Edition Hide
De civitate Dei (CCSL)

Caput XIII: De his, qui sola rationalia animantia partes esse unius dei adserunt.

Si autem sola animalia rationalia, sicut sunt homines, partes dei esse contendunt: non uideo quidem, si totus mundus deus est, quomodo bestias ab eius partibus separent; sed obluctari quid opus est? de ipso rationali animante, id est homine, quid infelicius credi potest, quam dei partem uapulare, cum puer uapulat? iam uero partes dei fieri lasciuas, iniquas, inpias atque omnino damnabiles quis ferre possit, nisi qui prorsus insanit? postremo quid irascitur eis, a quibus non colitur, cum a suis partibus non colatur? restat ergo ut dicant omnes deos suas habere uitas, sibi quemque uiuere, nullum eorum esse partem cuiusquam, sed omnes colendos qui cognosci et coli possunt, quia tam multi sunt, ut omnes non possint. quorum Iuppiter quia rex praesidet, ipsum credo ab eis putari regnum constituisse uel auxisse Romanum. nam si hoc ipse non fecit, quem alium deum opus tam magnum potuisse adgredi credant, cum omnes occupati sint officiis et operibus propriis, nec alter inruat in alterius? a rege igitur deorum regnum hominum potuit propagari et augeri.

Translation Hide
The City of God

Chapter 13.--Concerning Those Who Assert that Only Rational Animals are Parts of the One God.

But if they contend that only rational animals, such as men, are parts of God, I do not really see how, if the whole world is God, they can separate beasts from being parts of Him. But what need is there of striving about that? Concerning the rational animal himself,--that is, man,--what more unhappy belief can be entertained than that a part of God is whipped when a boy is whipped? And who, unless he is quite mad, could bear the thought that parts of God can become lascivi ous, iniquitous, impious, and altogether damnable? In brief, why is God angry at those who do not worship Him, since these offenders are parts of Himself? It remains, therefore, that they must say that all the gods have their own lives; that each one lives for himself, and none of them is a part of any one; but that all are to be worshipped,--at least as many as can be known and worshipped; for they are so many it is impossible that all can be so. And of all these, I believe that Jupiter, because he presides as king, is thought by them to have both established and extended the Roman empire. For if he has not done it, what other god do they believe could have attempted so great a work, when they must all be occupied with their own offices and works, nor can one intrude on that of another? Could the kingdom of men then be propagated and increased by the king of the gods?