Book II.315    Comp. c. ii. of The Apology.    In this part of his work the author reviews the heathen mythology, and exposes the absurdity of the polytheistic worship in the various classes of the gods, according to the distribution of Varro.

Chapter I.—The Heathen Gods from Heathen Authorities. Varro Has Written a Work on the Subject. His Threefold Classification. The Changeable Character of that Which Ought to Be Fixed and Certain.

Our defence requires that we should at this point discuss with you the character of your gods, O ye heathen, fit objects of our pity,316    Ipsi.    Miserandæ. appealing even to your own conscience to determine whether they be truly gods, as you would have it supposed, or falsely, as you are unwilling to have proved.317    Gratis reum.    Literally, “unwilling to know.” Now this is the material part of human error, owing to the wiles of its author, that it is never free from the ignorance of error,318    Sane.    i.e., it does not know that it is error. whence your guilt is all the greater.  Your eyes are open, yet they see not; your ears are unstopped, yet they hear not; though your heart beats, it is yet dull, nor does your mind understand319    Neque spatium commodetis.    Nescit. that of which it is cognizant.320    Quanquam confessis.    Agnoscit. If indeed the enormous perverseness (of your worship) could321    Receptoribus, “concealers” of the crime.    Liceret. be broken up322    Porro.    Discuti, or, in the logical sense, “be tested.” by a single demurrer, we should have our objection ready to hand in the declaration323    Elogia.    Nunciatio (legally, this is “an information lodged against a wrong.”) that, as we know all those gods of yours to have been instituted by men, all belief in the true Deity is by this very circumstance brought to nought;324    Immo.    Excidere, “falls through.” because, of course, nothing which some time or other had a beginning can rightly seem to be divine. But the fact is,325    We have for once departed from Oehler’s text, and preferred Rigault’s:  “Perducerentur infantarii et coci, ipsi canes pronubi, emendata esset res.” The sense is evident from The Apology, c. vii.: “It is said that we are guilty of most horrible crimes; that in the celebration of our sacrament we put a child to death, which we afterward devour, and at the end of our banquet revel in incest; that we employ dogs as ministers of our impure delights, to overthrow the candles, and thus to provide darkness, and remove all shame which might interfere with these impious lusts” (Chevalier’s translation). These calumnies were very common, and are noticed by Justin Martyr, Minucius Felix, Eusebius, Athenagoras, and Origen, who attributes their origin to the Jews.  Oehler reads infantariæ, after the Agobardine codex and editio princeps, and quotes Martial (Epigr. iv. 88), where the word occurs in the sense of an inordinate love of children.    Sed enim. there are many things by which tenderness of conscience is hardened into the callousness of wilful error. Truth is beleaguered with the vast force (of the enemy), and yet how secure she is in her own inherent strength! And naturally enough326    Nam et plerique fidem talium temperant.    Quidni? when from her very adversaries she gains to her side whomsoever she will, as her friends and protectors, and prostrates the entire host of her assailants. It is therefore against these things that our contest lies—against the institutions of our ancestors, against the authority of tradition,327    Receptorum. the laws of our governors, and the reasonings of the wise; against antiquity, custom, submission;328    Necessitatem, answering to the “leges dominantium.” against precedents, prodigies, miracles,—all which things have had their part in consolidating that spurious329    Adulterinam. system of your gods. Wishing, then, to follow step by step your own commentaries which you have drawn out of your theology of every sort (because the authority of learned men goes further with you in matters of this kind than the testimony of facts), I have taken and abridged the works of Varro;330    St. Augustine, in his de Civit. Dei, makes similar use of Varro’s work on the heathen gods, Liber Divinarum. for he in his treatise Concerning Divine Things, collected out of ancient digests, has shown himself a serviceable guide331    Scopum, perhaps “mark.” for us. Now, if I inquire of him who were the subtle inventors332    Insinuatores. of the gods, he points to either the philosophers, the peoples, or the poets. For he has made a threefold distinction in classifying the gods: one being the physical class, of which the philosophers treat; another the mythic class, which is the constant burden of333    Volutetur. the poets; the third, the gentile class, which the nations have adopted each one for itself. When, therefore, the philosophers have ingeniously composed their physical (theology) out of their own conjectures, when the poets have drawn their mythical from fables, and the (several) nations have forged their gentile (polytheism) according to their own will, where in the world must truth be placed? In the conjectures? Well, but these are only a doubtful conception. In the fables? But they are at best an absurd story. In the popular accounts?334    Adoptionibus. This sort of opinion,335    Adoptatio. however, is only promiscuous336    Passiva, “a jumble.” and municipal. Now all things with the philosophers are uncertain, because of their variation with the poets all is worthless, because immoral; with the nations all is irregular and confused, because dependent on their mere choice.  The nature of God, however, if it be the true one with which you are concerned, is of so definite a character as not to be derived from uncertain speculations,337    Argumentationibus. nor contaminated with worthless fables, nor determined by promiscuous conceits. It ought indeed to be regarded, as it really is, as certain, entire, universal, because it is in truth the property of all. Now, what god shall I believe? One that has been gauged by vague suspicion? One that history338    Historia. This word seems to refer to the class of mythical divinity above mentioned. It therefore means “fable” or “absurd story” (see above). has divulged? One that a community has invented? It would be a far worthier thing if I believed no god, than one which is open to doubt, or full of shame, or the object of arbitrary selection.339    Adoptivum.

0585D 1. Nunc de deis vestris, miserandae nationes, congredi vobiscum defensio nostra desiderat, provocans ipsam conscientiam vestram, ad censendum, an vere dei, ut vultis, an falso, ut scire non vultis. Haec enim materia est erroris humani per artificem ejus, ne 0586D ignorantia erroris . . . . quo magis rei sitis. Patent oculi, nec vident; hiant aures, nec audiunt: cor stupet saliens, nescit animus quod agnoscit. Denique, si tantam perversitatem una praescriptione discuti liceret, in expedito esset nuntiatio, cum omnes 0587A istos deos ab hominibus institutos, non . . . . hinc excidere fidem verae divinitatis, quo nihil utique aliquando coeptum divinum videri jure possit. Sed enim multa sunt, quibus teneritas conscientiae obduratur in callositatem voluntarii erroris. Ingenti manu veritas obsidetur; at ipsa de sua virtute secura est. Quidni? quoscumque vult, de ipsis adversariis socios protectoresque sibimet assumit, et omnem illam expugnatorum multitudinem prosternit. Adversus haec igitur nobis negotium est, adversus institutiones majorum, auctoritates receptorum , leges dominantium, argumentationes prudentium; adversus vetustatem, consuetudinem, necessitatem; adversus exempla, prodigia, miracula, quae omnia adulterinam istam divinitatem corroboraverunt. Quare secundum vestros commentarios, quos ex omni theologiae genere 0587B cepistis, gradum conferens, quoniam major in hujusmodi penes, vos auctoritas litterarum, quam rerum est, elegi ad compendium Varronis opera , qui rerum divinarum ex omnibus retro digestis commentatus, idoneum se nobis scopum exposuit. Hunc si interrogem, qui insinuatores deorum? aut philosophos designat aut populos ant poetas. Triplici enim genere deorum censum distinxit: unum esse physicum, quod philosophi retractant; aliud mythicum, quod inter poetas volutetur; tertium gentile, quod populi sibi quique adoptaverunt. Igitur cum philosophi physicum conjecturis concinnarint, poetae mythicum de fabulis traxerint, populi gentile ultro praesumpserint, ubinam veritas collocanda? in conjecturis? 0587C sed incerta conceptio est; in fabulis? sed foeda relatio est; in adoptionibus? sed passiva et muncipalis adoptatio est. Denique apud philosophos incerta, quia varia; apud poetas omnia indigna, quia turpia; apud populos passiva omnia, quia voluntaria. Porro divinitas, si veram retractes, ea definitione est, ut istud neque argumentationibus incertis colligatur, neque fabulis indignis contaminetur, neque adoptionibus passivis judicetur; haberi enim debet, sicut 0588A est, certa, integra, communis, quia scilicet omnium. Caeterum quem Deum credam? quem suspicio aestimavit, quem historia jactavit, quem civitas voluit? Dignius multo neminem credam, quam dubitandum aut pudendum aut adoptivum.