Книга восьмая

Bl. Augustine moves on to the third kind of theology, which is called natural, and with the Platonists, undoubtedly the most famous of other philosophers and closer to the truth of the Christian faith, he undertakes to investigate the question of whether the veneration of the gods discussed in this, i.e. natural theology, to be useful for achieving the blessed life that comes after death. And here he first refutes Apuleius and all others who claimed that veneration is given to demons as messengers and intermediaries between gods and people; proving that these demons can in no way be mediators between good gods and people, about whom it is known that they themselves are guilty of crimes, and have introduced such things as are abhorred and condemned by virtuous and prudent people, i.e. the wicked inventions of poets, theatrical mockery, criminal sorcery - in every possible way favor all this and delight in it Chapter I. Of the Inquiry into the Question of Natural Theology with Philosophers of a Higher Mode of Thought. Now we will need to exert much more thought than before in solving previous questions and presenting previous books. We must talk about theology, which is called natural, and not with some people (for this is not a fabulous or civil theology, that is, not theatrical or state, of which the first exposes the crimes of the gods, and the other reveals the even more criminal desires of these same gods, and thus represents in them demons rather than gods), but with philosophers, whose very name, if we translate it into Latin, means love of wisdom. But if Wisdom is God, through whom all things were created, as divine Scripture and truth testify to (Wisdom VII, 24-27; Heb. 1:2-3), then a true philosopher is a lover of God. But since the very thing to which this name is characteristic does not exist in everyone who is called by this name (for those who call themselves philosophers are not always lovers of true wisdom), then from the total number of those whose opinions we could learn from their writings, we should choose only those with whom it would be worth discussing on this issue. For I did not set out to refute all empty opinions of all philosophers in general in this work, but only those opinions that relate to theology, understood, according to the meaning of the Greek word, as a doctrine or speech about the deity; and, moreover, the opinions are not of everyone, but only of those who, although they recognize that the deity exists and cares about humanity, nevertheless believe that the veneration of the one unchangeable God is not enough to achieve a blessed life even after death, but many should be venerated as created and established by the same One. In terms of their closeness to the truth, the opinions of these philosophers are higher than even the opinions of Varro. The latter managed to apply the entire content of natural theology to the real world or soul, and they recognize God as standing above all nature of the soul, because He creates not only this visible world, often called by the name of heaven and earth, but also every soul in general; and the rational and thinking soul, which the human soul is, makes blessed by the communication of His unchangeable and incorporeal light. These philosophers, called Platonists after their teacher Plato, are known to anyone who has heard even a little about this. About Plato himself, as far as I consider necessary for this work, I will say a few words, having first mentioned those that preceded him in time in the same type of works. Chapter II. About two kinds of philosophers, i.e. Italic and Ionic, and their representatives As for Greek literature, which enjoys the greatest fame in comparison with the literatures of other nations, two kinds of philosophers are distinguished in it: one Italian, from that part of Italy that was once called Magna Graecia; the other is Ionian, from those countries that even today bear the name of Greece. The Italian family had as its ancestor Pythagoras of Samos, from whom, they say, philosophy itself received its name. Until that time, all who seemed superior to others in some form of meritorious living were called wise men; and when they asked him what he did, he answered that he was a philosopher, that is, one who deals with wisdom, a lover of it: because he considered it extremely arrogant to call himself a sage. The ancestor of the Ionian philosophers was Thales of Miletus, one of those seven whom the ancients called sages. Six of them were distinguished by a special way of life and certain rules that taught virtue, and this Thales, who left behind disciples, stood out for the fact that he studied the nature of things and set out his reasoning in writing; He aroused particular surprise because, having discovered astronomical calculations, he could predict eclipses of the sun and moon. He believed that the beginning of all things is water and that all the elements of the world come from it, even the world itself and everything that is born in it. He did not attribute any participation in this creation, which we look at with such amazement when considering the world, to the divine mind. His successor was Anaximander, his listener; This one changed my mind about the nature of things. He believed that all things are born not from one element - as in Thales, for example, from moisture - but each from its own special principles. He imagined that there was an infinite number of these principles of individual things; that they produce countless worlds and everything that is born in them; that these worlds are either destroyed or reborn again, depending on how much each of them can continue to exist. And this philosopher in his understanding of the world did not attribute anything to the divine mind. He left Anaximenes as his student and successor. The latter derived all the causes of things from infinite air; he did not deny the gods or keep silent about them; however, he believed that it was not air that was created by them, but that they themselves originated from air. Anaxagoras, his listener, represented the creator of all those things that we see as the divine spirit and argued that the genera of all things are formed from limitless matter, consisting of particles similar to each other, according to the patterns and forms characteristic of each of them, but with the assistance of the divine spirit. At the same time, another listener of Anaximenes, Diogenes, argued that the matter of things, from which everything comes, is air, but that this air is endowed with divine intelligence, without which nothing could come from it. Anaxagoras' successor was his servant Archelaus; and this one believed that everything comes from similar particles, from which certain individuals are formed, but argued that this is also inherent in the mind, which, by the union and separation of eternal bodies, that is, the mentioned particles, produces everything. They say that Socrates, the teacher of Plato, for whose sake I remembered all this, was his student. Chapter III. About the teachings of Socrates Thus, it is said of Socrates the first that he set the goal of philosophy to be the correction and education of morals, whereas before him all the greatest attention was paid to the study of things primarily physical, that is, natural. I do not find it possible to unambiguously determine what prompted Socrates to do this, whether it was aversion to dark and uncertain subjects and a desire to discover something clear and precise necessary for a blissful life, for which alone, apparently, all philosophers worked with such diligence; or, as some more readily suggest, he did not want souls unclean from earthly passions to dare to touch divine things, since he saw that they were seeking the causes of things that were primarily and most importantly under the knowledge of the one and highest God; which is why he believed that they could only be comprehended by a pure soul, and thought that one should insist on purifying life with good morals, so that the spirit, freed from the passions that oppress it, would be able to rise by natural force to the eternal and contemplate with pure understanding the nature of the incorporeal and unchanging light in which the causes of all created things reside. It is known, however, that in these moral questions, to which (Socrates) devoted all his attention, he, sometimes admitting his ignorance, sometimes hiding his knowledge, with an amazing intricacy of speech and extraordinary wit, irritated and brought to light the stupidity of the ignorant, imagining that they know something. By this he aroused hatred against himself, was convicted on false charges and was punished by death. But then, when Athens publicly mourned the very thing that it had publicly condemned, the indignation of the people turned against its two accusers to such an extent that one of them died at the hands of the crowd, and the other was able to avoid a similar punishment only by voluntary and eternal exile. Naturally, such an impeccable glory of the life and death of Socrates gave rise to many followers of his philosophy, who tried to devote their works to the study of moral issues related to that highest Good, which alone can make a person blessed. Since Socrates touched on everything in his reasoning, defended everything and refuted everything, as long as it was not completely obvious, they borrowed from them what they liked, and each determined the end of the good based on their own understanding. The end of good is that which, upon attaining, everyone becomes blessed. The Socratics had such different opinions among themselves about this end that (it is difficult to believe that the followers of one teacher could do this) some called pleasure the highest good, like Aristippus, and some called virtue, like Antisthenes; others thought about this subject differently, each in their own way, so it would take a long time to remember them. Chapter IV. About the most important of Socrates' students, Plato, who divided all philosophy into three parts Of the students of Socrates, Plato deservedly gained the greatest fame, completely eclipsing the rest. Although he was an Athenian, a native of a city that enjoyed particular fame among his compatriots, and his amazing talents far surpassed his fellow students, however, not considering either his own strengths or the teachings of Socrates sufficient to achieve perfection in philosophy, for a long time he traveled everywhere, wherever anyone’s fame attracted him with the hope of acquiring new knowledge. So, he studied in Egypt everything that was considered great there and that was taught. Moving from there to those parts of Italy where the Pythagoreans enjoyed fame, he easily learned the essence of the then Italian philosophy, having listened to the most famous local teachers. But since he especially loved the teacher Socrates, presenting him as the speaker in almost all his speeches, he expounded both what he learned from others and what he managed to achieve through his own reflections, together with the witty maxims and moral reasonings of Socrates. But the teaching of wisdom can have as its subject either activity or contemplation: why one part of it can be called active, and the other contemplative, of which the active one has the goal of ordering life, that is, the enlightenment of morals, and the contemplative one is the study of the causes of nature and the purest truth. In action, Socrates is considered superior to others; Pythagoras, with all the powers of his thinking, indulged in speculative philosophy. And Plato is given credit for the combination of both, and through this the improvement of philosophy. He divided the latter into three parts: moral, which has activity as its main subject; natural, dedicated to contemplation; rational, which distinguishes between true and false. Although the latter is closely related to the first two, i.e., to activity and contemplation, contemplation primarily relates to the discernment of truth. Therefore, such a threefold division does not contradict the division that represents the love of wisdom, which generally manifests itself in activity and contemplation. As for Plato’s way of thinking on each or about each of these parts, i.e. in what he found or posited the end of all actions, in what is the cause of all natures, in what is the clarity and rationality of every conclusion, I do not find it possible to go deeper into the study of this subject, and without research, I consider it inappropriate to say anything affirmative about it. In presenting Socrates as a reasoner in his writings, Plato tried to maintain the well-known manner of his teacher, which he himself liked: not to openly express his knowledge or opinion. Therefore, the way of thinking of Plato himself on subjects of the greatest importance is not easy to understand. However, some of what he wrote or what he told and wrote down as what he heard from others, but with which I myself seem to agree, I consider it necessary to recall and include in this work: these are places in which he either spoke in favor of the true religion, which our faith accepts and defends; or where he seems to be opposed to it, as far as the question of one God and many gods is concerned in connection with a truly blessed life after death. For it is possible that those who gained fame for their most subtle and correct understanding of Plato, who is rightly ranked much higher than all philosophers of different nations, and who followed him, precisely because of this, speak about God in such a way that in Him lies the cause of being, and the beginning of understanding, and the order of life. Of these three provisions, one seems to relate to the natural part of philosophy, the other to the rational, and the third to the moral. For if man is created in such a way that through that which has excellence in him, he can reach that which surpasses everything, that is, the one, true, all-good God, without whom no nature exists, no teaching instructs, and no practice benefits; then He himself should be the subject of our search: since in Him everything is provided for us; and the subject of knowledge: since in Him everything is certain for us; and an object of love: since in Him everything is beautiful for us. Chapter V. That theology should be discussed primarily with the Platonists, in comparison with whose opinions the teachings of all other philosophers should be valued less. So, if Plato calls a person wise who imitates this God, who does not know and love Him and through communication with Him becomes blessed, then why should we subject others to analysis? No one has come closer to us than the philosophers of his school. They must yield not only to fabulous theology, which pleasantly occupies the souls of wicked people with tales of the crimes of the gods; and not only that civil theology in which unclean demons, seducing peoples devoted to earthly pleasures under the name of gods, have created for themselves out of human errors something like divine honors, with unclean wishes inciting their fans, supposedly for the purpose of honoring them, to watch theatrical performances of their crimes, and providing themselves with an amusing spectacle from the spectators themselves. If in this theology anything apparently decent is done in the churches, it is dishonored by the combined shamelessness of the theaters, and whatever vile thing happens in the theaters receives the approval of the churches. Not only Varro’s interpretations of these cults, which explained them in relation to heaven, earth, the seeds of mortal things and knowledge, must yield to them; and it is because the rituals do not at all have the meaning that he tries to give them, which is why his explanations do not lead to the truth; so also because even if this were so, then the rational soul should still not consider as God that which is placed below it by natural order: it should not place above itself, as gods, such things as above which the true God himself placed it. It is necessary to give in to them and not only what really served as an explanation for this cult, which Numa Pompilius tried to hide by burying with himself, and which the Senate ordered to be burned when it was dug up with a plow. In order not to be too strict with Numa in my assumptions, what he concealed was, of course, of the same kind that Alexander the Great wrote about to his mother, as revealed to him by a certain Leo, the high priest of Egypt 86; according to it, it turned out that not only Faun, Aeneas, Romulus, or even Hercules, Aesculapius, Liber, born of Semele, the Tyndarid brothers and all other mortals, revered by them as gods, were people, but even the gods of the oldest peoples, whom Cicero apparently sees in the Tusculans, without naming their names, such as: Jupiter, Juno, Saturn, Vulcan, Vesta and many others, which Varro tries to connect with parts or elements of the world. And that priest, as if frightened that he had revealed a great secret, begged Alexander to tell his mother what was written and order it to be thrown into the fire. So, I say, not only all this, which constitutes the content of two theologies, fabulous and civil, must yield to the Platonic philosophers, who recognized the true God as the Creator of things, and the Source of the light of truth, and the Giver of bliss; but to them, such great researchers of such a great God, even all those philosophers who, with a devoted mind to the body, saw the corporeal principles of nature, now in water, like Thales, now in the air, like Anaximenes, now in fire, like the Stoics, now in atoms, that is, in the smallest bodies that can be neither divisible nor perceptible, like Epicurus, must yield; as well as all others, which there is no need to enumerate, but who generally believed that the cause and beginning of things are either simple or complex bodies that do not have life, or living ones, but in any case - bodies. For some of them, like the Epicureans, believed that living things could come from inanimate things; others, that both living and nonliving things can come from living things, but, in any case, from bodies - only bodies. Thus, the Stoics thought that fire, that is, the body, which is one of the four elements of which this visible world consists, is both living and intelligent, and the creator of the world itself and everything that exists in it, and therefore this very fire was considered god. These and similar philosophers could only imagine what their hearts, fettered by the feelings of the flesh, imagined together with them. There was something in themselves that they did not see, and in their own imagination they pictured what they saw outside, and sometimes they did not see at all, but only thought. As the object of such thinking, it was no longer a body, but only a semblance of a body. The same thing from where this likeness of a body appeared in the soul was neither a body nor a likeness of a body; and in any case, where it came from and what judged its beauty or ugliness was better than what was judged. This was the mind of man and the nature of the rational soul, which is by no means a body; since even that likeness of the body, which appears to the thinking soul and forms the object of its judgment, is not the body itself. Consequently, it is neither earth, nor water, nor air, nor fire: none of these four bodies, called the four elements, of which the corporeal world is composed Further, if our soul is not a body, then how can God, the Creator of the soul, be a body? So, they too, as I said, must yield to the Platonists. But along with them, those who, although they were ashamed to claim that God is a body, must give in, but who believed that our souls are of the same nature as He. They were not deterred by this extreme variability of the soul, which it is criminal to attribute to God. But they said that the nature of the soul changes from the body; in itself it is unchangeable. On the same grounds they could say that the flesh receives wounds from this or that body; by itself it is invulnerable. That which absolutely cannot change cannot be changed by any thing; and therefore that which can receive change from the body can change from this or that thing, and therefore cannot be called in the truest sense of the word unchangeable. Chapter VI. The way of thinking of the Platonists in that part of philosophy which is called physical So, these philosophers, who deservedly enjoy greater fame than all the rest, realized that God is not a body at all, and therefore, in order to find God, they rejected bodies. They realized that everything that changes is not the supreme God; and therefore, in order to find the supreme God, they became above every soul and all changeable spirits. They understood, further, that every kind of any changeable thing, in which everything that exists exists, no matter how it exists and of whatever nature it may be, can find existence only from Him Who truly exists, for it exists invariably And as a result of this, as the entire totality of the world: images, properties, harmonious movement and elements located from heaven to earth, and all kinds of bodies existing in them, so does all life, whether it only nourishes and supports, what is it like in trees; or, having this, and feels what it is like in animals; or, having the first and second, in addition, he thinks what is in people; or, not needing nutrition, it only supports, feels and thinks, as in the angels - all this cannot exist without Him who simply exists: because for Him it is not another thing to exist and another thing to live, as if He could exist without living; and it is not another thing to live and another thing to think, as if He could live without thinking; and it is not another thing to think and another thing to be blessed, as if He could think and not be blessed; but to live, think and be blessed for Him means to exist. Taking into account this immutability and simplicity, they came to the conclusion that He created all this, and He Himself could not have been created by anyone. They reasoned like this: everything that exists is either body or life; but life is something better than the body; the image of the body is subject to the senses, and the way of life is comprehended by the mind. Therefore, they placed the image comprehended by the mind above the image subject to the senses. Subject to the senses we call that which can be perceived by bodily sight and touch; and comprehended by the mind is that which can be seen by the eye of the mind. Thus, there is no bodily beauty, either in the position of the body, as, for example, in a figure, or in movement, as, for example, in singing, about which a judgment could be made outside the soul. This could not possibly have happened if the best form of its kind had not existed within it, without loose mass, without the noise of voices, without the extension of time and space. But at the same time, if it were not changeable, one could not judge the sensory form better than another: the more gifted is better than the less gifted, the more educated is better than the less educated, the more experienced is better than the less experienced, and the same person, having become more developed, would not judge better later than before. And that which is capable of perceiving more or less is, without any doubt, changeable. From this, smart, learned and experienced people have concluded that there is a certain prototype, which in these things turns out to be changeable. So, when, in their opinion, the body and soul began to appear more or less beautiful, and if they lost all appearance, they would cease to exist altogether, they realized that there was something in which there was an unchangeable prototype that did not allow any comparison; and they quite rightly decided that in it lies the beginning of things, which was not created, but by which everything was created. So, “whatever can be known about God is obvious to them, because God has revealed it to them. For His invisible things, His eternal power and Godhead, have been visible from the creation of the world through the consideration of creatures” (Rom. 1:19–20). This is where we will finish our speech about that part of the Platonists’ philosophy that is called physical, i.e. natural. Chapter VII. How much the Platonists should be considered much superior to other philosophers in logic, i.e. in rational philosophy As for the teaching that forms the subject of the second part, which they call logic, that is, the rational part, there can be no thought of comparing with them those who posited the criterion of truth in bodily feelings and argued that by their incorrect and deceptive standard everything that constitutes the object of knowledge should be measured; so thought the Epicureans and all others like them; Even the Stoics thought so, who, passionately loving the art of argument and calling it dialectics, believed that the starting point for it should be bodily feelings. They argued that from these feelings the soul perceives those representations that they call ἐννοίαι, that is, representations of those things that they explain by means of definition, that the whole system of knowledge and teaching ramifies from them and is in connection with them. That is why, when they claim that only the wise are beautiful, I usually ask myself with great surprise: with what bodily senses did they see this beauty, with what carnal eyes did they consider the form and attractiveness of wisdom? The Platonists, to whom we give deserved preference over others, distinguished what is comprehended by the mind from what is perceived by the senses, without depriving the senses of what is possible for them and without giving them more than they are capable of. They argued that to study everything, mental light is necessary and that this very light is God, by whom everything was created. Chapter VIII. About the fact that in moral philosophy Platonists hold the lead The rest of philosophy is moral, which is also called by the Greek word ἠθικὴ. In it, the subject of study is the highest Good. Directing all our activities towards it, striving for it not for the sake of anything else, but only for its own sake and receiving it, we are not looking for anything more than we could be happy. That is why it is called the end, because for its sake we desire everything else, but we desire it only for its own sake. Some people made this happiness-giving Good dependent on the body, others on the soul, and others on both together. Finding that a person consists of soul and body, they thought that from one of these two or from both together happiness could flow for them in the form of some final good that would make them blessed and towards which they could direct all their activities, and did not look further for what they could direct it to. Therefore, those who added to this a third kind of good, called external, which includes: honor, glory, money and other things of the same kind, added it not in the form of a final good, that is, not one that should be desired for its own sake, but one that should be desired for the sake of another; and this good is good only for the good, and for the evil it is evil. Thus, those who sought the source of human good in the soul, or in the body, or in both, imagined it as nothing other than emanating from man. But some achieved this from the body, from the worst part of man, others from the soul, from the best part; and those who sought from both sought from the whole person. But whether they sought from any part or from the whole, in any case, they sought only from man. These differences, although there are three of them, produced not three, but many disagreements and sects among philosophers; because different people thought differently about the good of the body, and about the good of the soul, and about the good of both together. So, they all must yield to those philosophers who argued that it is not the blessed person who finds pleasure in the body or in the soul, but the one who finds pleasure in God; and does not find it as the soul finds it in the body, or in itself, or as in each other, but finds it as the eye does in the light, if anything like that can be compared with that, the property of which, if God helps, we will explain in another place. In the present case, it is enough to mention that, according to Plato’s definition, the end of goodness consists in a virtuous life; that it can only be achieved by one who has knowledge of God and who imitates Him; and that it is impossible to be blessed otherwise. Therefore, he had no doubt to identify philosophy with the love of God, whose nature is incorporeal. From this the conclusion is drawn that the one who thirsts for wisdom (for this is what a philosopher is) only becomes blessed when he begins to find pleasure in God. Although the one who enjoys what he loves is not always blessed, for many, loving what they should not love, are unhappy; and they are even more unhappy if they find pleasure in this; however, no one is happy if he does not enjoy what he loves. For even those who love things that do not deserve love consider themselves happy not by love, but by pleasure. So, when someone finds pleasure in what he loves, and he loves the true and highest Good, then who, except the most unfortunate, will deny that such a person is blessed? And Plato calls God such a true and highest Good; therefore, he makes it the duty of the philosopher to love God, so that he, since philosophy strives for a blessed life, finding pleasure in God as a result of love for God, would be blessed. Chapter IX. About philosophy, which is more consistent with the truth of the Christian faith So, no matter what philosophers adhere to the above-stated way of thinking about the true and highest God, namely: that He is both the Creator for creation, and Light for knowledge, and Good for activity; that in Him lies for us the beginning of nature, and the truth of teaching, and the happiness of life - will they be called Platonists, or will they give their sect some other name; let those who thought this way be only philosophers of the Ionian sense, and, moreover, the most important ones, like the same Plato and those who understood him well; or even those who held the same opinion will be next to Pythagoras, the Pythagoreans and other philosophers of the Italian persuasion; Let, finally, those who have comprehended this and taught it in this way be those considered to be the sages of other peoples: the Atlanteans, Libyans, Egyptians, Indians, Persians, Chaldeans, Scythians, Gauls, Spaniards and others; – we will prefer all of them to others and recognize them as the closest to us. Chapter X. How Exalted is the Religious Christian over philosophical theories A Christian, if he is familiar only with church literature, may not know the Platonists; may also have no idea that the Greeks had two kinds of philosophers - Ionian and Italian; However, he is not so ignorant of human things as not to know that philosophers teach either the love of wisdom, or even wisdom itself, and is wary of those who philosophize according to the elements of the world, and not according to God, by whom the world itself was created. He follows the apostolic commandment and firmly remembers what was said: “Take heed, brethren, lest anyone lead you away through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. II, 8). But so that he does not consider everyone like that, the same apostle told him about some: “What can be known about God is obvious to them, because God has revealed it to them. For His invisible things, His eternal power and Godhead, have been visible from the creation of the world by looking at what has been made” (Rom. 1:19-20). And in a speech to the Athenians, having expressed a great thought about God, which could be understood only by a few, namely: “In Him we live and move and have our being,” the apostle in addition says: “As also some of your poets have said” (Acts 17:28). But even these should be prudently guarded in the ways in which they are mistaken. For where it is said that through created things God showed them the invisible, which must be comprehended by the mind, it is also said there that they unrighteously honored God Himself, because they also gave divine honors to other things that were not necessary, befitting Him alone. “But how, having come to know God, they did not glorify Him as God and did not give thanks, but became futile in their speculations, and their foolish hearts were darkened: calling themselves wise, they became fools and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and birds, and four-footed animals, and reptiles” (Rom. I, 21-21). The Apostle makes reference here to the Romans, the Greeks, and the Egyptians, who were famous for their wisdom. But we will discuss this later. As for their similar way of thinking with us about the one God, the Creator of this universe, that He is not only more incorporeal than any body, but also more imperishable than all souls, that He is our Beginning, our Light, our Good - in this we, of course, prefer them to all others. If a Christian, not being familiar with their literature, does not use in his reasoning terms that he has not mastered, as, for example, they do not call in Latin natural or in Greek physics that part of philosophy that deals with the study of nature; rational, or logic, that which examines the question of how truth can be perceived; moral, or ifi-koy, the one in which we are talking about morals and the ultimate good that should be strived for, and the evil that should be avoided; then it does not follow from this that he does not know that from the one, true and all-good God we have received the nature by which we find ourselves created in His image, and the teaching from which we know both Him and ourselves, and the grace by which we, clinging to Him, become blessed. This is the reason why we prefer these philosophers to others. While other philosophers wasted their wit and their diligence in finding the causes of things and in determining the way of knowledge and life, these, having come to know God, found that in Him lies the reason for the structure of the universe, the light for the perception of truth and the source from which happiness is drawn. Whoever these philosophers are, whether they are Platonists or any others, but if they think about God like this, they think in accordance with us. We decided to talk about this mainly with the Platonists because their works are better known. The Greeks themselves, whose language is the most widespread among other peoples, glorified them everywhere. And the Latins, prompted by their superiority and special fame, more willingly studied their works, and by translating the latter into our language increased respect for them and facilitated their understanding. Chapter XI. Where could Plato acquire the knowledge that brought him closer to Christian Science? Some, united to us in the grace of Christ, are surprised when they hear or read that Plato had such a way of thinking about God, which they find very close to the truth of our religion. As a result, some thought that while he was in Egypt, he listened to the prophet Jeremiah or during the journey himself read the prophetic writings. I have expressed opinions of this kind in some of my writings 87 . But the careful calculation of time, which is the subject of historical chronicle, shows that Plato was born almost a hundred years after Jeremiah prophesied. Then, although Plato lived for eighty-one years, from the year of his death until the time when Ptolemy, king of Egypt, begged from Judea the prophetic books of the Jewish people and took care of their translation and correspondence with the help of 70 Jewish men who knew Greek, almost sixty years passed, as it turns out. Therefore, during that journey, Plato could neither see Jeremiah, who had died so many years earlier, nor read these writings, which had not yet been translated into Greek, in which he was strong. It is possible, however, that due to his fiery curiosity, he became acquainted with both the Egyptian and these writings through a translator - not, of course, in the sense of making a written translation of them, which, as is known, Ptolemy, who knew how to instill fear with his royal power, was able to achieve only in the form of a special favor; but in that he could find out from the conversation how much he was able to understand their content. This assumption is suggested by the following: the book of Genesis begins like this. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters” (Genesis 1:1-2). And Plato in Timaeus - in an essay devoted to the question of the structure of the world - claims that in this work of His hands, God first of all united earth and fire into one. But it is known that Plato assigns fire the place of heaven. Thus, this thought has some similarity with that expressed in the words: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Further, Plato represents water and air as mediating elements that mutually connect the two mentioned elements. This suggests that this is exactly how he understood what was said in Scripture: “The Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.” Paying little attention to the sense in which the word Spirit is usually used in the Jewish scriptures, he could, perhaps, think that in the above passage four elements are meant, since air is also called spirit. Then nothing is expressed with such force in these sacred Scriptures as Plato's well-known opinion that a philosopher is a man who loves God. And the main thing that most of all prompts me to almost agree with the opinion that Plato was not unfamiliar with those books is the following: when the angel conveyed the words of God to Saint Moses, when the latter asked the name of the One who commanded him to go to the Jewish people to free them from Egypt, he was given the answer: “I am the seven [Jehovah]. And he said: Thus say to the children of Israel: He who is has sent me to you” (Ex. III, 14), that is, as if in comparison with Him, Who exists truly, since He is unchangeable, everything that is created changeable does not exist; It was precisely this thought that Plato passionately adhered to and diligently pursued. And I do not know whether the same is found anywhere in the books of those who lived before Plato, with the exception of this place where it is said: “I am the seven (Jehovah). And he said: Thus say to the children of Israel: Jehovah has sent me to you.” Chapter XII. The fact that the Platonists, although they thought correctly about the one and true God, nevertheless believed that sacrifices should be made to many gods But no matter where Plato learned this, whether from the books of ancient writers who preceded him, or, what is more likely, from that source of which the apostle says: “What can be known about God is obvious to them, because God has made it known to them; for His invisible things, His eternal power and Divinity, have been visible from the creation of the world through the consideration of creation” (Rom. 1:19-20), in any case, I believe that I have sufficiently explained why I chose the Platonist philosophers in order to talk with them about what is at stake in the question I just posed from natural theology, namely: should one, for the sake of the happiness that will be after death, serve one God or many gods? I chose these philosophers primarily because, as much as they thought better than others about the one God who created heaven and earth, they enjoyed fame and fame more than others. And although Aristotle, a student of Plato, a man of excellent intelligence and in his eloquence, although inferior to Plato, but superior to many others, founded the school of the Peripatetics (because he was in the habit of reasoning while walking) and even during Plato’s lifetime managed to attract a lot of students to his sect with the glory of his name, and after Plato’s death Speusippus, his sister’s son, and Xenocrates, his favorite student, took his place in his school, called the Academy - why both they themselves and their successors received the name Academicians: however, posterity valued the followers of Plato above others to such an extent that the most famous of the later philosophers, who chose Plato as their leader, did not want to be called either Peripatetics or Academicians, but only Platonists. Of these, the Greeks received particular fame: Plotinus, Iamblichus and Porphyry. Of those who wrote in both languages, that is, in Greek and Latin, the Platonist Apuleius Africanus is famous. But all of them, and others of the same persuasion, as well as Plato himself, believed that worship should be performed to many gods. Chapter XIII. On the opinion of Plato, according to which he admits only good gods and lovers of virtue Although they differ with us in opinions on many other very important subjects, however, regarding what I just mentioned - a subject of no less importance and directly related to the question I posed - I would first of all ask them: which gods should, in their opinion, be worshiped, good or evil, or both good and evil? In Plato we find the opinion that all gods are good and that there is absolutely not a single evil god 88. It follows that the cult, of course, must be performed by the good, because only then will it be performed by the gods; for they will not be gods if they are not good. If this is so (and is it proper to think about the gods otherwise?), then the opinion of some who believed that evil gods should be propitiated with sacrifices so that they do not harm is completely false; and the good gods should be called upon to help 89 . For the evil ones are not gods at all. Further, they say that due respect for the institutions of the cult should be given to the good. But who are these who love stage games and demand that they be considered divine things and given in their honor? Their power indicates their actual existence; but what they want shows that they are extremely evil. Plato’s way of thinking about stage games is well known: he believed that the poets themselves, because they compose poems so unworthy of the greatness and goodness of the gods, should be expelled from civil society. So, who are these gods who are arguing about stage games with Plato himself? The latter does not allow the gods to be dishonored by supposedly invented crimes, but they order to honor them for precisely these crimes. Then, when they ordered the restoration of these very games, then, demanding shameful things, they even showed embitterment: they took away Titus Latinius’s son, and he himself, for disobedience to their orders, was given an illness and freed from it only when he fulfilled these orders. 90 Plato believed that they, such evil ones, should not be feared, and pursuing his thoughts with strict consistency, he did not hesitate to remove from the people to whom good laws were given all the sacrilegious chatter of the poets, in which these gods, through complicity in the unclean, delight. On the other hand, this Plato, as I already mentioned in the second book, Labeo classifies as a demigod. But the same Labeo believes that evil deities should be propitiated with bloody sacrifices and the same kind of public prayers, and good deities with games and similar things, as if expressing pleasure, things. What does it mean that the demigod Plato, with such bold persistence, deprives these pleasures, considering them shameful, not to just any demigods, but to gods, and good gods at that? These gods themselves, however, refute the opinion of Labeo: because in Latinia they showed themselves not only voluptuous and busy with trifles, but also cruel and arousing horror. Let the Platonists explain all this to us, who, following the opinion of their teacher, consider all gods to be good, honest, and wise in their virtues, and consider it criminal to think about any of the gods differently. “We’ll explain,” they say. Well, let's listen with due attention. Chapter XIV. About the opinion of those who divide rational souls into three kinds: on the gods of heaven, on demons of the air and on people of the earth “All living beings,” they say, “in which there is a rational soul, are divided into three kinds: gods, people and demons. Gods occupy the highest place, people - the lowest, and demons - the middle. The abode of the gods is the sky, the abode of people is the earth, and the demons are the air. According to the different dignity of the place they occupy, their nature also differs. The gods are more powerful than both humans and demons; people are lower than both gods and demons, both in the category of elements and in their significance. Demons, therefore, occupy the middle: how much they should be considered lower than the gods, as having a lower location compared to them; should be considered as superior to people as those placed above them. They are related to the gods by the immortality of their bodies, and to people by their spiritual passions. Therefore,” they continue, “it is not surprising that demons find pleasure in shameless spectacles and in the fantasies of poets; they are carried away by human inclinations, from which the gods are far removed and in every way alien. From this it follows that Plato, by declaring poetic inventions impious and prohibiting them, deprived the enjoyment of stage games not from the gods, who are all good and stand above this, but from the demons.” Although similar opinions are found among others, Apuleius, the Madaurian Platonist, even wrote an entire book about this exceptional subject, which he entitled “On the God of Socrates.” In this book, he examines in detail and explains what kind of deity was that Socrates had with him and with which he was in a kind of friendship - a deity who usually warned him, as they say, not to do something when what he was thinking of doing was supposed to have an unhappy outcome. He speaks quite clearly and proves with complete thoroughness that it was not a god, but a demon, developing with strict consistency the mentioned opinion of Plato about the high position of the gods, the low of people and the average of demons. But if this is really so, then for what purpose did Plato decide, expelling poets from civil society, to take away theatrical pleasures, if not from the gods, then at least from demons, if not to induce the human soul, although still placed in mortal members, to despise, out of respect for virtue, the vile commands of demons and to condemn and prohibit this in the highest degree honestly, since it was the highest degree of demand on the part of demons shameful. So, one thing: either Apuleius was mistaken, and the deity friendly to Socrates was not of this kind; or Plato contradicted himself, in one case honoring demons, and in another eliminating demonic amusements from the best organized civil society; or Socrates' friendship with the demon should not be considered to bring special honor. By the way, Apuleius himself blushed to such an extent because of this friendship that he inscribed his book “On the God of Socrates,” whereas according to the content of his study, in which he distinguishes between gods and demons with such care and thoroughness, he should have inscribed “On the Demon of Socrates.” He wanted to show this better in the study itself than in the title of the book. Thanks to common sense, which enlightened humanity, the name of demons inspired disgust in everyone, or almost everyone, to such an extent that if someone not familiar with the reasoning of Apuleius, in which demons are given a certain honorable position, had read the title of the book “On the Demon of Socrates,” he would not have thought that this man was in his right mind. But what did Apuleius himself find in the demons that deserved praise, except for the subtlety and strength of their bodies and a comparatively superior habitat? For about their morals, when he speaks about all demons in general, he not only says nothing good, but, on the contrary, says a lot of bad things; so that, having read his book, absolutely no one will be surprised that they wanted to have stage abomination among the divine things, and, trying to pass themselves off as gods, could enjoy the crimes of the gods; but everyone will find that everything in their cult that evokes laughter through its obscene solemnity or disgust through its shameful cruelty is entirely consistent with their properties. Chapter XV. That neither aerial bodies nor higher habitats give demons superiority over people Taking all this into account, a truly religious soul devoted to the true God, of course, does not recognize demons as better than themselves just because they have better bodies. Otherwise, she would recognize herself as the best and many animals that surpass us in subtlety of feelings, greater ease and speed of movements, and strength and durability of bodies. What kind of person can compare with the eyesight of eagles and kites? Who can smell like dogs? Who with the speed of movements - with hares, deer, birds? Who by force - with lions and elephants? Who has longevity with snakes, which, by shedding their skin, shed, they say, old age and return to youth? Just as we are better than all of them with our minds and thinking, so we must be better than the demons with our kind and honest life. For this reason, divine providence gave those whom we surpass in power some stronger bodily gifts, in order to remind us through this that with much greater diligence we must improve in ourselves what we surpass them with; and so that we learn to despise the very bodily superiority that demons have over us, preferring to this an honest life, which gives us an advantage over them - so that we, for our part, receive the immortality of bodies, but not the kind that is associated with an eternity of torment, but the kind that is preceded by the purity of souls. To attach such importance to the height of a place (i.e., to the fact that demons live in the air, and we live on earth) that, because of this, we recognize their superiority over us, would be extremely ridiculous. Thus, we would recognize the superiority of ourselves and all birds. True, birds, when they get tired of flying or when they need food, descend to the ground to rest or feed; which they say demons don't do. But will they really begin to assert on this basis that both birds are superior to us, and demons are superior to birds themselves? If you think so extremely stupidly, then there is no reason, due to the fact that demons are in the highest element, to consider them worthy of religious worship on our part. How could it happen that the birds of the air are not only not superior to us earthly ones, but are also subordinate to us due to the dignity of the rational soul that is within us; in the same way it could happen that demons, although more airy than we earthly ones, are by no means better because the air is higher than the earth; on the contrary, people should be considered superior to them on the basis that their (demons') despair cannot be compared with the hope of pious people. Yes, and Plato’s opinion, according to which he compares and distributes the four elements so that between the two extreme ones, the most mobile fire and the motionless earth, he places air and water; so that as much as air is higher than water, and fire is higher than air, water is also higher than earth - this very opinion of Plato sufficiently convinces us that the dignity of living beings is not measured by the degrees of the elements. The same Apuleius calls man an earthly animal, although he is placed much higher than aquatic animals, while Plato puts water above the earth: he thus makes it clear to us that when determining the dignity of souls, we should not adhere to the order that is seen in the gradual improvement of bodies; but it is possible that the best soul can dwell in a lower body, and the worst in a higher one. Chapter XVI. Opinion of the Platonist Apuleius on the morals and activities of demons Speaking about the morals of demons, the same Platonist claims that they are agitated by the same spiritual passions as people, are irritated by insults, are inclined to mercy by obsequiousness and gifts, love honor, enjoy various sacred rites and become angry if any omission is made in these rites. By the way, these, according to him, include the predictions of augurs, haruspices, soothsayers and dreams; From them come the miracles of magicians. Giving them a brief definition, he says: “Demons are animal by genus, subject to passions by soul, reasonable by mind, airy by body, eternal by time; Of these five properties, the first three are the same as ours, the fourth belongs exclusively to them, and the fifth is common to them with the gods.” But I find that of the first three, which they have with us, two they have in common with the gods. For they also call the gods animals, when, assigning each kind of creature its element, they include us among the earthly ones, along with others who live and are gifted with sensation on earth, among the aquatic ones - fish and other swimming ones, among the airy ones - demons, and among the ethereal ones - gods. Thus, if demons are animals by gender, then this makes them related not only to people, but also to gods and to animals; if they are intelligent in mind, this makes them related to the gods and people; if they are eternal in time, this is common with some gods; if you are passionate at heart, you are passionate only with people; if they are airy throughout the body, then only they are alone. The fact that they are animals by their kind is a small merit: because they are the same as animals; that they are reasonable in mind is not an advantage over us: because we are also reasonable; that they are eternal in time - what good is that if they are not blessed? Better temporary happiness than eternal disaster. If their souls are subject to passions, then how does this constitute superiority over us, when we are also subject to them, and this would not even exist if we were not so pitiful? They are airy in body, but what does this matter, since any nature of the soul is preferred to any body; and therefore the religious cult to which the soul is obliged can in no case be obligatory in relation to an object that is lower than the soul. If he added virtue, wisdom, happiness to the distinctive properties of demons and said that they have this eternal and common with the gods, he would really say something desirable and very respectable; but it would not follow from this that we should, for this reason, worship them as God, but rather it would follow that we should know Him from Whom they received this. How much less deserving of divine veneration are the aerial animals under these conditions, when they are rational so that they can be pitiful, and because they are subject to passions because they are insignificant, they are eternal so that they cannot end their pitiful state. Chapter XVII. Should a person honor those spirits from whose vices he must free himself? Bypassing the rest, I will focus on one thing that, according to him, demons have in common with them, that is, on spiritual passions. If all four elements are filled each with their own animals, fire and air are immortal, and water and earth are mortal; then I ask: why are the souls of demons agitated by turmoil and storms of passion? For this is real confusion, which in Greek is called πάθος, which is why he calls them according to the soul subject to passions (passiva), since from the word πάθος the word passio (passion) is the movement of the soul that is contrary to reason. Why does this happen in the souls of demons, but not in the souls of brutes? Because if something similar appears among brutes, it does not cause confusion, since it is not contrary to reason, which brutes do not have. In people, such confusion is caused either by stupidity or by their pitiful state. We are not yet blessed with the perfection of wisdom that is promised to us in the end, upon liberation from this mortality. The gods, they say, do not experience this turmoil because they are not only eternal, but also blessed. And they seem to have the same rational souls, but souls completely clean from all infection and ulcers. But if the gods are not indignant at the turmoil because they are blessed animals and not pitiful ones; and animals are not indignant because they cannot be either blessed or pitiful, it remains to conclude that demons, like people, are indignant at the turmoil because they are not blessed animals, but pitiful ones. So, by what unreason or, rather, madness, does a certain religion subject us to demons, while true religion frees us from the depravity with which we are similar to them? At a time when demons (as Apuleius is forced to admit, although for the most part he spares them and considers them worthy of divine honors) are angry, true religion tells us not to be irritated by anger, but to curb it. While demons are lured by gifts, true religion instructs us not to patronize anyone as a result of receiving gifts. While demons take pleasure in honor, true religion tells us not to attach any importance to it. While demons are haters in relation to some people, they are friends in relation to others, not because of a prudent and calm judgment, but because of their spiritual disposition and, as he himself puts it, passionate, true religion commands us to love even our enemies. Finally, true religion commands us to suppress in ourselves every disturbance of the heart and hesitation of the mind, every spiritual turmoil and storm that, according to him, disturbs and worries the demons. What reason, after this, other than stupidity and pathetic error, makes you humiliate yourself through veneration before those with whom you do not want to be similar, and religiously worship those whom you do not want to imitate, while the essence of religion is in imitation of the one you worship? Chapter XVIII. What kind of religion is it that teaches that people, in order to gain the favor of the good gods, must use the intercession of demons? So, Apuleius, together with others who adhere to the same way of thinking, in vain assigns the honor to demons because, assigning them an intermediate position in the air between the ethereal sky and the earth and taking into account what Plato allegedly said that none of the gods enters into communication with people, they imagine that they convey to the gods the prayers of people, and to people what, according to their prayers, they manage to achieve from the gods. Those who believed this considered it indecent for people to have intercourse with the gods, and the gods with people; but they considered it decent for demons to have intercourse with both gods and people, on the one hand, presenting requests, and on the other, delivering what was granted: so that a person, for example, pious and averse to criminal magic, in order to be heard by the gods, should take such intercessors who love exactly what, for dislike of which, he becomes worthy of being heard willingly and readily! Thus, they love stage disgraces, which chastity does not like; they love to do evil through a thousand tricks of criminal magic, which innocence does not like. Therefore, both chastity and innocence, if they thought about asking the gods for something, could receive what they asked not because of their merits, but only through the mediation of their enemies! But why is he trying to justify poetic inventions and theatrical mockery? If (in their opinion) the sense of shame inherent in man so offends itself that it not only loves the shameful, but also considers it pleasing to the deity, then we will oppose this Plato, their teacher and a man who enjoys such high authority among them. Chapter XIX. About the wickedness of the magical art, which relies under the protection of demons As for the magical arts, which for some extremely wicked people are even an object of vanity, why don’t I refer against them to public opinion itself? If they are the work of deities worthy of worship, then on what basis are they punished with such severity by the laws? Or maybe it was the Christians who established these laws punishing the magical arts? In what other sense than in the fact that these criminal things were considered undoubtedly harmful to the human race, the famous poet says: I swear, dear, to the gods; I swear by you, dear, And with your sweet head: I involuntarily have to run To the magical arts 91 ? What he said elsewhere has the same meaning: I saw that crops were being transferred to other places 92; because through this harmful and criminal knowledge, as they say, other people's harvests were transferred to other fields. Was it not in the Twelve Tables, that is, in the most ancient Roman laws, that, as Cicero mentions, punishment was established for those who did this? Yes, finally, was Apuleius himself accused of magic by Christian judges? If he had known magic as a divine art, pious and corresponding to the actions of divine powers, he, when he was accused of it, would not only have had to confess to it, but also openly defend it, blaming rather the laws that prohibited and condemned what should have been recognized as amazing and worthy of respect. If he had done so, he would, perhaps, have won the judges over to the side of his opinion; or, if they had remained faithful to the view of unjust laws and had subjected him to the death penalty for defending and praising this, his soul would have been rewarded with well-deserved gifts by the demons, for whose sake, in order to protect their divine actions, he was not afraid to sacrifice his human life. Thus, our martyrs, when they were accused, as if of a criminal offense, of professing the Christian religion, which, in their contemplation, brought them salvation and eternal glory, did not renounce it in order to avoid temporary punishments; on the contrary, they, confessing it, confessing and preaching it, enduring everything for it honestly and courageously and dying with pious calm of spirit, made the very laws by which it was prohibited blush, and caused their change. From this same Platonic philosopher a very extensive and eloquent speech has come down to us, in which he proves that he is not involved in the crimes of magic; he tried to prove his innocence by denying that he did what was forbidden to do. But after all, all the miracles of the magicians, whom he recognized as rightly deserving of condemnation, are performed under the instructions and action of demons: on what basis does he consider them worthy of veneration, claiming that they are necessary for the transmission of our prayers to the gods - they are the works of which we must avoid if we want our prayers to reach the true God? I ask, further, what kind of human prayers, in his opinion, are the demons handing over to the good gods, magical or permitted? If magical, the gods do not want such; if they are permitted, they do not want through such people. Let us imagine that a repentant sinner is praying, and he repents precisely because he has done something magical: will he really receive forgiveness through the mediation of those who prompted him and helped him fall into the crime he laments? Or perhaps the demons themselves, in order to be able to beg forgiveness from those who repent, are the first to repent of having deceived them? But no one ever said this about demons. If this were so, those who would wish to earn the grace of forgiveness through repentance would not dare to in any way demand divine honors for themselves. There is disgusting pride, here there is humiliation that evokes compassion. Chapter XX. Is it likely that good gods would rather enter into relations with demons than with people? But extreme, they say, and inevitable need forces demons to be intermediaries between gods and people: on behalf of people to represent their desires, and from the gods to convey what they deigned to do. What kind of need is this, what is this inevitable necessity? Then they answer that no god enters into intercourse with man. Good is the holiness of God, who does not enter into intercourse with a humbly asking man, but enters into intercourse with a contemptuously arrogant demon! He does not enter into communication with a person who repents, but enters into communication with a deceiving demon; does not enter into a relationship with a person resorting to a deity, but with a demon posing as a deity; does not enter into contact with a person asking for forgiveness, but enters with a demon who inclines to obscenity; does not enter into communication with a person who, in philosophical writings, expels poets from a well-ordered civil society, but enters into communication with a demon who demands poetic mockery from state authorities and pontiffs at stage games; does not enter into a relationship with a person who forbids inventing the crimes of the gods, but with a demon who delights in the spectacle of the false crimes of the gods; does not enter into communication with a person who punishes the transgressions of magicians according to fair laws, but enters into communication with a demon who teaches magical arts and gives them power; He does not deal with a person who avoids imitating demons, but he deals with a demon who is trying to deceive a person. Chapter XXI. Using demons as messengers and intermediaries, do not the gods know that they are deceiving them, or wish it so? Of course (we will be told) that the inevitable necessity of such nonsense and absurdity lies in the fact that the ethereal gods, in their care of humanity, would know absolutely nothing that earthly people are doing if the aerial demons had not told them about it; because the ether is high and far from the earth, and the air is adjacent to both the ether and the earth. Amazing wisdom! Presenting all their gods as the best, what do they think about them? They think that they care about human affairs, for otherwise they would not be worthy of honor; but at the same time, they believe that because of the distance they do not know about human affairs, in order to thereby show the need for demons and thereby justify their veneration - since through them the gods can only learn about what is happening among people and help people where they need it. But if this is so, then demons are better known to the good gods due to the commonality of their bodies than man is known due to his good soul. An extremely regrettable necessity, or better yet, a ridiculous and disgusting vanity, so as not to consider the deity itself to be vanity! After all, if the gods are able to see our soul with their spirit free from corporeality, then they do not need the mediation of demons for this. If the ethereal gods physically observe the physical manifestations of mental movements, such as facial expressions, speech, gestures, and from here they conclude that the demons are conveying to them, then they too can easily be deceived by the lies of the demons. And if the divinity of the gods cannot be deceived by demons, then the same divinity cannot but know what we are doing. I would like to know whether the demons conveyed to the gods that Plato did not like the poetic fictions about the crimes of the gods, and whether they hid the fact that they liked them; or they hid both and wanted the gods not to know about it at all; or they brought to the attention of the gods both the pious wisdom of Plato in relation to the gods, and their daring passionate intentions in relation to the gods; or, finally, having decided to leave the opinion of Plato unknown to the gods, who did not want the unholy licentiousness of the poets to dishonor the gods with fictitious crimes, they were not ashamed and were not afraid to express their own lewdness, which is why they love theatrical games that solemnly display the ugliness of the gods? From these four questions I have posed, let them choose which one they want, and let them understand how many bad ideas about good gods are given in each of them. If they choose the first, they will be forced to admit that the good gods were not able to live with good Plato at a time when he forbade insulting them, but had to live with demons who were delighted with the insults inflicted on them: because the good gods could know a person who was far from them only through the medium of evil demons, and they could not know the latter, although they were closest to them in place. If they choose the second question and say that the demons hid both of them, so that the gods remained completely ignorant both of Plato’s pious law and of the sacrilegious entertainment of the demons: in this case, what useful things can the gods know through the mediation of human affairs through the demons, when they do not know what, in honor of the good gods, contrary to the intentions of the evil demons, is given in the form of a law by the religious feeling of good people? If they choose the third and answer that through the demons, the gods became aware of not only the opinion of Plato, who forbade insulting the gods, but also the obscenity of the demons, who were delighted with these insults, then what will this kind of message be: just a notice or a direct insult? And the gods themselves: did they hear so calmly about both, and were they so indifferent to both, that they not only did not deprive access to the insidious demons who loved and did things contrary to the dignity of the gods and the religious feeling of Plato, but also used their evil, but close means to transfer gifts to Plato, although good, but distant from them? After all, a number of elements bound them, as it were, with a kind of chain, so that they had to be in communication with those who blasphemed them, and could not know about one and the other with those who defended them and did not have the power to change the relative gravity of air and earth! If they finally choose the fourth question, it will be the worst. Who, in fact, will come to terms with the idea that the demons informed the gods about the criminal inventions of the poets regarding the immortal gods, about the demons’ own passionate love for all this and about the most pleasant pleasure they received from it, but kept silent about the fact that Plato, with philosophical courage, believed that all such things should be alien to the best constituted republic? In this case, the good gods will be forced to learn through such messengers only about bad actions and properties, and, moreover, not from extraneous villains, but from the same messengers, and will be deprived of the opportunity to know about the opposite good opinions of philosophers, although the first is an insult, and the latter serves to the honor of the gods themselves! Chapter XXII. That, contrary to the opinion of Apuleius, the veneration of demons must be rejected So, if in each of the four mentioned cases unworthy ideas are given about the gods, then it remains to recognize the completely incredible opinion in which Apuleius and a number of other philosophers are trying to convince him of the same way of thinking as him, that demons occupy the middle between gods and people, as messengers and intermediaries, transmitting our prayers from us, and bringing the help of the gods to us; but they represent themselves as spirits, seized by a passion to harm, completely alien to justice, arrogant and proud, tormented by envy, cunning and insidious. Although they dwell in the air, since, having been cast down from the heights of heaven, as a punishment for their irretrievable fall, they are condemned to be imprisoned in it as in a prison suitable for them; nevertheless, due only to the fact that air occupies a place above earth and water, in their dignity they are not higher than people, who very easily take precedence over them not with their earthly body, but with the piety of the soul, since they choose the true God as their assistant. But over many who are unworthy to participate in the true religion, they actually dominate as captives and humble servants, because by false miracles or predictions they have convinced most of them to consider themselves gods. They could not convince some, who looked a little more closely at their criminal course of action, that they were gods; and therefore they presented themselves as intermediaries between gods and people, as intercessors. But even those people who did not even think of giving them this honor and did not consider them gods, because they found them evil, and imagined all gods to be good, still did not dare to assert that they were unworthy of divine veneration. This is mainly because they did not want to offend the peoples who, through ancient superstition, honored them with so many cult rites and churches. Chapter XXIII. What was Hermes Trismegistus’ opinion about idolatry, and how could he have known about the impending destruction of Egyptian superstitions? Hermes the Egyptian, also called Trismegistus, 93 held a different way of thinking regarding them and expressed it in his writings. For Apuleius, although he did not recognize them as gods, did not, however, separate their veneration from the worship of the supreme gods: because he attributed to them some kind of mediation between people and gods so that they seemed to be intercessors of people before these gods. This Egyptian argued that some gods were created by the Supreme God, and others by people. He who hears what I have said will think that we are talking about idols, since they are the work of human hands. Meanwhile, he said that the visible and perceptible statues represent, as it were, the bodies of gods, and in these bodies there are some spirits attracted there, who have part of the power to either cause harm or fulfill some desires of those who show them divine honor and worship. To bind invisible spirits through some art to visible things of a bodily nature so that the latter are, as it were, animate bodies, images dedicated and subordinate to those spirits, according to him, means creating gods, and people supposedly have this great and amazing power to create gods. I will quote the words of the Egyptian as they are translated into our language. “Since we,” he says, “have to talk about the affinity and community between people and gods, then learn, Asclepius, the power and strength of man. Just as the Lord and Father is the Creator of the heavenly gods, so man is the founder of those gods who are kept in churches near man.” And a little further: “In this imitation of the deity, humanity remained faithful to its nature and origin: just as the Father and Lord created the eternal gods so that they would be like him, so humanity gave the gods its own form and its likeness.” When Asclepius, to whom he was mainly speaking, asked him in response: “Are you talking about statues, Trismegistus?”, he continued: “About statues, Asclepius; Isn't it hard for you to believe this? Yes, of statues animated by feeling and full of spirit, and exhibiting various powers; about statues that know the future in advance and predict it through lots, divination, dreams and many other things, striking people with diseases and healing these same diseases, bringing them sadness and joy, depending on their merits. Don’t you know, Asclepius, that Egypt is an image of heaven, or rather, the translation and bringing down to earth of everything that is commanded and that is carried out in heaven; and if you can say so, then it’s even more accurate - is our country a church for the whole world? But nevertheless, since it is proper for a wise man to know everything in advance, you also need to know. The time will come when it turns out that the Egyptians, in their piety, served the deity with religious zeal in vain, and then their entire cult, having lost its meaning, will turn out to be a fraud.” Then Hermes goes into detail on this subject, apparently predicting the time when the Christian religion, the more true and holy it is, the more powerfully and freely it will overthrow all false fabrications, in order, by the grace of the truest Savior, to free man from those gods which man himself has made, and to subject him to that God who made man himself. But when making such predictions, Hermes speaks as a friend of these same demonic mockeries and does not openly name Christianity. Since the cessation and destruction of that which, the observance of which preserved the semblance of heaven for Egypt, was imminent, he limited himself to predicting this, filled with a kind of sadness, mourning such a future. He was one of those about whom the apostle says that “how, having come to know God, they did not glorify Him as God, and did not give thanks, but became futile in their speculations, and their foolish hearts were darkened; calling themselves wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man” (Rom. 1:21–23), and other things that would take a long time to mention. For he says much about the true God and Creator of the world such as is contained in the Scriptures. And I do not understand how this darkening of the heart brought him to the point that he wanted people to forever remain slaves of the gods, who, according to him, were created by people, and mourned that this would be destroyed in the future. As if there was anything more unfortunate than a person over whom his own inventions dominate? It is much easier to admit that, by honoring as gods those whom man created, man himself will cease to be a man, than that, thanks to his veneration, those whom man has created could become gods. It is more likely that “man will not remain in honor,” but through foolishness “will become like the animals that perish” (Ps. 49:13), than that the human creation will become higher than the creation of God, created in the image of God, that is, man himself. Therefore, a person really betrays the Creator if he gives power over himself to his own creation. It was this vanity, this deception, these evil and sacrilegious things that Hermes the Egyptian mourned, knowing that the time would come when they would no longer exist; and mourned with the same shamelessness with which he knew it indiscreetly. It was not the Holy Spirit who revealed this to him, as he did to the holy prophets, who, foreseeing this, said with delight: “Can a man make gods for himself, who are not gods?” (Jer. XVI, 20). And in another place: “And it will come to pass in that day, says the Lord of hosts, that I will destroy the names of idols from this land, and they will be mentioned no more” (Zech. XIII, 2). In particular, about Egypt - which directly concerns this subject - Saint Isaiah prophesied like this: “And the idols of Egypt will shake at His presence, and the heart of Egypt will melt in it” (Is. XIX, 1), and so on in the same way. Among the same prophets there were those who, knowing what was about to happen, expressed joy when it happened. Such was Simeon, such was Anna, who rejoiced at the birth of Jesus that had just taken place (Luke II, 28:38); Such was Elizabeth, who learned by the Spirit that His conception had just taken place (Luke. 1:43); such was Peter, who, according to the revelation of the Father, said: “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Matthew XVI: 16). And this Egyptian was predicted by the time of his death, which was about to come, by those spirits who said to the Lord present in the flesh with trembling: “What have you to do with us, Jesus, Son of God? You came here before the time to torment us” (Matthew VIII, 29). They said this because it was unexpected for them: for although they knew that it would happen, they believed that it would happen later; or because this torment was the name given to the contempt to which they were subjected as soon as they were recognized. And this was before the time, that is, before the time of judgment, at which they would have to undergo eternal condemnation along with all the people who remained in communion with them. Thus speaks religion, which does not deceive and is not deceived, - speaks without imitating him, who, wavering to and fro, is “carried away by every wind of doctrine” (Eph. IV, 14) and, mixing truth with lies, appears to be mourning the destruction of religion, which he himself then recognizes as error. Chapter XXIV. With what frankness does Hermes speak about the error of his ancestors, yet mourning its destruction After many considerations, he returns again to the same thing and speaks of the gods created by people as follows: “But regarding this, what we have already said is enough. Let us return again to man and his mind, this divine gift from which man received the name of a rational animal. What is said about man is not so surprising (although surprising). The most amazing thing is that man was able to invent the divine nature and give it actual existence. Since our great-grandfathers were greatly mistaken in the concept of gods, distinguished by unbelief and aversion to cults and divine religion, they invented the art of making gods. Having invented this art, they gave it a corresponding natural force; giving the latter, since they could not create souls, then, calling up the souls of demons or angels, they put these souls into holy images and divine mysteries, so that through them the idols acquired the power to do good and evil.” I don’t know if the demons themselves could, if they wanted, speak out as openly as he did. “Since,” he says, “our great-grandfathers were greatly mistaken in the concept of gods, they were distinguished by unbelief and aversion to the cult and divine religion, they invented the art of making gods.” Did he at least say that they were “a little mistaken” and therefore invented this art of making gods; or did he find it sufficient to say simply, “they were mistaken,” without adding, “they were greatly mistaken”? So, the art of making gods was invented by this strong error and unbelief of people who had an aversion to cult and divine religion. And yet, this learned man mourns the upcoming fall of this human art of creating gods, invented by strong delusion, unbelief and aversion of the soul from the cult and divine religion, as the fall of religion. Was it not a divine force that forced him to expose the error of his ancestors, and was it not a demonic force, on the other hand, that forced him to mourn the impending execution of the demons? After all, if his forefathers invented the art of making gods as a result of a strong error regarding the concept of gods, as a result of unbelief and the aversion of the soul from the cult and true religion, then what is surprising if what was done by this disgusting art that was hostile to the divine religion will be destroyed by the divine religion, when truth corrects error, faith exposes unbelief and conversion replaces disgust? If he had said without explaining the reasons that his great-grandfathers had invented the art of making gods, we, as far as we adhere to the correct and pious way of thinking, would come to the conclusion that they would in no way have reached this art, or would not have deviated from the truth, if they had thought about God worthy of God, if they had turned their attention to the cult and religion of the Divine. Then we would show that the reasons for this art lie in the strong delusion of people, in unbelief and in the aversion of the erring and unfaithful soul from the divine religion - the shamelessness of those who resist the truth would, to some extent, still be tolerated. But if he himself, who is most surprised in man by the power of this art, which gives him the opportunity to make gods, and who grieves that the time will come when all these images of gods established by people will even be ordered to be destroyed by laws; if he himself expresses and defines with precision the reasons why things have come to this, and says that his great-grandfathers invented this art of making gods due to strong error, disgust from the cult and divine religion: then what remains to be said, or better to do, if not to thank as much as possible to the Lord our God, who destroyed all this for reasons contrary to those by which it was established? For what strong error established, the truth destroyed; what unbelief established, faith destroyed; What established aversion from the cult of divine religion destroyed the appeal to the one true and holy God. And this is not only in Egypt, which mourns the demonic spirit in Hermes, but also in the land that sings a new song to the Lord, as the truly holy and truly prophetic Scriptures announced, which say: “Sing a new song to the Lord; sing to the Lord, all the earth!” (Ps. 95:1), The very title of this psalm is: “To build a house.” For the house of the Lord, the city of God, which is the holy Church, is being built throughout the whole earth after the captivity of people (who, when they believe in God, are like living stones for creation), in which they were, having fallen under the power of demons. After all, from the fact that a person made gods, it does not at all follow that the one who made them did not fall under their power when, through veneration, he entered into communication with them - communication, I think, not with meaningless idols, but with crafty demons. For what are idols, if not said by the same Scripture: “They have eyes, but they see not” (Ps. 134:16), and what generally should be said about everything like that, which, no matter how skillfully made, is devoid of life and feeling? But unclean spirits, attached to the same idols through criminal art, bringing into communication with themselves the souls of their worshipers, actually impose on them the miserable chains of slavery. Therefore, the apostle says: “An idol is nothing in the world... the pagans, when they make sacrifices, offer to demons, and not to God. But I do not want you to have fellowship with demons” (1 Cor. VIII:4:10:20). So, after this captivity, in which evil demons kept people, the house of God is built throughout the entire earth. This is where the aforementioned psalm got its name, which says: “Sing a new song to the Lord; sing to the Lord, all the earth; Sing to the Lord, bless His name, preach His salvation from day to day! Proclaim His glory among the nations, His wonders among all nations; for the Lord is great and highly praised, and he is terrible above all gods. For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the Lord created the heavens” (Ps. 95:1-5). So, he who grieved that the time would come when the cult of idols and the dominion over their demon worshipers would be destroyed, at the same time, at the inspiration of the evil spirit, expressed the desire that this captivity would never cease, after the passing of which the psalm heralds the creation of a house throughout the entire earth. Hermes predicted this with sorrow; the psalm was announced with delight. And since victory was on the side of the Spirit, who foretold this through the holy prophets, Hermes himself was surprisingly forced to admit that all this, the destruction of which he did not want and the destruction of which he mourned, was established not by prudent, believing and pious people, but by erring, unbelieving and averse to the cult of the divine religion. Although he calls them gods, nevertheless, by saying that they were created by such people as we should in no case be, he willy-nilly makes it clear that they should not be revered by those who are different from those who created them, i.e. prudent, believing and pious people; and, at the same time, it shows that these people who created them were themselves guilty of mistaking for gods those who were not gods. For the prophetic words are true: “Can a man make gods for himself, who are not gods?” (Jer. XVI, 20). But although Hermes called them gods, gods of such and such artificially created; that is, although he represented the gods created by people as demons, chained through some kind of art, I don’t know what, by their passions for idols: however, he does not attribute to them what the Platonist Apuleius ascribes to them, who imagined them as intermediaries between the gods created by God and people, created by the same God, on the one hand, representing prayers, on the other hand, transmitting gifts (we have already said enough about this and shown to what extent everything this is incongruous and absurd). Indeed, it would be extreme folly to think that the gods made by men, among the gods whom God created, could have greater power than that of the men themselves, whom the same God created. A demon tied by a person to a statue through unholy art became, perhaps, a god, but a god - for this purpose, and not for every person. And what kind of god was this, which was made by a man who was deluded, unbelieving, and turned away from the true God? And if the demons revered in the churches, introduced by some unknown art into images, that is, into visible statues, by people who through this art made gods because they withdrew and turned away from the cult of the divine religion - if such demons are not intermediaries between people and gods, both because of their extremely bad and shameful morals, and because people, although erring, are unbelievers and those who have turned away from the cult and divine religion are without any doubt better than those whom they made gods through their art, then it remains to conclude that if they have any power, they have it like demons, then under the guise of good deeds they bring harm, either by deceiving, or by openly causing evil. But in this regard, they have power only when and to the extent that the highest and mysterious providence of God allows them; but in any case not because, as intermediaries between people and gods, they are of great importance to people. For they absolutely cannot be in friendship with those good gods whom we call angels and imagine as rational creatures and holy celestial beings, such as - Thrones, Dominions, Principalities, Powers; in their spiritual dispositions they are as far from the latter as vices are from virtues, anger from kindness. Chapter XXV. About what people can have in common with angels So, one should seek the favor or good deeds of the gods, or rather, good angels, not through the supposed mediation of demons, but through assimilating them with a good disposition of the soul, living together with them, sharing with them the veneration of God, whom they also worship, although we cannot see them with our bodily eyes. And the more pitiful our moral state is due to the difference between our mental disposition and theirs, the more distant we are from them due to the criminality of our lives, and not due to the place occupied by the body. We are separated not because we live on earth according to the conditions of bodily life, but because our heart is attached to the uncleanness of the earth. If we are healed and become the same as them, then, undoubtedly, we draw closer to them, as soon as we believe that we achieve, with the assistance and on their part, bliss in Him by whom they too are blessed. Chapter XXVI. That the entire religion of the pagans centers around the cult of the dead Here it should be noted that this Egyptian, mourning the coming of the time when Egypt will be freed from these institutions, which owe their origin, according to his own admission, to people who are greatly mistaken, unbelievers and turned away from the cult of the divine religion, among other things, says: “Then this country, the most holy homeland of pagan temples and temples, will be overflowing with coffins and the dead.” As if, if the said regulations had remained, people would not have died, or the dead would have been buried somewhere other than in the ground. After all, in any case, the more time passed, the more the number of coffins would increase due to the greater number of dead. But he mourned, obviously, that the place of temples and their temples would be taken by the monuments of our martyrs: and he tried to suggest to those readers who would read this with a hostile and perverse disposition of soul towards us that the pagans, supposedly, honored the gods in temples, and we honor the dead in tombs. Such is the extreme relief of wicked people that they stumble over mountains and do not want to see the things that are in front of their noses; therefore, they do not pay attention to the fact that in all pagan writings there are hardly any gods (if any) who were not human, and that, consequently, divine honors were given to the dead. I will not say that, according to Varro, they considered all the dead to be underground gods (Manes dii) and that Varro proves this by the example of the cult itself, which was given to almost all the dead; Moreover, he also mentions funeral games as the primary proof of divinity, because games were usually performed only in honor of deities. Hermes himself, whom we are talking about, in the same book in which he mourns the future he allegedly predicted and in which he says: “Then this country, the most holy homeland of churches and churches, will be overflowing with coffins and the dead,” Hermes himself testifies there that the gods of Egypt were dead people. Having said that his great-grandfathers were greatly mistaken in their ideas about the gods and, out of unbelief and departure from the cult and religion of the divine, they invented the art of making gods, he continues: “Having invented this art, they gave it the corresponding natural power; giving the latter, since they could not create souls, then, calling up the souls of demons or angels, they put these souls into holy images and divine mysteries, so that through them the idols acquired the power to do good and evil”; and then proceeds, as it were, to confirm this with examples and says: “Such, Asclepius, is your grandfather, the first inventor of medicine, to whom the church is dedicated at Mount Libya, near the shore of the crocodiles; in that church lies his man, who belongs to the world, i.e. body; and the rest of the man, or rather the real man, if the man is real - in the sense of life, the best man has returned to heaven and is now giving sick people all kinds of help by the power of his deity, as he previously gave it by the power of medical art.” Thus, he makes it clear that the dead man was honored as a god in the place where his coffin was, deceiving himself and deceiving others that he had returned to heaven. Adding another example to this, he further says: “And Hermes, from whom, as from my grandfather, I received my name? Having settled in his homeland, which bears his own name, does he not give help and salvation to all mortals coming there from different directions? This elder Hermes, that is, Mercury, whom he calls his grandfather, is considered to be in Hermopolis, that is, in the city that bears his name. Thus, he calls two gods, Aesculapius and Mercury, people. Both the Greeks and the Latins think the same about Aesculapius; Many do not consider Mercury to be mortal, but Hermes is sure that he was his grandfather. But perhaps there was another Mercury, known by the same name? In this case, I do not intend to enter into controversy: whether it was one or the other; but this one, like Aesculapius, became a god from a man according to the testimony of his grandson Trismegistus, who enjoys such great authority among his own. Then he adds: “We know how much good the wife of Osiris, Isis, does when she is favorable, and how much harm she causes when she is angry.” He further makes it clear that, in his opinion, the demons, which much deluded, unbelieving and impious men put into statues by means of the art they invented (because those who made such gods could in no way create souls), consisted of the souls of dead people; for, in order to show that Isis and Osiris were gods from the family of those whom people make through such art, after the words I cited about Isis, that she causes a lot of harm when she is angry, he immediately adds: “For it is natural for the gods of the earth and those belonging to the world to be angry, since they are created by people and are composed of both natures.” When he says “from both natures,” he means from soul and body, so that the demon serves as the soul, and the statue as the body. “From this it happened,” he continues, “that the Egyptians call them holy animals and each individual city honors the souls of those whom they deified during life, so that it lives according to their laws and is called by their name.” What caused this kind of tearful petition, that the country of Egypt, the holiest homeland of pagan temples and temples, should be overflowing with the tombs of the dead? After all, the lying spirit, through whose inspiration Hermes said all this, was forced with his own lips to admit that even at that time this country was already overflowing with coffins and the dead, who were revered as gods! But through the mouth of Hermes spoke the sorrow of the demons, who were distressed by the executions that threatened them in buildings dedicated to the memory of the holy martyrs. For in many places of this kind they experience torment, betray themselves and are expelled from the human bodies that they previously owned. Chapter XXVII. About the mode of veneration that Christians pay to martyrs However, we do not erect churches to these martyrs themselves, do not appoint priests, do not establish divine services and sacrifices, because we consider their God, not them, to be our God. We truly honor their memory as holy people of God who fought for the truth to the point of bodily death in order to proclaim the true religion, denouncing false and fictitious cults; which, although understood by some before, was hidden out of fear. But has any of the faithful ever heard a priest, standing before the altar, built even in honor and veneration of God over the holy body of a martyr, say in his prayers: “To you, Paul (or Peter, or Cyprian), I offer a sacrifice?” In front of their monuments, an offering is made to God, who made them both people and martyrs, and united them in heavenly honor with his holy angels - this is done in order to thank the true God for their victory through such a celebration, and, remembering them, to arouse oneself to imitate their exploits and victories, calling on the same God for help. Accordingly, all signs of the zeal of pious people to the places of martyrs are an expression of veneration of the memory of them, but not worship or sacrifice to the dead as to gods. Some, however, even bring food there. Although the best of Christians do not do this, and in many countries there is no such custom at all; however, those who do this, when they bring them, pray and take them back to feed on them or share with those in need, do this with the thought that they receive sanctification there by the merits of the martyrs in the name of the Lord of the martyrs. No one recognizes this as a sacrifice to martyrs, who knows that the one and only Christian sacrifice is performed there. So, we do not honor our martyrs either with divine honors or with human crimes; we do not make sacrifices to them, we do not convert their own shameful deeds into their cult. About Isis, the wife of Osiris, the Egyptian goddess, and about her parents, who were all, according to descriptions, kings (when she made a sacrifice to these parents, she found a place overgrown with barley, and showed the ears of it to her husband, the king, and his adviser, Mercury; therefore, she is also considered Ceres), how much bad is transmitted, and not by poets, but by the mystical writings of the Egyptians, as wrote about that, according to the priest Leo, Alexander to his mother Olympias! Let whoever wants and can read it, and whoever has read it, let him remember and judge for himself which dead people and for what deeds they were worshiped as gods. Let them not dare, even though they consider them gods, to compare them in any respect with our martyrs, whom we, however, do not consider gods. Just as we have not assigned priests to our martyrs and do not make sacrifices to them (because this is an indecent, inappropriate and unlawful act, and necessarily only in relation to the one God), we do not amuse them either with their crimes or with the most vile games in which the pagans represent or the real shameful deeds of their gods, if they were people and committed them, or the fictitious amusements of demons, if they were not people. Of this class of demons, Socrates could not have a god if he had a God; but it is quite possible that a person, alien to the mentioned art of making gods and innocent, was given such a god by those who mastered this art perfectly. What follows from this? That these spirits cannot be revered for the sake of the blessed life that will come after death, even a person of limited intelligence will not doubt this. But perhaps they will say that the real gods are good; Of the demons, some are evil and others are good; and therefore consider those demons who are considered good to be worthy of veneration so that we can achieve with their help eternal and blissful life? We will begin to consider this opinion in the next book. See below, book 12, ch. X De Doctrina Christiana lib. II. cap. 28. – Retract II, 4. Plat. lib X. de legg. et II de republ. Porphyr. lib. II. de abstinence. animat. See above, book. 4, ch. XXVI Trismegistus - Thrice Greatest. You might be interested in: