Chap. XII.—Of the Twofold Conflict of Body and Soul; And of Desiring Virtue on Account of Eternal Life.

But our inquiry is as to the object for which we are born: and thus we are able to trace out what is the effect of virtue. There are two386    According to St. Paul, man consists of three parts—body, soul and spirit. Lactantius appears to use the word soul in the same sense in which the Scriptures speak of spirit. [Vol. i. p. 532.]   parts of which man is made up, soul and body. There are many things peculiar to the soul, many peculiar to the body, many common to both, as is virtue itself; and as often as this is referred to the body, it is called fortitude for the sake of distinction. Since, therefore, fortitude is connected with each, a contest is proposed to each, and victory held forth to each from the contest: the body, because it is solid, and capable of being grasped, must contend with objects which are solid and can be grasped; but the soul, on the other hand, because it is slight387    Tenuis, as applied to the soul, opposed to solidus, applied to the body.   and subtle, and invisible, contends with those enemies who cannot be seen and touched. But what are the enemies of the soul, but lusts, vices, and sins? And if virtue shall have overcome and put to flight these, the soul will be pure and free from stain. Whence, then, are we able to collect what are the effects of fortitude of soul? Doubtless from that which is closely connected with it, and resembles it, that is, from fortitude of the body; for when this has come to any encounter and contest, what else does it seek from victory but life? For whether you contend with a man or beast, the contest is for safety. Therefore, as the body obtains by victory its preservation from destruction, so the soul obtains a continuation of its existence; and as the body, when overcome by its enemies, suffers death, so the soul, when overpowered by vices, must die. What difference, therefore, will there be between the contest carried on by the soul and that carried on by the body, except that the body seeks for temporal, but the soul eternal life? If, therefore, virtue is not happy by itself, since its whole force consists, as I have said, in the enduring of evils; if it neglects all things which are desired as goods; if in its highest condition it is exposed to death, inasmuch as it often refuses life, which is desired by others, and bravely undergoes death, which others fear; if it must necessarily produce some great good from itself, because labours, endured and overcome even until death, cannot fail of obtaining a reward; if no reward, such as it deserves, is found on earth, inasmuch as it despises all things which are frail and transitory, what else remains but that it may effect some heavenly reward, since it treats with contempt all earthly things, and may aim at higher things, since it despises things that are humble? And this reward can be nothing else but immortality.  

With good reason, therefore, did Euclid, no obscure philosopher, who was the founder of the system of the Megareans, differing from the others, say that that was the chief good which was unvarying and always the same. He certainly understood what is the nature of the chief good, although he did not explain in what it consisted; but it consists of immortality, nor anything else at all, inasmuch as it alone is incapable of diminution, or increase, or change. Seneca also unconsciously happened to confess that there is no other reward of virtue than immortality. For in praising virtue in the treatise which he wrote on the subject of premature death, he says: “Virtue is the only thing which can confer upon us immortality, and make us equal to the gods.” But the Stoics also, whom he followed, say that no one can be made happy without virtue. Therefore, the reward of virtue is a happy life, if virtue, as it is rightly said, makes a happy life. Virtue, therefore, is not, as they say, to be sought on its own account, but on account of a happy life, which necessarily follows virtue. And this argument might have taught them in what the chief good consisted. But this present and corporeal life cannot be happy, because it is subjected to evils through the body. Epicurus calls God happy and incorruptible, because He is everlasting. For a state of happiness ought to be perfect, so that there may be nothing which can harass, or lessen, or change it. Nor can anything be judged happy in other respects, unless it be incorruptible. But nothing is incorruptible but that which is immortal. Immortality therefore is alone happy, because it can neither be corrupted nor destroyed. But if virtue falls within the power of man, which no one can deny, happiness also belongs to him. For it is impossible for a man to be wretched who is endued with virtue. If happiness falls within his power, then immortality, which is possessed of the attribute of happiness, also belongs to him.  

The chief good, therefore, is found to be immortality alone, which pertains to no other animal or body; nor can it happen to any one without the virtue of knowledge, that is, without the knowledge of God and justice. And how true and right is the seeking for this, the very desire of this life shows: for although it be but temporary, and most full of labour, yet it is sought and desired by all; for both old men and boys, kings and those of the lowest station, in fine, wise as well as foolish, desire this. Of such value, as it seemed to Anaxagoras, is the contemplation of the heaven and the light itself, that men willingly undergo any miseries on this account. Since, therefore, this short and laborious life, by the general consent not only of men, but also of other animals, is considered a great good, it is manifest that it becomes also a very great and perfect good if it is without an end and free from all evil. In short, there never would have been any one who would despise this life, however short it is, or undergo death, unless through the hope of a longer life. For those who voluntarily offered themselves to death for the safety of their countrymen, as Menœceus did at Thebes, Codrus at Athens, Curtius and the two Mures at Rome, would never have preferred death to the advantages of life, unless they had thought that they should attain to immortality through the estimation of their countrymen; and although they were ignorant of the life of immortality, yet the reality itself did not escape their notice. For if virtue despises opulence and riches because they are frail, and pleasures because they are of brief continuance, it therefore despises a life which is frail and brief, that it may obtain one which is substantial and lasting. Therefore reflection itself, advancing by regular order, and weighing everything, leads us to that excellent and surpassing good, on account of which we are born. And if philosophers had thus acted, if they had not preferred obstinately to maintain that which they had once apprehended, they would undoubtedly have arrived at this truth, as I have lately shown. And if this was not the part of those who extinguish the heavenly souls together with the body, yet those who discuss the immortality of the soul ought to have understood that virtue is set before us on this account, that, lusts having been subdued, and the desire of earthly things overcome, our souls, pure and victorious, may return to God, that is, to their original source. For it is on this account that we alone of living creatures are raised to the sight of the heaven, that we may believe that our chief good is in the highest place. Therefore we alone receive religion, that we may know from this source that the spirit of man is not mortal, since it longs for and acknowledges God, who is immortal.  

Therefore, of all the philosophers, those who have embraced either knowledge or virtue as the chief good, have kept the way of truth, but have not arrived at perfection. For these are the two things which together make up that which is sought for. Knowledge causes us to know by what means and to what end we must attain; virtue causes us to attain to it. The one without the other is of no avail; for from knowledge arises virtue, and from virtue the chief good is produced. Therefore a happy life, which philosophers have always sought, and still do seek, has no existence either in the worship of the gods or in philosophy; and on this account they were unable to find it, because they did not seek the highest good in the highest place, but in the lowest. For what is the highest but heaven, and God, from whom the soul has its origin? And what is the lowest but the earth, from which the body is made? Therefore, although some philosophers have assigned the chief good, not to the body, but to the soul, yet, inasmuch as they have referred it to this life, which has its ending with the body, they have gone back to the body, to which the whole of this time which is passed on earth has reference. Therefore it was not without reason that they did not attain to the highest good; for whatever looks to the body only, and is without immortality, must necessarily be the lowest. Therefore happiness does not fall to the condition of man in that manner in which philosophers thought; but it so falls to him, not that he should then be happy, when he lives in the body, which must undoubtedly be corrupted in order to its dissolution; but then, when, the soul being freed from intercourse with the body, he lives in the spirit only. In this one thing alone can we be happy in this life, if we appear to be unhappy; if, avoiding the enticements of pleasures, and giving ourselves to the service of virtue only, we live in all labours and miseries, which are the means of exercising and strengthening virtue; if, in short, we keep to that rugged and difficult path which has been opened for us to happiness. The chief good therefore which makes men happy cannot exist, unless it be in that religion and doctrine to which is annexed the hope of immortality.  

CAPUT XII. De duplici pugna corporis et animae; atque de appetenda virtute propter vitam aeternam.

Sed quaeritur quid sit, propter quod nascimur; quid efficiat virtus, possumus sic investigare. Duo sunt, ex quibus homo constat, animus et corpus. 0379A Multa sunt propria animi, multa propria corporis, multa utrique communia, sicut est ipsa virtus: 0379A quae quoties ad corpus refertur, discernendi gratia fortitudo nominatur. Quoniam igitur utrique subjacet fortitudo, utrique proposita dimicatio est, et utrique ex dimicatione victoria: corpus, quia solidum est et comprehensibile, cum solidis et comprehensibilibus confligat necesse est; animus autem, quia tenuis, et invisibilis est, cum iis congreditur hostibus, qui videri tangique non possunt. Qui sunt autem hostes animi, nisi cupiditates, vitia, peccata? quae si vicerit virtus, ac fugaverit, immaculatus erit animus, ac purus. Unde ergo colligi potest, quid efficiat animi fortitudo? Nimirum ex conjuncto, et pari, hoc est ex corporis fortitudine, quod cum in aliquam congressionem 0379B certamenque venerit, quid aliud ex victoria quam vitam petit? Sive enim cum homine, sive cum bestia dimices, pro salute certatur. Ergo ut corpus vincendo id assequitur, ut non intereat: sic etiam animus, ut permaneat; et sicut corpus ab hostibus suis victum, morte mulctatur: ita superatus a vitiis animus moriatur necesse est. Quid ergo intererit inter animi corporisque dimicationem, nisi quod corpus temporalem vitam expetit, animus sempiternam? Si ergo virtus per seipsam beata non est, quoniam in perferendis (ut dixi) malis tota vis ejus est; si omnia, quae pro bonis concupiscuntur, negligit; si summus ejus gradus ad mortem patet, quandoquidem vitam, quae optatur a caeteris, saepe respuit, mortemque, quam caeteri timent, 0379C fortiter suscipit; si necesse est ut aliquid ex se magni boni pariat, quia sustentati et superati usque ad mortem labores sine praemio esse non possunt; si nullum praemium, quod ea dignum sit, in terra reperitur, quandoquidem cuncta, quae fragilia sunt et 0380A caduca, spernit, quid aliud restat, nisi ut coeleste aliquid efficiat, quia terrena universa contemnit, et ad altiora nitatur, quia humilia despicit? Id vero nihil aliud potest esse, quam immortalitas.

Merito ergo philosophorum non obscurus Euclides, qui fuit conditor Megaricorum disciplinae, dissentiens a caeteris, id esse summum bonum dixit, quod simile sit, et idem semper. Intellexit profecto quae sit natura summi boni, licet id non explicaverit quid sit: id est autem immortalitas, nec aliud omnino quidquam; quia sola nec imminui, nec augeri, nec immutari potest. Seneca quoque imprudens incidit, ut fateretur, nullum esse aliud virtutis praemium, quam immortalitatem. Laudans enim virtutem in eo libro quem de immatura morte conscripsit: «Una, inquit, 0380B res est virtus, quae nos immortalitate donare possit, et pares diis facere.» Sed et stoici, quos secutus est, negant sine virtute effici quemquam beatum posse. Ergo virtutis praemium beata vita est, si virtus (ut recte dictum est) beatam vitam facit. Non est igitur, ut aiunt, propter seipsam virtus expetenda, sed propter vitam beatam, quae virtutem necessario sequitur. Quod argumentum docere eos potuit, quod esset summum bonum. Haec autem vita praesens et corporalis beata esse non potest, quia malis est subjecta per corpus. Epicurus Deum beatum et incorruptum vocat, quia sempiternus est. Beatitudo enim perfecta esse debet, ut nihil sit, quod eam vexare, ac imminuere, aut immutare possit. Nec aliter quidquam existimari beatum potest, nisi fuerit incorruptum. 0380C Incorruptum autem nihil est, nisi quod est immortale. Sola ergo immortalitas beata est, quia corrumpi ac dissolvi non potest. Quod si cadit in hominem virtus, quod negare nullus potest, cadit et beatitudo. Non potest enim fieri, ut sit miser, qui virtute est 0381A praeditus. Si cadit beatitudo, ergo et immortalitas cadit in hominem, quae 0381A beata est.

Summum igitur bonum sola immortalitas invenitur, quae nec aliud animal, nec corpus attingit, nec potest cuiquam sine scientiae virtute, id est, sine Dei cognitione ac justitia provenire. Cujus appetitio quam vera, quam recta sit, ipsa vitae hujusce cupiditas indicat: quae licet sit temporalis, et labore plenissima, expetitur tamen ab omnibus, et optatur; hanc enim tam senes quam pueri, tam reges quam infimi, tam denique sapientes quam stulti cupiunt. Tanti est (ut Anaxagorae visum est) contemplatio coeli ac lucis ipsius, ut quascumque miserias libeat sustinere. Cum igitur laboriosa haec et brevis vita, non tantum hominum, sed etiam caeterorum animantium consensu, 0381B magnum bonum esse ducatur: manifestum est eamdem summum ac perfectum fieri bonum, si et fine careat et omni malo. Denique nemo umquam extitisset, qui hanc ipsam brevem contemneret, aut subiret mortem, nisi spe vitae longioris. Nam illi, qui pro salute civium voluntariae se neci obtulerunt, sicut Thebis Menoeceus, Athenis Codrus, Romae Curtius et Mures duo, numquam mortem vitae commodis praetulissent, nisi se immortalitatem opinione civium consequi putavissent: qui tametsi nescierunt immortalitatis vitam, res tamen eos non fefellit. Si enim virtus divitias et opes ideo contemnit, quia fragiles sunt, voluptates ideo, quia breves; ergo et vitam 0381C fragilem brevemque ideo contemnit, ut solidam et 0382A perpetuam consequatur. Ipsa ergo cogitatio per ordinem gradiens, et universa considerans, perducit nos ad eximium illud et singulare, cujus causa nascimur bonum. Quod si fecissent philosophi; si non, quod semel apprehenderant, tueri pertinaciter maluissent: profecto pervenissent ad verum hoc, ut ostendi modo. Quod si non fuit eorum, qui coelestes animas una cum corporibus extinguunt, illi tamen, qui de immortalitate disputant animi, intelligere debuerunt; ideo propositam nobis esse virtutem, ut, perdomitis libidinibus, rerumque terrestrium cupiditate superata, purae ac victrices animae ad Deum, id est ad originem suam revertantur. Idcirco enim soli animantium ad aspectum coeli erecti sumus ut summum bonum nostrum in summo esse credamus. Ideo religionem soli 0382B capimus, ut ex hoc sciamus, humanum spiritum non esse mortalem, quod Deum, qui est immortalis, et desiderat, et agnoscit.

Igitur ex omnibus philosophis, qui aut pro summo bono scientiam, aut virtutem sunt amplexi, tenuerunt quidem viam veritatis, sed non pervenerunt ad summum. Haec enim duo sunt, quae simul efficiant illud, quod quaeritur. Scientia id praestat, ut quomodo, et quo perveniendum sit, noverimus; virtus, ut perveniamus. Alterum sine altero nihil valet, ex scientia enim virtus, ex virtute summum bonum nascitur. Beata igitur vita, quam philosophi quaesierunt semper, et quaerunt, sive in cultu deorum, sive in 0382C philosophia nulla est; et ideo ab his non potuit reperiri, 0383A quia summum bonum non in summo quaesierunt, sed in imo. Summum autem quid est, nisi coelum, et Deus, unde animus oritur? Imum quid est, nisi terra, unde corpus est? Itaque licet quidam philosophi summum bonum non corpori, sed animo dederint, tamen, quoniam illud ad hanc vitam retulerunt, 0383A quae cum corpore terminatur, ad corpus revoluti sunt, cujus est hoc omne tempus, quod transigitur in terra. Quare non immerito summum bonum non comprehenderunt; quia quidquid ad corpus spectat, et immortalitatis est expers, imum sit necesse est. Non cadit ergo in hominem beatitudo illo modo, quo philosophi putaverunt: sed ita cadit, non ut tunc beatus sit cum vivit in corpore, quod utique, ut dissolvatur, necesse est corrumpi; sed tunc, cum anima 0383B societate corporis liberata, in solo spiritu vivit. Hoc uno beati esse in hac vita possumus, si minime beati esse videamur; si fugientes illecebras voluptatum, solique virtuti servientes, in omnibus laboribus miseriisque vivamus, quae sunt exercitia, et corroboramenta virtutis; si denique asperam illam viam difficilemque teneamus, quae nobis ad beatitudinem patefacta est. Summum igitur bonum, quod beatos facit, non potest esse, nisi in ea religione, atque doctrina, cui spes immortalitatis adjuncta est.