Book VII.
------------------------
1. Since it has been sufficiently shown, as far as there has been opportunity, how vain it is to form images, the course of our argument requires that we should next speak as briefly as possible, and without any periphrasis, about sacrifices, about the slaughter and immolation of victims, about pure wine, about incense, and about all the other things which are provided on such occasions. [4764] For with respect to this you have been in the habit of exciting against us the most violent ill-will, of calling us atheists, and inflicting upon us the punishment of death, even by savagely tearing us to pieces with wild beasts, on the ground that we pay very little respect [4765] to the gods; which, indeed, we admit that we do, not from contempt or scorn of the divine, [4766] but because we think that such powers require nothing of the kind, and are not possessed by desires for such things. [4767]
What, then, [4768] some one will say, do you think that no sacrifices at all should be offered? To answer you not with our own, but with your Varro's opinion--none. Why so? Because, he says, the true gods neither wish nor demand these; while those [4769] which are made of copper, earthenware, gypsum, or marble, care much less for these things, for they have no feeling; and you are not blamed [4770] if you do not offer them, nor do you win favour if you do. No sounder opinion can be found, none truer, and one which any one may adopt, although he may be stupid and very hard to convince. For who is so obtuse as either to slay victims in sacrifice to those who have no sense, or to think that they should be given to those who are removed far from them in their nature and blessed state?
[4764] Lit., "in that part of years."
[4765] Lit., "attribute least."
[4766] Lit., "divine spurning."
[4767] [When good old Dutch Boyens came to the pontificate as Hadrian VI., he was accounted a "barbarian" because he so little appreciated the art-treasures in the Vatican, on which Leo X. had lavished so much money and so much devotion. His pious spirit seemed oppressed to see so many heathen images in the Vatican: sunt idola ethnicorum was all he could say of them,--a most creditable anecdote of such a man in such times. See p. 504, n. 6, supra.]
[4768] [In the Edin. edition this is the opening sentence, but the editor remarks]: "By some accident the introduction to the seventh book has been tacked on as a last chapter to the sixth, where it is just as out of place as here it is in keeping." [I have restored it to its place accordingly.]
[4769] Lit., "those, moreover."
[4770] Lit., "nor is any blame contracted."
2. Who are the true gods? you say. To answer you in common and simple language, we do not know; [4771] for how can we know who those are whom we have never seen? We have been accustomed to hear from you that an infinite number [4772] are gods, and are reckoned among [4773] the deities; but if these exist [4774] anywhere, and are true gods, as Terentius [4775] believes, it follows as a consequence, that they correspond to their name; that is, that they are such as we all see that they should be, and that they are worthy to be called by this name; nay, more,--to make an end without many words,--that they are such as is the Lord of the universe, and the King omnipotent Himself, whom we have knowledge and understanding enough to speak of as the true God when we are led to mention His name. For one god differs from another in nothing as respects his divinity; [4776] nor can that which is one in kind be less or more in its parts while its own qualities remain unchanged. [4777] Now, as this is certain, it follows that they should never have been begotten, but should be immortal, seeking nothing from without, and not drawing any earthly pleasures from the resources of matter.
[4771] On this Heraldus [most ignorantly] remarks, that it shows conclusively how slight was the acquaintance with Christianity possessed by Arnobius, when he could not say who were the true gods. [The Edin. editor clears up the cases as follows:] This, however, is to forget that Arnobius is not declaring his own opinions here, but meeting his adversaries on their own ground. He knows who the true God is--the source and fountain of all being, and framer of the universe (ii. 2), and if there are any lesser powers called gods, what their relation to Him must be (iii. 2, 3); but he does not know any such gods himself, and is continually reminding the heathen that they know these gods just as little. (Cf. the very next sentence.)
[4772] Lit., "as many as possible."
[4773] Lit., "in the series of."
[4774] Lit., "are."
[4775] i.e., M. Terentius Varro, mentioned in the last chapter.
[4776] Lit., "in that in which he is a god."
[4777] Lit., "uniformity of quality being preserved."
3. So, then, if these things are so, we desire to learn this, first, from you--what is the cause, what the reason, that you offer them sacrifices; and then, what gain comes to the gods themselves from this, and remains to their advantage. For whatever is done should have a cause, and should not be disjoined from reason, so as to be lost [4778] among useless works, and tossed about among vain and idle uncertainties. [4779] Do the gods of heaven [4780] live on these sacrifices, and must materials be supplied to maintain the union of their parts? And what man is there so ignorant of what a god is, certainly, as to think that they are maintained by any kind of nourishment, and that it is the food given to them [4781] which causes them to live and endure throughout their endless immortality? For whatever is upheld by causes and things external to itself, must be mortal and on the way to destruction, when anything on which it lives begins to be wanting. Again, it is impossible to suppose that any one believes this, because we see that of these things which are brought to their altars, nothing is added to and reaches the substance of the deities; for either incense is given, and is lost melting on the coals, [4782] or the life only of the victim is offered to the gods, [4783] and its blood is licked up by dogs; or if any flesh is placed upon the altars, it is set on fire in like manner, and is destroyed, and falls into ashes,--unless perchance the god seizes upon the souls of the victims, or snuffs up eagerly the fumes and smoke which rise from the blazing altars, and feeds upon the odours which the burning flesh gives forth, still wet with blood, and damp with its former juices. [4784] But if a god, as is said, has no body, and cannot be touched at all, how is it possible that that which has no body should be nourished by things pertaining to the body,--that what is mortal should support what is immortal, and assist and give vitality to that which it cannot touch? This reason for sacrifices is not valid, therefore, as it seems; nor can it be said by any one that sacrifices are kept up for this reason, that the deities are nourished by them, and supported by feeding on them.
[4778] The ms. and edd. read ut in operibus feratur cassis--"so as to be borne among," emended by Hild. and Oehler teratur--"worn away among."
[4779] Lit., "in vain errors of inanity."
[4780] The ms. and edd. have here forte--"perchance.'"
[4781] Lit., "gift of food."
[4782] [It must have taken much time to overcome this distaste for the use of incense in Christian minds. Let us wait for the testimony of Lactantius.]
[4783] Or perhaps, simply, "the sacrifice is a living one," animalis est hostia. Macrobius, however (Sat., iii. 5), quotes Trebatius as saying that there were two kinds of sacrifices, in one of which the entrails were examined that they might disclose the divine will, while in the other the life only was consecrated to the deity. This is more precisely stated by Servius (Æn., iii. 231), who says that the hostia animalis was only slain, that in other cases the blood was poured on the altars, that in others part of the victim, and in others the whole animal, was burned. It is probable, therefore that Arnobius uses the words here in their technical meaning, as the next clause shows that none of the flesh was offered, while the blood was allowed to fall to the ground. [I am convinced that classical antiquities must be more largely studied in the Fathers of the first five centuries.]
[4784] i.e., the juices which formerly flowed through the living body.
4. If perchance it is not this, [4785] are victims not slain in sacrifice to the gods, and cast upon their flaming altars to give them [4786] some pleasure and delight? And can any man persuade himself that the gods become mild as they are exhilarated by pleasures, that they long for sensual enjoyment, and, like some base creatures, are affected by agreeable sensations, and charmed and tickled for the moment by [4787] a pleasantness which soon passes away? For that which is overcome by pleasure must be harassed by its opposite, sorrow; nor can that be free from the anxiety of grief, which trembles with joy, and is elated capriciously with gladness. [4788] But the gods should be free from both passions, if we would have them to be everlasting, and freed from the weakness of mortals. Moreover, every pleasure is, as it were, a kind of flattery of the body, and is addressed to the five well-known senses; but if the gods above feel it, [4789] they must partake also of those bodies through which there is a way to the senses, and a door by which to receive pleasures. Lastly, what pleasure is it to take delight in the slaughter of harmless creatures, to have the ears ringing often with their piteous bellowings, to see rivers of blood, the life fleeing away with the blood, and the secret parts having been laid open, not only the intestines to protrude with the excrements, but also the heart still bounding with the life left in it, and the trembling, palpitating veins in the viscera? We half-savage men, nay rather,--to say with more candour what it is truer and more candid to say,--we savages, whom unhappy necessity and bad habit have trained to take these as food, are sometimes moved with pity for them; we ourselves accuse and condemn ourselves when the thing is seen and looked into thoroughly, because, neglecting the law which is binding on men, we have broken through the bonds which naturally united us at the beginning. [4790] Will [4791] any one believe that the gods, who are kind, beneficent, gentle, are delighted and filled with joy by the slaughter of cattle, if ever they fall and expire pitiably before their altars? [4792] And there is no cause, then, for pleasure in sacrifices, as we see, nor is there a reason why they should be offered, since there is no pleasure afforded by them; and if perchance there is some, [4793] it has been shown that it cannot in any way belong to the gods.
[4785] The heathen opponent is supposed to give up his first reason, that the sacrifices provided food for the gods, and to advance this new suggestion, that they were intended for their gratification merely.
[4786] Lit., "for the sake of."
[4787] Lit., "with the fleeting tickling of."
[4788] Lit., "with the levities of gladnesses."
[4789] i.e., pleasure.
[4790] Naturalis initii consortia.
[4791] So the ms. and first ed., according to Oehler, reading cred-e-t, the others -i---"does."
[4792] Lit., "these."
[4793] Arnobius says that the sacrifices give no pleasure to any being, or at least, if that is not strictly true, that they give none to the gods. [See Elucidation VI., infra.]
5. We have next to examine the argument which we hear continually coming from the lips of the common people, and find embedded in popular conviction, that sacrifices are offered to the gods of heaven for this purpose, that they may lay aside their anger and passions, and may be restored to a calm and placid tranquillity, the indignation of their fiery spirits being assuaged. And if we remember the definition which we should always bear steadily in mind, that all agitating feelings are unknown to the gods, the consequence is, a belief [4794] that the gods are never angry; nay, rather, that no passion is further from them than that which, approaching most nearly to the spirit of wild beasts and savage creatures, agitates those who suffer it with tempestuous feelings, and brings them into danger of destruction. For whatever is harassed by any kind of disturbance, [4795] is, it is clear, capable of suffering, and frail; that which has been subjected to suffering and frailty must be mortal; but anger harasses and destroys [4796] those who are subject to it: therefore that should be called mortal which has been made subject to the emotions of anger. But yet we know that the gods should be never-dying, and should possess an immortal nature; and if this is clear and certain, anger has been separated far from them and from their state. On no ground, then, is it fitting to wish to appease that in the gods above which you see cannot suit their blessed state.