consul Varro fought so unsuccessfully with the Carthaginians at Cannae because of the wrath of Juno, because, when as aedile he was holding the Circensian games, he had placed in the temple of Jupiter Best and Greatest a boy actor of exceptional beauty to keep watch. This passage is read remarkably corrupted in the manuscripts both of Valerius and of Lactantius, and was noticed neither by Pighius, who published Valerius emended, nor by anyone else. That in the procession of the Circensian Games the spoils of the gods too were conveyed from the temples to the Circus in tensae is known from Sisinnius Capito in Festus under Tensa, in these words: Sisinnius Capito (for so it should be read there, not Sinnius, on the evidence of Lactantius, below, book 6, ch. 20) says that the vehicle is called a tensa in which the spoils of the gods are carried at the Circensian games into the Circus to the sacred couch; it was also of ivory, as in Titinius in the Barbatus, and of silver. Tertullian in the book On Spectacles, ch. 27: But the display of the Circensian games, he says, is somewhat more showy, which the procession, to which this name properly belongs, precedes, proving in itself whose they are by the series of statues, by the column of images, by the chariots, by the tensae, by the armamaxae, by the seats, by the crowns, by the spoils, etc. Asconius Pedianus: Tensae moreover are sacred vehicles, a procession of orders, and of victims, and of offices, so called because in front of them thongs (another reading: linen cloths) are stretched, which those who conduct them delight to hold in the hand and to touch. Others prefer that they be so called ἀπὸ τοῦ θείου, that is, from the divine thing; and then it is written thensa, with th. Over these tensae and the spoils of the gods, while they were carried in procession, boys were set as guardians,

I understand from Cicero in the Oration on the Response of the Haruspices, where he says: "If a dancer has stopped, or a piper has suddenly fallen silent, or if that boy with father and mother living has not kept hold of the ground, or of the sacred car, or has let go the thong, or if the Aedile has erred in a word or a nod, are the games not duly performed?" A passage which Arnobius reported almost word for word near the end of Book IV. First, then, in Valerius that passage is to be punctuated and written so that a comma is put after "faceret"; then what follows is to be read continuously, as a whole, without any stop, thus: "When the Aedile was giving the Circensian games, in the temple of Jupiter Best and Greatest a boy actor of outstanding beauty," etc. And so the words "in the temple of Jupiter Best and Greatest" are to be assigned to the latter clause, so that it is understood that the Aedile placed a boy of outstanding beauty in the temple of Jupiter, as it is in Lactantius; and a comma, or half-circle, is not to be put after "templo", as is wrongly done in all the codices of Valerius, because so the words "in the temple of Jupiter Best and Greatest" are joined to the former clause, and it is signified that the Aedile held the Circensian games in the temple of Jupiter, which is plainly false. For those games were not held in temples, but either in the Circus, as appears from the etymology of those games, from Sisinnius Capito in the place cited above, from Dionysius at the end of Antiquities VII, from Cassiodorus in the letter to Faustus, from Volaterranus, Commentaries, Book XXIX, chapter On the Celebration of Games; or in the forum, as Volaterranus reports in the same place; and that this was not the sense of Valerius is understood from Lactantius. Next, instead of "excubias" one must read "exuvias" in both places, from the passages cited above; and so all the best manuscripts here in Lactantius read, B., T., P., twelve Vatican ones, and many editions, the Venetian, the Tridinian and the Florentine of the Giunti, although eight codices of Valerius in the Vatican, and all the printed copies we have seen, and likewise the Aldine edition of Lactantius, have "excubias" throughout; whence beyond doubt Valerius is to be corrected from Lactantius. For which of the Latins ever said "to hold watches" instead of "to keep" or "to have watches"? I conjecture that the error crept in because the old codices had "exubias" or "exsubias" instead of "exuvias"; for in ancient times they commonly substituted the letter b for the letter v: thus they pronounced "connibere" and "coacerbare" and the like for "connivere", "coacervare", as I pointed out in Book III, chapter 4, and Book V, chapter 1. They also added s after x: for they pronounced "exspecto", "exsul", "exsequor"; so that it seems most likely that the scribes or printers, not having grasped the meaning of that word written as I have said, either added or substituted the letter c, and so wrote or printed it as it is corruptly read.

By the fates of unjust Juno. He had in view those words of Virgil, Aeneid VIII:

How he bore a thousand harsh labours / under King Eurystheus by the fates of unjust Juno, etc.

When Hannibal destroyed two armies of the Roman people by both cunning and valour. The history is in Livy, Book II of the third Decade; Plutarch in the Hannibal.

CHAPTER XVIII.

That evil things should fight with good, etc. He says the same in Book V, chapter 7; Book VI, chapters 15 and 22; and Book VII, chapter 4, at the end; and St Thomas in III Against the Gentiles, chapter 71, in the fifth argument, where throughout that chapter he excellently explains why God permits evils to happen and why divine providence does not wholly remove evil from things; on that subject Seneca also composed a notable book, whose title is On Divine Providence. See besides Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names, chapter 3; Basil in the Homily That God Is Not the Author of Evil; Augustine in the Enchiridion, chapters 11 and 96.

Which persuasion utterly takes away truth and religion. Lactantius thought that certain affections, and especially anger, are found truly and properly in God; and he tried to persuade others of the same, not only in this place but in a whole book, to which he gave the title On the Anger of God, where especially in chapters 16 and 17 he asserts it in express words. The falsity of this position and opinion he could have learned at least from his own teacher Arnobius, who often reproaches the Gentiles with it, Book I at the beginning, and Book VII in several places. We know that Tertullian too was entangled in the same error, from the book On the Testimony of the Soul, chapter 2, the book On the Soul, chapter 26, and other places; against whom the Catholic truth is established by St Thomas in the first book Against the Gentiles, chapter 89, namely, that anger befits God neither by reason of its genus, as it is a passion, nor by reason of its proper species. Whenever anger is attributed to God in the sacred Letters, it is taken metaphorically; for since God exercises punishment and vengeance upon the wicked, which in men is usually the effect of anger, we therefore say that God is angry. But since He is altogether simple and immutable, anger, mercy, repentance and the other things of this kind cannot be said of Him properly and according to the affection of passion, but only according to a likeness of effect, as the same St Thomas teaches in the First Part, question 21, article 3.

CHAPTER XIX.

Because it counterfeits the truth by disguise and imitation. But the Bologna reading, "because ... the truth by appearance," etc., is not unsatisfactory either; for "facies" is frequently taken for likeness. Virgil, Georgics IV:

The wave, curved into the likeness of a mountain, stood around.

Sallust, Histories II: "Sardinia, in the African sea, in the likeness of a human footprint."

But a mime of religion, etc. So I read with Pierre du Faur, Semestria II, chapter 16, as I found in the book of the Florentine edition and in several others. For since he had said that the religion of the heathen is pretence, and therefore falsehood, he accordingly says that there is no truth in it, but a mime, that is, merely a certain imitation of religion and of truth; for it is precisely the part of a mime to imitate and pretend. Seneca, Letters, Book V, letter 26, "Just now I was saying": "And so I compose myself for that day on which, with tricks and disguises set aside, I am to pass judgement on myself, whether I speak brave things or feel them, whether whatever defiant words I have hurled against fortune were pretence and a mime." Another reading: "But less of religion."

Whose origin is from heaven. So above, chapter 2, at the end: "Earthly things, who arise from heaven." That is, because human souls are produced by God, who in a singular manner is said to be in heaven, he therefore says that they draw their origin from heaven; for in this sense we rightly say that human souls draw their origin from heaven, or are heavenly or divine, not because they were produced in heaven before their bodies: for that this is not accepted even by Lactantius himself was said above, on chapter 11 of this book.

BOOK III.

CHAPTER III.

For to search out the causes of natural things, etc. So Socrates in Xenophon, Memorabilia of Socrates, Book I, at the beginning; and Cicero treats the same argument in Academic Questions IV.

Whether the sun is as large as it appears, etc. Aristotle, Meteorologica I, Summa I, chapter 3, near the end, says that it is very childish to think that each of the things that are borne in the heaven is small because it appears so to those looking out from here;

and in chapter 2 of On Dreams he writes that the sense is deceived in this, that the sun appears a foot across. Read Plato in the Epinomis; Lucretius V; Cicero, Academics II; Cleomedes, Book II; Pliny II, chapter 11; Plutarch, Opinions [of the Philosophers], Book II, chapter 21 and following; Laertius on Anaximander, and Epicurus's letter to Pythocles in Laertius on Epicurus; Macrobius on the Dream of Scipio, Book I, chapter 20; Basil, Homily 6 on the Hexaemeron. And in general, on all these questions mentioned here by Lactantius, see Gianfrancesco Pico, On the Vanity of the Teaching of the Gentiles, Book I, chapter 12.

The moon globular, etc. Plutarch, Placita book II, chapter 27.

And whether the stars are fixed to the heaven. The opinion of Anaximander, as Plutarch reports in Placita book II, chapter 16, and Aristotle in On the Heavens book II; today accepted by all philosophers and mathematicians.

Or whether they are borne through the air in a free course. A question debated not only by the Stoics, as in Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods book II, and by other philosophers, but also by the Fathers: whether the stars are fixed to the orbs themselves, so that they are turned only by their revolution, or whether, the heaven being motionless, or, as Chrysostom said, the air being spread beneath, and that permeable and yielding, they are borne along and carried round by divine decree, or with a soul itself as their guide. Procopius, Commentary on Genesis, chapter 1: Some declare that the luminaries wander in the air at a long distance from the heaven, far removed from the heaven, etc. Elias of Crete on the seventh Oration of Nazianzen: And therefore, he says, they teach that not even all the stars are fixed in the heaven, but that they rest upon the air, which supports them just as it does birds, etc. But what is to be understood here by the air Junilius shows on the Hexaemeron: But it is to be understood, he says, that it was said that the birds fly along the firmament of heaven for this reason, that by this name the ether also is indicated, that is, that upper space of the air which reaches from this turbulent and murky place in which the birds fly as far as the stars, which is not without reason believed to be wholly tranquil and full of light. For the seven wandering stars, which are said to be borne roving in this space of the ether, Scripture said were placed in the firmament of heaven, etc. And Anselm of Canterbury, On the Image of the World book I, chapter 3: Fire, he says, the ether, is called as it were pure air, and rejoices in perpetual splendour. From this the angels take bodies when they come sent to men. In this the seven stars are borne each in its own circle against the world, and on account of their wandering course they are called planets, that is, wanderers, etc. That the stars are moved by their own motions and are not fixed to the heaven was the view also of Philo the Jew in the book On the Giants; Justin Martyr in the book Against Aristotle and in the Questions to the Orthodox 59 and 93; Origen, Against Celsus book V, and On First Principles book I, chapter 7; Lactantius below, chapter 24; Eusebius of Emesa on chapter 1 of Genesis, cited in the Catena of Lippomano; Diodorus of Tarsus, as in the same Catena; and Chrysostom, Homily 6 on Genesis.

Whether it is at rest or movable, etc. This is the more accepted reading. But codex B has whether it is at rest and immovable, with which Isidore agrees, quoting this whole passage word for word in Origins book II, chapter 24. Seneca, Natural Questions book VII, chapter 2: To this too, he says, it will belong to have examined this, so that we may know whether the world goes round while the earth stands still, or the earth turns while the world stands still, etc. That the heaven is at rest and the earth alone moves was believed by Nicetas of Syracuse, as Theophrastus reports in Cicero, Academics book IV, and by Cleanthes of Samos, as Plutarch relates in the book On the Face in the Orb of the Moon; Plato too, according to some, although he expressed it somewhat obscurely. But I see that this same most paradoxical [opinion] has also been approved by certain more recent writers: Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, On Learned Ignorance book II, chapter 12; Caelius Calcagninus; Copernicus. See the notes on chapter 24 of this very book.

How great the thickness of the earth is. Plato at the end of the Phaedo; Cleomedes book I; Macrobius, On the Dream of Scipio book I, chapter 20.

On what foundations it is balanced. Plato, as above; Ptolemy, Almagest book III, chapter 7; Cicero in the Academics.

Although it may seem to wink at it. This reading is found in most [manuscripts]; certain codices have conticere [to fall silent]; in B connibere is written, evidently from that pronunciation by which they formerly uttered b for v in certain words: thus connibentia for conniventia is often found in the Theodosian Code, and in John Cassian in the Vatican codices, book VI, chapter 9, and book VIII, chapter 8. A glossary also has connibentia ῥαθυμία [indifference]. Pedro Chacón pointed this out in his Annotations on the same Cassian.

Chapter IV.

Those Sown Men of the poets. I would hardly believe, as Janus Gulielmius does in his Questions on Plautus' Menaechmi, chapter 4, that Lactantius wrote Spartiatae, as in almost all

the printed editions it is found; that would have been the work of a plainly unskilled man: but in Greek Σπάρτοι, that is, "sown" or "seeded", as Pliny too renders that Greek noun, book 19, chapter 1, at the end; or rather that Lactantius wrote Spartae in Latin letters, with οι turned into the diphthong ae, as one of those nouns which the Latins used to pronounce in Latin, yet with a Greek inflexion; as acta, ἡ ἀκτή, shore. Virgil, book 5:

But far off on the lonely shore the Trojan women, set apart, were weeping for lost Anchises, etc.

Cicero, 7th Verrine: "He could hardly keep his wife with him on the shore for so many days with a free and easy mind." Likewise probata, πρόβατα, sheep: Pliny, book 7, chapter 2: "By whose praise sheep perish and trees wither," etc. The scribes, not grasping the meaning of that word, at once suspected an error, seized upon another similar to it that lay to hand, and, substituting Spartiatae for Spartae, brought an error, and indeed a notable one, into this passage: which crept into almost all the codices, manuscript as well as printed; for the edition corrected by Janus Parrhasius and the Florentine edition of the Giunti present the true reading. Well known is the fable of Euripides, Ovid and others, which the author also mentions again in book 6, chapter 16, concerning the dragon's teeth sown by Cadmus, from which armed men sprang up who were called in Greek Σπάρτοι, that is, "sown". Censorinus, On the Birthday, chapter 3: "But now," he says, "the licence of poetic fancy has gone so far that it invents things scarcely to be endured by the ear; that after the memory of men, when nations had already been generated and cities founded, men were brought forth from the earth in diverse ways, as in the Attic region Erichtonius is said to have sprung from the seed of Vulcan, and in Colchis, or Boeotia, when the serpent's teeth had been sown, armed Spartae" (for so, or Σπάρτοι, should be read there too, not, as corruptly in the printed editions, "armed offspring", as the same Guilielmus most rightly advised in book 3 of the Verisimilia, chapter 5) "of whom, when they had killed one another, a few are reported to have survived, who were a help to Cadmus in the founding of Thebes," etc. Apollodorus, near the beginning of the third book of the Bibliotheca, where he speaks of Cadmus: "Wherefore," he says, "Cadmus in indignation killed the Dragon, and on Minerva's advice sowed its teeth, from which, when sown, armed men sprang up out of the earth, to whom the name Sparti was given. These afterwards killed one another with mutual wounds, some indeed having joined battle even unwillingly, others because one in no way recognized the other," etc. On them, Gellius, book 17, chapter 3. He reports that Marcus Varro mentioned that verse of Homer which is read near the beginning of Iliad 2, explaining "And now the timbers have rotted," etc. Euripides too mentions it both elsewhere and in the Phoenissae, and Eustathius on that phrase of the second book of the Iliad "Pharis and Sparta", and Stephanus in On Cities, under Sparta.

"Arcesilas, founder of the Academy." Of the New, that is; for the Old was the Platonic one, Laertius in the Life of Arcesilas, Cicero at the end of part 1 of the Academic Questions, and On the Orator 3.

Chapter VI.

"For in order that it may be known that nothing can be known, it is necessary that something be known," etc. There is a question among the ancients and the moderns, whether those who denied the comprehension of all truth could reserve and retain for themselves, as the end of their Philosophy, the truth of at least this one proposition, by which they said that no truth can be given, and on which the denial of all other truths rested. That is to say, this truth is given, that no truth can be given. Lactantius affirmed it in this passage, and long before him Socrates, Antipater, and Antiochus the hearer of Philo, concerning whom Cicero in the Academics; then Clement of Alexandria in the last book of the Stromata; Averroes on Metaphysics 4, text 28; Saint Thomas, first part, question 2, article 1, reply to 3, and there his commentator Cajetan. Arcesilas and Carneades denied it, in Cicero, in the place cited above, and Metrodorus of Chios, Lucretius 4, John Duns on Sentences 1, distinction 2, question 2, reply to 3, Gregory of Rimini, same distinction, question 1, reply to 2; on which matter see my fellow citizen Mazzoni discussing it subtly and throwing light on this passage of Lactantius, On the Comparison of Plato and Aristotle, book 1, section 3, chapter 2.

Chapter VII.

Epicurus holds that the highest good lies in the pleasure of the mind. What is brought forward in this place about the opinions of the philosophers on the highest good is taken almost entirely from Cicero's Lucullus towards the end, and from book 2 of On Ends; and some have indeed believed this about Epicurus, although the greatest part of the writers affirm that he placed man's good in bodily pleasures. Indeed, Lactantius himself, hardly consistent with himself, below in ch. 17 calls him a champion of the pleasure of the body, and in ch. 27 a man given to pleasure, from Cicero, Tusculans 2; and yet it is clear from his letters that Seneca, the greatest of the Stoics, whose doctrines shrink violently from the pleasures of the body, was a most zealous admirer of Epicurus, for he chose to close almost all of them with some precept of Epicurus; and he gives his opinion of him in chs. 12 and 13 of On the Happy Life. But what the highest good is, and what pleasure Epicurus says is the end, he himself states as his own opinion in the letter to Menoeceus, in Laertius' Life of Epicurus, in clear and eloquent words; and Cicero too mentions this opinion in the first book of On Ends. Petrus Victorius, Variae Lectiones book 27, ch. 14, maintains that he was very like Socrates; and Laertius testifies that most people asserted he was extremely self-restrained, so much so that he was content with water alone and coarse bread.

Callipho and Dinomachus, Cyrenaics. I do not at all understand how these philosophers, who in determining the highest good joined honour with pleasure, are called Cyrenaics by Lactantius, since this position differs enormously from the opinion of Aristippus, who placed the highest good in bodily pleasures alone. Certainly, that Aristippus was the founder of the Cyrenaics, and that this sect of philosophers sprang from him, is attested by Cicero at the end of the Lucullus and in Offices 3, Strabo at the end of book 17, Laertius in the Life of Aristippus, Suidas under the letter η, and indeed by Lactantius himself in this same book, ch. 15.

Diodorus, with the absence of pain. Hieronymus placed the highest good in not feeling pain. That this passage must certainly be read and punctuated thus, as Ciacconius long ago observed, both reason itself and Cicero, from whom Lactantius borrowed almost all of this, conclusively prove. For if you read, "Diodorus placed the highest good in the absence of pain: Hieronymus in not feeling pain," as it is commonly read, what difference will there then be between the opinion of Diodorus and the opinion of Hieronymus? But it is clear from Cicero that the difference is this: Diodorus did not place the highest good simply in not feeling pain, but joined honour as well with freedom from pain; whereas Hieronymus placed it simply, with nothing added, in not feeling pain. Cicero, On Ends 2, a little after the beginning: "Callipho joined pleasure to honour; Diodorus added freedom from pain to the same honour." And a little below: "Callipho added nothing to virtue except pleasure, Diodorus nothing except freedom from pain"; and below: "Thus there are three ends devoid of honour, one of Aristippus or Epicurus, the second of Hieronymus, the third of Carneades; three in which there is honour with some addition, those of Polemo, Callipho, Diodorus," etc. He repeats the same at the end of the Lucullus and in On Offices 3.

Chapter VIII.

The Cyrenaics say that virtue itself is to be praised on this ground, that it produces pleasure, etc. So Cicero towards the end of On Offices: "But those from Aristippus, the philosophers called Cyrenaics and Annicerians, placed all good in pleasure, and held that virtue is to be praised for this reason, that it produces pleasure." These things therefore are not contrary to each other, that they should both place the highest good in pleasure and yet think virtue praiseworthy; for pleasure they embraced simply and for its own sake, but virtue not for its own sake, but for the sake of pleasure itself, that is, only in so far as it was, as it were, a cause or occasion of pleasure for them.

Not at all of the Peripatetics. Janus Gulielmus, in his inquiries on Plautus' Menaechmi, ch. 4, thinks it should be read,

plano Peripateticorum; so that by a new compounding of a word Lactantius attacked both the inconstancy of their disputing and at the same time the wandering walking-about of the Aristotelians: for it is well known that vagabonds are called plani.

Sed Cynicorum ("but of the Cynics"). Here too Janus, in the same place, thinks Clinicorum should be read, and testifies that it is so read in certain manuscript codices: that Lactantius mockingly called the philosophers Clinici, as sick men fastened to their beds and disputing about the happy life of the healthy in the terms that present sickness dictates, and that he alluded to the clinical physicians, who go round the beds of the sick.

Per quod necesse est ad aliud perveniri ("through which one must arrive at something else"). So it is to be read from B. T. P. and all the best manuscripts, not, as faultily in the printed editions, propter quod ("on account of which"), etc. For he is speaking of the means, per quod pervenitur ("through which one arrives"); and above he had said, per laborem, per virtutem ("through labour, through virtue"), etc.

Chapter IX.

Quae dixerunt ("which they said"). So it is to be read from the two B., Sancti Salvatoris, P., and some Vatican [manuscripts], not qui dixerunt ("who said"). For this is Lactantius' meaning, that he says that none of those things which the philosophers themselves said to be the highest good is any such thing, etc.

Chapter X.

Neque tam immansueta, neque tam fera ("neither so untamed nor so wild"), etc. So all the printed editions have it, and many manuscripts, and Cicero himself, both in On the Laws 1, from which this sentence was drawn, and in the Tusculans 1, from which comes this other very similar one: "Because," he says, "no nation is so wild, no one of all men so savage, that belief in the gods has not imbued his mind." Yet both codices of S. Salvator, T., P., and several Vatican ones have neque tam mansueta ("nor so tame"), etc., a reading which pleased Thomasius more. I did not wish to depart from the reading of Cicero himself.

Chapter XI.

Nullum omnino philosophorum extitisse, qui sedem, ac domicilium summi boni reperiret ("that there has been no philosopher at all who found the seat and dwelling of the highest good"). He refutes the opinions of the ancients concerning the highest good, on which see Aristotle, Ethics 1, ch. 6; Boethius, On the Consolation of Philosophy, book 2; St Thomas, Contra Gentiles 3, ch. 27 and following, and in the Prima Secundae, the whole of question 2.

Et optantur ("and they are desired"), etc. The negative is not to be added, as in B., which has et non optantur ("and are not desired"), etc. For what he denies, that riches are the highest good, he proves by this argument, that they do not satisfy the mind; nay rather, they are sought more and more even by those who possess them. Seneca, Letter 120, at quoties aliquid: "Money," he says, "has made no one rich; on the contrary, it has struck into everyone a greater desire for itself. Do you ask what the cause of this is? He who has more begins to be able to have more."

Chapter XII.

Menoeceus. See Tully, Tusculans 1; Statius, Thebaid 10; Plutarch in the Pelopidas; Juvenal, Satire 14; Pausanias in the Boeotian book.

Codrus. Valerius Maximus, book 5, the chapter on Piety towards the Fatherland; Cicero, Tusculans 1.

Curtius. Valerius Maximus in the place cited above; Livy, book 7, 1st Decade; Suidas under Λιβερνίδων.

Et Mures duo nunquam mortem ("and the two Mures never death"), etc. I have expressed the reading of 11 Vatican [manuscripts]. I think that, because Mures was a word not well enough known, it was rejected as if it were an error, whence it came to be written et Decii duo nunquam, etc., as in 1 Vatican and Pen.; or else that the word Decii, which had been placed in the margin as a gloss on those words et Mures duo, at length crept into the text, and so it came about that we have et Mures duo Decii nunquam, etc., as many editions have. But B. and T. have: Mutius et duo Decii nunquam, etc. But that the Decii were called Mures by cognomen we learn from Livy at the beginning of [book] 8, 1st Decade, who says of the father Decius, when he was created consul: "they created as consuls Titus Manlius Torquatus for the third time [and] Publius Decius Mus." How both of them devoted themselves for the Republic, see the same Livy, the said books 8 and 10, 1st Decade; Valerius 5; Seneca, Letter 68, at ut a communibus, etc.

Quoniam illud ad hanc vitam retulerunt ("since they referred that to this life"). So, from B. and P., the reading of the printed editions has been corrected, quoniam ad illum in

hanc vitam, etc., which here makes no sense.

In this one way can we be happy in this life, if we seem least of all to be happy. These words agree remarkably with those of our Saviour in John ch. 12 (John 12:25): He who hates his soul in this world keeps it unto eternal life.

Chapter XIII.

To which Socrates, having cast everything else aside, is said to have devoted himself. That is, by Xenophon in book 1 of the Memorabilia of Socrates, by Aristotle in Metaphysics book 1, chapter 5, and book 13, Summa 2, chapter 1, and in On the Parts of Animals book 1, chapter 1, and by Laertius in the Socrates.

He who finds fault with the pursuit of which, etc. Cicero's text differs somewhat.

Chapter XIV.

A vessel for you at the spring. All the printed editions, and many manuscripts, have pipes at the spring. When, in order to work out the meaning of this saying, I had turned over all the Greek and Latin authors and had made no progress at all, it finally occurred to me, suspecting a corruption, to consult the Vatican codices, and I found that ten of them have it written as I have had it printed, very aptly indeed, and most fittingly for Firmianus's sense. I think the corruption crept in because the exemplar from which the copyists were taking it down perhaps had those two words joined together thus, tibivas, and since this made no sense, they at once wrote tibias. A vessel for you at the spring is, as I think, an adage borrowed from some comic poet, and it can apply to one to whom something befalls, as he would wish and to his advantage, without labour, the comparison being drawn from one who comes to a spring without a flask and yet finds a vessel there ready by good fortune, with which to draw water and carry it away with him. Yet I have found this adage nowhere else so far. Lactantius therefore jests in his usual manner and mocks Lucretius, who said that wisdom was found by some man, as though that man whom he was praising, whether it was Pythagoras, or Thales, or whoever else it may have been, had come upon it lying somewhere just so and ready, so that the proverb could apply to him, A vessel for you at the spring.

And He fashioned man. So all the printed editions; but B. P. have and He begot man. Both readings are familiar to Lactantius: book 4, chapter 4: For it is necessary that He fashioned man, etc.; book 7, chapter 14: The fashioning of earthly man foreshadowed the forming of a heavenly people in time to come; Epitome chapter 7: For since the nature of men is weaker than that of the other living creatures, which God fashioned both equipped for inflicting violence and armed for repelling it.

But to me not only for wisdom, etc. Sigonius, on the fragments of Cicero, thinks that these words have fallen out of some book of the Academic Questions.

The precepts of philosophy indeed are to be learned, etc. These words are thought to have fallen out of the letters to his son Marcus.

Chapter XV.

Philosophy, etc. You have similar things in letter 90, A useful thing, 91, Who could doubt, and 95, That part of philosophy.

How few, he says, of the philosophers, etc. This passage reads somewhat differently in the Tusculans.

You would think they had turned informer. I have followed this reading of the B. codex and of the Junta edition, together with Thomasius; for those others, to their own judgement, or to the judgement of themselves, or you would think they had professed their own judgement, which are found in some manuscripts and printed editions, seem hardly Latin (as Budaeus also notes) and hardly fit to express Lactantius's sense. Now to turn informer is voluntarily to report and denounce oneself and one's partners in crime. Marcianus in law 1, Digest, on the Cornelian law on assassins: Or who, when he was a magistrate or presided over a public court, has contrived that someone should give false information. For so Budaeus reads that passage in his Annotations on the Pandects; Prateius in the Thesaurus of civil law, under the entry to turn informer; and Brisson, books 9 and 14 On the Meaning of Words. Scaevola in the law Athales, Digest, on the Cornelian law on forgery: he turned informer (so the Florentine Pandects read) before Maximilla,

etc. Sallust in the Jugurtha: "But he himself, being caught, at the urging of many, and above all of Albianus the consul, offers to turn informer." Asconius: "Nor can a person of senatorial rank turn informer without breaking the laws." Suetonius in the Domitian: "And having professed information of a conspiracy, and having been admitted on this account, as [the emperor] was reading the document handed over by him and was astounded, he stabbed him in the groin." Pliny, Letters, book 3, letter 16: "The same woman, before Claudius, when the wife of Scribonianus was offering information, said: 'Am I to listen to you, in whose lap Scribonianus was killed, and you are still alive?'" Thus therefore, when the philosophers inveighed sharply against the lustful, the avaricious, or those greedy for honour, while they themselves were overwhelmed by the same crimes, all understood that the curses they sent out in public so redounded upon themselves that by their discoursing they seemed to accomplish nothing other than of their own accord to confess themselves, as guilty of the same vices, so also worthy of the same censure and punishment; and not only to accuse and denounce others before the people, but themselves together with them. And this is, as we have said, "to profess information".

Aristippus, master of the Cyrenaics, had an intimacy with Lais, a famous harlot, etc. Cicero, Letters to Friends, book 9, the last letter, to Papirius, Paetus; Athenaeus, book 12, ch. 20; Laertius in the Aristippus.

Discoursing that pleasure of the body is the highest good. For this reason Xenophon, with a mind hostile towards him, composed a book against pleasure, as Laertius relates in the Aristippus.

Chapter XVI.

Statesmen, to govern the commonwealth. These words of Cicero have been lost.

Surely, he says, all the disputation of these men, etc. This passage is thought to have fallen out of Cicero's Hortensius, or On Philosophy, in which one must read istorum ("of these men"), as Andraeas Patricius also pointed out in his Notes on the Fragments of Cicero, and it is found in all the Vatican, and the B. T. P., and other excellent manuscripts; not, as faultily in the printed editions, justorum ("of the just"). Next, in the clause "I fear lest it seem to have brought not so much to the business of men as a certain delight of leisure", I have followed the more accepted reading; for so the 9 Vatican manuscripts, P., the Aldine, and the edition of Cicero's works corrected by Lambinus have it, and Patricius approves it in the said Notes, except that the printed editions have ne tantum, but the manuscripts ne non tantum. B. has "lest it seem to have brought as much of usefulness to the business of men as of delight to their leisure". Patricius also brings forward other readings; but to me, to tell the truth, none is pleasing, nor does it please me to guess.

Not yet, he says, a thousand years, etc. See also the 91st letter of the same Seneca, "Who [could] doubt".

With savoury wares, etc. Gulielmus Canterus, New Readings book 3, ch. 30, reads † with a capital letter, Saporis; for he thinks that Lactantius spoke of the wares of Sapor, king of the Persians: but this explanation can in no way be accepted, since it can by no means be fitted to the verse of Persius quoted in this place, who lived many years before King Sapor. For this reason it was rightly refuted by Robertus Titius, Disputed Passages book 9, ch. 3, who brought forward the true and genuine interpretation, as I think: namely, that Lactantius supposed Persius to mean in that place that philosophy was imported into the City together with saporis, that is, savoured or tasty wares, which had begun to be brought from Asia not long before, of which kind are pepper and other spices of that sort; and that at the same time he alluded to the name of wisdom (sapientia), which he would have derived, as if in contempt, from flavour (sapor), which it drew from those wares with which it was itself brought to us: and so Titius holds that this saporis is the ablative plural of the adjective saporus, sapora, saporum, newly formed indeed by Lactantius, yet in imitation and after the example of other quite similar words, as from odor, odorus, odora, odorum; from vapor, vaporus, etc.; from canor, canorus; from honor, honorus, etc.

Chapter XVII.

But because the popular name of pleasure attracts many. But Lactantius, on the contrary, asserted above in ch. 7 that Epicurus

was a champion of pleasure not of the senses but of the mind.

Ipse suas disturbet. Lucretius: saepe suas disturbet, etc.

In the books of his Consulship. These have perished; but the verses which he quotes are found in On Divination 2, where the second verse differs a little; for there [it reads]:

He himself once sought his own tombs and temples.

There is, he says, no ordering; for many things have been made otherwise than they ought to have been made, etc. All that Lucretius raves is Epicurus', as Firmianus himself said in the book On the Workmanship [of God], chapter 6. Here, then, he alludes to those words of Lucretius in book 2, near the beginning:

But some, ignorant of matter, against these things, etc.

And in book 5, near the beginning:

But even if I did not know what the first-beginnings of things are, etc.

Nothing, he says, in the begetting of animals, etc. Lucretius 4:

In these matters take forethought strongly to flee that fault and to avoid that error, lest you make the lights of the eyes, etc.

But all things must come about of their own accord, etc. That is, by the concourse of infinite atoms. Lucretius 2, towards the end:

First, for us in all directions on every side, etc.

It is not, he says, the work of providence; for there are seeds flying about through the void, etc. Lucretius 2:

Come now, by what motion the generative bodies of matter beget various things, etc.

Because they have, he says, neither colour nor any heat, etc. Lucretius 1.

Come now, since I have taught that things cannot be created from nothing, etc.

Likewise in the second [book]:

Come now, take in words sought out by my sweet labour, etc.,

up to the end of the book.

Those little bodies? On which see Aristotle, On the Soul 1, text 20; Lucretius, On the Nature of Things 1 and 2; Cicero, On Ends 1 and On the Nature of the Gods 1; Plutarch, Opinions 1; Laertius in his Epicurus; and again Lactantius himself in the book On the Anger of God, chapter 10.

They come together, he says, in varied order and position. Lucretius in the second [book]:

Come now, next of what kind the beginnings of all things are, etc.

So, he says, these very first-beginnings too; for some are rough, some are hooked, etc. Lucretius in the second [book]:

It is now very easy for us to explain the nature of the mind.

Praestinxit stellas. I have not hesitated to restore this verse in Lactantius as it is read in the corrected [texts of] Lucretius; for extinxit, which is found here and also in Lucretius in some editions, or restrinxit, which is found in others, do not seem to express Lucretius' sense according to his mind. See Lambinus' Castigationes on Lucretius, book 3, verse 1056.

When death is, we are not. That this is the true reading is clear from B. T. P. and all the Vatican [manuscripts], and from Epicurus himself in the letter to Menoeceus in Laertius, not that which is commonly found, when we are not, death is.

In which we too are no longer. I judge that this reading can in no way be approved, however much it is presented by all both manuscripts and printed editions; for it conflicts with the argument undertaken by Lactantius against Epicurus. For if there is some time in which we too are no longer and death is not yet, Epicurus rightly said that at that time death is nothing to us. But Lactantius wishes to show, on the contrary, what is in fact the case, namely that there is some moment of time in which we both are, that is, then

when we begin to die, and yet death does not yet exist, that is, death completed and past, but only begun; at which time indeed it brings great pains and miseries upon the dying man, and therefore it is to be feared. Wherefore I for my part believe that I can clearly swear that Lactantius wrote "when we still exist", etc. This reading fits most aptly both with what precedes and with what follows; for he says: "as if indeed death completed were feared, because sense has already been taken away, and not the dying itself by which sense is taken away." You see that Lactantius speaks of death not as it is completed, but as it is impending, namely at the moment when it takes away sense. If it takes away sense, then we still exist. He also says: "and this very thing seems to be wretched, that death both begins to exist and we cease to exist." How do we cease to exist if, according to the former reading, "we no longer exist"? But truly we cease for this reason, that we have not yet ceased: rather we still exist, and death does not yet exist, completed death that is, because it only begins to exist and to bring pains: whence it is rightly to be feared, as Lactantius said and Epicurus denied. The genuine reading, therefore, as I at least judge, is obtained by a very small change, namely by placing the copula after that pronoun and by substituting a negative for the word num.

Chapter XVIII.

As Cleanthes. Who was carried off by starvation of his own accord. Laertius.

As Chrysippus. This is not so certain concerning Chrysippus; for some relate that, when he had drunk somewhat too freely, he was worn down by shortness of breath and at last killed; others, however, that he breathed out his soul from excessive laughter. Laertius.

As Zeno. Laertius asserts that he too was cut off not by a voluntary death, but by one inflicted by others.

As Empedocles, who [threw] himself into the [crater] of burning Etna, etc. Well known is that line of Horace in the Art of Poetry:

While Empedocles desires to be held an immortal god, in his heat he leapt into burning Etna, etc.

He leapt into, etc. But Strabo, book 6, says that this is a fable, and Laertius notes that writers have handed down different accounts of his death.

Cato. Namely the Younger, as Seneca, Letter 24, "Sollicitum", and Plutarch in his Life.

Democritus. Besides Lucretius, Athenaeus, book 2, chapter 3, and Laertius.

For just as we did not come into this life of our own accord, etc. Lactantius took this from Cicero, in the Dream of Scipio and Tusculans 1; Cicero from Plato, at the beginning of the Phaedo.

And he was driven to the supreme crime by the authority of a philosopher. But Plato did not teach that; on the contrary, he asserted that man is under the guardianship of God, and that it is not lawful for him to depart except when God wills, as is clear from the beginning of the Phaedo. He did indeed advise that the soul is to be separated from the body, namely in such a way that the soul should be detached from the passions through the purification of moral discipline, then from the senses, and from imagination itself through the concentration of contemplation. Therefore it was not by the authority of the philosopher, but by his own madness, which failed to grasp the philosopher's meaning, that he was driven to so great a crime.

That Ambraciot, etc. Namely Cleombrotus, about whom Callimachus [writes]; Cicero, Tusculans 1.

To that foolish old man, etc. Namely Pythagoras, about whom Laertius, Philostratus, book 8 of the Life of Apollonius, and Gellius, book 4, chapter 11. And here observe how he mocks the doctrine of souls created before bodies, which some have falsely attributed to Lactantius himself.

Chapter XIX.

And let us rejoice. This passage has dropped out of those books On the Laws.

That foolish saying. Of Euripides and of others. Verses of Euripides from Greek writers are indeed cited by Stobaeus, and by Theodorus Canterus, Variae lectiones, book 2, chapter 12, and likewise verses of Aristophanes. Plato's words in the Gorgias are: But yet that life also which you speak of is grievous; nor should I wonder if the saying of Euripides on that matter were true: Who knows whether to live indeed

is to die, while to die is to live? etc. Cicero in the Dream of Scipio: Nay rather, he says, those live who have flown out of the bonds of their bodies as out of a prison; but what is called your life is death; and in the first Tusculan, a little after the middle: For this life indeed is death, which I could lament, if I pleased.

To die as soon as possible, as if to escape from a fire the violence of fortune. This reading pleases Andreas Patritius in his Annotations on the Fragments of Cicero. Some old books, and Francesco Petrarca in book 1 of the Seniles, in the letter to Giovanni Boccaccio, have: as soon as possible as if from a fire to escape of fortune. Six Vatican manuscripts, whose reading Sigonius follows in his Scholia on the Fragments of Cicero, have: To die as soon as possible, and as if from a fire to escape the violence of fortune. Four other Vatican manuscripts have: as soon as possible as if from a fire to escape the violence of fortune.

It did not come into Plato's mind that Alcibiades also and Critias, etc. These things seem to have been taken from Xenophon, Memorabilia of Socrates book 1, who testifies that the accusers of Socrates added this too to the heads of their accusation, that Critias and Alcibiades, after they had heard Socrates, had inflicted many harms on the city: a calumny which Xenophon there refutes at length. But Isocrates in the Busiris denies that Alcibiades was ever a disciple of Socrates.

Chapter XX.

Evidently he meant what he said, that religion is not to be served at all. He levels a calumny against Socrates; for how his saying is to be understood, Xenophon makes plain in the Memorabilia. But did any of the heathen ever discourse more piously about the gods above, about divine providence, about religion, than Socrates in Xenophon himself, disputing with Euthydemus at the beginning of Memorabilia book 4, and more often in Plato?

The same man used to swear by a dog and a goose. As is often read in Plato, and as Athenaeus records, book 9, chapter 20. Tertullian reproaches Socrates, Apology chapter 14, for swearing not only by a dog, as an insult to God, but also by a sheep and an oak. But Apollonius, discoursing on this matter with Thespion in Philostratus, Life of Apollonius book 6, says that Socrates was accustomed to swear by these things not because he thought them gods, but so as not to swear by the gods; and Saint Augustine too interprets these oaths of Socrates kindly, in the book On True Religion, chapter 20.

Recuperator. So read, as in the Aldine, although B., T., P. and the Florentine have receptorem. He says ironically that Socrates feared lest, sued in a recuperatory action by Aesculapius before the judge Rhadamanthus as recuperator, on account of the cock vowed to him, he should be condemned in the case. Judges were called recuperatores, as Theophilus writes on § Eadem, Institutes, title For what causes manumission is not permitted, because through them each man received back what was owed to him. I would have preferred recuperabat, so that it might have served the etymology he was offering. Recuperatores are mentioned in Cicero, On Invention book 2, and in the Oration for the Manilian Law, towards the end; Suetonius, Vespasian chapter 3; Pliny, the last letter but one of book 3.

Chapter XXI.

To consist in equity. Aequitas here is not ἐπιείκεια, but ἰσότης, that is, equality.

Marriages too, he says, will have to be common. Aristotle also writes against Plato, Politics book 2, but Cardinal Bessarion explains him in book 4 Against the Calumniator of Plato, chapter 3.

The city will be harmonious, etc. Plato does not have this word for word; but the sense is drawn here and there from the fifth book of the Republic.

Chapter XXII.

Since indeed there will be nothing belonging to another that is to be kept off. Very many printed editions and manuscripts retain this reading, and it is the best, whatever Thomasius may say; for we say quite correctly that a thing abstinetur, as if it were held far off and debarred. Lactantius book 7, chapter 17, abstinebit

imbres, etc. Livy: "Fortune kept Alexander the Great away from a Roman war." The Florentine edition has siquidem nihil fuerit, quo abstineatur, etc.; the Bologna edition siquidem nullus fuerit, quo abstineat alieno. But the former expression, which we have approved, is all the more elegant for being more recondite and less hackneyed.

Geniales toros. So I have restored it, as I found it in some Vatican manuscripts, and as Petrus Fabrius long ago advised it should be read, in Semestria 2, chapter 1, and Joannes Meursius in Criticae Arnobianae 4, chapter 10; others have genitales toros.

In orbe terrae. I do not well understand on what rules of rhetoric Lactantius, that consummate rhetorician, relied when he said orbem terrae here, and in book 2, chapter 14, and book 4, chapters 1, 14 and 24, and often elsewhere, since he flatly denies below, in chapter 24, that the earth is of spherical shape.

Chapter XXIII.

Si donasset. And indeed Valerius Maximus, book 8, in the chapter On Study and Industry, writes that he gave [it] to his country. Lactantius followed Cicero, On Ends 5, and Seneca, On Divine Providence, towards the end, and Philo, On the Contemplative Life, near the beginning.

Quid ille, qui patrimonium in nummos redactum effudit in mare? He means Crates the Theban philosopher, following in the story Philostratus in the Life of Apollonius, who writes that he came to poverty in that way, as also does Suidas under Anaxagoras. But Demetrius Magnes in Laertius, in the Life of Crates, and the same Suidas under Crates son of Asconidas, say that he deposited his whole substance, converted into money, with a banker on this condition: that if his sons were laymen, the banker should give it back to them, but if philosophers, he should distribute it to the needy, reckoning, of course, that philosophers would lack nothing.

Zenonis autem paria peccata quis probat? Cicero approves them in the Paradoxes, and Cato in the same author, in the Speech for Murena and at the end of On Ends 4.

Quod est ab omnibus semper irrisum. Plutarch, in the comparison of Demosthenes with Cicero, records that it was indeed laughed at by the whole Senate, when Cicero himself, pleading the cause of Murena against Cato, was carping at that doctrine of Zeno.

Ad conspectum alterius hominis efferaretur. So the Aldine and the Florentine, Pen. and many other manuscripts, from which reading I have not wished to depart, although Thom. with B. and T. reads a conspectu alterius hominis auferretur. For Lactantius is speaking against Zeno, who removed the feeling of compassion from man: but if pity were taken away, man's feeling would necessarily turn savage. And if man, says Lactantius, turned savage after the manner of solitary-roaming animals, society would be destroyed.

Qui nigram dixit esse nivem. He alludes to Anaxagoras, as below in book 5, chapter 3, of whom Galen records this in On the Powers of Simple Medicines 2. And Aristotle, Topics 1, at the end of chapter 9, said that such a man was lacking in sense.

Hic est ille etc. Against whom he argued above, in chapter 9.

Intra concavum lunae sinum esse aliam terram. Besides Xenophanes, as in Cicero's Lucullus, Pythagoras too seems to have held this, who taught that in the moon and the other stars there are the four elements, mountains, valleys, plants also, and all the things that are among us. Yet these things were said by them mystically, as Iamblichus points out in On the Symbols of Pythagoras, and as St Thomas relates on Aristotle On the Heavens 2, text and commentary 49, towards the end: "Because, namely, the forms of effects are in a certain way in their causes; and the heavenly bodies are the causes of the lower bodies," etc.

Fuisse Seneca inter Stoicos ait, qui, etc. I have read nothing about this in Seneca.

Chapter XXIV.

Quid illi, qui esse contrarios vestigiis nostris antipodas putant? Concerning whom Cicero in the Lucullus. Lactantius indeed asserts many paradoxes in this chapter, on which account he is hissed off by some. Although I admit that he turned aside from the truth, yet since he had very weighty and very wise men, as I shall now show,

as either the authors or the followers of his opinions, I should indeed think those men more deserving to be hissed off who have thought so distinguished a man so rashly deserving to be hissed off. In the first place, he holds that there are no antipodes, which Eratosthenes, Polybius, Strabo, Tzetzes in the Chiliads, and Lucretius, book 1 towards the end, also asserted. This position is also asserted in Plutarch, in the dialogue On the Face in the Orb of the Moon. Of our own writers, St Augustine, book 16 of the City of God, chapter 9, and Nicholas of Lyra on Genesis at the beginning held the same, and after them whoever utterly denied that the earth is spherical, of whom a little below. But the true opinion concerning the antipodes, opposed to this one, is approved by Macrobius, book 1 on the Dream of Scipio, chapter 5, where he overturns the arguments of Lactantius; Pliny, Natural History 2, chapter 65; Martianus Capella at the beginning of book 6; Cleomedes, Meteora 2, chapter 2; Manilius, Astronomica 1; St Augustine, contradicting himself, On Genesis according to the Letter 2, chapter 9; Posidonius the philosopher too, a disciple of Panaetius, and Avicenna are reported to have once been of the same opinion; nor can any doubt any longer be held on this matter, at least in these times, in which, through the genius and valour of that most illustrious Ligurian hero, the glory of our Italy, the rival of the sun, Christopher Columbus, the once unknown peoples of the other hemisphere have now been discovered and thoroughly explored.

Hanging gardens, etc. Pliny, book 36, chapter 14.

And from the motion of the stars they supposed that the heaven revolves. Lactantius denies that the heaven revolves, and with him the philosophers whom I listed above, c. 3, last note, col. 354, and very many of the holy Fathers and doctors: Justin Martyr answering question 93 to the Orthodox; Chrysostom, homilies 6 and 13 on Genesis, and 12 to the people of Antioch; Caesarius at the end of Dialogue 1; Elias of Crete on Oration 7 of Nazianzen; Isidore, Etymologies, book 3, chapter 49; likewise Severian and Acacius, who thought the world a hemisphere, and the heaven unmoved, stretched out like a tent, and a vault or chamber; Junilius on the Hexaemeron, Richard, Excerpts 2, Diodorus and Procopius in their commentaries on Genesis. Philastrius writes in the book On Heresies that this opinion is consonant with the sacred Scriptures, but the contrary one dissonant, and agreeing rather with pagan vanity than with Christian truth; and St Augustine, On Genesis according to the Letter 2, chapter 10, thinks that it can be defended. It has, however, been rejected by most, both philosophers and mathematicians, as may be seen in the proper places, especially in Aristotle, On the Heaven 2, text 43 and following.

This roundness of the heaven, then. Not only Lactantius denied that the heaven is round, but also Justin Martyr answering questions 59 and 130 to the Orthodox, Basil, homily 1 on Genesis, Chrysostom, homilies 14 and 27 on the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, and homily 2 on the incomprehensible nature of God, Ambrose, Hexaemeron book 1, Theophylact and Theodoret on chapter 8 of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Caesarius and Procopius in the places cited above, Haymo, Severian and Acacius. Likewise Primasius on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Euthymius on Psalm 103. Elias of Crete, in the place cited above, has this: Isaiah taught that the heaven is not spherical or globular, but has a shape like half a globe, and is unmoved, when he says: Who set up the heaven like a vault; again, Who fixed the heaven: and many other such things are found in the same [prophet], both concerning the stretching out of the heaven in the form of a tent and concerning its firm placing. David too mentions the extremities of the heaven, and indeed Christ Himself in the Gospels. But neither a shape like a vault nor extremities have any place in a sphere or globe, which is borne round in a circle on every side; nor likewise a setting up, or a solidifying, or other motions of this kind: whence it comes about that nearly all the Fathers skilled in divine matters, rejecting the spherical or globular shape of the heaven and its circular motion as a fiction of the Greeks and one proceeding from reasoning, have followed the words of the prophets as divinely inspired. The contrary is true, approved by all philosophers and astronomers, namely that the heaven is round; and Ptolemy demonstrates this with nine arguments, book 3, chapter 1, l., large edition, Aristotle, On the Heaven 2, text

22 and following. The holy Fathers asserted the same: Nazianzen, Oration 4, against Julian; in Oration 2, on Theology; in the Oration on Holy Baptism; Chrysostom, homily on Psalm 118; St Augustine, on Genesis according to the letter, book 1, ch. 10, and book 2, ch. 9; Bede, on the six days, Oration, and in the questions on Genesis. It also seems more in harmony with the Sacred Scriptures. At the beginning of Ecclesiastes: The sun rises and sets, and returns to its place, and there, being born again, it circles through the south and bends towards the north: surveying all things round about, the wind goes on, and returns to its circuits (Eccl. 1:5–6). On which passage see St Jerome. Likewise Ecclesiasticus 24: I alone have compassed the circle of heaven, etc. (Ecclus. 24:8). In Greek, more expressively and more properly, ἐκύκλωσα, I have led round, I have made round, I have rolled into a ball. Job 9: Under Whom they are bowed who bear up the world (Job 9:13). Proverbs 8: When by a fixed law and a circle He was walling in the deeps (Prov. 8:27). To the passages of David, Ps. 103, and of Isaiah 40, where heaven is said to be stretched out by God like a tent, or a vault, or a skin, St Augustine replies in the said ch. 9, book 2, on Genesis according to the letter.

That the earth itself too is like a globe. But Plato also, in the Timaeus, attributed to the earth not a spherical shape but a cube; yet almost all attribute a spherical one to it. See Strabo, book 1; Pliny, book 2, ch. 64; Martianus Capella, book 6. Most beautiful are Ovid's verses, Fasti 6: The earth, like a ball, etc. The Sacred Scriptures also show it to be like a globe, since they so often name it the orb of the earth; for that word, orb, as Lactantius himself declares in ch. 8 of the book on the Workmanship of God, signifies nothing but roundness. Isaiah 40: Who sits upon the circle of the earth (Isa. 40:22); or, according to the Hebrew reading: Who sits upon the globe of the earth. What of the fact that Lactantius himself very often names the orb of the earth, as we noted a little above; and in the book on the Workmanship of God, ch. 8, he admits that all roundness belongs to a perfect plan and figure? Was it fitting, then, for the world to be made by the supreme Maker in some imperfect form and figure, or rather in the most perfect of all? And so it is the opinion of all philosophers, astronomers and cosmographers that the earth, the heaven, and finally the world are spherical; and with them the theologians agree on the 2nd book of the Sentences, distinction 14, where especially St Bonaventure, article 2, question 1; Durandus, question 4; St Alexander of Hales, part 2, question 50, member 6, article 3, clearly show that this figure suits it most of all by reason of simplicity, capacity, perfection and nobility.

Chapter XXV.

Its mystery is celebrated only with a beard and a cloak. Because those who profess philosophy, he says, seem to have nothing of the philosopher except a deep beard and a cloak; which passed into a proverb, wise as far as the beard, on which see the author of the Adages. So below, book on the Anger of God, ch. 22: They make a show of wisdom, he says, by their hair and dress. For in former times those professing philosophy had long hair and a beard, and were wrapped in a cloak. Gellius, book 9, ch. 2, tells a witty jest about this.

Phaedo. Laertius notes, in his Socrates and Phaedo, that he was ransomed from captivity. So then it is to be read, not, as is corruptly found in some copies, Protagoras or Pythagoras.

They report that Cebes. So Gellius, book 2, ch. 18; Macrobius, Saturnalia 1, ch. 11. But Laertius, in his Phaedo, does not state clearly enough whether he was ransomed by Alcibiades or by Crito at Socrates' prompting. Afterwards, however, in his Socrates, he writes that it was by Crito.

Plato and Diogenes. See Seneca, letter 47, Libenter; Gellius and Macrobius in the places cited above; Laertius in his Plato.

But slavery had befallen these men; for they were captured. And Phaedo too was not a slave [by birth], as Lactantius seems to think; but slavery had come upon him, if we agree with Laertius, who writes that, born of a noble family, he was captured together with his country. Gellius and Macrobius, however, in the places cited above, agree with Lactantius.

He ought to have weighed out gold. I think he alluded to that passage of Homer at the beginning of Iliad 24, where Priam weighing out gold

he makes hanging, for ransoming the corpse of Hector from Achilles:

And weighing out gold, etc.

CHAPTER XXVII.

Which [showed] itself from the [regions] of heaven. Lucretius: "which [showed its] head from the [regions] of heaven," etc.

Since things not traceable. So the old manuscript codices; the printed copies wrongly: "since things not investigable".

CHAPTER XXVIII.

And I raise my hand. So B., T., P., a reading which Petrarch recognized, Seniles VIII, letter 1, and Patrizi approved, on the Fragments of Cicero. Another reading: "ex manum tollo".

Aristotle, says Cicero, [accusing] the old philosophers, etc. Cicero, Tusculans III, has it thus: "Aristotle, accusing the old philosophers who had thought that philosophy had been brought to perfection by their own talents, says that they were either very foolish or very vainglorious; but that he saw," etc.

CHAPTER XXIX.

Because it brings about many things unexpected by us, says the same Cicero, etc. Cicero: "because it brings about many things unforeseen, and not expected by us," etc.

For this reason, at the beginnings of his transgression, he was not at once thrust down by God to punishment, etc. He does not deny that the devil is now afflicted with essential punishment, as I taught above, Book II, chapter 15, but he speaks of the punishment of being thrust down, with which he denies that he is now afflicted, as is clear from the text. I have brought forward the opinions of the doctors at the said chapter 15. See also below, Book VII, chapter 20.

BOOK IV.

CHAPTER I.

As I think and often reflect in my mind, etc. Another reading: "As I think, O Emperor Constantine, and in my mind," etc. But in B., T., in the Florentine edition and some others the words "O Emperor Constantine" are not read.

CHAPTER II.

Yet they did not approach the Jews. Whether they approached the Jews I do not know; but having indeed set out to Egypt, as Lactantius himself admits, they drank in something of the teaching of Moses there, as Justin Martyr says in the Exhortation to the Gentiles, and they came to know some secret doctrines of the Jews who had remained in Egypt, so much so that Numenius affirms of Plato himself that he is Moses speaking in Attic; on which matter Eusebius has much, Preparation, Book II; Theodoret, at the beginning of Book I of the Cure of the Greek Affections.

But I think they were turned away by divine providence, so that they could not know the truth. Not because God turned them away, but because He permitted them to be turned away by their own free will; and since this permission of God is willed by Him by a positive act, as the theologians teach, God's permission is therefore often called God's action, not only by the Fathers but at times by the sacred Letters too: so that, because He permits a man to be hardened, blinded, turned away, He is said to harden, blind, turn him away. This I shall explain more broadly below, chapter 20.

CHAPTER III.

Because its rite is in the hand and fingers, etc. What is said here, and seems like a riddle, I have explained in Book I, chapter 20.

And the son is manumitted like a slave, etc. Although "emancipate" is properly said of children and "manumit" of slaves, yet the latter too is sometimes said of children, since to manumit is nothing else than to release from the hand, that is, from power: § Praeterea, Institutes, title "In what ways the right of paternal power is dissolved". So the jurist uses this word in law II, Digest, On the Office of the Proconsul; law 28, Digest, On Adoptions; law 107, Digest, On the Obligation of Words; and the title "If anyone has been manumitted by a parent".

And the freed slave takes the name of his patron. Examples are the two freedmen of Marcus Tullius Cicero, of whom one was called Marcus Tullius Tiro, the other Marcus Tullius Laurea; and the poet Livius Andronicus, who Eusebius reports in the Chronicle was given his freedom by Marcus Livius Salinator, whose sons he had taught. See Politian, Miscellanea, chapter 31.

CHAPTER IV.

With sons disowned. It was a custom of the Greeks that children who stubbornly resisted their father's will and honest morals were disowned by their parents, once the cause of disownment had been proved before a judge. Cases of disownment are read in Lucian and in Quintilian's Declamations. The disowned son lacked maintenance and all help from his father in life, and after his death succession to the goods. Disownment is mentioned in Aristotle at the end of the eighth book of the Ethics, and in Seneca, Controversiae, Book III. This custom was not allowed to pass over to the Romans, as in the law Abdicatio, Code, On Paternal Power, which Alciati explains and restores, Dispunctiones II, chapter 28.

CHAPTER V.

About seven hundred years. Most printed copies: "nine hundred

years", or "about nine hundred years". Two Vatican manuscripts: "about nine hundred years". Seven others of the same Vatican ones: "about seven hundred years", in one form or the other. Finally one of them, though it has "nine hundred" in the text, has written in the margin of the page: "otherwise seven hundred". Hence this reading of seven hundred years seems the more frequent in the manuscript copies; at least it certainly contains less error. For we cannot deny that, whichever reading you follow, Lactantius slipped; since, although the chronologers vary wonderfully, and Eusebius himself too, in the Chronicle and in the Preparation, Book X, chapter 3, it is nevertheless established that Moses lived not more than about four hundred years before the destruction of Troy; and if you read "about nine hundred years", the slip would be greater, and Lactantius would have followed the reckoning of the impious Porphyry, which Eusebius corrects in the preface to the Chronicle. For the rest, the reader is to be warned not to blame Lactantius or any other writer too much, if perchance a slip is found somewhere in working out the reckoning of times, but rather to think him worthy of pardon and excuse. For the histories and chronographies of events of so distant a time are wrapped in so many and such great darknesses, so great is the variety of opinions, so many the errors of copyists, especially in the signs for numbers, that even the most learned, most skilful and most retentive men nowhere go wrong more readily than in chronography. One should see, besides Eusebius, Cyril, who writes in Book I Against Julian that Troy was overthrown 410 years after Moses; Eutropius I; Bede, On the Reckoning of Times, Book II; Vives on chapter 8 of Book XVIII of the City of God.

He had Jesus as successor. As is established from the end of the book of Deuteronomy. For "Jesum", which is in B., T., P. and in Lactantius himself below in this book, chapters 14 and 17, "Josuem" is commonly read; and indeed him whom the Hebrews name יהושע the translators call both Josue and Jesus. He is rightly called Jesus by the apostles themselves and by the Seventy translators, because not only by his deeds but by his very name he prefigured Jesus Christ our Lord, as Lactantius himself also says below, chapter 17.

Who held the leadership for twenty-seven years. So too Eusebius in the Chronicle, St Augustine, City [of God] XVIII, chapter 10, Sulpicius Severus, Isidore, Carion. But Josephus, Antiquities V, chapter 4, writes 25 years, whom Hermann in the Chronicle and the author of the Sacred Chronicle follow; while Bede, Joannes Lucidus and some others give seventeen.

Thereafter they were under judges for three hundred and seventy years. So that you may recognize that Lactantius's total comes as close as possible to the truth, observe first that from the number of the judges who he thinks presided over the people for so many years he excludes Moses and Joshua, as that word "thereafter" plainly shows. Secondly, attention must be paid to this, that in this total only those years are comprised in which the people were under the Judges themselves, the years of the interregna being subtracted and not counted at all, in which they were under foreign kings, of which see Judges, chapters III, IV, VI, X, XIII. Therefore the twelve judges who after Moses and Joshua presided

and of whom the history of the book of Judges in the sacred volume is woven together, presided for two hundred and ninety-nine years, as is handed down from the Sacred Letters themselves and by all chronographers and historians unanimously. See Hermann. in the Chronicle, under Samson, and the Master of the Scholastic History on the book of Judges, chap. 20, at the end. Now to those twelve judges let us add Heli and Samuel; and to the government of the former let us give forty years, which number Josephus has at the close of the last chapter of book 5; Ant. and the Latin Vulgate edition, chap. 4 of 1 Sam., and also the printed codices of the Greek version of the Seventy Interpreters, as Flaminius de Nobilibus notes in his Annotations on the Old Testament of that same Greek version rendered into Latin and recently printed at Rome, and Melchior Cano, On the Theological Loci, book 2, chap. 5, near the end, and Genebrard. in book 1 of the Chronography, under Heli. To Samuel, moreover, following the same Josephus, Antiquities 6, chap. 13, let us assign twelve years, during which he presided over the people alone after Heli, since how many years Samuel presided separately from Saul, who was the first king, is not had from the Sacred Letters; and then another eighteen, during which he presided together with Saul, as Josephus hands down in the same book 6, chap. 13 and chap. 14 at the end, and very many chronographers, especially Genebrard. in the said book 1 of the Chronography, under Samuel and Saul; and we shall make up exactly that very sum of three hundred and seventy years, with only one year lacking, during which Lactantius asserts that judges presided over the people after Joshua up to the kings.

The years in which the twelve judges judged.

1 Othniel, years 40, Judg. ch. 3.

2 Ehud, 80, ibid.

3 Deborah and Barak, who are taken as one, 40, ch. 5.

4 Gideon, 40, ch. 8.

5 Abimelech, 3, ch. 9.

6 Tola, 23, ch. 10.

7 Jair, 22, ibid.

8 Jephthah, 6, ch. 12.

9 Ibzan, 7, ibid.

10 Elon, 10, ibid.

11 Abdon, 8, ibid.

12 Samson, 20, ch. 16.

Years 299

Heli, 40, 1 Sam. ch. 4.

Samuel alone, 12, Josephus, Ant. 6, ch. 13.

Samuel with Saul, 18, ibid., Josephus. / 70 / 299 / 369

This sum of three hundred and seventy years is in no way hindered by the Greek text of chapter 13 of the Acts of the Apostles, where Paul the Apostle, in his Address to the Hebrews, has this: "And having destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He distributed their land to them by lot, and after these things, for about four hundred and fifty years, He gave judges, until Samuel the prophet": that is, "And destroying seven nations in the land of Chanaam, He distributed their land to them by lot, and after these things, for about four hundred and fifty years, He gave judges, up to Samuel the prophet." For nearly all the learned judge that this text contains a fault, and that it must be restored according to the reading of the Latin Vulgate edition, so that it reads thus: "He distributed their land to them by lot after about four hundred and fifty years, and after these things He gave judges until Samuel the prophet": that is, "He distributed their land to them by lot after about four hundred and fifty years, and after these things He gave judges up to Samuel the prophet," etc. There that number of about four hundred and fifty years is taken by Paul the Apostle as speaking of the time of the sojourn of the sons of Israel in Egypt, not of the age of the Judges, as Genebrard. shows at length in book 1 of the Chronography, under the age of Jacob and under the age of Samuel; and so too think Bede, the Master of the Histor. Scholast.

Lyran., Chartus. and the rest on the same passage of the Acts of the Apostles.

Then, the state having been changed, they began to have kings: and while these held power for four hundred and sixty years up to the reign of Zedekiah, etc. B. and 7 Vatic. have for four hundred and fifty years: I have printed the reading presented by five Vatic., by P. and by the printed Aldine editions, the Florentine and the rest, and which contains less error. In order to show this more clearly and to remove all ambiguity, I point out first that in examining this calculation no account is taken of the rule of the kings of Israel, but of the rule of the kings of the Jews. We must recall what is contained in 1 Kgs. 12 and 2 Chron. 10, that in the first year of the reign of Rehoboam the son of Solomon, which Rehoboam was the fourth king of the Hebrews, a revolt arose among the Hebrews. For the ten Tribes, fearing that Rehoboam would be a harsh and cruel king, made Jeroboam king for themselves; but the Tribes of Judah and Benjamin followed Rehoboam; and so the monarchy of the Hebrews was split into two kingdoms, which never afterwards returned to unity. Further, the kingdom of the two Tribes was called the kingdom of Judah, or of the Jews, on account of the dignity of the royal Tribe. But the kingdom of the other ten Tribes was called the kingdom of Israel, on account of its great numbers, having, that is, kept for itself the name of its father Jacob; and in this kingdom of Israel nineteen kings are counted: namely Jeroboam, who began to reign in the first year of Rehoboam king of Judah, son of Solomon, as has been said, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Omri, Ahab, Ahaziah, Joram, Jehu, Jehoahaz, Joash, Jeroboam, Zechariah, Shallum, Menahem, Pekahiah, Pekah, and Hoshea, in the ninth year of whose reign this rule came to an end. And that ninth year was the sixth of the reign of Hezekiah, the sixteenth king of the Jews, as is said in 2 Kgs. 18; and this whole kingdom of Israel comprises two hundred and forty-one years, seven months and seven days, as is established from Scripture itself, book II of Kings, chapters 14, 15, 16 and 22, and book IV, chapter 18. No account, then, I say, is taken of this kingdom, because Lactantius plainly indicates that in giving that sum of four hundred and sixty years he had regard to the series of the kings of Judah, when he says, Then, the name having been changed, they began to have kings. So also below, chapter 10. For immediately after the judges had been done away with, Saul reigned, and then the kings of Judah, David and Solomon; nor did the series of the kingdom of Israel begin until the first year of Rehoboam son of Solomon, as we have said. Lactantius also adds, up to the reign of Zedekiah, which Zedekiah belongs to the kingdom of the Jews; for he was its last king, so that it is plainly evident that Lactantius in this place, recalling both the beginning and the end of the kingdom of the Jews, had regard to the kingdom of Judah. In this kingdom, then, I find twenty-three kings of the Jews after Samuel, whom we have set in the place of the last judge, namely beginning from Saul, but only from the time when he reigned alone after Samuel's death: and that time was two years, as is established from 1 Sam. 13 and from Josephus, Antiquities book 6, at the end of the last chapter, up to Zedekiah, as Lactantius says, that is, inclusively, with the eleven years of Zedekiah himself during which he ruled: these twenty-three kings, I say, I find to have reigned in all four hundred and seventy-five years, six months and ten days, although Josephus, book 10, chapter 10, writes five hundred and fourteen years, six months and ten days. See Eusebius, Hermann., others. Lactantius' calculation therefore lacks fifteen years, six months and ten days.

The years of rule of the kings of the Jews from Sacred Scripture.

1 Saul after the death of Samuel, 2 years, 0 months, 0 days, 1 Sam. 13,

2 David, 40 years, 0 months, 0 days, 1 Kgs. 2, 1 Chron. 29.

3 Solomon, 40 years, 0 months, 0 days, 11, 2 Chron. 9.

4 Rehoboam, 17 years, 0 months, 0 days, 14, 12.

5 Abijah, 3 years, 0 months, 0 days, 15, 13.

6 Asa, 41 years, 0 months, 0 days, ibid., 16.

7 Jehoshaphat, 25 years, 0 months, 0 days, 22, 20.

8 Joram, 8 years, 0 months, 0 days, 2 Kgs. 8, 21.

9 Ochozias, 1 year, 0 months, 0 days; 2 Kgs 8, 2 Chr. 22.

10 Athalia, 6 years, 0 months, 0 days; 11, 22.

11 Joas, 40 years, 0 months, 0 days; 12, 24.

12 Amasias, 29 years, 0 months, 0 days; 14, 25.

13 Azarias, who is also Ozias, 52 years, 0 months, 0 days; 15, 26.

14 Joathan, 16 years, 0 months, 0 days; ibid., 27.

15 Achaz, 16 years, 0 months, 0 days; 16, 28.

16 Ezechias, 29 years, 0 months, 0 days; 18, 29.

17 Manasses, 55 years, 0 months, 0 days; 21, 33.

18 Amon, 2 years, 0 months, 0 days; ibid., ibid.

19 Josias, 31 years, 0 months, 0 days; 22, 34.

20 Joachaz, 0 years, 3 months, 0 days; 23, 36.

21 Eliachin, who is also Joachim, 11 years, 0 months, 0 days; ibid., ibid.

22 Joachim, who is also Jechonias in the Septuagint, 2 Chr. 36, 0 years, 3 months, 10 days; 24, ibid.

23 Sedecias, 11 years, 0 months, 0 days; ibid., ibid.

475 years, 6 months, 10 days.

Until the reign of Sedecias, the Jews, assailed by the Babylonian king and taken captive, endured a long servitude. I have written Sedeciae, not Sedechiae, as in the earlier editions; for I think this name was so pronounced and written by Lactantius, as it is in the Septuagint and in the Vulgate. Until the reign of Sedecias, he says, that is to say inclusively, as we have said; for the assault on the Jews by the Babylonian king took place in the ninth [year] of the reign of Sedecias, 2 Kgs 25, Jer. 39 and 52, and it lasted up to the very eleventh, that is, the last year of his reign, in which year the captivity of the city of Jerusalem and of the people followed, as is recorded in the same places. From which it is plain that the opinion of those is true who hold that the seventy years of this captivity are to be reckoned and begun from nowhere else than from this eleventh year of the reign of Sedecias, just as Lactantius here begins and reckons them, [as do] Josephus, Antiquities book 10, chapter 10, Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1, Africanus, Annals 5, Eusebius, Preparation book 3, last chapter, and in the book of the Demonstration in the discussion of the 70 weeks, Jerome on chapter 4 of Ezekiel, Cyril against Julian, Isidore, Origins 5, last chapter, Bede on the six ages. Although I know that the same years are also begun and reckoned from elsewhere by other most weighty writers; for some reckon from the 13th year of King Josias, whom Eusebius mentions without naming them in the Chronicle under Olympiad 58; others from the captivity of King Joachim, which took place in the 1st year of the rule of Nabuchodonosor, as Sulpicius, Histories 2, Theodoret on chapter 9 of Daniel, Lyra on chapter 1 of Ezra, Vatablus in his Annotations on the same chapter 9 of Daniel; some, finally, from the transmigration of Joachim, or Jechonias, as Rabbi Solomon, whom Lyra and Cajetan cite on the last chapter of 2 Paralipomenon, and Scaliger On the Emendation of Times.

Until in the seventieth year after, Cyrus the Elder restored them to their lands and homes. Here too the authors disagree about the time of the release from the Jewish captivity. For some prefer that the seventy years of the Jewish captivity themselves were not completed before the second year of Darius Hystaspis, up to which forty years had run from the first year of Cyrus; from whose opinion it follows that from the desolation of Jerusalem to the first year of Cyrus only thirty years had run. So thought Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1, Eusebius in the Chronicle and in the Preparation book 10, last chapter, and Demonstration 8, Jerome in the Proem on Haggai, on chapter 1 of Zechariah and on [chapter] 4 of Daniel, Augustine, City [of God] 18, chapter 26, Isidore, Origins 5, last chapter. Some, however, make a distinction: namely that the years of the captivity of the Jews were one thing, which they begin from the transmigration of Jechonias [and] end in the first year of Cyrus; and the years of the desolation of the city and the temple another, which they begin in the eleventh year of the reign of Sedecias [and] end in the second year of Darius Histaspes, as Theodoret on chapter 9 of Daniel. But the position of Lactantius is truer and more widely received, namely that the captivity was ended by Cyrus, which not only Josephus writes

in book 2 of the Antiquities, chapter 1, Africanus in Annals 5, Sulpicius in book 2 of the History, Cyril in book 8 against Julian, Bede On the Reckoning of Time, Pererius on Daniel book 10, chapter 9, but also many of the aforesaid writers of a different opinion asserted [it] in other places, namely Eusebius in book 10 of the Preparation, last chapter, and St Jerome on chapter 29 of Jeremiah.

Who took up rule over the Persians at the same time as Tarquinius Superbus at Rome. This does not agree in every respect with the chronography of the others; for about twenty years elapsed between Cyrus' assumption of rule and the rule of Tarquinius Superbus, though the writers vary a little, as happens in almost all chronologies. See Eusebius in the Chronicle.

That those who strive to refute sacred Scripture, as though it were new and recently invented, may perceive their error, etc. One should consult Josephus Against Apion book 1, Justin Martyr Against the Gentiles, Theophilus To Autolycus discourse 3, Eusebius book 10 of the Preparation chapter 3, Theodoret book 2 On the Cure of Greek Maladies. Certainly Pythagoras, who is reckoned the most ancient of the Greek sages, is placed by Eusebius in the Chronicle as a contemporary of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, who were the last of the prophets.

Chapter VI.

Had created through Him. From B., T., P., the Florentine edition and the Plantin I have restored the words "through Him" to the text, which are lacking in the Aldine and certain other editions; for thus the saying of Lactantius agrees beautifully with that of John in the first chapter, all things were made through Him, etc.

He deemed Him worthy of the appellation of the divine name. Not so; rather He holds it by His own nature, as Lactantius himself acknowledges below in chapter 29 and often elsewhere.

All-nourishing creator. These verses are explained by Eugubinus in his book On the Perennial Philosophy, and they are found in Theophilus, book 2 To Autolycus, but not in the Sibylline Oracles.

Gave Him, etc. This verse is mutilated in the Sibylline Oracles; for there [we read]:

But the faithful man whom God gave to honour.

Him, your, etc. In the Sibylline manuscript, in place of σὸν, σοῦ is found.

God established me, etc. The passage is from Proverbs 8. And let it suffice to remind the reader once that the passages of Sacred Scripture which Lactantius brings forward he brings forward, as a rule, like the other ancient Fathers, from the version of the Seventy translators, although sometimes, as we shall carefully note in their places, he differs somewhat even from their translation as we now have it: whence someone might perhaps justly suspect that the edition of the Septuagint of those times was in some places different from the one which now exists. Here at any rate, in place of God, the Septuagint, the Vulgate, Tertullian against Hermogenes and against Praxeas, and Cyprian in the second book against the Jews have Lord.

In the beginning of His ways. So the Vulgate. But Tertullian against Hermogenes and Cyprian in book 2 against the Jews, chapter 1, following the Septuagint, [have] the beginning of His ways.

For His works before the ages. He founded me in the beginning, etc. In the punctuation and division of this passage Lactantius and Tertullian differ from the Septuagint and from Cyprian; for the Septuagint [has] for His works. Before the age He founded me in the beginning, etc.; Cyprian, for His works before the age He founded me. In the beginning, etc.

In the beginning. Better thus in Lactantius, Cyprian and Irenaeus book 4, chapter 37, than in Tertullian, who passes over in silence these two words, which are found in the Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek text.

The springs came forth. The Septuagint and Cyprian [have] the springs proceeded.

He begot me. So too both Tertullian and Cyprian, in place of what the Septuagint has, γεννᾷ με, He begets me.

He made the regions, and the uninhabitable lands under heaven. B. and T. [have] He made the regions and the uninhabitable bounds, etc. The Septuagint, The Lord made the regions, and the uninhabitable [places], and its inhabited heights, which are under heaven; Cyprian, He made the regions and the uninhabitable places; others, the habitable places and the uninhabitable bounds under heaven.

When He was preparing heaven, etc. In others here is read when He was bringing forth. I have followed the best manuscripts of Lactantius, which have, like the Septuagint, Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary.

When He was setting apart His seat, when He was making the clouds strong above the winds. In the Septuagint we read it punctuated thus, so that the phrase "above the winds" is joined with the seat, not with the clouds: and when He was setting apart His seat above the winds, and when He was making strong the clouds above, etc. In this place, however, it is truly noted that Tertullian, Cyprian and Hilary have it exactly as Lactantius does. For Tertullian [has], and when He was making strong things above the winds, which [are] clouds on high; Cyprian, when above the winds He was making strong the clouds above; Hilary, When above the winds He was making strong the clouds on high.

And when He was setting the mountains firm under heaven. For "mountains", in the Septuagint "fountains" is read: and when He was setting firm its fountains, which are under heaven. Tertullian too, and when He was setting firm its fountains, which are under heaven; and Cyprian, and when He was setting firm the fountains under heaven.

I took delight before His face, when He rejoiced. The Septuagint, I took delight in His face at all times, when He rejoiced, etc. The phrase "at all times" the Vulgate and Cyprian also have, which Tertullian indeed omits together with Lactantius.

Chapter VII.

That His name is not known even to the angels. Whether the holy angels and the blessed souls, clearly beholding God, can conceive His true and proper name, the theologians dispute on 1 Sentences, dist. 22, and on the first part of St Thomas, q. 13, art. 1, as I noted above, book 1, chapter 6.

Holy concerning the only Lord of all, and God foreconceived. These words I have restored to Lactantius, or rather to Hermes, from codices B and T, for in some there are missing the words "holy concerning the only Lord", and in others the words "and God foreconceived".

Christ is not a proper name, etc. The author of the Exposition of the Apostles' Creed among the works of Cyprian.

Who, with one letter changed, are accustomed to call Him Chrestus. And even then that name carries the meaning of good; for it is derived from chraomai, and is the same as good, sweet, agreeable, useful; Justin Martyr in the Apology for the Christians to Antoninus Pius, Tertullian, Apologeticus chapter 3.

And them the handmaids, etc. A verse of Homer from the beginning of Odyssey 4, slightly altered; for there [it reads], and them then the handmaids, etc.

Chapter VIII.

Blessed is He who was, etc. This passage, which is cited by Lactantius from Jeremiah, I find nowhere.

From the beginning. From eternity; for that expression is often so explained also in Scripture: Ecclesiasticus 24: From the beginning and before the ages I was created, etc.

How then did He beget? Holy Scripture too sometimes uses the word "creation" loosely, where it speaks of the emanation of the uncreated Wisdom and of the eternal Word; for since the procession of the eternal Word is ineffable, and is revealed to the rational creature, which is most unfit for the understanding of divine things, the Holy Spirit, in order to explain it, is accustomed to use many and various expressions, which the holy Fathers too afterwards sometimes borrowed, and which are to be taken not properly but metaphorically and loosely. For the divine Wisdom and the uncreated Word are said to be created, not because it comes to be out of nothing, but so that we may understand that the Word is not produced from pre-existing matter; likewise, that the Father undergoes no change or alteration, as happens in created generations. Expressions of this kind, however, are not to be adopted by us, but are to be explained according to the mind of the Church, wherever they are found in the Sacred Scriptures or in the writings of the holy Fathers.

Or also reason. These words, which are missing from the printed editions, I judge to have been rightly restored by me from codex B; for at the beginning of the following chapter Lactantius says that the Son of God is better called logos by the Greeks, because, since He is the voice and wisdom of God, logos signifies both word and reason.

Great, between this Son of God and the other angels,

is the difference, etc. Above, at the words of chapter 9, book 2, That first and greatest son, etc., we showed plainly that Lactantius held a true and right opinion concerning the only-begotten Son of God: that he believed Him to be true God, and accordingly that His nature is infinitely distant from the nature of the angels. Therefore, as we said there, that when he calls the angels by the name of sons of God together with the divine Word, then that appellation is not to be referred univocally to the Word Himself and to the angels, so as to regard all equally, but equivocally, that is, properly to the divine Word, but improperly and metaphorically to the angels: so in this place we point out that where, conversely, Lactantius calls the Son of God an Angel, as here, and above at chapter 10, and below at chapter 14 according to the other reading, then the name of Angel is not to be referred univocally to the Son of God Himself and to the angels, but properly to the angels, inasmuch as it signifies their nature and substance, and improperly to the Only-begotten of God, inasmuch as that term designates not His nature but the function and office of embassy and announcement. For angelus in Greek is called nuntius in Latin, because the Only-begotten of God discharged the greatest embassy of all, namely that of redeeming the human race, for which no one else was fit enough; and it is indeed in this sense that St Augustine, vol. 6, in the Tractate on I am who am, confidently holds that Christ the Lord can be called an angel, namely by office, not by nature. We shall say this again also below at chapter 14.

For those spirits went forth from God silent. And below: But the spirits of God both live and remain, etc. How I fear that he holds the angels to be from the substance of God! which I showed above, at chapter 13, book 2, that he said somewhere about the souls of men. I advise the reader to be on his guard.

But He, though He too is a spirit, nevertheless went forth from the mouth of God with voice and sound, like a word, etc. Here he tries to explain the emanation of the Son from the Father, and why He is called the Word of God. But he only goes round the matter and does not reach it, and that ought to be no wonder to anyone; for the mystery of the most holy Trinity was for many centuries greatly hidden and concealed in the Church of God. He indeed ineptly uses the likeness of a created spoken word to lead us by the hand into the knowledge of that uncreated divine Word. But it is not by any likeness of a spoken word, but of the mental word which is in us, as St Augustine says, On the Trinity 15, chapter 11, that the Word of God is in some fashion seen as in an enigma. Lactantius himself also admits in this place that God the Father conceived It in His mind: and indeed, since God is wholly incorporeal, the divine generation can be understood only according to an intellectual emanation. Setting aside, therefore, what is put forward by Lactantius, let us imbue the thirsting reader with catholic truth. In the first place, the word of the mind is nothing other than the knowledge or concept of the mind; St Augustine, On the Trinity book 9, chapters 7 and 11, and book 15, chapter 10; St Thomas, first part, question 34, article 1, and on John, chapter 1. This interior concept, which St Thomas in some places calls a species, as in 1 Sentences, distinction 27, question 2, article 2, sometimes the conception of the thing understood, as in 1 Contra Gentiles, chapter 11, and the understood intention, as in 4 Contra Gentiles, chapter 11, and the conception of the intellect, as in the same book, chapter 12, is properly and most properly called a word, because by means of it the soul speaks; St Augustine, the said chapter 10. For in the mind there is a true and proper saying, and speech, and a proper and true saying and speaking, which is understanding; and consequently a true and proper word, namely the concept of the mind itself, and this indeed far more true and proper than the spoken word; and the name of word signifies chiefly the concept of the mind, as St Augustine teaches in the place cited above. For that reason the position by which someone should assert that the concept of the mind is not properly a Word would not be free of danger; since by the name of Word, in the signification in which it signifies knowledge, it signifies also the Son of God. If, then, it signified the concept improperly, it would also signify the Son of God improperly, and accordingly the Son of God would improperly be the Word, and consequently would not be the Word;

which are heretical, and against that [text] of John 1: In the beginning was the Word, etc. St Thomas, on 1 Sentences, distinction 27, question 2, article 1, teaches that it must be confessed beyond all doubt that the Son of God is the Word, and is properly called Word; and in the first part, question 34, article 1, in reply to the first [objection], he asserts that it is the error of the Arians to deny that the Son of God is properly the Word. Now how the uncreated Word is produced in the divine mind is taught by that same summit of all divine and likewise human wisdom, St Thomas, in 4 Against the Gentiles, chapter 11: namely, that there are several modes and grades of understanding, as there are several grades of intellectual life. For the human intellect, although it can understand itself, nevertheless takes the beginning of its knowledge from without, because it does not understand without a phantasm; therefore in the angels there is a more perfect mode of understanding, for their intellect does not proceed to knowledge of itself from anything exterior, but knows itself through itself. Yet something of complete and absolute perfection is lacking, because, although the understood intention is wholly intrinsic to them, the understood intention itself is nevertheless not their substance, since in them to understand and to be are not the same. The ultimate perfection of life therefore belongs to God, in Whom to understand is not one thing and to be another: whence it must be that the intention understood by God, that is, His Word, is the divine essence itself. Therefore in God understanding Himself there is the Word of God, as it were God understood, just as the word of a stone in the intellect is the stone understood. But since the divine intellect does not pass from potency into act, but is always existing in act, it is necessary that He has always understood Himself; and from the fact that He understands Himself, it must be that His Word is in Him, and thus that the Word of God has always existed in God, and is therefore coeternal with Him. Again, since the divine intellect is not only always in act, but is also itself pure act, it must be that the substance of the divine intellect is its very understanding, which is the act of the intellect; but the being of the inwardly conceived word, or of the understood intention, is its very being understood; therefore the being of the divine Word and of the divine intellect is the same, and consequently that of God Himself, Who is His own intellect; but the being of God is His essence, or nature, which is the same as God Himself. The Word of God therefore is the divine being itself, and His essence, and Himself true God. Finally, the production of the Word in the divine mind is most properly generation, and the Word produced is most properly the Son of God, as is demonstrated from the definition of generation properly so called, which St Thomas draws (first part, question 27, article 2) from Aristotle, Ethics 8 and Metaphysics 7. For generation is the origin of a living thing from a living principle conjoined to it, in likeness of nature. But in divine things the living divine Word proceeds from the living Father, and there is found there a principle conjoined with the begetter and the begotten; for the divine essence, which is intimate to the Father and the root of generation, is conjoined, or rather is communicated as the very same, to the begotten Son. And the proceeding Word proceeds according to the nature of likeness, because the conception of the intellect is a likeness of the thing understood; and in the same nature, for in God to understand and to be are the same. There, therefore, is most properly the Son of God, and much more truly a son, and generation, than in created things. For, as St Thomas teaches (first part, question 13, articles 5 and 6), since some things are found both in God and in creatures, they are in God in a nobler and more perfect way, and are said of Him first.

Rightly, therefore, is He called the Speech and the Word of God. Speech indeed in Wisdom 18 and John 17, and by the Fathers: by Tertullian, Against Praxeas; by Cyprian, Against the Jews, book 2, chapters 1 and 5, who, quoting that [text] of John 1: In the beginning was the Word, puts Speech for Word; and by Augustine, who, expounding that [text] of John 17: His speech is truth, etc., teaches that it makes no difference whether we say Speech or Word; and by Hilary, who calls Him now Word, now Speech, in his books On the Trinity; likewise by Jerome on the Epistle to the Ephesians. Yet it seems more fitting that He be called Word rather than speech, since Word properly one thing, and a single utterance

means; whereas speech means both a single one and several. Therefore, to show that the Son of God is single and most simple, insofar as He is God, He is more fittingly called Word than speech.

Our spirits are dissoluble, because we are mortal. Here I would think that by "spirit" breath is meant; for he goes on to speak of speech and utterance. He is certainly not to be thought to assert this of our souls, since everywhere he teaches that they are immortal.

How much more the voice of God, etc. So a little below: If anyone wonders that God [was brought forth] from God by the utterance of a voice, etc. One must beware of all expressions of this kind. The passages of the Scriptures which he cites speak of the mouth of the heart and of the mental word.

The destruction of the city of Troy preceded the other of them, who reigned later, by one hundred and forty years. This reading, which is found in one of the Vatican [manuscripts], is beyond doubt the true and genuine reading; at least in what it says, that the destruction of Troy took place before Solomon (for I shall speak of the number of years later), agreeing with all the chronographers and with Lactantius himself; whereas the other reading, that of nearly all the other manuscripts and printed editions, which has "of whom the other", etc., produces the contrary sense and says that Solomon lived before the destruction of Troy, which is certainly much at variance with the history of the times and with the opinion of Lactantius himself expressed elsewhere. He indeed, at the end of the first of these books, reckoned one thousand four hundred and seventy years from the destruction of Troy to the time at which he was writing these things; and he was writing, as we showed above, in the three hundred and second year from the birth of Christ. Therefore, if from that sum of one thousand four hundred and seventy years you subtract two hundred and sixty-nine years, which elapsed from the death of Christ to Lactantius' writing, then one year over and above one thousand and ten will have elapsed from the destruction of Troy to the death of Christ the Lord according to Lactantius' reckoning. But now if you follow the common reading, and add to this sum the one hundred and forty years which you would have elapse from Solomon to the destruction of Troy, the whole time which elapsed from Solomon to the departure of Christ will be one year and besides one thousand three hundred and forty years; which certainly conflicts sharply with the statement of Lactantius, who asserts below in chapters 16 and 18 of this book, as was said there in the notes, that from Solomon to the death of Christ no more than one thousand and ten years ran their course. But on the contrary, if, embracing our reading, you subtract from the said sum of one year over and above one thousand two hundred years the one hundred and forty years which we contend elapsed from the destruction of Troy up to Solomon, you will see all the statements of Lactantius agree with one another, and the sum come out clearly as one year over and above one thousand and sixty years, which elapsed from Solomon to the death of Christ the Lord according to the opinion of Firmianus. Nor should you be surprised that more years come out, namely fifty-one above the said sum of one thousand and ten years which is contained in the said chapter 16; for you will understand that in both places nearly the same time is designated, if you observe that here the course of years runs from the destruction of Troy up to the birthday of Solomon, and from that same birth up to the death of Christ; but there the beginning of the years that rolled on up to the death of Christ the Lord is taken not from the birth of Solomon, but from the time when he was already reigning and was uttering that prophecy concerning Christ which Firmianus recites there. Now Solomon reigned forty years, as is established from Sacred Scripture, in the third of Kings, chapter 2, and in the second of Paralipomena, chapter 9, from Josephus, Antiquities 8, chapter 7, and from Lactantius below, chapter 13. He lived ninety-four years, as the same Josephus reports in chapter 7, so that from the birth of Solomon up to the first times at which he prophesied concerning Christ, those fifty-one years may very well have elapsed, and three years besides. From which it is most probable that Lactantius wrote exactly so, and not otherwise through a lapse of memory, as Vives judged on chapter 20

of book 18 of the City [of God] of St Augustine, and here Thomasius in his notes.

From the destruction of Troy to the writing of Lactantius, years: 1470

Taking away from these the years that intervened from the death of Christ to the writing of Lactantius: 269

There remain from the destruction to the death of Christ, years: 1201

Adding to these the years from Solomon to the destruction according to the common reading here: 140

There will be from Solomon to the death of Christ, years: 1341

Against Lactantius, who below in chap. 16 reckons from the prophecy of Solomon up to the death of Christ, years: 1010

Again, from the destruction to the death of Christ, years: 1201

Subtracting from these the years that are reckoned from the destruction to the birth of Solomon, according to the genuine reading of this passage: 140

There remain from the birth of Solomon to the death of Christ, years: 1061

Subtracting from these the years that there were from the birth of Solomon up to the time at which he prophesied: 54

There remain from the time of Solomon's prophecy to the death of Christ, years: 1007

He preceded by a hundred and forty years. The chronologers do not agree; for Eusebius has 170 years, Glareanus 147.

By the Word of God. So Tertullian; Cyprian has "by the speech of God".

And by the spirit of His mouth. The Aldine and Plantin editions have "and in the spirit", etc. I have kept the reading of the Florentine edition, which the Septuagint, the Vulgate and Cyprian have. But Tertullian, against Praxeas and elsewhere, has "and by His Spirit".

A good word. Tertullian, book 2 against Marcion, and Cyprian, book 2 of the Testimonies, chap. 3, have "a good speech".

Likewise Solomon, etc. This passage is brought forward from chapter 24 of Ecclesiasticus. Although this book is not Solomon's but that of Jesus son of Sirach, as is clear from the prologue of that book in the Bibles, yet the custom of those times prevailed (as St Augustine notes, book 17 of the City [of God], chap. 20) that it should be called Solomon's, either because of the likeness of its style or because it seemed to have been collected from the sayings of Solomon. Therefore it is cited under the name of Solomon not only by Lactantius but also by other Fathers: by Cyprian, who brings forward this same passage, book 2 against the Jews, chap. 1; by Clement of Alexandria, book 7 of the Stromata; by Basil against Eunomius, book 4; by Nazianzen, Oration 8, and by very many others; likewise by the third Council of Carthage, chap. 43.

I, He says, came forth from the mouth of the Most High before every creature. Cyprian agrees with Lactantius; but St Ambrose, book 4 On the Faith, chap. 4, presents the reading of the Septuagint, which has "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High", and no more; the Vulgate has: "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, the firstborn before every creature."

I made in the heavens that an unfailing light should arise. These words are not found in the Septuagint, but in the Vulgate and in Cyprian.

And with a cloud I covered all the earth. So too Cyprian; but the Septuagint has "and like a cloud I overspread the earth"; the Vulgate, "And like a cloud I covered all the earth."

I dwelt in the high places. What is read in the Septuagint as ἐν ὑψηλοῖς is thus rendered by Lactantius, "in the high places". The manuscripts of Cyprian vary; for some have it so, but some have "in the highest places", as does the recent Latin version, from the Septuagint and the Vulgate.

And without Him nothing was made. Here a point is placed, and then follows "but the Greeks better", since so read nine Vatican manuscripts and all the printed editions; but two of the same Vatican manuscripts have "and without Him nothing was made". Here a point, and then "but the Greeks better", etc. One Vatican manuscript, moreover, has "and without Him nothing was made": here two points are set, and then there follows straight on, "What was made in Him was life." Here again a point, and then follows "but the Greeks better", etc.; from which readings it seems that it can be understood clearly enough that that passage

of the Gospel of John was punctuated and read by Lactantius as "and without Him nothing was made. What was made in Him was life", so that he judged that the words "what was made" belong not to those earlier words, "and without Him nothing was made", but to the words of the following clause, "in Him was life", contrary to what Chrysostom, Theophylact and Euthymius thought. For Chrysostom, in the 4th Homily on John, says: "When we have said 'without Him nothing was made', let us not mark it with a full stop; but the heretics are of that opinion; for since they wish the spirit to be created, they read thus: 'What was made in Him was life.' But truly by no reasoning can this sentence be understood." Theophylact in his Commentaries: "The Pneumatomachi, who deny that the Holy Spirit is God, read this phrase thus: 'and without Him nothing was made.' Then, having put a full stop at this place, they read as if from another beginning, 'what was made in Him', etc., and they interpret this passage according to their own mind, saying that in this place the Evangelist is discoursing about the Holy Spirit, saying, 'what was made in Him', that is, the Holy Spirit, 'was life'. This the Macedonians say, trying to show that the Holy Spirit is a Creature and to number Him with those things which were made. But we do not [read] so: rather, having put a full stop after he has said 'what was made', we read a new beginning, 'in Him was life', etc." Euthymius says nearly the same. But in truth, however much you place the full stop after the word "nothing", that passage in no way lends support to error, nor does it do anything for the heretics; and indeed Cyril, Augustine and St Thomas (part 1, question 18, article 4) read in this way, and the Complutensian Bible, as some report, although all the codices of the Bibles in my library, especially those printed at Rome by order of Sixtus V in the year 1593, have it entirely as Chrysostom does.

Chapter IX.

And the wisdom of God. What is wisely devised is called someone's wisdom: but in God, as St Thomas teaches in book IV Against the Gentiles, chapter 12, wisdom must be spoken of from the fact that He knows Himself. But because He knows Himself not through some species but through His essence, indeed His very act of understanding is His essence, therefore the wisdom of God cannot be a habit, but is the very essence of God. Now the Son of God is the Word, and the conception of God understanding Himself; therefore the very Word of God, as having been wisely conceived by the divine mind, is properly called the wisdom of God.

Not even the philosophers were ignorant of this divine Word. Their testimonies are brought forward by Augustinus Eugubinus in book I On the Perennial Philosophy, chapter 23 and following.

Chapter X.

And to the man whom He had put on, whom He bore, etc. Expressions of this kind are familiar to the Fathers, so that they say that the divine Word assumed, put on, bore a man. For so speaks Cyprian at the end of the book On the Vanity of Idols, Augustine in the book On Faith against the Manichees at the beginning of chapter 26, Hilary in book X On the Trinity about the middle. These expressions, however, are not to be taken properly, so that we say that a man was assumed, because it is his nature that was assumed, and because the assumption terminated in this, that the Son of God is man; otherwise this proposition, taken simply and properly, is false and heretical: the Son of God put on, assumed, bore a man. St Thomas gives the reason in part III, question 4, article 3. For this noun "man" signifies human nature in the concrete, that is, as it is in some suppositum; and therefore, just as we cannot say that a suppositum was assumed, so we cannot say that a man was assumed. St Thomas adds there the words of Felix, pope and martyr, at the council of Ephesus.

After four hundred and thirty years. So read, not "three hundred and thirty" as in the Aldine and the Florentine. For that number is in the best codices B. T. P., 9 Vatican, and Theophilus in the book On Times, and moreover in sacred Scripture, both of the Septuagint and of the Vulgate edition, Exodus chapter 12, and Paul to the Galatians chapter 3. But indeed not only the very years of the servitude by which the Hebrews were oppressed

in Egypt, but also the years of their sojourn in the land of Canaan are to be counted, so that the start is made from the seventy-fifth year of the birth of Abraham, when he himself entered the land of Canaan, as Hermann Conrad notes in the Chronicle under Jacob, and the Master of the Scholastic History on Exodus 27. For in the Septuagint, whose edition the Fathers used, it reads thus in chapter 12 of Exodus: "Now the dwelling of the sons of Israel, which they dwelt in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, was four hundred and thirty years": which passage St Augustine cites thus in the Questions, question 47, where Suidas also discusses this number of years under "Mou", and Bede.

"When it was hungry again, a rain of heavenly food came down." The story is told here in a different order from that in Scripture; for they were first troubled by hunger. Exod. 16.

"A golden head of an ox, which they call Apis," etc. This is also cast up against them in Psalm 105: "and they made a calf in Horeb," etc.

"They lost their old name of Hebrews." They were so called from Heber, the great-great-grandson of Noah through Shem, according to Josephus, Antiquities book 1, chapter 14, Eusebius in the Chronicle at the beginning, Augustine, City of God 16, chapter 11, Suidas, Isidore, Origins book 9, chapter 2, under number 40.

"And since Judah was the head of their swarm, they were called Jews." I indeed find no Judah who was set over the people of the Jews after Moses; for the Judah of whom it is written in chapter 1 of Judges, "And the Lord said, Judah shall go up," etc., is taken there by the Hebrews and by Josephus, Antiquities book 5, chapter 1, not as the name of some individual, but as a patronymic for the whole tribe, from which Othniel was taken. So they say that Judah, that is, the tribe of Judah together with the tribe of Simeon, captured Adonibezek, king of Hebron, etc. Accordingly, it is commonly preferred that the sons of Israel were called Jews from Judah. See Eusebius in the Chronicle, Isidore in the place cited above.

"Under the rule of Tiberius Caesar; in whose fifteenth year, that is, when the two Gemini were consuls," etc. This is the thirty-first year of Christ the Lord, as in Eusebius and all the chronographers generally; hence it comes about that Lactantius says the Saviour suffered when the thirtieth year of His age was completed. So also Tertullian, Against the Jews, Clement, Stromata 1, Africanus, Annals 5, Jerome on Daniel chapter 9 and letter 22, Augustine, City of God 18, chapter 54, and book 22, chapter 15, and to Hesychius, letter 80, Orosius book 7, Cassiodorus on the Consuls. Others prefer the thirty-first year of His age, as Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea, in Jerome on chapter 9 of Daniel, Cyril on chapter 29 of Isaiah, Philastrius on Heresies, Severus, History 2, and other more recent writers cited by John Lucidus in the book On the True Day of the Passion, chapter 9. The thirty-second, and a little more than three months besides, was the opinion of others, which Benedict Pererius vigorously defends in the Commentary on Daniel book 2, in the Disputation on the 70 weeks, question 7. But the thirty-third, and three months, was the view of Bede, On the Reckoning of Time, chapter 45, Albert the Great on the letters of Dionysius the Areopagite, Onofrio in the Fasti and Chronicle, Cardinal Baronius, Annals 1. Finally, some others have asserted about the fiftieth year, as St Augustine reports, On Christian Doctrine 2, chapter 28. This opinion, refuted by all, some attribute to Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2, chapters 39 and 40; others say it was falsely ascribed to him, and suspect a forgery, as the Cardinal in the place cited above.

"On the tenth day before the Kalends of April the Jews fastened Christ to the cross." So indeed read B. T. P. and 8 Vatican [manuscripts], although in some printed [editions] one reads "On the seventh day," etc. I have kept the reading approved by more and better copies. This passage of Lactantius, so that we may deprive no one of his due praise, Marcellus Francolinus expounded in a long and very fine disputation in the Treatise on the Times of the Canonical Hours, chapters 73 and 74, which we shall report in summary. By the words "On the tenth day before the Kalends," Lactantius means, not the eleventh day before the Kalends, as Paul of Middelburg, Paulina book 5, part 2, chapter 4, and Thomasius in the Notes on this author supposed: but the tenth day itself before the Kalends of April; in which expression are understood to be counted

both extreme days, that is, the day which is written and the day of the kalends itself, as Marcellus himself rightly notes in the said chapter 73, no. 18, having refuted the objection drawn from the § Ante diem in the law Anniculus amittitur, Digest, On the Meaning of Words, and having excellently explained that same §. By these words, then, Lactantius thought that Christ the Lord suffered on the twenty-third day of the month of March. The same was held by Theophilus of Caesarea, close to the times of the apostles, in his synodical letter on Easter, which is read printed among the Works of Bede, vol. 2, at the end, as Marcellus proves against Middelburg and Thomas, chapter 73, no. 19, and chapter 74 at the beginning. The same was held also by Eusebius of Caesarea in his Miscellaneous History of the Chronological Canon, of which a fragment survives in Anastasius of Antioch, book of Various Questions, as Turrianus reports in his explanation of chapter 6 of book 2 of the Apostolic Constitutions of Clement of Rome, and in the same Marcellus. So too St Augustine, Sermon 22 On the Season, which is On the Nativity of the Lord 18; Bede, On the Reckoning of Time, chapter 65, in the Chronicle; Ado of Vienne in the Chronicles, first age, at the beginning; Anselm, book 2 On the Image of the World, chapter 17; Nicetas and all the Greeks; and others whom Middelburg reports, part 2 of the Paulina, book 5, chapters 1 and 2. Now let us review the other opinions as to on which day of which month the Lord suffered. Ugolino Martelli, in his book On the Integral Year Restored, chapter 19, reports from St Augustine that certain people asserted that the Lord suffered on the nones of March, that is, on the seventh day of March. St Epiphanius, Heresy 50, against the Tessarescaedecatites, says that he had found the Acts of Pilate, in which Pilate indicated that the Lord died not on the eighth day before the kalends of April, as the Tessarescaedecatites cited, but on the fifteenth day before the same kalends, that is, on the eighteenth day of March. But Epiphanius himself, in the said Heresies 50 and 51, against those who do not accept the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse, thinks it was on the thirteenth day before the kalends of April, which is the same as the thirteenth before the kalends of April, that is, on the twentieth day of March. On the twelfth before the kalends of April, that is, the twenty-first day of March, the author of the Exposition on Matthew chapter 27 among the Works of Anselm. On the twenty-third day of March, Lactantius and others, as above. On the twenty-fifth day of March, on which He also deigned to become incarnate, wrote Tertullian, book Against the Jews, about the middle; Chrysostom, sermon On the Nativity of John the Baptist; Augustine, City [of God] 18, last chapter, and On the Trinity, chapter 5, and elsewhere; Bede, Usuard, Wandelbert, and others in the Martyrologies. Bede again, in his book On the Reckoning of Time, chapter 28, records that very many masters of the Church held the same; Cyril in his letter to the synod of Carthage; St Thomas on John chapter 2, lecture 3; St Antoninus in the Chronicle, title 5, chapter 7; and countless others: from which it readily appears that this opinion is the more widely received. The twenty-sixth day of March was the view of Victorinus of Limoges, an ancient doctor and an excellent computist, and of others whom Bede mentions in On the Reckoning of Time, chapter 59; Francesco Maurolico in the Martyrology; Onuphrius in the Chronicle of the Church. The thirtieth day of March Middelburg approved after a lengthy disputation, having rejected the opinions of all the others, part 2 of the Paulina, book 14, chapter 2. The second day of April also some, as Martelli reports, On the Integral Year Restored, chapter 19. The third of April, Roger Bacon, John de Muris, Paul of Burgos, the Abulensian, Lucidus, Pontac, Zarlino, and most of the more recent writers. The eleventh of April, John of Monteregio, whom Middelburg reports, part 2 of the Paulina, book 5, chapters 1 and 2. So many and so varied are the opinions of writers on the day of the Lord's Passion that one might rightly marvel, and think it some great mystery of God, that the day of His Incarnation, known at that time to the Virgin mother alone, and that of His Nativity, known to very few, should nevertheless both afterwards have become known to the whole Church; but that the day of the Passion, undergone in a most great and most celebrated city, with leading men and peoples conspiring, a Roman governor judging, natives and foreigners openly watching the execution of the judgement, the heaven and all the elements presenting horrifying signs, by far the most wondrous of all within the memory of men, and spread abroad through the whole world, should still be so little ascertained and known.

Chapter XI.

I have sent to you, etc. Almost the same also in Cyprian, Against the Jews, book 1, chapter 2.

Let each one turn from his evil way. B. has each one of you; although the word of you is absent from the Bibles and from Cyprian.

Behind his body. So it is read in B. T. P. and in the Septuagint here, and in the Vulgate, chapter 14 of 3 Kings. But this passage is taken from chapter 9 of the book of Nehemiah, which circulates under the name of the second book of Esdras. The Vulgate here has behind their backs; Cyprian, who cites this same passage under the name of Esdras, behind his back; the more recent editions of Lactantius, behind his heart.

With zeal I have been zealous for the Lord. Cyprian cites it in almost the same way, in the said chapter 2.

And I have remained alone. So also Cyprian; but the Septuagint, with which the Vulgate agrees, has and I have been left alone. In Greek, however, the word is μονότατος.

And they seek my life, to take it from me. The Septuagint and Vulgate: and they seek my life to take it away, or, that they may take it away. Cyprian, in the place cited above: and they seek my life, to take it.

And I do not hold the sacrifice acceptable. Cyprian, Testimonies against the Jews 1, chapter 16, has more correctly I will not hold acceptable, because both in the Septuagint and in the Vulgate one reads I will not receive; and Tertullian, Against the Jews, I will not receive, or I will not accept.

It shall be glorified. The Greek is δεδόξασται, it has been glorified; and so in Tertullian and Cyprian, Against the Jews.

Among the nations. As in Cyprian. The Septuagint has ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι, as in the Vulgate, in the nations. Tertullian has in all the nations.

Shall serve me. The Septuagint, the Vulgate, Tertullian and Cyprian have has served me.

I come to gather, etc. Cyprian cites it in these very words.

My splendour. The Septuagint and Vulgate have my glory.

And I will send some of them, preserved, among the nations, etc. The Fathers often cite passages of the Scriptures not word for word but in abridged and paraphrastic form, excerpting only what suffices for their purpose. Firmianus is in the habit of doing this rather often, as I shall note in the proper places; and here indeed he omits a few small things which are found in the Septuagint and in the Vulgate.

That a people ungrateful towards God might be led into the greatest error. Yet neither the leading itself nor the persistence of the Jews in error is to be referred to God as its cause. See the notes on chapter 20 of this book bearing on the matter of reprobation.

Whom the Jews themselves most cruelly killed, cutting him through with a saw. This is related by Tertullian, On Patience; Origen, Homily 1 on Psalm 37; the author of the book Against the Jews who persecuted Christ, among the works of Cyprian; Chrysostom on chapter 19 of Matthew; and the Master of the Scholastic History, in the history of the fourth [book of] Kings, chapter 32.

I have begotten sons. So Tertullian, On Prayer, and many manuscripts of Cyprian at the beginning of the book On the Lord's Prayer and of On Jealousy and Envy, and the Latin version from the Septuagint, although elsewhere in the same Tertullian and Cyprian one finds I have generated.

And my people has not understood me. So Tertullian, Against Marcion 5, and Cyprian, On the Lord's Prayer, although Testimonies 1, chapter 30 has and my people has not understood. In many manuscripts, indeed, μοῦ is read instead of μέ, as is noted on the Latin version from the Septuagint; the Seventy indeed have and the people has not understood me. And St Jerome affirms that they wrote it thus, not, as Pamelius says on Cyprian's On the Lord's Prayer, And my people has not understood. The reading of the Septuagint was followed by Tertullian, Against Marcion 3 and 4, by Basil, and by Cyril.

In vain has the measuring been made: the scribes are false, and they have been confounded; the wise have trembled. What is here called metatura, as also in Cyprian, Testimonies 1, chapter 3, is in the Greek Bibles σχοῖνος, a word which properly means a rush. Hence the recent Latin version of the Bible from the Septuagint has it thus: in vain has the rush become false for the scribes; the wise have been confounded and terrified, etc. There, however, rush is taken for reed and pen; for

the ancients were once accustomed to write with sea rushes; and therefore St Jerome in the Vulgate translated more clearly: Truly the lying pen of the scribes has wrought falsehood: the wise are confounded, terrified, etc. It also signifies a rope, namely because ropes were woven from sedge and from rush, as Pliny relates: whence it also came about that by a kind of metalepsis σχοῖνος signifies also a measure taken by rope; for the ancients measured fields with ropes, as is clear from Isidore, Orig. book 15, ch. 14, and this custom flowed from the Hebrews: Amos 7: and your land shall be measured with a line; Ps. 77: and He divided the land for them by a line of distribution. This surveyor's line, moreover, was called arvipendium. A glossary: Arvipendium, σχοῖνος γεωμετρικὸς; and the land which they had measured was called σχοίνισμα, as is evident from the author of the Etymologicum. Indeed, in Herodotus too, σχοῖνος is taken as a Persian measure of land. It was to the last meaning of this word, then, that those had regard who in this passage rendered in Latin as metatura what reads σχοῖνος in Greek, as Lactantius here, and Cyprian, who quotes this passage thus: In vain was the false measuring made; the scribes are confounded, the wise have trembled, etc. From this it appears that it was less correctly translated and punctuated by Lactantius; for it is not "false scribes" that are spoken of in the Bible and in Cyprian, but "a false measuring for the scribes", or "of the scribes". In Greek indeed there stands σχοῖνος ψευδὸς; and "scribes", in the Bible, is not joined with "are confounded", as in Lactantius and Cyprian, but with "false measuring".

Chapter XII.

But if it is known to all that certain animals are accustomed to conceive by the wind and the breeze, etc. This is recorded, namely, of mares by Homer, Iliad 20; Virgil, Georgics 3; Silius, books 3 and 16; Varro 2, On Agriculture, ch. 1; Columella, book 7, ch. 25; Pliny, book 4, ch. 22; Solinus, book 3, chs. 26 and 47; Justin, History, at the beginning of book 44, book 8, ch. 42, book 16, ch. 45; Martianus Capella, book 6, the chapter on the Division of the Earth.

The womb of the Virgin was weakened, etc. This passage of Solomon has perhaps fallen out of those books which Scripture relates that he composed, 3 Kings 4, at the end; but they are now lost. Further, I would say either that this passage did not fall out of any of the canonical books of Scripture, or that it was not uttered by Solomon concerning the Virgin Mary, since it is certain that that most blessed and most holy one felt no harm or pain from the Conception or the Nativity of the Saviour, the contrary of which seems to be inferred from this. For it is said in Isa. 35: Budding it shall bud like the lily, and shall exult, joyful and praising. This too the holy Fathers and all the doctors have asserted; Cyprian, On Works; Card., On the Nativity of Christ; St Zeno the bishop, sermon 6 on the Nativity; St Augustine, sermon on the Assumption; St Thomas, part 3, question 35, article 6, reply to the first.

She shall conceive in the womb. So Luke 1, from this passage of Isaiah; Tertullian, Against Marcion 3, and On the Trinity; Cyprian, Letter 9, according to the edition of Morel and other older ones; although according to the edition of Manutius, which Pamelius there approved and adopted, and Testimonies 2, ch. 9, and Ambrose, On Cain and Abel, book 1, ch. 3, have she shall receive in the womb, which Pamelius thought came closer to the reading of the Seventy, who have ἐν γαστρὶ λήψεται; and St Jerome, On the Best Kind of Translating, testifies that it was once read so among them as well. But if we weigh the proper meaning of the verb concipio, the in utero is not brought back to it in vain, nor does it make no difference whether we say she shall conceive in the womb or she shall receive in the womb. For the verb concipere, set down absolutely, does not signify to receive in the womb, but simply to take hold of; and therefore the translators also, in the recently published Latin version of the Greek Bible together with the Seventy themselves, rendered that λήψεται not as accipiet but, like Lactantius and the others cited above, as concipiet. The Aldine edition and the Plantinian here have in uterum. I have followed the Florentine edition of the Juntas, in utero, which agrees with Tertullian, Cyprian and others. The Vulgate edition in Isaiah reads simply concipiet.

And you shall call His name Emmanuel. So most of Lactantius's

manuscripts have, and also Tertullian, Against the Jews, and Cyprian d., ch. 9, and Jerome, To Pammachius, On the Best Kind of Translating. The Florentine edition of the Juntas has here "he shall be called" (vocabitur), with the Vulgate and the Cambron manuscript of Cyprian, d. letter 9, as Pamelius testifies there. But the Septuagint, with Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, on the testimony of St Jerome, translated "you shall call" (vocabis); and most of the ancients read it so, although Chrysostom, in his commentaries on Isaiah and on Psalm 44, and Cyril prefer, with the Evangelist Matthew, καλέσουσι, "they shall call."

"But they did not believe," etc. This passage is read somewhat differently from Lactantius both in the Septuagint and in the Vulgate. In the Septuagint: "But they did not believe, and they embittered His Holy Spirit, and He was turned into enmity towards them: He Himself fought against them, and He remembered the ancient days. Where is He Who brought up out of the sea the shepherd of the sheep?" etc. The Vulgate: "But they provoked to anger and afflicted the Spirit of His Holy One, and He was turned into an enemy to them, and He Himself overthrew them, and He remembered the days of the age of Moses and of His people. Where is He Who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of His flock?" etc. We see that both Bibles have, not "out of the land" as in Lactantius, but "out of the sea," as it is in the Hebrew. Yet that in the other versions it is written, as in Lactantius, ἐκ τῆς γῆς ("out of the land") is noted at the Latin version made from the Septuagint.

"Let the heavens exult from above," etc. Here Lactantius has something in common with the Septuagint and something with the Vulgate. For they read: "Let the heaven rejoice from above, and let the clouds sprinkle justice; let the earth spring forth and bring forth mercy, and let it make justice spring forth together. I am the Lord, Who created you," etc. The Vulgate: "Drop down dew, you heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain the Just One: let the earth be opened and bud forth the Saviour, and let justice rise up together. I the Lord have called Him."

"Behold, a boy is born to us," etc. Cyprian quotes this whole passage in exactly this way in Testimonies, book 2, ch. 21; but the Septuagint has "for a little one is born to us"; the Vulgate "a little one [is] born," etc. Likewise the Septuagint and the Vulgate have ἐπὶ τοῦ ὤμου, "upon the shoulder."

"It has been called." The Septuagint and Aquila, Ignatius in the letter to the Antiochenes, and Eusebius, Demonstration book 7, have καλεῖται, "is called," as also Irenaeus, Against Heresies book 4, ch. 66. The Vulgate, Symmachus and Tertullian have κληθήσεται, "shall be called." Theodotion has ἐκάλεσε, "called."

"Messenger of great counsel." So also the manuscript codices of Cyprian have it, as Pamelius attests, and not "of great thought," as some printed editions do; and that reading is given by the Septuagint, μεγάλης βουλῆς, likewise by Tertullian, Ambrose at the beginning of book 3 on Luke, and Jerome in his Commentary.

"And all peoples." P. has "and every people," etc., and so too the Florentine edition. But I have kept the reading of the Aldine, the Plantin, and the better manuscripts, which the Septuagint and the Vulgate have, and the author of the Exposition of the Apostles' Creed among the works of Cyprian, and Lactantius himself at the end of this chapter, with no copy disagreeing.

"And His power eternal," etc. B. has "and His powers eternal, which shall never pass away." But here too I keep the former [reading], that of the best manuscripts and of all the printed editions, which agrees with the Septuagint and the Vulgate, with Tertullian, and likewise with Cyprian, Against the Jews, and with Lactantius himself at the end of the chapter.

"Thus says the Lord God to Christ my Lord." So indeed Tertullian often, and Cyprian, Against the Jews book 1, ch. 21; this reading is rightly condemned by St Jerome in his Commentary: "I know," he says, "that in this chapter very many not only of the Latins but also of the Greeks err badly, thinking it is written: Thus says the Lord to Christ my Lord, so that it may be understood in line with what we read elsewhere: The Lord rained from the Lord, and The Lord said to my Lord; for it says not κυρίῳ, which means Lord, but Κύρῳ, that is, to Cyrus," etc. The Septuagint indeed: Οὕτω λέγει Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς τῷ Χριστῷ μου Κύρῳ, "Thus says the Lord God to my anointed Cyrus." And the Vulgate: "These things says the Lord God to my anointed Cyrus." This Cyrus was the first king of the Persians, who later freed the captive Jews, as Josephus has related, Antiquities book 11, ch. 1, and Lactantius above, chs. 5 and 10.

"And the cities shall not be shut." So the Septuagint has it, Tertullian,

Cyprian, Cyril. Some prefer πύλαι, that is, gates, as in the Vulgate.

I will open to you. These words I have supplied from the Bologna manuscript and from the Septuagint, although they are lacking in many copies of Lactantius. Tertullian, Against Marcion, books 4 and 5, has "I will open to them"; but the Hebrew text, the Chaldaean, the Greek and the Latin read as in ours.

Then, when all evil has been removed from human affairs, a golden age, etc. That is, he falsely believed that this golden age would be that period of a thousand years which he himself and some others devised, of which we shall speak in the notes on chapter 24 of book 7.

Chapter XIII.

Without the office of a father He was begotten in a virginal womb. Note this passage against the Carpocratians and Cerinthians, who blasphemously said that Christ was conceived from the seed of Joseph. So too above, chapter 12: The holy Virgin, etc., and below, chapter 5, at the beginning.

As in the middle between God and man. That is, between the divine and the human nature. So below, chapter 25: He was therefore, he says, both God and man, set in the middle between God and man, etc. In these places Christ the Lord is called "middle" by Lactantius. But in the said chapter 25 He is called mediator. Now it is a different thing to say that Christ is "in the middle" and that He is "mediator", as St Bonaventure teaches on 3 Sentences, distinction 19, question 2. For "middle" denotes agreement with the extremes; "mediator" denotes not only agreement but also the office of reconciliation: the former is μέσος to the Greeks, the latter μεσίτης, as Lactantius himself relates in the said chapter 25. Therefore, as St Bonaventure writes there, Christ is called "middle" between the divine and the human nature because those two natures concur in Him as in one person, inasmuch as He is one person in those two, not in the divine alone nor in the human alone, but in both. He is called "middle" in another way also, because there existed in Him properties conformable to the two natures, namely beatitude and mortality together: in the former He is compared with God, in the latter with man.

Bearing a substance. "Substance" here is not φύσις, that is, nature, so that Christ the Lord would be understood to bear a middle substance, that is, a nature as it were a third between the divine and the human, fused and constituted out of these same, the divine and the human, confounded and mixed together, as the raving Eutyches dreamed, who was condemned at the councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon under Leo I, at the second of Seville, and by Leo himself in many of his letters, especially in the 14th, to the Synod of Ephesus, and the 17th, to the Empress Pulcheria, and refuted in disputations by Pope Gelasius, Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith 3, Boethius, On the Two Natures, St Thomas, Against the Gentiles 4, chapter 35. For we confess that Christ the Lord bore not one but two natures, namely the divine and the human, in such a way that both remained perfect, unmixed and unconfounded, and that neither was in any way changed into the other; and therefore we profess that Christ consists of both natures and in both natures: in both, because both remain; of both, because both, by the union of things that remain, become the one person of Christ, as the Council of Chalcedon itself defines and as Boethius teaches at length in the said book On the Two Natures. Nor again is "substance" taken here for οὐσία, that is, essence, or for οὐσίωσις, that is, substance; but properly for ὑπόστασις. For the word which for the Latins is substantia is the same as ὑπόστασις for the Greeks. However, since properly, principally and most of all the first substances are called substances, that is, the individuals of the second substances, which in a rational and intellectual nature are called supposits and persons, the name ὑπόστασις is taken in this proper meaning, so as to signify an individual, a supposit, a person, as Boethius teaches in the place cited above, chapter 5, and St Thomas in part 3, question 2, article 5, reply to 2. So then is it with "substance" also. Wherefore, says Lactantius, so that, bearing a middle substance, that is, existing as a middle person between God and man, that is, between the divine and the human

nature, inasmuch as it consists of two natures and in two natures in the way we have said, He might lead this frail and feeble nature of ours out to immortality as if by the hand.

Mixed from both kinds, etc. It was once a question long debated whether the term of the union of the uncreated Word with humanity was a simple or a composite person; and many of the old theologians did not dare to affirm it [to be composite], as we know from the Master of the Sentences on [book] 3, dist. 2; St Thomas, q. 2, art. 3; Bonaventure, art. 1, q. 2; Scotus, q. 3; Durandus, q. 3; Richard, art. 2, q. 2; Gabriel, q. 1, art. 3; Marsilius, q. 6, art. 3, doubt 3; Almain, q. 1, concl. 2; Alexander of Hales, part III, q. 6, member 2, art. 5; Cajetan on part III, q. 2, art. 4, and on part I, q. 3, art. 8. For they said that composition, spoken of absolutely, in its formal concept implies imperfection in each component, and therefore is repugnant to the divine Word. But it is easily answered that this is true in other compositions, in which the components are by their own nature constituted and ordered to composing; for in those the components perfect one another, and the composite is more perfect than each of the components, and therefore such a mode of composition implies imperfection. But in this admirable composition the Word is not by His nature ordered to this or to any other composition, although by grace He accommodates Himself to composing this man, in whom it is not He Himself that is perfected, but the humanity. Nor is anything taken away from His perfection, since He is not changed nor loses anything of His perfection; and therefore this composite is not, simply or intensively, more perfect than one of the components, namely the Word; for that is simply infinite, containing eminently in itself whatever perfection there is in the humanity: extensively, however, it includes formally some perfection which the Word alone does not include. And finally, although the being of the Word in itself does not result from the Word and the humanity, yet the being of this man, as such, results from the union of both; nor does anything else belong to the notion of composition or of a composite, formally speaking, than that it be truly one thing resulting from the real union of several things. And this formal notion of composition does not imply imperfection in each component, or at most in one: the other things, which import imperfection, are accidental to the notion of composition as such. Therefore since, as has been said, Christ is a certain one thing from diverse things (and the argument is taken from St Basil, at the end of [book] II Against Eunomius), we are therefore compelled to deny that the term of this union is simple, and consequently to affirm it composite; for these two are plainly contradictory. And it is confirmed also because Christ, as this man, is more composite than the humanity alone; for Christ intrinsically includes the humanity, and something else besides. Therefore all the more recent theologians teach that it must be said absolutely and simply that the term of the union of the uncreated Word with humanity is a composite person, and that this union is a true and proper composition; St Thomas on part III, q. 2, art. 4; and it is a conclusion defined in the 5th Synod, Action 8, Canons 4 and 7, and in the 6th Synod, Action 4, letter 1 of Agatho, Action 11, letter of Sophronius, Action 13, Canon 6; and in the Lateran council under Martin III, Consultation 5, Canon 17 condemns those who deny that what [is in the] 4 [synods], where the Canons of the Synod are confirmed, and what was decided about Christ in those councils, is said properly and according to truth; and in the same place Canon 6 defines that He subsists properly and according to truth in two and from two natures: and that particle, 'from', without doubt designates composition. The holy Fathers too acknowledge this: Dionysius, On the Divine Names, ch. 1, and On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 3, part II; Damascene, book III, ch. 3 and following; Gregory, Homily 38 on the Gospels; Athanasius at the beginning of the Oration That Christ Is One; Peter the Deacon, On the Incarnation and Grace: By the holy Fathers, he says, by the union of divinity and humanity Christ the Lord

is proclaimed composite; and he says that this was defined in a certain council of Antioch against Paul of Samosata. In order, then, to explain this composition and the truth of this union, the Fathers also used other names, namely those of mixing or commingling, as Lactantius does in this place, and Eusebius of Emesa in the homily on that passage of John 3: Amen, amen I say to you, the servant is not greater, etc. Gregory Nazianzen calls this composition a new mixture and an admirable tempering in Oration 42; Tertullian, in On the Flesh of Christ and in the Apologeticus, chapter 21, says that in Christ there is man mixed with God; and Hilary says much the same, book 2 On the Trinity, chapter 13. They likewise used the names of unification, of coupling, of conjunction out of two; as Chrysostom, Homily 10 on John, Justin in the book On the Exposition of the True Faith towards the end, Cyril in the letter to Nestorius. Likewise the name of concretion, as Cyprian, book 2 Against the Jews, chapter 10: Christ, he says, man and God, concreted out of both kinds. Yet the expressions which speak of mixing are not to be taken in their proper sense, because, since each nature remained perfect in itself and unconfused, as was established against Eutyches, there could not properly be mixing or mixture there; rather they were employed by the holy Fathers merely to suggest the truth of this composition. We, however, ought to refrain from them altogether, and not imitate the Fathers in all their words, as St Augustine says, On Christian Doctrine 4, chapter 3, since we do not have graces equal to theirs.

Egypt has grown weary. So Cyprian has it, Testimonies 2, chapter 6, following the Septuagint, ἐκοπίασεν Αἴγυπτος, in place of what stands in the Vulgate according to the Hebrew letter, the labour of Egypt.

And Saba, tall men. It must be written exactly so, that Saba is joined with tall men, with no point placed between, as is wrongly done in all the copies of Lactantius; for so it is understood that the tall men of Saba will pass over, etc., according to the reading of all the Bibles, Hebrew, Greek and Latin, of Tertullian Against Praxeas, of Cyprian in the place cited above, and of other Fathers. Where Lactantius here has Saba, the Septuagint, the Vulgate, Tertullian and Cyprian have Sabaim; but it makes no difference, since by either name the Sabaeans are understood, namely those who descended from Saba the son of Chus, of whom Genesis 10 speaks, and who inhabited that part of Arabia Felix which lies towards the Red Sea, or the sea called Arabian; for this is what is found here in the Hebrew... Other Sabaeans are those descended from Saba the son of Regma, of whom the same chapter of Genesis speaks, inhabitants of that part of Arabia Felix which lies more towards the Persian Gulf. Hence Pliny, book 6, chapter 28, said that the Sabaeans dwell with their peoples stretched out to both seas; for this is understood of the Arabian, or Red, Sea and of the Persian, and of both nations of the Sabaeans, both those who took their origin from Saba the son of Chus and those who took it from the son of Regma. Although the profane writers did not know this distinction, which is known to us from the Sacred Scriptures, but described both as one nation; and the Greeks as well as the Latins named both Saba, and those called after them Sabaeans, with no difference of naming, as Pererius also notes on Genesis in the place cited above. But the Hebrews distinguish the name of each in such a way that they write Saba the son of Chus with the first letter ס Samech, which is a thin and slender s, but mark the son of Regma with the first letter ש scin, which is a thick s. See Isidore, Origins book 9, chapter 2, under number 30. Hence the former would seem properly to be called Seva, and from him Sevaeans, but the latter rather Sceva, and from him Scevaeans. Psalm 71 mentions both peoples, where what is in the Hebrew, The kings of Sceva and Seva, is read in the Vulgate and in the Septuagint as The kings of the Arabs and of Saba will bring gifts, etc. That is, St Jerome and the Septuagint, translating Sceva as of the Arabs, meant to denote the offspring descended from Saba the son of Regma, who ruled the Arabia of the Persian Gulf.

And after you they will walk bound with fetters, and will worship, etc. The Septuagint: And after you they will follow bound with manacles, and will pass over to you, and will worship you. But with

Lactantius, who omits the words and they will pass over to you, agree the Vulgate, Cyprian, Testimonies book 2, ch. 6, Cyril, and Eusebius, Demonstration book 5.

And they shall pray to you. So the Vulgate, but Cyprian, and Lactantius himself below in ch. 29, have: And they shall pray in you, and the Septuagint agrees with this reading: καὶ ἐν σοι προσεύξονται.

Jeremiah. This passage is not found in Jeremiah but in Baruch, ch. 3, and it is also cited under the name of Jeremiah by St Augustine, City [of God] book 18, ch. 32, by Cyprian, Testimonies book 2, ch. 6, by Chrysostom, Homily on the Trinity, and by Cassiodorus on Psalm 81. For since Baruch was the scribe and disciple of Jeremiah, very many of the ancients are accustomed to cite testimonies from the book of Baruch under the name of Jeremiah, especially Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus book 1, ch. 10, Hilary, On the Trinity book 4, Basil, Against Eunomius book 4, Ambrose, On Penitence book 1, ch. 8, and Hexaemeron book 1, ch. 14, and others.

And no other shall be reckoned apart from Him, Who found every way of prudence. Septuagint: and no other shall be esteemed in comparison with Him; He found out every way of knowledge. Vulgate: and no other shall be esteemed against Him; He found out every way of discipline. But Cyprian cites this whole passage exactly as Lactantius does.

Thy throne. So it stands in Greek in Paul, to the Hebrews ch. 1: ὁ θρόνος σου; and so Aquila, Symmachus, Tertullian and Cyprian read. On this matter see Eusebius on this passage, Jerome to Principia, and Chrysostom.

Rod of equity. So Cyprian also has it, instead of what is found in the Vulgate and the Septuagint, rod of direction.

And Thou hast hated injustice. The Septuagint, Vulgate, Tertullian and Cyprian have iniquity; but Aquila, according to Eusebius, has ἀσέβημα, impiety.

With the oil of exultation. So the Septuagint, ἐλαίῳ ἀγγαλλιάσεως; and so also Cyprian, St Augustine and Jerome, instead of what the Vulgate, Tertullian and Aquila read, ἐλαίῳ χαρᾶς, with the oil of gladness; others have ἐλαίῳ ἀγλαισμοῦ, with the oil of brightness and splendour, as Symmachus does: this reading is not far from the Hebrew sason, that is, of comeliness, of glory, of adornment.

And He is man; and who has known Him? So the Septuagint has this whole passage, except that there, as in the Vulgate, shall know is read instead of has known, which is also how Tertullian, Cyprian in Against the Jews, and Epiphanius in Against the Ebionites book 1 cite the same passage. Since this passage is found somewhat differently in the Vulgate, namely, the heart of all is perverse and unsearchable: who shall know it?, some have thought that it no longer exists in Jeremiah today.

And God shall send them a man, etc. Septuagint: And He shall send them a man who shall save them; judging, He shall save them. Vulgate: And He shall send them a Saviour and a defender, who will deliver them.

And a man shall rise up. So Cyprian also has it, following the Septuagint; but Symmachus, instead of man, preferred, as the Vulgate does, σκῆπτρον, sceptre or rod.

They did not understand in the works of the Lord. So codex B has it, and Cyprian, Against the Jews book 1, ch. 3, and the Septuagint. But in the Florentine, Aldine and Plantinian editions one reads, as in the Vulgate, they did not understand the works of the Lord.

And He Who shall rise up. So Cyprian, Testimonies book 1, ch. 21, and the Interpreter of Paul, to the Hebrews ch. 15; the Septuagint has καὶ ὁ ἀνιστάμενος, and He Who rises up.

In Him shall the nations hope. So the Interpreter of Paul in the place cited above, and Cyprian in the manuscripts, on whose authority Pamelius, against the common printed editions, had in illum printed instead of in illo. The Septuagint, according to the recent Roman edition, has ἐπ' αὐτῷ, in Him, although Pamelius read in Greek ἐπ' αὐτόν.

And their rest shall be in honour. I suspect that Lactantius's Bible had an error in the word their; for that prophecy is spoken of Christ, and the Septuagint and Cyprian have and His rest shall be honour. The Vulgate has and His sepulchre shall be glorious.

The spirit of knowledge and of piety. So it should be read, as in B. T. P. and the Plantin edition, not as in the Florentine and Aldine, The spirit of piety; for the words of knowledge and are found in the prophet himself and in Cyprian.

And the spirit of the fear of the Lord shall fill Him. There agrees

this reading of Lactantius with the Vulgate and with Cypr. Testimonies 2, ch. 11, although the Septuagint punctuates thus, so that after "him" a comma is drawn: "The spirit of knowledge and of piety will fill him, the spirit of the fear of the Lord."

And I will prepare his kingdom. So it is read in B. T. P., the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and Cypr. Against the Jews, book 1, ch. 15, and book 2, ch. 11, in place of what stands here in the printed editions, "and I will prepare his seed."

And the city, which he called Hierosolyma after his own name. Solomon did not found it, as Lactantius wrongly reports here and below in ch. 13. For how would Sacred Scripture so often make mention of it when it speaks of the times of Joshua, of the Judges and of the Kings, which were certainly long before Solomon was born? Josh. ch. 10, 12, 15, 18; Judg. 1 and 19; Kings, book 1, ch. 18, book 2, ch. 5, 8, 9, 10 and elsewhere. It is believed, rather, to have been founded by King Melchizedek around the two thousand and twenty-third year from the origin of the world, in the time of Abraham, and to have been called Salem in Hebrew and Solima in Greek; and it seems to have been held by him for fifty years; afterwards the Jebusites, descended from Jebusaeus son of Canaan, seized it, and by them it was for some time called Jebus and Jebusaeum, at the time when Joshua killed its king. The Jebusites held it for eight hundred and twenty-four years; and they trusted so much in the strength of the city that, when King David was about to attack it, they in contempt placed the blind, the lame and the maimed on the walls, boasting that these were enough to drive off the enemy. But when, the Jebusites having been expelled, David had taken possession of the city, restoring it and fortifying it with a citadel, he made it the metropolis of all Judaea; and thereafter it was called Jerusalem, as if Jebus Salem, the letter b being changed to r for the sake of euphony, and in Greek, with the word inflected, Hierosolyma. Eupolemus, however, in Euseb., Preparation book 9, thinks it was called Hierosolyma from the most magnificent temple which Solomon built in it, as if "the temple of Solomon"; for hieron to the Greeks is a temple, because it is sacred. Lactantius, on the other hand, since he too thought that the City was named after Solomon, was deceived by that naming and wrongly believed it founded by Solomon. Strabo writes in book 16 that it was built by Moses. But besides the places noted, one should see Josephus, Antiquities 7, ch. 3, and The Jewish War, book 7, ch. 18, and Hegesippus; likewise Jerome, On the Hebrew Places, to Dardanus and to Damasus; Suidas under Melchizedek.

Who built it. The Vulgate: "who build it." The Septuagint: "those building."

He has kept watch in vain. So also the Septuagint, eis matēn ēgrypnēsen; and in the same way this passage is cited several times by St Jerome, and by Cassian, book 12, ch. 9. The Vulgate: "he keeps watch to no purpose."

Has guarded. The Septuagint and the Vulgate: "guards."

Chapter XIV.

The same must have in it an everlasting priesthood. Cyprian discusses the same things in Against the Jews, book 1, ch. 16. And on the priesthood of Christ, St Thomas, part 3, question 22, should be seen.

Who is to do all things that are in My heart. The Septuagint: "who will do all things that are in My heart and that are in My soul." Cyprian agrees with Lactantius, except that in place of faciat ("is to do") he has faciet ("will do"), with the Septuagint and the Vulgate.

And he will pass over in My sight. The Septuagint: "And he will pass over before My Christ"; and it agrees with the Vulgate and the Hebrew, and St Augustine cites this passage so. In other versions there is tōn Christōn mou, "to My Christs"; and Cyprian, Testimonies 1, ch. 17: "In the sight of My Christs."

And the Lord God showed me Jesus, etc. The word "God" is not read in the Vulgate, nor in the Septuagint, nor in Cyprian, Testimonies 2, ch. 13.

That he might oppose him. So the Septuagint and the Vulgate; but codex B has "that he might contradict him."

May the Lord command you in you. The Septuagint and the Vulgate: "may the Lord rebuke you."

And behold, a brand cast out of the fire. The Septuagint: "Is not, behold,

this, as a brand plucked out of the fire": in the Complutensian Bible and in Theodoret and St Jerome, Is not this a brand, etc., as in the Vulgate.

Take away the filthy garments from him. After these words, in the Septuagint and in Cyprian these are added: and he said to him: Behold, I have taken away your iniquities; and in the Vulgate, Behold, I have taken away your iniquity; which Lactantius perhaps omitted for the sake of brevity, as also a few other small things.

And clothe him. So the Septuagint, Tertullian, Cyprian; but the Vulgate continues the speech with Jesus, and to clothe himself.

With an ankle-length tunic. The poderes, which is in the Septuagint, Tertullian and Cyprian, Lactantius has interpreted as an ankle-length tunic, and St Jerome agrees with him.

And I will give you those who may go about in the midst of these who stand around. So it is read in the Septuagint; but the Vulgate varies a little, for there it reads: And I will give you some to walk among these who now stand by. Omitted, however, are the words placed before these in both Bibles, καὶ ἐὰν διαφυλασθῆς τὴν αὐλήν μου, and if you guard My court.

Nearly five hundred years are counted. So it is written in B, T and P, in nine Vatican [manuscripts] and in the Plantin [edition]. But the Aldine, the Florentine and some other editions lack the word prope. Further, Zechariah prophesied in the second year of Darius IV, king of the Persians, as is found in Zechariah 1 and in 1 Esdras chap. 5, in Eusebius in the Chronicle under Olympiad 64, and in Jerome in the prologue of the Commentary on Zechariah; from that time up to the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, Eusebius reckons five hundred and fifty-eight years in the Chronicle under Olympiad 202.

Of Darius. The fourth king of the Persians, as has been said, whom Eusebius places under Olympiad 64.

And of Alexander. This Alexander is not the one called the Great, the son of Philip and twenty-third king of the Macedonians, whom Eusebius places under the hundred and eleventh Olympiad, but Alexander, the tenth king of the Macedonians, whom the same Eusebius reckons under Olympiad 69.

Who lived not long before Tarquin the Proud was expelled. It is certain that Darius lived not after but before the expulsion of Tarquin, since he took up rule over the Persians in the sixty-fourth Olympiad according to Eusebius. Tarquin was expelled in the sixty-seventh Olympiad.

He sent His Son as envoy to men. Many manuscripts and printed editions have, He sent His Son, the prince of the angels, as envoy to men. If anyone prefers to follow these and to keep the words prince of the angels, I shall not strongly object, since I understand that in the expression angelorum no particular nature is meant here, but a function and office; for it is just as if he had said, the first of envoys, or of messengers. For angelus in Greek is nuntius in Latin, and under this name Christ is called angel even in the Sacred Scriptures, not only by Lactantius and by Cyprian, Testimonies 2, ch. 5, and by others: in Isaiah 9 in the Septuagint, angel of great counsel, and Cyprian quotes that passage so in his sermon on the Nativity of Christ, while Lactantius above, ch. 12, preferred the Latin word itself, messenger of great counsel; in Malachi 3, the Angel of the Covenant; and in John's Apocalypse 20, I saw an angel coming down from heaven, etc., a passage which most interpret of Christ the Lord. Christ is indeed rightly called prince of messengers, or of envoys (for he calls Him by this name below, ch. 25 and 29, and in the book On the Anger of God, ch. 2), since He undertook the greatest embassy of all to men, as we said above, ch. 8. Or he said prince, that is, head of the angels, according to that saying of the Apostle to the Colossians 2: Who is the head of all principality and power, etc. And the same reasoning holds for the angels of all the other orders, as St Thomas teaches, part III, question 8, article 4. I have followed the reading of codex B, to which I attribute very great weight because of its remarkable antiquity, and of the Plantin edition.

Chapter XV.

When He first began to grow up, He was baptized by John the prophet in the Jordan, etc. About thirty years of age

was Jesus when He was baptized (Luke 3), whether we explain that passage so that He was two months short of thirty years, as Epiphanius, Heresies 51, and Jansen in the Concordia; or so that He was in the very thirtieth year of His age, as Tertullian the African in Jerome on Daniel chapter 9, and the Master of the Scholastic History in the Gospel history chapter 33, who relates that the thirtieth year had been begun by Him in such a way that He had completed only thirteen days of that same year: which was also the opinion of many holy Fathers, of Irenaeus, Against Heresies book 2, chapter 10, of Gregory Nazianzen, Homily on St Laurence, of Theophylact and Euthymius on Luke 3, and then of more recent writers, the Carthusian, Cajetan on the same chapter 3, and others; or finally so that He had already completed the thirtieth and begun the thirty-first, as Ignatius the Martyr to the Trallians, Chrysostom Homily 10 on Matthew, Euthymius on the same Matthew chapter 3. At which ages no one, I think, would have placed the beginning of youth.

With a sprinkling of purifying dew. So it should be read from B. T. P. and the Florentine edition; not purificati, etc., as in the Aldine and the Plantin. And from this passage it is perhaps understood that in the primitive Church the custom of baptizing was not by immersing those to be baptized, or by pouring water over them from above, but only by sprinkling those to be baptized; which must be thought to have happened at that time on account of the multitude of those to be baptized, which often gathered together at once. However, since the figure of Christ's burial is more expressly represented in immersion, the manner of baptizing by immersion, or by pouring, which the Church uses today, is more praiseworthy, as St Thomas asserts in part 3, question 66, article 7.

Thou art My Son, etc. This passage is found somewhat differently in Matthew 3, Mark 1, Luke 3.

Be strengthened, slackened hands, etc. The reading and punctuation of this passage vary a little in the Septuagint, in the Vulgate, in Tertullian, Against Marcion 4, and in Cyprian, Testimonies 2, chapter 7. See the Annotations on the Bible of Francis Lucas of Bruges.

Of the dumb. So it is in the Vulgate and in Cyprian, for what in the Septuagint is μογιλάλων, of those who speak with difficulty, or of stammerers.

And a stream in a thirsty land. So too Cyprian, Against the Jews chapter 7, translated those words, καὶ φάραγξ ἐν γῇ διψώσῃ. Septuagint: and a valley in a thirsty land. Vulgate: and torrents in the wilderness.

And the running of the lame is swift. In the Sibylline manuscript: and the running of the lame is swiftest.

He went up into a certain desert mountain, to pray there. And when He had stayed there three days, and with hunger, etc. Lactantius seems to have confused the accounts of two miracles concerning the multitude fed by the Lord. For the first indeed took place when, withdrawing from Nazareth, He crossed over by boat into the desert, and the crowds followed Him by the land route, concerning which see Matthew 14, Luke 9, Mark 6, John 6. There, however, Jesus had not withdrawn into a mountain before the miracle was performed, nor had the crowds stayed three days; but five loaves and two fishes were indeed multiplied, the multitude was arranged in fifties, five thousand men were satisfied, and twelve baskets of left-over fragments were filled. The other miracle took place when, withdrawing from Tyre and Sidon, He came beside the sea of Galilee, and going up into a mountain He sat there, and great crowds followed Him, on whom Jesus had compassion because they had already been staying three days fasting, as in Matthew chapter 15 and Mark 8. But there there were seven loaves and a few small fishes, about four thousand men, and seven hampers of left-over fragments. And both miracles are spoken of in Matthew chapter 16.

With five loaves together. In the Sibylline manuscript these verses vary somewhat.

And by faith. Thus the error of the Aldine edition, which has πύστειτε, had to be corrected from the Florentine and Plantin editions, and from the Sibylline manuscript itself.

They walk on the waves, etc. These too vary a little there.

Chapter XVI.

And not only do they look up to the good things of another's kindness, etc. Meursius, in book 5 of the Criticus Arnobianus, ch. 10, conjectures that it should rather be read: And not only do they look up to the gifts of another's kindness, etc.

And he reproaches us with the sins of the law. Here, however, the words have been passed over which are read before these words in both Bibles, and in Cyprian: and he is opposed to our works.

He boasts that he has God as father. This is indeed better, as in the Vulgate and in Cyprian according to the corrected editions, Testimonies 2, ch. 14; Lucifer, For St Athanasius; Augustine, On the City [of God], book 17, ch. 20; than in the Septuagint, he boasts of God as father.

Their folly. The Septuagint, the Vulgate and Cyprian have: their malice. For in Greek it is ἡ κακία.

There were a thousand and ten years. I find in Eusebius, in the Chronicle under Olympiad 202, that from Solomon down to the death of Christ the Lord a thousand and sixty years elapsed.

Let the moon be raised up. In the Psalm all the Latin manuscripts have: let the moon be taken away.

We announced before Him as children. Exactly so Cyprian, Against the Jews 2, ch. 13; the Septuagint, as St Jerome attests, has: we announced as a little child in His sight; and so it is found also in St Jerome himself, in the Commentary. Tertullian, Against the Jews, and Against Marcion 2, has: we announced concerning Him as a little child. The Vulgate, however, reads very differently.

A man set in affliction, etc. In stating this passage of Isaiah Lactantius changes some things and cuts off others. The Septuagint: A man set in affliction, and knowing how to bear infirmity; because His face is turned away, despised and not reckoned, etc. Cyprian: A man set in affliction, and knowing how to bear weakness, because His face is turned away, He is dishonoured and not counted. Let the reader compare the rest.

Chapter XVII.

That He was dissolving the law of God; whereas He did this not by His own judgement, etc. He used the word 'dissolve' for what is 'to annul' or 'to make void', words which Paul used in Hebrews 8 and Ephesians 2, the metaphor being drawn from the knots of cords, which lose their force as soon as they are loosed. Christ the Lord preferred the proper word 'fulfil' (Matt. 5), because when something is repealed from a law which was not perpetual but set for a predetermined time, after that time it is not properly said to be dissolved or taken away, but finished and completed. So there the Saviour, because the old law was not set for perpetuity but until the fullness of time should come, said that He had come not to dissolve it, as though it were perpetual, but to fulfil and perfect the truths whose shadows it bore. Lactantius also signifies this same thing when he says that He was doing this according to the predictions of the prophets; and below, ch. 20, he declares that the New Testament was the fulfilment of the Old.

And He will choose strong nations, etc. In Greek, however, in the Septuagint, both in Micah and in Isaiah, ἐξελέγξει is read, which the translator of the Vulgate and others rendered 'will rebuke', as in Isaiah, or, as in Micah, 'will reprove'; for that is what the verb ἐξελέγχω means. Cyprian too, Against the Jews book 2, ch. 18, reports from Isaiah 'will refute', and the author of the little book Against the Jews placed among the works of the same Cyprian has 'will reprove'. But since here the Aldine edition of Lactantius, the Plantin edition and most others have 'will choose', I suspect that Lactantius's Greek manuscript of the Bible had a fault in Micah and displayed ἐκλέξει instead of ἐξελέγξει, which means 'will choose'. For the rest, why in the same Cyprian, Against the Jews book 1, ch. 10, where he also cites Micah, delegat is read, or here in Lactantius in the Florentine edition diriget, I can find no reason; and I think it was an error of the workmen, but that the genuine text of Cyprian and Lactantius had deliget, and that they wrote it so, albeit wrongly, deceived, that is, perhaps by the error of the Greek manuscript in Micah, as I have said.

Oreb. It is also called Choreb, and perhaps better.

For among the Hebrews the first letter of this name is ח, among the Greeks χ. It is a ridge of Mount Sinai, and hence under a single name it is called the mountain of God; and it is written that the law was given on Sinai, as in Exodus 19 and 34 and Leviticus 26, and on Horeb, as in Deuteronomy 9 and Malachi 4. We read that some have written that the eastern part of this mountain is called Sinai, the western Horeb: Jerome on this in the Hebrew [Questions] and on the 42 stations. Ortelius and some others among the more recent writers think that the same mountain is called now Sina, now Horeb. The more accepted opinion, however, is that those mountains are distinct from one another but cohere at the root, and also that Horeb is much lower in height than Sinai.

Towards Him everyone shall be loosed, etc. A mutilated verse, which is restored from the Sibylline codex; for there [it reads], Towards Him then everyone is loosed, etc.

Isaiah prophesied thus. A slip of memory; for he has put Isaiah in place of Jeremiah, who has this in chapter 4.

Renew. The Florentine [edition has] recall. But our reading is shown by the manuscripts and by the Aldine and Plantin editions, and by the Bibles, both the Vulgate and the Septuagint, and by Tertullian and Cyprian against the Jews.

Newness. So Cyprian, Testimonies 1, chapter 8, and Tertullian against the Jews, who however in Against Marcion 1 has a new renewal, in place of what is read in the Septuagint in the plural number, νεώματα, fallow lands; but in the Hebrew, the Chaldee and the Vulgate in the singular number, fallow land.

Circumcise the foreskin of your heart. So Cyprian, [book] 1 against the Jews; but Tertullian [has], be circumcised as to the foreskin, or the foreskins, of your heart, as in the Hebrew, the Chaldee and the Latin according to the Vulgate edition, in place of what is now read in the Septuagint, κληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν, the hardness of your heart.

And burn up. These words, which we have added from B., are not found in most [copies], for Cyprian has exactly so; and in the prophet, in the Septuagint and the Vulgate, is read, and it shall be kindled, or and let it be kindled.

In the last days. The Septuagint does not have these words, nor the Vulgate, but Cyprian does.

The Lord will circumcise. This agrees with the Vulgate and Cyprian; but Augustine, Question 53, with the Septuagint, [has] will purge round about. But here these words are lacking, and the heart of his seed, which are found in both Bibles and in Cyprian.

Knives of stone, very sharp. This agrees with the Septuagint, Cyprian and Theodoret. In the manuscripts, of stone, from sharp rock. St Augustine, Question 6: Make for yourself knives sharp, of rock; or, as the Greek has, of sharp rock.

For the prophet does not speak thus, and the Lord said to me. All the copies have a fault, in which Jesus is read in place of Lord. For the text of Sacred Scripture itself has it as we have had it printed; and so Firmianus himself rightly cited it a little above, to which passage these words refer.

Auses. So, following the Septuagint of Numbers, chapter 13, Tertullian against the Jews and St Augustine, Against Faustus book 16, chapter 19, give this name: τὸν Αὐσῆν υἱὸν Ναυῆ. The Vulgate has from the Hebrew, Osee.

Chapter XVIII.

That it must be done thus in every persecution. Note the testimony of a most ancient father concerning flight being lawfully taken in time of persecution, against the Marcionites and Montanists, whom Clement of Alexandria refutes in Stromata 4, Origen on John, chapter 31, Cyprian in the letter to the Thibaritans on the Exhortation to Martyrdom and in the book on the Lapsed, Nazianzen in the Oration in praise of Caesarius and in the Oration in praise of Basil, Athanasius in the Apology for his own flight, and St Augustine in the letter to Honoratus.

A legate was governing Syria. He takes the name of legate as common to all who were sent publicly on any office whatever; for so Varro too explains the same name in [book] 5 On the Latin Language; but taken properly it was the particular name of a magistracy and office. Some call Pilate procurator, as the Gospel of Luke, chapter 3, and Tacitus, Annals 15; others governor of Syria, as Ignatius the martyr in the letter to the Trallians.

In 46 years. I have kept this number, approved by 12 Vatican codices, by P., and by the editions, the Florentine, the Aldine,

the Plantin, and the rest, and shown by the Evangelist John himself, ch. 3, although B. and T. have "in forty years".

That nothing in him seemed worthy of condemnation. This was the ancient formula of judging. Seneca, Natural Questions 1, ch. 16: "And yet he did not pronounce that he seemed to have been slain lawfully." Pliny, bk. 14, ch. 13: "The judge pronounced that the woman seemed to have drunk more wine than for the sake of her health." They also not rarely used the same in decrees of the senate. Sallust: "On the motion of Cicero, a full senate decreed that the evidence of Tarquinius seemed false." Cornificius, bk. 1: "The senate decreed that, if he brought that law before the people, he seemed to be acting against the commonwealth." Also in laws and plebiscites. Livy, bk. 25: "The plebs resolved that he seemed to be in exile." Other examples from the responses of the ancient jurists and from other authors Cujas brings forward, Observations bk. 3, ch. 26.

Nor yet did he himself pronounce sentence, etc. On the contrary, it is established from John and Luke that a sentence of condemnation was pronounced by Pilate against Christ: of whom the former, ch. 19, says that Pilate sat on the judgement seat, which belongs only to one exercising judgement; the latter, ch. 23, that he judged upon Him, or concerning Him; for this is what ἐπέκρινε means. Peter the apostle too, in Epistle 1, ch. 2, speaking of Jesus, says: "But He delivered Himself to him who judged unjustly", namely to Pilate. This also St Ignatius expressly teaches in the Epistle to the Trallians, St Augustine on Psalm 63, and Pope Leo, Sermons 1 and 8 on the Passion of the Lord.

In a garment of scarlet colour. That garment was a chlamys, as in Matthew, ch. 27: χλάμυδα κοκκίνην, which was called paludamentum by the Romans; and kings, generals and soldiers put it on over their armour. It was of red colour. Hence Martial, bk. 14:

Rome is clothed rather in dark colours, Gaul in red, / And this colour pleases boys and soldiers.

For the soldiers were deceived, and were not frightened, if blood flowed from their wounds. That red colour, then, they designated now as scarlet, as Matthew the evangelist does; now as purple, as Mark 15 and John 19; now as crimson, as Lactantius in this place. For all these colours in some way reproduce red, either intensifying it, or softening it, or tempering it with some mixed appearance. That scarlet is red all know from Pliny bk. 9, ch. 41, who also in bk. 22, ch. 2, writes that it was reserved for the generals' cloaks. And Plutarch too, in the Fabius, relates that the signal of a coming battle for the Roman generals was a scarlet tunic spread out above the headquarters. Purple, moreover, Pliny bk. 9, ch. 8, writes to be most excellent when it shows the colour of clotted blood: whence blood is also called purple by Homer. Concerning the crimson colour, which is also called Phoenician (which the Greeks call φοίνικα, or σπάδικα, since a palm branch torn from the tree together with its fruit is called spadix, on the testimony of Gellius bk. 3, ch. 9), I bring forward this from Fronto in the same Gellius, bk. 2, ch. 26, when he was disputing about colours with Favorinus the philosopher: "For these are not the only words denoting the colour red which you have just mentioned, rufus and ruber; but we also have others, more than those Greek ones mentioned by you. For fulvus, and flavus, and rubidus, and phoeniceus, and rutilus, and luteus, and spadix are names of the red colour, either sharpening it, as though setting it on fire, or mixing it with a green colour, or darkening it with black, or brightening it with a gradually greening white. For phoeniceus, which you called in Greek φοίνικα, is ours; and rutilus, and spadix, synonyms of phoeniceus, which, though made from the Greek, is ours, signifies the abundance and splendour of redness, such as are the fruits of the palm tree not much ripened by the sun: whence comes the name of spadix and phoeniceus. For the Dorians call a branch torn from the palm with its fruit spadix", etc. Therefore Ovid, Metamorphoses 13, and Statius, Achilleid 1, also attribute this colour to blood; whence Plutarch, in the Spartan Institutions, in the Paullus Aemilius and in the Marcellus, relates that it too was the signal of a coming battle, and that soldiers ready for the fight were accustomed to put it on. But others not from the palm, as has been said, but rather from the rind of the pomegranate

declare that that colour took its name: others [derive it] from φόνος (slaughter), because, namely, that shrub (which, like androsemon, yields blood, though in another way) was called φόνος by Theophrastus. Concerning one and the same cloak of Christ, therefore, these three colours were named: not because they are the same; for taken in their proper sense they are different, as Brodaeus argues against Parrhasius, Guarinus and others in book I of the Miscellanies, chapter 8, and Baif in On Clothing, chapter 3, but because all of them in some way, as has been said, show the same colour, that is, red, they could be used by the evangelists and by Lactantius for one and the same colour. These few remarks I wished to set out, in order to show that Lactantius agrees with the evangelists, and the evangelists themselves with one another, whose passages, seemingly in conflict, caused not a little trouble to certain learned men, especially Lazare de Baif in the place cited above.

The Gavian cross. The Florentine edition has Gabian, an error which Andreas Patricius noted at the beginning of his Scholia on the fragments of Cicero's Orations. For the passage must refer to the cruel deed of Verres, who had fastened Publius Gavius, not Gabinius, to a cross; on which see the seventh oration against Verres.

They did not know. So also St Augustine, in place of what is found in the Vulgate and in the Septuagint, I did not know; Symmachus, I was not knowing.

Into the lawless, etc. Lactantius has joined together these verses, which in the Sibylline book, Discourse 8, are set apart and scattered from one another. For there are read first the words, and with defiled mouths, etc., then, after some lines in between, the words, and he will give to scourges. But only after yet other lines have been interposed are found those which are read first here, into lawless hands, etc.

What word, or whence He came. The Sibylline book: who, being whose [son], whence He came, etc.

For you, senseless one, His. Among the Sibylline verses I do not find these lines.

With thorns. I should prefer of thorn.

And Esdras said to the people. A remarkable passage, which we do not now have. Justin Martyr, in the Dialogue against the Jews, asserts that it was removed from the books of Esdras by the Jews, together with others noted there.

His nativity. So also Tertullian and Cyprian. But the Septuagint and Vulgate have τὴν γενεάν, generation.

He was led to death. So almost all the books of Lactantius. The Florentine has led away, a reading which did not please Pamelius, though he attests that it is read also in some manuscript codices of Cyprian. Tertullian has brought.

Because He did no crime, nor spoke treachery with His mouth. The Septuagint: because He did no iniquity, nor [was there] deceit in His mouth; the Vulgate: because He had done no iniquity, nor had there been deceit in His mouth; Tertullian, against the Jews: Nor was deceit found in His mouth, or, as in the manuscripts, nor was there deceit in His mouth; Cyprian: because He did no crime, nor [spoke] treachery with His mouth. The Florentine of the Giunti has here: because He did no crime, nor was deceit found in His mouth. But we have followed the parchments and the more numerous and better editions.

He will obtain many. So it is in the Aldine and Plantin editions and in Cyprian as edited by Pamelius, where, however, Jan Coster read, will possess, as it is now read in the recent Latin version from the Septuagint, which has in Greek κληρονομήσει, which I would render, will inherit, as the Florentine edition has here, and Tertullian against the Jews, will have as an inheritance.

Because He was delivered to death. Cyprian, from the Septuagint: Because His soul was delivered to death. The Vulgate: because He delivered His soul to death.

The sins of many, etc. So I read with B. and T. and other better manuscripts and printed books, with the Septuagint, the Vulgate, Tertullian and Cyprian, although the Florentine edition has, the sin of many, etc.

They will lie in wait against the soul, etc.; B. has they will lie in wait for the soul. I have given the reading of all the other codices of Lactantius, of the Septuagint and of the Vulgate.

As a lamb without blemish. The Septuagint: as an innocent lamb,

which the more recent translators of that version rendered, like an innocent lamb. Cyprian, Testimonies 2, chap. 15, has, like a lamb without malice. The Vulgate, like a gentle lamb.

They have devised a device. So Cyprian, Testimonies 2, chap. 15: They have devised a thing devised; the Vulgate, they have devised counsels. The Septuagint, ἐλογίσαντο λογισμὸν πονηρὸν, they have devised an evil device.

Let us root out. So the Vulgate and the printed books of Cyprian, Testimonies 2, chaps. 15 and 20; but the manuscripts, on the witness of Pamelius, have let us take away, or let us pluck out. Tertullian stands nearer to the Septuagint and Jerome; for the former in Against the Jews and the latter in his Commentary have, let us crush. The Greek is ἐκτρίψωμεν, let us wear away.

His life from the earth. So too Cyprian, but the Septuagint, the Vulgate and Tertullian have him from the land of the living.

It shall not be in remembrance. The Septuagint and the Vulgate, μὴ μνησθῇ, let it not be remembered. Tertullian and Cyprian agree with Lactantius.

The Lord is not as a man, etc. So the Septuagint, except that in place of Lord they have God; so Cyprian, Testimonies 2, chap. 20, and Theodoret, question 45; but the Vulgate, God is not as a man, that He should lie, nor as the son of man, that He should be changed. So, nearly, Origen, Homily 16, and Philo, On the Life of Moses, book 1.

Whom they pierced through: the Vulgate, whom they transfixed; Cyprian, Testimonies 2, chap. 21: on whom they pierced; Tertullian, Against the Jews: whom they pricked. St Jerome, who discusses the varying reading of this passage, certainly recognizes in the Septuagint ἀνθ' ὧν κατωρχήσαντο, because they mocked.

They dug through. In Greek ὤρυξαν; and so Pamelius reads in Cyprian from the manuscripts, not, as in the printed editions, and they dug, since the conjunction is found nowhere. Tertullian sometimes has, like the Septuagint, the Vulgate and Justin, they dug, as in Against Marcion 4; sometimes, they destroyed, as in the book Against the Jews.

My hands and my feet. So the Vulgate, Tertullian, Against Marcion 4, Cyprian, St Augustine and others. But the same Tertullian, in Against the Jews, with the Septuagint, has my hands and feet, and no more; as Justin: my feet and hands, and no more.

But the Spirit of God was speaking through him, He Who was to suffer those things. That is, the Son of God Himself, Whom here, as often elsewhere, he calls the Spirit of God, in that sense, indeed, in which God is called Spirit, as we said on book 2, chap. 9, not so as to confound the person of the Son with the person of the Holy Spirit.

After a thousand and fifty years. For so many years are reckoned from the reign of David up to the cross of Christ. From the beginning of David's reign, that is, the sum indeed falls somewhat short according to Eusebius in his Chronicle. For he assigns forty years to David's reign, after whom his son Solomon reigns, from whom, and from the first building of the temple, which took place in the fourth year of Solomon's reign, as in 3 Kings, chap. 6, up to the year of the Lord's Passion, Eusebius, under Olympiad 202, reckons a thousand and sixty years. But it agrees exactly with the computation of Lactantius, who above, in chap. 16, reckoned 1010 years from the time of Solomon's prophecy, which we take as beginning from the first year of his reign. When, therefore, the 40 years of David's reign are added to these, this sum of a thousand and fifty years is made up exactly.

But if you turn away, etc. The reading of this passage in the sacred text varies a great deal; for here some things have been changed, others either removed or added. Let whoever wishes compare them.

Chapter XIX.

And the day of light shall be darkened. So Cyprian, Testimonies 2, chap. 23, and nearly so Tertullian, Against the Jews, in whom is read: and the day of light shall grow dark over the earth. The Septuagint, and the light shall grow dark over the earth in the day; the Vulgate, and I will make the earth grow dark in the day of light.

And your songs. The Septuagint, the Vulgate, Tertullian and Cyprian: and all your songs.

She has been terrified. Cyprian agrees with Lactantius; but in the Septuagint and in Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4, chap. 66, is read ἐκενώθη, she has been made empty; the Vulgate, she has been made weak.

She who bears. So Irenaeus and Cyprian. The Vulgate and the Septuagint add ἑπτά, seven: the Vulgate, she who has borne seven; the Septuagint, she who bears seven.

And it wearied the soul. Cyprian has, and her soul was wearied; the Vulgate, her soul fainted; for the conjunction is absent, as also in the Septuagint, which has ἀπεκαύχησεν ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτῆς, her soul was afflicted.

And the sun went down upon her. So the Florentine edition; but the Plantin and the Aldine, as in the Vulgate, have and the sun set for her. I have kept the reading which I judged more probably to have been expressed by Lactantius, namely the one which the Septuagint has, ἐπέδυ, and Cyprian.

Ναοῦ δὲ σχίστητε πέτασμα, etc. I have presented this verse as Marcus Musurus emended it at the end of Aldus's edition; but here in the text in almost all copies it reads ναοῦ δὲ σχισθήσεται πέτασμα, etc. In the Sibylline codex, ναοῦ σχίσσθε τὸ καταπέτασμα. In both places, however, the metre does not hold.

Among those below. So also Cyprian, where the Septuagint and the Vulgate have εἰς ἅδον, in hell.

Destruction. In Greek διαφθοράν, corruption, as in the Septuagint, in the Vulgate and in Cyprian.

And I took sleep. So Cyprian and St Augustine, in place of what in the Septuagint and in Greek is ὕπνωσα; but the same St Augustine admits that some codices have, as the Vulgate now does, I was put to sleep.

He has helped me. So also Cyprian; but the Septuagint has ἀντιλήψεταί μου, He will uphold me, whom St Augustine followed. The Vulgate, however, has He upheld me, as Justin Martyr has ἀντελάβετό μου.

This my wise son, etc. He quotes this passage not faithfully enough, with some things taken away, added or changed; nor does he interpret it correctly enough of the Son of God. The Septuagint: This is your wise son; the Vulgate, he is an unwise son. Scripture there speaks of the iniquity of Ephraim; and by Ephraim different people understand different things: St Jerome, the tribe prone to idolatry; Lyranus, a foolish son turned aside from piety to impiety; others simply a sinful man. The Septuagint continues: « For now he will not stand firm in the crushing of the sons: from the hand of hell I will deliver, and from death I will redeem them. Where is your case, O death? where is your sting, O hell? The Vulgate: For now he will not stand in the crushing of the sons. From the hand of death I will deliver them; from death I will redeem them. I will be your death, O death: I will be your bite, O hell.

He will not withstand. B. lacks the negative, which must by all means be kept, as the prophet has it. For in the Septuagint one reads, he will not stand firm; in the Vulgate, he will not stand.

I will rescue him. Sacred Scripture has not him but them, both in the Septuagint and in the Vulgate.

He will give us life after two days on the third day. This passage of Hosea is read in Lactantius mutilated and wrongly punctuated, as in Tertullian, Against the Jews, and in Cyprian in the old edition, Testimonies 2, chapter 25; it ought to have been quoted as it stands in the prophet, He will give us life after two days: on the third day we shall rise again, as the Septuagint has; or, on the third day He will raise us up, as the Vulgate.

Θανάτου. So it must be read, as it is in the Sibylline codex and as Musurus once emended here, not as it stands corruptly in the Florentine and the Aldine, θάνατος.

Chapter XX.

Lest He should bring them to repentance and heal the impious. So that you may suffer no offence from this, pious reader, and at the same time that we may vindicate Lactantius from the calumny by which he is accused of error in this place by some, pay close attention, I beg you, to this: that it is most certain, and of faith, that some men are reprobated by God (Mal. 1, Rom. 9, to Tim. 2), since it belongs to the providence of God that, of things which by their own nature can fall short of their end, such as man, who through freedom of choice can fall short of beatitude, He should permit some to fall short, so that the sweet ordering of the universe may be preserved. Nor does that well-worn saying of the First Epistle to Timothy, chapter 2, stand in the way: God wills all men to be saved, etc., since it is understood not of the consequent will, by which God is said to will simply, but of the antecedent will, by which He is not said simply

to will, as Damascene says, On the Orthodox Faith, ch. 2, [and] Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter, ch. 33, and On Rebuke and Grace, ch. 15. St Thomas, First Part, quest. 19, art. 6, brings forward other explanations of that passage. Now it is asked whether the divine will has some positive act concerning the reprobate, such that it concurs positively, or whether it holds itself only purely negatively. The answer is that four things befall the reprobate: 1st, they are permitted to fall into sin; 2nd, the fault itself, and the sin; 3rd, they are deserted by God, and persevere in fault right up to the end of life; 4th, the punishment itself, and the eternal penalty. Concerning the first, God has a positive will of permitting sins, and of permitting some to sin by their own freedom and to fall away from beatitude: both because He does in fact so permit, and therefore wills that permission, for permission and operation is a sign of the divine will of good pleasure (St Thomas, First Part, quest. 19, art. 12), which, since it is a consequent will, is a positive act in God; and because, since nothing happens unless God wills it to happen, either by allowing it to happen or by doing it Himself (St Augustine, Enchiridion, ch. 95), and sin does indeed happen, but not with Him doing it or willing that it happen, it therefore happens with Him willing to permit and allow that it happen. Likewise, to permit evils is good, and is ordered to a greater good, and this pertains to divine providence (St Thomas, First Part, quest. 22); therefore it must be said that this permission is willed by God by a positive act. Nor let it be objected that, if a permission of this kind of sin in the reprobate is willed by God through a positive act, God is at least indirectly reckoned the cause of the sin of the reprobate, as though God withdrew efficacious help, with which in place the reprobate would not sin, on the ground that one who removes a hindering thing is the cause, at least indirect, of the effect that follows, as we say of the fall of a stone after the removal of the column by which it was held up. For the answer is that, although He withdraws efficacious help, He never withdraws sufficient help; and from the withdrawal of efficacious help sin does not follow immediately, but from the free will of the one sinning, since reprobation takes away nothing of the power or freedom of the reprobate, as St Thomas teaches, First Part, quest. 23, art. 2, ad 3. But when the effect does not follow necessarily, nor immediately after the removal of what hinders, then the one removing the hindrance is not always said to concur in the effect, nor to be its cause. And we rightly say "not always": for sometimes the one removing the hindrance is said to be the cause of the effect morally, where he had been obliged to prevent the effect. For then, although the effect does not follow immediately from the removal of the hindrance, it will nevertheless be imputed to the one who removed it, since he could prevent it, and was obliged to prevent it, and did not prevent it: just as thefts that occur are imputed to a magistrate, and he is called their cause, although they do not follow immediately from him, because he is obliged to prevent them. But the sins of a harlot (a very bad policy, and unworthy above all of a Christian) are not imputed to him, although he permits them, nor is he called their cause, because he is not bound to prevent them; nay rather, it belongs to his good government that he permit them. And hence it shines out most clearly why God is not in any way called the cause of the sins of the reprobate, neither in the order of nature nor in the order of morals, although He permits them and removes the hindrance, because He is not obliged to prevent them: rather it pertains to His good government and gentle ordering of the world that He permit some to sin and to fall away from the end, as St Bonaventure teaches on 1 Sentences, dist. 4, art. 2, quest. 2. With respect, however, to the fault by reason of which the reprobate is damned, He indeed does not have a willing: Hosea 13: Your destruction, etc.; Romans 9: He endured with much patience, etc.; otherwise God would be the author of sin, and His will would be evil, inasmuch as its object would be sin and evil, which things are blasphemous: but neither does He have an absolute and efficacious not-willing; for since nothing can resist the absolute and efficacious divine will, there would be no sins at all if God had an absolute not-willing concerning them. Thirdly, God wills by a positive act to desert the reprobate, and to permit them to persevere in sins, and to be handed over to the desires of their heart: Romans 1: God handed them over to the desires, etc. Psalm 80: I dismissed

them according to the desires, etc. Rom. 9: Whom He wills He pities, and whom He wills He hardens. These passages signify a positive act of the divine will concerning the abandonment of the reprobate. But the same is also urged by reason. For whatever is reasonable and just, God wills by a positive act. And of this kind is it that a man should be abandoned by God who first deserted God Himself by sinning. Care must nevertheless be taken: where it is said in Sacred Scripture that God deserts, abandons, hardens, blinds, the sense is not that God sends into or produces in the souls of the reprobate some hardness or blindness, as it were some darkness, or that God is the cause for the reprobate of their rushing into sins and remaining in them; but that God by His will does not confer grace and His warmth, by which the heart of the reprobate might be softened, nor pours in light by which it might be enlightened (St Augustine, book On Predestination and Grace, chapter 4, letter 105, and letter to Simplician; (or He is said to harden, to blind, etc., because He permits [them] to be hardened and to be blinded. For it is a phrase and manner of speaking of Scripture to call an action of God what is properly a permission of God, because God by a positive act wills that permission: so Damascene teaches, Theology 4, chapter 14; Euthymius on John, chapter 15. Finally, God by a positive act wills to inflict punishment on the reprobate for guilt; for this is supremely just and reasonable, and belongs to the rectitude of a judge. From these things it is manifest that reprobation is not the cause of the damnation of the reprobate, as predestination is the cause of the salvation of the predestined: because the permission of sinning places nothing in the sinner, as justification places something in the penitent; nor does God's reprobation take away anything from the power of the reprobate, nor has the reprobate been made incapable of obtaining grace by an absolute incapacity, but only on a supposition, which does not diminish freedom, as St Thomas teaches, First Part, question 23, article 3. Therefore Lactantius did not speak absurdly in saying that Jesus did not wish to show Himself to the reprobate Jews, lest He should bring them to repentance, etc. For by these words is signified the abandonment by which they were abandoned by God, and the permission that they should remain in the sin of unbelief, and the withdrawal of the efficacious divine help by which their hearts would be softened and enlightened; and yet their sin, or their perseverance in it, cannot be thrown back upon God as upon its cause.

I have left My house, etc. In citing this passage Lactantius omitted the words I have given My beloved soul, which are found in both Bibles: not there, I have left My house; I have let go My inheritance, I have given My beloved soul into the hands of its enemies; and the sense certainly varies a great deal. On the other hand he added the word ipsa, which the Bibles do not have, nor Cyprian.

In justitiam. The Aldine and Plantin [editions] have it so; the Florentine ad justitiam. I should prefer, as in the Vulgate and in the Septuagint and Cyprian, in justitia.

And I will hold your hand. So also the Septuagint, but the Vulgate and I have taken hold of your hand. Cyprian, that I may hold your hand.

And I will strengthen you. The Septuagint and Cyprian and I will comfort you. The Vulgate and I have preserved you. Therefore that pronoun, which the Florentine edition has, is to be kept in the text of Lactantius, although it is lacking in the Aldine and the Plantin.

Of My race. So Cyprian and Cyril, but in the Vulgate and in the Septuagint the word mei is not found.

Sitting in darkness. With Lactantius agree the Vulgate, Tertullian, Against Marcion 3 and Against the Jews, Cyprian, Cyril. But in the recently edited Septuagint Bibles the conjunction is added, and sitting, etc.

Chapter XXI.

As the son of man. The Florentine edition does not have the particle ut, which the other [editions] recognize, and the manuscript books, and Lactantius above in chapter 12, likewise the Septuagint and the Vulgate. Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, and Against Marcion 3, and elsewhere, tanquam filius hominis.

Which Peter and Paul preached at Rome. One must note a noble fragment indeed, concerning the future

disaster of Jerusalem, of this prophecy, and of the preaching of Peter and Paul held at Rome, of which we have nothing in the sacred writings or elsewhere. To be noted also is the passage of a most illustrious and most ancient Father against the heretics who deny that the Apostle Peter was ever at Rome.

Chapter XXIII.

Whoever gives precepts to men, etc. I pass over the whole argument of this and the following chapter as empty; for no one could rightly deny that God Himself, having assumed flesh, when He gave the law to Moses, was the true and perfect giver of the law and teacher of virtue. Isaiah 33: The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver (Isa. 33:22). Therefore those truer reasons concerning the Incarnation of Christ the Lord, divinely set out by St Thomas, part II, question 1, article 1, and by the other Doctors, especially by St Bonaventure on the 3rd [book of the] Sentences, distinction 1, are to be attended to.

Chapter XXV.

The mother of His body [was] a Virgin. Against Valentinus, Apollinaris, Eutyches and others, who denied that Christ the Lord received anything from the Virgin Mary. See Irenaeus, [book] III, Against Heresies; St Augustine, On Heresies; Theodoret, Compendium of Heretical Fables, book IV, at the end.

Chapter XXVI.

In injured and afflicted bodies. In the earlier editions illaesis ["uninjured"], etc., is corruptly read.

That there should be no one at all who could not imitate Him. This same reason is also brought forward by St Thomas in part III, question 46, article 4; for he teaches that it was most fitting that Christ should be subjected to the death of the cross for the sake of an example of virtue.

As their custom required, etc. He rightly says "their", that is, of the Jews; for they alone were accustomed to break the legs of the hanged, so that they could bury them dead on the same day according to the law of Deuteronomy, chapter 21. But among other nations leg-breaking had nothing to do with the cross, but was another kind of punishment entirely separate from the cross; which Cardinal Caesar Baronius also noted in the Martyrology under the day 23 May, and Lipsius, books II and III, On the Cross, chapter 14 in each.

Lest the body, injured and diminished, should be rendered unfit for rising again. A reason of no weight: as if indeed an injured, cut, mutilated body could not have been raised to life by God.

It is called Pascha from paschein ["to suffer"]. These Greek words are not found in B., though they are kept by all the other manuscripts and printed editions. That he himself indeed thinks the name of the pasch is derived from that verb, he indicates sufficiently also from what follows. The same error is found in Tertullian at the end of Against the Jews, and in the author of the gloss, whom St Jerome censures on Matthew, chapter 26; Isidore, Etymologies, book VI, chapter 18. For it is derived not from a Greek verb but from the Hebrew Phasach, which means passing over, as Josephus teaches, Antiquities book II, chapter 13; Jerome in the place cited above and on Isaiah 31 and Micah 7; Ambrose in the book On Cain and Abel, chapter 8, and Sermon 53; Augustine, Letter 119, and On the Trinity book II, chapter 17, and City [of God] book XVI, chapter 43. For this feast was celebrated in memory of the passing over of the Angel bearing the plague from the thresholds of the doors smeared with the blood of the lamb.

Chapter XXVII.

It is now enough, by its power, etc. The passage is to be noted against the heretics of our time, enemies of the Lord's cross. Tertullian treats the same argument in Against the Jews and in [book] III Against Marcion, and Cyprian, [book] II Against the Jews, chapters 21 and 22.

To depict future things. Things to come were metaphorically said to be depicted in the entrails of victims when they were in any way foreshown in them; and perhaps it was a word peculiar to the haruspices, like litare ["to sacrifice with favourable omens"], porricere ["to offer the entrails"].

To whom they sacrifice. That is, to whom they sacrifice for a long time, or perform sacred rites in another way; for the verb is compounded of the preposition pro, which when joined to a verb has a temporal force, and the verb sacro, which means "I perform a sacrifice". So indeed I find it in the manuscripts and in very many printed editions.

The Florentine edition, however, reads corruptly prosecarant: from this reading a strong suspicion came upon me that we should read quibus prosecuerant; for this verb too fits most beautifully, since he is speaking of entrails. Livy, book 5: Whoever had cut off the entrails of that victim, etc. Tertullian, Apology 9: Among the Gauls an older age is sacrificed to Mercury. And that word prosecrant you would hardly find in any other writer; but perhaps the copyists through carelessness left out those two letters.

The temple of a god. Understand: of Jupiter, or of Apollo, or of any other demon, whom, speaking in the person of the heathen, he often calls gods, as in book 1, chapters 17, 20, 21; book 2, chapter 4, and elsewhere.

Who added that highest Jupiter to the demons. I think he is alluding to that passage where Homer speaks of Minerva, Iliad 1, near the beginning, who is said to have betaken herself to heaven, into the halls of aegis-bearing Jupiter, among the other demons:

and she had gone to Olympus, / to the halls of aegis-bearing Zeus, among the other daemons.

Chapter XXVIII.

Whence religion itself received its name. Lactantius thinks that religion is so called from binding back (religando). Ambrose seems to follow Lactantius in his book On Virgins, where he calls virgins consecrated to God religious, as being bound fast to God. So too Jerome on Amos, chapter 9; Isidore, Origins 8, chapter 2; St Augustine in the book On True Religion, where he says: let religion bind us to the one almighty God; Nigidius Figulus in Gellius, book 4, chapter 9; Servius on that line of Maro, 8, Even then a religious awe [struck] the fearful, etc. But Masurius Sabinus in Gellius, in the place cited above, and Servius Sulpicius in Macrobius, Saturnalia book 3, chapter 3, prefer that it be named from leaving behind (relinquendo), as though what is religious were to be understood as left aside by us, removed, in short set apart.

Not, as Cicero explained it, from going over again (relegendo). Yet a certain ancient writer in Gellius, in the place cited above, more or less follows Cicero, saying: One ought to be scrupulous (relegentem), it is wrong to be superstitious (religiosum). Arnobius towards the end of book 4; St Augustine, City of God 10, chapter 4; and St Thomas approves all the etymologies of religion noted here, in the Secunda Secundae, question 81, article 1.

Superstition is of what is false. And it matters altogether what you worship, not how you worship, etc. This is false; for superstition is not only of false worship, but also of true worship that is not offered in due manner, as St Thomas teaches in 2-2, question 92. Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods 2, says that religion is that which consists in the pious worship of the gods; superstition, that in which there is an empty fear of the gods. Fabius, book 8, chapter 3, says that superstition differs from religion as the over-curious differs from the diligent. Varro, in St Augustine, City of God book 6, distinguishes the religious man from the superstitious on this principle, saying that the gods are feared by the superstitious man as enemies, but revered by the religious man as parents. Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris, used to say that superstition is no less grave a vice than impiety.

To release oneself from religious scruples. He is alluding to those lines of Lucretius in the first book:

Next, because I go on to release minds from the tight knots of religious scruples.

And ignorant of the ancients. So it stands in the Roman codex of Virgil and in many other ancient ones, as Pierius testifies, and Velutellus in his Annotations on Virgil; but now in all printed copies it is veterumve, etc.

Chapter XXIX.

Yet let us affirm two, God the Father and God the Son. Since he was here speaking of two Persons only, the Father and the Son, he therefore simply said those two, with no noun added; we can safely understand two, that is, two Beings, taking the word Entes not substantively but adjectivally, and again understanding, namely, two Persons: for so the Master in Sentences 1, distinction 25, and there St Thomas, the single question, article 4, and St Bonaventure in his exposition of the text.

Since therefore the father makes the son, and the son the father, etc. He does not take these names for the divine Persons; nor

[for who] would be so mad as to say that the father is made by the son? But as they are relative names, of which one makes and presupposes the other, neither can be without the other. For before these words he had said thus: "Since neither can the father be so named without the son, nor the son be begotten without the father." By this example, that is, he wished to show that coexistence and coeternity of the Father and the Son in divine things, as does the author of the Exposition of the Apostles' Creed among the works of Cyprian.

One substance. The Son therefore is consubstantial with the Father, against Arius.

Since both the Son is in the Father, because the Father loves the Son, and the Father in the Son, because He faithfully obeys the Father's will. The Son according to His divinity is coequal with the Father in all things, and one with Him, in will indeed, as Lactantius says here, and St Thomas in IV Against the Gentiles, chapter 36, argument 7; yet not in that alone, but also in nature, essence and substance, as the author himself admitted a little above. For innovators have not been lacking, such as Erasmus in the Annotations on the First Epistle of John, chapter V, who interpreted that passage of John's Gospel, chapter X, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), which the holy Fathers and all catholic doctors have always used against the Arians, only of a unity of will, harmony and consent, and not of a unity of essence; against whom Alfonso de Castro disputes, Against Heresies, Book V, under the word "God", heresy 6; Torres in the Commentary on question 27 of the First Part; St Thomas, article I, disputation I, part II.

And they shall pray in Thee. Another reading: "and they shall pray to Thee," as above, chapter 13, where we have spoken of it.

And He Who rescued him. So the Septuagint: "and He Who delivered him". The Vulgate: "and his redeemer".

The eternal God. In both Bibles it is "God Sabaoth", that is, God of hosts.

And I am the last. So the Vulgate too, instead of what the Septuagint has, "and I after these things", "And I after these."

CHAPTER XXX.

Or Anthropians, or any others, etc. I do not think the anthropomorphites are meant here, to whose error I shall say below, on chapter 18 of the book On the Anger of God, that Lactantius once assented; but by the name of Anthropians I think are meant the heretics who denied that Christ was God and asserted that He was a mere ἄνθρωπος, that is, a man, whence they were called Anthropians, "hominists", as you might say in Latin; such were Ebion, Carpocrates, Cerinthus, Theodotus or Theodosion, Paul of Samosata, Photinus and others, whose heresy the great synod of Nicaea condemned, and that of Ephesus, that of Chalcedon, and very many others. In the Vatican and some other manuscripts and printed copies it is read thus: "Or Anthropians, or Arians, or any others," etc. I have kept the reading of B., which is also given in the Plantin edition, both on account of the authority of a codex of wonderful antiquity and also on account of reason. For the Arian heresy became known about the year of the Lord 315; but these books of Lactantius were begun, completed and published long before, as was said above on chapter 1 of Book I. Nor do catholics lose anything by this, since it is established from so many passages of Lactantius that he abhorred the Arian impiety and condemned it in advance before it arose, as we have shown above, Book II, chapter 9, and in this book, chapters 8, 14, 29.

In which there is confession and penance, which heals unto health the sins and wounds to which the weakness of the flesh is subject. These darts are aimed against Novatian and his followers, who did not receive to penance those fallen into sin, denying that remission of sins is found in the Church and that the keys of opening and loosing were given to her by Christ; on which matter see Pacian to Sympronian, letter 1; St Augustine, On the Christian Combat, chapter 31.

BOOK V.

CHAPTER I.

I have no doubt that this work of ours, etc. In certain printed copies: "I have no doubt, O Emperor Constantine, that this work," etc. I have followed the reading of B., which seems supported by reason, as I said on chapter 1 of Book I.

Coacerbant. So it is written in B., perhaps for "coacervant", as above, Book III, chapter 3, "connibere" for "connivere". So St Cyprian in the manuscripts, letter 42, to Cornelius, according to Pamelius's edition, has "acerbationibus" in place of what is read in the printed copies, "acervationibus". So "flagella acerbata" in Tertullian at the end of the Apology, where see Pamelius, and the said letter 42. Thomasius, however, prefers in this place that it be derived from the verb "acerbo", that is, "I make bitter".

Sacrilegious. So I should prefer, as in B., rather than "eloquent", as in the Florentine, Plantin and Aldine editions; for he did not wish to praise, but to condemn that sacrilegious heathen who had given that name to Cyprian, a most holy man.

Coprianus. So it is to be read, as in the Plantin and Aldine, not "Caprianus", as is read in the Florentine edition of the Giunti. It is a gibe at Cyprian by allusion to the word; for κοπρία signifies dung, whence "Coprianus", as it were one who handles dung, or a dung-man; or he says "Coprianus" as it were a ridiculous man and a buffoon; for buffoons were anciently called "Copriae", as Joseph Scaliger notes in the Castigationes on Festus, under "Scurra", and as very learned men emending this passage observe, Lipsius II, chapter 17; Jacques Durant, Variae I, chapter 13: namely because, having left the worship of the gods, he had made over a noble talent to a sordid and foul kind of doctrine and to the old wives' and ridiculous tales of the Christians.

Whence it appears, etc. This whole period, as far as "but if it happened", etc., we have added from codex B., because it both coheres most fittingly with the rest that is found here and plainly appears to be Lactantius's.

CHAPTER II.

Of whom one professed himself a high priest of philosophy,

etc. He means Porphyry. Consult Cardinal Baronius, Annals, volume II, under the year of the Lord 302.

He vomited forth three books against the Christian religion and name. Three indeed at first, but afterwards others too, up to fifteen, as Suidas writes. The calumnies and impieties of Porphyry were sharply refuted in full volumes by Methodius, bishop of Tyre, by Eusebius and Apollinaris, as Jerome reports in On Ecclesiastical Writers; and afterwards incidentally and as occasion offered by Cyril, Jerome, Augustine and others.

Another wrote on the same matter more bitingly, etc. This was Hierocles, who, Eusebius writes, headed the books he wrote against the Christians with the title "Lover of Truth"; and Eusebius also refuted them in an excellent treatise.

Who was then one of the number of the judges. For at that time he held the Augustal prefecture of Alexandria, as Epiphanius reports, heresy 68.

Assent. Janus Gulielmius, in the questions on Plautus's Menaechmi, chapter 4, testifies that in some copies "accensus" is found, the metaphor being drawn, that is, from military matters, as above, Book II, chapter 10.

CHAPTER III.

No one Apollonius. Baptista Pius, in the Later Annotations, chapter 99, thinks that in this place one should read "no one Apuleius", while he testifies that some corrupt copies have "no one Apollo". I read without hesitation, as I have found in all the books, "no one Apollonius". For the discussion was about him, and perhaps Pius too wrote so; for the edition of those Annotations which I have swarms beyond measure with the printer's errors.

He suddenly did not appear at the trial. Philostratus too reports this in the Life of Apollonius, Book IV.

CHAPTER IV.

Which material he did not use as he ought, etc. So too St Jerome judges, to Magnus.

Chapter V.

Not even to signify, etc. Pierius and Velutellus testify that it is so found in the Roman codex of Virgil, since the printed editions vary; for some have it thus, but others nec significare quidem.

Chapter VI.

For the uses of men. I would gladly read in usus omnium (for the uses of all), so that there might be an antithesis to those words singuli and paucorum.

Chapter VII.

And the more often it is struck, the more firmly it is strengthened. B. T. P. and almost all the manuscripts have quanto frequenter impellitur, tanto firmiter roboratur. I have followed the reading of the Florentine, Aldine and Plantin editions, which seemed more correct; for Valla condemns the other in Elegantiae 1, chapter 16. Although indeed, as Franciscus Floridus also rightly notes against him in book 2 of the Lectiones subsecivae, chapter 20, even Cyprian, Tertullian, Boethius and others, especially the ecclesiastical Latin writers, who even in the judgement of Valla himself are not altogether bad, have certain peculiar expressions and phrases which are by no means to be taken up for imitation, yet which you could not rightly censure in them, but rather, like the small blemishes of great men, as it were certain moles on a beautiful face, you would approve and kiss.

Chapter VIII.

Just as one and the same nature, he says. This passage is thought to have dropped out of the first book On the Laws.

Chapter IX.

That they compete with women in passivity. That is, when men are married in the manner of women about to bear a man, as is said in the law Cum vir, in the Code, on the Julian law on adulterers. So too Quintilian, Declamation 3: So that, he says, upon males defiled even to womanly passivity, lust now rushes against its own sex.

Who defile even the most holy part of their body against all right, etc. Namely when they admit into themselves an accursed frenzy, which does not spare even the head, as he says below, book 6, chapter 23.

All of them into the forum, etc. So I read, as B. has, or induforo, as P. has, and so Robert Estienne reads in the fragments of Lucilius collected and edited by himself, and not, as is corruptly read in the Aldine and Plantin, indufori. That is an epenthesis, for in forum or in foro. But perhaps Lucilius wrote Endoforum or Endoforo; for all know that the ancients used endo for in.

To compete in flattery. So Rob. Estienne reads in the place cited above, following the Florentine edition, which is indeed more Lucilian, although the Aldine and Plantin have blandiri, certare, etc.

Follows through all the rest. B. has per caetera universa quaereretur. Although this reading too can be accepted, yet the former is more common and more approved by Antonius Augustinus and Thomas.

Chapter X.

About to sprinkle the flames with blood. In Maro it is read in various ways. For some editions have sparsuros, a reading which Pierius rather approves; others, however, have it as in ours. The same Pierius and Velutellus testify that flammam, not flammas, is also read in the Roman codex of Virgil, but our reading is more generally accepted.

Then pious Aeneas. So the printed editions are corrected from codex B., which have Ecce pius Aeneas, a reading that conflicts both with Maro and with the metre of the verse.

Indeed I would wish to grant it even to the living. Pierius, Velutellus and Bergizom. on Virgil report that Equidem vivis concedere mallem is found in some ancient codices.

Let them be trained to injustice. The word justitiam is an error in the Aldine and Plantin, against which the author's very sense fights, as do B. T. P., other manuscripts and the Florentine edition.

Chapter XI.

For if there is no one, he says, etc. I do not find the passage among the works of Cicero, but you have a similar one in Offices 3, ch. 3: For what difference does it make whether someone turns himself from a man into a beast, or bears the savagery of a beast in the form of a man?

As one in Phrygia, etc. Eusebius writes the story in History 8, ch. 11.

The constitutions of the sacrilegious man. Read these in Eusebius.

Domitius. Ulpian.

In the seventh book. Others read in seven books; but our reading is given by the manuscripts B. P. and the Florentine printed edition, and is approved by Cujas, Observations book 10, ch. 34, and by Thomasius in his Notes.

Chapter XII.

I ask, he says, if there are two men, etc. The passage is excerpted from the disputation against justice, which Sigonius, in his Scholia on the fragments of Cicero, where he discusses this excellently, holds to have stood in Cicero's Republic book 3. See also Letter 15, book 4, to Atticus.

And, on the other hand, let him think the one who is most wicked, etc. Others read but on the other hand, let the one who is most wicked be thought, etc. But Andreas Patricius seems to me to have restored this passage most rightly, though by conjecture alone; his words in the Scholia on the fragments of Cicero's Republic book 3 are these: Formerly it read existimetur; but while I was divining the true reading, as I think, by myself, I afterwards found that it had been noticed by others as well. But what more, if it is thus: and, on the other hand, let him think the one who is most wicked, etc. For contra autem does not please me, either here or a little later; and the copyist, at putet et contra, could easily omit the et, especially if he had seen it written thus, as many things stand written in the Florentine Pandects, put Et contra, which amounts to just the same as if I were to write putet et contra, etc. Patricius's conjecture is supported by what has been observed, that scribes, when they came upon the same word or clause doubled, were often accustomed to omit one of the two, as William Fornier notes in Selections book 2, ch. 24; who for that reason advises that the passage of Varro, On the Latin Language, where it reads circum aras solitum, should be read solitum tum; and in the law Poenales, § 1, in the Digest title on the Falcidian law, where it reads argumentum rei, he reads argumentum tum rei; and in the law Omnes, in the Digest title on restitution in full, instead of examinet, an verae sint he reads examinet, et an verae sint, etc.; you will be able to see other examples there. The same is noted also by Cujas, Observations book 2, ch. 11, and book 10, ch. 30.

In esteem (existimatione). Patricius, in the place cited above, approves this reading, which is given by the Plantin and Aldine editions. In the Florentine is read aestimatione.

Rotten. I have kept this reading, which Aldus has, as the better. He says by way of insult rotten gods, that is, their images, which, since they consisted of wood or some other material of that kind, contracted putrefaction and decay. Elsewhere is read nariosis, or varicosis.

Chapter XIII.

And let them glory in Mucius. On whom see Cicero; Livy book 2 of the first decade; Valerius 3, ch. 3; Seneca, On Divine Providence, and Letter 24; Tertullian, To the Martyrs, ch. 4; St Augustine, City [of God] 4, ch. 20.

Or in Regulus. On whom see Cicero, Offices 3, towards the end; Seneca, On Divine Providence; Pliny, On Illustrious Men; Gellius book 6, ch. 4; Tertullian, To the Martyrs, in the place cited above, and at the end of the Apology; Augustine, City [of God] 1, ch. 15 and 24; Suidas under ῥήγουλος.

Chapter XIV.

Earth imaged by His own fingers. An unusual expression, that is, shaped into an image and formed by His own fingers. So St Remigius in his testament, in Brisson, Formulae book 7: For you, my heir, the church mentioned above, I order a censer and an imaged chalice to be made.

Chapter XV.

He, when as legate, etc. Macrobius relates the story, 1

Saturnalia, chapter 5; Gellius, Book VII, chapter 14, and Book XVII, at the end; Quintilian, Book XII, chapter 1.

Which Cicero calls equability. On the Orator, Book II: "And all the more if they boast themselves too insufferably and overstep the equality of the common law by the pre-eminence of their rank or fortune," etc. And in the same book, near the end: "It will have to be set out, in praise of justice, what the one who is praised has done with good faith, what with equability, what with dutifulness of some such kind"; and Offices I, chapter 32: "But in free peoples, and where equality of law is to be practised, affability too," etc.

CHAPTER XVI.

Nor is there any other reason why we bestow on one another the name of brothers, etc. So too Tertullian, Apology, chapter 39.

The things that are thought evils here, etc. I do not find this little verse in Euripides.

CHAPTER XVII.

That either there is no justice, or, if there is any, it is the height of folly, etc. Thrasymachus treats this argument in Plato, in the first book of the Republic.

A good man, he says, if he has a runaway slave, etc. Cicero discusses one of these, and besides some other questions of the kind, Offices III, chapter 3.

If he declares it, good indeed, etc. Another reading: "If he declares to the buyer that he is a runaway, good indeed," etc. But the words "to the buyer that he is a runaway" do not stand in B. or P., because that "he declares" must be referred not only to the runaway slave but also to the plague-ridden house and the other like things of which he had spoken, as Thomasius also notes.

Now that man is just, but a fool. I have kept this reading of the Aldine and the Florentine of the Giunti, however much the codices B., T., P. and the Plantin edition are against it and protest, where "now not just," etc., is found. That reading conflicts with the meaning of Carneades himself; for in this disputation it was not injustice but justice that was joined with folly, and injustice itself with wisdom; and so it was said that he will indeed be just, but a fool; but if he does the contrary, the same man will be held wise, but will be unjust. This is clear from the next example that follows.

CHAPTER XVIII.

For why should he sail, etc. See Seneca, Natural Questions, Book V, chapter 18.

Those Pythagorean friends. He speaks of Damon and Pythias, whose story you have in Valerius, Book IV, chapter 7, and Cicero, Offices III, chapter 3, near the beginning.

CHAPTER XIX.

In Cicero that same defender of justice, Laelius, he says, wishes, etc. The sayings of this Laelius which are reported in this chapter have been lost from the same disputation of the third book of Cicero's Republic, of which above, chapter 12, where Cicero brought in Laelius arguing for justice against Furius.

CHAPTER XXIII.

God, he says, regards men as His children, etc. These very words you will certainly not find in Seneca; but you have their sense in that little book On Divine Providence, near the beginning. Therefore one must say either that those words have been lost, or that Lactantius expressed that sense in his own words, as though they were Seneca's; which I notice he often did elsewhere. So above, Book III, chapter 21, he attributes these words to Plato: "The state will be harmonious," etc. And in this book, chapter 18, those words to Carneades in Cicero: "The just man," he says, "if I either wound a horse," etc.; and below, Book VI, chapter 12: "If you hear," he says, "prayers," etc. These words of the Lord are found nowhere, but their sense, Matthew 5, Luke 6, is expressed in Lactantius's words.

BOOK VI.

CHAPTER I.

For that holy and singular majesty desires nothing else from man, etc. Not because outward sacrifice too is not most acceptable to God, as was said above, Book II, chapter 2; but the ancient Fathers often pressed these things upon the ears of the heathen, who, covered with every crime, thought themselves religious if they stained temples and altars with the blood of victims, as though God needed victims. For the rest, concerning the most holy sacrifice of the Eucharist instituted by Christ the Lord, which we call the Mass, and which the heretics quite rashly defame on the strength of this or other passages of the kind, see the testimonies of the most ancient Fathers: of Ignatius, a contemporary of Christ and disciple of the apostles, letter 10, and to the Philadelphians, letter 9, to the Ephesians, letter 14, to the Romans, letter 15; of Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp, who was a hearer of John the Apostle, in the fourth book, chapter 32, where he says:

"He took bread, which is of creation, and gave thanks, saying, 'This is My body'; and the cup likewise, which is of that creation which is ours, He declared to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new Testament, which the Church, receiving it from the Apostles, offers to God throughout the whole world," etc. And chapter 34: "Therefore the oblation of the Church, which the Lord taught to be offered throughout the whole world, has been reckoned a pure sacrifice with God, and is acceptable to Him." Likewise of Tertullian, To His Wife, Book II, On Monogamy, On the Soldier's Crown, On Prayer, On Chastity, On the Dress of Women I, Against Marcion, and often elsewhere; of Cyprian, letter 63, to Caecilius, and letter 66; of Nazianzen in the poem to the bishops; Ambrose in the Prayer of Preparation for Mass; Chrysostom in the Homily on the Betrayal of Judas and on the Epistle to the Hebrews; Jerome to Damasus on the Prodigal Son; of Augustine, City of God, Book XVII, chapter 20; Cyril, Mystagogical Catecheses; of Gregory the Great, Dialogues IV, chapter 58; Alexander I in the decree which is found among the general councils, on priests

not to be harassed; of Leo I to Dioscorus, letter 9; Fulgentius to Monimus, Book II; finally of the councils: the first of Toledo, chapter 5; of Ephesus in the letter to Nestorius; the Lateran, cited in the chapter Firmiter, On the Supreme Trinity; of Trent, Session 22.

CHAPTER II.

They light lamps, as for one who dwells in darkness. So a little below: "let them now perceive how little their God needs lamps," etc. Those, then, who light lamps to God in the belief that He dwells in darkness or needs lights are most deservedly condemned. But the holy Church of God lights lamps in the churches even by day, so as to stir up in the souls of the faithful veneration towards God and His Saints and a certain religious joy, and so that under the figure of bodily light that light may be shown of which we read in the Gospel: "He was the true light, which enlightens every man" (John 1:9), as is said in the canon Cleros, distinction 21, from Isidore, Etymologies VII, chapter 12; and this pious usage is approved both by the Divine Letters and by the testimonies of the Saints. For in Exodus XXV mention is made of the lampstand in God's temple having seven lamps. Cyprian, letter 55, mentions the Ceroferarii, or Acolytes, whose office is to carry lighted candles in the church in the sacred procession of the mysteries. St Jerome disputes against the heretic Vigilantius, who reproached Catholics with the use of lights. St Athanasius complains, in the letter to the Orthodox, that candles offered by the faithful were carried off by the Arian heretics. One should see besides Eusebius, History, Book VI, chapter 23; St Epiphanius to John, bishop of Jerusalem; St Paulinus in the Poems on the Birthday, 3 and 6, of St Felix; St Augustine in the Sermon on the Season 215; St Evodius, On the Miracles of St Stephen, Book I, chapter 3, and Book II, chapter 2. Likewise the councils: the Roman under Sylvester; the fourth of Carthage, canon 2 and following. And that this sign of piety is most pleasing and most acceptable to God is attested by signal [miracles] from the very

wax from the candlesticks, or with oil taken from the lamps) miracles performed, concerning which see St Augustine, City of God 22, ch. 8; Theodoret in the History of the Holy Fathers, ch. 21, on James; St Gregory of Tours, Miracles of St Martin, ch. 2, at the end; St Gregory the Great, Dialogues 3, ch. 30; Paul the Deacon, On the Deeds of the Lombards, book 2, ch. 9.

Chapter III.

There are two ways by which human life. The Aldine edition: There are two ways, Emperor Constantine, by which, etc. But in B. T. P., in the Florentine edition of the Giunti and in the Plantin edition, there is nothing about Constantine.

They held that one is the way of the virtues, the other the way of the vices. That Hercules, when he had come to this fork in the road, was in two minds as to which way he should take, was the tale told by Prodicus of Chios, as Xenophon relates in a most beautiful narrative in book 2 of the Memorabilia of Socrates, at the beginning; Cicero, On Duties 1, ch. 45; Suidas under the word πρόδικον; and the scholiast on Aristophanes on the Clouds; Philo the Jew in the book On not bringing the wages of a harlot into the treasury; Basil, On the profit to be drawn from the books of the Gentiles. There is extant on this matter a most charming epigram of Virgil on the letter Y.

But how these ways. So I have restored it from both codices of San Salvatore, B. T. P., in place of what stands in the printed editions, but how these lives, etc.; for he continues in the allegory of the two ways.

Chapter IV.

As the poets speak. For Virgil, [Aeneid] 6:

The right-hand [way], which stretches beneath the walls of great Dis,

by this is our road to Elysium, etc.

All things have been set. So I read, as in B. and T. and other excellent codices, not as in some printed editions, God has set all things; for God has set no vices.

Let him fall from the height into the depths. I have followed the reading of the very ancient codex B., yet I do not think the other reading, which has, let him fall into a deep height, should be rejected, as Thomasius thought, where he says: for to fall into a height can in no way be said, since that is to be raised, not to fall; for since height differs from depth only in point of view, height is often put for depth. Thus the height of the sea, Cicero, To Atticus book 9, and Caesar, Gallic War 4; and of the hollow height of caves, On the Nature of the Gods 2; and The earth went down to an infinite height, On Divination 1; and the rock was sunk to a marvellous height, Verrines 7; and Celsus book 7, ch. 7, the height of the wound ought to reach as far as the cartilage; and Pliny book 10, ch. 33, Caves dug out to a height of six feet.

Chapter V.

But knowledge cannot be virtue. Plato holds otherwise in the Laches, the Meno and elsewhere, whom Aristotle refutes in Ethics 6, ch. 13; Magna Moralia 1, ch. 1; Eudemian [Ethics], book 1, ch. 3, and book 7, ch. 6.

To have been free from folly. B. T. P. and the Florentine edition do not have these words. I have followed the Aldine edition and restored them, because they belong to the words and the first wisdom; but not to the earlier words, virtue is to flee vice.

Chapter VI.

Neither God nor His adversary. This reading has been received by all the printed editions, and by three Vatican manuscripts, and by P. Nine others from the same Vatican [collection] have neither God nor the adversary of God; nor does that reading contain anything absurd, as Thomasius suspects, since not only the devil but also any sinners whatever may rightly be called adversaries of God. Moses, Exodus 13, in the Canticle: Thou hast put down Thy adversaries; and 2 Kings ch. 1, in the Canticle: His adversaries will dread the Lord; and Lactantius above, book 2, ch. 10, called the devil antitheus, that is, the adversary of God. B., however, has the adversary of the human race.

These break up the common society of the human race. Only a very few words transposed; for Cicero [has], these break up the common [society] of the human race, etc.

From the best examples of nature and truth. But Cicero, in the corrected texts of Lambinus, whose reading [is] genuine,

as I think, [has] from the best principles of nature and examples of truth. Nevertheless, certain other editions of Cicero do not have the [word] principiis.

Or when Fabricius, he says, brave, etc. This passage of Cicero is mutilated in our author and varies somewhat; for Cicero has it thus: Nor indeed when the two Decii or the two Scipios are mentioned as also brave men, or when Fabricius or Aristides is named just, or when an example of fortitude is sought from the former, or of justice from the latter, as from a wise man, etc. And indeed Cicero never adduces Fabricius as an example of fortitude, but of justice; and in the same Book 3 of the Offices he says that he was at Rome the same as Aristides was at Athens. Hence the word fortis would perhaps seem superfluous here, and the whole passage should be restored from Cicero.

Chapter VII.

That that immortal secret of His might be in concealment. Almost all the manuscripts and printed editions have might be in the open, a reading which conflicts with the meaning of Lactantius. Therefore I have followed the reading of the Juntas, which is plain, consistent and clear. For he is speaking of that eternal, infallible secret, searchable by no minds of men, by which God reprobates some and permits them to err, so that, turned away from wisdom and truth by their own free will, they fall into the very thing they wish to avoid, namely everlasting punishment. On this matter we have spoken at chapter 20 of Book 4. B. has: as immortality, so He willed His secret to be in the open.

Chapter VIII.

Nor is it lawful for this law to be repealed, etc. So I think it should be read, with Thomasius in his notes, and with Patricius and Sigonius in their scholia on this passage among the fragments of Cicero, Book 3 On the Republic. For here three kinds of undermining a law are expressed, namely obrogation, derogation, abrogation, concerning which see Festus, Cicero in Book 2 On Invention, Ulpian, title 1 of the Institutions. Propagari, which is found here in some copies, is nothing to the purpose.

And having spurned the nature of man, by this very thing he will pay the greatest penalties, etc. Almost all the codices have will spurn; and because it seemed that a conjunction ought to follow, Patricius read: will spurn, and by this very thing will pay, etc. Franciscus Balduinus, on the Institutes of Justinian: will spurn, and by this very thing will pay. Codex B. removed every doubt, since it shows that we should read as in the text.

Chapter IX.

And by doing injuries lawfully. He speaks ironically against the Romans, who used to declare wars through the Fetials, and beforehand to call to witness, with a certain formula of words, that they were preparing war justly against that nation which they were trying to subdue. Then they thought that anything whatever was permitted to them, and that they were doing everything lawfully. See [Dionysius of] Halicarnassus, Book 2 of the History.

Civil law, therefore, is another thing, which varies everywhere according to customs. On this the Philosophers discourse in Book 5 of the Ethics to Nicomachus, chapter 7, and Magna Moralia 1, chapter 31; the Jurisconsults in the Institutes and Pandects, the title On Justice and Law.

And he must necessarily be ignorant of justice itself. So, from both codices of S. Salvatore, B. T. P., and the Florentine edition, the books are corrected which have and he must be ignorant of God Himself, etc.

Chapter X.

Therefore those gathered together among themselves, because the nature of men, etc. See Aristotle, Politics 1, chapters 1 and 2, and Book 3, chapter 4.

Chapter XI.

Who think that to be moved and to feel pity is not the part of a wise man. As the Stoics did, according to Cicero, Tusculans 3, and in the Oration for Murena against Cato; as Seneca, On Clemency Book 2, chapter 5; as Agesilaus, a most valiant commander, whose opinion, etc., Plutarch reports in the Laconian Apophthegms: that it is difficult to feel pity and to be wise at the same time.

He deserves ill, etc. This verse is read thus in Plautus concerning the Beggar:

He deserves ill who gives him something to eat or something to drink.

What you have done without hope of receiving back. Excellently, Seneca, On Benefits book 4, chapter 3 and following.

And kindly. Cicero has "or kindly".

For there is nothing, etc. Cicero: for there is nothing made by labour or by hand which it does not at some time destroy, etc.

Chapter XII.

Which those teachers of virtue and justice did not touch upon at all. For although you may find something in Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, or perhaps other heathens about burying dead men, they believed this to be rather the duty of a good man than meant to indicate that it was ever enjoined by the precept of any lawgiver; and they are understood to have spoken of burying parents and kinsfolk, or those who had deserved well of the commonwealth, rather than strangers and the poor. See Girolamo Maggi, who expounds this passage in book 2 of his Miscellanea, chapter 19.

Who would make burial superfluous. Hence that line of Maro towards the end of Aeneid 2: The loss of a tomb is an easy one. On which matter see Seneca in the Remedies for Chance Events.

If you hear, he says, the prayers of your suppliant, etc. These words are not taken from any passage of Sacred Scripture; but in them Lactantius himself has expressed the thought which belongs to the Lord the Saviour, Luke 6: Be merciful, as your Father also is merciful. Forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. For with the same measure with which you have measured, it will be measured back to you.

Chapter XIII.

He who sins knowingly has no pardon. He makes this clear from what precedes; namely, if the sinner does not do penance, and does not profess and resolve that he will thus sin no further.

He who has climbed the first step is just enough. He is not just enough if, while abstaining from evil works, he nevertheless either speaks or thinks evil; which Lactantius himself both acknowledges and teaches below, ch. 23, and in book 7, ch. 27, he says that God will judge even depraved thoughts.

Chapter XIV.

For the Stoics remove from man all the passions by whose impulse the mind is stirred, etc. On behalf of these Stoics, Seneca in very many places: Letter 86, "Peperceram", Letter 117, "Utrum satius", On Anger book 1, ch. 10 and 11 and following, and the whole of book 2. The Peripatetics, on the contrary, contend that they are not to be removed altogether but moderated. For Aristotle, in Ethics book 2, ch. 30, denies that the virtues are simply impassibilities and tranquillities, as Lactantius says in book 7, ch. 10. See Cicero, On Ends 3 and 4, and Tusculans 4; Plutarch, On Moral Virtue; St Augustine, City [of God] book 9, ch. 4, and book 14, ch. 8 and 9. Our author argues against both.

Chapter XVI.

And even to rejoice a little in that, etc. According to the opinion of the gentile philosophers, against whom the disputation was directed, so that he might refute them by their own positions, as he professed in these books that he would do, book 5, ch. 4; but not according to the doctrines of Christian wisdom, by which we are taught that all good things are to be wished even for our very enemies: on which he himself also discourses excellently below, ch. 18.

Chapter XVII.

For these agitations of minds are like a yoked chariot, etc. Perhaps he alludes to the chariot of which Plato speaks in the Phaedrus.

This is that honourable man, etc. A sentence of Seneca taken from the books of moral philosophy, which we have lost; but he puts forth similar things here and there: Letter 24, "Sollicitum", Natural Questions book 6, ch. 32, and elsewhere.

Chapter XVIII.

Who worships the good Word. That is, Jesus the Son of God,

who is called the good Word at the beginning of Ps. 24, to which passage he alluded.

Now by this very fact he must lose the name of a good man, etc. This argument is directed not only against Cicero but also against Aristotle, who maintains that not to avenge an injury is the mark of a cowardly and servile man, in book 4 of the Nicomachean Ethics and book 3 of the Eudemian, in both places chapter 5.

Inscribed with another's title. That is, with the title of Philippics, after the example of Demosthenes.

I hope, says Caesar, you who forget, etc. The word Caesar is absent from the text of Cicero; for there it reads, I hope that you too, who forget, etc.

Chapter XIX.

And so this very anger, they say, is the whetstone of virtue. I have followed both the judgement and the testimony of Janus Guilielmius: for he attested in his Questions on the Menaechmi of Plautus, chapter 4, that it is so read in some manuscript codices of Lactantius. And indeed Cicero, from whom Lactantius borrows all this, has it thus in the Lucullus near the end: That irascibility itself is as it were the whetstone of fortitude, etc.

Chapter XX.

But debaucheries, he says, and adulteries, etc. Some things are transposed, some omitted. Cicero: That debaucheries and adulteries, and every such shameful deed, are aroused by no other enticements than pleasure. And since nature, or some god, had given man nothing more excellent than the mind, nothing is so hostile to this divine gift and present as pleasure. For where lust is master there is no place for temperance, nor at all in the kingdom of pleasure, etc. Some codices of Cicero, however, have: Are incited by no other enticements than those of pleasure, as is noted in the margin of the Lambinus editions; and for where lust is master there is no place at all for temperance, nor in that of pleasure, etc.

Yet they do not despise these public spectacles, etc. On which see Tertullian in the book On the Spectacles, Cyprian in letter 1 to the people, St Augustine in book 3 of the City [of God], ch. 8 and following.

Nor will it be lawful for the just man to serve as a soldier, etc. He speaks only with regard to that time of the primitive and youthful Church, which neither had the sword, nor was it then fitting for her to use arms, but only to grow through sufferings and miracles, as Hugh of Saint-Cher writes in his Annotations on Mark, expounding that passage of Luke 22: Let him sell his tunic and buy a sword. For the rest, that a just man may serve as a soldier, and that military service is sometimes just, Gratian sets forth from Saints Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory and the other Fathers in the Decretum, throughout cause 23, questions 1, 2, 3; and the contrary assertion of the heretics, the Manichaeans, Oecolampadius, Agrippa, Luther and Erasmus, is refuted by Sixtus of Siena, book 6 of the Bibliotheca, annotation 156, and by Alphonsus de Castro, Against Heresies, book 3, under the word Bellum.

Nor indeed to accuse anyone of a capital crime. This is not simply true; for there can be causes for which it is not only lawful for a just man to accuse a criminal, but he is even obliged to institute an accusation: namely, when he understands that a crime tends to the ruin of the commonwealth, and it can be proved by suitable witnesses. St Gregory in Gratian, in the canon Si quis super his; in the canon Metropolitanorum; and Gelasius in the canon Quapropter, second [cause], question 7; Pope Pius in the canon Si quis per capillum, 22, question 1; St Thomas 2-2, question 68, article 1; Soto, On Justice and Law, book 5, question 5, article 1.

Therefore in this precept of God no exception whatever ought to be made, but that to kill a man is always wicked, etc. John Duns, on book 4, distinction 15, question 3, comes close to the opinion of Lactantius. But that precept of God is not so general that it rejects every exception whatever, and that there can be some causes for which a man may lawfully kill a man is demonstrated by St Thomas 2-2, question 64, and Dominic Soto, On Justice and Law, book 5, question 1.

Whom God willed to be a sacred living being, etc. The word sanctum is taken in this place in its proper sense, and means the same as protected from the injury of men,

and fortified, as the jurist Marcian writes in the law Sanctum, Digest, On the Division of Things. Donatus: "That is called sanctum which is inviolate by every observance." Cicero, Philippics II: "For so great is the love of country that I should be inviolable even to your legions." So laws are called sanctae which are forbidden to be corrupted by the sanction of a penalty, in Ulpian, law Sacra, Digest, On the Division of Things. So the walls of towns are sancti in Pompeius Festus, On Old Words; in the jurist Gaius, in the first law; and in Cassius, Sabinus and Marcian, in the said law Sanctum, Digest, On the Division of Things.

CHAPTER XXIII.

That they might rush most eagerly into these affections, and that in this way the races might be propagated and multiplied, etc. So too Galen, On the Use of the Parts, Book XIV, chapter 2. So too St Basil: "For this appetite," he says, "was given to mortals by God for propagating offspring," etc.; and Seneca, speaking of man, in the Consolation to his Mother, chapter 13: "If you consider," he says, "that lust was given to man not for the sake of pleasure but of propagating the race, every other desire will pass by untouched the one whom this secret bane, fixed in the very vitals, has not violated."

He importuned her chastity. So B., six Vatican manuscripts and almost all others, both manuscript and printed. Six others of the same Vatican ones, and Aldus in the correction of the errata of his edition at the end of the book: "flagitiavit". For my part I neither have sufficient reason to approve either reading, nor do I find what to conjecture. For since "flagitare" has no other meaning than that of demanding vehemently and insistently, you may rightly say that a girl is importuned by someone, as in Ulpian, law II, Digest, On Private Wrongs, a passage which Thomasius brings forward; but it helps him not at all, because it is one thing to importune a girl, another to importune chastity. Guillaume Fournier, Selecta, Book II, chapter 11, says that "flagitare" properly means the same as "to debauch". He brings authorities, which others may look into. I should prefer "flagitiavit", so that here it would mean the same as "he assailed and defiled her chastity with a shameful deed", did I not fear a very unusual word.

It does not even spare the head. Beroaldus on Suetonius, Tiberius, chapter 45; Brodaeus, Miscellanies, Book II, chapter 21; Maggi, Miscellanies, Book II, chapter 20, explain this saying of Lactantius, who inveighed against these abominable men above also, Book V, chapter 9.

But God has commanded that we abstain also from public and common bodies; and He teaches us that when two bodies [are joined] together, etc. Hence is refuted the heresy of Ebion and the Elkesaites, who rejected all the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, as Irenaeus writes, Against Heresies, Book I, and Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book III, chapter 27, and Book VI, chapter 27. For since these words are drawn from the end of 1 Corinthians 6, it is established that even in those times the Epistles of Paul were counted by the faithful among the divine Scriptures, and those inspired by God. He likewise elsewhere cites other sayings of Paul as divine Oracles, above in this book, chapter 18, and in the book On the Anger of God, chapter 21. Consequently the heresy of Simon Magus, Saturninus, the Nicolaitans, the Florians, the Adamites and the Waldensians, who dared to approve the promiscuous use of all women, is also routed by this.

He made woman alone of all [creatures] receptive of the male, etc. But Aristotle writes, History of Animals, Book VII, chapter 4, that the mare also is covered after it has conceived. And Pliny reports, Book VII, chapter 11, that other animals too besides woman, though few, know coupling when pregnant.

For it is unjust that you should demand what you cannot yourself perform. Ulpian expressed this in almost the same words in the law Si uxor, § Judex, Digest, on the Julian law on Adultery. Seneca, letter 95, "That part," etc.

CHAPTER XXIV.

But if it were permitted, as for those who had strayed on the road, etc. This passage does not survive today.

Secutis. Another reading: "secutos". The first reading pleased Patrizi better, and me.

Something great, he says, I know not what, etc. Seneca has the same golden sentence at the beginning of the twelfth book of the Letters, in the letter "Each single day": "We must surely live thus," he says, "as though we lived in full view," etc.

There is no need of sacred boughs, nor of entrails, nor of turfs, etc. He says "fibris" for entrails, the part for the whole. Those about to perform sacred rites placed a turf of grass, or sacred boughs, on the altars. Vervain and laurel likewise were frequent in fumigations. Virgil, Eclogue 8:

Bind these altars with a soft fillet, / and burn rich vervain, etc.

For this reason vervain was called ἱεροβοτάνη, that is, the sacred herb, by Dioscorides, Book IV; by Pliny, Book XXV, chapter 9.

As was said by Cicero, etc. I do not find the passage, unless among the fragments of uncertain books.

CHAPTER XXV.

Ivory, says Plato, is not a chaste gift to God. The passage of Plato is in Laws XII, where he teaches what is to be offered to the gods. It is said of ivory because its use was frequent among the Gentiles in making images of the gods, as Pliny writes, Book VIII, chapter 10, and Book XII, chapter 1; Virgil, Georgics I:

And the sorrowing ivory weeps in the temples, etc.

But among those who in no way understand the nature of the divinity, a gift is whatever [is wrought] in gold, etc. Lactantius errs; for the distinction he refutes is itself the true and proper difference between a gift and a sacrifice, as Chrysostom teaches, Homily 18 on the Epistle to the Hebrews; Theophylact on chapter 8 of the same Epistle; St Thomas, II-II, question 85, article 3.

Therefore both, being incorporeal, are to be offered to God..... The gift is integrity of soul; the sacrifice, praise and a hymn, etc. The Prophet too in the Psalms often mentions the sacrifice of praise, of which Paul speaks in Hebrews 13; and a troubled spirit is called a sacrifice, Psalm 50; and every good work, from the Epistle to the Hebrews. All these indeed are called sacrifices improperly and metaphorically; but properly those offered things are called sacrifices with regard to which something is done: as formerly the animals which were slain and burnt; and now the bread which is blessed and broken and eaten, as Chrysostom, Theophylact and St Thomas teach in the places cited; and both kinds of sacrifice are owed to God. See what we said above, Book II, chapter 2, and in this same book, chapter 1.

In that perfect discourse. So above, Book IV, chapter 6: ὁ λόγος τέλειος; and below, Book VII, chapter 18; he means, however, the Asclepius.

Speak words of good omen. So it is to be read from codex B. and from the Asclepius of Hermes itself, who says so more than once; for so too in the Pimander, chapter 9. The Aldine, Giunti and Plantin editions have "Well, well, O my son," etc.

O Asclepius. So all the printed books rightly read, as in Hermes himself. B., not rightly, "O Asclepiades".

BOOK VII.

CHAPTER I.

As Plato says. He alludes to that passage in the Phaedo: "Do you wish, then," he says, "that we posit two kinds of things, the one of things visible, the other of things invisible?" etc.

Who says that it both arose at some time and will at some time perish. As is established from the poems of Lucretius, Book II, near the end.

CHAPTER III.

The Stoics divide nature into two parts. See Cicero, Academics I.

Or lands have gaped open. Pliny, Book II, chapter 80.

How often both cities and islands, sunk beneath the waves, etc. Pliny, the same book, chapter 92.

And a hidden, internal fire consumes the foundations of many mountains. Pliny, the same book, ch. 106.

Seas are built over. Pliny, book 5, ch. 19.

Mountains are cut through. As Athos once was by Xerxes, king of the Persians; Pliny, book 4, ch. 10.

And the inner bowels of the earth are dug out to extract wealth. Of this Pliny complains, book 2, ch. 63, and in the Preface to book 33; Seneca, book 5 of the Natural Questions, ch. 15.

But since, as we see, a wonderful reason governs the world and all its parts. Aristotle puts it divinely, in the little book On the World, ch. 7.

Chapter IV.

And they think that men were generated in all lands and fields like mushrooms. He discussed this opinion above, book 2, ch. 12.

For neither by the heat of the sun, nor by its light, nor by the breathing of the winds, etc. I have followed this reading, free of all fault, of the Taxaquetian P., of the other, less ancient, B. of S. Salvatore, and of the Plantin edition, since the others can be challenged in some way. The Aldine has "either by the heat of the sun, or by the light of the moon"; the Florentine of the Giunti has "either by the heat of the sun, or of the moon, or the roughening of the winds, etc." This reading can be maintained according to the opinion of those who hold that the moon warms bodies just as the sun does. Suidas, under σελήνη.

Why did God, when He made all things for our sake, make so great a number of water-snakes and vipers? Besides Cicero in the Lucullus, Lucretius, book 5:

Moreover, why does nature feed and increase the dreadful race of wild beasts, hostile to the human race on land and sea? etc.

Basil replies in Homily 9 on the Hexaemeron: Nor is there reason why anyone should accuse the parent of things on the ground that He brought forth animals which emit poison, harmful and hostile to our life; for on that reckoning it will also be permissible to accuse the tutor because he keeps the capacity and inclination of youth within its duty and chastises intemperance with blows and beatings, etc. The same in Homily 5, not far from the beginning; Augustine, book on Heres. against the Manichaeans 1, ch. 16. In the Ciceronian codex, however, in place of the words "why so many pestilent things on earth, etc.", the reading is "why so many deadly, harmful things on earth, etc."

But to man, in place of all these, He gave reason alone, which was the chief thing. Therefore He formed him naked and unarmed, etc. He says the same in the book On the Workmanship of God, chs. 2 and 3, as does Aristotle, book 4 On the Parts of Animals, ch. 10. Pliny therefore complains unjustly of Nature in the preface to book 7 that, although she has covered and protected the other animals in some way, she formed man naked and unarmed.

Our Asclepiades. He wrote a book On the Providence of God addressed to Lactantius; Lactantius in turn wrote two books addressed to him, under what title we do not know, as Jerome, Honorius of Autun and others report.

Chapter V.

And bound to weak bodies, etc. Lactantius often calls the body the snare of the soul, its bond, enclosure, prison, custody, etc., imitating Plato in the Gorgias, the Phaedo and the Cratylus, and Cicero in the Dream of Scipio, in Tusculans 1 and elsewhere: ways of speaking from which we ought to abstain. They were condemned in Origen by Methodius, Epiphanius in Panarion 2, Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, book 1, Jerome in the letter to Pammachius, and Cyril, book 1 of the Commentary on John. See above on ch. 3, book 2.

Of those who endure evils and labours, etc. What he discusses in this chapter on bearing hardships and labours, and in book 6, ch. 11, on practising works of mercy, is to be noted against Luther and his followers, who deny that good works are necessary for salvation.

And always with God. In both codices B., in twelve Vatican codices, T., P. and all other manuscripts, in the edition

of Junta and Plantin, chapter 5 ends here, and 6 begins straightaway with these words: Now the whole reasoning, etc. Hence no slight suspicion arises that the whole of that by no means short discourse which I shall now append, and which in the Aldine edition is joined on after these words, is spurious, and was inserted by another: although he must certainly have been a very ingenious and exceptionally diligent old hand who imitated the style of Lactantius in so wonderful a manner. The discourse is as follows: Nor let anyone now take refuge in saying that it belongs to the fault of Him Who established both good and evil. For why did He will evil to exist, if He holds it in hatred? Why did He not make good only, so that no one would sin, no one would do evil? Although I have taught this in nearly all the earlier books, and have already touched on it above, though lightly, nevertheless it must be pointed out again and again, because the whole reasoning rests on it. For no virtue could exist unless He had made things diverse; nor can the force of good appear at all except by comparison with evil. So much so that evil is nothing other than the interpretation of good. Therefore, if evil is removed, good too must necessarily be removed. If you cut off the left hand or foot, neither will the body be whole, nor will life itself hold together. So much so that, for the balancing of the frame of the body, the left parts are most fittingly joined with the right. Likewise, if you make the counters equal, no one will play. If you give one colour to the Circus, no one will think it worth watching, since all the pleasure of the Circus games will have been taken away. Certainly he who first established them was a lover of one colour: but he set another against it as a rival, so that there could be a contest, and some charm in the spectacle. So God, when He established good, when He gave virtue, appointed also opposites with which they might clash. If an enemy and battle are lacking, there is no victory. Take away the contest, and not even virtue is anything. How many contests there are among men with one another, and established by how various arts? Yet no one would be held stronger, swifter, more excellent, if he did not have an adversary with whom to contend. And where victory is absent, from there glory too and reward must likewise be absent. In order, therefore, to strengthen virtue itself by constant exercise, and to make it perfect through struggle with evils, He gave both together, because neither can retain its force without the other. Therefore it is diversity on which the whole reasoning of truth rests.

It does not escape me what may be objected at this point by the more learned. If good cannot exist without evil, how do you say that the first man, before he offended God, was in good alone, or will hereafter be in good alone? This question must be examined by us: I passed it over in the earlier books in order to treat it fully here. We said above that the nature of man consists of conflicting elements. For the body, because it is earth, is graspable; it is temporal, brute, and dark. But the soul, because it is from heaven, is subtle, eternal, sentient, bright. And since these are contrary to each other, man must necessarily be subject to good and evil. Good is ascribed to the soul, because it is indissoluble: evil to the body, because it is frail. Since, therefore, body and soul are associated and joined, good and evil must equally cohere; nor can they be separated from each other, except when those are separated. Finally, the knowledge of good and evil was given to the first man at the same time. Having received it, he was at once driven from the holy place in which there is no evil. While he was there in good only, he did not know that very thing to be good. But after he received the understanding of good and evil, it was then unlawful for him to remain in the place of blessedness: and he was banished into this common world, so that he might experience together both those things whose nature he had come to know alike. It is evident, then, that wisdom was given to man for this purpose, that he might distinguish good from evil; that he might distinguish advantages from disadvantages, useful things from useless; that he might have judgement and consideration of what he ought to beware of, what to seek, what to flee, what to follow. Wisdom, therefore, cannot exist without evil; and that first of the human race, so long as he was in good alone, lived like an infant, ignorant of good and evil. But indeed hereafter man must both be wise and be blessed without any evil. But that cannot happen so long as the soul is clothed in the dwelling of the body.

But when the separation of body and soul has taken place,

then evil will be separated from good. And just as the body perishes while the soul remains, so evil will perish and good will remain. Then man, having received the garment of immortality, will be wise, free of evil, as God is. He therefore who wishes us to be in good alone desires this above all, that we should live without the body, in which evil resides. But if that were taken away, either wisdom would be removed from man, as I said, or the body: wisdom, so that he would not know evil; the body, so that he would not feel it. But now, since man is equipped both with wisdom, that he may know, and with a body, that he may feel, God willed both to exist alike in this life, so that the principle of virtue and wisdom might stand firm. He therefore placed man in the middle between the two, so that he might have the liberty of following either evil or good. But with evil He mixed certain apparent goods, that is, various and delightful pleasures, so that by their allurements He might lead man on to the hidden evil. And with good He mixed certain apparent evils, that is, hardships and miseries and labours, so that the mind, offended by their harshness and vexation, might recoil from the hidden good. Here therefore the office of wisdom is called for, that we may see more with the mind than with the body: which very few are able to do, because virtue is difficult and rare, while pleasure is common and public. Thus it is necessary that the wise man be held a fool, since, while he seeks goods that are not seen, he lets slip from his hands those that are seen; and while he avoids evils that are not beheld, he runs into evils that are before his eyes. This happens to us when we refuse neither torture nor death for the faith: when we are driven to the supreme wickedness, that, having betrayed the faith and denied the true God, we should pour libations to dead and death-dealing gods. This is the reason why God both made man mortal and subjected him to evils, although He had built the world for his sake, namely so that he might acquire virtue and his virtue might give him immortality. And virtue, as we have shown, is the worship of the true God. Now by this passage nothing is asserted that Lactantius has not also said elsewhere. For that God willed there to be good and evil in the world he taught also in book 2, chapter 18, book 5, chapter 7, book 6, chapters 15 and 22; in the book On the Anger of God, chapter 15. Likewise that manner of speaking, which bears on the matter of reprobation, concerning which [see] book 4, chapter 20, namely that God mixed with evil certain apparent goods, that is, various pleasures, so that by their allurements He might lead man on to the hidden evil, etc., he used above in book 4, chapters 2 and 11. And that Adam, before he ate the forbidden fruit, was ignorant alike of good and of evil, etc., he asserted in book 2, chapter 13.

Chapter VII.

That the world and all things that are in it were made for the sake of men, the Stoics say. As that man testifies who disputes with the Stoic in Tertullian, in the Lucullus, towards the end: "Why," he says, "when God made all things for our sake, for so you will have it, [did He make] so great a multitude of water snakes," etc.

That men are born to take up virtue Aristotle argued. He alludes to a passage of Aristotle which today is not extant among his works, but is reported by Cicero in On Ends 2 in these words: "These men will not have seen that, as the horse [is born] for running, the ox for ploughing, the dog for tracking," etc.

That there is an underworld Zeno the Stoic taught, etc. Of Zeno I find nothing of the kind among the writers, but of Socrates in Cicero, Tusculans 1, about the middle: "For thus," he says, "he held, and thus he argued, that there are two ways and a twofold course for souls departing from the body; for those who had defiled themselves with human vices," etc.

Chapter VIII.

But Plato argued thus, that [the soul] is immortal, etc. On this argument of Plato see Macrobius, book 2, on the Dream of Scipio, chapter 13 and following, and St Athanasius in the Oration against the Idols, who seems to have approved it in great part; St Thomas, Against the Gentiles 2, chapter 82. Hence he suspected that Plato believed the souls of brutes to be immortal, because he said simply that the soul exists of itself and is moved by itself. But here Lactantius defends Plato, on the ground that by the addition of wisdom he distinguished the human soul from the souls of the dumb animals.

He added therefore, so that he might escape this community,

that it could not be that the soul was not immortal, etc. He had in view two passages of Cicero, where he gathers Plato's arguments on the immortality of souls: the one in Tusculans 1: No origin of souls can be found on earth, etc.; the other in Cato Major, or On Old Age, near the end: Why say more? So have I persuaded myself, so do I think: since there is such swiftness in souls, etc.

Which of these opinions, he says, is true, some god must see to it. These words are read as uttered in Cicero while the substance of the soul was being discussed, not its immortality, which is what Lactantius is treating here.

Since each, he says, of those opinions, etc. From which book of Cicero these words have fallen is held to be uncertain.

Chapter IX.

He most rightly named it theoria. For the word is compounded and derived from the noun theos, that is God, and the verb horao, which is I see, I behold; as Plutarch too relates in his little book On the World. Hence it appears that it is less correctly written in codex B., which has not theorian but opida. That word is indeed frequent in Trismegistus. For in the Pimander, chap. 12, near the end: but if you wish to behold Him, etc.; chap. 13, near the beginning: I am not beheld by these eyes; in the same chapter at the end of the hymn: what I behold I tell you, etc.; at the beginning of chap. 14: the beholding comes about.

Which will not be according to nature, etc. So B., P., the Juntine and Plantin [editions]; that is: Virtue will not be according to nature, if account is to be taken only of the body and not of the eternity of the soul: for the body is rather broken by the acts of virtue, and wastes away, as Thomasius rightly explains. Others [read]: which will not be according to nature either.

For since we may enjoy the most delightful pleasures, etc. Paul the Apostle uses the same argument in 1 Corinthians, chap. 15: If in this life only, etc.

Chapter X.

And it is tranquillity of mind, etc. Aristotle does not approve this without qualification, Ethics 2, chap. 3; on which matter [see] above at chap. 14, book 6.

Chapter XII.

Since, he says, the soul is born with the body, etc. He brings forward the arguments of the Epicureans against the immortality of the soul from the third book of Lucretius On the Nature of Things; and this is the first argument:

Moreover, we perceive that it is begotten together with the body, and grows along with it, etc.

Likewise goes back, etc. These verses are read somewhat differently in Lucretius; for there:

Likewise what was formerly from the earth goes back into the earth; and what was sent from the shores of the ether, that, carried back again, the temples of heaven receive.

Like liquid from a broken vessel, etc. He alludes to what follows there:

Now therefore, since when the vessels are shattered on every side, etc.

Since, he says, sense grows in children, etc. Lucretius:

For just as children totter about with a weak and tender [body], etc.

First, mind and soul are not the same thing, etc. He tries to refute that objection concerning sense growing in children and failing in old men. But with little force. Aristotle, On the Soul 1, text 65: They teach that if old men become senile it is a fault not of the soul but of the body, and that old age is not in the soul but in its instruments, etc.

For in sleepers it is the mind, not the soul, that is lulled to rest. Truly you do not seem to me, Lactantius, to have sufficiently grasped what the soul is and what the mind is. It did not occur to you from the divine teacher, On the Soul 1, text 89 and following, and book 2, texts 19 and 31, that the soul is one thing having several powers: that the highest of them is that which he calls nous and we call intellect and mind, which he teaches in On the Soul 3, text 6, is neither mixed with the body nor attached to a bodily instrument. Therefore he wrote that sleep takes place not in the mind but in the interior sense, in the book On Sleep and Waking, chap. 2. Nothing

else, indeed, [he says,] is sleep than a cooling of the primary sense-organ, in the same book, chapter 3, and On the Parts of Animals, book 2, chapter 7.

And in the insane the mind is extinguished, the soul remains. Trifles. What does "is extinguished" mean? Is this portion of the soul not that divine fire which you yourself mentioned in chapter 8 of On the Workmanship? Cicero, Tusculans, book 1: "But he (Panaetius) brings forward another argument: that there is nothing that feels pain which could not also be sick; and what falls into sickness will also perish; but souls feel pain; therefore they also perish. These things can be refuted; for they belong to a man who does not know that, when things are said about the eternity of souls, they are said of the mind, which is always free of every turbulent motion, not of those parts in which sicknesses, angers and lusts have their place, which the man against whom these things are said holds to be set apart and shut off from the mind," etc.

They are called demented. [The word is used] improperly: not because they are without mind, but because they seem to be, since they cannot use reason, the instruments of the lower powers, which serve the mind for reasoning, having been damaged.

It flies back to its own seat. As Cicero in the Dream of Scipio: "Having set out from here, they return here"; and at the end of Tusculans, book 1: "let us move back to our own home"; and often elsewhere: carried away by imitation of these passages, Firmianus rashly poured out this saying. But we ought to abstain from expressions of this kind; for they generally favour the doctrine of souls created before bodies and fallen from heaven to earth, which he himself mocks above, book 3, chapter 18; and St Augustine, when in book 2 of the Academics he had said that the more austere soul would return to heaven, condemns that manner of speaking in Retractations, book 1, chapter 1, and says that he ought to have written not "would return" but "would go", for the reason stated above. See the Notes on book 2, chapter 3.

But the memory fails. For, as Seneca the father says in the Prologue to the Declamations, "Memory is of all the parts of the mind the most delicate and fragile thing, and the first on which old age makes its assault."

But the same, he says, is subject to pain and grief, etc. The second argument. Lucretius:

Add to this that we see that, just as the body itself / undergoes monstrous diseases, etc.

The soul, he says, also feels the disease of the body, etc. The third argument. Lucretius:

Moreover, in diseases of the body the mind often / wanders off the track, etc.

Forgetfulness of itself. Lethargy, of which Lucretius speaks in the same place:

And sometimes it is borne by heavy lethargy into the deep, etc.

It falls sick by contagion with it. Not very wisely [said]. If it falls sick, then in the end it also perishes.

As the eye, he says, torn out of the body, etc. The fourth argument. Lucretius:

Clearly, just as the eye by itself, torn out by the roots, / cannot look upon that thing, etc.

As that which is contained in a vessel, etc. An absurd comparison. The soul is not contained in the body as that which is in a vessel; it is not contained as that which is in a place; for the soul rather contains the body than is contained by the body, On the Soul, book 1, text 90; but it is in the body as form in matter, Physics, book 4, text 23.

That the soul, because it is not sent forth from the body more quickly, appears mortal, etc. The fifth argument. Lucretius:

Finally, we often see a man go little by little, etc.

But if our mind were immortal, it would not, dying, so much [lament] itself, etc. The sixth argument: but Lucretius has:

Not so much would it, dying, itself, etc.

Chapter XIII.

But when dissolution. So we read with Musurus, and the edition

of the Giunti; for in the Aldine and Plantinian [editions] δέ is missing.

But just as in strings from the tension of the cords, etc. On this opinion of Aristoxenus, which he also mentions in the book On the Workmanship [of God], chap. 16, see Plato in the Phaedo, Aristotle, On the Soul book I, text 54 and following; Lucretius at the beginning of [book] III; Cicero, Tusculans I.

Chapter XIV.

Plato. In whose Timaeus are read those fictions about a certain Egyptian priest telling Solon that Athens had been founded nine thousand years before Solon's age, and that all the notable deeds of that time are contained, minutely recorded, in the sacred books of the Egyptians.

Following perhaps the Chaldaeans. With Thomasius I have approved the reading of both manuscripts of S. Salvatore, B. T. P., in place of the one found in the others, just as perhaps the Chaldaeans. These indeed boasted that they had countless thousands of years, as Lactantius says here, and St Augustine, City [of God] book XII, chap. 10; and Lucretius also refutes them in book V, Why beyond the Theban war, etc.; Macrobius book II, on the Dream of Scipio.

That the six thousandth year is not yet completed, etc. St Augustine says the same in the said chap. 10.

When this number is completed, the consummation must take place. This error about the duration of the world for six thousand years is said to have spread from a certain ancient tradition of the Hebrews, concerning which [see] in the Talmudic volumes, fourth order, tractate 4, whose title is Sanhedrin; and they say that it was fostered not only by a certain Rabbi named Isaac on chap. 1 of Genesis and by some others of the same sect, but also by several distinguished men from among our own; for besides Lactantius, Justin Martyr held this opinion, question 72; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, last chapter; Hilary on Matthew, chap. 17; Jerome in the exemplary exposition of Psalm 89, to Cyprian, and in the commentary on Micah chap. 4; Augustine, City [of God] XX, chap. 7. Germanus, bishop of Constantinople, in the book On the Contemplation of Ecclesiastical Things, following Hippolytus Martyr and Cyril in the book On Antichrist, affirms that the world will last six thousand years and five hundred over. Against this error stands the authority of other Fathers: of Ambrose, book VII on Luke, expounding that [saying] of Matthew, After six days He was transfigured, etc.; Augustine on Psalm 89; Bede in the book On the Reckoning of Time; and finally of the Saviour Himself, Who testifies in Acts 1 that it is not ours to know the times or moments which the Father has placed in His own power; and Matthew 13: But of that day or hour no one knows, etc. The fact itself also stands [against it]; for since it was inferred from that error that from that time until the consummation of the world a course of about two hundred years was to be awaited, as below, chap. 25, assuredly not only two hundred years but nearly one thousand three hundred have now passed. St Thomas sets out the reasons by which it was fitting that the great day of the Lord should be unknown.

Now this is the day of the Sabbath, which in the language of the Hebrews took its name from the number, etc. For Lactantius thinks the name of the Sabbath is derived from Sebang, that is, seven, because it is the seventh day; and so too Theophilus, To Autolycus book II. Others prefer that Sciabath, that is, Sabbath, means rest, and is derived from the verb Sciabath, which is to rest; with whom Josephus agrees, Antiquities book I, chap. 1, and Philo in the book On Abraham, at the beginning, and On the Migration of Abraham. Plutarch, however, and certain other pagans think, very foolishly, that it is derived from elsewhere. For Plutarch, in Table Talk question 5, [derives it] from Bacchus, who is Sabbus, because on that day the Hebrews invite one another to drink; others again from Sabbo, a kind of disease among the Egyptians by which the groin is filled with ulcers; for they say that the Hebrews suffered from it when leaving Egypt, and rested on the seventh day, and therefore named that day the Sabbath. Certainly Manetho the Egyptian slandered Moses as having been the leader of lepers and of those suffering from scabies in the exodus from Egypt, as Josephus reports, arguing against him in book I Against Apion, and

Justin the historian, book 36, who says that Moses, having sought again his ancient Damascene homeland, occupied Mount Syneus, alias Synas; and that when at length he had come there, worn out together with his people by a fast of seven days through the deserts of Arabia, he consecrated for all time with a fast the seventh day, called the Sabbath after the custom of the nation, because that day had ended their hunger and their wandering, etc.

As the Prophet indicates, saying, etc. But that passage gives no help to the error, since there the number one thousand is taken for a certain indefinite number, as in Psalm 104: Of the word which He commanded unto a thousand generations; and in Ecclesiasticus: Better is one who fears God than a thousand impious sons, etc. Many examples of this kind are found among the profane writers.

That he should live a thousand years in this world. I find from the fifth [chapter] of Genesis that the whole time that Adam lived was nine hundred and thirty years.

Chapter XV.

That the Roman name, etc. And below, chap. 25: But when that head of the world has fallen, etc. There was an old tradition of those times that, as soon as the Roman empire had failed, Antichrist would come, and shortly afterwards the world would perish. For so writes Tertullian too, in the book to Scapula and in the Apology, chap. 32, and Optatus of Milevis against the Donatists, book 2; and a tradition of this kind seems to have arisen from the prophecy of Daniel, chap. 2, where four kingdoms are enumerated, and after them the coming of Antichrist is announced; and also from the words of the Apostle in 2 Thessalonians, chap. 2, where he says that Antichrist will not come before the falling away has come, namely of the peoples from the Roman empire, according to Augustine, City [of God] book 20, chap. 19. But how is this, since the nations long ago fell away from the Roman empire, and Antichrist has not yet come? St Thomas answers on the said chap. 2 of the Epistle of Paul, lecture 1, in these words: It must be said that it has not yet ceased, but has been changed from a temporal into a spiritual [empire], as Pope Leo says in the sermon on the Apostles; and therefore the falling away from the Roman empire must be understood not only from the temporal, but also from the spiritual, namely from the catholic faith of the Roman Church. Now this is a fitting sign; for Christ came when the Roman empire held dominion over all: so conversely the sign of the coming of Antichrist is the falling away from it.

Seneca divided the times of the Roman city into ages, etc. I do not find the passage of Seneca, but something of this kind in Bede, On Times, chap. 66.

Hystaspes also, who was a most ancient king of the Medes, etc. Of his prophecies under the name of Hystaspes the apostle Paul also makes mention, as reported by Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6, in these words: Take also the Greek books: recognize how the Sibyl signifies one God, and the things that are to come; and take Hystaspes and read, etc. Since these words are not found in the Epistles of Paul, it is probable that Clement, a most ancient theologian, set them down from discourses of Paul delivered to the people, committed to memory, and then handed on to posterity by a kind of tradition. Justin Martyr also makes mention more than once of the same man under the name of Hystaspes, in the second Apology for the Christians. And in this place seven Vatican codices have Hystaspes, in place of what is in other printed books, Hydaspes. Therefore we have restored to Lactantius the true name of this king, which Theodorus Canterus also approves, Variae lectiones, book 2, chap. 19. Although what he brings forward about Hystaspes the father of Darius from Agathias the historian, book 2, and from Ammianus, book 23, cannot agree with ours; since the father of Darius, who is also named Hydaspes in some places, was not a king, as is clear from Herodotus. And since Rome was founded about the sixth Olympiad, as is clear from Eusebius, from Glareanus in the Chronology on Livy, and from others, while Darius flourished in the sixty-fourth Olympiad, as we reported from Eusebius above, book 4, chap. 14, it necessarily follows that the father of Darius lived not only many years but almost centuries after the founding of the City, contrary to what Lactantius asserts in this place, to whom he says that Hystaspes foretold these things long before

that Trojan people, that is, the Roman, was founded,

From whom the river also received its name, which is now called Hydaspes. From this you now understand why the river Hydaspes is called Median by Virgil in Georgics 4, in these verses:

Moreover, not so do Egypt and great / Lydia, nor the peoples of the Parthians, nor the Median Hydaspes / observe their king, etc.

On which the expositors of the divine poet perhaps did not bring forward enough of what would serve the matter.

A wonderful dream. Thus this passage is restored from the B. Codex, which is read corrupted in the printed editions as "admirable of all". For that this reading is the genuine one, even the words that follow show: "under the interpretation of a prophesying boy", etc.

Chapter XVI.

For consuming. So I have restored it, in place of what stands corruptly in all [copies], "ad consumandum".

Then suddenly against them a most powerful enemy will arise from the farthest bounds of the northern region, etc. By the most powerful enemy, who will arise against the ten kings, Lactantius does not understand the Antichrist, as Francisco Ribera judged on chapter 12 of the Apocalypse, no. 13. For at the beginning of the following chapter he says that this very enemy too will be destroyed, with all his remnants, by another king rising out of Syria, the betrayer of the human race, whom in chapter 19 he calls the Antichrist; and this he sets out more clearly in chapter 11 of the Epitome of these books, where, having said that ten men would seize the world, and that against them one far more powerful and more wicked would rise, who, having destroyed three of that number, will possess Asia, the rest being brought under his power and annexed, he then says that amid these evils there will rise up an impious king, an enemy not only to the race of men but also to God, who will crush, torture, harass and slay the remnants of that former Tyrant; and he shows plainly enough that this one will be the Antichrist. By that enemy, then, whom he says will vanquish those kings, Lactantius perhaps understood Nero; for Sulpicius Severus, in the Dialogues, book 2, at the end, reports that St Martin, bishop of Tours, also thought this, although many others too, as Severus writes in the same place, St Jerome on that passage of Daniel 2, "And his heart against the holy covenant", etc., and St Augustine, City [of God] book 20, ch. 19, who refutes them, believed that Nero himself would be the Antichrist. Lactantius is therefore mistaken in this place, since it is established from the Scriptures that no king other than the Antichrist himself will come upon those ten kings, to subdue them and subject them to his rule, as all the expositors teach on Daniel 12 at the end, where the vision of the fourth beast is explained, and on Apocalypse 12 at the words "having seven heads", etc., and on chapter 17 at the words "and ten horns", etc. Likewise Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5, chs. 25 and 26; Hippolytus Martyr, On the Consummation of the Age; Theodoret on Daniel, Oration 7; Prosper of Aquitaine in the book whose title is Half of Time, ch. 7. Nor is what some tell as a tale about Nero supported by the authority of St Martin; for he is not to be thought to have held this by a prophetic spirit, but to have answered those who asked him just as he had perhaps received it, told or written, from others.

Chapter XVII.

A great prophet will be sent by God, etc. Lactantius makes mention of one prophet only, although in chapter 11 of the Apocalypse, from which he took it, it is said that two are to be sent, whom John indeed calls prophets, but passes over their names in silence; and therefore room has been left to writers for conjecture. Further, all agree that one of them will be Elijah, from chapter 4 of Malachi, but about the other they dispute. For some assert that it will be Moses, as Hilary, Commentary on Matthew 20; Ambrose in the book On Cain and Abel, ch. 2; Catharinus on Genesis; and Joannes Arboreus, book 11 of the Theosophia; others Jeremiah, as the same Victorinus reports and believes, whom Ansbert refutes on the said chapter 11 of the Apocalypse, and Hilary,

the said chap. 20. Yet the opinion received by most of the Fathers seems to be that Enoch will be the companion of Elijah, from that passage of Ecclesiasticus 44: Enoch pleased God and was translated into paradise, that he may give repentance to the nations, etc., that is, at the end of the ages, when he is to preach repentance to the nations seduced by Antichrist. So Tertullian, book On the Soul, chap. 28; St Ephrem, sermon on Antichrist, and sermon on the Consummation of the Age; Isidore, book on the Life and Death of the Saints, chs. 3 and 35; Hippolytus the Martyr, sermon on Antichrist; Jerome, letter 148 to Marcella, and on Psalm 20; Augustine in the treatise on Antichrist, and book 2 on Original Sin, chap. 23, and book 9 on Genesis according to the letter, chap. 6; Prosper of Aquitaine on the Half of Time, ch. 13 and following; Gregory the Great, book 9 of the Morals, chap. 4, and homily 12 on Ezekiel; Damascene, book 4 on the Orthodox Faith, chap. 27, at the end of book 4, these things also on the said chap. 51; the Gloss, Ansbert, Aymo, Rupert, Anselm, Richard, St Thomas, Andrew, Arethas.

And when his works have been accomplished, another king will arise out of Syria, etc. Not before the rise of Antichrist, as Lactantius says, but in the time of his persecution itself the prophets will preach for one thousand two hundred and sixty days, that is, for about as long a time as the persecution of Antichrist will last, since their preaching will be given as a kind of antidote to that persecution, as all teach on that passage of chap. 11 of the Apocalypse: And they shall prophesy for a thousand two hundred days.

Begotten of an evil spirit. Not because he is to be begotten by an incubus demon from another's seed, as some have thought, but because he will be born through the agency of an evil spirit, as the Martyr Hippolytus and Damascene teach. One must also beware of the opinion of those who assert that Antichrist will be none other than the devil, whom St Jerome condemns on Daniel 2, on that passage: Behold, eyes like the eyes of a man, etc. Damascene, book 4 on the Orthodox Faith, chap. 28.

Of that former evil one. That is, of that former tyrant, as he explains in ch. 12 of the Epitome, who, he had said above in the preceding chapter, would subdue the ten kings.

They will be marked by him like cattle. Concerning the mark of Antichrist, with which he will mark his followers, there is mention in Apocalypse 13, but what that mark will be like is doubtful. Ansbert indeed reports from Primasius, and reports it in such a way as to hint that it was revealed to him by God, that that mark will be such that the whole name of Christ is contained in it in abbreviated form, like the one which the emperor Constantine the Great, Leo the Fifth and some other emperors bore on their labara, customarily expressed in two ways; for old coins show such a mark, whose forms, printed in type, Cardinal Baronius also displays, book 3 of the Annals, under the year of the Lord 312, and Stewechius on Vegetius, book 2, ch. 18; Lipsius, On the Cross, ch. 15. And this is likely, since Antichrist will love no name more than the name of Christ, by which he will deceive the Jews and the Hagarenes and many even of the Christians.

Chapter XVIII.

There will come also of the blessed, etc. These words are found in the 5th discourse of the Sibylline Oracles; but there the reading varies a great deal.

Aphthitou. So I read with M. Musurus for the sake of the metre, as it stands in manuscript B and in the Florentine edition, and not aphthitois, as it is in the Aldine and the Plantinian.

And then from the sun. This verse varies somewhat in the Sibylline codex, etc.

Our slavery, etc. The reading varies in the Sibylline Oracles; for there [it runs]:

that the yoke which we have borne, / slavish, hard to bear, lying upon [our] neck, you may lift.

Chapter XIX.

Whenever he comes, etc. These words are not extant in the Sibylline Oracles.

And afterwards He is to receive the kingdom of the world, etc.

He speaks of the kingdom in which Lactantius falsely believed that Christ, after the judgement, would reign on earth with the just for a thousand years, an error of which we shall speak below. Hence Diego Covarrubias, not without reason, remarked on this passage, book 4 of the Variae Resolutiones, ch. 19, under no. 10. Isidore, copying out almost this same passage, book 6 of the Origins, ch. 17, cautiously refrained from these words.

A sword will suddenly fall from heaven, etc. This saying lacks the testimony of Scripture, as do certain other things of the same kind, which he must be thought to report from the traditions of those times.

Ῥίψουσι. So it must certainly be read, from the Sibylline codex, as the series of the first letters of each verse in the acrostic indicates; not τρίψουσι, as is commonly read here.

Ἔργα δὲ χειροποιητά, etc. This verse too is read somewhat differently in the Sibylline Oracles.

Chapter XX.

After these things the lower regions will be opened, and the dead will rise again, etc. In this chapter and those following, Lactantius teaches the following about the future last judgement and the resurrection of the dead. Souls are not judged immediately after death, but are held in one common place of custody beneath the earth until the day of the universal judgement, below, ch. 21. The resurrection will be twofold: one of the faithful, that is, of those who have lived in the religion of God; the other of the impious, that is, of unbelievers. First therefore, he says, the souls of the faithful will be roused from the lower regions, that is, from that subterranean custody, to receive their own bodies, as is said in this place. An examination of works will take place, so that if their good works have been more numerous and weighty, they are given over to the blessed life, but if the contrary, they are condemned to punishment, as is said a little below. The examination will take place by fire; for those whose sins prevail either in weight or in number will be burned by the fire; but those whom full justice and the ripeness of virtue have thoroughly seasoned will not feel that fire, at the end of ch. 21. Then God will establish a holy city in the middle of the earth, where He will reign for a thousand years with those just, who will preside over the living as judges. Those, however, who are then found alive in their bodies will not die, but through those same thousand years will beget holy offspring dear to God. The heathen will not be wholly destroyed, but some will be left for the victory of God, so that they may be triumphed over by the just. All this in ch. 24. Finally, after the thousand years the second resurrection will take place, namely of the impious, who worshipped idols, who either did not know the true God or denied Him; these, however, without any judgement (for in this chapter he teaches from the sacred Scriptures that the impious will not rise to judgement), will be cast out to eternal torments with the prince of demons and his ministers; but the just, the world having been renewed, happy and blessed, will dwell for ever in the likeness of angels in the sight of the Most High, and will serve [Him] for eternity, ch. 26. Lactantius brought forth these absurdities because he did not rightly understand the prophecy of John the apostle in Apocalypse 20: And I saw seats, and they sat upon them, etc. But in truth there will be only one resurrection of all, of whom some will go into heaven to eternal life, namely those who after receiving baptism either contracted no stain of sin, or washed away and purged the stain they had contracted; others into the eternal fire of hell, namely those who died in actual mortal sin; while those who departed in original sin alone will be punished, either in limbo, or in this world, or, as St Antoninus of Florence says, part 1 of the Summa, title 8, ch. 1, § 4, in another place which God alone knows, with the punishment of loss only, that is, the lack of the divine vision. How the words of John the apostle are to be understood is taught by the expositors of the Apocalypse: St Augustine, book 20 of the City [of God], ch. 7 and following; among more recent writers, most learnedly and lucidly, Francisco Ribera on the Apocalypse.

Ὁππότε καὶ τὸ λάβῃ, etc. These verses are extant in the Sibylline Oracles, discourse 5, where the reading varies very much, and this verse is found mutilated.

βασιλήως. The Sibylline codex, and St Augustine, book 18 of the City [of God], ch. 23, have βασιλῆες.

That the impious will not rise again to judgement, etc. Which

is to be understood with regard to the examination of merits, not, however, with regard to the distribution of punishments; for with regard to the distribution of rewards or of punishments all will be judged, according to that saying of Romans 14: We shall all stand before the tribunal of Christ, as St Thomas explains on the fourth book of the Sentences, distinction 47, sole question, article 3, and Lactantius himself below, ch. 26.

But of the impious, etc. That it must be read thus, since it is commonly and faultily read but the impious, the text itself proves; for he goes on to speak of the souls of which he says a little above, but [the souls] of those who were just, pure and impassible, etc. Now he carries out the other member of this sentence, but of the impious, supply souls, bear a middle nature from the contagion of the flesh, given over to whose desires they draw a stain, etc. Nor indeed does that word, given over, agree with the expression, the impious.

Like the light winds, etc. Beware, however, of thinking that the soul is as it were some little breeze and breath of air.

Chapter XXI.

First, then, we say that the power of God is so great that it lays hold even of incorporeal things, etc. He teaches how the soul, though it is spiritual, can suffer from corporeal fire. Namely, that it cannot suffer by natural potency, because, since it has in itself, he says, nothing solid and tangible, it can suffer no force from solid and corporeal things; but that it can nevertheless by that potency which our theologians call the obediential potency, by which all things are naturally apt to obey the Creator, so that whatever He wills is done in them. He brings the example of the angels, who fear Him, since they can be chastised by Him in some unspeakable way, and of the demons, who are tormented and punished by Him. Now this is to assert nothing other than what St Thomas on the fourth book of the Sentences, dist. 44, quest. 2, art. 3, and other theologians there also teach, namely that the eternal fire acts upon souls and can torment them as an instrument of the divine power and justice.

For because they contracted sins in bodies, they will again be clothed with flesh, etc. Lactantius thought that all judgement of souls is deferred until after the resurrection of bodies: therefore, he says, although God by His power can act with fire upon souls even when stripped of the body, yet He wills more fittingly that they suffer with the body, because they sinned in the body, and therefore they will again be clothed with flesh, etc.

And yet that flesh which God will have put upon man will not be like this earthly flesh, etc. He does not deny that the flesh of those who are to rise will be numerically the same as that which they had in life, which the Catholic faith teaches, as we have in c. 1 On the Supreme Trinity and the Catholic Faith, and the doctors demonstrate on the fourth book, distinctions 47 and 48; but he says that it will not be like this flesh; and at once he declares in what that unlikeness will consist, namely that, whereas our flesh melts away and is consumed at the touch of fire, that flesh will be indissoluble and lasting, and will never fail under those torments and the fire.

Whose nature is different from this of ours, etc. He has taken nature here not so properly for substance and specific form, but somewhat more loosely and improperly, so that he affirms that fire to be of a different nature, that is, of certain different properties and consequent operations, which both he himself here at once and others also enumerate; Tertullian, Apology, ch. 48; Minucius in the Octavius; Pacian, On Penance and Confession. Namely, that it is fed by the fuel of no matter, that it at once burns and restores the impious, and that as much as it consumes of their bodies, so much it replaces. And in this way Damascene too is explained, who in the fourth book On the Orthodox Faith, last chapter, says that the impious are to be sent into an eternal fire not material, such as is among us, but such as God knows. For it is said in the additions to the third part of St Thomas, quest. 97, art. 5, and by St Bonaventure on the fourth book of the Sentences, distinction 44, art. 2, quest. 1, that Damascene does not deny that the fire of hell is simply material, but [denies that it is] material such as this fire of ours, because it differs from our fire in certain properties, and he does not deny likeness in specific form, but [likeness] in certain operations, as we have said.

For that the fire of hell is of the same nature and species as our fire seems more probable, and is more widely received by the theologians, as is noted in the additions to the third part of St [Thomas], quest. 97, art. 6, and as Soto argues on the fourth [book of the] Sentences, dist. 50, the single question, art. 1, second conclusion.

It has no smoke mixed with it, but is pure and clear, and fluid after the manner of water, etc. Perhaps this may be true of the fire of purgatory; for some have taught so. But as regards the fire of hell, all utterly deny it: Basil on Psalm 33, on the words Timorem Domini; St Gregory, Moralia book 9, chap. 49, who says that that fire is murky and lacking in brightness; St Thomas on the second [book of the] Sentences, dist. 6, art. 3, ad 1, and on the fourth, dist. 50, the single question, art. 2; St Bonaventure on the fourth, dist. 44, art. 2, quest. 1. Yet that fire will have just so much gloomy light as suffices for the damned to be able to see one another, for the increase of their miseries and punishments, as St Gregory says in the place cited above.

But the just too, when He has judged them, He will also test in fire. Concerning the fire of the conflagration the doctors teach roughly the following: St Thomas on the fourth [book of the] Sentences, dist. 47, art. 4, ad 3, and in the same place St Bonaventure, quest. 4, at the end, and in part 7 of the Breviloquium, chap. 4.

Let no one, however, think that souls are judged immediately after death. That the punishments and rewards of souls are deferred to the day of the universal judgement after the resurrection of bodies, and that meanwhile they are detained in one common place of custody, was the opinion of Lactantius, as we said above in this same chapter. The same was held by most others of the ancient Fathers too: Clement of Rome, Recognitions book 1, towards the end, speaking in the person of the Apostle Peter; Justin Martyr in the Questions Posed by the Gentiles, quest. 76; Irenaeus, Against Heresies; Tertullian, Against Marcion book 4, and the book On the Soul, the antepenultimate chapter; Origen, Homily 7 on Leviticus, and On First Principles books 2 and 4; Victorinus on the Apocalypse, at the words Vidi sub altare; Prudentius in the Hymn for the funeral rites of the dead, and elsewhere; Ambrose, On Cain and Abel book 2, chap. 2, and the book On the Good of Death, chap. 10; Chrysostom, Homily 39 on 1 Corinthians; Augustine on Psalm 36; Theodoret on chap. 11 of the Epistle to the Hebrews; Arethas on that passage of the Apocalypse, Usquequo, Domine, non vindicas sanguinem, etc.; Oecumenius on chap. 11 of the Epistle to the Hebrews; Theophylact in the same place, and in the Commentary on Luke on the words Hodie mecum eris, etc.; Euthymius in the same place; St Bernard on that passage of the Apocalypse, Vidi sub altare, etc. Lastly, in favour of this opinion the Apostle James is adduced, in the liturgy of the divine sacrifice; and that John, Roman pontiff, the twenty-second of that name, believed so and decreed that it was to be believed, is reported by Ockham in the Work of Ninety Days, and by Adrian on the fourth [book of the] Sentences, at the end of the question on the Sacrament of Confirmation. Notwithstanding these, it is now to be held as a certain and infallible dogma that souls are judged immediately upon their departure from their bodies; and that those which had the use of reason are led, according to the diversity of their merits, either to the glory of paradise, or to punishment, whether eternal in hell or temporal in purgatory; while those which departed before the use of reason pass either into the limbo of children, where they suffer only the punishment of loss for the original sin they contracted, if they did not receive baptism, or into paradise to the blessed life through the merit of Christ, if indeed they have been washed in baptism, as St Thomas, St Bonaventure and the rest teach on the fourth [book of the] Sentences, dist. 45, art. 1. And the contrary assertion belongs to the error of the Armenians and the Anabaptists, who assert that the souls of the Saints cannot enjoy the glory of the divine vision before the resurrection of bodies, and that the punishment both of demons and of souls is deferred until the day of judgement; which, as regards the demons, I showed above to be false, book 2, chap. 15, at the words quibus quia liberum arbitrium, etc. As regards souls too, the holy Fathers oppose that position: Chrysostom, the Homily on the passage of Wisdom 6, Justorum animae, and elsewhere; St Augustine, Confessions book 9, chap. 3, and in the Meditations, chap. 24; On the Spirit and the Soul, chap. 58, and On Ecclesiastical Dogmas, chap. 79; Gregory, Moralia book 4, chap. 25; Jerome in the Epitaph of Nepotian; and all the theologians on the fourth [book of the Sentences], dist. 45; St Thomas in the Prima Secundae,

question, art. 3; opposed [to this view] are the Decretal letters of Innocent III in the chapter Majores, on baptism, and in the chapter Apostolicam, on the unbaptized presbyter; likewise Benedict XI, in a certain Extravagant, which, although it is not included in the Corpus juris, is nevertheless authentic and of infallible authority, and which Marsilius reports in good faith on the Fourth [Book of the] Sentences, question 13, art. 3, and Alfonso de Castro, Against Heresies, under the word Beatitudo. Indeed the universal councils too; the Florentine under Eugenius IV in these words: We define that the souls of those who after receiving baptism have incurred no stain of sin at all, and also those which, after contracting the stain of sin, have been purged either in their bodies or when stripped of those same bodies, are straightway received into heaven and clearly behold God Himself, three and one, as He is, yet one more perfectly than another according to the diversity of their merits; but that the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, straightway descend into hell, to be punished, however, with unequal punishments, etc. Likewise the Council of Trent, session 5, canon 5. Finally, the oracles of the Sacred Scriptures are also opposed; to the Philippians 1: I desire to be dissolved, etc.; 2 Corinthians 5: For we know that if our earthly house, a passage which St Thomas cites in the first part, question 64, article 4, ad 3, etc., and in the same chapter: We are bold, and have a good will, etc. Luke 23: Today you will be with Me in paradise. To the testimonies of Scripture or of the Fathers which seem to conflict, wherever it is said that beatitude or punishment is not given before the day of judgement, the theologians reply that this is to be understood of that consummate beatitude or punishment which will be had after the resurrection of bodies; or that this is said, not because before the day of the universal judgement an equal retribution of merits does not befall good and wicked alike through the particular judgement of each one, but because on the day of the universal resurrection, in the presence of the whole court of those in heaven, on earth and in hell, when the works of each have been publicly reviewed before the tribunal of Christ the Lord, reward will be decreed for the just and punishment for the reprobate by a public sentence manifest to all, and thus all things will be gone over again, just as if nothing had been done before that day. Lastly, it is said that this error does not detract from the learning and piety of those Fathers, since the Church in those times had not yet laid down anything certain on this matter. The Extravagant of Benedict the Eleventh, moreover, vindicates Pope John from calumny. Whoever wants more against this heresy, which formerly Vigilantius the heretic, routed by St Jerome, also spread abroad, and recently Luther and Calvin, let him see St Thomas in the Opusculum against the Greeks and Armenians, chapter 9; Ockham, part 2 of the Dialogue, tract 1; Alfonso de Castro, Against Heresies, as above; Cardinal Bellarmine, tome 1, controversy 7 of the Controversies.

Chapter XXIII.

Δύσπιστον γὰρ ἅπαν μερόπων, etc. In the Sibylline oracles these verses vary a great deal.

Chapter XXIV.

He will dwell among men for a thousand years, etc. This is the opinion of Lactantius, that after that first resurrection of the faithful the Son of God will reign on earth with the just for a thousand years, in that abundance of all good things which the poets sang had existed in the golden age. Not without reason is this error referred first to Cerinthus, as Eusebius relates, Ecclesiastical History 7, chapter 23, and book 3, chapter 28. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, followed him, as the same Eusebius writes in the same book 3, last chapter, Nicephorus, chapter 20, and Jerome, On Ecclesiastical Writers, under Papias. Thereafter many churchmen followed Papias on account of the writer's antiquity, not on account of the reasoning of what he said, as Eusebius relates in the said last chapter, and Jerome as above, and in the Preface to book 18 on Isaiah. For the same error a certain Nepos, an Egyptian, also contended, whom Dionysius of Alexandria refuted in his book On the Promises, as Eusebius reports, History book 7, chapter 22. But although Jerome has counted Tertullian and Victorinus among the holders of this opinion, nevertheless nothing of theirs survives today,

which contains this doctrine: on the contrary, Victorinus, on the Apocalypse, condemns it as the Cerinthian heresy, while Tertullian, although he acknowledges the Kingdom of a thousand years, nevertheless teaches that those delights will be not carnal but spiritual, at the end of book 3 Against Marcion; an opinion which St Augustine, book 20 of the City [of God], chapter 7, says is in some way tolerable and was at one time accepted by himself. So the error of these milliarians, or millenarians, arose not only from the words of chapter 20 of the Apocalypse wrongly understood, as we said at chapter 20 of this book, but also from an ancient tradition of the Jews, who misinterpreted the oracles of the prophets, where they often say many things about the kingdom of Christ in Jerusalem, as Eusebius relates, book 7 of the History, chapter 22, and Jerome on Papias. Now although the same Jerome, on that passage of Jeremiah 23, And you shall break the little flask, etc., says that he does not dare to condemn this heresy, because many churchmen and martyrs held it, yet he condemns it boldly and openly at chapter 60 of Isaiah, as do all who have written on Heresies; and not undeservedly, for there is not to be some first resurrection and then a second, but one on the last day, on which judgement will be passed on the merits of each, of whom some will go into eternal life, but others into eternal fire, as is said in Matthew 25; and it is proved also by Job chapter 19, For I know that my redeemer lives, etc. In 1 Thessalonians 4 Paul teaches that when the Lord comes to judge, those who are then alive will be taken up with the Saints to meet Christ in the air, and so they will be always with the Lord. Indeed, in the same chapter 20 of the Apocalypse, from which the aforesaid took the occasion of their error, one resurrection of all and one judgement is set down. And I saw, he says, the dead, great and small, etc. From this that fiction of a period of a thousand years after the first resurrection, before a second resurrection is then to follow, is shown to be empty. Friedrich Staphylus in his Epitome of Lutheran theology reports that the Anabaptists, the pests of our times, have taken up the same error about the thousand years among their other heresies; against it, Trithemius in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers attests, Gennadius wrote and published writings: but today they are not extant.

Κλῦτε δέ μου, μέροπες ("Hear me, mortals"), etc. This verse is not found in the Sibylline Codex.

Then those who are alive in their bodies will not die, etc. These things, and whatever follows, are done away with once that fiction of the period of a thousand years is removed, in which he teaches that they will come to pass.

About the same time also the prince of the demons, etc. From Apocalypse 20: And he seized the dragon, the ancient serpent, etc.

And when the judgement has been completed, the holy city will be established, etc. Apocalypse 11: And I John saw the holy city Jerusalem, etc. The Millenarians interpreted these words of that city in which they believed the saints would reign with Christ for a thousand years: but there the Apostle is speaking of the heavenly homeland, where the blessed after the judgement will enjoy the vision of God for ever.

And the moon will receive the brightness of the sun, etc. These things which the prophet Isaiah foretold mystically in chapter 30 about the brightness of the moon and sun and the fruitfulness of the Earth, and predicted would come to pass at the time of the first coming of our Saviour, Firmianus wrongly thought would come to pass in that period of a thousand years of which we have spoken in this same chapter.

The sailor himself too will give up the sea, etc. These verses are all found in the fourth Eclogue of Virgil: but Lactantius has strangely disturbed their order, and he also wrote, then too with soft [ears] it will grow golden, etc., in place of what stands in the Poet, With soft [ears] little by little it will grow golden, etc.

According to the songs of the Cumaean Sibyl. I do not find them; for those which Sixtus of Siena cites in book 2 of the Bibliotheca, in the chapter where he treats of the Cumaean, from the Collectanea of Stratonicus, bishop of Cumae, are the same as those which Lactantius reports immediately afterwards from the Erythraean, and they are found among the Sibylline oracles at the end of the third Discourse, though not in the same order in which they are written here.

Οἱ δὲ λύκοι ("And the wolves"), etc. In the Sibylline codex, ἐν δὲ λύκοι ("and among them wolves"), and

the reading varies a great deal there; yet it is more correct than in Lactantius: let whoever wishes compare them.

'But of the pious alone', etc. These verses vary somewhat in the Sibylline Song; for there [it reads]:

But the land of the Hebrews shall be holy....

Chapter XXV.

'Yet the whole expectation seems to be of no more than two hundred years', etc. And yet from the time at which Lactantius was writing down to these times of ours, not merely two hundred but one thousand three hundred [years] have passed. But since Lactantius wrote these things shortly after the three-hundredth year of the Lord, as I showed at chapter 1 of book 1, it is clear that he himself reckons five thousand five hundred years from the beginning of the world to the day of the Saviour's birth. For he affirms here and above in chapter 14 that the world will last six thousand years, and from this reckoning St Augustine, somewhat more recent than Lactantius, is not far distant, who himself also writes in book 20 of the City [of God], chapter 7, that in his own age the later stretches of that sixth millennium were rolling on. But Eusebius in the Chronicle places the Lord's Nativity in the year five thousand one hundred and ninety-nine from the beginning of the world.

'And it has begun to be a ῥύμη'. Ῥύμη: onrush, or ruin. So the Plantin and Aldine editions have it; but the Florentine edition of the Giunti has 'And it has begun to be a pyre' [πύρα], as though it were utterly to become a pyre, that is, a heap of wood to be burned up by fires. Either reading seems able to be upheld from the Sibylline Songs themselves; for in Discourses 3 and 8 it is said, 'and Rome a ruin' [καὶ ῥώμη ῥύμη]; and in the same Discourse 8 it is related that Rome is to be consumed by fires.

Chapter XXVI.

'But the same, when the thousand years', etc. Taken from Apocalypse 20: 'And when the thousand years have been completed, Satan will be loosed', etc., which things are explained by St Augustine, City [of God] 20, chapters 7 and 11 at the end.

'Then will come the last wrath of God', etc. The seven bowls of this wrath seven angels were commanded to pour out upon the earth, Apocalypse 16. See also the Sibylline Songs, Discourse 3.

'He will shake the earth most violently', etc. Apocalypse, in the same place: 'And there was a great earthquake', etc.

'And by its movement the mountains of Syria will be split', etc. Apocalypse, in the same place: 'And the cities of the nations fell', etc.

'And God will make the sun stand for three days so that it does not set.' I do not find this saying confirmed by the testimony of Scripture.

'And He will set it ablaze; and an excessive heat will come down', etc. Apocalypse: 'And the fourth Angel poured out his bowl upon the sun', etc.

'And hailstorms of stones.' Apocalypse: 'And great hail like a talent came down', etc.

'And the mountains will be filled with corpses, and the plains will be covered with bones.' These things seem to be taken both from chapter 49 of Ezekiel, where all flying things, all the birds, and all the beasts of the field are ordered to be called together to feed, etc., and also from Apocalypse 19, where John heard an angel standing in the Sun and calling with a loud voice all the birds to eat the corpses of the slain: so that the prophets might show a certain huge multitude of those who are to be slain by Christ; for the corpses of enemies, when they are very many, are usually left unburied as food for birds.

'But the people of God during those three days', etc. I have no testimony of Scripture.

'The world will be renewed by God', etc. Apocalypse 21: 'And I saw a new heaven and a new earth.'

'In which the impious will be destroyed', etc. This reading of the Florentine edition is to be preferred, for since he said above in chapter 20 that that first resurrection will be of the faithful, namely those who have lived in the religion of God, he says that this second will be of the impious, who have worshipped things made by hand, etc. The Aldine and Plantin editions: 'In which the unjust will be raised up', etc.

But also their lord with his ministers will be seized.

Apocalypse 20: And the Devil, who was leading them astray, was sent into the lake of fire, etc. (Rev. 20:10).

And he will be condemned to punishment. So St Cyprian at the end of On the Vanity of Idols: Now about to come from heaven for the punishment of the devil. That is, to the punishment of being thrust down, as is also clear from the text: so too above, book 3, last chapter.

They believe what they have invented. After these words, in the Aldine edition there follows this address directed to the Emperor Constantine, which, because it is lacking in both codices of St Saviour, in P. and 12 Vatican, and in all the other manuscripts which it has been my lot to see, likewise in the Florentine and Plantin editions and most of the rest, I append here separately from the text, namely: But now all these fictions have been laid to rest, most holy emperor, ever since God most high raised you up to restore the dwelling of justice and to protect the human race. While you govern the state of the Roman Commonwealth, we worshippers of God are no longer held to be criminals and impious men. Now that the truth is coming forth and has been brought to light, we are not accused as unjust, we who strive to do the works of justice. No one now reproaches us with the name of God. No one any longer is called irreligious who alone of all men are religious; since, despising the images of the dead, we worship the living and true God. The providence of the supreme Divinity has advanced you to the summit of sovereignty, so that you might with true piety undo the evil counsels of others, correct sins, provide with fatherly clemency for the welfare of men, and finally remove the wicked themselves from the Commonwealth, whom, cast down by supreme piety, the same God delivered into your hands, so that it might be clear to all what true majesty is. For those who, in order to defend impious religions, wished to abolish the worship of the heavenly and only God, lie overthrown; but you, who defend and love His name, excelling in virtue and good fortune, most blessed, enjoy your immortal glories. They both pay and have paid the penalties of their crime; the mighty right hand of God protects you from all dangers; it bestows on you a quiet and tranquil rule with the utmost rejoicing of all. Nor without cause has the Lord and ruler of all things chosen you above all, through whom He might restore His holy religion, since you alone of all have stood forth to furnish outstanding examples of virtue and holiness, by which you might not only equal but even (what is greatest) surpass the glory of the ancient princes, whom nevertheless He counts among the good. They indeed perhaps were only by nature like the just. For he who does not know God, the governor of the universe, can attain the likeness of justice, but justice itself he cannot. But you, both by the inborn holiness of your character and by the knowledge of the truth and of God, accomplish the works of justice in every act. It was therefore fitting that in shaping the condition of the human race the Divinity should use you as author and minister. To Whom we pray with daily prayers that He may guard you above all, whom He willed to be the guardian of all things; and then that He may inspire in you the will by which you may ever persevere in the love of the divine name. This is salutary for all, and for you leads to happiness, and for the rest to peace.

Chapter XXVII.

Let the reader attend in this chapter to Lactantius' most excellent exhortation to living purely and innocently.

He purged with truthful [words] of men, etc. Lucretius: Therefore with truthful [words] he purged, etc.

And he set a limit to desire, etc. So indeed read the Aldine and Plantin editions and the books of Lucretius themselves; although B. T. P., the Florentine edition of the Giunti and the Venetian of Tridino have: and he set a limit to torpor, etc.

By a narrow path. I have followed the reading of the manuscripts of Lactantius B. T. P. and of some printed editions of Lucretius, a reading which does not displease Lambinus. The common editions of Lucretius have: by a narrow track, a reading which does not greatly please Lambinus; but the manuscripts which he followed [have]: by a sloping track, that is, an easy and downhill one. The Venetian of Tridino and the Florentine of the Giunti here [have]: by a sloping path; others: by a pure path.