[861] Prosecrârant. Others read "prosecârant," a sacrificial word, properly denoting the setting apart some of the victim for offering to the gods.
[862] Præsentibus poenis, "on the spot."
[863] i.e., the sign of the cross, with which the early Christians frequently marked themselves. [So long as Christians were mocked and despised as followers of a crucified one, there was a silent testimony and bold confession in this act which must be wholly separated from the mere superstition of degenerate Christians. It used to mean just what the Apostle says, Gal. vi. 14. In this sense it is retained among Anglicans.]
[864] [See vol. iii. pp. 37, 176, 180, and iv. 189-190.]
[865] [The cessation of oracles is attested by Plutarch. See also Tertullian, vol. iii. [65]p. 38, this series, and Minucius, vol. iv. [66]p. 190. Demonology needs further exposition, for Scripture is express in its confirmation of patristic views of the subject.]
[866] There is probably a reference to Iliad, i. 221, where Athene is represented as going to Olympus:--
he d' Oulupo'nde bebe'kei
do'mat' es aigio'choio Dio`s meta` dai'monas allous
[867] Ut errores hominibus immittant.
[868] Per diversa regionum. There is another reading, "perversâ religione"--by perverted religion.
[869] The reference is to necromancy, or calling up the spirits of the dead by magic rites.
[870] There is another reading: "qui de Deo patre omnia, et de filio locutus est multa;" but this is manifestly erroneous.
Chap. XXVIII.--Of Hope and True Religion, and of Superstition.
And since these things are so, as we have shown, it is plain that no other hope of life is set before man, except that, laying aside vanities and wretched error, he should know God, [871] and serve God; except he renounce this temporary life, and train himself by the principles of righteousness for the cultivation of true religion. For we are created on this condition, that we pay just and due obedience to God who created us, that we should know and follow Him alone. We are bound and tied to God by this chain of piety; [872] from which religion itself received its name, not, as Cicero explained it, from carefully gathering, [873] for in his second book respecting the nature of the gods he thus speaks: "For not only philosophers, but our ancestors also, separated superstition from religion. For they who spent whole days in prayers and sacrifices, that their children might survive [874] them, were called superstitious. But they who handled again, and as it were carefully gathered all things which related to the worship of the gods, were called religious from carefully gathering, [875] as some were called elegant from choosing out, and diligent from carefully selecting and intelligent from understanding. For in all these words there is the same meaning of gathering which there is in the word religious: thus it has come to pass, that in the names superstitious and religious, the one relates to a fault, the other belongs to praise." How senseless this interpretation is, we may know from the matter itself. For if both religion and superstition are engaged in the worship of the same gods, there is little or rather no difference between them. For what cause will he allege why he should think that to pray once for the health of sons is the part of a religious man, but to do the same ten times is the part of a superstitious man? For if it is an excellent thing to pray once, how much more so to do it more frequently! If it is well to do it at the first hour, then it is well to do it throughout the day. If one victim renders the deity propitious, it is plain that many victims must render him more propitious, because multiplied services oblige [876] rather than offend. For those servants do not appear to us hateful who are assiduous and constant in their attendance, but more beloved. Why, therefore, should he be in fault, and receive a name which implies censure, [877] who either loves his children more, or sufficiently honours the gods; and he, on the contrary, be praised, who loves them less? And this argument has weight also from the contrary. For if it is wrong [878] to pray and sacrifice during whole days, therefore it is wrong to do so once. If it is faulty frequently to wish for the preservation of our children, therefore he also is superstitious who conceives that wish even rarely. Or why should the name of a fault be derived from that, than which nothing can be wished more honourable, nothing more just? For as to his saying, that they who diligently take in hand again the things relating to the worship of the gods are called religious from their carefully gathering; how is it, then, that they who do this often in a day lose the name of religious men, when it is plain from their very assiduity that they more diligently gather those things by which the gods are worshipped?
What, then, is it? Truly religion is the cultivation of the truth, but superstition of that which is false. And it makes the entire difference what you worship, not how you worship, or what prayer you offer. [879] But because the worshippers of the gods imagine themselves to be religious, though they are superstitious, they are neither able to distinguish religion from superstition, nor to express the meaning of the names. We have said that the name of religion is derived from the bond of piety, [880] because God has tied man to Himself, and bound him by piety; [881] for we must serve Him as a master, and be obedient to Him as a father. And therefore Lucretius [882] better explained this name, who says that He loosens the knots of superstitions. [883] But they are called superstitious, not who wish their children to survive them, for we all wish this; but either those who reverence the surviving memory of the dead, or those who, surviving their parents, reverenced their images at their houses as household gods. For those who assumed to themselves new rites, that they might honour the dead as gods, whom they supposed to be taken from men and received into heaven, they called superstitious. But those who worshipped the public and ancient gods [884] they named religious. From which Virgil says: [885] --
"Superstition vain, and ignorant of ancient gods."
But since we find that the ancient gods also were consecrated in the same manner after their death, therefore they are superstitious who worship many and false gods. We, on the other hand, are religious, who make our supplications to the one true God.
[871] So our Lord, John xvii. 3: "This is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent."
[872] [" Hoc vinculo pietatis obstricti Deo et religati sumus." He returns to this in the same chapter, infra.]
[873] A religendo. There is little doubt that the true derivation of "religio" is from religere, not from religare According to this, the primary meaning is, "the dwelling upon a subject, and continually recurring to it."
[874] Superstites, et superstitiosi.
[875] [Here the famous passage should be given with accurate reference to its place, as much of its force vanishes in translation. Cicero's etymology is thus given: "Qui autem omnia quæ ad cultum deorum pertinerent, diligentes retractarent et tamquam relegerent sunt dicti religiosi, ex relegendo, ut elegantes ex eligendo, tamquam a diligendo diligentes, ex intelligendo intelligentes."--De Nat. Deor., lib. ii. cap. 28.]
[876] Demerentur, "they lay under an obligation."
[877] Criminis est.
[878] Vitiosum.
[879] [This seems very loose language when compared with Matt. vi. 9 and 1 Cor. xi. 1, 2. The whole epistle shows the how and the what to be important in worship, and that the Apostle had prescribed certain laws about these.]
[880] [See note 4, supra.]
[881] [Lactantius has generally been sustained by Christian criticism in the censures thus passed upon Cicero, and in making the word religio out of religare His own words are desirable here, to be compared with those which he endeavors to refute (note 4, supra): "Diximus nomen religionis a vinculo pietatis esse deductum, quod hominem sibi Deus religarit," etc.; i.e., it binds again what was loosed.]
[882] Lucret., i. 931.
[883] Religionum.
[884] i.e., those worshipped in public temples, and with public sacrifices, as opposed to the household gods of a family, and ancient as opposed to those newly received as gods.
[885] Virg., Æneid, viii. 187.
Chap. XXIX.--Of the Christian Religion, and of the Union of Jesus with the Father.
Some one may perhaps ask how, when we say that we worship one God only, we nevertheless assert that there are two, God the Father and God the Son: which assertion has driven many into the greatest error. For when the things which we say seem to them probable, they consider that we fail in this one point alone, that we confess that there is another God, and that He is mortal. We have already spoken of His mortality: now let us teach concerning His unity. When we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate each: because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father, since the name of Father [886] cannot be given without the Son, nor can the Son be begotten without the Father. Since, therefore, the Father makes the Son, and the Son the Father, they both have one mind, one spirit, one substance; but the former [887] is as it were an overflowing fountain, the latter [888] as a stream flowing forth from it: the former as the sun, the latter as it were a ray [889] extended from the sun. And since He is both faithful to the Most High Father, and beloved by Him, He is not separated from Him; just as the stream is not separated from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun: for the water of the fountain is in the stream, and the light of the sun is in the ray: just as the voice cannot be separated from the mouth, nor the strength or hand from the body. When, therefore, He is also spoken of by the prophets as the hand, and strength, and word of God, there is plainly no separation; for the tongue, which is the minister of speech, and the hand, in which the strength is situated, are inseparable portions of the body.
We may use an example more closely connected with us. When any one has a son whom he especially loves, who is still in the house, and in the power [890] of his father, although he concede to him the name and power of a master, yet by the civil law the house is one, and one person is called master. So this world [891] is the one house of God; and the Son and the Father, who unanimously inhabit the world, are one God, for the one is as two, and the two are as one. Nor is that wonderful, since the Son is in the Father, for the Father loves the Son, and the Father is in the Son; for He faithfully obeys the will of the Father, nor does He ever do nor has done anything except what the Father either willed or commanded. Lastly, that the Father and the Son are but one God, Isaiah showed in that passage which we have brought forward before, [892] when he said: [893] "They shall fall down unto Thee, and make supplication unto Thee, since God is in Thee, and there is no other God besides Thee." And he also speaks to the same purport in another place: [894] "Thus saith God the King of Israel, and His Redeemer, the everlasting God; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." When he had set forth two persons, one of God the King, that is, Christ, and the other of God the Father, who after His passion raised Him from the dead, as we have said [895] that the prophet Hosea showed, [896] who said, "I will redeem Him from the power of the grave:" nevertheless, with reference to each person, he introduced the words, "and beside me there is no God," when he might have said "beside us;" but it was not right that a separation of so close a relationship should be made by the use of the plural number. For there is one God alone, free, most high, without any origin; for He Himself is the origin of all things, and in Him at once both the Son and all things are contained. Wherefore, since the mind and will of the one is in the other, or rather, since there is one in both, both are justly called one God; for whatever is in the Father [897] flows on to the Son, and whatever is in the Son descends from the Father. Therefore that highest and matchless God cannot be worshipped except through the Son. He who thinks that he worships the Father only, as he does not worship the Son, so he does not worship even the Father. But he who receives the Son, and bears His name, he truly together with the Son worships the Father also, since the Son is the ambassador, and messenger, and priest of the Most High Father. He is the door of the greatest temple, He the way of light, He the guide to salvation, He the gate of life.