PL 7 · cols. 147–156

N. le Nourry, O.S.B., Dissertatio in librum de Ira Dei

Editors' preface

DISSERTATIO DE LACTANTII LIBRO DE IRA DEI. AUCTORE DOM. LE NOURRY O. S. B.

A Dissertation on Lactantius's Book on the Wrath of God. By Dom Le Nourry, O.S.B.

CAPUT PRIMUM.

Chapter I.

Analysis hujus libri.

Analysis of this book.

Libri hujus initio (Cap. 1) eum a se idcirco conscriptum esse significat, ut plurimorum ac quorumdam

At the beginning of this book (Chap. 1) he indicates that it was written by him for this reason, that of very many and of certain

Editors' notes and page, col. 147

Footnotes

(—) ‹anchor: Desciscere› · in col 147 Desciscere. Mss. 13 et edd., discedere. — Desciscere. L. i Inst., cap. 21: ab humanitate desciscant. Seneca de Otio Sap. c. 29: desciscere a praeceptis; l. iv, Benef. 17, a lege descivit. Bun.

Desciscere ("to fall away"). Thirteen manuscripts and the editions have discedere ("to depart"). — Desciscere: Institutes book i, ch. 21: "they fall away from humanity". Seneca, De otio sapientis, ch. 29: "to fall away from the precepts"; book iv, De beneficiis 17: "he fell away from the law". Bünemann.

(—) ‹anchor: Incitatrix› · in col 147 Incitatrix. Mss. Bonon., irritatrix.

Incitatrix ("she who incites"). The Bologna manuscripts have irritatrix ("she who provokes").

(—) ‹anchor: Qui facinoribus, fraudibus› · in col 147 Qui facinoribus, fraudibus. Sic facinoribus restitui ex mss. Regio-Put., 1 al. Reg., 2 Colbert., Baluz., Clarom. in margine. Deest in caeteris tum scriptis, tum impressis.

Qui facinoribus, fraudibus ("who by crimes, by frauds"). I have restored facinoribus thus from the manuscripts: the Regio-Puteanus, one other Regius, two Colbertini, Baluze's, and the Claromontanus in the margin. It is missing in all the others, both written and printed.

(—) ‹anchor: Ineluibiles› · in col 147 Ineluibiles. Ita mss. quod vix in scriptoribus latinis reperias, nisi apud Lactantium libro vii Divin. Institut. cap. 20, circa medium. Quaedam editiones habent indelebiles, Cellarii scilicet et aliorum; sed maluimus sequi mss. et editos. — Ineluibiles maculas Ciceronis est, l. v, in Ver., c. 46, et pro sectio, cap. 27, maculas eluere. Bun.

Ineluibiles ("that cannot be washed out"). So the manuscripts; you would scarcely find the word in Latin writers, except in Lactantius, Divine Institutes book vii, ch. 20, about the middle. Some editions, namely Cellarius's and others', have indelebiles ("indelible"); but we preferred to follow the manuscripts and the printed editions. — "Stains that cannot be washed out" is Cicero's phrase, In Verrem book v, ch. 46; and in Pro Sestio [printed "pro sectio"], ch. 27, "to wash out stains". Bünemann.

(—) ‹anchor: Impartiatur› · in col 147 Impartiatur. 1 Colb., impartiamur. Regio-Put., 4 Colb., Clarom., edit. Cantabrig., impetiatur.

Impartiatur ("let it be imparted"). One Colbertinus has impartiamur ("let us impart"). The Regio-Puteanus, four Colbertini, the Claromontanus and the Cambridge edition have impetiatur [as printed].

(—) ‹anchor: Tam immortales› · in col 147 Tam immortales. Reimmann., tam immortalis, in singulari, non indocte; ut statim, mens et anima... assequitur. Bun.

Tam immortales ("so immortal", plural). Reimmann reads tam immortalis, in the singular, not unlearnedly; as just after, "mind and soul ... attains". Bünemann.

(—) ‹anchor: Deus... in corde... consecratus› · in col 147 Deus... in corde... consecratus, l. vi Inst., cap. 25. Secum... habeat Deum semper in corde suo consecratum, quoniam ipse est Dei templum. Minuc. Fel., c. 32: Nonne melius in nostra dedicandus est mente, in nostro imo consecrandus est pectore? Bun.

"God ... consecrated in the heart": Institutes book vi, ch. 25: "Let him have God always consecrated in his heart, since he himself is the temple of God." Minucius Felix, ch. 32: "Is he not better dedicated in our mind, consecrated in our inmost breast?" Bünemann.

(—) ‹anchor: Destructilia› · in col 147 Destructilia. Sic lego cum vetustissimis et optimis

Destructilia ("destructible things"). So I read, with the oldest and best

(—) ‹anchor: (continuation of Destructilia)› · in col 148 mss. Bonon., 2 Reg., 2 Colb., Tax. Scripti recentiores et editi ferunt destructibilia. — Destructilia. Quinque syllabis, quod adjectivum tuetur versus Prudentii Peristeph. II., x, 346, sqq.: Aedem sibi ipse mente in hominis condidit / Vivam, serenam, sensualem, stabilem, / Solvi incapacem posse, nec destructilem. Idem aliquoties cum Vitruvio et Celso dixit, structilis; ut Tertullianus, instructilis. Bun.

manuscripts: the Bologna manuscripts, two Regii, two Colbertini, Tax. The more recent manuscripts and the printed editions have destructibilia. — Destructilia, in five syllables, an adjective which the lines of Prudentius, Peristephanon II., x, 346 ff., uphold: "He built himself a temple in the mind of man, / living, serene, endowed with sense, steadfast, / that cannot be loosed, nor destroyed." He also said several times, with Vitruvius and Celsus, structilis ("built"); as Tertullian said instructilis. Bünemann.

(—) ‹anchor: Malis cogitationibus sordidatur› · in col 148 Malis cogitationibus sordidatur. L. v Inst., c. 20. Quanto satius est mentem potius eluere, quae malis cupiditatibus sordidatur. Bun.

"It is soiled by evil thoughts." Institutes book v, ch. 20: "How much better it is rather to wash the mind, which is soiled by evil desires." Bünemann.

(—) ‹anchor: Quod non cereis ardentibus› · in col 148 Quod non cereis ardentibus. Vide Not. supra ad lib. vi Inst., cap. 6.

"Which not with burning tapers." See the note above on Institutes book vi, ch. 6.

(—) ‹anchor: Sed claritate ac luce sapientiae› · in col 148 Sed claritate ac luce sapientiae. Ms. Bodl. habet, sed Dei claritate; editi nonnulli ac duce sapientia.

"But with the brightness and light of wisdom." The Bodleian manuscript has "but with the brightness of God"; some printed editions have "and with wisdom as guide".

(—) ‹anchor: Cujus divinitati secreta mentis patent› · in col 148 Cujus divinitati secreta mentis patent. Haec desunt in 19 rec. mss. et edd. Rom. quorum vice legitur ejus divinitatis potentia ita vivemus; ita etiam habent vetustae saeculi XV editiones. At in Bonon. multisque aliis est ut in textu; in Regio-Put. vero, cujus divinitatis ita potentia vivemus. — Cujus divinitati secreta mentis patent, ita vivemus. Ita l. vi Inst., c. 24 Deo... nihil potest esse secretum... patemus Deo... Dei divinitas nec visceribus submoveri potest. Bun.

"To whose divinity the secrets of the mind lie open." These words are missing in 19 more recent manuscripts and in the Roman editions, in whose place is read "by the power of his divinity we shall so live"; so too the old fifteenth-century editions. But in the Bologna manuscripts and many others it is as in the text; in the Regio-Puteanus, however, "by whose divinity's power we shall so live". — "To whose divinity the secrets of the mind lie open, so shall we live." So Institutes book vi, ch. 24: "Nothing can be secret from God ... we lie open to God ... the divinity of God cannot be kept out even of our inmost parts." Bünemann.

(printed under page 73)

Page

running head: 147 DISSERT. D. LE NOURRY IN L (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹terrenis fragilibusque famulari›; B ‹merito dici volunt, fragilia contemnere›; C ‹habent indelebiles, Cellarii scilicet› (in the Variorum notae at the page foot)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: full-width line "VARIORUM NOTA[E]" and the notes beneath it (Desciscere ... Destructilia) are page-foot commentary, not set; full-width title lines "DISSERTA[TIO] / DE LACTANTII LIBRO ..." and "AUCTORE DOM. LE NOUR[RY]" cut off at the image edge, not set; editors' matter set: Le Nourry's dissertation, Caput primum, "Analysis hujus libri. Libri hujus initio"; last word split at the column break: quorum- (presumably quorumdam)
other: a full-width band stands across cols 147/148 in mid-page: the 1 paragraph(s) above it in col 148 are set here, after the 1 above it in col 147 (reading order, moved on receipt); the band itself (its title lines) is not set by the volunteer page: set it here, at the move, with full_width
other: the column opens with the end of the previous work (another unit); not set here: the unit begins at CAPUT PRIMUM.

PL 7:148

etiam philosophorum coargueret errorem, quo Deum irasci pernegabant. Fatetur autem se non eo arrogantiae devenisse, ut persuasum haberet veritatem, quam nemo homo, teste Socrate, per se ipsum solum comparare potest, suo se comprehendisse ingenio:

philosophers too he might refute the error, by which they flatly denied that God grows angry. He confesses, however, that he had not come to such a pitch of arrogance as to be persuaded that the truth, which no man, as Socrates bears witness, can obtain by himself alone, he had grasped by his own genius,

Editors' notes and page, col. 148

Page

running head: [cut off at left edge] NOURRY IN LIB. DE IRA DEI. 148
marginal letters: A Auferatur impietas; B crediderimus esse praesentem; C piditatibus sordidatur (in the Variorum Notae at the page foot)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Destructilia printed thus and defended in the notes, so not a misprint; full-width heading VARIORUM NOTAE not set, stands after "vereamur iratum"; Variorum Notae at the page foot (mss. Bonon., 2 Reg. ...) not set, left for the later pass; full-width title DISSERTATIO IN LIBRO DE IRA DEI ... DOM. LE NOURRY O. S. B. with ornamental rules not set, stands between the notes and the dissertation text, its left part cut off; editors' matter set: Le Nourry's dissertation, "dam etiam philosophorum"; first word "dam" is the end of a word broken from the preceding column, probably quorum-dam (left column ends "orum-"); last word "in-" broken at the column end, perhaps ingenio, unsure; running head cut off at its left edge
other: the 1 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 147 (reading order, moved on receipt)
other: the word ingenio: was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 149

PL 7:149

sed Dei, qui solus occultae veritatis patefaciendae potestatem habet, doctrinam se sequi profitetur.

but he professes to follow the teaching of God, Who alone has the power of laying open hidden truth.

Tribus vero gradibus ad hanc, inquit (Cap. 2), veritatem conscenditur. Primus est falsas intelligere religiones, et abjicere impios deorum cultus. Secundus, cognoscere verum, unicum, summumque Deum, qui omnia potestate sua creavit, et providentia gubernat. Tertius, agnoscere Dei legatum ac nuntium, qui homines erroribus liberatos, ad hujus veri Dei cultum ac justitiam formavit. Breviter autem indicat ubinam illos, qui hunc triplicem veritatis gradum explicando aberraverint, aut confutaverit, aut deinceps confutaturus sit.

To this truth, he says (Ch. 2), one climbs by three steps. The first is to understand that religions are false, and to cast away the impious worship of the gods. The second, to recognize the true, one and supreme God, Who created all things by His power and governs them by His providence. The third, to acknowledge the envoy and messenger of God, Who, having freed men from errors, formed them for the worship and justice of this true God. He also indicates briefly where he has refuted, or is going to refute hereafter, those who have gone astray in setting out this threefold step of truth.

His ita praelibatis, docet quadruplicem de ira Dei haberi posse quaestionem. Primo, an Deo ira tribuenda sit, et demenda gratia. Secundo, an utraque ipsi detrahenda. Tertio, an gratia ipsi ascribenda, et tollenda ira. Quarto, an utraque ipsi attribuenda. De prima quaestione non potest, inquit (Cap. 3), ulla esse disceptatio. Quid enim dictu magis absurdum, quam Deum, boni auctorem, nemini prodesse ac benefacere, sed nocere tantum omnibus, et irasci?

These matters having been thus touched upon first, he teaches that a fourfold question can be held concerning the anger of God. First, whether anger is to be attributed to God and kindness taken away. Second, whether both are to be withdrawn from Him. Third, whether kindness is to be ascribed to Him and anger removed. Fourth, whether both are to be attributed to Him. About the first question, he says (Ch. 3), there can be no dispute. For what is more absurd to say than that God, the author of good, profits and does good to no one, but only harms all and is angry?

Epicurei vero plane somniaverant in Deo nullum esse aut gratiae aut irae motum (Cap. 4). Sed pauci, iique scelerati homines hac falsissima ducebantur opinione. Si Deus enim, sicut illi garriebant, non movetur; si ulla absque voluntate aut providentia torpet immobilis, is proculdubio Deus non est. Quamobrem si haec sit Epicuri opinio, ille profecto non reipsa, sed verbo tenus Deum existere asseruit.

The Epicureans, however, had plainly dreamt that in God there is no motion either of kindness or of anger (Ch. 4). But few men, and those wicked, were led by this most false opinion. For if God, as they prattled, is not moved; if, without any will or providence, He lies sluggish and motionless, He is without doubt not God. Therefore, if this is the opinion of Epicurus, he asserted that God exists not in reality but in word only.

Stoici autem aliique nonnulli arbitrabantur (Cap. 5) gratiam in Deo quidem esse, sed nullam unquam irae commotionem. Etenim sicuti benignitas, aiebant, et beneficentia in Deo esse debet, ita et quaelibet mentis perturbatio ab eo omnino abeit, necesse est. Contra vero Lactantius: Si Deus, inquit, movetur gratia; ergo et ira. Verumenimvero qui bonos et pios diligit, ille impiis et iniquis irascitur. Boni quippe dilectio ex mali odio, et mali odium ex boni dilectione manat ac profluit. Qui ergo gratiae motu bonis benefacit, ille etiam malis iratus, eos pro merito corripit et castigat.

The Stoics, however, and some others held (Ch. 5) that there is indeed kindness in God, but never any stirring of anger. For just as kindliness, they said, and beneficence must be in God, so too any disturbance of mind must of necessity be wholly absent from Him. Against this Lactantius says: If God is moved by kindness, then also by anger. For indeed He Who loves the good and the pious is angry with the impious and the wicked. For love of the good flows and issues from hatred of the bad, and hatred of the bad from love of the good. He therefore Who by the motion of kindness does good to the good, He also, being angry with the bad, rebukes and chastises them as they deserve.

Itaque auctor noster censet (Cap. 6) eam solam sententiam veritati consonam esse, quae asserit Deum sicut gratia, ita et ira reipsa commoveri. In hoc autem totius religionis summam et cardinem versari existimat (Cap. 7). Quod quidem eo demonstrat, quod homo, etsi multa cum brutis communia, aut iis similia habeat, sapientia tamen ac potissimum religione, sive notitia et cultu Dei ab aliis distinguitur. Atqui religio sine sincero Dei, peccatoribus offensi, atque irati, metu stare non potest. Iram ergo Dei perperam tollere conabantur Epicurei (Cap. 8), qui illum nihil curare effutiebant. Frustra enim nihil curanti, nihilque cum nobis commune habenti, templa aedificantur, ac fiunt sacrificia. Nullus enim honos ei debetur. Ad haec vero: si Deus non irascitur, utique non timetur; si non timetur, nec etiam colitur; quin immo

Our author therefore judges (Ch. 6) that that opinion alone is consonant with truth which asserts that God is really moved by anger just as by kindness. And he considers that in this the sum and hinge of all religion turns (Ch. 7). This he demonstrates from the fact that man, although he has many things in common with the brutes, or similar to them, is nevertheless distinguished from the others by wisdom and above all by religion, that is, by the knowledge and worship of God. But religion cannot stand without a sincere fear of God, offended and angered by sinners. Wrongly, therefore, did the Epicureans try to take away the anger of God (Ch. 8), who babbled that He cares for nothing. For in vain are temples built and sacrifices made to one who cares for nothing and has nothing in common with us. For no honour is owed to him. Moreover: if God is not angry, He is certainly not feared; if He is not feared, neither is He worshipped; nay rather

Editors' notes and page, col. 149

Page

running head: 140 CAP. I. ANALYSIS HUJU (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹genio: sed Dei, qui solus›; B ‹haberi posse quaestionem. Primo›; C ‹sed verbo tenus Deum existere›; D ‹sicut gratia, ita et ira reipsa›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: whole column is the editors' analysis of De ira Dei (‹genio: sed Dei, qui solus›); first word "genio" is the remainder of a word broken from the previous column; the page number in the head reads 140 but may be a blurred 149; "si ulla absque voluntate" set as printed (perhaps for "nulla"), UNSURE; "Verumenimvero" printed as one word; the adjoining column, cut off at the right edge, is not set

PL 7:150

homines nullo conscientiae freno coerciti, in omni scelerum genere volutabuntur.

men restrained by no bridle of conscience will wallow in every kind of crime.

Respondebant autem religionem et divinitatis metum a prudentibus viris conficta fuisse non veritatis, sed utilitatis gratia, ut alii nimirum vitam majori innocentia ac morum integritate ducerent. Fatetur quidem Lactantius magnam hoc responso sibi proponi disputandi materiam, et a suo proposito alienam, quam tamen breviter attingit. Narrat itaque (Cap. 9) Protagoram primum omnium in dubium vocasse, an sit aliqnis Deus: deinde Epicurum aperta penitusque absurda contradictione docuisse divinam esse quamdam naturam, sed cujus providentia nulla sit; denique Diagoram et Theodorum omnino negasse ullum esse Deum.

But they replied that religion and the fear of the divinity had been devised by prudent men not for the sake of truth but for the sake of utility, namely so that others might lead their life with greater innocence and integrity of morals. Lactantius indeed admits that by this reply a great subject for disputation is set before him, and one foreign to his purpose, which nevertheless he touches upon briefly. He relates therefore (Chap. 9) that Protagoras first of all called into doubt whether there is any God; then that Epicurus, with an open and utterly absurd contradiction, taught that there is a certain divine nature, but one which has no providence; finally that Diagoras and Theodorus denied altogether that there is any God.

Tam falsas autem has opiniones ut funditus evertat, variis ac validis profecto rationum momentis ostendit (Cap. 10) illos plane errare, qui mundum nulla Dei providentia, sed minutis et insecabilibus, sicuti Leucippus, Democritus, Epicurus et Lucretius, corpusculis concretum, sua sola natura extitisse somniaverant. Non leviori dehinc brachio, nec minoris ponderis argumentationibus errorem concutit destruitque Stratonis, qui stulte praedicabat naturam, sensu et figura carentem, ullo sine artifice, vel auctore, sed sua sponte generatam. Aliis vero argumentis evidentissime ostendit hominem, qui ab humo nomen sortitus est, et ejus animam, ac totum mundum a Deo fuisse creata; illiusque providentia gubernari. Plane ergo, ii omnes, inquit ille, delirabant, qui religionem metus ac terroris causa institutam venditabant.

And in order to overturn these so false opinions from their foundations, he shows by various and truly strong weights of reasons (Chap. 10) that those men plainly err who, like Leucippus, Democritus, Epicurus and Lucretius, had dreamed that the world, compacted not by any providence of God but of minute and indivisible particles, came into existence by its own nature alone. Next, with no lighter arm and with arguments of no less weight, he shakes and destroys the error of Strato, who foolishly proclaimed that nature, lacking sense and shape, was generated without any artificer or author, of its own accord. And by other arguments he shows most evidently that man, who received his name from the ground (humus), and his soul, and the whole world were created by God, and are governed by His providence. Plainly therefore, he says, all those were raving who peddled the notion that religion was instituted for the sake of fear and terror.

Pluribus posthaec exemplis et rationibus manifestissime demonstrat (Cap. 11) unum tantummodo esse posse hunc Deum. Quod quidem, post patefactam impii plurium deorum cultus originem, publico, nec dubio certe Platonis, Trismegisti, Socratis, Pythagorae, Antisthenis et Aristotelis testimonio confirmat. Sed hi, inquit, quemadmodum poetae, et alii gentiles etiamsi concesserint unum esse Deum; quia tamen nihil de ejus, quem beneficum credebant, cultu statuerunt, idcirco arbitrati sunt illum ira nunquam concitari. Ex his porro, quae hactenus dicta sunt, ille concludit (Cap. 12) funditus eversam esse illorum responsionem, qui contendebant religionem utilitatis tantum gratia introductam.

After this, with many examples and reasons, he demonstrates most plainly (Chap. 11) that this God can be only one. This indeed, after laying open the origin of the impious worship of many gods, he confirms by the public and certainly not doubtful testimony of Plato, Trismegistus, Socrates, Pythagoras, Antisthenes and Aristotle. But these, he says, like the poets and other gentiles, even though they granted that God is one, yet because they established nothing concerning the worship of Him Whom they believed beneficent, therefore thought that He is never roused to anger. From these things, moreover, which have been said so far, he concludes (Chap. 12) that the reply of those who contended that religion was introduced only for the sake of utility has been overturned from its foundations.

Aliis tamen adhuc rationum momentis convincit Deum reipsa irasci. Sed ut haec adhuc planiora omnibus fierent, luculenter ille ostendit (Cap. 13) mundum non mutorum animalium, sed hominum causa fuisse a Deo conditum.

Yet by still other weights of reasons he proves that God is in fact angry. But so that these things might become still plainer to all, he shows clearly (Chap. 13) that the world was founded by God not for the sake of the dumb animals but for the sake of men.

At si ita est, inquiebant Academici, cur tam multa ipsimet homini contraria ac pestifera inveniuntur? Respondebant quidem Stoici latentem eorum utilitatem posse deinceps agnosci, ac ex ipsis animalibus contra eorum venena haberi remedium. Sed hos refellit Lactantius, quia multa nulli videntur esse utilitati, ac satius esset nulla fieri noxia et mortifera, quam ex illis adversus ipsa remedium quaerere. Quapropter ille respondet soli ex animantibus homini inditam

But if this is so, said the Academics, why are so many things found that are hostile and pestilent to man himself? The Stoics indeed replied that their hidden usefulness could be recognized in time, and that from the animals themselves a remedy is had against their poisons. But Lactantius refutes them, because many things seem to be of no use, and it would be better that nothing harmful and deadly were made than to seek from them a remedy against them. Therefore he replies that in man alone among living creatures there has been implanted

Editors' notes and page, col. 150

Page

running head: [A]NALYSIS HUJUS LIBRI. 150 (first letter cut off at left edge)
marginal letters: A homines nullo conscientiae; B Tam falsas autem has; C metus ac terroris causa; D Aliis tamen adhuc rationum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: the editors' analysis of De ira Dei (column begins "homines nullo conscientiae freno coerciti"); column begins mid-sentence; last word "in-" split across the column break; "conficta" (with religionem et metum) set as printed; heavy inking/broken type in the upper part makes several words (freno, coerciti, divinitatis, proposito) hard to read but legible enough

PL 7:151

a Deo sapientiam, qua bona discernat a malis, atque illa eligat, et haec ac quaecumque sibi noxia sunt, devitet.

by God wisdom, by which he may distinguish good things from evil, and choose the former, and avoid these and whatever things are harmful to him.

Eadem ratione aliam evertit argumentationem, quam sibi ipse hunc proposuit in modum : Aut Deus potest, et non vult mala tollere, eoque ipso invidus est : aut vult, et non potest, et ita est infirmus. Ergo nec Deus dicendus erit. Concedit autem Lactantius Deum posse malum tollere, sed ideo illud non sustulisse ; quia nomini, uti dictum est, dedit sapientiam, qua potest malum agnoscere, et summum bonum, seu beatam immortalitatem adipisci.

By the same reasoning he overturns another argument, which he put to himself in this manner: Either God is able, and is unwilling, to take away evils, and by that very fact is envious; or He is willing, and is unable, and so is weak. Therefore He is not to be called God either. But Lactantius grants that God is able to take away evil, but that He has not removed it for this reason: because, as has been said, He gave man wisdom, by which he is able to recognize evil and to attain the highest good, that is, blessed immortality.

Quemadmodum vero Deus mundum propter hominem, sic et hunc propter se creavit, id est, ut ab illo cognoscatur, ac debita veneratione colatur. Inde autem scite colligit (Cap. 14) eumdem hominem religionis, et ut ait Cicero, justitiae causa fuisse creatum. Si quis vero sciscitetur, unde ergo peccata ad hominem pervenerint, responsum a Lactantio is accipiet (Cap. 15), se jam huic quaestioni satisfecisse, cum dixit Deum homini bonum proposuisse et malum, hoc autem, quod odit, permisisse, ut illud, quod amat, inde emicaret. At quia homo, non secus ac mundus, componitur rebus contrariis et repugnantibus, anima videlicet solida et aeterna, et corpore fragili et mortali, hinc profecto orta sunt et naturae ejus depravatio, et vitia, quae Dei legibus prohiberi oportuit. Deus ergo in bonos homines eis morem gerentes gratia, atque in praevaricatores ira commovetur.

And just as God created the world for the sake of man, so He also created man for His own sake, that is, that He might be known by him and worshipped with due veneration. From this he skilfully infers (ch. 14) that this same man was created for the sake of religion and, as Cicero says, of justice. But if anyone should ask whence, then, sins have come to man, he will receive from Lactantius the answer (ch. 15) that he has already satisfied this question when he said that God set before man good and evil, and permitted the latter, which He hates, so that the former, which He loves, might shine forth from it. But because man, no differently from the world, is composed of contrary and opposing things, namely a soul solid and eternal and a body frail and mortal, from this indeed have arisen both the depravation of his nature and the vices, which it was necessary to forbid by the laws of God. God, therefore, is moved with favour towards good men who comply with them, and with anger against transgressors.

Neque Epicurus objicere poterat in Deo pariter esse debere timoris, libidinis, et cupiditatis affectus. Nam hi aliique similes motus, ex hominis fragilitate orti, in Deum, qui immortalis est, et nullius rei eget, cadere non possunt (Cap. 16). Contra vero ira adversus malos homines, et erga bonos charitas, atque in afflictos miseratio, sunt affectus Deo plane digni, suamque habent in ipso materiam. Secus enim omnia scelerum genera mundum impune inundarent.

Nor could Epicurus object that the affections of fear, lust and desire must likewise be in God. For these and other similar motions, arising from the frailty of man, cannot befall God, Who is immortal and needs nothing (ch. 16). On the contrary, anger against evil men, and love towards the good, and pity towards the afflicted, are affections entirely worthy of God, and have their matter in Him. For otherwise all kinds of crimes would flood the world with impunity.

Instabat Epicurus Deum esse beatum, ergo quietum et nihil curantem. At sentit certe, uti arguit Lactantius (Cap. 17), semperque vivit. Agit igitur. Quae autem est actio Dei, nisi mundi administratio? At si curam mundi et hominis habet, vult profecto ab homine legem suam observari, et illius praevaricatoribus irascitur.

Epicurus pressed the point that God is blessed, and therefore at rest and caring for nothing. But He certainly perceives, as Lactantius argues (ch. 17), and lives for ever. He therefore acts. And what is the action of God, if not the governance of the world? But if He has care of the world and of man, He certainly wills that His law be observed by man, and is angry with its transgressors.

Nec erat profecto quod adhuc urgeret Epicurus eum, qui alteri nocet, non esse bonum. Non enim nocent, qui debitas a reis et iniquis poenas repetunt.

Nor indeed was there any ground for Epicurus still to urge that he who harms another is not good. For those who exact due penalties from the guilty and the wicked do no harm.

Ex variis deinde, quas Stoici et alii attulerunt irae definitionibus, planum utique Lactantius facit eos profecto non intellexisse quidnam inter iram justam et injustam sit discriminis. Data autem justae irae vera finitione, colligit (Cap. 18) eam nec ab homine, nec ab ipso Deo posse adimi. Quid igitur, inquiebant? Nonne sine irae affectu peccata corrigi possunt? Recte, ait Lactantius, si scelus occultum sit, aut ei humana lege caveatur. At quando cognitum et apertum est, aequum illius judicem indignari necesse est. Alioqui

Then, from the various definitions of anger which the Stoics and others put forward, Lactantius makes it quite plain that they did not in fact understand what difference there is between just and unjust anger. And having given the true definition of just anger, he infers (ch. 18) that it can be taken away neither from man nor from God Himself. What then, they said? Can sins not be corrected without the affection of anger? Rightly so, says Lactantius, if the crime is hidden, or if it is guarded against by human law. But when it is known and open, it is necessary that its just judge be indignant. Otherwise

Editors' notes and page, col. 151

Page

running head: 151 DISSERT. D. LE NOURRY IN L[...] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹ditam a Deo sapientiam›; B ‹tem scite colligit›; C ‹esse debere timoris›; D ‹Nec erat profecto›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins with the word fragment "ditam" broken from the previous column (likely inditam or traditam); the whole column is editors' matter (Le Nourry's dissertation on De ira Dei: ‹ditam a Deo sapientiam›), set in full; "proposuisse" has an ink blot over the s but reads clearly; no full-width line seen

PL 7:152

enim, probaret delictum, et ad majora iter securum panderet.

for he would approve the offence, and lay open a safe road to greater things.

Neque sinit sibi objici Archytae exemplum, qui propterea quod villico peccanti iratus erat, eum punire noluit. Unicum quippe exemplum est, quod nullus, uti ille Platonis testimonio variisque rationibus probare contendit, debet imitari. At de Deo, inquit, de cujus tamen figura tacet, idem dicendum ac de homine, quem similem sibi fecit.

Nor does he allow the example of Archytas to be raised against him, who, because he was angry with his steward when he did wrong, refused to punish him. For it is a unique example, which no one, as he strives to prove by the testimony of Plato and by various arguments, ought to imitate. But concerning God, he says, about Whose form he is nevertheless silent, the same must be said as concerning man, whom He made like Himself.

Verum quia homo anima constat et corpore quibus ad virtutes, aut contra sancitam a Deo legem ad vitia fertur; idcirco Deus, omnium pater et rector, delectatur illius virtutibus, et vitiis commovetur; bonos diligit, et injustos odio habet (Cap. 19).

But since man consists of soul and body, by which he is borne either towards virtues or, against the law sanctioned by God, towards vices, therefore God, the Father and Ruler of all, delights in his virtues and is moved by his vices; He loves the good and holds the unjust in hatred (Chap. 19).

At quid ei, inquiebant, opus odio, qui et bonis statuit praemium, et malis poenam? Quia, inquit Lactantius, si quis juste ac recte vivat, Deum vero nec colat, nec curet, tunc ipse Deus hunc non sinit esse impunitum, ac propter ejus superbiam ira in eum commovetur. Qemadmodum ergo ignoscere potest, ita et irasci.

But what need has He of hatred, they said, Who has appointed both a reward for the good and a punishment for the wicked? Because, says Lactantius, if anyone lives justly and uprightly, but neither worships God nor cares for Him, then God Himself does not allow him to go unpunished, and on account of his pride is moved with anger against him. Just as, therefore, He can forgive, so too He can be angry.

Interroganti autem cur ii, qui peccant, saepe felices, et qui pie vivunt, saepe miseri sint; respondet auctor (Cap. 20) noster filios sub disciplina patris sui constitutos, strictius et frugalius aliis fugitivis et abdicatis vivere. Deinde vero, qui peccant, inquit, non effugient Dei judicium, et debitas aeternasque scelerum poenas aliquando dabunt.

To one asking, moreover, why those who sin are often happy, and those who live piously are often wretched, our author replies (Chap. 20) that sons placed under the discipline of their father live more strictly and more frugally than others who are runaways and disinherited. Then, moreover, those who sin, he says, will not escape the judgement of God, and will one day pay the due and eternal penalties of their crimes.

Instabant : cur Deus, si peccantibus irascitur, in eos statim non animadvertit? Quoniam cum ea, ait Lactantius, sit humana fragilitas, ut nemo non peccet, paucissimi profecto viverent. Deinde vero multi ex malis et improbis fiunt justi et continentes, pluresque ex idolorum cultoribus verum Deum agnoverunt. Utilissima igitur est patientia Dei, qui tametsi noxios sero puniat, eos nihilominus qui pertinaciter emendari nolunt, longius procedere non patitur.

They pressed on: why does God, if He is angry with sinners, not punish them at once? Because, says Lactantius, since human frailty is such that there is no one who does not sin, very few indeed would be left alive. Then, moreover, many from among the wicked and the depraved become just and continent, and many from among the worshippers of idols have come to know the true God. Most useful, therefore, is the patience of God, Who, although He punishes the guilty late, nevertheless does not allow those who stubbornly refuse to be amended to go further.

Verum acrius adhuc alii urgebant tantum abesse, ut Deus irascatur, quin potius hominem irasci omnino prohibeat. Sed hoc facile diluit Lactantius (Cap. 21). Nam Deus quidem vetat hominem irasci; quia saepe saepius injusta est ejus ira: ipse vero Deus nunquam ira nisi justa movetur. Ad haec vero Deus non prohibuit, ne homo quovis irae motu tangatur, sed ne in eo permaneat. Quapropter illam temperari jussit, et hominem ante solis occasum fratri suo reconciliari. Quamvis autem ipse sit aeternus, irae tamen suae motum in potestate sua ita habet, ut iis tautum, qui semper peccant, in aeternum irascatur.

But others pressed more sharply still, that God is so far from being angry that He rather forbids man to be angry at all. But Lactantius easily refutes this (Chap. 21). For God indeed forbids man to be angry, because his anger is very often unjust; but God Himself is never moved by any anger but just anger. Moreover, God has not forbidden man to be touched by any movement of anger, but to remain in it. Therefore He commanded that it be tempered, and that a man be reconciled to his brother before the setting of the sun. And although He Himself is eternal, yet He so holds the movement of His anger in His own power that He is angry for ever only with those who sin always.

Ea porro ira Deum revera commoveri auctor noster rursus probat (Cap. 22 et 23) non iis quidem, quae ethnici rejiciebant, sacrorum nostrorum vatum testimoniis, sed aliorum, atque in primis Sybillarum et Apollinis Milesii, quibus refragari ethnici omnino non poterant. Addit vero imperium sine metu, ac metum sine ira consistere non posse. Atqui Deus imperium habet, ergo et iram, atque idcirco daemones, et caetera omnia ad nutum ejus contremiscunt.

That God is truly moved by this anger our author further proves again (Chap. 22 and 23), not indeed by the testimonies of our sacred prophets, which the heathen rejected, but by those of others, and above all of the Sibyls and of Milesian Apollo, which the heathen could in no way gainsay. He adds, moreover, that dominion cannot exist without fear, nor fear without anger. But God has dominion, therefore also anger, and for that reason the demons and all other things tremble at His nod.

Denique librum hunc Lactantius absolvit epilogo,

Finally Lactantius concludes this book with an epilogue,

Editors' notes and page, col. 152

Page

running head: … NOURRY IN LIB. DE IRA DEI. (left part cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A enim, probaret delictum; B tuit praemium, et malis poenam; C Lactantius, sit humana fragilitas; D et hominem ante solis occasum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: the whole column is Nourry's dissertation on De ira Dei (first words "enim, probaret delictum"), set in full; column begins mid-sentence. "non" (para. 5) printed with damaged/blurred type, read as such. "tautum" (para. 7, "ut iis tautum") appears printed with a turned n; set as printed. "Sybillarum" kept as printed (period spelling for Sibyllarum). Left column (col. 151) not set.

PL 7:153

quo concludit Deum amandum, quia optimus pater; timendum, quia severus dominus; honorandum, quia Deus beneficentissimus est. Concludit itaque morem illi gerendum, caducis et fragilibus bonis, voluptatibus, et vitiis nuntium remittendum, vacandum operibus justitiae, innocentiae, beneficentiae, aliisque virtutibus; ut beatissima necessitudine ipsi Deo copulati, semper propitium habeamus, nec amplius vereamur iratum.

by which he concludes that God is to be loved, because He is the best father; to be feared, because He is a stern master; to be honoured, because He is God most beneficent. He concludes, therefore, that we must comply with Him, bid farewell to perishable and fragile goods, to pleasures and to vices, and devote ourselves to works of justice, innocence, beneficence and the other virtues, so that, joined to God Himself in a most blessed bond, we may always have Him favourable and no longer fear Him angry.

CAPUT II.

Chapter II.

De hujus libri auctore, titulo, argumento, aetate, quave scribendi ratione ab illo compositus, ac quomodo Ciceronem imitatus sit.

On the author of this book, its title, its subject, its date, and by what manner of writing it was composed by him, and how he imitated Cicero.

Librum hunc a Lactantio nostro profectum fuisse tam certum constausque est, ut nulla unquam fuerit, aut esse possit ea de re disceptatio aut controversia. Suis enim ille verbis se ipsum hujus libri, quem se scripturum promiserat, prodit auctorem. In secundo siquidem Divinarum Institutionum libro, ubi in sermonem de ira Dei incidit: « Seponatur, inquit, interim locus hic nobis de ira Dei disserendi, quod et uberior est materia, et opere proprio latius exsequenda. » At promissis suis stetisse ipsemet diserte significat. In hoc quippe libro nos saepius ad secundum, quartum et sextum divinarum Institutionum suarum sic mittit, ut omnium horumce librorum verum parentem se fuisse palam fateatur. Plura igitur in rem adeo claram, adeoque aperte ab ipsomet auctore nostro confessam, testimonia aliorum scriptorum congerere tam facile esset, quam supervacaneum. Hieronymum tamen cum ob illius antiquitatem, tum ob eam quam de hoc libro fert sententiam, penitus omittere non possumus. Primum itaque ad Magnum urbis Romae oratorem sic de hoc libro scripsit: « Lactantius de Ira et Opificio Dei duo volumina condidit, quos si legere volueris, dialogorum Ciceronis in eis ἐπιτομὴν reperies. » Suo autem Scriptorum Ecclesiastioorum in catalogo, ubi ad ipsum Lactantium venit: « Habemus, inquit, ejus librum, et pulcherrimum de Ira Dei. » Denique alio in opere: « Firmianus noster librum de Ira Dei, docto pariter et eloquenti sermone conscripsit, quem qui legerit, puto ei ad irae intellectum satis abunde posse sufficere. » An vero illud Hieronymi hoc de libro judicium aequum sit, et omnibus probetur, nos infra examinabimus. Jam vero ex citatis illius, atque Lactantii etiam nostri verbis colligimus illum hujusce libri esse verum genuinumque parentem.

That this book came from our Lactantius is so certain and settled that there never has been, nor can be, any dispute or controversy on the matter. For in his own words he reveals himself as the author of this book, which he had promised he would write. Indeed, in the second book of the Divine Institutes, where he falls into a discussion of the anger of God, he says: "Let this topic of discussing the anger of God be set aside by us for the present, both because the material is richer and because it must be pursued more broadly in a work of its own." And that he kept his promise he himself expressly indicates. For in this book he refers us quite often to the second, fourth and sixth books of his Divine Institutes in such a way that he openly declares himself to have been the true parent of all these books. To heap up, then, further testimonies of other writers on a matter so clear, and so openly acknowledged by our author himself, would be as easy as it is superfluous. Jerome, however, we cannot omit altogether, both on account of his antiquity and on account of the opinion he passes on this book. First, then, to Magnus, an orator of the city of Rome, he wrote thus of this book: "Lactantius composed two volumes, On the Anger and On the Workmanship of God; if you wish to read them, you will find in them an epitome of the dialogues of Cicero." In his catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, moreover, when he comes to Lactantius himself, he says: "We have a book of his, and a most beautiful one, On the Anger of God." Finally, in another work: "Our Firmianus wrote a book On the Anger of God in a style at once learned and eloquent; whoever reads it will, I think, find it amply sufficient for an understanding of anger." Whether that judgement of Jerome on this book is fair, and approved by all, we shall examine below. Now, from his words as cited, and also from those of our Lactantius, we gather that he is the true and genuine parent of this book.

Nec minus clare perspicimus ab illo de Ira Dei fuisse inscriptum. Tametsi enim de hac inscriptione Hieronymus et ipsemet Lactantius plane tacuissent, eam sane totus ipse, quantus est, liber clamat et asserit. Non alius siquidem in eo scribendo Lactantii scopus finisque fuit, quam ut palam omnibus faceret Deum revera irasci. Neque aliud etiam toto fere in hoc libro, quam de ira Dei tractatur argumentum, et ad illud omnia referuntur. Quod quidem ex facta a nobis illius analysi, vel etiam levissima libri ipsius

Nor do we perceive less clearly that it was entitled by him On the Anger of God. For even if Jerome and Lactantius himself had been entirely silent about this title, the whole book itself, in its entirety, proclaims and asserts it. For Lactantius had no other aim and end in writing it than to make plain to all that God truly is angry. Nor is any other subject treated in almost the whole of this book than the anger of God, and everything is referred to it. This indeed, from the analysis of it made by us, or even from the book's own slightest

Editors' notes and page, col. 153

Page

running head: 153 CAP. II DE HUJUS LIB. AUCT. (cut off at the right edge)
marginal letters: A ‹quo concludit Deum amandum›; B ‹tam certum constausque est›; C ‹congerere tam facile esset›; D ‹sit, et omnibus probetur›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the whole column is editors' matter (end of an analysis "quo concludit Deum amandum" and Caput II of the editors' dissertation "Librum hunc a Lactantio nostro"); "hujus" in the italic summary appears to bear a stray mark over the u; "Ecclesiastioorum" is set as printed (closed o for c), UNSURE whether misprint or damaged c; "ac quomodo" printed nearly run together; column ends mid-sentence at "ipsius"

PL 7:154

lectione, perspicuum cunctis fiet et manifestissimum.

reading, will become clear and most manifest to all.

Postremo ex iisdem Lactantii, quos citavimus, locis eadem profecto evidentia demonstratur hunc librum ab ipso, post septem divinarum Institutionum libros compositum, et juris factum publici. Non longum autem inter utrosque intercessisse temporis spatium haud absurde dici potest. Cum enim scripsit secundum divinarum Institutionum librum, pollicitus est, uti paulo ante observavimus, fore ut hunc librum conficeret. At eum cito fidem suam liberasse inde colligitur, quod persuasum plane habuerit, hanc de ira Dei quaestionem eo majoris esse momenti, quod a plurimis, ut diximus, scriptoribus, et a philosophis ethnicis nec paucis quidem, nec ignobilibus, qui eam negabant, religio funditus tolleretur. At quo tuendae veritatis, quemadmodum vidimus, ardore erat incensus, non potuit utique longiorem ad alios ab errore liberandos, et vera doctrina informandos, moram interponere.

Finally, from the same passages of Lactantius which we have cited, it is assuredly shown with equal evidence that this book was composed by him after the seven books of the Divine Institutes, and made public. And it can be said not unreasonably that no long space of time passed between the two. For when he wrote the second book of the Divine Institutes, he promised, as we observed a little earlier, that he would complete this book. That he soon discharged his promise is gathered from the fact that he was fully persuaded that this question of the anger of God was of all the greater moment, because by very many writers, as we have said, and by pagan philosophers, neither few indeed nor obscure, who denied it, religion was being utterly done away with. And with such ardour for defending the truth as we have seen he was fired with, he certainly could not interpose any longer delay in freeing others from error and instructing them in true doctrine.

Praeterea Lactantius « Extrema senectute », uti ait Hieronymus, « magister Caesaris Crispi, filii Constantini, in Gallia fuit. » Crispus autem bellum in Galliis circa annum 320 gerebat, et anno 326, quo vix dum aetatis suae tricesimum attigerat, mortuus est. Atqui Lactantius operam, sicuti diximus, conscribendis Institutionum divinarum libris circa annum 321, aetate jam provectus navabat. Non longum ergo post tempus hunc, sicuti promiserat, librum de Ira Dei composuit, publicamque emisit in lucem.

Moreover Lactantius "in extreme old age", as Jerome says, "was tutor of the Caesar Crispus, son of Constantine, in Gaul." Now Crispus was waging war in the Gauls around the year 320, and died in the year 326, when he had scarcely reached the thirtieth year of his age. But Lactantius, as we have said, was devoting his labour to writing the books of the Divine Institutes around the year 321, being already advanced in age. Therefore not long afterwards he composed this book on the Anger of God, as he had promised, and brought it out into the light publicly.

Eodem porro hunc ac superiores libros stylo, eademque scribendi ratione ab illo exaratum fuisse, nemo sane, qui eos semel cursimve legerit, umquam inficiabitur. Ubique enim in eo idem atque in aliis emicat argumentandi genus, eadem sermonis elegantia, idem orationis cultus, ornatus et nitor. Quamobrem hoc fusius probare, quid aliud est, quam meridiano soli lucem afferre supervacuam?

Further, that this book and the preceding ones were written by him in the same style and the same manner of writing, no one indeed who has read them even once or cursorily will ever deny. For everywhere in it there shines out the same kind of argumentation as in the others, the same elegance of language, the same refinement, ornament and polish of discourse. Wherefore, to prove this at greater length, what else is it than to bring superfluous light to the midday sun?

Animadversione vero aliqua haud prorsus indignum illud erit, quod Lactantius in hujus libri peroratione significat imitandum sibi proposuisse Ciceronem. Audi, quaeso, ejus verba: « Restat, ut more Ciceronis utamur epilogo ad perorandum: sicut ille in Tusculanis de morte disserens fecit, ita nos in hoc opere testimonia divina, quibus credi possit, adhibere debemus. » Ibi autem ille primum Tusculanarum Quaestionum librum indicat, cujus epilogum se imitari haud immerito profitetur.

It will not, however, be wholly unworthy of some notice that Lactantius indicates in the peroration of this book that he had set himself Cicero to imitate. Hear, I pray, his words: "It remains that, after the manner of Cicero, we use an epilogue for the peroration: as he did when discoursing on death in the Tusculans, so we in this work ought to bring forward divine testimonies, which can be believed." There he points to the first book of the Tusculan Disputations, whose epilogue he not undeservedly professes to imitate.

Nonne autem, inquiet aliquis, hanc ob rationem Hieronymus Magno scribebat ἐπιτομὴν dialogorum Ciceronis in hocce libro reperiri? Minime quidem, uti putamus. Latinum enimvero oratorem in epilogo dumtaxat se imitari significat, nec eorum quae ab illo dicta sunt, fecit compendium: quin immo testimoniis utitur ab iis, quae Cicero adhibet, plane penitusque diversis. Vox itaque ἐπιτομή ab Hieronymo eo, nisi fallimur, sensu usurpatur, quo a nobis superius explicata est.

But, someone will say, was it not for this reason that Jerome wrote to Magnus that an epitome of the dialogues of Cicero is found in this very book? Not at all, as we think. For he indicates that he imitates the Latin orator only in the epilogue, and he did not make a compendium of the things said by him; indeed, rather, he uses testimonies plainly and wholly different from those which Cicero brings forward. The word epitome, therefore, is used by Jerome, unless we are mistaken, in the sense in which it was explained by us above.

Editors' notes and page, col. 154

Page

running head: [cut off at left edge] ...US LIB. AUCT. TITUL., ETC. 154
marginal letters: A lectione, perspicuum cunctis; B tuendae veritatis, quemadmodum; C Eodem porro hunc ac superiores; D mus. » Ibi autem ille
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter set throughout (dissertation on the author and title of De ira Dei: ‹lectione, perspicuum cunctis›); column begins mid-sentence; "utique" printed with damaged/broken letter (looks like "utlque"), read as utique; Greek ἐπιτομὴν and ἐπιτομή set as printed and rendered "epitome"; left-column fragments belong to col. 153 and are not set; "Digitized by Google" scan stamp at foot not set

PL 7:155

CAPUT III.

Chapter III.

Quibus Lactantius rationibus ad hunc librum conficiendum adductus sit, et quis Donatus, cui eum nuncupat: de hujus libri in capita divisione, et capitum argumentis, de co⟨d⟩icibus manuscriptis et editis, ac variorum in eum observationibus.

By what reasons Lactantius was led to compose this book, and who the Donatus is to whom he dedicates it: on the division of this book into chapters, and the arguments of the chapters, on the manuscript and printed codices, and on the observations of various [scholars] upon it.

Praecipua ratio, quae Lactantium ad hunc librum exarandum impulit, haec esse videtur, quod ille in asserenda Dei ira, quam a plurimis negari compererat, omnem religionis pietatisque summam, ac cardinem versari arbitrabatur. Ea quippe sublata, putabat, ut paulo ante dicebamus, veram quoque religionem fnnditus tolli, deleri et extingui. Cum itaque videret hanc Dei iram a pluribus non jufimi nominis hominibus, et a celeberrimis philosophis negari, hos omnes libro publico refellendos esse censuit. Noverat enim Stoicos, quorum maxima profecto erat auctoritas, palam asseruisse Deum gratia quidem, sed nequaquam ira moveri. Nec minus exploratum habebat divulgatos fuisse in favorabilis, uti ipse loquitur, hujus opinionis defensionem a Seneca libros, quibus ob doctrinae et aequitatis famam, plures in errorem posso induci opinabatur. Certo denique certius noverat pessimam caeterorum omnium esse opinionem Epicureorum, qui jactitabant Deum nec ira excitari, nec tangi gratia. Ne quis ergo maxima horum impietate ac falsa pietate Stoicorum amplius deciperetur, ad utrosque confutandos, et quam veram putabat de ira Dei sententiam stabiliendam hunc librum edidit. Neque id ille profecto dissimulat. Nam libri initio Donatum, atque ejus nomine, alios omnes his affatur verbis: « Quorum errore, qui maximus est, et ad evertendum vitae humanae statum spectat, coarguendus est a nobis; ne et ipse fallaris, impulsus auctoritate hominum, qui se putant sapientes. » Rursus vero in libri epilogo: « Haec habui, qui de ira Dei dicerem, Donate charissime; ut scires, quemadmodum refelleres eos, qui Deum faciunt immobilem. » Ibi vero praecipue designat Epicureos, qui cum sectae suae principe, ut ipsemet Lactantius ait, docebant Deum ideo esse incorruptum et beatum; quia semper quietus est, nec idcirco unquam irascitur.

The chief reason which drove Lactantius to write this book seems to be this: that in asserting the anger of God, which he had found to be denied by very many, he judged that the whole sum and the hinge of religion and piety turned. For once that was taken away, he thought, as we were saying a little before, true religion too was utterly removed, destroyed and extinguished. Since, therefore, he saw that this anger of God was denied by a good many men of no mean name, and by the most celebrated philosophers, he resolved that all these must be refuted in a published book. For he knew that the Stoics, whose authority was certainly very great, had openly asserted that God is moved by favour indeed, but by no means by anger. Nor did he hold it less certain that "attractive" books, as he himself puts it, had been published by Seneca in defence of this opinion, by which, on account of [Seneca's] reputation for learning and fairness, he believed that many could be led into error. Finally, he knew more surely than sure that the worst opinion of all the others was that of the Epicureans, who boasted that God is neither roused by anger nor touched by favour. So, lest anyone should any longer be deceived by the very great impiety of these men and by the false piety of the Stoics, he published this book to confute both, and to establish the opinion concerning the anger of God which he thought true. Nor indeed does he conceal this. For at the beginning of the book he addresses Donatus, and in his name all others, in these words: "Their error, which is very great and tends towards overturning the state of human life, must be refuted by us, lest you too be deceived, driven by the authority of men who think themselves wise." And again in the epilogue of the book: "This is what I had to say concerning the anger of God, dearest Donatus, so that you might know how to refute those who make God immovable." There, indeed, he especially indicates the Epicureans, who with the founder of their sect, as Lactantius himself says, taught that God is incorruptible and blessed for this reason: because He is always at rest, and therefore never grows angry.

Donatum autem, sicuti mox audivisti, compellat initio et fine hujus libri, quem ipsi direxit et nuncupavit. Quis autem ille sit, dictu sane difficillimum. Nonnulli quidem suspicantur aut eum fuisse, qui sectae Donatistarum parens et auctor fuit, aut Aelium Donatum, Hieronymi praeceptorem. Sed haec gratis nullaque data aut ratione, aut conjectura vero saltem simili, finguntur.

Donatus, moreover, as you have just heard, he addresses at the beginning and end of this book, which he directed and dedicated to him. But who he was is truly most difficult to say. Some indeed suspect that he was either the man who was the parent and author of the sect of the Donatists, or Aelius Donatus, the teacher of Jerome. But these things are invented gratuitously, with no reason given, nor even a conjecture at least resembling the truth.

Quidam vero haud ignobiles certe nostrae aetatis

But certain of our age, assuredly not undistinguished

Editors' notes and page, col. 155

Page

running head: 155 DISSERT. D. LE NOURRY IN L[ACT.] (cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A CAPUT III.; B nibus, et a celeberrimis philosophis; C id ille profecto dissimulat; D pavit. Quis autem ille sit
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter set: Le Nourry's dissertation, Caput III (Quibus Lactantius rationibus...); whole column is editors' prose. "co⟨d⟩icibus": d damaged in print. "enim" (Noverat enim) prints like "cnim", taken as a damaged e. "jufimi" and "posso" set as printed, unsure whether these are misprints or damaged type. "errore", "favorabilis", "qui de ira Dei" kept as printed. Column ends mid-sentence at "aetatis".

PL 7:156

Scriptores arbitrati sunt hunc Donatum eumdem esse, cui Lactantius alium de Mortibus persecutorum librum hoc titulo, ad Donatum confessorem, antea direxerat. At optandum certe foret, ut eruditi illi viri quamdam satis validam opinionis suae rationem attulissent. Non enim alia nituntur, quam nominis similitudine, qua quidem Lactantium, sicuti summopere cupiebant, hujus libri auctorem esse confici posse putaverunt. Sed solitam eorum perspicacitatem hic plane desideramus. Maxima siquidem est inter utrumque illum Donatum differentia. Is quippe, cui liber de Mortibus persecutorum dedicatur, altero, uti alibi ostendimus, aetate antiquior, celeberrimus martyr fuit, de quo scriptum ab ejusdem libri auctore legimus: « Novies tormentis cruciatibusque variis subjectus, novies adversarium gloriosa confessione vicisti. » Alter vero Donatus cui liber de Ira Dei nuncupatur, tyro adhuc erat, necdum satis in christiana doctrina exercitatus, de quo Lactantius, sicuti ex citatis paulo ante ejus verbis vidimus, timebat ne falsis philosophorum de ira Dei opinionibus imbueretur et ludificaretur. Quantum autem prior Donatus nobilissimo martyrii triumpho celebris fuit, tantum posterior cunctis incognitus est. Nihil enim aliud de eo compertum habemus, ipsi quod ex Lactantii dictis didicimus, illum nisi amicitia conjunctissimum ac discipulum ejus fuisse. Plura siquidem de illo certiora nobis non suppetunt, satiusque duximus in his tantum, quae certa sunt, consistere, quam plura inquirendo vanis indulgere conjecturis.

writers, have judged that this Donatus is the same one to whom Lactantius had earlier addressed another book, On the Deaths of the Persecutors, under this title, To Donatus the Confessor. But it would certainly be desirable that those learned men had brought forward some sufficiently strong reason for their opinion. For they rely on nothing other than the likeness of the name, by which indeed they thought it could be concluded that Lactantius, as they very greatly desired, is the author of this book. But here we plainly miss their usual perspicacity. For the difference between the two Donatuses is very great. The one, namely, to whom the book On the Deaths of the Persecutors is dedicated, older in age than the other, as we have shown elsewhere, was a most celebrated martyr, of whom we read what was written by the author of that same book: "Nine times subjected to torments and various tortures, nine times you overcame the adversary by glorious confession." But the other Donatus, to whom the book On the Wrath of God is dedicated, was still a novice, and not yet sufficiently practised in Christian doctrine, concerning whom Lactantius, as we have seen from his words cited a little before, feared lest he be imbued with and deluded by the false opinions of the philosophers about the wrath of God. And as much as the former Donatus was celebrated for the most noble triumph of martyrdom, so much is the latter unknown to all. For we have nothing else ascertained about him except what we have learned from Lactantius's own words, that he was most closely joined to him in friendship and was his disciple. For more certain information about him is not available to us, and we have thought it better to stand only on those things which are certain than, by inquiring into more, to indulge in vain conjectures.

At certe constat hunc de Ira Dei librum a Lactantio, quemadmodum superiores, scriptum fuisse absque ulla in capita distributione. Enimvero non antiquissimi tantum manuscripti codices id manifestissime probant, verum etiam editi. Scimus quidem in Romana editione, et alia quae eadem in urbe ab Isaco adornata est, viginti quatuor capita exhiberi: sed aliae viginti tria tantum continent. At variam hanc divisionem a Lactantio profectam non esse quis diffitebitur? Si ergo hic liber ab eo nulla in capita divisus fuit, multo minus capitum argumenta, quae in editis quoque sunt diversa, ab ipso prodierunt. Cum ergo haec omnia posterioribus temporibus addita, maleque composita sint, fas unicuique est illa in meliorem ordinem redigere.

But it is certainly established that this book On the Wrath of God was written by Lactantius, like the preceding ones, without any distribution into chapters. Indeed, not only the most ancient manuscript codices prove this most clearly, but also the printed editions. We know, indeed, that in the Roman edition, and in another which was prepared in the same city by Isacus, twenty-four chapters are displayed; but others contain only twenty-three. But who will deny that this varying division did not proceed from Lactantius? If, then, this book was not divided by him into any chapters, much less did the summaries of the chapters, which also differ in the printed editions, come from him. Since, therefore, all these things were added in later times, and are badly composed, it is lawful for anyone to bring them into better order.

Editors' notes and page, col. 156

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: ordinem redigere› · call in col 156

Cum de omnibus et singulis Lactantii operibus plurimas et perlongas dissertationes ediderit doctissimus le Nourry, quibus solis facile unum voluminum nostrorum compleretur, satis superque intelliget lector benevolus quanta necessitate coacti, hic et alibi harum dissertationum non nisi excerpta typis mandaverimus. Edd.

Since the most learned Le Nourry published a great many very long dissertations on each and every one of Lactantius's works, which by themselves would easily fill one of our volumes, the kind reader will understand well enough under what necessity we have been compelled, here and elsewhere, to print only excerpts of these dissertations. The Editors.

(printed under page 77)