Translation Hide
The City of God

Chapter 41.--About the Discord of Philosophic Opinion, and the Concord of the Scriptures that are Held as Canonical by the Church.

But let us omit further examination of history, and return to the philosophers from whom we digressed to these things. They seem to have labored in their studies for no other end than to find out how to live in a way proper for laying hold of blessedness. Why, then, have the disciples dissented from their masters, and the fellow-disciples from one another, except because as men they have sought after these things by human sense and human reasonings? Now, although there might be among them a desire of glory, so that each wished to be thought wiser and more acute than another, and in no way addicted to the judgment of others, but the inventor of his own dogma and opinion, yet I may grant that there were some, or even very many of them, whose love of truth severed them from their teachers or fellow-disciples, that they might strive for what they thought was the truth, whether it was so or not. But what can human misery do, or how or where can it reach forth, so as to attain blessedness, if divine authority does not lead it? Finally, let our authors, among whom the canon of the sacred books is fixed and bounded, be far from disagreeing in any respect. It is not without good reason, then, that not merely a few people prating in the schools and gymnasia in captious disputations, but so many and great people, both learned and unlearned, in countries and cities, have believed that God spoke to them or by them, i.e. the canonical writers, when they wrote these books. There ought, indeed, to be but few of them, lest on account of their multitude what ought to be religiously esteemed should grow cheap; and yet not so few that their agreement should not be wonderful. For among the multitude of philosophers, who in their works have left behind them the monuments of their dogmas, no one will easily find any who agree in all their opinions. But to show this is too long a task for this work.

But what author of any sect is so approved in this demon-worshipping city, that the rest who have differed from or opposed him in opinion have been disapproved? The Epicureans asserted that human affairs were not under the providence of the gods; and the Stoics, holding the opposite opinion, agreed that they were ruled and defended by favora ble and tutelary gods. Yet were not both sects famous among the Athenians? I wonder, then, why Anaxagoras was accused of a crime for saying that the sun was a burning stone, and denying that it was a god at all; while in the same city Epicurus flourished gloriously and lived securely, although he not only did not believe that the sun or any star was a god, but contended that neither Jupiter nor any of the gods dwelt in the world at all, so that the prayers and supplications of men might reach them! Were not both Aristippus and Antisthenes there, two noble philosophers and both Socratic? yet they placed the chief end of life within bounds so diverse and contradictory, that the first made the delight of the body the chief good, while the other asserted that man was made happy mainly by the virtue of the mind. The one also said that the wise man should flee from the republic; the other, that he should administer its affairs. Yet did not each gather disciples to follow his own sect? Indeed, in the conspicuous and well-known porch, in gymnasia, in gardens, in places public and private, they openly strove in bands each for his own opinion, some asserting there was one world, others innumerable worlds; some that this world had a beginning, others that it had not; some that it would perish, others that it would exist always; some that it was governed by the divine mind, others by chance and accident; some that souls are immortal, others that they are mortal,--and of those who asserted their immortality, some said they transmigrated through beasts, others that it was by no means so; while of those who asserted their mortality, some said they perished immediately after the body, others that they survived either a little while or a longer time, but not always; some fixing supreme good in the body, some in the mind, some in both; others adding to the mind and body external good things; some thinking that the bodily senses ought to be trusted always, some not always, others never. Now what people, senate, power, or public dignity of the impious city has ever taken care to judge between all these and other well-nigh innumerable dissensions of the philosophers, approving and accepting some, and disapproving and rejecting others? Has it not held in its bosom at random, without any judgment, and confusedly, so many controversies of men at variance, not about fields, houses, or anything of a pecuniary nature, but about those things which make life either miserable or happy? Even if some true things were said in it, yet falsehoods were uttered with the same licence; so that such a city has not amiss received the title of the mystic Babylon. For Babylon means confusion, as we remember we have already explained. Nor does it matter to the devil, its king, how they wrangle among themselves in contradictory errors, since all alike deservedly belong to him on account of their great and varied impiety.

But that nation, that people, that city, that republic, these Israelites, to whom the oracles of God were entrusted, by no means confounded with similar licence false prophets with the true prophets; but, agreeing together, and differing in nothing, acknowledged and upheld the authentic authors of their sacred books. These were their philosophers, these were their sages, divines, prophets, and teachers of probity and piety. Whoever was wise and lived according to them was wise and lived not according to men, but according to God who hath spoken by them. If sacrilege is forbidden there, God hath forbidden it. If it is said, "Honor thy father and thy mother," ¹ God hath commanded it. If it is said, "Thou shall not commit adultery, Thou shall not kill, Thou shall not steal," ² and other similar commandments, not human lips but the divine oracles have enounced them. Whatever truth certain philosophers, amid their false opinions, were able to see, and strove by laborious discussions to persuade men of,--such as that God had made this world, and Himself most providently governs it, or of the nobility of the virtues, of the love of country, of fidelity in friendship, of good works and everything pertaining to virtuous manners, although they knew not to what end and what rule all these things were to be referred,--all these, by words prophetic, that is, divine, although spoken by men, were commended to the people in that city, and not inculcated by contention in arguments, so that he who should know them might be afraid of contemning, not the wit of men, but the oracle of God.

Edition Hide
De civitate Dei (CCSL)

Caput XLI: De philosophicarum opinionum dissensionibus et canonicarum apud ecclesiam concordia scripturarum.

Vt autem iam cognitionem omittamus historiae, ipsi philosophi, a quibus ad ista progressi sumus, qui non uidentur laborasse in studiis suis, nisi ut inuenirent quomodo uiuendum esset adcommodate ad beatitudinem capessendam, cur dissenserunt et a magistris discipuli, et inter se condiscipuli, nisi quia ut homines humanis sensibus et humanis ratiocinationibus ista quaesierunt? ubi quamuis esse potuerit et studium gloriandi, quo quisque alio sapientior et acutior uideri cupit nec sententiae quodammodo addictus alienae, sed sui dogmatis et opinionis inuentor, tamen ut nonnullos uel etiam plurimos eorum fuisse concedam, quos a suis doctoribus uel discendi sociis amor ueritatis abruperit, ut pro ea certarent, quam ueritatem putarent, siue illa esset, siue non esset: quid agit aut quo uel qua, ut ad beatitudinem perueniatur, humana se porrigit infelicitas, si diuina non ducit auctoritas? denique auctores nostri, in quibus non frustra sacrarum litterarum figitur et terminatur canon, absit ut inter se aliqua ratione dissentiant. unde non inmerito, cum illa scriberent, eis deum uel per eos locutum, non pauci in scholis atque gymnasiis litigiosis disputationibus garruli, sed in agris atque urbibus cum doctis atque indoctis tot tanti que populi crediderunt. ipsi sane pauci esse debuerunt, ne multitudine uilesceret, quod religione carum esse oporteret; nec tamen ita pauci, ut eorum non sit miranda consensio. neque enim in multitudine philosophorum, qui labore etiam litterario monumenta suorum dogmatum reliquerunt, facile quis inuenerit, inter quos cuncta quae sensere conueniant; quod ostendere hoc opere longum est. quis autem sectae cuiuslibet auctor sic est in hac daemonicola ciuitate adprobatus, ut ceteri inprobarentur, qui diuersa et aduersa senserunt? nonne apud Athenas et Epicurei clarebant, adserentes res humanas ad deorum curam non pertinere, et Stoici, qui contraria sentientes eas regi atque muniri dis adiutoribus et tutoribus disputabant? unde miror cur Anaxagoras reus factus sit, quia solem dixit esse lapidem ardentem, negans utique deum, cum in eadem ciuitate gloria floruerit Epicurus uixeritque securus, non solum solem uel ullum siderum deum esse non credens, sed nec Iouem nec ullum deorum omnino in mundo habitare contendens, ad quem preces hominum supplicationesque perueniant. nonne ibi Aristippus in uoluptate corporis summum bonum ponens, ibi Antisthenes uirtute animi potius hominem fieri beatum adseuerans, duo philosophi nobiles et ambo Socratici, in tam diuersis atque inter se contrariis finibus uitae summam locantes, quorum etiam ille fugiendam, iste administrandam sapienti dicebat esse rempublicam, ad suam quisque sectam sectandam discipulos congregabat? nempe palam in conspicua et notissima porticu, in gymnasiis, in hortulis, in locis publicis ac priuatis cateruatim pro sua quisque opinione certabant, alii adserentes unum, alii innumerabiles mundos; ipsum autem unum alii ortum esse, alii uero initium non habere; alii interiturum, alii semper futurum; alii mente diuina, alii fortuito et casibus agi; alii inmortales esse animas, alii mortales; et qui inmortales, alii reuolui in bestias, alii nequaquam; qui uero mortales, alii mox interire post corpus, alii uiuere etiam postea uel paululum uel diutius, non tamen semper; alii in corpore constituentes finem boni, alii in animo, alii in utroque, alii extrinsecus posita etiam bona ad animum et corpus addentes; alii sensibus corporis semper, alii non semper, alii numquam putantes esse credendum. has et alias paene innumerabiles dissensiones philosophorum quis umquam populus, quis senatus, quae potestas uel dignitas publica inpiae ciuitatis diiudicandas et alias probandas ac recipiendas, alias inprobandas repudiandasque curauit, ac non passim sine ullo iudicio confuseque habuit in gremio suo tot controuersias hominum dissidentium, non de agris et domibus uel quacumque pecuniaria ratione, sed de his rebus, quibus aut misere uiuitur aut beate? ubi etsi aliqua uera dicebantur, eadem licentia dicebantur et falsa, prorsus ut non frustra talis ciuitas mysticum uocabulum Babylonis acceperit. Babylon interpretatur quippe confusio, quod nos iam dixisse meminimus. nec interest diaboli regis eius, quam contrariis inter se rixentur erroribus, quos merito multae uariaeque inpietatis pariter possidet. at uero gens illa, ille populus, illa ciuitas, illa respublica, illi Israelitae, quibus credita sunt eloquia dei, nullo modo pseudoprophetas cum ueris prophetis parilitate licentiae confuderunt, sed concordes inter se atque in nullo dissentientes sacrarum litterarum ueraces ab eis agnoscebantur et tenebantur auctores. ipsi eis erant philosophi, hoc est amatores sapientiae, ipsi sapientes, ipsi theologi, ipsi prophetae, ipsi doctores probitatis atque pietatis. quicumque secundum illos sapuit et uixit, non secundum homines, sed secundum deum, qui per eos locutus est, sapuit et uixit. ibi si prohibitum est sacrilegium, deus prohibuit. si dictum est: honora patrem tuum et matrem tuam, deus iussit. si dictum est: non moechaberis, non homicidium facies, non furaberis, et cetera huiusmodi, non haec ora humana, sed oracula diuina fuderunt. quidquid philosophi quidam inter falsa, quae opinati sunt, uerum uidere potuerunt et laboriosis disputationibus persuadere moliti sunt, quod mundum istum deus fecerit eumque ipse prouidentissimus administret, de honestate uirtutum, de amore patriae, de fide amicitiae, de bonis operibus atque omnibus ad mores probos pertinentibus rebus, quamuis nescientes ad quem finem et quonam modo essent ista omnia referenda, propheticis, hoc est diuinis, uocibus, quamuis per homines, in illa ciuitate populo commendata sunt, non argumentationum concertationibus inculcata, ut non hominis ingenium, sed dei eloquium contemnere formidaret, qui illa cognosceret.