No More Learning

O more stupid than even stones
themselves! Do you fancy that all men are to be drawn by the nose as
you are drawn by execrable dæmonss, so as to think that the artificial
resemblances of the gods are the gods themselves? Looking, therefore, to
the resemblances of the gods, we do not think them to be either stones
or wood; for neither do we

{65}

think that the gods are these resemblances; since neither do we say that
royal images are wood, or stone, or brass, nor that they are the kings
therefore, but the images of kings. Whoever, therefore, loves his king,
beholds with pleasure the image of his king; whoever loves his child is
delighted with his image; and whoever loves his father surveys his image
with delight. Hence, also, he who is a lover of divinity gladly surveys
the statues and images of the gods; at the same time venerating and
fearing with a holy dread the gods who invisibly behold him*. If,
therefore, some

* The Catholics have employed similar arguments in defence
of the reverence which they pay to the images of the men
whom they call saints. But the intelligent reader need not
be told, that it is one thing to venerate the images of
those divine powers which proceed from the great first Cause
of all things, and eternally subsist concentrated and rooted
in him, and another to reverence the images of men, who when
living were the disgrace of human nature. In addition to
what is said by Julian on this subject, the following
extract from the treatise of Sallust, on the Gods, and the
World, is well worthy the attentive perusal of the reader:
"A divine nature is not indigent of any thing; but the
honours which we pay to the gods are performed for the sake
of our advantage. And since the providence of the gods is
everywhere extended, a certain habitude or fitness is all
that is requisite, in order to receive their beneficent
communications. But all habitude is produced through
imitation and similitude. Hence temples imitate the
heavens, but altars,. . .

{66}

one should fancy that these ought never to be corrupted, because they
were once called the images of the gods, such a one appears to me to
be perfectly void of intellect. For if this were admitted, it is also
requisite that they should not be made by men.
That, however, which
is produced by a wise and good man may be corrupted by a depraved and
ignorant man. But the gods which circularly revolve about the heavens,
and which are living statues, fashioned by the gods themselves as
resemblances of their unapparent essence,--these remain for ever. No
one, therefore, should disbelieve in the gods, in consequence of seeing
and hearing that some persons have behaved insolently towards statues
and temples. For have there not been many who have destroyed good men,
such as Socrates and Dion, and the great Empedotimus? And who, I well
know, have, more than statues or temples, been taken care of by the
gods. See, however, that the gods, knowing the body of these to

. . . the earth; statues resemble life, and on this account
they are similar to animals. Prayers imitate that which is
intellectual; but characters, superior ineffable powers.
Herbs and stones resemble matter; and animals which are
sacrificed, the irrational life of our souls. But, from all
these, nothing happens to the gods beyond what they already
possess; for what accession can be made to a divine nature?
But a conjunction with our souls and the gods is by these
means produced.

{67}

be corruptible, have granted that it should yield and be subservient
to nature, but afterwards have punished those by whom it was destroyed;
which clearly happened to be the case with all the sacrilegious of our
time.

"Let no one, therefore, deceive us by words, nor disturb us with
respect to providential interference. For as to the prophets of the
Jews, who reproach us with things of this kind, what will they say of
their own temple, which has been thrice destroyed, but has not been
since, even to the present time, rebuilt?