Chap. X.—Of the Origin of the World, and the Nature of Affairs, and the Providence of God.

They who do not admit that the world was made by divine providence, either say that it is composed of first principles coming together at random, or that it suddenly came into existence by nature, but hold, as Straton40    [Peripatetic; succeeded Theophrastus B.C. 238.]   does, that nature has in itself the power of production and of diminution, but that it has neither sensibility nor figure, so that we may understand that all things were produced spontaneously, without any artificer or author. Each opinion is vain and impossible. But this happens to those who are ignorant of the truth, that they devise anything, rather than perceive that which the nature of the subject41    Ratio.   requires. First of all, with respect to those minute seeds, by the meeting together of which they say that the whole world came into existence,42    Coiisse.   I ask where or whence they are. Who has seen them at any time? Who has perceived them? Who has heard them? Had none but Leucippus43    [Leucippus, anterior to B.C. 470, author of the atomic theory.]   eyes? Had he alone a mind, who assuredly alone of all men was blind and senseless, since he spoke those things which no sick man could have uttered in his ravings,44    Delirare posset.   or one asleep in his dreams?  

The ancient philosophers argued that all things were made up of four elements.45    [See Tayler Lewis, Plato contra Atheos, p. 119.]   He would not admit this, lest he should appear to tread in the footsteps of others; but he held that there were other first principles of the elements themselves, which can neither be seen, nor touched, nor be perceived by any part of the body. They are so minute, he says, that there is no edge of a sword so fine that they can be cut and divided by it. From which circumstance he gave them the name of atoms. But it occurred to him, that if they all had one and the same nature, they could not make up different objects of so great a variety as we see to be present in the world. He said, therefore, that there were smooth and rough ones, and round, and angular, and hooked. How much better had it been to be silent, than to have a tongue for such miserable and empty uses! And, indeed, I fear lest he who thinks these things worthy of refutation, should appear no less to rave. Let us, however, reply as to one who says something.46    i.e., something to the purpose.   If they are soft47    Lenia; others read “lævia,” smooth.   and round, it is plain that they cannot lay hold of one another, so as to make some body; as, though any one should wish to bind together millet into one combination,48    Coagmentationem.   the very softness of the grains would not permit them to come together into a mass. If they are rough, and angular, and hooked, so that they may be able to cohere, then they are divisible, and capable of being cut; for hooks and angles must project,49    Eminere, “to stand out prominently.”   so that they may possibly be cut off.  

Therefore that which is able to be cut off and torn away, will be able both to be seen and held. “These,” he says, “flutter about with restless motions through empty space, and are carried hither and thither, just as we see little particles of dust in the sun when it has introduced its rays and light through a window. From these there arise trees and herbs, and all fruits of the earth; from these, animals, and water, and fire, and all things are produced, and are again resolved into the same elements.” This can be borne as long as the inquiry is respecting small matters. Even the world itself was made up of these. He has reached to the full extent of perfect madness: it seems impossible that anything further should be said, and yet he found something to add. “Since everything,” he says, “is infinite, and nothing can be empty, it follows of necessity that there are innumerable worlds.” What force of atoms had been so great, that masses so incalculable should be collected from such minute elements? And first of all I ask, What is the nature or origin of those seeds? For if all things are from them, whence shall we say that they themselves are? What nature supplied such an abundance of matter for the making of innumerable worlds? But let us grant that he raved with impunity concerning worlds; let us speak respecting this in which we are, and which we see. He says that all things are made from minute bodies which are incapable of division.  

If this were so, no object would ever need the seed of its own kind. Birds would be born without eggs, or eggs without bringing forth; likewise the rest of the living creatures without coition: trees and the productions of the earth would not have their own seeds, which we daily handle and sow. Why does a corn-field arise from grain, and again grain from a corn-field? In short, if the meeting together and collecting of atoms would effect all things, all things would grow together in the air, since atoms flutter about through empty space. Why cannot the herb, why cannot the tree or grain, arise or be increased without earth, without roots, without moisture, without seed? From which it is evident that nothing is made up from atoms, since everything has its own peculiar and fixed nature, its own seed, its own law given from the beginning. Finally, Lucretius, as though forgetful of atoms,50    [Vol. vi. p. 445, note 18.]   which he was maintaining, in order that he might refute those who say that all things are produced from nothing, employed these arguments, which might have weighed against himself. For he thus spoke:—  

Likewise afterwards:—  

Who would imagine that he had brain when he said these things, and did not see that they were contrary to one another? For that nothing is made by means of atoms, is apparent from this, that everything has a definite53    Certum.   seed, unless by chance we shall believe that the nature both of fire and water is derived from atoms. Why should I say, that if materials of the greatest hardness are struck together with a violent blow, fire is struck out? Are atoms concealed in the steel, or in the flint? Who shut them in? Or why do they not leap forth spontaneously? Or how could the seeds of fire remain in a material of the greatest coldness?  

I leave the subject of the flint and steel. If you hold in the sun an orb of crystal filled with water, fire is kindled from the light which is reflected from the water, even in the most severe cold. Must we then believe that fire is contained in the water? And yet fire cannot be kindled from the sun even in summer. If you shall breathe upon wax, or if a light vapour shall touch anything—either the hard surface54    Crustam marmoris.   of marble or a plate of metal—water is gradually condensed by means of the most minute drops. Also from the exhalation of the earth or sea mist is formed, which either, being dispersed, moistens whatever it has covered, or being collected, is carried aloft by the wind to high mountains, and compressed into cloud, and sends down great rains. Where, then, do we say that fluids are produced? Is it in the vapour? Or in the exhalation? Or in the wind? But nothing can be formed in that which is neither touched nor seen. Why should I speak of animals, in whose bodies we see nothing formed without plan, without arrangement, without utility, without beauty, so that the most skilful and careful marking out55    Descriptio.   of all the parts and members repels the idea of accident and chance? But let us suppose it possible that the limbs, and bones, and nerves, and blood should be made up of atoms. What of the senses, the reflection, the memory, the mind, the natural capacity: from what seeds can they be compacted? 56    Coagmentari.   He says, From the most minute. There are therefore others of greater size. How, then, are they indivisible?  

In the next place, if the things which are not seen are formed from invisible seeds, it follows that those which are seen are from visible seeds. Why, then, does no one see them? But whether any one regards the invisible parts which are in man, or the parts which can be touched, and which are visible, who does not see that both parts exist in accordance with design? 57    Ratio.   How, then, can bodies which meet together without design effect anything reasonable? 58    Rationale.   For we see that there is nothing in the whole world which has not in itself very great and wonderful design. And since this is above the sense and capacity of man, to what can it be more rightly attributed than to the divine providence? If a statue, the resemblance of man, is made by the exercise of design and art, shall we suppose that man himself is made up of fragments which come together at random? And what resemblance to the truth is there in the thing produced, 59    Ficto.   when the greatest and most surpassing skill60    Artificium.   can imitate nothing more than the mere outline and extreme lineaments61    Umbram et extrema lineamenta.   of the body? Was the skill of man able to give to his production any motion or sensibility? I say nothing of the exercise of the sight, of hearing, and of smelling, and the wonderful uses of the other members, either those which are in sight or those which are hidden from view. What artificer could have fabricated either the heart of man, or the voice, or his very wisdom? Does any man of sound mind, therefore, think that that which man cannot do by reason and judgment, may be accomplished by a meeting together of atoms everywhere adhering to each other? You see into what foolish ravings they have fallen, while they are unwilling to assign to God the making and the care of all things  

Let us, however, concede to them that the things which are earthly are made from atoms: are the things also which are heavenly? They say that the gods are without contamination, eternal, and blessed; and they grant to them alone an exemption, so that they do not appear to be made up of a meeting together of atoms. For if the gods also had been made up of these, they would be liable to be dispersed, the seeds at length being resolved, and returning to their own nature. Therefore, if there is something which the atoms could not produce, why may we not judge in the same way of the others? But I ask why the gods did not build for themselves a dwelling-place before those first elements produced the world? It is manifest that, unless the atoms had come together and made the heaven, the gods would still be suspended through the midst of empty space. By what counsel, then, by what plan, did the atoms from a confused mass collect themselves, so that from some the earth below was formed into a globe, and the heaven stretched out above, adorned with so great a variety of constellations that nothing can be conceived more embellished? Can he, therefore, who sees such and so great objects, imagine that they were made without any design, without any providence, without any divine intelligence, but that such great and wonderful things arose out of fine and minute atoms? Does it not resemble a prodigy, that there should be any human being who might say these things, or that there should be those who might believe them—as Democritus, who was his hearer, or Epicurus, to whom all folly flowed forth from the fountain of Leucippus? But, as others say, the world was made by Nature, which is without perception and figure.62    [See p. 97, note 4, supra.]   But this is much more absurd. If Nature made the world, it must have made it by judgment and intelligence; for it is he that makes something who has either the inclination to make it, or knowledge. If nature is without perception and figure, how can that be made by it which has both perception and figure, unless by chance any one thinks that the fabric of animals, which is so delicate, could have been formed and animated by that which is without perception, or that that figure of heaven, which is prepared with such foresight for the uses of living beings, suddenly came into existence by some accident or other, without a builder, without an artificer? 63    [See Cicero’s judgment, p. 99, note 6, supra.]    

“If there is anything,” says Chrysippus, “which effects those things which man, though he is endowed with reason, cannot do, that assuredly is greater, and stronger, and wiser than man.” But man cannot make heavenly things; therefore that which shall produce or has produced these things surpasses man in art, in design, in skill, and in power. Who, therefore, can it be but God? But Nature, which they suppose to be, as it were, the mother of all things, if it has not a mind, will effect nothing, will contrive nothing; for where there is no reflection there is neither motion nor efficacy. But if it uses counsel for the commencement of anything, reason for its arrangement, art for its accomplishment, energy for its consummation, and power to govern and control, why should it be called Nature rather than God? Or if a concourse of atoms, or Nature without mind, made those things which we see, I ask why it was able to make the heaven, but unable to make a city or a house? 64    [See Dionysius, cap, ii. p. 85, vol. vi., this series.]   Why it made mountains of marble, but did not make columns and statues? But ought not atoms to have come together to effect these things, since they leave no position untried? For concerning Nature, which has no mind, it is no wonder that it forgot to do these things. What, then, is the case? It is plain that God, when He commenced this work of the world,—than which nothing can be better arranged with respect to order, nor more befitting as to utility, nor more adorned as to beauty, nor greater as to bulk,—Himself made the things which could not be made by man; and among these also man himself, to whom He gave a portion of His own wisdom, and furnished him with reason, as much as earthly frailty was capable of receiving, that he might make for himself the things which were necessary for his own uses.  

But if in the commonwealth of this world, so to speak, there is no providence which rules, no God who administers, no sense at all prevails in this nature of things. From what source therefore will it be believed that the human mind, with its skill and its intelligence, had its origin? For if the body of man was made from the ground, from which circumstance man received his name;65    Homo ab humo.   it follows that the soul, which has intelligence, and is the ruler of the body, which the limbs obey as a king and commander, which can neither be looked upon nor comprehended, could not have come to man except from a wise nature. But as mind and soul govern everybody, so also does God govern the world. For it is not probable that lesser and humble things bear rule, but that greater and highest things do not bear rule. In short, Marcus Cicero, in his Tusculan Disputations,66    [Book i. cap. 27.]   and in his Consolation, says: “No origin of souls can be found on earth. For there is nothing, he says, mixed and compound67    Concretum.   in souls, or which may appear to be produced and made up from the earth; nothing moist or airy,68    Flabile.   or of the nature of fire. For in these natures there is nothing which has the force of memory, of mind and reflection, which both retains the past and foresees the future, and is able to comprise the present; which things alone are divine. For no source will ever be found from which they are able to come to man, unless it be from God.” Since, therefore, with the exception of two or three vain calumniators, it is agreed upon that the world is governed by providence, as also it was made, and there is no one who ventures to prefer the opinion of Diagoras and Theodorus, or the empty fiction of Leucippus, or the levity of Democritus and Epicurus, either to the authority of those seven ancient men who were called wise,69    [P. 101, supra; also vol. v. p. 11, note 2.]   or to that of Pythagoras or of Socrates or Plato, and the other philosophers who judged that there is a providence; therefore that opinion also is false, by which they think that religion was instituted by wise men for the sake of terror and fear, in order that ignorant men might abstain from sins.  

But if this is true, it follows that we are derided by the wise men of old. But if they invented religion for the sake of deceiving us, and moreover of deceiving the whole human race, therefore they were not wise, because falsehood is not consistent with the character of the wise man. But grant that they were wise; what great success in falsehood was it, that they were able to deceive not only the unlearned, but Plato also, and Socrates, and so easily to delude Pythagoras, Zeno, and Aristotle, the chiefs of the greatest sects? There is therefore a divine providence, as those men whom I have named perceived, by the energy and power of which all things which we see were both made and are governed. For so vast a system of things70    Tanta rerum magnitudo.   such arrangement and such regularity in preserving the settled orders and times, could neither at first have arisen without a provident artificer, or have existed so many ages without a powerful inhabitant, or have been perpetually governed without a skilful and intelligent71    Sentiente; others read “sciente.”   ruler; and reason itself declares this. For whatever exists which has reason, must have arisen from reason. Now reason is the part of an intelligent and wise nature; but a wise and intelligent nature can be nothing else than God. Now the world, since it has reason, by which it is both governed and kept together, was therefore made by God. But if God is the maker and ruler of the world, then religion is rightly and truly established; for honour and worship are due to the author and common parent of all things.  

CAPUT X. 0100A De Mundi ortu et rerum natura, et Dei providentia.

Qui nolunt divina providentia factum esse mundum, aut principiis inter se temere coeuntibus dicunt esse concretum, aut repente natura extitisse; naturam vero (ut Straton) habere in se vim gignendi et minuendi: sed eam nec sensum habere ullum, nec figuram, ut intelligamus, omnia quasi sua sponte esse generata, nullo artifice, nec auctore. Utrumque vanum et impossibile. Sed hoc evenit ignorantibus veritatem, ut quidvis potius excogitent, quam id sentiant quod ratio deposcit. Primum minuta illa semina, quorum concursu fortuito totum coiisse mundum loquuntur, ubi aut unde sint, quaero. Quis illa vidit unquam? quis sensit? quis audivit? An solus Leucippus 0100B oculos habuit? solus mentem? qui profecto solus omnium caecus et excors fuit, qui ea loqueretur, 0101A quae nec aeger quisquam delirare, nec dormiens posset somniare.

Quatuor elementis constare omnia philosophi veteres disserebant: ille noluit, ne alienis vestigiis videretur insistere. Sed ipsorum elementorum alia voluit esse primordia, quae nec videri possint, nec tangi, nec ulla corporis parte sentiri. Tam minuta sunt, inquit, ut nulla sit acies ferri tam subtilis, qua secari ac dividi possint, unde illis nomen imposuit atomorum. Sed occurrebat ei, quod si una esset omnibus eademque natura, non possent res efficere diversas, tanta varietate, quantam videmus inesse mundo. Dixit ergo, laevia esse, et aspera, et rotunda, et angulata, et hamata. Quanto melius fuerat tacere, quam in usus tam miserabiles, tam inanes, habere 0101B linguam: et quidem vereor, ne non minus delirare videatur, qui haec putet refellenda. Respondeamus tamen velut aliquid dicenti. Si lenia sunt et rotunda, utique non possunt invicem se apprehendere, ut aliquod corpus efficiant; ut si quis milium velit in unam coagmentationem constringere, lenitudo ipsa granorum in massam coire non sinat. Si aspera et angulata sunt, et hamata, ut possint cohaerere; dividua ergo et secabilia sunt: hamos enim necesse est et angulos eminere, ut possint amputari.

0102A Itaque quod amputari ac divelli potest, et videri poterit et teneri. «Haec, inquit, per inane irrequietis motibus volitant, et huc, atque illuc feruntur, sicut pulveris minutias videmus in sole, cum per fenestram radios ac lumen immiserit. Ex his arbores et herbae, et fruges omnes oriuntur: ex his animalia et aqua, ignis et universa gignuntur, et rursus in eadem resolvuntur.» Ferri hoc potest, quam diu de rebus parvis agitur. Ex his etiam mundus ipse concretus est. Implevit numerum perfectae insaniae; nihil videtur ulterius dici posse: sed invenit tamen ille quod adderet. «Quoniam est omne, inquit, infinitum, nec potest quidquam vacare; necesse est ergo innumerabiles esse mundos.» Quae tanta vis fuerat atomorum, ut moles tam inaestimabiles ex tam 0102B minutis conglobarentur? Ac primum requiro, quae sit istorum seminum, vel ratio, vel origo. Si enim ex illis sunt omnia, ipsa igitur unde esse dicemus? quae natura tantam copiam ad efficiendos innumerabiles mundos subministrabit? Sed concedamus, ut impune de mundis deliraverit: de hoc loquamur, in quo sumus, et quem videmus. Ait, omnia ex individuis corpusculis fieri.

Si hoc ita esset, nulla res unquam sui generis semine indigeret. Sine ovis alites nascerentur, ac ova 0103A sine partu, item caetera viventia sine coitu: arbores, et quae gignuntur e terra, propria semina non haberent, quae nos quotidie tractamus, et serimus. Cur ex frumento seges nascitur, et rursus ex segete frumentum? Denique si atomorum coitio et conglobatio efficeret omnia, in aere universa concrescerent; si quidem per inane atomi volitant: cur sine terra, sine radicibus, sine humore, sine semine, non herba, non arbor, non fruges oriri augerique possunt? Unde apparet, nihil ex atomis fieri; quandoquidem unaquaeque res habet propriam certamque naturam, suum semen, suam legem ab exordio datam. Denique Lucretius, quasi oblitus atomorum, quas asserebat, ut redargueret eos, qui dicunt ex nihilo fieri omnia, his argumentis usus est, quae 0103B contra ipsum valerent. Sic enim dixit: Nam si de nihilo fierent, ex omnibu rebus Omne genus nasci posset nil semine egeret.Item postea, Nil igitur fieri de nilo posse fatendum est Semine quando opus est rebus, quo quaeque creatae Aeris in teneras possint proferrier auras.Quis hunc putet habuisse cerebrum, cum haec diceret, nec videret sibi esse contraria? Nihil enim per atomos fieri exinde apparet, quod semen cujusque rei certum est; nisi forte et ignis, et aquae naturam ex atomis esse credemus. Quid, quod durissimi rigoris materiae, si ictu vehementiore collidantur, ignis excutitur? Num in ferro aut silice atomi latent? Quis inclusit? aut cur sua sponte non emicant; aut quomodo semina ignis in materia frigidissima permanere 0103C potuerunt?

0104A Omitto silicem ac ferrum. Orbem vitreum plenum aquae si tenueris in sole, de lumine, quod ab aqua refulget, ignis accenditur etiam in durissimo frigore. Num etiam in aqua ignem esse credendum est? atqui de sole ignis ne aestate quidem accendi potest. Si cerae inhalaveris, vel si vapor levis aliquid attigerit, aut crustam marmoris, aut laminam, paulatim per minutissimos rores aqua concrescit. Item de halitu terrae aut maris nebula existit: quae aut dispersa humefacit quidquid texerit; aut collecta, in arduos montes in sublime vento rapta, stipatur in nubem, atque imbres maximos dejicit. Ubi ergo dicimus liquores natos esse? Num in vapore? Num in halitu? Num in vento? Atqui nihil potest consistere in eo, quod nec tangitur, nec videtur. Quid ego de animalibus 0104B loquar, in quorum corporibus nihil sine ratione, sine ordine, sine utilitate, sine specie figuratum videmus; adeo ut solertissima, et diligentissima omnium partium membrorumque descriptio, casum ac fortunam repellat. Sed putemus artus et ossa et nervos et sanguinem de atomis posse concrescere. Quid sensus, cogitatio, memoria, mens, ingenium, quibus seminibus coagmentari possunt? minutissimis, inquit. Sunt ergo alia majora. Quomodo igitur insecabilia?

Deinde, si ex invisibilibus sunt, quae non videntur, consequens est, ut ex visibilibus sint, quae videntur; cur igitur nemo videt? Sed sive invisibilia quae sunt in homine consideret, sive tractabilia, quae veniunt sub aspectum, ratione utraque constare quis non videt? Quomodo ergo sine ratione coeuntia possunt 0104C aliquid efficere rationale? Videmus enim nihil 0105A esse in omni mundo, quod non habeat in se maximam mirabilemque rationem. Quae, quia supra hominis sensum et ingenium est, cui rectius, quam divinae providentiae tribuenda est? An simulacrum hominis et statuam ratio et ars fingit; ipsum hominem de frustis temere concurrentibus fieri putabimus? Et quid simile veritatis in ficto, cum summum et excellens artificium nihil aliud, nisi umbram et extrema corporis lineamenta possit imitari? Num potuit humana solertia dare operi suo aut motum aliquem, aut sensum? Omitto usum videndi, audiendi, odorandi, caeterorumque membrorum, vel apparentium, vel latentium, mirabiles utilitates. Quis artifex potuit, aut cor hominis, aut vocem, aut ipsam fabricare sapientiam? Quisquamne igitur sanus existimat, 0105B quod homo ratione et consilio facere non possit, id concursu atomorum passim cohaerentium perfici potuisse? Vides in quae deliramenta inciderint, dum nolunt effectionem curamque rerum Deo dare.

Concedamus tamen his, ut ex atomis fiant quae terrena sunt: num etiam coelestia? Deos aiunt incorruptos, aeternos, beatos esse; solisque dant immunitatem, ne concursu atomorum concreti esse videantur. Si enim dii quoque ex illis constitissent, dissipabiles fierent, seminibus aliquando resolutis, atque in naturam suam revertentibus. Ergo si est aliquid, quod atomi non effecerint, cur non caetera eodem modo intelligamus? Sed, quaero, antequam mundum primordia ista generarent, cur sibi dii habitaculum non aedificaverint? Videlicet nisi atomi 0105C coiissent, coelumque fecissent, adhuc dii per medium inane penderent. Quo igitur consilio, qua ratione 0106A de confuso acervo se atomi congregaverunt, ut ex aliis inferius terra conglobaretur, coelum desuper tenderetur, tanta siderum varietate distinctum, ut nihil unquam excogitari possit ornatius? Tanta ergo qui videat et talia, potest existimare nullo effecta esse consilio, nulla providentia, nulla ratione divina; sed ex atomis subtilibus, exiguis concreta esse tanta miracula? Nonne prodigio simile est aut natum esse hominem, qui haec diceret, aut extitisse, qui crederet? ut Democritum, qui auditor ejus fuit, vel Epicurum, in quem vanitas omnis de Leucippi fonte profluxit. At enim (sicut alii dicunt) natura mundus effectus est, quae sensu et figura caret. Hoc vero multo est absurdius. Si natura mundum fecit, consilio et ratione fecerit, necesse est; is enim facit aliquid, 0106B qui aut voluntatem faciendi habet, aut scientiam. Si caret sensu ac figura, quomodo potest ab ea fieri, quod et sensum habeat et figuram? nisi forte quis arbitretur, animalium fabricam tam subtilem a non sentiente formari animarique potuisse; aut istam coeli speciem, tam providenter ad utilitates viventium temperatam, nescio quo casu, sine conditore, sine artifice, subito extitisse.

«Si quid est, inquit Chrysippus, quod efficiat ea; quae homo, licet ratione sit praeditus, facere non possit, id profecto est majus, et fortius, et sapientius homine.» Homo autem non potest facere coelestia; ergo illud, quod haec efficiet vel effecerit, superat hominem arte, consilio, prudentia, potestate. Quis igitur potest esse, nisi Deus? Natura vero, 0106C quam veluti matrem esse rerum putant, si mentem non habet, nihil efficiet unquam, nihil molietur. Ubi 0107A enim non est cogitatio, nec motus est ullus, nec efficacia. Si autem consilio utitur ad incipiendum aliquid, ratione ad disponendum, arte ad efficiendum, virtute ad consummandum, potestate ad regendum et continendum; cur natura potius quam Deus nominetur? Aut si concursus atomorum, vel carens mente natura, ea, quae videmus, effecit, quaero cur facere coelum potuerit, urbem aut domum non potuerit? cur montes marmoris fecerit, columnas et simulacra non fecerit? Atqui non debuerant atomi etiam ad haec efficienda concurrere; siquidem nullam positionem relinquunt, quam non experiantur. Nam de natura, quae mentem non habeat, non est mirandum, quod haec facere oblita sit. Quid ergo est? Utique Deus, cum inchoaret hoc opus 0107B mundi, quo nihil potest esse nec dispositius ad ordinem, nec aptius ad utilitatem, nec ornatius ad pulchritudinem, nec majus ad molem, quae fieri ab homine non poterant, fecit ipse; in quibus etiam hominem ipsum, cui particulam de sua sapientia dedit; et instruxit eum ratione, quantum fragilitas terrena capiebat, ut ipse sibi efficeret, quae ad usus suos essent necessaria.

0108A Si vero in hujus mundi (ut ita dixerim) republica nulla providentia est, quae regat, nullus Deus, qui administret, nec omnino sensus ullus in hac rerum natura pollet; unde igitur mens humana tam solers, tam intelligens orta esse credetur? Si enim corpus hominis ex humo fictum est, unde homo nomen accepit; animus ergo qui sapit, qui rector est corporis, cui membra obsequuntur tanquam regi et imperatori, qui nec aspici, nec comprehendi potest, non potuit ad hominem nisi a sapiente natura pervenire. Sed sicut omne corpus mens et animus gubernat: ita et mundum Deus. Nec enim verisimile est, ut minora et humilia regimen habeant, majora et summa non habeant. Denique M. Cicero in Tusculanis, et in Consolatione: «Animorum (inquit) nulla 0108B in terris origo inveniri potest. Nihil est enim, inquit, in animis mistum atque concretum, aut quod ex terra natum atque fictum esse videatur; nihilne aut humidum quidem, aut flabile, aut igneum. His enim naturis nihil inest, quod vim memoriae, mentis, cogitationis habeat, quod et praeterita teneat, et futura praevideat, et complecti possit praesentia, quae sola divina sunt. Nec enim inveniuntur unquam, unde ad 0109A hominem venire possint, nisi a Deo.» Exceptis igitur duobus tribusve calumniatoribus vanis, cum constet, divina providentia mundum regi, sicut et factus est, nec sit quisquam, qui Diagorae Theodorique sententiam, vel Leucippi inane commentum, vel Democriti Epicurique levitatem praeferre audeat auctoritati, vel illorum septem priorum, qui sunt appellati sapientes, vel Pythagorae, vel Socratis, vel Platonis, caeterorumque philosophorum, qui esse Providentiam judicaverunt; falsa igitur est et illa sententia, qua putant terroris ac metus gratia Religionem a sapientibus institutam, quo se homines imperiti a peccatis abstinerent.

Quod si verum sit, ergo derisi ab antiquis sapientibus sumus. Quod si fallendi nostri, atque adeo totius 0109B generis humani causa commenti sunt Religionem; sapientes igitur non fuerunt, quia in sapientem non cadit mendacium. Sed fuerint sapientes; quae tanta felicitas mentiendi, ut non tantummodo indoctos, sed Platonem quoque ac Socratem fallerent, et Pythagoram, Zenonem, Aristotelem, maximarum sectarum principes, tam facile deluderent? Est igitur divina providentia, ut senserunt ii homines, quos nominavi; cujus vi ac potestate omnia, quae videmus et facta sunt, et reguntur. Nec enim tanta rerum magnitudo, tanta dispositio, tanta in servandis ordinibus temporibusque constantia, aut olim potuit sine provido artifice oriri, aut constare tot saeculis sine incola potenti, aut in perpetuum gubernari 0109C sine perito ac sentiente rectore: quod ratio ipsa 0110A declarat. Quidquid est enim, quod habet rationem, ratione sit ortum necesse est. Ratio autem sentientis sapientisque naturae est: sapiens vero sentiensque natura nihil aliud potest esse, quam Deus. Mundus autem, quoniam rationem habet, qua et regitur, et constat; ergo a Deo factus est. Quod si est conditor rectorque mundi Deus, recte igitur ac vere Religio constituta est; auctori enim rerum parentique communi honos veneratioque debetur.