the end of life in the philosophy of lactantius

7/27/2019 The End of Life in the Philosophy of Lactantius

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-end-of-life-in-the-philosophy-of-lactantius 1/67

Loyola University Chicago

Loyola eCommons

Master's Teses Teses and Dissertations

1940

Te End of Life in the Philosophy of LactantiusClara M. Jarvis Loyola University Chicago

Tis Tesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Teses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in

Master's Teses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please [email protected].

Tis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Aribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.

Copyright © 1940 Clara M. Jarvis

Recommended Citation Jarvis, Clara M., "Te End of Life in the Philosophy of Lactantius" (1940). Master's Teses. Paper 223.hp://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/223

http://ecommons.luc.edu/

http://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses

http://ecommons.luc.edu/td

mailto:[email protected]

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/





mailto:[email protected]

http://ecommons.luc.edu/td

http://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses

http://ecommons.luc.edu/



THE EI'JJj OF LIFE IJ:! THE PHILOSOPHY OF LliCT.ANTIUS- - - - - - - - . - · - - --·------

By

Clara M. Jarvis

A Thesis

submitted in part ia l fulfil lment

of the

requirements for the degree of

l iaster of Arts

in Loyola University

August, 1940



INTRODUCTION

What is the ultimate goal at whial;l the vvill of every

areature aims? Perhaps th is has been the most important· ques

t ion that has perplexed the thinkers of a l l ages. I t is

aommonly aaaepted that every human aat is done for some end.

The perennial problem is to determine what is the true end

of l i f e ' s aation. Our answer to th is question is basia. I t

will largely determine our answer to many of the ~ u e s t i o n sthat aonsti tute the provinee',of philosophy, suah as, ~ J h a t is

man? wihenae is he? Whither is he going? How shal l he guide

himself? Vfuat is the purpose of th is vast and varied universe

around him? What is man's relat ion to i t and to the great

Power behind the veil? Wha·t are man's duties to himself and

to his fellow-men? What are his destinies?

Laatantius reaognized that the in tel leatual aonsti tut ion

of man compels him to inquire as to the true end of l i fe . In

this thesis I have e n d ~ a v o u r e d to ascertain the end of l i fe

as found in the extant writings of Laatantius. My studies

have been based on the works of Laatantius, as translated by

William Fletaher, and found in Volume VII of the .Ante-Niaene Fathers.

By the very nature of his writings, I have been com

pelled to base my findings largely on the Divine Inst i tu tes ,

especially Books I I I , IV, and VII.

Lactantius assigns his motive for writing the

Inst i tutes to the following:



"Since the t ruth l ies veiled in obscurity;and i t is either an object of contempt to thelearned because i t has not had suitable defend-ers , or i t is hated by the unlearned on accountof i t s natural severity, which the nature of men

inclined to vices cannot endure •• . • •• . • r havebelieved that these erros should be encountered,

that both the learned may be directed to truewisdom and the unlearned to true religion.n 1.

Lactantius has always held a very high place among the

Christian Fathers, not only on account of the varied subject-

matter of his writ ings, but also on account of the erudition,

the sweetness of e x ~ r e s s i o n , and the grace and elegance of

2.style, by which they are characterizied.

'



Chapter I I

The Life of Lactantius

I t is strange, therefore, that so l i t t l e is known with

certainty in regard to his personal history. I t is dif f icul t

to f ix with precision ei ther the time or place of his binth,1 .

and even his name has been the subject of much discussion.

I t is known that Lactantius pursued his studies in the school

of the celebrated rhetorician and apologist, Arnobius of2.

Sicca in proconsular Africa. Hence, i t has been supposed

3 . 4.that Lactantius was a native of Africa. Others have

maintained that he was born in I ta ly , and that his bir th-

Dlace was probably Firmium. I t is generally accepted that5 .

he was born about the middle of the third century.

Lactantius attained great eminence as a teacher of

rhetoric , and when the Emperor Diocletian heard of his

celebri ty, he invited Lactantius to setLle at Nicomedia and7..

there practice his ar t . I t has been observed that

since Diocletian took up his permanent residence at

Nicomedia in A.D. 28b, the ca l l of Lactantius th i ther was

probably not much la ter than that date.

The ci ty of Nicomedia was inhabited mainly by Greeks,

and Lactantius found few pupils to instruct . St. Jerome

says that this afforded Lactantius a great deal of

leisure and he welcomed i t as an opportunity to devote8.

himself toa u t h o r ~ ~ i p .



I t is chiefly through his writings that Lactantius

is known. The works which have oome down to our day are

mostly religious t reat ises of a philosophical character,

the aim of which was nto sap the foundations of the heathen

rel igion then prevalent in the Roman Empire, and to vindi-9.

cate the rel igion of Christ .n

The following works are the ~ r o d u o t of his pen:10.

~ h e _ y i v i n e Inst i tu tes , his most important work, is an ex-

haustive philosophic work in seven books; On the ~ l o r k m a n -

shin of God, a discussion of the creation and nature of- - - - - - - -man; On the lmger of God, deals vvith the current theories

of Providence; and On the Manner in ,;hioh the Persecutors

Died, a violent t reat ise on the perseuctions from Nero-- 11.

to Galerius. . There are also ascribed to him some12.

writings which have been los t . Even now, howeveP,

Lactantius is extant in two hundred 8nd twenty manuscripts,

the oldest of which belong to the sixth and seventh cen-14.

tur ies .

The style of. Lactantius has been deservedly praised

for the dignity, elegance, and clearness of expression by

which i t is characterized, and VJhich have gained for himlb .

the appellation of the Christian Cicero. His writings

are always lucid and well arranged. Nowhere does

13.

the reader feel an unplesant tone of pedantry nor affectation;

everywhere he is attracted by the impress oi genuine learning

16.and eloquence.



His reading was evidently very extensive, part icular-

ly of authors, both in prose and poetry, in whose works the

current moral and rel igious principles were presented. To

such authors he refers with much copiousness and fac i l i ty

...,.

and turns them to account, by shovJing their agreement with17.

his own views, or by exposing their errors. However, some

do not think much of his Biblical and theological erudition.

I t was probably during the time Lactantius was teach-lB.

ing at Xicomedia that he embraced the Christian fa i th.

doubt witnessing the superhuman constancy displayed by19.

the Christians of that ci ty influenced him greatly. This

was a period when Christians were being persecuted by the

emperors with f ire and sword. They were also assailed by

heathen philosouhers with the weapons of science, wit , and20.

r idicule.

I t has been a matter of perplexity to understand how

Lactantius escaped personal injury durinF, the severe21.

Jioclet ian persecution. Some think, and this seems

reasonable, that i t was because he was generally regarded

as a philosopher, and not a Christian writer .To

judge22.from some of his writings he appears to have been more

attracted by the moral and philosophical aspects of Christ-

ianity than by the supernatural and dogmatic. In fact , in

a l l the theological works of Lactantius is manifest the

influence of his early studies of a l l the masterpieces of23.

ancient rhetoric and philosophy. In the words of Jerome,



24.he was "omnium suo tempore eruditissimus".

About A.D. 315 Lactantius was called to set t le in Gaul

and the Emperor Constantine entrusted to him the education25.

of his son, Crispus. In the language of Gibbon,

nr,actant ius, the most e l o , ~ u e n t of the Christians n was

"admirably qualified to ~ o r m the tas te , and to excite the26.

vir tues, of his i l lus tr ious disciple."

I t is commonly accepted that Lactantius died at Treves

about A.D. 325.



Chapter I I I

Introduction to Moral Philoscinhy

Lactantius begins his philosophical discussion in the

third book of the DivineI n s t i t u t ~ ,

ent i t led , Of The False

\lisdom of the Philoso.E_hers. Here he enters into confl ict

with the philosophers and endeavors to expose the vanity of

their pretansions. He introduces us to his purpose by

asserting, "For since a l l eror arises_either f r o ~ false

rel igion or from wisdom (philosophy fa lse ly so-called) , in1.

refuting error i t is necessary to overthrow both."

He continues by saying, 11 There is no reason why we

should give so much honor to philosophers ••••• for they might

speak well as men of learning; but they could not speak t ruly

because they have not learned the t ruth from him inw whose

power i t vJas. Nor indeed shal l we effect anything great in

convincing them of their ignorance, which they themselves

very often confess. Since they are not believed in that

one point alone in ·VJhich alone they ought to have been

believed, I wil l endeavor to show that they never spoke so

t ruly as when they uttered their opinion respecting thei r2.

own ignorance."

In the Preface, Lactantius t e l l s us that he is now

engaged in a profession which is 11much better , more useful

and glorious", than that of oratory in which he had long3.

been engaged. He says to impart the knowledge of speaking



well is deserving of respect , but how much more, he who

teaches men to live in piety and innocence. For th is reason

the philosophers had greater elory than the arators among

the Greeks; because philosophers were considered theachers

of r ight l ivint; , which is far more excellent, since to speak

well belongs merely to a few, but to l ive well relates to4.

al l . However, Lactantius, admits that oratory has been

of advantage to him because now he can plead the cause of

t ru th with great fac i l i ty . The t ruth may be defended with-

out eloquence, and many have done so; yet i t should be given

the aid of rhetoric , so that i t wil l influence minds more

deeply, not. by i t s own force alone, but by the l ight of5.

cult iva ted speech ·which illumines i t .

Lactanti11s observes that i f some of the greatest

orators re t i r ing from the s t r i fe of the courts betook them-

selves to philosophy, hoping to find in i t a respite which

they did not find, then "how much more just ly shal l I

betake myself as to a most safe barbour, to that pious, true,

and divine wisdom, in which a ll t h i n ~ s are ready for ut ter-

ance, pleasant to the hearing, easy to be understood, honor-6.able to be undertaken." Ahd i f some arbi ters of just ice

published Inst i tut ions of c iv i l law for the purpose of

straightening contentions between discordant ci t izens, then

i t is much better and even more proper to write the Divine

Inst i tut ions, whose purpose is to speak on weightier matters



of "hope, of l i fe , of salvation, of immortality, and of God."

In the openinb of Book Two, Lactantius, addressing

himself to the Emperor Constantine, says, that he desires to

undertake the useful and greater duty of recal l ing men from

crooked paths and of bringing them into favor with them-

selves, so that they will not think that man is born in8.

vain, as some philosophers teach.

Lactantius says the in_uiry after t ruth is natural to

a l l , but many deprive themselves of wisdom because they

accept parrot-fashion the thinking of the ancestors without

any .iudgment of their own; hence they are led by others

l ike sheep. ";fuat, therefore, p r e v ~ n t s us from taking

such a precedent from them," says Lactantius, "That as they

handed down to posteri ty their false inventions, so we who

have discovered the truth may hand down better things to9.

our posterity?n

In the opening of the Third Book, Lactantius expresses

a desire that the power of eloquence had fal len to his lo t ,

that t ruth, supported by talent as well as by i t s own force,

might refute error and introduce among the human race a10.br i l l iant l ight . A l i t t l e l t ~ t e r he admits that "I bear

i t vvith equanimity that a moderate degree of ta lent has been11.

granted to me". However, he asserts that i t is not in

reliance upon eloquence, but upon the t ruth, that this work12.

is undertaken. Ee says that is a work perhaps too great

7



for his human strength; but even i f he fa i l "the t ruth

i t se l f wil l complete, with the aid of God, whose office13.

th is is ." Lactantius fe l t tha t this was no small task

and he expected to put his best into i t . He says that he

never came to pleading causes in public, indicating that

th is was due to what he calls his lack of eloquence; though

he urges tha t in speaking of the end of l i fe , the goodness14.

of th is cause must make him eloquent. .And in the

conclusion of his work on the Workmanshi.r_. of God, I1actantius

lays bear his heart and earnestly asks, "Shall we suffer

the truth to be extinguished or crushed," He s tates that

he is determined to commit to writing as much as possible15.

which has any bearing on the happy l i fe . He t e l l s us

that he wishes to l ive for no other reason than that he

might effect something worthy of l i l 'e and useful to his

readers. And when he has accomplished th is , Lactantius

says that he wil l have l ived enough and discharged his duty

i f his labor shal l have "freed some men from errors , and16.

have directed them to the path which leads to heaven."

So much for the ~ u r p o s e which motivated Lactantius

in VJriting the Divine I n s t i t u t e ~ . He observes that the

etymology of the word .:philoso.phy indicates not the possess-

ion of wisdom, but a str iving after i t ; and in i t s ultimate

..

resul t i t leaves us nothing but mere opinion ~ n d uncertainty.

He says, "They who apply themselves to philosophy do not



-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,devote themselves to the :pursuit of wisdom, but they imagine

that they do so, because they know not where that is which

they are searching for or of what character i t is ••••• I t is

17.either sought in an improper manner, or not sollght at al l . "

Lactantills then proceeds to note the want of agreement

a m o n ~ , : the various philosophers. He points out that they are

1divided tnto many sects and a l l entertain various sentiments,

and asks the question, "In which do we place the truth? I t19.

certainly cannot be in al l . "

Some :9hiloso]lhers clain knov;ledge and others deny i t .

Lactantius says, "Between these two kinds of philosophy I

see that there is disagreement, and as i t were, c ivi l war.

On which eide shall we place wisdom, which cannot be torn20.

asunder?" ARain he asks, "Does wisdom nowhere exist?21.

Yes indeed. I t was amongst them, but no one saw i t . "

After show n " ~ that philosophy is groundless a·s a t r l ls t-

worthy cr i ter ion, Lactantius passes to the subject of moral

I;Jhilosophy and the chief good. Iiere he distinguishes natural

I;Jhilosophy from moral philosophy. In natural philosophy there

is only delip,ht; in moral philosophy there is ut i l i ty also.

I t is more dangerous to commit a faul t in arranging the

condition of l i fe and informing the character. Hence, the

great diligence must be used that we may know how vJe ought

to l ive. In natural philosophy some i n d ~ l g e n c e may be granted

for i t does no permanent injury, but in moral l)hilosophy,



nthere is no room for difference of opinion nor error . All

must enter ta in the same sentiments, and philosophy i t s e l f

must give instruction as i t were with one mouth; because i f2

any error shall be committed, lil 'e is altogether overthrown."

asks,

Lactantius then carries the inquiry s t i l l further and23.

HI,et us see whether they {the philosophers)agree or what assistance they give us for thebetter guidance of l i fe •••• Let us select oneand especially that which is the chief endprincipal thing (the true end of l i fe) in which

the whole of wisdom centers and depends.n



~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - ~Chapter IV

The End of Life in the HistorJ[

of Philo.so;ehy

~ V h a t has been the chief good or the end of l i fe in

the history of philosophy? Lactantius answers this ~ u e s t i o nquite briefly, and says that Epicurus deemed the chief good

to consist in pleasure of the mind, while for Aristippus1.

the end of l i fe was pleasure of the body.

Diodorus united virtue with the privation of.pain,2.

while Callipho and Dinomachus connected i t with pleasure.

In what did Hieronymus place the chief cood?3.

Iactantius says that i t was in the absence of pain.

The Peripatet ics differ in their conception of the

end ofl i fe

and placei t

in the goods of the mind, the body,4.and of fortune.

The chief good of Heril lus , according to Lactantius,5.

is knowledge.

For Zeno, the end of l i fe was to live agreeably to6.

nature.

Lactantius indicates that certain Stoics said the7.

chief good was to follow vir tue.

The las t to be mentioned is Aristot le, and Lactantius

accounts him as placing the end of l i fe in integri ty and8.

virtue.

Lactantius is of the opinion that the system of



.

Epicurus was more generally followed than that of any of the9.

other philosophers; not because i t brings forward any

t ruth, but because the attract ive name of pleasure invites10.

many. He further accounts for Epicurus' success by say-

11.ina: that every one is natural ly inclined to vices.

He attempts to show how the philosophy of Epicurus

wins acceptance because the l a t ter adapts his teachings to

the l ikes of every man:

"Moreover, for the purpose of drawing themultitude to himself, he {Epicurus) speaks thatwhich is specially adapted to each characterseparately. He forbids the idle to apply himself to learninG; he releases the covetousman from giving largesses to the people; heprohibits the inactive mun from undertakingthe business of the s ta te , the sluggish f r o ~bodily exercise, the timid from mili tary service. ~ h e i rrel igious is told that the godspay no attention to the conduct of men; the

man who is unfeeling and self ish is orderedto give nothing to any one, for that the wiseman does everything on his own account. To

a man who avoids the crowd, solitude is

praised. One who is too sparing learnsthat l i fe can be sustained on water andmeal. I f a man hates his wife, the bless-ings of celibacy are enumerated to him;to one who has bad children, the happinessof those who are without children is pro

claimed; against unnatural parents i t issaid that there is no bond of nature.To the man who is delicate and incapableof endurance, i t is 3aid that pain is thegreatest of a l l evils; to the man of for t i -tude, i t is said that the wise man is happyeven under tortures . The man who devoteshimself to the pursuit of influence anddist inct ion is enjoined to pay court tokings; he who cannot endure annoyance is

enjo)"ned to shun the abode of kings. Thusthe craf ty man collects an assembly fromvarious and differing characters; and while



he lays himself out to please al l , he is moreat variance with himself than they a ll arewith one another." 12.

Laotantius, however, does not want his readers to read

this cri t icism without understanding in a measure at least ,

the background and origin of' the system of Epicurus. He

13.relates how that ~ p i c u r u s saw that the good are often

subject to adversi t ies , poverty, labors, exi le , and loss of

dear fr iends. On the other hand, he saw that the wicked were

happy, they had influence, and were loaded with honors.

Epicurus saw tha t ·innocence v ~ a s unprotected, that crimes

were committed without punishment. He realized that death

waged without regard to character, without any discrimation

of age. That which especially moved him, says Lactantius,

was the fact that "religious men were especially visi ted

with weightier evi ls , whereas he saw that lesser evils or

none at a l l fe l l u ~ o n those who altogether neglected the14.

gods, or worshipped them in an impious manner."

"There :tore," rem arks Lactant ius, 11When Epicurus

reflected on these t h i n ~ s , induced as i t were by the in-

justice of these matters (for thus i t appeared to him in

his ~ g n o r a n c e of the cause and subject) , he thought that

there was no providence. And h a v i n ~ persuaded himself' of

th i s , he undertook also to defend i t , and thus he entangled15.

himself in inextricable errors ."

After 1uite a lengthy discussion of the consequences



16.of Epicurus 1 denial of providence, Lactantius points out

that as a result of the false principles at the beginning

of his system, he ended up as an "advocate of most dis-

graceful pleasure, and said that man was born for i t s

17.enjoyment. 11

I f i t were true that man was born for the enjoyment

of disgraceful pleasure, Lactantius points out the aonse-

quenaes of such bel ief and indicates what bearing i t

would have on a man's l i fe and end. I f there were no

providence and no immortality why should man avoid vice

in this l i fe . I t would inevitably lead to the indulgence

of pleasure in every conceivable manner; and why not,

i f God does not care and in a short time death will end

all?

"Who, when he hears th is affirmed, wouldabstain from the practice of viae and wickedness? For i f the soul is doomed to perish,le t us eagerly puruse r iches , that we may beable to enjoy a l l kinds of indulgence; and i fthese are wanting to us, le t us take themaway from those who have by steal th , bystratagem, or by f'orae, especially i f thereis no God who regards the actions of men:as long as the hope of impunity shal l

favour us, le t us plunder, and put todeath. For i t is the part of the wiseman to do evi l , i f i t is advantageous tohim, and safe; since, i f there is a God inheaven, Ee is not angry with any one. I t

is also equally the part of the foolish manto do good; because, as he is not excitedwith anger, so he is not influenced byfavour. Therefore, le t us l ive in theindulgence of pleasures in every possible

way; for in a short time we shal l notexist at al l . Therefore, le t us suffer



no day, in short , no moment of l i f e , to passaway from us without pleasure; les t , sincev;e our selves are doomed to perish, the l i fewhich we have already spent Bhould i t se l falso perish." 18.

Lactantius suggests that Epicurus does not say these

191things in word, but he does teach them in fact . He

continues by sayinp that when Epicurus maintains that

the men of wisdom does e v e r y t h i n ~ for his own sake, that

he really refers a l l his actions to his own advantage.

I f any one accepts th is philosophy 11he Vi i l l neither

think that any { ~ o o d ought to be done, since the conferring

of benefi ts has reference to the advantage of another;

nor that he ought to abstain from gui l t , because the20.

doing of evil is attended with gain."

The cri t ic ism is carried even i 'urther v ~ h e n

Lactantius suggests that i f a leader of pirates or robbers

were urging his men to deeds of violence what bet ter

suited language could he use than that of Epicurus, which

he enumerates as follows:

"That the gods take no notice; that they

are not affected with anger nor kind feelings;that the punishment of a f'uture state is notto be dreaded, because souls die af ter death,and that there is no future s ts te of nnish-ment at al l ; that pleasure is the greatestgood; tha t there is no society among men;that every one consults his own interext;that there is no one who loves another,unless i t be for his own sake; that deathis not to be feared by a brave man, nor

any pain; for that he, even i f he shouldbe tormented and burned, should say that



21.he does not regard i t . "

22.In another work, Lactantius says that Epicurus

maintained that the end or l i ;e was pleasure of the soul,

and cri t ic izes i t by saying,

11What is pleasure of the soul but ,joy,in which the soul for the most part luxuriates, and unbends i t se l f ei ther to sportor to laughter? But this good befal ls evendumb animals, which, when they are sat isf iedwith pasture, relax themselves to joy andwantonness.n 23.

Concerning 1 \ r i s t i _ p ~ ; u s , the founder of the Cyrenaic

sect , who thought that bodily pleasure was the end of l i fe ,

Lactantius says, that he "ought to be removed from the

number of philosophers and from the society of men, be-24.

cause he· compared himself to a beast . n

Lactantius also writes the following bi t ter cri t icism:

"I do not consider .Aristi_piJUS even worthyof an answer; for since he is always rushing into pleasures of the body, and is only the slaveof sensual indulgences, no one can regard himas a man; for he lived in such a m ~ n n e r thatthere was no difference between him and abrute, except this only, that he had the faculty of speech •••• Shall we then seek precepts

of l iving from these men, who have no otherf e e l i n ~ s than those of the i r ra t ional creatures?" 25.

, I f we follow such a one, Lactantius feels that we

must contend that virtue is to be rraised in accordance

with i ts capacity of yielding pleasure. Shall we therefore

seek wisdom from thosewho

evince not the least possessionof i t , who differ from cat t le and brutes, not in feeling,



26.but in language?

In cri t ic iz ing the end of l i fe of Dinomachus and

Callipho, who a ~ ~ r o v e d of honourable pleasure, Lactantius

briefly says, that "they ei ther said the same thatEpicurus did, that 1Jodily pleasure is dishonoll.rable; or

i f they considered bodily nleasll.res to be ~ a r t l y base and

]_')Hrtl,y honourable, then t; hat is not the chief good which27.

is ascribed to the body. 11

Concerning Hieronymus who held the end of l i fe to be

without pain, and Diodorus who said i t was to cease to be28.

in pain, Lactantius s a ~ r s ,

"Rllt the other animals avoid pain, andwhen they are without pain, or cease to bein pain, are glad. ~ h a t dist inct ion, then,shall be given to man, i f his chief goodis judged to be common with the beasts?" 29.

The Peripatet ics said that the true end of l i fe con-30.

sisted of the goods of the soul, the body, and of fortll.ne.

In regard to thei r philosophy, Lactantill.S says,

"The goods of the soul may be approvedof; but i f they require assistance for thecompletion of happiness, they are plainlyweak. But the goods of the body and offortune are not in the power of man; noris that now the chief good which is assigned to the body, or to t h i n ~ s placed withoutus, because this double good extends evento the cat t le which have need of beingwell, and of a due supply of food." 31.

The Pyrrhonist , I ler i l lus, held knowledge to be the32.

true end of l i f e , and Lactantill.S agrees that this good

belongs to man, and to the soul only, bll.t i t may happen to



.--h-1.-.m_w_i_t_h_o_u_t_v_i_r_t_u_e-. -3-3-.--H-e_r_e_a_s_o_n_s_t_h_a_t_a_p_e_r_s_o_n _ _h_o_h_a_s___

ei ther learned anything by hearing or reading is not to be

considered happy. Nor is i t a defini t ion of the true end

of l i fe because there may be knowledge of ei ther bad things,

or even useless things. But even i f we have acquired know-

ledge of good and useful things by labour, s t i l l i t is not

the t rue end of l i fe beca11se knovvledge is not to be sought

on i t s own account, but on account of something else.

Lactantius then gives an examnle and says that the arts are

learned ei ther to be means of sUp1Jort, or a source of gloiY,

or even of pleasure; and i t is plan that these thincs can-34.

not be the end of l i fe .35.

In one place, Lactantius cri t ic izes the end of l i fe

in 2eno as beinc a very general one because a l l animals

l ive agreeably to nature, and each has i t own nature . In

the Divine Inst i tu tes , however, he is more explici t :

"Let us also hear Zeno, for he at timesdreams of vir tue. The chief good, he says, isto l ive in accordance with nature. Thereforewe m ~ s t l ive af ter the manner of the brutes.For in these are found a l l the things whichought to be absent from man: they are eager

for pleasures, they fear , they deceive, theyl ie in wait, they ki l l ; and that which is

especially to the point , they have no knowledge of God. Why, therefore, does he teachme to l ive according to nature, which is ofi t se l f prone to a worse course, and underthe influence of some more soothing blandishments plunges headlong into vices? Ori f he says that the nature of brutes is

different from the nature of man, becauseman is born to vir tue, he says something tothe purpose; but, however, i t will not bea defini t ion of the chief good, because



there is no animal ~ h i c h does not l ive inaccordance with i t s nature." 36.

Lactantius makes rather brief mention of the Stoics

in his crit icism of thei r end of l i f e . He says that i t is

usually thought that the Stoics have entertained much

better views and held that virtue was the true end of l i f e .

"But," says Lactantius, "Virtue cannot be the chief good,

since i f i t is the endurance of evi ls and of labours,

i t is not happy of i t se l f ; but i t ouzht to effect and pro-

duce the chief good, because i t cannot be attained Yvi thout

37.the greatest diff icul ty and labour."

Concerning Aristot le , even, Lactantius doesn't have

a very sympathetic spi r i t as is evidence.d by these ·words:

"In t ru th , Aristot le wandered far fromreason, who connected honour with virtue, asthough i t were possible for virtue at any

time to be separated from honour, or to beunited with baseness." 38.

Lactantius enlarges a l i t t l e more upon his crit icism

by saying in this connection,

"But he ( that is , Aristot le) saw that i tmight happen that a bad opinion is entertainedrespecting virtue by a depraved judgment, andtherefore he thought that deference should benaid to what in the estimation of men consti-~ u t e s a departure from what is r ight and good,becauwe i t is not in our pov;er that virtueshculd be honoured simply for i t s own deserts .For what is honourable character, except per-petual honour, conferred on any one by thefavourable renort of the peoole? What, then,wil l hap!)en, i f through the error· and perverse-ness of men a bad reputation should ensue?Shall we cast aside virtue because i t is

judged to be base and disgraceful by thefoolish? And since i t is capable of being



oppressed and harrassed, in order that i t maybe of i t s e l f a peculiar and las t ing good, i tought to stand in need of no outward ass is t -ance, so as not to depend by i t se l f upon i t sown s trength, and to remain steadfast . Ahdthus no good is to be hoped by i t from man,nor i s any evi l to

berefused."

39 •.And in summing u_p his cri t ic ism of' the end of l i fe in

these various p h i l o s o ~ h e r s , Lactantius remarks,

"Therefore the philosophers do not observethe rule even in moral philosophy, inasmuch asthey are at variance with one another on themain point i t s e l f , that i s , in that discussionby which the l i fe is moulded. For the precepts

cannot be e ~ u a l , or resembling one another,when some t ra in men to pleasure, others tohonour, others indeed to nature, others toknowledge; some to the pursui t , others to theavoiding of r iches; some to entire insens ib i l i ty to pain, others ~ o the endurance of evi l s ;in a l l which, as I have shown before, theyturn aside from reason, because they are ig norant of God." 40.

Why was there a l l th is difference of opinion among

these men of wisdom? Lactantius a2cribes i t to the follow-

inp;:

"This ~ a s especial ly the cause of a l lthe errors of the philosophers, that theydid not comprehend the system of the world,which com:9rises the ~ : ; h o l e of wisdom. Buti t cannot be comprehended by our own perception and innate in tel l igence, whichthey wished to do by themselves without ateacher. Therefore they f e l l into variousand oftt imes contradictory opinions, outof which they had no way of escape,

And they remained fixed in the same mire,

as the cosmic writer says, since the ir conclusion does not correspond v;ith thei r assump

t ions; inasmuch as they a s s u ~ e d things to betrue which could not be affirmed, and proved

41.



without the k n o ~ l e d g e of the ~ r n t h and ofheavenly things ••••• Man cannot at ta in th isknowledge by ref lect ion or disputation, butby learning and hearing from Him who aloneis able to know and to teach." 42.

In lilioking back over the things he had said concern-

ing the end of l i fe in a l l of these philosophers, Lactan-

t ius seems to be solilonuizing when he says,

"I wonder, therefore, that there wasnone at a l l of t :-:e philo so :nhers who discovered the abode and d w e l l i n ~ - p l a c e of thechief good. ?or they mip;ht have sout_::ht i tin th is manner. ,;hatever the greatest goodi s , i t must be an object Droposed to a l lmen. rrhere is !1le asure, which i s de siredby a l l ; but th is is common also to manwith the beasts , and has not the forceof the honourable, and brings a feelingof sat ie ty , and when i t is in excess isinjurious, and i t ie lessened by advanceof age, and does not f a l l to the lo t ofmany: for they who are without resources,who const i tute the greater part or men,must also be vJi thout pleasure. Therefore

pleasure is not the t rue chief good; buti t is not even a good." 43.

In reeard to r iches, he says in re la t ion to his re-

marks above, concerning pleasure,

"This is much more true of them. Forthey f a l l to the lo t of fewer men, and tha tgeneral ly by chance; and they o f t ~ n f a l l to

the indolent , and sometimes by gui l t , andthey are desired by those who alreadypossess them." 44.

And in regard to sovereignty, Lactantius remarks,

"That odes not const i tute the chief good: for a l l cannot

reign, but i t is necessary that a l l should be capable of45.

at taining the chief good."



In.concluding th is cha])ter I fee l i t well worth VJhile

to be th is ra ther lengthy ci ta t ion from the D i v ~ ~ e _ I n s t i t u t e sbecAuse i t uppears that Lactant ius thinks that p e r h ~ 1 p s some

of his readers may have become weary of his cri t ic ism of the

end of l i fe in a l l of these philosophies; some may even

d e s ~ a i r of arriving at the correct solution of the true end.

To counteract th is , he suggests that now, af ter denying

the va l id i ty of a l l these others , le t us seek something

held for th to a l l . He says we should not despair of being

able to find the true end of l i f e , and urges his readers

to remember that -Ghis is a matter of no small :1.: 1portance.

"Let us seek something therefore whichi s held forth to a l l . Is i t vir tue? I tcannot be denied that v:i.rtue is a good, andundoubtedly a good for a l l men. But i f i t

cannot be a h ~ p y because i t s power andnature consist in the endurance of evil ,i t assuredly is not the chief good •••••But YJhat shal l we say that i t is? Pleasure?But nothing that is base can arise fromtha t which is honourable. : ha l l we saythat i t is r iches? or commands? Butthese t h i n ~ s are f r a i l snd uncertain.I t is glory? or honour? or a las t ingname? But a l l these things are not con-

tained in virtuei t se l f , but depend upon

the opinion and ,iucigment of others ••••••;fuy should I SGY tha t the duties or vi r -tue c o n s i ~ t in the despising of a l l thesethings? For not to long for , or desire ,or love pleasures, r iches, dominions,and honours, and a l l those things whichare esteemed as goods, as others do over-powered by desire , tha t assuredly isvir tue . Therefore i t effects something

else more sublime and excel lent ; nor

does anything struggle against these



present goods but that which longs for greaterand truer things. Let us not despair of beingable to find i t , i f we turn our thoughts ina l l directions; for no s l i ~ . ; ; : h t or t r i f i n ~ ~ : ;re-.iards are s O U i ~ h t . n 46.



Chapter V

PrinciJ?les By \ ' i h ~ _ c h to Determine the

True End of Life

After examining and set t ing aside the conflicting

notions of the philosophers on the end of l i fe , Lactantius

then well asks, "In such a difference of opini0ns, whom do1.

we follow? 7/hom do we believe'? 11

He sets himself to the task of giving some 9rinciples

by which may be determined the true end of' l i fe . He makes

the preliminary remark that a true end of l i fe should have

reference to man alone. Since the inquiry is respecting

the duty of man, and because man has a nature different from

that of any other t e r res t r ia l creatures, his chief good must

consist in something peculiar to himself, and th is , which3.

false wisdom has overlooked, true wisdom ful ly teaches.".The chief good of man should be placed in that which is

peculiar to man, and which he does not have in common vJith

other animals.

rrsomething peculiar to himself ought tobe attr ibuted to man, without which he would

lose the fixed order of his conditlon.- Forthat which is ~ i v e n to a l l for the purpose ofl i fe or i ~ n e r a t i o n , is indeed a natural good;but s t i l l i t is not the greatest , unless i tbe peculiar to each class." 4.

The second principle that Lactantius suggests by which

to determined the true e ~ - Q .. of l i fe , is that i t should belongb .

peculiarly to the mind.



w ~ v e are not born for th is purpose, thatwe may see those things which are created, buttha t we may contemplate, tha t is , behold withour mind, the Creator of a l l things Himself." 6.

The third and f inal principle by which to determine the

true end of' l i fe is that · i t cannot be attained without vii '-7.

tue. By the aid of these three ~ r i n c i ~ l e s , Lactantius

s h o ~ s the fu t i l i ty of the philosopher's doctrines on the

subject . He attacks them by a s s e r t i n ~ that the i r speech is8.

at vBriance v1ith the i r l ives, a ~ d ~ u o t e s Seneca as saying,

":Philosophy is nothing else than the rip;ht method of l iving,

or the science of l iv inf honorably, or the art of passing a9.

good l i f e . " Lactantius, however, is not sat is f ied with

this defini t ion and reasons that Seneca probably did not

refer to the common name of philoeophy because there is

nothing certain, nothing on which a l l agree as is evidenced

by the many sects and systems; and therefore, what can be so

false as to ca l l philosophy the rule of l i f e , since the very

diversi ty of i t s precepts is an obstacle to r ight l iving10.

and causes confusion. Lactantius says that philosophy

renders "a l l things uncertain, abrogates law, esteems art as

nothing, subverts method, dis tor ts rule , entirely takes11.

away knowledge." He says that there has been established

"no Rystem, or science, or law of l iving well", except in

the only t rue and heavenly wisdom, which was unknown to the

nhilosophers. Earthly wisdom, since i t is false, becomesvaried and multiplied, and altogether opposed to i t se l f . But



as there is but one creator and ruler of the world, God, and

as t ruth is one; so, Lactantius reasons, wisdom must also be

simple and one, because, i f anything is true and good, i t12.

cannot be perfect unless i t is the only one of i t s kind.

Sut, even i f philosophy were able to form l i f e , Lactantius

points out that no others but philosochers v1ould be good, and

a ll others who had not learned philosophy would be bad. He

indicates that there ar•e, and always have been, innwnerable

persons who are or have been good without learning, but i t is

13.seldom that we hear anything _praiseworthy of _:1hilosophers.

He says, "Vfuo is there I pray, who does not see that those

men are not teachers of vir tue , of which they themselves are14.

dest i tute?"

To further strengthen his point, Lactantius quotes

Tullius:

""How few of nhilosonhers ere found ofsuch A character , s; consti tuted in soul andl i fe as reason demandsi How few are obedientto themselves, and submit to thei r own decrees!We may see some of such levi ty and ostentation,that i t would be better for them not to havelearned at al l ; others eagerly desirious ofmoney, others of glory; many the slaves of

lusts , so that thei r speech wonderfully dis-agrees with their l i fe ." 15.

Seneca is also r;uoted as follows:

"Hany of the philosophers are of th is

description, eloruent to thei r own condemna-t ion: for i f you should hear them arguing a-gainst avarice, against lust and ambition,you would think that they were making a

public disclosureot their

own character ,so entirely do the censures which they ut terin public flow back upon themselves." 16.



In e x p l a i n i n ~ the necessity of this third principle

that the true end of l i fe cannot be attained apart from virtue,

Lectantius remarks,

"But they who merely teach without act-

ing, of themselves detract from the weight oftheir own precepts; for who vJould obey, whenthey who give the precepts themselves teachdisobedience? Moreover, i t is a good thingto give r ight and honourable 0 r e c e ~ t s ; butunless you also practice them i t is a deceit ,and i t is inconsistent wnd t r i f l ing to havegoodness not in the heart , but on the l ips . 11 17.



Chapter VI

The End ~ ~ ~ i f e A ~ o y _ ~ ~ n g to Lactantius

As a background to the statement of Lactantius' own

noint of view in iegard to the true end of l i fe , i t m i ~ h t be

well to eive the following:

"And because the ohil£soDhers did notcomprehend this main point , •they were neitherable to comprehend t ruth, a l t h o u ~ ~ h they forthe most part both saw and explained thosethings of which the main point i t se l f cons i s t s . But different persons urought forward a ll these things, and in different ways,not connecting the causes of things, nor theconsenuences, nor the reasons, so ths t they

m i r ~ h t join together and complete Ghat mainpoint which comprises the whole." 2.

Did Lactantius overthrow philosophy as such? And did

he think that the philosophers had none of the truth?

" I t is easy to show that almost thewhole t ruth has been divided by philosophers

and sects . ~ o r we do not overthrow philosophy, as the Academics are accustomed to do,whose plan was to reply to everything, whichis ra ther to calumniate and uock; but we showthat no sect was so much out of the way, andno philosophy so vain, as not to see somethingof the t ruth. nut while they are made withthe desire of contradicting, while they defend their own arguments even though false ,and overthrow those of others even though

t rue, not only has the t ruth escaped fromthem, which they pretended that they wereseeking, but they themselves lost i t chief-ly through their own faul t . But i f therehad been any one to collect together thetruth which was dispersed amongst individuals and scattered amongst sects , and toreduce i t to a body, he assuredly would notdisagree with us. But no one is able to doth is , unless he has experience, and know-ledge of the t ruth. But to know the t ruthbelongs to him only who has been taught ofGod." 3.

~ o .



Let us endeavor to follow the reasoninF of Lactantius:

"Therefore, leaving the authors of th isear thly philosophy, who bring forward nothingcertain, le t us approach the r ight path; fori f I considered these to be suff ic ient ly

suitable guides to a cood l i f e , I would followthem myself, and exhort others to follow them.But since they disagree among one another·with great contention, and are for the mostpart at variance with themselves, i t isevident that their path is by no meansstraightforward; since they have severallymarked out dis t inct ways for themselves

a c c o r d i n ~ to their own will , and have l e f tgreat confusion to those who are seeking for

the t ru th . But since the t ru th is revealedfrom heaven to us who have received themystery of trlle rel igion, and since we followGod, the teacher of wisdom and the guide tot ru th , we cal l together a l l , without anydist inct ion ei ther of sex or age, to heavenly pasture. For there is no more pleasantfood fo:" the soul than the knowledge of thet ru th . 11 4.

Lactantius feels that we must provide for these philos-

ophers who are groping in error , that they may not f icht

against themselves, and that they may be willing at length5.

to be freed from inveterste error .

"And th is they wil l assuredly do i fthey shal l a t any time see for what purposethey were born; for th is is the cause of

thei r perverseness, - - namely, ignoranceof themselves: and i f any one, havinggained the knO\Jledge of the trLlth shal lhave shaken off th is ignorance, he willkno'.; to whc.t object his l i fe is to be

directed, and how i t is to be spent •.And I thlls brief ly define the Sllm of thisknowledge, that neither is any r e l i { ~ i o nto be undertaken without wisdom, nor any 6.wisdom to be approved of without rel igion."

Lactantius develops this thesis to i t s ultimate conclu-



sion and rather elaborately defends the doctrine that ,

nThe one chief good, therefore, is

immortality, 1'or the reception of which we

were original ly formed and born. To th iswe direct our course; human nature regardsthis ; to this virtue exalts us.n 7.

He thought that the arguments of Plato, although they

contribute much to the subject of immortality, do l i t t l e to

nrove i t , "since he had neither summed U}) and collected into

one the plan of the whole of this great mystery, nor had he

com_nrehended the chief good. For although he perceived the

t ruth respecting immortality of the soul, yet he did not8.

speak respecting i t as though i t were the chief good.n

Man's immortality is believed by Christ ians, says

Lactantius, on divine authority:

11We therefore, are able to e l ic i t thetruth by more cert:c;in signs; for we have notcollected i t by doubtful surmise, but haveknown i t by divine instruction.n 9.

I t is interest ing to note, however, that Lactantius does

not state the argument from divine testimony. After Dresent-

ing the chief heads of Plato 's reasoning in favor of

immortality, Lactantills mentions Pythagoras as also being

of the same mind and says that Cicero re9orted him as the10.

I ' i rst to discourse upon the immortality of the solll. Then11.

other philosonhers who opposed the doctrine were ci ted.

Finally Lactantills says that even Tullius declared he did not



know what was the t ruth af te r considering a l l these opinions.

He is quoted as saying, "Since each of these opinions had

most learned defenders, i t cannot be divined what i s cer ta in-12.

ty ." But Lactantius o b s e r v ~ s that we have no need of

divination, since "the divini ty i t s e l f has la id 09en to us13.

the t ru th . "

i1s 8 basis for his f i r s t argu;nent for immortali ty,

Lactantius says tha t God is inv is ib le , and yet i f any one

denied His existence, he would not only refuse to ca l l such

an one a philosopher, but would even deny him the name of

a man. Furtherraore, God made many th ings. We see the power

of the i r manifestat ions, but cannot bel:wld the i r s u b s t ~ : m c e .1J.l8ke for exam:ple: the voice, the wind, smell . Thus God is

not to be perceived through the senses but through the eyes

of the mind.

nBefore a l l things , since God cannotbe seen by man, l e s t nny one should i m a ~ i n efrom th is circumstance tha t God does note±is t , because He was not seen by mortaleyes, among other wonderful arrangementsHe also made many things the power ofwhich i s manifest , but the substance isnot seen, as the voice, smell, the wind,

tha t by the token and e x a m ~ l e of thesethings we might _perceive God from His9ower and operations and works, althoughHe did not f a l l under the notice of oureyes •••••• God is not to be perceived byus through the s ight or other f r a i lsense; But He is to be beheld by theeyes of the mind, since we see Hisi l lus t r ious and wonderful works." 14.

After a few remarks concerning philosophers who did not



believe in the existence of God and therefore fe l l into15.

absurdities which necessari ly followed such a sentiment,

Lactantius reasons that i f there is a God who is invisible

and likewise incorporeal and eternal , is i t not reasonable

that the soul also, although i t i s invisible , yet does not

perish af ter i ts departure from the body.

"But i f there is a God who is incorporeal, invisible , and eternal , thereforei t is credible that the soul, since i t isnot seen, does not perish after i ts de

parture from the body; for i t s is manifest that something exists which perceivesand is vigorous, and yet does not come

into si,zht. Bnt i t is said, i t is di f f i -cult to c o m ~ r e h e n d with the mind howthesoul can retain i t s perception withoutthose parts of the body in which theoffice of Derce}Jtion is contained. l'ihatabout God? Is i t easy to comprehend how

He i s vigorous without a body? But i fthey believe in the existence of gods

who, i f they exist , are plainly dest i tute of bodies, i t must be that humansouls can exist in the same way, sincei t is rerceived from reason i t se l f , anddiscernment, that there is in a certainresemblance in man and God." 16.

A second proof which is urged for inwortali ty is tha t

no other animal has any knowledge of God. Religion is

~ n r b 1 a r i l y that which distinguishes man i'rom the dumb crea-

t ion. And i f this does dist inguish man, Lactantius is of

the opinion that i t certainly points to the fact that our

aim and desire is that which is to be familiar and near.

"The immortality of the soul may bediscerned from the fact that there is no



other animal which h ~ s any knowledge ofGod; and rel igion is almost the onlything which distinguishes man from thedumb creation. And since th i s fa l l sto man alone, i t assuredly t es t i f i esthat we may aim a t , desire , and cul t i -vate that which i s about to be familia r and very near." 17.

Somewhat in the s arne s t ra in , · ~ J e are reminded tha t man

nlone of a l l animals is of the UDright posit ion; he alone

is divine. He goes in search of his o r i ~ i n , not carine

for the earth, because he rea l izes that the highest good

is to be searched in the highest place, and hence man looks

towards his Maker.

"Can any one, when has has considered the nature of other animals, which theprovidence of the Supreme God has madeabject , with bodies bending down and

prostrated to the earth, so that i t maybe u n d ~ r s t o o d from th is tha t they haveno intercourse with heaven, f a i l tounderstand that man alone of a l l ani-mals is heavenly and divine, whose bodyraised from the ground, elevated countenance, and upright posi t ion, goes inquest of i t s origin, and d e s p i s i n ~ , asi t were, the lowliness of the earth,reaches forth to that vvhich i s on high,because he perceives tha t the highest

good is to be sought in the highestplace, and mindful of his conditionin which God made him i l lus t r ious ,looks toward his Maker?" 18.

Another indicat ion of immortality i s tha t , since

man c:.lone enjoys wisdom, which real ly i s the knovJledge of

God, the soul remains always because i t seeks af ter and



loves God.

"Since therefore wisdom, ~ h i c h isgiven to man alone, is nothing else butthe k n o ~ l e d g e of God, i t is evident that

the soul does not perish, nor undergodissolution, bt1t t lwt i t remains forever,because i t seeks after and loves God, whois evetlast ing, by the impulse o f i t svery nature 9erceiving ei ther from whatsource i t has sprung, or to what i t isabout to return. 11 19.

An argwnent vJhich to us may seem 8 l i t t l e strange,

and yet which Lactantius considered of "no s l ight proof",

is that man alone makes use of f i re , the heavenly element

of l i fe and l ight . Other creatures, because they are of

earth and mortal, use water, the earthly and heavy

element; but i t is evident that man ~ h o uses f i re , par-

takes of an immortHl condition because the cause of l i fe

is familiar to him.

11Moreover, i t is no sl ight J)roof ofimmortality that man alone makes use ofthe heavenly element. For, since thenature of the world consists of twoelements which are oprosed to one anoth

er--f i re and water--of which the one isassigned to the heaven, the other to theearth , the other l iving creatures, because they are of the earth and mortal,make use of f i re , which is an elementl ight , r ising upward, and heavenly.But those t h i n t ~ S which are weightydepress to aeath, and those which arel ight elevate to l i fe ; because l i feis on high, and death below. And asthere cannot he l ight without f i re ,

so there cannot be l i fe withoutl ight . Therefore, fi re is the element



of l ight and l i fe ; from which i t is evidentthat man who uses i t is a partaker of animmortal condition, because that whichcauses l i fe is familiar to him." 20.

Virtue is likewise considered a great proof that

souls are immortal. I f virtue prohibited man from goods

which he naturally desires and made him endure evils which

he would naturally avoid, i t would follow that virtue is

an evi l . B11t i f virtue is not sn evi l , and acts honour-

aklyand

discharges i t s duty intha t

i t ~ r a v e l y despises

wicked pleasures because i t fears neither pain nor death,

i t is reasonable that i t must be rewarded by some greater

good than those things which i t despised. After death

what good can be expected other than immortality?

"The gif t of virtue also to manalone is great proof that souls areimmortal. For th is wil l not be inaccordance with nature i f the soul isextinguished; for i t is injurious tothis present l i f e . For that ear thlyl i fe , which we lead in common ·withdumb animals, both seeks !Jleasure,by the varied and agreeable f ru i t sof which i t is delighted, and avoids

pain, the harshness of which, byi ts unpleasant sensations, injuresthe nature of l iving beings, andendeavors to lead them to death,which dissolves the l iving being.I f , therefore, virtue both prohibitsman from those goods which are naturally desired, and impels him to endureevils which are natural ly avoided, i tfollows that virtue is an evi l , andopposed to nature; and he must necessari ly be judged foolish who _pur-



sues i t , s i ~ c e he injures himself both byavoiding present hoods, and by seekingequally evi ls , without hope of greateradvantage. For when i t is permitted usto enjoy the sweetest pleasures, shouldwe not prefer to l ive in loneliness, inwant, in contempt and iE'nominy, or not

to l ive at al l , but to be tormentedwith pain, and to die, when from thesee t i l s we should gain nothing to compen-sate us for the pleasure which we havegiven up? But i f virtue is not anevi l , and acts honourably, inasmuchas i t neither fears pain nor death,that i t may discharge i t s duty, there-fore i t must obtain some greater ~ ; o o dthan those things are which i t des-

r i ses . Bnt when death has been under-gone, what rurther good can be hopedfor exce_!!t immortality?" 21.

The chief good, for Lactantius, therefore, is found

in immortality, which pertains to no other aniMal.

I t cannot be attained, hovvever, without the virtue of

knowledge, that i s , without the knowledge of God and22.

just ice. He reasons that i f th is l i fe which is

short and fu l l of labor is considered a great good, how

much more to be de2ired is a l i fe which has no end and i s23.

free from a l l evi l . He says that reflect ion i t se l f ,

vJeighing everythin0, leads us to that 11 excellenc and24.

surpassing goodn, on account of which vJe were born.

Lactantius reasons that virtue is se t before us that

lusts might be subdued, and the desire for earthly things

overcome, unt i l our souls , pure and victorious, may25.

return to God, their original source.

o:



According to Lactantius, a happy l i fe has no

existence ei ther in the worship of the gods or in philos-26.

ophy. 'Je mt1st seek the highest good in the h.±:ghest

place; and w h a ~ _ ; is the highest but heaven, and God,27.

from whom the soul has i t s origin? The chief good,

therefore, cannot exis t , "unless i t be in that re l igion28

and doctrine to which is annexed the hope of immortality."

In bringing the third book to a close, Lactantius

elor1uentl,y urges an obedient recer1tion oi' the true29.

rel igion:

"Let him who wishes to be wise andha.9py bear the voice of God, learn r ight-eousness, understand the mystery of hisbir th , despise human affairs , embracedivine things, that he may gain thatchief good to which he was born." 30.

The seventh and l as t book of the Divine Ins t i tu tes

has for i t s subject the happy l i f e . Lactantius asks

of what use is i t to be ei ther freed from false rel igions

or to under stand the true one. "Of what avail to hold

the worship of God with great di f f icul t ies , which i s the

t ~ e a t e s t vir tue, unless the divine reward of everlas t ing31.

blessedness attends i t?" He proposes in this book

to prove that future things are to be preferred to the

present, the heavenly to be 2referred to the earthly, and

eternal things to those which are temporal because the

rewards of vices are temporal, but virtue has an eternal



32.reward.

Lactantius disagrees with Plato snd Aristotle in

regard to the eterni ty of the world, "sirtce whatever is of

a solid and heavy body, as i t received a beginning at some33.

time, so i t must needs have an end." Lact antius

reasons that whatever exists must at some time have had

a beginning. :Ie says nothing can exist at a l l i f i t did34.

not have a beginning. · Everything we can see must

necessari ly be material , and hence capable of dissolu-

35.t ion. Lactantius says that i t has been determined by

God that th is unrighteous age should come to &n end at

the appointed t ime. All wickedness will be put out; but

the righteous will be recalled to a happy l i fe : 11 a quiet ,

t ranqui l , peaceful, in short , golden age, as the poets36.

cal l i t , should f lour ish, under the rule of God Himself."

Man consists of two ~ a r t s : the body, which is

ear thly, and the soul, which is heavenly. Likewise two

l ives have been asigned to man: a temporal l i fe ·which is

received at birth for the body, and an everlasting l i fe

for the soul which is attained by str iving for i t . Thus

man does not enjoy immortali t,y without some diff icul ty .

\fe receive the l i fe of the body ignorantly; but the

eternal l i fe of the soul is received knowingly because i t

is not given to nature, but to vir tue, for God desired us

37.to procure l i fe for ourselves in l i f e . That is why He



has given us th is present l i f e . We may ei ther lose the

true and eternal l i fe by our vices, or win i t by vir tue.

The chief end of l i fe is not contained in this l i fe because

i t wil l be destroyed by divine necessi ty even as i t was

given us by divine necessi ty. Hence, "that which has an

end does not cont 8 in the chief t;ood. n . The true end is

contained in the sp i r i tua l l i fe we acquire by ourselves

because i t cannot contain evi l or hnve an end. Immortal-

i ty is not "the consequence of nature, but the reward and

38.recompense of vir tue."

I ~ a n does not ·walk upright at bir th , but on a l l fours,

in common with dumb animals. As he gains strength,

man raises himself, is able to speak, and ceases to be

a dumb animal. Lactantius says th is argument teaches

that man is mortal, but tha t afterwards he becomes immortal

when he begins to l ive in conformity with the wil l of God,

meaning by th is , to follow just ice which is comprised in

the worship of God. ~ h i s takes place, when man "purified

in the heavenly laver, lays aside his infancy together

with a l l the pmllution of his past l i f e , and having

received an increase of divine v i ~ o r , becomes a perfect39.

and complete man."

God has se t virtue before man, and although the

soul and body are connected together, yet they are con-

t rary and oppose one another. The things which are good

for the soul are evi l for the body, and vice versa. This



temporal l i f e , therefore, ought to be subject to the

eternal l i f e , just as the body is subject to the soul.

I f any prefer the l i fe of the soul they must despise that

of the body; nor wil l they in any way be able to strive

af ter that v;hich is highest, unless they despise the

things which are lowest. The one who prefers to l ive

·well for eterni ty , wil l l ive badly or in discomfort for

a time upon earth, that he may receive heavenly consola-

t ion. Jut who prefers to live well here on earth , wil l40.

l ive i l l for eterni ty . He wil l be condemned by God

to eternal punishment because he preferred earthly to

heavenly goods. This is why God seeks to be worshipped

and to be honoured by man as a Father, that he may have

virtue and wisdom, which prodce immortality. God alone

possesses immortality. Hence none other than He is able

to confer i t ; and He \J i l l grant i t to pious men who have

hohoured Him, as a reward to be blessed for a l l eterni ty41.

and to be forever in the presence of God.

The advantage o:C vices is immediate, even as the

9leasures themselves are short and temporary; but that

of virtue is future and everlasting. In th is l i fe there

is no reward of virtue because virtue i t se l f s t i l l

exists ; i t never ends except by death and therefore, the42.

reward of virtue is after death. In fact , even the

desires of the body are temporal, that is , food, shel ter ,

clothing, pleasure, et c e t e r ~ , and hence mortal; but the



soul desires the worship of God and thus indic8tes that i t

is everlast ing. From which i t is credible that "the soul

does not perish, but is separated from the b o d y ~ because

the body can do nothing without the soul, but the soul

43.can do many and great things without the body."

And in concluding his las t book, Lactantius

earnestly exhorts a ll nto undertake wisdom together with

true rel igion, the strength and office of which depends

on th is , that , despising earthly things and laying aside

errors we formerly held ••••• we may be d i r e c t ~ d to the44.

eternal rewards of the heavenly t reasure." And he

remarks how great a haDpiness i t must be thought to with

draw from earth and go to be with the Father who eives

rest in place of labor, gives l i fe for death, brightness

for darkness, and in place of short and earthly goods,

~ i v e s us those which are eternal and heavenly. This

reward can in no way be compared or equalled to the hard-

shi})S we endure in this world. Uod who saw the errors

of men sent a Guide who might open to us the way of

righteousness. Lactantius urges a l l to follow Him, since

He alone has explained the true end which we a ll str ive

to reach, and has pointed out the road by which we may45.

at tain i t . After death we can take nothing with us,

except a well and innocently spent l i f e , for whoever by

his virtue has "trampled ur·on the corruptions of theearth, the Supreme and t ru th arbi ter will raise him to l i fe



46.and perpetual l ight ." Lactantius therefore entreats

a l l to 8pply themselves to righteousness, which alone will

lead them to God. He urges everyone to serve God with an

unwe arying service and engae":e· boldly v;ith the enemy (Sat an),

that victorious over our conquered adversary, we may obtain

from the Lord "that reward oi' valour which He Himself47.

has ~ · r o m i s e d . n

In c o n c l u d i n ~ this chapter I cive Lactantius' con-

ception of the true end of l i fe in what he himself called48.

the "whole argument by a br ief defini t ionn:

"The whole world has been created forth is purpose, that we may be born; we areborn for this end, that we may acknowledgethe Maker of the world and of ourselves -God; we acJcnowledge Him for th is end, thatwe may worship Him; we worshir; J:iim for thisend, tha t we may receive immortality as thereward of our labo1.1rs, since the worship

of God consists of the greatest labours;for th is end vJe are rewarded with immort a l i ty , tha t being made l ike to theangels, we may serve the Supreme Fatherand Lord for ever, and may be to a l leterni ty a kingdom to God. This is thesum of a ll things.n



Chapter VII

Evaluation and Conclusion

The coming of Christianity made a great dif:t'erence

in _!lhilosophy. Back of Greek philosophy was always the

problem of a h a ~ ~ y l i f e . The outcome of philosophy, there-

fore, should be happiness. But i t was Christianity that

pointed out the way of salvation. This was what man long-

ed for . The philosopher 's solution was open only to

~ h i l o s o p h e r s , but Chris t iani ty opened the way to happiness

for every one. Men no longer had to search or pursue

i t , but happiness, salvation, was now given them. The

condition of happiness was no longer acuteness of mind,

but fa i th . Those who accepted th is fa i th received a

sat isfying answer; and many of the early Christ ianswriters

found Christ ianity so wonderful, so superior to philosophy,

that they lost interest in speculative problems. n ll

tha t philosophy could offer was obtained in Chris t iani ty .

Lactantius now had something much more important than

philosophy; he was eager to spread the knowledge of th is

wonderful Gospel and to defend i t s t ru th . This, no

doubt at least in par t , explains the severity with which

Lactantius discusses the end of l i fe in various philosophers.

But I do not think he overthrew philosophy as such.

Learned in paga.lil.1.lore, he did not forget his knowledge

when he became a Christ ian, but made i t serve Christ ianity.

There is no question but that Lactantius was a writer



of no mean erudition and intel l igence. He had a wide range.

of knowledge, although at times he a ~ p e a r s to be very super-

f i c ia l and unfair in his statements. On the other hand,

there is a s incer i ty and an earnest contention for what he

fe l t to be t rue , that we cannot but admire.

Concerning Lactantius as a cr i t ic of philosophy, I1 .

q_uote from one who has made a thorough study of th is :r>roblem

11 I t is not a criticism of p h ~ l o s o p h y as philosophy that we

often get, but a criticism of philosophy from the point of

view of the philosophers character of rel igion. Tiherefore,

in the fu l les t and s t r ic tes t sense of the word, Lactantius2.

is not a cr i t ic ."

Lactantius was raised up in an age which needed not

only a Christian advocate, but an advocate in the person of

aChristian

scholar. Christ ianity hadlong been eng3ged in

an u n e c ~ u a l confl ic t with heathenism, ~ : s o fa r as human forces

on both sides were concerned. Lactantius fe l t tha t there

was a great deficiency of able teachers who might expose

the 9ublic errors , and in an at t ract ive manner defend the

cause of t ru th . Perhaps he thought that by giving the

defence of true rel igion a l i te rary charm, many, even of i t s

enemies, might be drawn to an examination of i t and dis-

cover that true wisdom and true r ~ i g i o n are conjoined. I t

is from this point of view that he ought to be judged.

I t has been said that "the history of philosophy is

3.but a rec i t a l of a l i tany of so-called summum bonume.tr



Lactantius was certain he pointed the way to true happiness,

for his supreme end was God. Only in an inf in i te God can

the inf inite desires of man be sat is f ied . Man desires a

happiness that is ~ o m p l e t e , one in which every desire is

ful f i l led.

The important c:uestions in 8 c o n ~ i d e r a t i o n of the end

of l i fe are, In what object or objects i s th is perfect or

satisfying end found? And secondly, Jhat is the nature of

this object or ~ n d ? We have seen that Lactantius answers

the f i r s t question emphatically and repeatedly: the true

end of l i fe is immortality.

"The one chief good, therefore, isimmortality, for the reception of which wewere original ly formed and born. To th iswe direct our course; human nature regardsth is ; to this virtue exalts us." 4.

"Vihen death has beep. undergone, whatf tuther good can lle hoped for except immorta l i ty?" 5.

"The whole world has been created forth is purpose, that we may be born; we areborn for this end, that we may acknowledgethe Maker of the world and of ourselves -God; we acknOYJledge Him for this end, thatwe may worshi.D Eim; we worship IIim for thisend, that we may receive immortality as thereward of our labors, since the worship ofGod consists of the greatest labors." 6.

But on the second question, that iE, ;[hat is the nature

of immortality, Lactantius is very unsatisfactory. He does

t e l l us that the end of l i fe does not consist in any created



good. "We are not born f'or thiR DUrpose, that we may see

those things which are created, but that we may contemplate,

that i s , behold with our mind, the Creator of a ll things7.

Eirnself.n God alone possesses irmnortality and hence

none other than lie is able to confer i t . He wil l grant i t

to pious men uho have honored Him, as a reward to be

blessed for a l l eterni ty and to be forever in the presence8.

of God. He t e l l s us further that immortality has no

end and9.

is free from a ll evi l . I t is not "the conse-

quence of nature, but the reward and recom1)ense of' virtue."

He remarks h o v ~ great a hap;1ine s s i t must be thought to

withdraw from earth and go to be with the Father who gives

res t in nlace leibor, gives l i fe for death, brightness

10

for darkness, and in nlace of short and eart l ly goods, gives

us those which are eternal and heavenly. This reward can

in no way be compared or e ~ u a l l e d to the h a r d s h i ~ s we endure11.

in this world. In another place, Lactantius t e l l s us

that immortality is the reward of our labors •••• that being

made like to angels, we may.serve the Supreme Father and

Lord for ever, and may be to a l l eterni ty a kingdom to12.God." In his immortal s ta te , rrwn vdll be wise and

free from evi l as God i s . "Man, having received the

garment of imrnortality, will be wise and free from evi l ,13.

as God is ." He t e l l s us that God made the world for

man's sake, and man for His own sake.Man alone has been

so created that he can fellowship with God and dontemplate



Him.

"What more evident argwnent can be broughtforward tha t God both made the world for thesake of man, and man for His own sake, thantha t he alone of a l l l iving creatures has beenso formed that his eyes are directed towards

heaven, his face l o o k i n ? ~ towards God, hiscountenance i s in fellowship with his Parent,so tha t God a p ~ e a r s , as i t were, with outstretched hand to hAve raised msn from theground, and to have elevated him to the contemplation of Himself." 14.

From the above we conclude that Lactantius merely de-

fends and ins is ts ur1on the chief good as consisting in

immortali ty. He gives _9roofs for immortality, without

clear ly defining i t . His basis is divine authori ty and so

the chief good cannot exis t nunless i t be in that rel igion

and doctrine to which is annexed the hope of immortali ty."

Arparently, since his work is an a:;olo{-;y for Christ iani ty ,

giving a philosophical defense of i t s major tenets , he

seems to be content v;i th ins is t ing upon immortality, "for

the reception of which we were original ly formed and born",

as a superior end of l i fe to tha t of pagan philosophers, and

makes no further attempt to explain the nature of immortali ty

other than indicated above.

In the m e a n i n ~ he atuanhes to i t , how is immortality

superior as an end of l i fe to the end proposed by others and.re jected by Lactantius? We have found that various philos-

ophers had diverse and strange notions concerning the end

of l i f e . For some i t consisted in wealth, for others in



,

health , some held i t to be honor, and s t i l l others, pleasure.

But we note tha t a l l these are goods of the body. How

could man himself rJe the end o:C the universe? He is but

a part icular beinp, ordered, l ike a l l others , in view of a

su!Jerior end. Hence, the sa t isfac t ion and preservation of

the body cannot consti tue the s u ~ r e m e good. In th is res-

~ 1 e c t , then., Lact8ntius was r ight when he said , "The chief

p,ood i s not contained in this bodily l i fe •••• tha t which has15.

an end does not contain the chief eood." .And again,

nMan •••• reaches forth to tha t which is on high, because he

perceives that the highest good is to be sought in the

highest place, and mindful of his condition in which God16.

made him i l lus t r ious , looks toward his Haker." Then

too, those whom Lactantius cr i t ic ized placed perfect

happiness in a created good; for him the f ina l good was an

uncreated good, God. nwe are not born io r th is purpose,

that we may see those things which are created, but that

we may contemplate, that i s , behold, with our mind, the17.

Creator of a l l t h i n ~ s Himself." We would say that the

end of man has to do with the whole of man, a !Jerfect good,

ful ly sat isfying and leaving nothing to be desired. On

th is point, however, Lactantius is ambip;uotls. He expl ic i t -

ly speaks only of t ~ e soul as being immortal. "The soul

does not perish, but is separated from the body, because

the body can_do nothi:1g ·without the sou.l, but the soul can

- 18.do many and great things withou.t the body." Again,



"Man consists of two parts , body and soul, of ~ h i c h is the

one earthly, the other heavenly, two l ives have been assign-

ed to man: the one temporal, which is appointed for the body;

the other everlasting, which b e l o n ~ s to the soul •••• That

earthly one is as the body, cmd therefore has an end; but

th is heavenly one is as the soul, and therefore has no19.

l imit ." ~ ' l e knovJ, hovJever, that immortality has not only

to do with the soul, but also a sort of spir i tualized body.

After his resurrection our Lord had a body when he walked20.

vvith the two men on the way to Emmatls; yet we know that

He a D ~ e a r e d in the midst of the disciples , "the doors being21.

shut 11• Be had a body, but evidently i t was not subject

to material l imitat ions. Finally, Lactantius was superior

to others in th is regard, they followed their own reason

and f leshly desire in determining the end of l i f e , he based

his on divine revelat ion. "We, therefore, are able to

e l ic i t the t ruth b.y more certain signs; for we have not

collected i t by doubtful surmise, but have known i t by22.

divine instruction."

Lactantius realized and el0quently defend the thesis

that the resul t of a l l philosophy when brought into relat ion

with our true end of l i fe fa i l s utter ly to sat is fy the

deeper needs and aspirat ions of man's spir i tual nature.

Our hearts th i r s t af ter h a ~ p i n e s s and completeness. This

eager and fervent desire, no human wisdom can sat ia te . He

finds the fundamental condition for the sat isfact ion of these



desires, the true end of l i f e , the highest good in the

union of wisdom w i t ; ~ re l ig ion, and i t s ultimate real izat ion

in immortality.

.,

t J ~



NOTES

I ' N ~ R O D U C T I O N

1. The Divine Inst i tu tes , Trans. \Jilliam Pletcher, AnteNicene Fathers, 1890, Bk. I, Preface, p . 9 ~

2 •. A n t e - N i c e n ~ F a t ! } ; _ ~ ~ '

1890, Vol. VII,p. 5.

CIIill'TEH I I

1. St. Jerome in De Viris I l lust r ibus c. 80, names him asF'irmianus, q_ui-e t :Ca""C"t"a"ritius, Fir-mianus who is alsoLactantius, thus, perhaps, connecting him with Firmitlm.

His fu l l name, as given in Eigne: Patrologia Latina,tome VI, is Lucius caecilius ::•'irmianus Lactantius. The

biography r ' ~ i ven in this volume t e l l s us that the nf.lmeLactantius was added from the Latin, lac, milk, to indicate the smooth f'lovJ of his eloquence. But this we neednot believe.

2. Sylvester, Writings of Mankind, Vol. VII, .P• ~ i S 5 1 8 .\ ------- -

3. Among those that hold this view are .Adam Clarke, SchaffHerzog, Wace, and Piercy.

b . Ante-Nice_ne Fa_ther_f3_, p. o.

6. Biblical and T h e ~ } o g i c ~ ~ ~ l o p ~ ~ d i a , p. 186.

7. Encyclopedia of R ~ l ~ g i o u s Knowledge, Vol. VII, p. 394.

8. De V i r i ~ ? _ _ I l l u s t r i _ ! ? u s . _ , c. 80.

9. The C h r i s t ~ a n Review, September 1845, .P• 418.

10. The E , _ i _ b l ~ q _ ~ l - ~ n _ d T _ h e ~ ~ o g ~ c _ a _ l _ C y c ~ ~ _ a e c " ! . _ i a suggests thatthe Divine Institulfes were ~ r o o a b l y written about 320.Some su:9pose Tha-t-the work rJBs commenced in Bi thyniaand completed in Gaul af ter a lapse of twenty years.Others, from an allusion ~ h i c h i t contains to the Dioclet ian persecution (V, 17), suppose i t to have been writtenbefore Lactantius went to Gaul. p. 187.

11. Vlri t i l ' ! _ . ~ O f _Mankind,. p. 3519.

12. The SymposiU!I! of Lactantius has probably _perished, though



some have surmised tha t the .r\enigmata, published underthe name of Symposium, is rea l ly the youthful composit ionof Laotant ius . Jerome mentions also an I t inerar iwn in

hexameters, two books to Ascle9iades, eight books ofl e t t e r s to Probus, Severus, and Domitian, a l l of whichare lo s t .

14. The oldest manuscrints are Cod. Bononiensis of the s ixthor seventh century, and the Cod. S a n g a l ~ s i s of the s ix thor seventh century. The Edit io Princeps anpeared a tSubiaco in 14Gb; i t i s the- f f r s tda ted .oook printed in

I t a ly . During the e i ~ h t e e n t h century appeared in thecomplete edi t ions of Chr. A. Heumann, Gottingen, 1736;F. IH Buenemann, Leipzig, 1 7 3 9 ; - · F ~ - ·13·. LeBrun and

1-J . ~ e n g i ' e - f _ -cru F r e _ ~ ~ ' Par is , 1748; 1? • . J f ] ) u _ ~ _ d - ~ _ s ~ Xzve_rio,

Rome, 1754-59. The edi t ion of ~ - J ~ - u _ ~ and DL l F r e _ ~ ~ ( ) . J : : isrepr in ted in Migne, P. L., Par is , 1844; L.C.F. Lactant i

opera omnia, S. Brandt e t G. Laubmann, Vienna, 1890-97.F r e P ! ' e ~ , commodien, · x r r i 6 - l : i e - , - - : L a c t a n c · e ~ Par i s , 1893, pp. 94-14S: H. Glaesner, Several grammaticol End :0hilosophicalar t fc les in-:Musee Belge, 1901, s . Brandt: 11 Lactant ius undLacret ius" in Neue Jahrb . fu rPhi lo log ie , (1891), 225-259;P. n.otlh. Frotse1:1er:-Des A1JologeTeii--tactantiu2 Verhal tniszur Griech. Philos . (d i s se r .t.T,--tei-Ii'Zli,--f'S95;- I v i . E - . n e i n ~ g :Die -Ebt11YlC'.des Lactantius (d i s se r t . ) , Leipzig, 1887.R. : P f c h o n ! - ~ a c t - a n c _ e _ ; : ~ E } ' _ I £ d ~ __ _ ~ _ ~ u _ v _ e m e ~ t _ s __ ? _ h i l o _ _ ~ o y h i c , : . u _ e j !e t r e l : y ; i e _ ~ _ s _ u _ r l_e__r_ejme - ~ - _ Q 2 _ n _ s _ t _ a _ ~ t _ i n . Par is , 1903.

15. ·;race and 'Piercy, Diet ionary of' Chris t i8n Biogra_yhy, p. 640:"The t r ac t De Ofi f ic io Dei may challenge comparison withCicero 's De W u r a - : D e _ o _ r · u m ~ i n 11oint of s ty le , and i t i s farsuperior to i t -fi1-depfh';···and orgina l i ty . "

16. Bibl ica l and Theological Cyclonaedia, D• 186.- - - · · ---·--------------·-·--"'------

17. Piercy, \ /ho's .'i'ho, says, "His c l as s i ca l knowledge, andh is conf idence-1nl l imself , perhaps, outran his theologica lerudi t ion . 11

18. References to the f ac t t ha t Lactant ius was a convert frompaganism may be found in his work, De t r _ a _ R e ~ , c. 2.

19. Smith and rtace, pic_t io_g_ar,':C__£,f_C_h_r i _ s _ i , i _ i ~ _ n __3io...&_:f'..§.Ph:t, D. 614.

20. =8tblic_al:._ and · r h e _ o l o F £ _ = ! : _ ( ) a l _ _ Q . ; ; r _ c l o n a e ~ i _ § _ , D• 186.

21. Ib id .

_ __________________________________________________



23. Biblical and Theological Cyclopaedia, ll• 186.--- - ~ - - - - , · - - · - - - - - - -24. Ibid.

CHP.PTEH I I I

1. Divine Inst i tu tes , I I I , i , P• 69.

2. Ibid.'"--

3. Divine Inst i tu tes , I , Preface.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. Divine I n s ~ i t u t e s , I , i .

7. Ibid.

8. D i v i ~ ~ n s t i t u t e ~ , I I , i .

9. Divine Inst i tu tes , I I ,vi i i .

10. Divine Instit_utes, I I I , i .

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. Divine Inst i tu tes , I I I , x i i i .

15. norkmanshin of God, c. 20.~ - - - - - -16. Ibid.

17. Divine Insti tutest . I I I , i .

18. Divine .l_nstitO:._tes, I I I , iv .

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.



21. Divin.e Ins t i t u t e s , I I I , iv .

22. Divine Ins t i t u t e ~ z I I I , v i i .

23. Ib id .

CHAPTER IV- - - - - - -

1 . Divine Ins t i t u t e s , I I I , v i i i .

C)Ib id .__.

I"J.u • Ib id .

4. Ib id .

5. Ib id .

6. Ib id .

7. Ib id .

B. Ib id .-9. Divine Ins t i t u t e s , I I I , xv iL

10. Ib id .

11. Ib id .

12. Ib id .

13. Ib id .

14. Ib id .

15. Divine I n s t i t u t e ~ , I I I , xv i i .

16. Ib id .

17. Ib id .

18. Ib ia .

19. Ib id .

Ib id .

21. Ib id .



22· Enitome, c. xxxii i .

23. Ibid.

24. Ibid.

25. Divine Inst i tu tes , I I I , v i i i .

26. Ibid.

27. El2_itome, ~ : : : : c a r r .

28. Ibid.

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid.

32 • qt • t. ~ . : . ~ , I a orne, c. xxxii i .

33. Ibid.

34. Ibid.

:Jti. Ibid.


37. Eoitome, c. x ~ c : : . x i i i ......

38. Ibid.


40. E p i t o _ l l l ~ , xxxii i .

41. Terence: Phormio, v. 2.

42. Div:hne I n s t i ~ u t e s , VII, i i .

43. Divine Inst t - ~ ~ ~ , I I I , i i .

44. Ibid..

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid.



CHAPTER V

2· Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. D i v i n ~ I n s t i t ~ ~ e E , I I I , v i i i .

I t has been observed that the Latin text here is , Ut soliusanimi, nee communicari possit own corpore: That i t shouldbelong to the soul alone and could not be communicated to thebody. This rule deserves some consideration. As a Christ ianLactantius vvould undoubtedly believe in the resurrection andconsequent immortality of the body. How then could he speakof the highest good as something which could not be communi-cated to the body? Is he just careless in expression? Youwould not expect him to be careless when he is civing one ofhis tes ts . Is he just wrong? In many points of Christiandoctrine he was ei ther wrong or at best rather loose in hisway of explaining i t . A l i s t of such points can be found in1:igne, tome VI.

St. Jerome says, (Epist . 13, bd Paulinum): Lactantius quasiguidam fluvius eloquentiae Tullianae, utinam tam nostra con-f'irmare potuisset quam faci le aliena destruxi t . nLactantius

is as i t were a stream of Ttlllian elociuence. Too bad he can-not prove our side as easi ly as he overturns the other side."

6. D1 vin - ~ ~ t i t _ ~ t e_s_, I I I , vi i i .

7. Ibid.

8. 1 2 l ! . i l ~ - ~ - } n s t _ ~ t _ u t ~ , I I I , vx.

g_. Ibid.

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid.

12. Divine l _ n s t i t u _ : ! ; ~ ~ ' I I I , xv.

13. Ibid.-14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.



17. Ibid.

CHAPTER VI

1. That is , why the world and man were created.

3. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6 . Ihid.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid.

11. Dicaearchus, Democritus, and Epicurus.

13 . Ibid.

14. Divine ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u t ~ ~ ' VII, ix .

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid.

18. D i v i n ~ I n s t i t u t e ~ , VII, ix.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.

21. Ibid.

22. Divine Inst i tu tes , I I I , x i i .



23· Divine. ~ ! ' . : . s t i t u t e s , I I I , x i i .

24· Ib id .

25· Ib id .

26. Di ~ n _ e _ Ins t j i _ ~ " t e _ . E . , I I I , x i i .

27· Ib id .

28. Ib id .

29. Diy_i_ne ~ I ? _ ! l t i t u t e ~ I I I , xxx.

30. Ib id .

31. p i vine I_llsti u ~ ~ ~ VII, i.

32. Ib id .

33· Ib id .

34. Ib id .

35. Ib id .

36. Divine Ins.!_i t q _ t _ ~ s - J . . VII ii.

37. Divine J _ n s ! ! _ ~ t _ t ! _ ~ ~ ~ ~ VII , v .

38. Ib id .

39. In id .

40. Comryare with S t. .Tohn 12: 25, 11He tha t loveth h is l i f es h a l l ~ lose i t ; end be t ha t h5te th h is l i f e in t h i s world,

sh a l l keen it unto l i f e e te rna l . "

41. Di i n ~ . ) _ J 2 S _ ! _ it t e _ ~ , VII, v.

42. Divine I n s t i ~ t e ~ , VII, x.-43. Divine I 11st " t u t e _ ~ , VII, x i .

44. Divine I n s ~ i t u t e s , VII, Y..XVii •

45. Ib id .

46. Ib id .

47. Ib id .

48. Divine Ins t i tu tes VI



CH4A,PTER VI I-----1· Vi ta le , P. H., L a c y _ ~ ~ s as a Gri t ic _of Greek : t _ ~ i l o s . . . c ? . . P . E . z .

2. Ibid . , p. 112.

3. Perkins, Jos. A., ;:Jotes _ o n _ ! ; h e _ : ) ? r i _ . l l ~ l e s .21-' Ethic_§_, Intro.

4. Divine__ n s t ~ ~ u t e s , VII, v i i i .

5. On. c i t . , VII, ix .- - - - - - - - - · - - ~ -

6. On. ~ i ~ . , VII, vi.

7. D i v h ~ ~ ~ s y _ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ , I I I , vi i i .

8. On. c i t . , VII, v.

9. D i ~ i n e I n s t i t u t ~ ~ ' I I I , x i i .

10. Divine I _ . t : ! . . ~ i t u t e ~ , VII, v.

11. On. c i t . , VII, xxvii .

12. Divine I n s t ~ ~ u t e ~ , VII, vi.

13. On. c i t . , VII, v.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

lG. Divine _ l . n s t i t u ~ _ s _ , VII, ix .

17. Divine I_nstitutes, I I I , v i i i .

18. Di i _ ~ _ I _ n s t i t _ u t ~ , VII, x i .

19. On. c i t . ,:;..o,_,

___ VII, v.

20. St. Tjuke, 24:13-32.-21. s t •.. John, 20:26.

2.-~ . :Di i ~ . _ I n s _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e s , VII, vi i i .



Bardenhewer, Otto,

BIBLI 0GR.APJIY

Pat_;-ologY:i. _the Li_ves and Horks of__ _heFathers_o_j:' ~ h E ? _ _ Q . _ h u r c h , 3rd Ed. , Trans."T'nomas J . Shahan, Freiburg in Breisgauand St. Louis, l l i s s . , B. Herder, 1908.

Lactant ius , The Divine Ins t i tu te s , Trans. , ; i l l iam :!!,letcher,.Ant-e-Nicene Jfatrie-rs ; -vo l . VII, ~ r h e Christ ianLi tera ture Co., New York, 1890.

Lactant ius , Enitome, Trans. #i l l iam Fle tcher , A n t e - ~ i c e n eFathers , Vol. VII, The Chris t ibn Li tera ture Co.,J:Tew York, 1890.

Lamson, Alvan, The Church of the Fi r s t Three Centuries ,Horaci""e :J. Ful le r , .3oston,--1873.

r.J.cClintock and Strong, Bib l ica l , J : l h e _ o ) : . o g ~ c a l , __ } l d _ ~ c c l e s i a s t i -ca l C y c l o E a e d i ~ , Vol. V, Harper & Bros. ,HevJ York, 1894.

Schaff-Herzog, Enc_Y:.<?l'?£edia of l iel igious Knowledge, Funk &

Wa{;nalls, l'!ew York, 1889.

Smith and '.'lace, Dictionar_y o i ~ _ C ) : l r i s t i a n B i 0 £ 2 ' B D ~ , Vol. I I I ,John Murray, London, 1882.



Sylvester , C.H., ~ r i t i n g s of Mankind, Vol. VII, National Headquar-ters, Ka.i1Sas City, uo . , 1924.

Teuffe1, History of Roman Litera ture , Vol. II , Trans. byGeorge C ~ J . ,farr, G. B e ~ & Sons, London, 1891-92.

Vita le , P. H., Lactant ius as a Cri t ic of Greek Phi1osonhl,Loyola Univers i ty , r,,l."A. Thesis , l936.

,;ace & Pierce , .A Dictionar,y of C h r i s t i ~ ! ! _ - ~ ! _ i o g r a p h , y ,.JOI1.n r..furray, London, 1911.

\'lr i gh , F • .t1 • , Fathers of the Church, E. :F. Dutton & Co. ,N e v T Y o r k ~ i 9 2 9 ;--

Periodica ls

The Chr is t ian Review, September, 1845.



The thesis, "The End of Life in the Philo-

sophy of Lactantius", written by Clara M. Jarvis,

has been accepted by the Graduate School with re-

ference to form, and by the readers whose names

appear below, with reference to content. I t is ,

therefore, accepted in partial fulfil lment of the

requirements for the degree of Master of Arts.

Dr. Morris

Father McCormick

March 18, 1940

March 26, 1940

the end of life in the philosophy of lactantius

Documents