CHAPTER 40 In vain, then, do some babble with most empty presumption, saying that Egypt has understood the reckoning of the stars for more than a hundred thousand years, for in what books have they collected that number who learned letters from Isis their mistress not much more than two thousand years ago? Varro, who has declared this, is no small authority in history, and it does not disagree with the truth of the Divine Books, for as it has not yet six thousand years since the first man, who is called Adam, are not those to be ridiculed rather than refuted, who try to persuade us of anything regarding a space of time so different from, and contrary to, the ascertained truth. For what historian of the past should we credit more than him who has also predicted things to come which we now see fulfilled? And the very disagreement of the historians among themselves furnishes a good reason why we ought rather to believe him who does not contradict the Divine History which we hold. But, on the other hand, the citizens of the impious city, scattered everywhere through the earth, when they read the most learned writers, none of whom seems to be of contemptible authority, and find them disagreeing among themselves about affairs most remote from the memory of our age, cannot find out whom they ought to trust. But we, being sustained by Divine Authority in the history of our religion, have no doubt that whatever is opposed to it is most false, whatever may be the case regarding other things in secular books which, whether true or false, yield nothing of moment to our living rightly and happily. CHAPTER 41 But let us omit further examination of history, and return to the philosophers from whom we digress to these things. They seem to have labored in their studies for no other end than to find out how to live in a way proper for laying hold of blessedness. Why then have the disciples dissented from their masters and the fellow disciples from one another, except because as men they have sought after these things by human sense and human reasonings? Now although there might be among them a desire of glory so that each wish to be thought wiser and more acute than another, and in no way addicted to the judgment of others but the inventor of his own dogma and opinion, yet I may grant that there were some, or even very many of them, whose love of truth severed them from their teachers or fellow disciples, that they might strive for what they thought was the truth, whether it was so or not. But what can human misery do, or how or where can it reach forth so as to attain blessedness if Divine Authority does not lead it? Finally let our authors, among whom the canon of the sacred books is fixed and bounded, be far from disagreeing in any respect. It is not without good reason, then, that not merely a few people prating in the schools and gymnasia in captures disputations, but so many and great people, both learned and unlearned, in countries and cities, have believed that God spoke to them or by them, that is, the canonical writers when they wrote these books. There ought indeed to be but few of them, lest on account of their multitude what ought to be religiously esteemed should grow cheap, and yet not so few that their agreement should not be wonderful. For among the multitude of philosophers, who in their works have left behind them the monument of their dogmas, no one will easily find any who agree in all their opinions. But to show this is too long a task for this work. But what author of any sect is so approved in this demon worshipping city that the rest who have differed from or opposed him in opinion have been disapproved? The Epicureans asserted that human affairs were not under the providence of the gods, and the Stoics, holding the opposite opinion, agree that they were ruled and defended by favorable and tutelary gods. Yet were not both sects famous among the Athenians? I wonder, then, why Annexagoras was accused of a crime for saying that the sun was a burning stone and denying that it was a god at all, while in the same city Epicurus flourished gloriously and lived securely, although he not only did not believe that the sun or any star was a god, but contended that neither Jupiter nor any of the gods dwelt in the world at all, so that the prayers and supplications of men might reach them. Were not both Aristipus and Antisthenes there two noble philosophers and both Socratic, yet they placed the chief end of life within bounds so diverse and contradictory that the first made the delight of the body the chief good, while the other asserted that man was made happy mainly by the virtue of the mind? The one also said that the wise man should flee from the republic, the other that he should administer its affairs. Yet did not each gather disciples to follow his own sect? Made in the conspicuous and well-known porch, in gymnasia, in gardens, in places public and private, they openly strove and bans each for his own opinion. Some asserting there was one world, others innumerable worlds, some that this world had a beginning, others that it had not, some that it would perish, others that it would exist always, some that it was governed by the divine mind, others by chance and accident, some that souls are immortal, others that they are mortal, and of those who asserted their immortality, some said they transmigrated through beasts, others that it was by no means so, while of those who asserted their mortality, some said they perished immediately after the body, others that they survived either a little while or a longer time but not always, some fixing supreme good in the body, some in the mind, some in both, others adding to the mind and body external good things, some thinking that the bodily senses ought to be trusted always, some not always, others never. Now what people, Senate power or public dignity of the impious city, has ever taken care to judge between all these and other well- nigh innumerable dissensions of the philosophers, approving and accepting some and disapproving and rejecting others? Has it not held in its bosom at random, without any judgment and confusionally, so many controversies of man at variance, not about fields, houses, or anything of a pecuniary nature, but about those things which make life either miserable or happy? Even if some true things were said in it, yet falsehoods were uttered with the same license so that such a city has not a miss received the title of the mystic Babylon, for Babylon means confusion as we remember we have already explained. Nor does it matter to the devil its king, how they wrangle among themselves in contradictory errors, since all alike deservedly belong to him on account of their great and varied impiety. But that nation, that people, that city, that republic, these Israelites, to whom the oracles of God were entrusted by no means confounded with similar license false prophets with the true prophets, but agreeing to gather and differing in nothing acknowledged and upheld the authentic authors of their sacred books. These were their philosophers, these were their sages, divines, prophets, and teachers of probity and piety. Whoever was wise and lived according to them was wise and lived not according to men, but according to God, who hath spoken by them. If sacrilege is forbidden there, God hath forbidden it. If it is said, honor thy father and thy mother, God hath commanded it. If it is said, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and other similar commandments, not human lips, but the divine oracles, have announced them. Whatever truth certain philosophers, amid their false opinions, were able to see and strove by laborious discussions to persuade men of, such as that God had made this world and himself most providently governs it, or of the nobility of the virtues of the love of country, of fidelity and friendship, of good works and everything pretending to virtuous manners, although they know not to what end and what rule all these things were to be referred, all these by words prophetic, that is, divine, although spoken by men, were commended to the people in that city, and not inculcated by contention in arguments, so that he who should know them might be afraid of condemning not the wit of men, but the oracle of God. CHAPTER 42 One of the Ptolemies, kings of Egypt, desire to know and have these sacred books. For after Alexander of Macedon, who has also styled the great, had, by his most wonderful, but by no means enduring, power, subdued the whole of Asia, yea, almost the whole world, partly by force of arms, partly by terror, and among other kingdoms of the East, had entered and obtained Judea also. On his death his generals did not peaceably divide that most ample kingdom among them for a possession, but rather dissipated it, wasting all things by wars. Then Egypt began to have the Ptolemies as her kings. The first of them, the son of Lagus, carried many captive out of Judea into Egypt. But another Ptolemy, called Philadelphus, who succeeded him, permitted all whom he had brought under the yoke to return free, and more than that sent kingly gifts to the temple of God, and begged Eleazar, who was the High Priest, to give him the scriptures, which he had heard by report were truly divine, and therefore greatly desired to have in that most noble library he had made. When the High Priest had sent them to him in Hebrew, he afterwards demanded interpreters of him, and there were given him seventy-two out of each of the twelve tribes, six men, most learned in both languages to wit the Hebrew and Greek, and their translation is now by custom called the Septuagint. It is reported, indeed, that there was an agreement in their words so wonderful, stupendous, and plainly divine, that when they had sat at this work, each one apart, for so it pleased Ptolemy to test their fidelity, they differed from each other in no word which had the same meaning and force, or in the order of the words, but as if the translators had been one, so what all had translated was one, because in very deed the one spirit had been in them all. And they received so wonderful a gift of God in order that the authority of these scriptures might be commended not as human, but divine, as indeed it was, for the benefit of the nations who should at some time believe as we now see them doing. CHAPTER 43 For while there were other interpreters who translated these sacred oracles out of the Hebrew tongue into Greek as Aquila, Simacus and Theodotian, and also that translation which, as the name of the author is unknown, is quoted as the fifth edition, yet the church has received this septuagint translation just as if it were the only one, and it has been used by the Greek Christian people, most of whom are not aware that there is any other. From this translation there has also been made a translation in the Latin tongue which the Latin churches use. Our times, however, have enjoyed the advantage of the Presbyter Jerome, a man most learned and skilled in all three languages, who translated these same scriptures into the Latin speech, not from the Greek, but from the Hebrew. But although the Jews acknowledge this very learned labor of his to be fruitful, while they contend that the septuagint translators have aired in many places, still the churches of Christ judge that no one should be preferred to the authority of so many men, chosen for this very great work by Eleazar, who was then high priest. For even if there had not appeared in them one spirit, without doubt divine, and the seventy learned men had, after the manner of men, compared together the words of their translation, that what pleased them all might stand, no single translator ought to be preferred to them. But since so great a sign of divinity has appeared in them, certainly if any other translator of their scriptures from the Hebrew into any other tongue is faithful, in that case he agrees with these seventy translators, and if he is not found to agree with them, then we ought to believe that the prophetic gift is with them. For the same spirit who was in the prophets when they spoke these things was also in the seventy men when they translated them, so that assuredly they could also say something else, just as if the prophet himself had said both, because it would be the same spirit who said both, and could say the same thing differently, so that, although the words were not the same, yet the same meaning should shine forth to those of good understanding, and could omit or add something, so that even by this it might be shown that there was in that work not human bondage which the translator owed to the words, but rather divine power which filled and ruled the mind of the translator. Some, however, have thought that the Greek copies of the Septuagint version should be amended from the Hebrew copies, yet they did not dare to take away what the Hebrew lacked and the Septuagint had, but only added what was found in the Hebrew copies and was lacking in the Septuagint, and noted them by placing at the beginning of the verses certain marks in the form of stars which they call asterisks. And those things which the Hebrew copies have not, but the Septuagint have, they have in like manner marked at the beginning of the verses by horizontal spit-shaped marks, like those by which we denote ounces, and many copies having these marks are circulated even in Latin. But we cannot, without inspecting both kinds of copies, find out those things which are neither omitted nor added, but expressed differently, whether they yield another meaning not in itself unsuitable, or can be shown to explain the same meaning in another way. If then, as it behooves us, we behold nothing else in these scriptures than what the Spirit of God has spoken through men. If anything is in the Hebrew copies and is not in the version of the seventy, the Spirit of God did not choose to say it through them, but only through the prophets. But whatever is in the Septuagint and not in the Hebrew copies, the same Spirit chose rather to say through the latter, thus showing that both were prophets. For in that manner he spoke as he chose, some things through Isaiah, some through Jeremiah, some through several prophets, or else the same thing through this prophet and through that. Further, whatever is found in both editions, that one and the same Spirit will to say through both, but so as that the former proceeded in prophesying, and the latter followed in prophetically interpreting them. Because as the one Spirit of Peace was in the former, when they spoke true and concordant words, so the self-same one Spirit hath appeared in the latter, when, without mutual conference, they yet interpreted all things as if with one mouth. CHAPTER 44 But someone may say, how shall I know whether the prophet Jonah said to the Ninevites, yet three days a Nineveh shall be overthrown, or forty days? For who does not see that the prophet could not say both, when he was sent to terrify the city by the threat of imminent ruin? For if its destruction was to take place on the third day, it certainly could not be on the fortieth, but if on the fortieth, then certainly not on the third. If then I am asked which of these Jonah may have said, I rather think what is read in the Hebrew, yet forty days a Nineveh shall be overthrown. Yet the seventy, interpreting long afterward, could say what was different and yet pertinent to the matter, and agree in the self-same meaning, although under a different signification. And this may admonish the reader not to despise the authority of either, but to raise himself above the history, and search for those things which the history itself was written to set forth. These things indeed took place in the city of Nineveh, but they also signified something else too great to apply to that city. Just as, when it happened that the prophet himself was three days in the whale's belly, it signified besides that he who was lord of all the prophets should be three days in the depths of hell. Wherefore, if that city is rightly held as prophetically representing the church of the Gentiles, to wit has brought down by penitence, so as no longer to be what it had been, since this was done by Christ in the church of the Gentiles, which Nineveh represented, Christ himself was signified both by the forty and by the three days. By the forty, because he spent that number of days with his disciples after the resurrection, and then ascended into heaven, but by the three days, because he rose on the third day. So that, if the reader desires nothing else than to adhere to the history of events, he may be aroused from his sleep by the Septuagint interpreters, as well as the prophets, to search into the depths of the prophecy, as if they had said, in the forty days seek him in whom thou mayest also find the three days, the one thou wilt find in his ascension, the other in his resurrection. Because that which could be most suitably signified by both numbers of which one is used by Jonah the prophet, the other by the prophecy of the Septuagint version, the one and self-same spirit hath spoken. I dread prolixity so that I must not demonstrate this by many instances in which the seventy interpreters may be thought to differ from the Hebrew, and yet, when well understood, are found to agree. For which reason I also, according to my capacity, following the footsteps of the apostles, who themselves have quoted prophetic testimonies from both, that is, from the Hebrew and the Septuagint, have thought that both should be used as authoritative since both are one and divine. But let us now follow out as we can what remains. CHAPTER 45 The Jewish nation, no doubt, became worse after it ceased to have prophets just at the very time when, on the rebuilding of the temple after the captivity in Babylon, it hoped to become better. For so indeed that that carnal people understand what was foretold by Haggai the prophet, saying, the glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former. Now that this is said of the New Testament he showed a little above, where he says evidently, promising Christ, and I will move all nations, and the desired one shall come to all nations. In this passage the Septuagint translators, giving another sense more suitable to the body than the head, that is, to the church than to Christ, have said by prophetic authority, the things shall come that are chosen of the Lord from all nations, that is, men, of whom Jesus saith in the gospel, many are cold, but few are chosen. For by such chosen ones of the nations there is built, through the New Testament, with living stones, a house of God far more glorious than that temple which was constructed by King Solomon, and rebuilt after the captivity. For this reason, then, that nation had no prophets from that time, but was afflicted with many plagues by kings of alien race, and by the Romans themselves, lest they should fancy that this prophecy of Haggai was fulfilled by that rebuilding of the temple. For not long after, on the arrival of Alexander, it was subdued, when, although there was no pillaging, because they dared not resist him, and thus, being very easily subdued, received him peaceably, yet the glory of that house was not so great as it was when under the free power of their own kings. Alexander indeed offered up sacrifices in the temple of God, not as a convert to his worship in true piety, but thinking with impious folly that he was to be worshiped along with false gods. Then Ptolemy, son of Lagus, whom I have already mentioned after Alexander's death, carried them captive into Egypt. His successor Ptolemy Philadelphus most benevolently dismissed them, and by him it was brought about, as I have narrated a little before, that we should have the septuagent version of the scriptures. Then they were crushed by the wars which are explained in the books of the Maccabees. Afterward they were taken captive by Ptolemy king of Alexandria, who was called Epiphanes. Then Antiochus king of Syria compelled them by many and most grievous evils to worship idols, and filled the temple itself with the sacrilegious superstitions of the Gentiles. Their most vigorous leader Judas, who was also called Maccabees, after beating the generals of Antiochus, cleansed it from all that defilement of idolatry. But not long after, one alchemist, although an alien from the Sasserdotl tribe, was, through ambition, made Pontiff, which was an impious thing. After almost fifty years during which they never had peace, although they prospered in some affairs, Aristobulus first assumed the diadem among them, and was made both king and pontiff. Before that, indeed, from the time of their return from the Babylonish captivity and the rebuilding of the temple, they had not kings, but generals, or princey-pays. Although a king himself may be called a prince from his principality in governing, and a leader because he leads the army, but it does not follow that all who are princes and leaders may also be called kings, as that Aristobulus was. He was succeeded by Alexander, also both king and pontiff, who was reported to have reigned over them cruelly. After him his wife Alexandra was queen of the Jews, and from her time downwards more grievous evils pursued them, for this Alexandra's sons, Aristobulus and Herkenus, when contending with each other for the kingdom, called in the Roman forces against the nation of Israel, for Herkenus asked assistance from them against his brother. That time Rome had already subdued Africa and Greece, and ruled extensively in other parts of the world also, and yet as if unable to bear her own weight, had, in a manner, broken herself by her own size. For indeed she had come to grave domestic seditions, and from that to social wars, and by and by to civil wars, and had feebled and worn herself out so much that the chained state of the republic, in which she should be governed by kings, was now imminent. Pompey, then, a most illustrious prince of the Roman people, having entered Judea with an army, took the city, threw open the temple, not with the devotion of a sepliant, but with the authority of a conqueror, and went not reverently, but profanely, into the holy of holies, where it was lawful for none but the pontiff to enter. Having established Herkenus in the pontificate, and set Antipater over the subjugated nation as guardian or procurator, as they were then called, he led her estabulous with him bound. From that time the Jews also began to be Roman tributaries. Afterward Cassius plundered the very temple. Then after a few years it was their dessert to have Herod, a king of foreign birth, in whose reign Christ was born. For the time had now come signified by the prophetic spirit through the mouth of the patriarch Jacob, when he says, There shall not be lacking a prince out of Judah, nor a teacher from his loins, until he shall come for whom it is reserved, and he is the expectation of the nations. There lacked not therefore a Jewish prince of the Jews until that Herod, who was the first king of a foreign race, received by them. Therefore it was now the time when he should come, for whom that was reserved, which is promised in the New Testament, that he should be the expectation of the nations. But it was not possible that the nations should expect he would come, as we see they did, to do judgment in the splendor of power, unless they should first believe in him when he came to suffer judgment in the humility of patience. CHAPTER 46 While Herod therefore reigned in Judea, and Caesar Augustus was emperor at Rome, the state of the Republic being already changed, and the world being set at peace by him, Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judah, man manifest out of a human virgin, God hidden out of God the Father. For so had the prophet foretold, Behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which, being interpreted, is God with us. He did many miracles that he might commend God in himself, some of which, even as many as seemed sufficient to proclaim him, are contained in the evangelical scripture. The first of these is that he was so wonderfully born, and the last that with his body raised up again from the dead he ascended into heaven. But the Jews who slew him, and would not believe in him, because it behooved him to die, and rise again, were yet more miserably wasted by the Romans, and utterly rooted out from their kingdom, where aliens had already ruled over them, and were dispersed through the lands, so that indeed there is no place where they are not, and are thus by their own scriptures a testimony to us that we have not forged the prophecies about Christ. And very many of them, considering this, even before his passion, but chiefly, after his resurrection, believed on him of whom it was predicted, though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea the remnant shall be saved.  Therefore, when they do not believe our scriptures, their own, which they blindly read, are fulfilled in them, lest perchance anyone should say that the Christians have forged these prophecies about Christ, which are quoted under the name of the Sibyl, or of others, if such there be, who do not belong to the Jewish people. For us indeed those suffice which are quoted from the books of our enemies, to whom we make our acknowledgment on account of this testimony which, in spite of themselves, they contribute by their possession of these books, while they themselves are dispersed among all nations, wherever the Church of Christ is spread abroad. For a prophecy about this thing was sent before in the Psalms, which they also read, where it was written, My God, his mercy shall prevent me. My God hath shown me, concerning mine enemies, that thou shalt not slay them, lest they should at last forget thy law, disperse them in thy might. Therefore God hath shown the Church in her enemies, the Jews, the grace of his compassion, since, as saith the apostle, their offense is the salvation of the Gentiles. And therefore he hath not slain them, that is, he hath not let the knowledge that they are Jews be lost in them, although they have been conquered by the Romans, lest they should forget the law of God, and their testimony should be of no avail in this matter of which we treat. But it was not enough that he should say, slay them not, lest they should at last forget thy law, unless he had also added, disperse them, because if they had only been in their own land with that testimony of the Scriptures, and not everywhere, certainly the Church, which is everywhere, could not have had them as witnesses among all nations to the prophecies which were sent before concerning Christ. Wherefore, if we read of any foreigner, that is, one neither born of Israel, nor received by that people into the canon of the sacred books, having prophesied something about Christ, if it has come or shall come to our knowledge, we can refer to it over and above. Not that this is necessary, even if wanting, but because it is not incongruous to believe that even in other nations there may have been men to whom this mystery was revealed, men who were also impelled to proclaim it, whether they were partakers of the same grace, or had no experience of it, but were taught by bad angels, who, as we know, even confessed the present Christ whom the Jews did not acknowledge. Nor do I think the Jews themselves dare contend that no one has belonged to God except the Israelites, since the increase of Israel began on the rejection of his elder brother. For in very deed there was no other people who were especially called the people of God, but they cannot deny that there have been certain men, even of other nations who belonged not by earthly but heavenly fellowship to the true Israelites, the citizens of the country that is above. Because if they deny this, they can be most easily confuted by the case of the holy and wonderful man Job, who was neither a native nor a proselyt, that is, a stranger joining the people of Israel, but, being bread of the Idomian race, arose there and died there too, and who is so praised by the divine oracle that no man of his times is put on a level with him as regards justice and piety. And although we do not find his date in the Chronicles, yet from his book, which for its merits the Israelites have received as of canonical authority, we gather that he was in the third generation after Israel. And I doubt not, it was divinely provided that from this one case we might know that among other nations also, there might be men pertaining to the spiritual Jerusalem who have lived according to God and have pleased him. And it is not to be supposed that this was granted to anyone unless the one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, was divinely revealed to him, who was preannounced to the saints of old as yet to come in the flesh, even as he is announced to us as having come, that the self-same faith through him may lead all to God who were predestinated to be the city of God, the house of God, and the temple of God. But whatever prophecies concerning the grace of God through Christ Jesus are quoted, they may be thought to have been forged by the Christians, so that there is nothing of more weight for confuting all sorts of aliens if they contend about this matter, and for supporting our friends if they are truly wise, than to quote those divine predictions about Christ which are written in the books of the Jews who have been torn from their native abode and dispersed over the whole world in order to bear this testimony so that the Church of Christ has everywhere increased. CHAPTERS 48-54 OF THE CITY OF GOD This house of God is more glorious than that first one which was constructed of wood and stone, metals, and other precious things. Therefore the prophecy of Haggai was not fulfilled in the rebuilding of that temple, for it can never be shown to have had so much glory after it was rebuilt as it had in the time of Solomon. Yea, rather, the glory of that house is shown to have been diminished first by the ceasing of prophecy, and then by the nation itself suffering so great calamities, even to the final destruction made by the Romans as the things above mentioned prove. But this house which pertains to the New Testament is just as much more glorious as the living stones, even believing renewed men of which it is constructed are better. But it was typified by the rebuilding of that temple for this reason because the very renovation of that edifice typifies in the prophetic oracle another testament which is called the New. Even therefore God said by the prophet just named, and I will give peace in this place, he has understood who is typified by that typical place. For since by that rebuilt place is typified the church which was to be built by Christ, nothing else can be accepted as the meaning of the saying, I will give peace in this place, except I will give peace in the place which that place signifies. For all typical things seem in some way to personate those whom they typify as it is said by the apostle, that rock was Christ. Therefore the glory of this New Testament house is greater than the glory of the Old Testament house, and it will show itself as greater when it shall be dedicated, for then shall come the desired of all nations as we read in the Hebrew. For before his advent he had not yet been desired by all nations, for they knew not him whom they ought to desire in whom they had not believed. Then also, according to the Septuagint's interpretation, for it also is a prophetic meaning, shall come those who are elected of the Lord out of all nations. For then indeed there shall come only those who are elected, whereof the apostle saith, according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world. For the master builder who said, Many are cold, but few are chosen, did not say this of those who, on being cold, came in such a way as to be cast out from the feast, but would point out the house built up of the elect, which henceforth shall dread no ruin. Yet because the churches are also full of those who shall be separated by the winnowing, as in the threshing floor, the glory of this house is not so apparent now as it shall be when everyone who is there shall be there always. CHAPTER 49 In this wicked world, in these evil days, when the church measures her future loftiness by her present humility, and is exercised by goading fears, tormenting sorrows, disquieting labors, and dangerous temptations, when she soberly rejoices, rejoicing only in hope, there are many reprobate mingled with the good, and both are gathered together by the gospel as in a dragnet. And in this world, as in a sea, both swim and close without distinction in the net, until it is brought ashore when the wicked must be separated from the good, that in the good as in his temple God may be all in all. We acknowledge indeed that his word is now fulfilled who spake in the psalm, and said, I have announced and spoken, they are multiplied above number. This takes place now since he has spoken first by the mouth of his forerunner, John, and afterward by his own mouth, saying, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. He chose disciples whom he also called apostles of lowly birth, unhonored and illiterate, so that whatever great thing they might be or do, he might be and do it in them. He had one among them whose wickedness he could use well in order to accomplish his appointed passion, and furnish his church an example of bearing with the wicked. Having sown the holy gospel as much as that behoove to be done by his bodily presence, he suffered, died, and rose again, showing by his passion what we ought to suffer for the truth, and by his resurrection what we ought to hope for, in adversity, saving always the mystery of the sacrament by which his blood was shed for the remission of sins. He held converse on the earth forty days with his disciples, and in their sight ascended into heaven, and after ten days sent the promised Holy Spirit. It was given as the chief and most necessary sign of his coming on those who had believed that every one of them spoke in the tongues of all nations, thus signifying that the unity of the Catholic church would embrace all nations, and would, in like manner, speak in all tongues. CHAPTER XV Then was fulfilled that prophecy, Out of Zion shall go forth the law and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem, and the prediction of the Lord Christ himself, when after the resurrection he opened the understanding of his amazed disciples that they might understand the scriptures, and said unto them that thus it is written, and thus it behoove Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And again, when in reply to their questioning about the day of his last coming, he said, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father hath put in his own power, but ye shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even unto the ends of the earth. First of all the church spread herself abroad from Jerusalem, and when very many in Judea and Samaria had believed, she also went into other nations by those who announced the gospel, whom as lights he himself had both prepared by his word, and kindled by his Holy Spirit.  Finally, the gospel of Christ was preached in the whole world, not only by those who had seen and heard him both before his passion and after his resurrection, but also after their death by their successors amid the horrible persecutions, diverse torments, and deaths of the martyrs, God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and diverse miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost, that the people of the nations believing in him who was crucified for their redemption might venerate with Christian love the blood of the martyrs which they had poured forth with devilish fury, and the very kings by whose laws the church had been laid waste might become profitably subject to that name they had cruelly striven to take away from the earth, and might begin to persecute the false gods for whose sake the worshipers of the true God had formerly been persecuted. CHAPTER 51 But the devil, seeing the temples of the demons deserted and the human race running to the name of the liberating mediator, has moved the heretics under the Christian name to resist the Christian doctrine as if they could be kept in the city of God indifferently without any correction, just as the city of confusion indifferently held the philosophers who are of diverse and adverse opinions. Those therefore in the Church of Christ who savor anything more than depraved, and on being corrected that they may savor what is wholesome and right, contentumatiously resist, and will not amend their pastiferous and deadly dogmas, but persist in defending them, become heretics, and, going without, are to be reckoned as enemies who serve for her discipline. For even thus they profit by their wickedness those true Catholic members of Christ, since God makes a good use even of the wicked, and all things work together for good to them that love him. For all the enemies of the Church, whatever error blinds or malice depraves them, exercise her patience if they receive the power to afflict her corporally, and if they only oppose her by wicked thought they exercise her wisdom. But at the same time if these enemies are loved they exercise her benevolence, or even her beneficence, whether she deals with them by persuasive doctrine or by terrible discipline. And thus the devil, the prince of the impious city, when he stirs up his own vessels against the city of God that sojourns in this world is permitted to do her no harm. For without doubt the divine providence procures for her both consolation through prosperity, that she may not be broken by adversity, and trial through adversity, that she may not be corrupted by prosperity. And thus each is tempered by the other, as we recognize in the Psalms that voice which arises from no other cause, according to the multitude of my griefs in my heart thy consolations have delighted my soul. It also is that saying of the apostle, rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation. For it is not to be thought that what the same teacher says can at any time fail, whoever will live piously in Christ shall suffer persecution. Because even when those who are without do not rage, and thus there seems to be, and really is, tranquility, which brings very much consolation, especially to the weak, yet there are not wanting, yea, there are many within who by their abandoned manners torment the hearts of those who live piously, since by them the Christian and Catholic name is blasphemed, and the dearer that name is to those who will live piously in Christ, the more do they grieve that through the wicked, who have a place within, it comes to be less loved than pious mind's desire. The heretics themselves also, since they are thought to have the Christian name and sacraments, scriptures, and profession, cause great grief in the hearts of the pious, both because many who wish to be Christians are compelled by their dissensions to hesitate, and many evil speakers also find in them matter for blaspheming the Christian name, because they too are at any rate cold Christians. By these and similar depraved manners and errors of men, those who will live piously in Christ suffer persecution, even when no one molests or vexes their body, for they suffer this persecution not in their bodies, but in their hearts. Hence is that word according to the multitude of my griefs in my heart, for he does not say in my body. Yet on the other hand none of them can perish, because the immutable divine promises are thought of, and because the apostle says, the Lord knoweth them that are his, for whom he did foreknow he also predestinated to be conformed to the image of his son, none of them can perish, therefore it follows in that psalm thy consolations have delighted my soul. But that grief which arises in the hearts of the pious, who are persecuted by the manners of bad or false Christians, is profitable to the sufferers, because it proceeds from the charity in which they do not wish them either to perish or to hinder the salvation of others. Finally great consolations grow out of their chastisement which imbue the souls of the pious with a fecundity as great as the pains with which they were troubled concerning their own perdition. Thus in this world, in these evil days, not only from the time of the bodily presence of Christ and his apostles, but even from that of Abel, whom first his wicked brother slew because he was righteous, and henceforth even to the end of this world the church has gone forward on pilgrimage amid the persecutions of the world and the consolations of God. I do not think indeed that what some have thought or may think is rashly said or believed that until the time of Antichrist the Church of Christ is not to suffer any persecutions besides those she has already suffered, that is, ten, and that the eleventh and last shall be afflicted by Antichrist. They reckon as the first that made by Nero, the second by Domitian, the third by Trajan, the fourth by Antoninus, the fifth by Severus, the sixth by Maximon, the seventh by Deishus, the eighth by Valerian, the ninth by Aurelian, the tenth by Diocletian and Maximian. For as there were ten plagues in Egypt before the people of God could begin to go out, they think this is to be referred to as showing that the last persecution by Antichrist must be like the eleventh plague in which the Egyptians, while following the Hebrews with hostility, perished in the red sea when the people of God passed through on dry land. Yet I do not think persecutions were prophetically signified by what was done in Egypt, however nicely and ingeniously those who think so may seem to have compared the two in detail, not by the prophetic spirit, but by the conjecture of the human mind which sometimes hits the truth and sometimes is deceived. But what can those who think this save the persecution in which the Lord himself was crucified? In which number will they put it? And if they think the reckoning is to be made exclusive of this one as if those must be counted which pertain to the body, and not that in which the head himself was set upon and slain, what can they make of that one which, after Christ ascended into heaven, took place in Jerusalem when the blessed Stephen was stoned, when James the brother of John was slaughtered with the sword, when the apostle Peter was imprisoned to be killed, and was set free by the angel, when the brethren were driven away and scattered from Jerusalem, when Saul, who afterward became the apostle Paul, wasted the church, and when he himself, publishing the glad tidings of the faith he had persecuted, suffered such things as he had inflicted, either from the Jews or from other nations where he most fervently preached Christ everywhere. Why then do they think fit to start with Nero when the church and her growth had reached the times of Nero amid the most cruel persecutions about which it would be too long to say anything? But if they think that only the persecutions made by kings ought to be reckoned, it was King Herod who also made a most grievous one after the ascension of the Lord. And what account do they give of Julian, whom they do not number in the ten? Did not he persecute the church who forbade the Christians to teach or learn liberal letters? Under him the elder Valentinian, who was the third emperor after him, stood forth as a confessor of the Christian faith, and was dismissed from his command in the army. I shall say nothing of what he did at Antioch, except to mention his being struck with wonder at the freedom and cheerfulness of one most faithful and steadfast young man, who, when many were seized to be tortured, was tortured during a whole day and sang under the instrument of torture until the emperor feared lest he should succumb under the continued cruelties and put him to shame at last, which made him dread and fear that he would be yet more dishonorably put to the blush by the rest. Lastly within our own recollection did not Valens the Arian, brother of the fore-said Valentinian, waste the Catholic church by great persecution throughout the east. But how unreasonable it is not to consider that the church, which bears fruit and grows through the whole world, may suffer persecution from kings in some nations, even when she does not suffer it in others. Perhaps, however, it was not to be reckoned a persecution when the king of the Goths, in Gothia itself, persecuted the Christians with wonderful cruelty, when there were none but Catholics there, of whom very many were crowned with martyrdom, as we have heard from certain brethren who had been there at that time as boys, and unhesitatingly called to mind that they had seen these things. And what took place in Persia of late, was not persecution so hot against the Christians, if even yet it is allayed, that some of the fugitives from it came even to Roman towns. When I think of these and like things, it does not seem to me that the number of persecutions with which the church is to be tried can be definitely stated. But on the other hand it is no less rash to affirm that there will be some persecutions by kings besides that last one about which no Christian is in doubt. Therefore we leave this undecided, supporting or refuting neither side of this question, but only restraining men from the audacious presumption of affirming either of them.  It is customary to ask, when shall that be? But this is quite unreasonable. For had it been profitable for us to know this, by whom could it better have been told than by God himself, the Master, when the disciples questioned him? For they were not silent when with him, but inquired of him, saying, Lord wilt thou at this time present the kingdom to Israel or when? But he said, it is not for you to know the times which the Father hath put in his own power. When they got that answer they had not at all questioned him about the hour, or day, or year, but about the time. In vain then do we attempt to compute definitely the years that may remain to this world when we may hear from the mouth of the truth that it is not for us to know this. Yet some have said that four hundred, some five hundred, others a thousand years may be completed from the ascension of the Lord up to his final coming. But to point out how each of them supports his own opinion would take too long and is not necessary, for indeed they use human conjectures and bring forward nothing certain from the authority of the canonical scriptures. But on this subject he puts aside the figures of the calculators and orders silence, who says, it is not for you to know the times which the Father hath put in his own power. But because this sentence is in the gospel it is no wonder that the worshipers of the many and false gods have been nonetheless restrained from feigning that by the responses of the demons whom they worship as gods that has been fixed how long the Christian religion is to last. For when they saw that it could not be consumed by so many and great persecutions, but rather drew from them wonderful enlargements, they invented, I know not what Greek verses as if poured forth by a divine oracle to someone consulting it, in which indeed they make Christ innocent of this, as it were, sacrilegious crime, but add that Peter, by enchantments, brought it about that the name of Christ should be worshiped for three hundred and sixty-five years, and after the completion of that number of years, should at once take end. O the hearts of learned men, O learned wits, meet to believe such things about Christ, as you are not willing to believe in Christ, that his disciple Peter did not learn magic arts from him, yet that although he was innocent his disciple was an enchanter, and chose that his name, rather than his own, should be worshiped through his magic arts, his great labours and perils, and at last even the shedding of his blood. If Peter the enchanter made the world so love Christ, what did Christ the innocent do to make Peter so love him? Let them answer themselves, then, and, if they can, let them understand that the world, for the sake of eternal life, was made to love Christ by that same supranal grace which made Peter also love Christ, for the sake of the eternal life to be received from him, and that even to the extent of suffering temporal death for him. And then what kinds of gods are these who are able to predict such things, yet are not able to avert them, succumbing in such a way to a single enchanter and wicked magician, who, as they say, having slain a yearling boy and torn him to pieces, buried him with nefarious rites, that they permitted the sect hostile to themselves to gain strength for so great a time, and to surmount the horrid cruelties of so many great persecutions, not by resisting, but by suffering, and to procure the overthrow of their own images, temples, rituals, and oracles. Finally, what God was it, not ours certainly, but one of their own, who was either enticed or compelled by so great wickedness to perform these things? For those verses say that Peter bound not any demon but a God to do these things.  CHAPTER 54 I might collect these and many similar arguments if that year had not already passed, by which lying divination has promised and deceived vanity has believed. But as a few years ago, 365 years were completed since the time when the worship of the name of Christ was established by his presence in the flesh, and by the apostles, what other proof need we seek to refute that falsehood? For not to place the beginning of this period at the nativity of Christ, because as an infant and boy he had no disciples, yet when he began to have them, beyond doubt the Christian doctrine and religion then became known through his bodily presence, that is, after he was baptized in the River Jordan by the Ministry of John. From this account that prophecy went before concerning him, he shall reign from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth. But since before he suffered and rose from the dead the faith had not yet been defined to all, but was defined in the resurrection of Christ, for so the apostle Paul speaks to the Athenians, saying, But now he announces to men that all everywhere should repent, because he hath appointed a day in which to judge the world in equity, by the man in whom he hath defined the faith to all men, raising him from the dead. It is better that in settling this question we should start from that point, especially because the Holy Spirit was then given, just as he behoove to be given after the resurrection of Christ in that city from which the second law, that is, the New Testament, ought to begin. For the first, which is called the Old Testament, was given from Mount Sinai through Moses. But concerning this, which was to be given by Christ, it was predicted, Out of Zion shall go forth the law and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem, whence he himself said that repentance in his name behoove to be preached among all nations, but yet beginning at Jerusalem. Where therefore the worship of this name took its rise, that Jesus should be believed in, who died and rose again. There this faith blazed up with such noble beginnings that several thousand men, being converted to the name of Christ with wonderful alacrity, sold their goods for distribution among the needy, thus by a holy resolution and most ardent charity, coming to voluntary poverty, and prepared themselves amid the Jews who raged and thirsted for their blood to contend for the truth, even to death, not with armed power, but with more powerful patience. If this was accomplished by no magic arts, why do they hesitate to believe that the other could be done throughout the whole world by the same divine power by which this was done? But supposing Peter wrought that enchantment, so that so great a multitude of men at Jerusalem was thus kindled to worship the name of Christ, who had either seized and fastened him to the cross or reviled him when fastened there, we must still inquire when the 365 years must be completed, counting from that year. Now Christ died when the Gemini were consuls on the eighth day before the Caledons of April. He rose the third day as the apostles approved by the evidence of their own senses. Then forty days after he ascended into heaven. Ten days after, that is, on the fiftieth after his resurrection, he sent the Holy Spirit. Then three thousand men believed when the apostles preached him. Then therefore arose the worship of that name, as we believe, and according to the real truth by the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, but as impious vanity has feigned or thought by the magic arts of Peter. A little afterward, too, on a wonderful sign being wrought, when at Peter's own word a certain beggar, so lame from his mother's womb that he was carried by others, and laid down at the gate of the temple, where he begged alms, was made whole in the name of Jesus Christ, and leaped up, five thousand men believed, and thenceforth the church grew by sundry accessions of believers. Thus we gather the very day with which that year began, namely that on which the Holy Spirit was sent, that is, during the Ides of May. And on counting the consuls the 365 years are found completed on the same Ides in the consulate of Honorius and Uticaianus. Now in the following year in the consulate of Malleus Theodorus, when according to that oracle of the demons were figment of men that ought already to have been no Christian religion, it was not necessary to inquire what perchance was done in other parts of the earth. But as we know in the most noted and eminent city, Carthage and Africa, Gaudentius and Jovius, officers of the Emperor Honorius, on the fourteenth day before the callons of April, overthrew the temples and broke the images of the false gods. And from that time to the present, during almost thirty years, who does not see how much the worship of the name of Christ has increased, especially after many of those became Christians who had been kept back from the faith by thinking that divination true, but saw when that same number of years was completed that it was empty and ridiculous. We therefore, who are cold and are Christians, do not believe in Peter, but in him whom Peter believed, being edified by Peter's sermons about Christ, not poisoned by his incantations, and not deceived by his enchantments, but aided by his good deeds. Christ himself, who was Peter's master in the doctrine which leads to eternal life, is our master, too. But let us now at last finish this book, after thus far treating of, and showing as far as seemed sufficient what is the mortal course of the two cities, the heavenly and the earthly, which are mingled together from the beginning down to the end. Of these the earthly one has made to herself of whom she would, either from any other quarter or even from among men, false gods whom she might serve by sacrifice. But she which is heavenly and is a pilgrim on the earth does not make false gods, but is herself made by the true God, of whom she herself must be the true sacrifice. Yet both alike either enjoy temporal good things or are afflicted with temporal evils, but with diverse faith, diverse hope, and diverse love, until they must be separated by the last judgment, and each must perceive her own end, of which there is no end. About these ends of both we must next treat. As I see that I have still to discuss the fit destinies of the two cities, the earthly and the heavenly, I must first explain, so far as the limits of this work allow me, the reasonings by which men have attempted to make for themselves a happiness in this unhappy life, in order that it may be evident not only from divine authority, but also from such reasons as can be adduced to unbelievers how the empty dreams of the philosophers differ from the hope which God gives to us, and from the substantial fulfillment of it which he will give us as our blessedness. Philosophers have expressed a great variety of diverse opinions regarding the ends of goods and of evils, and this question they have eagerly canvassed that they might, if possible, discover what makes a man happy. For the end of our good is that for the sake of which other things are to be desired, while it is to be desired for its own sake, and the end of evil is that on account of which other things are to be shunned, while it is avoided on its own account. Thus by the end of good we at present mean not that by which good is destroyed so that it no longer exists, but that by which it is finished so that it becomes complete, and by the end of evil we mean not that which abolishes it, but that which completes its development. These two ends, therefore, are the supreme good and the supreme evil, and, as I have said, those who have in this vain life professed the study of wisdom have been at great pains to discover these ends, and to obtain the supreme good and avoid the supreme evil in this life. And although they erred in a variety of ways, yet natural insight has prevented them from wandering from the truth so far that they have not placed the supreme good and evil, some in the soul, some in the body, and some in both. From this tripartite distribution of the sects of philosophy, Marcus Varo, in his book De Philosophia, has drawn so large a variety of opinions that by a subtle and minute analysis of distinctions he numbers without difficulty as many as two hundred and eighty-eight sects, not that these have actually existed, but sects which are possible. To illustrate briefly what he means I must begin with his own introductory statement in the above-mentioned book that there are four things which men desire as it were by nature without a master, without the help of any instruction, without industry or the art of living which is called virtue, and which is certainly learned, either pleasure which is an agreeable stirring of the bodily sense, or repose which excludes every bodily inconvenience, or both these which epicurus calls by the one name, pleasure, or the primary objects of nature which comprehend the things already named and other things, other bodily, such as health and safety and integrity of the members, or spiritual, such as the greater and less mental gifts that are found in men. Now these four things, pleasure, repose, the two combined, and the primary objects of nature, exist in us in such sort that we must either desire virtue on their account, or them for the sake of virtue, or both for their own sake, and consequently there arise from this distinction twelve sects for each is by this consideration tripled. I will illustrate this in one instance, and having done so it will not be difficult to understand the others. According then as bodily pleasure is subjected, preferred, or united to virtue there are three sects. It is subjected to virtue when it is chosen as subservient to virtue. Thus it is a duty of virtue to live for one's country and for its sake to beget children, neither of which can be done without bodily pleasure. For there is pleasure in eating and drinking, pleasure also in sexual intercourse. But when it is preferred to virtue it is desired for its own sake, and virtue is chosen only for its sake and to affect nothing else than the attainment or preservation of bodily pleasure. And this indeed is to make life hideous, for where virtue is the slave of pleasure it no longer deserves the name of virtue. Yet even this disgraceful distortion has found some philosophers to patronize and defend it. Then virtue is united to pleasure when neither is desired for the other's sake, but both for their own. And therefore as pleasure, according as it is subjected, preferred, or united to virtue, makes three sects, so also to repose, pleasure and repose combined, and the prime natural blessings make their three sects each. For as men's opinions vary, and these four things are sometimes subjected, sometimes preferred, and sometimes united to virtue, there are produced twelve sects. But this number again is doubled by the addition of one difference, that is the social life. For whoever attaches himself to any of these sects does so either for his own sake alone, or for the sake of a companion for whom he ought to wish what he desires for himself. And thus there will be twelve of those who think some one of these opinions should be held for their own sakes, and the other twelve, who decide that they ought to follow this or that philosophy not for their own sakes only, but also for the sake of others whose good they desire as their own. These twenty-four sects again are doubled, and become forty-eight by adding a difference taken from the new academy. For each of these four and twenty sects can hold and defend their opinion as certain, as the Stoics defended the position that the Supreme Good of Man consisted solely in virtue, or they can be held as probable but not certain as the new academics did. There are therefore twenty-four who hold their philosophy as certainly true, other twenty-four who hold their opinions as probable but not certain. Again, as each person who attaches himself to any of these sects may adopt the mode of life, either of the cynics or of the other philosophers, this distinction will double the number, and so make ninety-six sects. Then lastly, as each of these sects may be adhered to, either by men who love a life of ease, as those who have, through choice or necessity, addicted themselves to study, or by men who love a busy life, as those who, while philosophizing, have been much occupied with state affairs and public business, or by men who choose a mixed life in imitation of those who have apportioned their time partly to erudite leisure, partly to necessary business, by these differences the number of the sects has tripled and becomes two hundred and eighty-eight. I have thus, as briefly and lucidly as I could, given, in my own words, the opinions which Varo expresses in his book. But how he refutes all the rest of these sects and chooses one, the old academy, instituted by Plato and continuing to Palimo, the fourth teacher of that school of philosophy, which held that their system was certain, and how, on this ground, he distinguishes it from the new academy, which began with Palimo's successor Arsacilus, and held that all things are uncertain, and how he seeks to establish that the old academy was as free from error as from doubt, all this I say were too long to enter upon in detail, and yet I must not altogether pass it by in silence. Varo then rejects, as a first step, all those differences which have multiplied the number of sects, and the ground on which he does so is that there are not differences about the supreme good. He maintains that in philosophy a sect is created only by its having an opinion of its own different from other schools on the point of the ends in chief. For man has no other reason for philosophizing than that he may be happy, but that which makes him happy is itself the supreme good. In other words, the supreme good is the reason of philosophizing, and therefore that cannot be called a sect of philosophy which pursues no way of its own towards the supreme good. Thus, when it is asked whether a wise man will adopt the social life, and desire, and be interested in the supreme good of his friend as in his own, or will, on the contrary, do all that he does merely for his own sake, there is no question here about the supreme good, but only about the propriety of associating or not associating a friend in its participation, whether the wise man will do this not for his own sake, but for the sake of his friend in whose good he delights as in his own. So too, when it is asked whether all things about which philosophy is concerned are to be considered uncertain as by the new academy, or certain, as the other philosophers maintain, the question here is not what ends should be pursued, but whether or not we are to believe in the substantial existence of that end, or to put it more plainly, whether he who pursues the supreme good must maintain that it is a true good, or only that it appears to him to be true, though possibly it may be delusive, both pursuing one and the same good. The distinction, too, which is founded on the dress and manners of the cynics, does not touch the question of the chief good, but only the question whether he who pursues that good, which seems to himself true, should live as do the cynics. There were, in fact, men who, though they pursued different things as the supreme good, some choosing pleasure, others virtue, yet adopted that mode of life which gave the cynics their name. Thus whatever it is which distinguishes the cynics from other philosophers, this has no bearing on the choice and pursuit of that good which constitutes happiness. For if it had any such bearing, then the same habits of life would necessitate the pursuit of the same chief good, and diverse habits would necessitate the pursuit of different ends. CHAPTER 2 The same may be said of those three kinds of life, the life of studious leisure in search after truth, the life of easy engagement and affairs, and the life in which both these are mingled. When it is asked which of these should be adopted, this involves no controversy about the end of good, but inquires which of these three puts a man in the best position for finding and retaining the supreme good. For this good, as soon as a man finds it, makes him happy, but lettered leisure or public business or the alternation of these do not necessarily constitute happiness. Many, in fact, find it possible to adopt one or other of these modes of life and yet to miss what makes a man happy. The question, therefore, regarding the supreme good and the supreme evil in which distinguishes sects of philosophy, is one, and these questions concerning the social life, the doubt of the academy, the dress and food of the cynics, the three modes of life, the act of the contemplative and the mixed. These are different questions into none of which the question of the chief good enters. And therefore has Marcus Varro multiplied the sects to the number of 288 or whatever larger number he chose by introducing these four differences derived from the social life, the new academy, the cynics, and the threefold form of life. So by removing these differences is having no bearing in the supreme good, and is therefore not constituting what can properly be called sects. He returns to those 12 schools which concern themselves with inquiring what that good is, which makes man happy, and he shows that one of these is true, the rest falls. In other words, he dismisses the distinction founded on the threefold mode of life, and so decreases the whole number by two thirds, reducing the sects to 96. Then putting aside the cynic peculiarities, the number decreases by a half to 48. Taking away next, the distinction occasioned by the hesitancy of the new academy, the number is again halved and reduced to 24. Treating in a similar way that diversity introduced by the consideration of the social life, there are left but 12, which this difference had doubled to 24. Regarding these 12, no reason can be assigned why they should not be called sects. For in them the sole inquiry is regarding the supreme good and the ultimate evil. That is to say, regarding the supreme good, for this being found, the opposite evil is thereby found. Now to make these 12 sects, he multiplies by three these four things, pleasure, repose, pleasure and repose combined, and the primary objects of nature, which Varro calls primigenia. For as these four things are sometimes subordinated to virtue, so that they seem to be desired not for their own sake, but for virtue's sake, sometimes preferred to it so that virtue seems to be necessary not on its own account, but in order to attain these things, sometimes joined with it so that both they and virtue were desired for their own sakes, we must multiply the four by three and thus we get twelve sects. But from those four things Varro eliminates three, pleasure, repose, pleasure and repose combined, not because he thinks these are not worthy of the place assigned to them, but because they are included in the primary objects of nature. And what need is there at any rate to make a threefold division out of these two ends, pleasure and repose, taking them first severally and then conjunctly, since both they and many other things besides are comprehended in the primary objects of nature? Which of the three remaining sects must be chosen? This is the question that Varro dwells upon. For whether one of these three or some other be chosen reason forbids that more than one be true. This we shall afterwards see, but meanwhile let us explain as briefly and distinctly as we can how Varro makes his selection from these three, that is, from the sects which severally hold that the primary objects of nature are to be desired for virtue's sake, that virtue is to be desired for their sake, and that virtue and these objects are to be desired each for their own sake. CHAPTER III Which of these three is true, and to be adopted he attempts to show in the following manner. As it is the supreme good not of a tree, or of a beast, or of a god, but of man, that philosophy is in quest of, he thinks that, first of all, we must define man. He is of opinion that there are two parts in human nature, body and soul, and makes no doubt that of these two, the soul is the better and by far the more worthy part. But whether the soul alone is the man so that the body holds the same relation to it as a horse to the horseman, this he thinks has to be ascertained. The horseman is not a horse and a man, but only a man, yet he is called a horseman because he is in some relation to the horse. Again, is the body alone the man, having a relation to the soul such as the cup has to the drink? For it is not the cup in the drink it contains which are called the cup, but the cup alone, yet it is so cold because it is made to hold the drink. Or lastly, is it neither the soul alone nor the body alone, but both together which are man, the body and the soul being each apart, but the whole man being both together, as we call two horses yoke together, a pair of which paired the near and the off horse is each apart, but we do not call either of them, no matter how connected with the other, a pair, but only both together. Of these three alternatives then, Varro chooses the third, that man is neither the body alone nor the soul alone, but both together, and therefore the highest good in which lies the happiness of man is composed of goods of both kinds, both bodily and spiritual, and consequently he thinks that the primary objects of nature are to be sought for their own sake, and that virtue, which is the art of living and can be communicated by instruction, is the most excellent of spiritual goods. This virtue then, or art of regulating life when it has received these primary objects of nature which existed independently of it and prior to any instruction, seeks them all and itself also for its own sake, and it uses them as it also uses itself that from them all it may derive profit and enjoyment greater or less according as they are themselves greater or less, and while it takes pleasure in all of them, it despises the less that it may obtain or retain the greater when occasion demands. Now of all goods, spiritual or bodily, there is none at all to compare with virtue. For virtue makes a good use both of itself and of all other goods in which lies man's happiness, and where it is absent, no matter how many good things a man has, they are not for his good, and consequently should not be called good things while they belong to one who makes them useless by using them badly. The life of man then is cold happy when it enjoys virtue and these other spiritual and bodily good things without which virtue is impossible. It is cold happier if it enjoys some or many other good things which are not essential to virtue, and happiest of all if it lacks not one of the good things which pertain to the body and the soul. For life is not the same thing as virtue since not every life but a wisely regulated life is virtue, and yet, while there can be life of some kind without virtue, there cannot be virtue without life. This I might apply to memory and reason and such mental faculties, for these exist prior to instruction and without them there cannot be any instruction and consequently no virtue since virtue is learned. But bodily advantages such as swiftness of foot, beauty or strength are not essential to virtue, neither is virtue essential to them, and yet they are good things, and according to our philosophers even these advantages are desired by virtue for its own sake and are used and enjoyed by it in a becoming manner. They say that this happy life is also social and loves the advantages of its friends as its own, and for their sake wishes for them what it desires for itself, whether these friends live in the same family as a wife, children, domestics, or in the locality where one's home is, as the citizens of the same town or in the world at large as the nations bound in common human brotherhood, or in the universe itself, comprehended in the heavens and the earth as those whom they call gods, and provide as friends for the wise man, and whom we more familiarly call angels. Moreover, they say that regarding the supreme good and evil there is no room for doubt, and that they therefore differ from the new academy in this respect, and they are not concerned whether a philosopher pursues those ends which they think true in the cynic dress and manner of life, or in some other. And lastly, in regard to the three modes of life, the contemplative, the active, and the composite, they declare in favor of the third. That these were the opinions and doctrines of the old academy, Varo asserts in the authority of Antiochus, Cicero's master and his own, though Cicero makes him out to have been more frequently in accordance with the Stoics than with the old academy. But of what importance is this to us who ought to judge the matter on its own merits rather than to understand accurately what different men have thought about it? If then we be asked what the city of God has to say upon these points, and in the first place what its opinion regarding the supreme good and evil is, it will reply that life eternal is the supreme good, death eternal the supreme evil, and that to obtain the one and escape the other we must live rightly. And thus it is written, the just lives by faith, for we do not as yet see our good and must therefore live by faith, neither have we in ourselves power to live rightly, but can do so only if he who has given us faith to believe in his help do help us when we believe and pray. As for those who have supposed that the sovereign good and evil are to be found in this life, and have placed it either in the soul or the body or in both, or to speak more explicitly, either in pleasure or in virtue or in both, in repose or in virtue or in both, in pleasure and repose or in virtue or in all combined, in the primary objects of nature or in virtue or in both, all these have with a marvelous shallowness sought to find their blessedness in this life and in themselves. Contempt has been poured upon such ideas by the truth, saying by the prophet, the Lord knoweth the thoughts of men, or as the apostle Paul cites the passage, the Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise that they are vain. For what flood of eloquence can suffice to detail the miseries of this life? Cicero in the consolation on the death of his daughter has spent all his ability in lamentation, but how inadequate was even his ability here. For when, where, how, in this life can these primary objects of nature be possessed so that they may not be assailed by unforeseen accidents? Is the body of the wise man exempt from any pain which may dispel pleasure, from any disquietude which may banish repose? The amputation or decay of the members of the body puts an end to its integrity, deformity blights its beauty, weakness its health, lassitude its vigor, sleepiness or sluggishness its activity, and which of these is it that may not assail the flesh of the wise man? Many and fitting attitudes and movements of the body are numbered among the prime natural blessings, but what if some sickness makes the members tremble? What if a man suffers from curvature of the spine to such an extent that his hands reach the ground, and he goes upon all fours like a quadruped? Does not this destroy all beauty and grace on the body, whether at rest or in motion? What shall I say of the fundamental blessings of the soul, sense and intellect, of which the one is given for the perception and the other for the comprehension of truth? But what kind of sense is it that remains when a man becomes deaf and blind? Where are reason and intellect when disease makes a man delirious? We can scarcely whore not at all refrain from tears when we think of or see the actions and words of such frantic persons, and consider how different from and even opposed to their own sober judgment and ordinary conduct their present demeanor is. And what shall I say of those who suffer from demoniacal possession? Where is their own intelligence hidden and buried while the malignant spirit is using their body and soul according to his own will? And who is quite sure that no such thing can happen to the wise man in this life? Then as to the perception of truth, what can we hope for even in this way while in the body, as we read in the true Book of Wisdom, the corruptible body weft down the soul and the earthly tabernacle presseth down the mind that museth upon many things. And eagerness or desire of action, if this is the right meaning to put upon the Greek orme, is also reckoned among the primary advantages of nature, and yet is it not this which produces those pitiable movements of the insane and those actions which we shudder to see when sense is deceived and reason deranged? In fine virtue itself which is not among the primary objects of nature, but succeeds to them as the result of learning, though it holds the highest place among human good things, what is its occupation saved to wage perpetual war with vices? Not those that are outside of us, but within, not other men's, but our own. A war which is waged especially by that virtue, which the Greeks call sofrasune, and we, temperance, in which bridles carnal lusts and prevents them from winning the consent of the spirit to wicked deeds. For we must not fancy that there is no vice in us when, as the Apostle says, the flesh lusteth against the spirit, for to this vice there is a contrary virtue when, as the same writer says, the spirit lusteth against the flesh. For these too, he says, are contrary one to the other, so that you cannot do the things which you would. But what is it we wish to do when we seek to attain the supreme good, unless that the flesh should cease to lust against the spirit, and that there be no vice in us against which the spirit may lust? And as we cannot attain to this in the present life, however ardently we desire it, let us, by God's help, accomplish at least this, to preserve the soul from succumbing and yielding to the flesh that lusts against it, and to refuse our consent to the perpetration of sin. Far be it from us, then, to fancy that while we are still engaged in this intestine war, we have already found the happiness which we seek to reach by victory. And who is there so wise that he has no conflict at all to maintain against his vices? What shall I say of that virtue which is called prudence? Is not all its vigilance spent in the discernment of good from evil things so that no mistake may be admitted about what we should desire and what avoid? And thus it is itself a proof that we are in the midst of evils or that evils are in us, for it teaches us that it is an evil to consent to sin and a good to refuse this consent. And yet this evil to which prudence teaches and temperance enables us not to consent is removed from this life neither by prudence nor by temperance, and justice whose office it is to render to every man his due whereby there is in man himself a certain just order of nature so that the soul is subjected to God and the flesh to the soul and consequently both soul and flesh to God does not this virtue demonstrate that it is as yet rather laboring towards its end than resting in its finished work. For the soul is so much the less subjected to God as it is less occupied with the thought of God, and the flesh is so much the less subjected to the spirit as it lusts more vehemently against the spirit. So long therefore as we are beset by this weakness, this plague, this disease, how shall we dare to say that we are safe? And if not safe, then how can we be already enjoying our final beatitude? Then that virtue which goes by the name of fortitude is the plainest proof of the ills of life, for it is these ills which it is compelled to bear patiently. And this holds good no matter though the ripest wisdom coexists with it. And I am at a loss to understand how the stoic philosophers can presume to say that these are no ills, though at the same time they allow the wise man to commit suicide and pass out of this life if they become so grievous that he cannot or ought not to endure them.  Oh, happy life which seeks the aid of death to end it. If it is happy, let the wise man remain in it, but if these ills drive him out of it, in what sense is it happy? Or how can they say that these are not evils which conquer the virtue of fortitude, and force it not only to yield, but so to rave that it in one breath calls life happy, and recommends it to be given up? For who is so blind as not to see that if it were happy it would not be fled from? And if they say we should flee from it on account of the infirmities that beset it, why then do they not lower their pride and acknowledge that it is miserable? Was it I would ask fortitude or weakness which prompted Cato to kill himself? For he would not have done so had he not been too weak to endure Caesar's victory? Where then is his fortitude? It is yielded, it is succumbed, it has been so thoroughly overcome as to abandon, forsake, flee this happy life? Or was it no longer happy? Then it was miserable. How then were these not evils which made life miserable, and a thing to be escaped from? And therefore those who admit that these are evils, as the parapetetics do in the old academy, the sect which Varo advocates express a more intelligible doctrine. But there also is a surprising mistake, for they contend that this is a happy life which is beset by these evils, even though they be so great that he who endures them should commit suicide to escape them. Pains and anguish of bodies, as Varo, are evils, and so much the worse in proportion to their severity, and to escape them you must quit this life. What life, I pray? This life he says which is oppressed by such evils. Then it is happy in the midst of these very evils on account of which you say we must quit it? Or do you call it happy because you are at liberty to escape these evils by death? What then if by some secret judgment of God you were held fast and not permitted to die, nor suffered to live without these evils? In that case, at least, you would say that such a life was miserable. It is soon relinquished, no doubt, but this does not make it not miserable, for were it eternal you yourself would pronounce it miserable. Is brevity therefore does not clear it of misery, neither ought it to be called happiness because it is a brief misery. Certainly there is a mighty force in these evils which compel a man, according to them even a wise man, to cease to be a man that he may escape them, though they say, and say truly, that it is as it were the first and strongest demand of nature that a man cherish himself, and naturally therefore avoid death, and should so stand his own friend as to wish and vehemently aim at continuing to exist as a living creature and subsisting in this union of soul and body. There is a mighty force in these evils to overcome this natural instinct by which death is by every means and with all a man's efforts avoided, and to overcome it so completely that what was avoided is desired, sought after, and if it cannot in any other way be obtained, is inflicted by the man on himself. There is a mighty force in these evils which make fortitude a homicide, if indeed that is to be called fortitude which is so thoroughly overcome by these evils that it not only cannot preserve by patience the man whom it undertook to govern and defend, but is itself obliged to kill him. The wise man, I admit, ought to bear death with patience but when it is inflicted by another. If then, as these men maintain, he is obliged to inflict it on himself, certainly it must be owned that the ills which compel him to this are not only evils but intolerable evils. The life then which is either subject to accidents or envired with evils so considerable in grievous could never have been called happy if the men who give it this name had condescended to yield to the truth and to be conquered by valid arguments when they inquired after the happy life as they yield to unhappiness and are overcome by overwhelming evils when they put themselves to death and if they had not fancied that the supreme good was to be found in this mortal life. For the very virtues of this life which are certainly its best and most useful possessions are all the more telling proofs of its miseries in proportion as they are helpful against the violence of its dangers, toils, and woes. For if these are true virtues and such cannot exist save in those who have true piety they do not profess to be able to deliver the men who possess them from all miseries. For true virtues tell no such lies but they profess that by the hope of the future world this life which is miserably involved in the many and great evils of this world is happy as it is also safe. For if not yet safe how could it be happy? And therefore the Apostle Paul speaking not of men without prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice but of those whose lives were regulated by true piety and whose virtues were therefore true says, for we are saved by hope. Now hope which is seen is not hope. For what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. As therefore we are saved so we are made happy by hope. And as we do not as yet possess a present but look for a future salvation so is it with our happiness and this with patience. For we are encompassed with evils which we ought patiently to endure until we come to the ineffable enjoyment of unmixed good, for there shall be no longer anything to endure. Salvation such as it shall be in the world to come shall itself be our final happiness. And this happiness these philosophers refuse to believe in because they do not see it and attempt to fabricate for themselves a happiness in this life based upon a virtue which is as deceitful as it is proud.