Chap. III.—Wisdom and Religion Cannot Be Separated: the Lord of Nature Must Necessarily Be the Father of Every One.

The worship of the gods, as I have taught in the former book, does not imply wisdom; not only because it gives up man, who is a divine animal, to earthly and frail things, but because nothing is fixed in it which may avail for the cultivation of the character and the framing of the life; nor does it contain any investigation of the truth, but only the rite of worship, which does not consist in the service of the mind, but in the employment of the body. And therefore that is not to be deemed true religion, because it instructs and improves men by no precepts of righteousness and virtue. Thus philosophy, inasmuch as it does not possess true religion, that is, the highest piety, is not true wisdom. For if the divinity which governs this world supports mankind with incredible beneficence, and cherishes it as with paternal indulgence, wishes truly that gratitude should be paid, and honour given to itself, man cannot preserve his piety if he shall prove ungrateful for the heavenly benefits; and this is certainly not the part of a wise man. Since, therefore, as I have said, philosophy and the religious system of the gods are separated, and far removed from each other; seeing that some are professors of wisdom, through whom it is manifest that there is no approach to the gods, and that others are priests of religion, through whom wisdom is not learned; it is manifest that the one is not true wisdom, and that the other is not true religion. Therefore philosophy was not able to conceive the truth, nor was the religious system of the gods able to give an account of itself, since it is without it. But where wisdom is joined by an inseparable connection with religion, both must necessarily be true; because in our worship we ought to be wise, that is, to know the proper object and mode of worship, and in our wisdom to worship, that is, to complete our knowledge by deed and action.  

Where, then, is wisdom joined with religion? There, indeed, where the one God is worshipped, where life and every action is referred to one source, and to one supreme authority: in short, the teachers of wisdom are the same, who are also the priests of God.486    [1 John iv. 8. The Divine Triad “is Love.”]      [Iidem sunt doctores sapientiæ qui et De. sacerdotes.]   Nor, however, let it affect any one, because it often has happened, and may happen, that some philosopher may undertake a priesthood of the gods; and when this happens, philosophy is not, however, joined with religion; but philosophy will both be unemployed amidst sacred rites, and religion will be unemployed when philosophy shall be treated of. For that system of religious rites is dumb, not only because it relates to gods who are dumb, but also because its observance is by the hand and the fingers, not by the heart and tongue, as is the case with ours, which is true. Therefore religion is contained in wisdom, and wisdom in religion. The one, then, cannot be separated from the other; because wisdom is nothing else but the worship of the true God with just and pious adoration. But that the worship of many gods is not in accordance with nature, may be inferred and conceived even by this argument: that every god who is worshipped by man must, amidst the solemn rites and prayers, be invoked as father, not only for the sake of honour, but also of reason; because he is both more ancient than man, and because he affords life, safety, and sustenance, as a father does. Therefore Jupiter is called father by those who pray to him, as is Saturnus, and Janus, and Liber, and the rest in order; which Lucilius487    Subductis et consummatis.      [The satirist, not Cicero’s friend; Nat. Deor., iii.]   laughs at in the council of the gods: “So that there is none of us who is not called excellent father of the gods; so that father Neptunus, Liber, father Saturnus, Mars, Janus, father Quirinus, are called after one name.” But if nature does not permit that one man should have many fathers (for he is produced from one only), therefore the worship of many gods is contrary to nature, and contrary to piety.  

One only, therefore, is to be worshipped, who can truly be called Father. He also must of necessity be Lord, because as He has power to indulge, so also has He power to restrain. He is to be called Father on this account, because He bestows upon us many and great things; and Lord on this account, because He has the greatest power of chastising and punishing. But that He who is Father is also Lord, is shown even by reference to civil law.488    Fathers in ancient times had the greatest power over their children, so that they had the right of life and death, as masters had over their slaves.   For who will be able to bring up sons, unless he has the power of a lord over them? Nor without reason is he called father of a household,489    Pater familias—a title given to the master of a household, whether he had sons or not; the slaves of a house were called familia   although he only has sons: for it is plain that the name of father embraces also slaves, because “household” follows; and the name of “household” comprises also sons, because the name of “father” precedes: from which it is evident, that the same person is both father of his slaves490    It has been judged better to keep the words “slave” and “lord” throughout the passage, for the sake of uniformity of expression, though in some places “servant” and “master” might seem more appropriate.   and lord of his sons. Lastly, the son is set at liberty as if he were a slave; and the liberated slave receives the name491    Among the Romans slaves had no prænomen or distinguishing name; when a slave was set at liberty, he was allowed to assume the name of his master as a prænomen. Thus, in Persius (Sat., v.), “Dama,” the liberated slave, becomes “Marcus Dama.”   of his patron, as if he were a son. But if a man is named father of a household, that it may appear that he is possessed of a double power, because as a father he ought to indulge, and as a lord to restrain, it follows that he who is a son is also a slave, and that he who is a father is also a lord. As, therefore, by the necessity of nature, there cannot be more than one father, so there can only be one lord. For what will the slave do if many lords492    Thus the slave in Terence wished to know how many masters he had.   shall give commands at variance with each other? Therefore the worship of many gods is contrary to reason and to nature, since there cannot be many fathers or lords; but it is necessary to consider the gods both as fathers and lords.  

Therefore the truth cannot be held where the same man is subject to many fathers and lords, where the mind, drawn in different directions to many objects, wanders to and fro, hither and thither. Nor can religion have any firmness, when it is without a fixed and settled dwelling-place. Therefore there can be no true worship of many gods; just as that cannot be called matrimony, in which one woman has many husbands, but she will either be called a harlot or an adulteress. For when a woman is destitute of modesty, chastity, and fidelity, she must of necessity be without virtue. Thus also the religious system of the gods is unchaste and unholy, because it is destitute of faith, for that unsettled and uncertain honour has no source or origin.  

0453A CAPUT III. Sapientia et religio divelli non possunt; necessarium est ut naturae Dominus sit uniuscujusque pater.

Deorum cultus, ut in priore libro docui, non habet sapientiam, non modo quia divinum animal hominem terrenis fragilibusque substernit, sed quia nihil ibi disseritur, quod proficiat ad mores excolendos vitamque formandam: nec habet inquisitionem aliquam veritatis, sed tantummodo ritum colendi, qui non officio mentis, 0453A sed ministerio corporis constat. Et ideo non est illa religio vera judicanda; quia nullis justitiae virtutisque praeceptis erudit efficitque meliores. Ita philosophia, quia veram religionem, id est summam pietatem non habet, non est vera sapientia. Nam si divinitas, quae gubernat hunc mundum, 0453B incredibili beneficentia genus hominum sustentat, et quasi paterna indulgentia fovet, vult profecto gratiam sibi referri, et honorem dari: nec constare homini ratio pietatis potest, si coelestibus beneficiis extiterit ingratus; quod non est utique sapientis. Quoniam igitur, ut dixi, philosophia et religio deorum disjuncta sunt, longeque discreta, si quidem alii sunt professores sapientiae, per quos utique ad deos non aditur, alii religionis antistites, per quos sapere non discitur; apparet, nec illam esse veram sapientiam, nec hanc religionem. Idcirco nec philosophia potuit veritatem comprehendere, nec religio deorum rationem sui, qua caret, reddere. Ubi autem sapientia cum religione inseparabili 0453C nexu cohaeret, utrumque verum esse necesse est; quia et in colendo sapere debemus, id est scire, quid nobis et quomodo sit colendum, et in sapiendo colere, id est re et actu, quod scierimus, implere.

Ubi ergo sapientia cum religione conjungitur? Ibi scilicet, ubi Deus colitur unus; ubi vita et actus omnis ad unum caput et ad unam summam refertur; 0454A denique iidem sunt doctores sapientiae, qui et Dei sacerdotes. Nec tamen moveat quemquam, quia saepe factum est, et fieri potest, ut philosophus aliquis deorum suscipiat sacerdotium: quod cum fit, non tamen conjungitur philosophia cum religione; sed et philosophia inter sacra cessabit, et religio, quando philosophia tractabitur. Illa enim religio muta est, non tantum, quia mutorum est, sed quia ritus ejus in manu et digitis est, non in corde, aut lingua, sicut nostra quae vera est. Idcirco et in sapientia religio, et in religione sapientia est. Ergo non potest segregari; quia sapere nihil aliud est, nisi Deum verum justis ac piis cultibus honorare. Multorum autem deorum cultus non esse secundum naturam, etiam hoc argumento colligi potest et comprehendi: Omnem Deum, qui ab homine colitur, necesse est inter 0454B solemnes ritus et precationes patrem nuncupari, non tantum honoris gratia, verum etiam rationis; quod et antiquior est homine, et quod vitam, salutem, victum praestat, ut pater. Itaque et Jupiter a precantibus pater vocatur, et Saturnus, et Janus, et Liber, et caeteri deinceps; quod Lucilius in deorum concilio irridet: Ut nemo sit nostrum, quin pater optimu' divum; Ut Neptunu' pater, Liber, Saturnu' pater, Mars, Janu', Quirinu' pater, nomen dicatur ad unum.Quod si natura non patitur, ut sint unius hominis multi patres (ex uno enim procreatur) ergo deos etiam multos colere contra naturam est, contraque pietatem.

0454C Unus igitur colendus est, qui potest vere pater nominari. Idem etiam dominus sit necesse est; quia sicut potest indulgere, ita etiam coercere. Pater ideo appellandus est, quia nobis multa et magna largitur: dominus ideo, quia castigandi ac puniendi habet maximam potestatem. Dominum vero eumdem esse, qui sit pater, etiam juris civilis ratio demonstrat. 0455A Quis enim poterit filios educare, nisi habeat in eos domini potestatem? 0455A Nec immerito paterfamilias dicitur, licet tantum filios habeat: vindelicet nomen patris complectitur etiam servos, quia familias sequitur, et nomen familiae complectitur etiam filios, quia pater antecedit: unde apparet eumdem ipsum, et patrem esse servorum, et dominum filiorum. Denique et filius manumittitur tamquam servus, et servus liberatus patroni nomen accipit, tamquam filius. Quod si propterea paterfamilias nominatur, ut appareat eum duplici potestate praeditum, quia et indulgere debet, quia pater est, et coercere, quia dominus; ergo idem servus est, qui et filius; idem dominus, qui et pater. Sicut igitur naturae necessitate non potest esse nisi unus pater, ita nec dominus nisi unus; quid enim 0455B faciat servus, si multi domini diversa imperaverint? Ergo contra rationem contraque naturam sunt religiones multorum deorum; siquidem nec patres multi possunt esse, nec domini: deos autem et patres, et dominos nuncupari necesse est.

Teneri ergo veritas non potest, ubi homo idem multis patribus dominisque subjectus est, ubi animus in multa dispersus, huc atque illuc divagatur. Nec 0456A habere ullam firmitatem religio potest, quando certo et stabili domicilio caret. Cultus igitur deorum veri esse non possunt, eodem modo, quo matrimonium dici non potest, ubi mulier una multos viros habet sed haec aut meretrix, aut adultera nominabitur; a qua enim pudor, castitas, fides abest, virtute careat necesse est. Sic et religio deorum impudica est incesta, quia fide caret, quia honos ille instabilis et incertus, caput atque originem non habet.