Of the Corruption Which Had Grown Upon the Roman Republic Before Christ Abolished the Worship of the Gods.

Chapter 19.—Of the Corruption Which Had Grown Upon the Roman Republic Before Christ Abolished the Worship of the Gods.

Caput XIX. De corruptione Romanae rei publicae, priusquam cultum deorum Christus auferret.

Here, then, is this Roman republic, “which has changed little by little from the fair and virtuous city it was, and has become utterly wicked and dissolute.” It is not I who am the first to say this, but their own authors, from whom we learned it for a fee, and who wrote it long before the coming of Christ. You see how, before the coming of Christ, and after the destruction of Carthage, “the primitive manners, instead of undergoing insensible alteration, as hitherto they had done, were swept away as by a torrent; and how depraved by luxury and avarice the youth were.” Let them now, on their part, read to us any laws given by their gods to the Roman people, and directed against luxury and avarice. And would that they had only been silent on the subjects of chastity and modesty, and had not demanded from the people indecent and shameful practices, to which they lent a pernicious patronage by their so-called divinity. Let them read our commandments in the Prophets, Gospels, Acts of the Apostles or Epistles; let them peruse the large number of precepts against avarice and luxury which are everywhere read to the congregations that meet for this purpose, and which strike the ear, not with the uncertain sound of a philosophical discussion, but with the thunder of God’s own oracle pealing from the clouds. And yet they do not impute to their gods the luxury and avarice, the cruel and dissolute manners, that had rendered the republic utterly wicked and corrupt, even before the coming of Christ; but whatever affliction their pride and effeminacy have exposed them to in these latter days, they furiously impute to our religion. If the kings of the earth and all their subjects, if all princes and judges of the earth, if young men and maidens, old and young, every age, and both sexes; if they whom the Baptist addressed, the publicans and the soldiers, were all together to hearken to and observe the precepts of the Christian religion regarding a just and virtuous life, then should the republic adorn the whole earth with its own felicity, and attain in life everlasting to the pinnacle of kingly glory. But because this man listens and that man scoffs, and most are enamored of the blandishments of vice rather than the wholesome severity of virtue, the people of Christ, whatever be their condition—whether they be kings, princes, judges, soldiers, or provincials, rich or poor, bond or free, male or female—are enjoined to endure this earthly republic, wicked and dissolute as it is, that so they may by this endurance win for themselves an eminent place in that most holy and august assembly of angels and republic of heaven, in which the will of God is the law.

Ecce Romana res publica (quod non ego primus dico, sed auctores eorum, unde haec mercede didicimus, tanto ante dixerunt ante Christi aduentum) ‘paulatim mutata ex pulcherrima adque optima pessima ac flagitiosissima facta est.’ Ecce ante Christi aduentum, post deletam Carthaginem ‘maiorum mores non paulatim, ut antea, sed torrentis modo praecipitati, adeo iuuentus luxu adque auaritia corrupta est. Legant nobis contra luxum et auaritiam praecepta deorum suorum populo Romano data; cui utinam tantum casta et modesta reticerent, ac non etiam ab illo probrosa et ignominiosa deposcerent, quibus per falsam diuinitatem perniciosam conciliarent auctoritatem. Legant nostra et per prophetas et per sanctum euangelium, et per apostolicos actus et per epistulas tam multa contra auaritiam adque luxuriam ubique populis ad hoc congregatis quam excellenter, quam diuine non tamquam ex philosophorum concertationibus strepere, sed tamquam ex oraculis et Dei nubibus intonare. Et tamen luxu adque auaritia saeuisque ac turpibus moribus ante aduentum Christi rem publicam pessimam ac flagitiosissimam factam non inputant dis suis; adflictionem uero eius, quamcumque isto tempore superbia deliciaeque eorum perpessae fuerint, religioni increpitant Christianae. Cuius praecepta de iustis probisque moribus si simul audirent adque curarent reges terrae et omnes populi, principes et omnes iudices terrae, iuuenes et uirgines, seniores cum iunioribus, aetas omnis capax et uterque sexus, et quos baptista Iohannes adloquitur, exactores ipsi adque milites: et terras uitae praesentis ornaret sua felicitate res publica, et uitae aeternae culmen beatissime regnatura conscenderet. Sed quia iste audit, ille contemnit, pluresque uitiis male blandientibus quam utili uirtutum asperitati sunt amiciores: tolerare Christi famuli iubentur, siue sint reges siue principes siue iudices, siue milites siue prouinciales, siue diuites siue pauperes, siue liberi siue serui, utriuslibet sexus, etiam pessimam, si ita necesse est, flagitiosissimamque rem publicam et in illa angelorum quadam sanctissima adque augustissima curia caelestique re publica, ubi Dei uoluntas lex est, clarissimum sibi locum etiam ista conparare tolerantia.

Chapter 20.—Of the Kind of Happiness and Life Truly Delighted in by Those Who Inveigh Against the Christian Religion.

Caput XX. Quali uelint felicitate gaudere et quibus moribus uiuere, qui tempora Christianae religionis incusant.

But the worshippers and admirers of these gods delight in imitating their scandalous iniquities, and are nowise concerned that the republic be less depraved and licentious. Only let it remain undefeated, they say, only let it flourish and abound in resources; let it be glorious by its victories, or still better, secure in peace; and what matters it to us? This is our concern, that every man be able to increase his wealth so as to supply his daily prodigalities, and so that the powerful may subject the weak for their own purposes. Let the poor court the rich for a living, and that under their protection they may enjoy a sluggish tranquillity; and let the rich abuse the poor as their dependants, to minister to their pride. Let the people applaud not those who protect their interests, but those who provide them with pleasure. Let no severe duty be commanded, no impurity forbidden. Let kings estimate their prosperity, not by the righteousness, but by the servility of their subjects. Let the provinces stand loyal to the kings, not as moral guides, but as lords of their possessions and purveyors of their pleasures; not with a hearty reverence, but a crooked and servile fear. Let the laws take cognizance rather of the injury done to another man’s property, than of that done to one’s own person. If a man be a nuisance to his neighbor, or injure his property, family, or person, let him be actionable; but in his own affairs let everyone with impunity do what he will in company with his own family, and with those who willingly join him. Let there be a plentiful supply of public prostitutes for every one who wishes to use them, but specially for those who are too poor to keep one for their private use. Let there be erected houses of the largest and most ornate description: in these let there be provided the most sumptuous banquets, where every one who pleases may, by day or night, play, drink, vomit, dissipate. Let there be everywhere heard the rustling of dancers, the loud, immodest laughter of the theatre; let a succession of the most cruel and the most voluptuous pleasures maintain a perpetual excitement. If such happiness is distasteful to any, let him be branded as a public enemy; and if any attempt to modify or put an end to it let him be silenced, banished, put an end to. Let these be reckoned the true gods, who procure for the people this condition of things, and preserve it when once possessed. Let them be worshipped as they wish; let them demand whatever games they please, from or with their own worshippers; only let them secure that such felicity be not imperilled by foe, plague, or disaster of any kind. What sane man would compare a republic such as this, I will not say to the Roman empire, but to the palace of Sardanapalus, the ancient king who was so abandoned to pleasures, that he caused it to be inscribed on his tomb, that now that he was dead, he possessed only those things which he had swallowed and consumed by his appetites while alive? If these men had such a king as this, who, while self-indulgent, should lay no severe restraint on them, they would more enthusiastically consecrate to him a temple and a flamen than the ancient Romans did to Romulus.

Verum tales cultores et dilectores deorum istorum, quorum etiam imitatores in sceleribus et flagitiis se esse laetantur, nullo modo curant pessimam ac flagitiosissimam non esse rem publicam. Tantum stet, inquiunt, tantum floreat copiis referta, uictoriis gloriosa, uel, quod est felicius, pace secura sit. Et quid ad nos? Immo id ad nos magis pertinet, si diuitias quisque augeat semper, quae cottidianis effusionibus subpetant, per quas sibi etiam infirmiores subdat quisque potentior. Obsequantur diuitibus pauperes causa saturitatis adque ut eorum patrociniis quieta inertia perfruantur, diuites pauperibus ad clientelas et ad ministerium sui fastus abutantur. Populi plaudant non consultoribus utilitatum suarum, sed largitoribus uoluptatum. Non dura iubeantur, non prohibeantur inpura. Reges non curent quam bonis, sed quam subditis regnent. Prouinciae regibus non tamquam rectoribus morum, sed tamquam rerum dominatoribus et deliciarum suarum prouisoribus seruiant, eosque non sinceriter honorent, sed [nequiter ac] seruiliter timeant. Quid alienae uineae potius quam quid suae uitae quisque noceat, legibus aduertatur. Nullus ducatur ad iudicem, nisi qui alienae rei domui saluti uel cuiquam inuito fuerit inportunus aut noxius; ceterum de suis uel cum suis uel cum quibusque nolentibus faciat quisque quod libet. Abundent publica scorta uel propter omnes, quibus frui placuerit, uel propter eos maxime, qui habere priuata non possunt. Exstruantur amplissimae adque ornatissimae domus, opipara conuiuia frequententur, ubi cuique libuerit et potuerit, diu noctuque ludatur bibatur, uomatur diffluatur. Saltationes undique concrepent, theatra inhonestae laetitiae uocibus adque omni genere siue crudelissimae siue turpissimae uoluptatis exaestuent. Ille sit publicus inimicus, cui haec felicitas displicet; quisquis eam mutare uel auferre tentauerit, eum libera multitudo auertat ab auribus, euertat a sedibus, auferat a uiuentibus. Illi habeantur di ueri, qui hanc adipiscendam populis procurauerint adeptamque seruauerint. Colantur ut uoluerint, ludos exposcant quales uoluerint, quos cum suis uel de suis possint habere cultoribus: tantum efficiant, ut tali felicitati nihil ab hoste, nihil a peste, nihil ab ulla clade timeatur. — Quis hanc rem publicam sanus, non dicam Romano imperio, sed domui Sardanapali conparauerit? qui quondam rex ita fuit uoluptatibus deditus, ut in sepulcro suo scribi fecerit ea sola se habere mortuum, quae libido eius, etiam cum uiueret, hauriendo consumserat. Quem regem si isti haberent sibi in talibus indulgentem nec in eis cuiquam ulla seueritate aduersantem, huic libentius quam Romani ueteres Romulo templum et flaminem consecrarent.

Chapter 21.—Cicero’s Opinion of the Roman Republic.

Caput XXI. . Quae sententia fuerit Ciceronis de Romana re publica.

But if our adversaries do not care how foully and disgracefully the Roman republic be stained by corrupt practices, so long only as it holds together and continues in being, and if they therefore pooh-pooh the testimony of Sallust to its “utterly wicked and profligate” condition, what will they make of Cicero’s statement, that even in his time it had become entirely extinct, and that there remained extant no Roman republic at all? He introduces Scipio (the Scipio who had destroyed Carthage) discussing the republic, at a time when already there were presentiments of its speedy ruin by that corruption which Sallust describes. In fact, at the time when the discussion took place, one of the Gracchi, who, according to Sallust, was the first great instigator of seditions, had already been put to death. His death, indeed, is mentioned in the same book. Now Scipio, at the end of the second book, says: “As among the different sounds which proceed from lyres, flutes, and the human voice, there must be maintained a certain harmony which a cultivated ear cannot endure to hear disturbed or jarring, but which may be elicited in full and absolute concord by the modulation even of voices very unlike one another; so, where reason is allowed to modulate the diverse elements of the state, there is obtained a perfect concord from the upper, lower, and middle classes as from various sounds; and what musicians call harmony in singing, is concord in matters of state, which is the strictest bond and best security of any republic, and which by no ingenuity can be retained where justice has become extinct.” Then, when he had expatiated somewhat more fully, and had more copiously illustrated the benefits of its presence and the ruinous effects of its absence upon a state, Pilus, one of the company present at the discussion, struck in and demanded that the question should be more thoroughly sifted, and that the subject of justice should be freely discussed for the sake of ascertaining what truth there was in the maxim which was then becoming daily more current, that “the republic cannot be governed without injustice.” Scipio expressed his willingness to have this maxim discussed and sifted, and gave it as his opinion that it was baseless, and that no progress could be made in discussing the republic unless it was established, not only that this maxim, that “the republic cannot be governed without injustice,” was false, but also that the truth is, that it cannot be governed without the most absolute justice. And the discussion of this question, being deferred till the next day, is carried on in the third book with great animation. For Pilus himself undertook to defend the position that the republic cannot be governed without injustice, at the same time being at special pains to clear himself of any real participation in that opinion. He advocated with great keenness the cause of injustice against justice, and endeavored by plausible reasons and examples to demonstrate that the former is beneficial, the latter useless, to the republic. Then, at the request of the company, Lælius attempted to defend justice, and strained every nerve to prove that nothing is so hurtful to a state as injustice; and that without justice a republic can neither be governed, nor even continue to exist.

Sed si contemnitur qui Romanam rem publicam pessimam ac flagitiosissimam dixit, nec curant isti quanta morum pessimorum ac flagitiosissimorum labe ac dedecore inpleatur, sed tantummodo ut consistat et maneat: audiant eam non, ut Sallustius narrat, pessimam ac flagitiosissimam factam, sed, sicut Cicero disputat, iam tunc prorsus perisse et nullam omnino remansisse rem publicam. Inducit enim Scipionem, eum ipsum qui Carthaginem extinxerat, de re publica disputantem, quando praesentiebatur ea corruptione, quam describit Sallustius, iam iamque peritura. Eo quippe tempore disputatur, quo iam unus Gracchorum occisus fuit, a quo scribit seditiones graues coepisse Sallustius. Nam mortis eius fit in eisdem libris commemoratio. Cum autem Scipio in secundi libri fine dixisset, ut in fidibus aut tibiis adque cantu ipso ac uocibus concentus est quidam tenendus ex distinctis sonis, quem inmutatum aut discrepantem aures eruditae ferre non possunt. isque concentus ex dissimillimarum uocum moderatione concors tamen efficitur et congruens: sic ex summis et infimis et mediis interiectis ordinibus, ut sonis, moderata ratione ciuitatem consensu dissimillimorum concinere, et quae harmonia a musicis dicitur in cantu, eam esse in ciuitate concordiam, artissimum adque optimum omni in re publica uinculum incolumitatis, eamque sine iustitia nullo pacto esse posse,’ ac deinde cum aliquanto latius et uberius disseruisset, quantum prodesset iustitia ciuitati quantumque obesset, si afuisset, suscepit deinde Philus, unus eorum qui disputationi aderant, et poposcit, ut haec ipsa quaestio diligentius tractaretur ac de iustitia plura dicerentur, propter illud, quod iam uulgo ferebatur rem publicam regi sine iniuria non posse. Hanc proinde quaestionem discutiendam et enodandam esse adsensus est Scipio responditque nihil esse, quod adhuc de re publica dictum putaret, quo possent longius progredi, nisi esset confirmatum non modo falsum esse illud, sine iniuria non posse, sed hoc uerissimum esse, sine summa iustitia rem publicam regi non posse. Cuius quaestionis explicatio cum in diem consequentem dilata esset, in tertio libro magna conflictione res acta est. Suscepit enim Philus ipse disputationem eorum, qui sentirent sine iniustitia geri non posse rem publicam, purgans praecipue, ne hoc ipse sentire crederetur, egitque sedulo pro iniustitia contra iustitiam, ut hanc esse utilem rei publicae, illam uero inutilem, ueri similibus rationibus et exemplis uelut conaretur ostendere. Tum Laelius rogantibus omnibus iustitiam defendere adgressus est adseruitque, quantum potuit, nihil tam inimicum quam iniustitiam ciuitati nec omnino nisi magna iustitia geri aut stare [posse] rem publicam., Qua quaestione, quantum satis uisum est, pertractata Scipio ad intermissa reuertitur recolitque suam adque commendat breuem rei publicae definitionem, qua dixerat eam esse rem populi.

When this question has been handled to the satisfaction of the company, Scipio reverts to the original thread of discourse, and repeats with commendation his own brief definition of a republic, that it is the weal of the people. “The people” he defines as being not every assemblage or mob, but an assemblage associated by a common acknowledgment of law, and by a community of interests. Then he shows the use of definition in debate; and from these definitions of his own he gathers that a republic, or “weal of the people,” then exists only when it is well and justly governed, whether by a monarch, or an aristocracy, or by the whole people. But when the monarch is unjust, or, as the Greeks say, a tyrant; or the aristocrats are unjust, and form a faction; or the people themselves are unjust, and become, as Scipio for want of a better name calls them, themselves the tyrant, then the republic is not only blemished (as had been proved the day before), but by legitimate deduction from those definitions, it altogether ceases to be. For it could not be the people’s weal when a tyrant factiously lorded it over the state; neither would the people be any longer a people if it were unjust, since it would no longer answer the definition of a people—“an assemblage associated by a common acknowledgment of law, and by a community of interests.”

Populum autem non omnem coetum multitudinis, sed coetum iuris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatum esse determinat. Docet deinde quanta sit in disputando definitionis utilitas, adque ex illis suis definitionibus colligit tunc esse rem publicam, id est rem populi, cum bene ac iuste geritur siue ab uno rege siue a paucis optimatibus siue ab uniuerso populo. Cum uero iniustus est rex, quem tyrannum more Graeco appellauit, aut iniusti optimates, quorum consensum dixit esse factionem, aut iniustus ipse populus, cui nomen usitatum non repperit, nisi ut etiam ipsum tyrannum uocaret: non iam uitiosam, sicut pridie fuerat disputatum, sed, sicut ratio ex illis definitionibus conexa docuisset, omnino nullam esse rem publicam, quoniam non esset res populi, cum tyrannus eam factioue capesseret, nec ipse populus iam populus esset, si esset iniustus, quoniam non esset multitudo iuris consensu et utilitatis communione sociata, sicut populus fuerat definitus.

When, therefore, the Roman republic was such as Sallust described it, it was not “utterly wicked and profligate,” as he says, but had altogether ceased to exist, if we are to admit the reasoning of that debate maintained on the subject of the republic by its best representatives. Tully himself, too, speaking not in the person of Scipio or any one else, but uttering his own sentiments, uses the following language in the beginning of the fifth book, after quoting a line from the poet Ennius, in which he said, “Rome’s severe morality and her citizens are her safeguard.” “This verse,” says Cicero, “seems to me to have all the sententious truthfulness of an oracle. For neither would the citizens have availed without the morality of the community, nor would the morality of the commons without outstanding men have availed either to establish or so long to maintain in vigor so grand a republic with so wide and just an empire. Accordingly, before our day, the hereditary usages formed our foremost men, and they on their part retained the usages and institutions of their fathers. But our age, receiving the republic as a chef-d’oeuvre of another age which has already begun to grow old, has not merely neglected to restore the colors of the original, but has not even been at the pains to preserve so much as the general outline and most outstanding features. For what survives of that primitive morality which the poet called Rome’s safeguard? It is so obsolete and forgotten, that, far from practising it, one does not even know it. And of the citizens what shall I say? Morality has perished through poverty of great men; a poverty for which we must not only assign a reason, but for the guilt of which we must answer as criminals charged with a capital crime. For it is through our vices, and not by any mishap, that we retain only the name of a republic, and have long since lost the reality.”

Quando ergo res publica Romana talis erat, qualem illam describit Sallustius, non iam pessima ac flagitiosissima, sicut ipse ait, sed omnino nulla erat secundum istam rationem, quam disputatio de re publica inter magnos eius tum principes habita patefecit. Sicut etiam ipse Tullius non Scipionis nec cuiusquam alterius, sed suo sermone loquens in principio quinti libri commemorato prius Ennii poetae uersu, quo dixerat:. Moribus antiquis res stat Romana uirisque, ‘quem quidem ille uersum, inquit, uel breuitate uel ueritate tamquam ex oraculo quodam mihi [ esse] effatus uidetur. Nam neque uiri, nisi ita morata ciuitas fuisset, neque mores. nisi hi uiri praefuissent, aut fundare aut tam diu tenere potuissent tantam et tam iuste longe lateque imperantem rem publicam. Itaque ante nostram memoriam et mos ipse patrius praestantes uiros adhibebat, et ueterem morem ac maiorum instituta retinebant excellentes uiri. Nostra uero aetas cum rem publicam sicut picturam accepisset egregiam, sed euanescentem uetustate, non modo eam coloribus isdem quibus fuerat renouare neglexit, sed ne id quidem curauit, ut formam saltem eius et extrema tamquam liniamenta seruaret. Quid enim manet ex antiquis moribus, quibus ille dixit rem stare Romanam, quos ita obliuione obsoletos uidemus, ut non modo non colantur, sed iam ignorentur? Nam de uiris quid dicam? Mores enim ipsi interierunt uirorum penuria, cuius tanti mali non modo reddenda ratio nobis, sed etiam tamquam reis capitis quodam modo dicenda causa est.

This is the confession of Cicero, long indeed after the death of Africanus, whom he introduced as an interlocutor in his work De Republica, but still before the coming of Christ. Yet, if the disasters he bewails had been lamented after the Christian religion had been diffused, and had begun to prevail, is there a man of our adversaries who would not have thought that they were to be imputed to the Christians? Why, then, did their gods not take steps then to prevent the decay and extinction of that republic, over the loss of which Cicero, long before Christ had come in the flesh, sings so lugubrious a dirge? Its admirers have need to inquire whether, even in the days of primitive men and morals, true justice flourished in it; or was it not perhaps even then, to use the casual expression of Cicero, rather a colored painting than the living reality? But, if God will, we shall consider this elsewhere. For I mean in its own place to show that—according to the definitions in which Cicero himself, using Scipio as his mouthpiece, briefly propounded what a republic is, and what a people is, and according to many testimonies, both of his own lips and of those who took part in that same debate—Rome never was a republic, because true justice had never a place in it. But accepting the more feasible definitions of a republic, I grant there was a republic of a certain kind, and certainly much better administered by the more ancient Romans than by their modern representatives. But the fact is, true justice has no existence save in that republic whose founder and ruler is Christ, if at least any choose to call this a republic; and indeed we cannot deny that it is the people’s weal. But if perchance this name, which has become familiar in other connections, be considered alien to our common parlance, we may at all events say that in this city is true justice; the city of which Holy Scripture says, “Glorious things are said of thee, O city of God.”

Nostris enim uitiis, non casu aliquo, rem publicam uerbo retinemus, re ipsa uero iam pridem amisimus.’ Haec Cicero fatebatur, longe quidem post mortem Africani, quem in suis libris fecit de re publica disputare, adhuc tamen ante aduentum Christi; quae si diffamata et praeualescente religione Christiana sentirentur adque dicerentur, quis non istorum ea Christianis inputanda esse censeret? Quam ob rem quur non curarunt di eorum, ne tunc periret adque amitteretur illa res publica, quam Cicero longe, antequam Christus in carne uenisset, tam lugubriter deplorat amissam? Viderint laudatores eius etiam illis antiquis uiris et moribus qualis fuerit, utrum in ea uiguerit uera iustitia an forte nec tunc fuerit uiua moribus, sed picta coloribus; quod et ipse Cicero nesciens, cum eam praeferret, expressit. Sed alias, si Deus uoluerit, hoc uidebimus. Enitar enim suo loco, ut ostendam secundum definitiones ipsius Ciceronis, quibus quid sit res publica et quid sit populus loquente Scipione breuiter posuit (adtestantibus etiam multis siue ipsius siue eorum quos loqui fecit in eadem disputatione sententiis), numquam illam fuisse rem publicam, quia numquam in ea fuerit uera iustitia. Secundum probabiliores autem definitiones pro suo modo quodam res publica fuit, et melius ab antiquioribus Romanis quam a posterioribus administrata est; uera autem iustitia non est nisi in ea re publica, cuius conditor rectorque Christus est, si et ipsam rem publicam placet dicere, quoniam eam rem populi esse negare non possumus. Si autem hoc nomen, quod alibi aliterque uulgatum est, ab usu nostrae locutionis est forte remotius, in ea certe ciuitate est uera iustitia, de qua scriptura sancta dicit: Gloriosa dicta sunt de te, ciuitas Dei.

Chapter 22.—That the Roman Gods Never Took Any Steps to Prevent the Republic from Being Ruined by Immorality.

Caput XXII. Quod dis Romanorum nulla umquam cura fuerit, ne malis moribus res publica deperiret.

But what is relevant to the present question is this, that however admirable our adversaries say the republic was or is, it is certain that by the testimony of their own most learned writers it had become, long before the coming of Christ, utterly wicked and dissolute, and indeed had no existence, but had been destroyed by profligacy. To prevent this, surely these guardian gods ought to have given precepts of morals and a rule of life to the people by whom they were worshipped in so many temples, with so great a variety of priests and sacrifices, with such numberless and diverse rites, so many festal solemnities, so many celebrations of magnificent games. But in all this the demons only looked after their own interest, and cared not at all how their worshippers lived, or rather were at pains to induce them to lead an abandoned life, so long as they paid these tributes to their honor, and regarded them with fear. If any one denies this, let him produce, let him point to, let him read the laws which the gods had given against sedition, and which the Gracchi transgressed when they threw everything into confusion; or those Marius, and Cinna, and Carbo broke when they involved their country in civil wars, most iniquitous and unjustifiable in their causes, cruelly conducted, and yet more cruelly terminated; or those which Sylla scorned, whose life, character, and deeds, as described by Sallust and other historians, are the abhorrence of all mankind. Who will deny that at that time the republic had become extinct?

Sed quod pertinet ad praesentem quaestionem, quamlibet laudabilem dicant istam fuisse uel esse rem publicam, secundum eorum auctores doctissimos iam longe ante Christi aduentum pessima ac flagitiosissima facta erat; immo uero nulla erat adque omnino perierat perditissimis moribus. Ut ergo non periret, di custodes eius populo cultori suo dare praecipue uitae ac morum praecepta debuerunt, a quo tot templis, tot sacerdotibus et sacrificiorum generibus, tam multiplicibus uariisque sacris, tot festis sollemnitatibus, tot tantorumque ludorum celebritatibus colebantur; ubi nihil daemones nisi negotium suum egerunt, non curantes quem ad modum illi uiuerent, immo curantes ut etiam perdite uiuerent, dum tamen honori suo illa omnia metu subditi ministrarent. Aut si dederunt, proferatur ostendatur legatur, quas deorum leges illi ciuitati datas contemserint Gracchi, ut seditionibus cuncta turbarent, quas Marius et Cinna et Carbo, ut in bella etiam progrederentur ciuilia causis iniquissimis suscepta et crudeliter gesta crudeliusque finita, quas denique Sylla ipse, cuius uitam mores facta describente Sallustio aliisque scriptoribus historiae quis non exhorreat? quis illam rem publicam non tunc perisse fateatur?

Possibly they will be bold enough to suggest in defence of the gods, that they abandoned the city on account of the profligacy of the citizens, according to the lines of Virgil:

An forte propter huiusce modi ciuium mores Yergilianam illam sententiam, sicut solent, pro defensione deorum suorum obponere audebunt:.

“Gone from each fane, each sacred shrine,

Are those who made this realm divine.”

But, firstly, if it be so, then they cannot complain against the Christian religion, as if it were that which gave offence to the gods and caused them to abandon Rome, since the Roman immorality had long ago driven from the altars of the city a cloud of little gods, like as many flies. And yet where was this host of divinities, when, long before the corruption of the primitive morality, Rome was taken and burnt by the Gauls? Perhaps they were present, but asleep? For at that time the whole city fell into the hands of the enemy, with the single exception of the Capitoline hill; and this too would have been taken, had not—the watchful geese aroused the sleeping gods! And this gave occasion to the festival of the goose, in which Rome sank nearly to the superstition of the Egyptians, who worship beasts and birds. But of these adventitious evils which are inflicted by hostile armies or by some disaster, and which attach rather to the body than the soul, I am not meanwhile disputing. At present I speak of the decay of morality, which at first almost imperceptibly lost its brilliant hue, but afterwards was wholly obliterated, was swept away as by a torrent, and involved the republic in such disastrous ruin, that though the houses and walls remained standing the leading writers do not scruple to say that the republic was destroyed. Now, the departure of the gods “from each fane, each sacred shrine,” and their abandonment of the city to destruction, was an act of justice, if their laws inculcating justice and a moral life had been held in contempt by that city. But what kind of gods were these, pray, who declined to live with a people who worshipped them, and whose corrupt life they had done nothing to reform?

Discessere omnes adytis arisque relictis Di, quibus imperium hoc steterat? Primum si ita est, non habent quur querantur de religione Christiana, quod hac offensi eos di sui deseruerint, quoniam quidem maiores eorum iam pridem moribus suis ab Urbis altaribus tam multos ac minutos deos tamquam muscas abegerunt. Sed tamen haec numinum turba ubi erat, cum longe antequam mores corrumperentur antiqui a Gallis Roma capta et incensa est? An praesentes forte dormiebant? Tunc enim tota Urbe in hostium potestatem redacta collis solus Capitolinus remanserat, qui etiam ipse caperetur, nisi saltem anseres dis dormientibus uigilarent. Unde paene in superstitionem Aegyptiorum bestias auesque colentium Roma deciderat, cum anseri sollemnia celebrabant. Verum de his aduenticiis et corporis potius quam animi malis, quae uel ab hostibus uel alia clade accidunt, nondum interim disputo: nunc ago de labe morum, quibus primum paulatim decoloratis, deinde torrentis modo praecipitatis tanta quamuis integris tectis moenibusque facta est ruina rei publicae, ut magni auctores eorum eam tunc amissam non dubitent dicere. Recte autem abscesserant, ut amitteretur, omnes adytis arisque relictis di, si eorum de bona uita adque iustitia ciuitas praecepta contemserat. Nunc uero quales, quaeso, di fuerunt, si noluerunt cum populo cultore suo uiuere, quem male uiuentem non docuerant bene uiuere?

Chapter 23.—That the Vicissitudes of This Life are Dependent Not on the Favor or Hostility of Demons, But on the Will of the True God.

Caput XXIII. Varietates rerum temporalium non ex fauore aut inpugnatione daemonum, sed ex ueri Dei pendere iudicio.

But, further, is it not obvious that the gods have abetted the fulfilment of men’s desires, instead of authoritatively bridling them? For Marius, a low-born and self-made man, who ruthlessly provoked and conducted civil wars, was so effectually aided by them, that he was seven times consul, and died full of years in his seventh consulship, escaping the hands of Sylla, who immediately afterwards came into power. Why, then, did they not also aid him, so as to restrain him from so many enormities? For if it is said that the gods had no hand in his success, this is no trivial admission that a man can attain the dearly coveted felicity of this life even though his own gods be not propitious; that men can be loaded with the gifts of fortune as Marius was, can enjoy health, power, wealth, honours, dignity, length of days, though the gods be hostile to him; and that, on the other hand, men can be tormented as Regulus was, with captivity, bondage, destitution, watchings, pain, and cruel death, though the gods be his friends. To concede this is to make a compendious confession that the gods are useless, and their worship superfluous. If the gods have taught the people rather what goes clean counter to the virtues of the soul, and that integrity of life which meets a reward after death; if even in respect of temporal and transitory blessings they neither hurt those whom they hate nor profit whom they love, why are they worshipped, why are they invoked with such eager homage? Why do men murmur in difficult and sad emergencies, as if the gods had retired in anger? and why, on their account, is the Christian religion injured by the most unworthy calumnies? If in temporal matters they have power either for good or for evil, why did they stand by Marius, the worst of Rome’s citizens, and abandon Regulus, the best? Does this not prove themselves to be most unjust and wicked? And even if it be supposed that for this very reason they are the rather to be feared and worshipped, this is a mistake; for we do not read that Regulus worshipped them less assiduously than Marius. Neither is it apparent that a wicked life is to be chosen, on the ground that the gods are supposed to have favored Marius more than Regulus. For Metellus, the most highly esteemed of all the Romans, who had five sons in the consulship, was prosperous even in this life; and Catiline, the worst of men, reduced to poverty and defeated in the war his own guilt had aroused, lived and perished miserably. Real and secure felicity is the peculiar possession of those who worship that God by whom alone it can be conferred.

Quid quod etiam uidentur eorum adfuisse cupiditatibus inplendis, et ostenduntur non praefuisse refrenandis, qui enim Marium nouum hominem et ignobilem, cruentissimum auctorem bellorum ciuilium adque gestorem, ut septiens consul fieret adiuuerunt adque ut in septimo suo consulatu moreretur senex nec in manus Syllae futuri mox uictoris inrueret. Si enim ad haec eum di eorum non iuuerunt, non parum est quod fatentur etiam non propitiis dis suis posse accidere homini istam temporalem, quam nimis diligunt, tantam felicitatem et posse homines, sicut fuit Marius, salute uiribus, opibus honoribus, dignitate longaeuitate cumulari et perfrui dis iratis; posse etiam homines, sicut fuit Regulus, captiuitate seruitute inopia, uigiliis doloribus excruciari et emori dis amicis. Quod si ita esse concedunt, conpendio nihil eos prodesse et coli superfluo confitentur. Nam si uirtutibus animi et probitati uitae, cuius praemia post mortem speranda sunt, magis contraria ut populus disceret institerunt; si nihil etiam in his transeuntibus et temporalibus bonis uel eis quos oderunt nocent, uel eis quos diligunt prosunt, ut quid coluntur, ut quid tanto studio colendi requiruntur? Quur laboriosis tristibusque temporibus, tamquam offensi abscesserint, murmuratur et propter eos Christiana religio conuiciis indignissimis laeditur? Si autem habent in his rebus uel beneficii uel maleficii potestatem, quur in eis adfuerunt pessimo uiro Mario, et optimo Regulo defuerunt? An ex hoc ipsi intelleguntur iniustissimi et pessimi? Quod si propterea magis timendi et colendi putantur, neque hoc putentur; neque enim minus eos inuenitur Regulus coluisse quam Marius. Nec ideo uita pessima eligenda uideatur, quia magis Mario quam Regulo di fauisse existimantur. Metellus enim Romanorum laudatissimus, qui habuit quinque filios consulares, etiam rerum temporalium felix fuit, et Catilina pessimus obpressus inopia et in bello sui sceleris prostratus infelix, et uerissima adque certissima felicitate praepollent boni Deum colentes, a quo solo conferri potest.

It is thus apparent, that when the republic was being destroyed by profligate manners, its gods did nothing to hinder its destruction by the direction or correction of its manners, but rather accelerated its destruction by increasing the demoralization and corruption that already existed. They need not pretend that their goodness was shocked by the iniquity of the city, and that they withdrew in anger. For they were there, sure enough; they are detected, convicted: they were equally unable to break silence so as to guide others, and to keep silence so as to conceal themselves. I do not dwell on the fact that the inhabitants of Minturnæ took pity on Marius, and commended him to the goddess Marica in her grove, that she might give him success in all things, and that from the abyss of despair in which he then lay he forthwith returned unhurt to Rome, and entered the city the ruthless leader of a ruthless army; and they who wish to know how bloody was his victory, how unlike a citizen, and how much more relentlessly than any foreign foe he acted, let them read the histories. But this, as I said, I do not dwell upon; nor do I attribute the bloody bliss of Marius to, I know not what Minturnian goddess [Marica], but rather to the secret providence of God, that the mouths of our adversaries might be shut, and that they who are not led by passion, but by prudent consideration of events, might be delivered from error. And even if the demons have any power in these matters, they have only that power which the secret decree of the Almighty allots to them, in order that we may not set too great store by earthly prosperity, seeing it is oftentimes vouchsafed even to wicked men like Marius; and that we may not, on the other hand, regard it as an evil, since we see that many good and pious worshippers of the one true God are, in spite of the demons pre-eminently successful; and, finally, that we may not suppose that these unclean spirits are either to be propitiated or feared for the sake of earthly blessings or calamities: for as wicked men on earth cannot do all they would, so neither can these demons, but only in so far as they are permitted by the decree of Him whose judgments are fully comprehensible, justly reprehensible by none.

Illa igitur res publica malis moribus cum periret, nihil di eorum pro dirigendis uel pro corrigendis egerunt moribus, ne periret; immo deprauandis et corrumpendis addiderunt moribus, ut periret. Nec se bonos fingant, quod uelut offensi ciuium iniquitate discesserint. Prorsus ibi erant; produntur, conuincuntur; nec subuenire praecipiendo nec latere tacendo potuerunt. Omitto quod Marius a miserantibus Minturnensibus Maricae deae in luco eius commendatus est, ut ei omnia prosperaret, et ex summa desperatione reuersus incolumis in Urbem duxit crudelem crudelis exercitum; ubi quam cruenta, quam inciuilis hostilique inmanior eius uictoria fuerit, eos qui scripserunt legant qui uolunt. Sed hoc, ut dixi, omitto, nec Maricae nescio cui tribuo Marii sanguineam felicitatem, sed occultae potius prouidentiae Dei ad istorum ora claudenda eosque ab errore liberandos, qui non studiis agunt, sed haec prudenter aduertunt, quia, etsi aliquid in his rebus daemones possunt, tantum possunt, quantum secreto omnipotentis arbitrio permittuntur, ne magnipendamus terrenam felicitatem, quae sicut Mario malis etiam plerumque conceditur, nec eam rursus quasi malam arbitremur, cum ea multos etiam pios ac bonos unius ueri Dei cultores inuitis daemonibus praepolluisse uideamus, nec eosdem inmundissimos spiritus uel propter haec ipsa bona malaue terrena propitiandos aut timendos existimemus, quia, sicut ipsi mali homines in ten’a, sic etiam illi non omnia quae uolunt facere possunt, nisi quantum illius ordinatione sinitur, cuius plene iudicia nemo conprehendit, iuste nemo reprehendit.